Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Really depends on how you want to look at it.

The events of 1918 laid the groundwork for the war, not just for the Germans but the Japanese as well. A lot of people forget they were allied with the USA, Brits, French, etc. but were almost completely ignored during the aftermath as the victors carved up the spoils. This royally ticked off the Japanese, and played heavily into why they did what they did in the 30's.

The Washington naval treaty being a good example of this.

Didn't the 1929 crash have a fairly large effect on Germany? (what with having borrowed lot's of money from the US to pay back reperations [thanks France])

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

First, this thread has a lot of good food for thought. Kudos to the OP for starting it. I quoted the post above because while I know some have suggested 1914, I would say it was the negotiations leading up to the treaty of Versailles that marked the possible beginning. Had the peace settlement been more effective and not so punitive, would the conditions in Germany lead to the political instability and resentment that gave the Nazi's the opportunity to take the reins of government and set Germany on its fateful course? Would Japan being engaged more as a legitimate great power as well as the overall reduction in the exploitation by the colonial powers in the eastern pacific have redirected Japan's expansionist goals as well as lead to the development of a more stable and thus stronger China that would be more able to resist and thus deter an expansionist power.

This is why I'm personally in the 14 camp... I simply believe that the Treaty of Versailles was really just a cease fire. The problems begin when you have multiple nations sitting down and basically attempting to exact ancient revenges on other parties. Then you have Wilson and his League of Nations, which may have been a good idea, but when the other allied powers force him into an ultimatum: either you agree to punish Germany, or you don't get your league, that presents other problems as well.

On top of all of that, you have the prevailing racism of the European powers. Quite simply put, that is why Japan and China were completely cut out of all negotiations (and why Italy went to the Axis powers for the second part of the World War).

But in saying all that.... China was a complete mess. They had a dying political system that was unable to cope and adapt to modern times. Even when they received modern technology, they were largely unable to use it to its full potential, and what they copied in manufacturing ultimately led to the joke that was "Made in China" There was mass resentment, particularly in the largest coastal cities because of the various International Zones that had been partitioned off since the 1800s when Colonial powers first began exerting their "authority." Basically, they had a powerless Emperor/Emperor-dowager, which lead to powerless government, rising factionalism which ultimately leaves the door open for Imperial Japan to swoop in and take over quite a bit of territory.

 sebster wrote:
There's really two ways you can define 'begin'.

If you want to define 'begin' as 'the start of the first conflict that became a major part of the many conflicts of WWII', then the date is July 7, 1937, with the beginning of the Sino-Japanese War.

If you want to define 'begin' as 'the point at which almost all of the world, and certainly all of its major military and economic powers were involved', then that date is December 7 1941, when the US joined the war.

Both are reasonable. From a narrative history, if you want to tell the complete story of the war you really have to start with that 1937 date. But if you wanted to, say, run a wargame, you'd probably start with that latter date so players are engaged from turn 1

Really the only date you can't pick is 1st September 1939. That date is very important to the European players in the war, but being important to Europe and being the actual starting point of a world event are not the same thing.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the China Japan war could have run its course without British or American involvement, and thus remained a regional conflict rather than a global one. The Soviet Union fought the winter war against Finland in 1939, but 1941 onward is generally seen as the Soviet involvement proper.

Britain as you know, was a unique case when it got involved in 1939, because your country obviously got involved. Troops from Australia fighting in North Africa makes it a global conflict in my book.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

First, this thread has a lot of good food for thought. Kudos to the OP for starting it. I quoted the post above because while I know some have suggested 1914, I would say it was the negotiations leading up to the treaty of Versailles that marked the possible beginning. Had the peace settlement been more effective and not so punitive, would the conditions in Germany lead to the political instability and resentment that gave the Nazi's the opportunity to take the reins of government and set Germany on its fateful course? Would Japan being engaged more as a legitimate great power as well as the overall reduction in the exploitation by the colonial powers in the eastern pacific have redirected Japan's expansionist goals as well as lead to the development of a more stable and thus stronger China that would be more able to resist and thus deter an expansionist power.

This is why I'm personally in the 14 camp... I simply believe that the Treaty of Versailles was really just a cease fire. The problems begin when you have multiple nations sitting down and basically attempting to exact ancient revenges on other parties. Then you have Wilson and his League of Nations, which may have been a good idea, but when the other allied powers force him into an ultimatum: either you agree to punish Germany, or you don't get your league, that presents other problems as well.

On top of all of that, you have the prevailing racism of the European powers. Quite simply put, that is why Japan and China were completely cut out of all negotiations (and why Italy went to the Axis powers for the second part of the World War).

But in saying all that.... China was a complete mess. They had a dying political system that was unable to cope and adapt to modern times. Even when they received modern technology, they were largely unable to use it to its full potential, and what they copied in manufacturing ultimately led to the joke that was "Made in China" There was mass resentment, particularly in the largest coastal cities because of the various International Zones that had been partitioned off since the 1800s when Colonial powers first began exerting their "authority." Basically, they had a powerless Emperor/Emperor-dowager, which lead to powerless government, rising factionalism which ultimately leaves the door open for Imperial Japan to swoop in and take over quite a bit of territory.

Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, we know how it played out, but WW2 wasn't inevitable. It could have been prevented.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Didn't the 1929 crash have a fairly large effect on Germany? (what with having borrowed lot's of money from the US to pay back reperations [thanks France])

It had an effect on a lot of countries, but equally, the Communists, and not the Nazis could have seized power in germany. The Communists were pretty strong back then in Germany.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's probably the way it's taught in school.

I'm happy to stick with 3rd Sep 1939. Before then there was some regional conflicts e.g. the Japanese and Soviets in Manchuria, and Japanese in China, but it was the declaration of war by the British that marks the real starting point of the war.

I'm also sticking with the traditional view.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, we know how it played out, but WW2 wasn't inevitable. It could have been prevented.

Yeah, but even Wilson expressed his unease at how Versailles panned out. He was fighting to NOT punish Germany so harshly, because he felt that it would put them in a position where their only option was to fight. And, lo and behold, it was true.


On the Nazi seizing power front.... The 1929 crash meant that the aid that the US was sending to Germany could no longer be sent (we literally didn't have the money to send), but the thing with Germany at that point was, when Hitler began his rise to power, there were over 220 "National Socialist Worker" parties in Bavaria alone. Now, I forget how many states in Germany there were at the time, but if we go by the modern German standard of 16 states.... if we assume that that's an average, or even a high water mark for fascist parties, there were a whole lot of unhappy people in Germany at that time. I've seen on numerous threads here, as well as comments elsewhere to the effect of "if we went back in time and killed hitler before he rose to power, we'd stop WW2" but it simply isn't true... That's because of those 220+ parties that he merged and took over. If not him, then basically someone else could/would have taken power.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, we know how it played out, but WW2 wasn't inevitable. It could have been prevented.

Yeah, but even Wilson expressed his unease at how Versailles panned out. He was fighting to NOT punish Germany so harshly, because he felt that it would put them in a position where their only option was to fight. And, lo and behold, it was true.


On the Nazi seizing power front.... The 1929 crash meant that the aid that the US was sending to Germany could no longer be sent (we literally didn't have the money to send), but the thing with Germany at that point was, when Hitler began his rise to power, there were over 220 "National Socialist Worker" parties in Bavaria alone. Now, I forget how many states in Germany there were at the time, but if we go by the modern German standard of 16 states.... if we assume that that's an average, or even a high water mark for fascist parties, there were a whole lot of unhappy people in Germany at that time. I've seen on numerous threads here, as well as comments elsewhere to the effect of "if we went back in time and killed hitler before he rose to power, we'd stop WW2" but it simply isn't true... That's because of those 220+ parties that he merged and took over. If not him, then basically someone else could/would have taken power.

I remember a stat that said the Nazis only got 4% of the vote or something in the 1928 elections. Even prior to the night of the long knives, they were only polling around 35%, and ultimately, Hitler would get the top job from political intrigue.

So, yeah, I don't think there was anything inevitable about WW2.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I was not aware the US was my own country?
Before 1941 Japan was not involved in any war with the other great powers.

Ah, I misread your answer as just Russia's involvement, not also the US. My bad. Apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the China Japan war could have run its course without British or American involvement, and thus remained a regional conflict rather than a global one.

It would take a lot of imagination.

The Soviet Union fought the winter war against Finland in 1939, but 1941 onward is generally seen as the Soviet involvement proper.

Yeah, but it ended. While Finland would take up arms again against Russia, there was a distinct end and a distinct resumption. Whereas the fighting in China went the distance, it only ended when Japan surrendered.

Britain as you know, was a unique case when it got involved in 1939, because your country obviously got involved. Troops from Australia fighting in North Africa makes it a global conflict in my book.

If getting Australians to fight in weird places makes it a WWII then everything from the Boer War onwards is a World War. We turn up for anything

There was a Korean defender in Normandy. He'd been captured in Manchuria, press-ganged in to service in the Japanese army, captured and press-ganged by the Soviets at Khalkhin Gol, then captured and press ganged by the Germans at Kharkov, and then press ganged once again in to serving for the Germans in Normandy. Things weren't as isolated as people assume.

 sebster wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
You are forgetting that most European countries involved were significant colonial powers.

Do you actually think I'd forget that, when the colonies and former colonies that joined when fighting in Europe broke out... includes my own country?

I didn't forget it, it isn't relevant.

'37 was a regional conflict. From '39 nations from all over the world were fighting, it wasn't centralised to Europe. You can hardly choose the date one country finally chose a side and joined a war that was already underway as a starting point.

Do you know the Ship of Theseus thought experiment? A boat is in service for a very long time, old planks becomes rotted and worn and are replaced. Eventually nothing of the original boat remains. It is a thought experiment that asks when it becomes a whole new boat.

Now, it could be argued that the day that one plank of wood was replaced it's a new boat. That would be the same as arguing that the starting date for the war is 1937.

Or you could argue that once every plank of wood is replaced then it is a new boat. That would be the same as saying once the US become involved as the last major player, and the conflicts in Europe and the Pacific are linked... then it is a world war.

But what you've argued is that it is a world was once Germany is at war with Britain and France. There's no Soviet Union at this point, and no US. This like arguing that the Ship of Theseus becomes a new ship when somewhere around 55% of the boat is replaced. It's just not a sustainable answer.

That isn't relevant at all. And, being from a country is no guarantee of knowledge of it's history. I'm not trying to suggest ignorance on your behalf, there was just no acknowledgement of the point I made in your post. When Britain, France and Germany where fighting, regiments from around the world where dragged into it. I'd say at a point where you have a conflict that is directly involving military forces from three or four continents, regardless of where military decisions might originate, you've got a world war.

 sebster wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I was not aware the US was my own country?
Before 1941 Japan was not involved in any war with the other great powers.

Ah, I misread your answer as just Russia's involvement, not also the US. My bad. Apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the China Japan war could have run its course without British or American involvement, and thus remained a regional conflict rather than a global one.

It would take a lot of imagination.

[quote[The Soviet Union fought the winter war against Finland in 1939, but 1941 onward is generally seen as the Soviet involvement proper.

Yeah, but it ended. While Finland would take up arms again against Russia, there was a distinct end and a distinct resumption. Whereas the fighting in China went the distance, it only ended when Japan surrendered.

Britain as you know, was a unique case when it got involved in 1939, because your country obviously got involved. Troops from Australia fighting in North Africa makes it a global conflict in my book.

If getting Australians to fight in weird places makes it a WWII then everything from the Boer War onwards is a World War. We turn up for anything

There was a Korean defender in Normandy. He'd been captured in Manchuria, press-ganged in to service in the Japanese army, captured and press-ganged by the Soviets at Khalkhin Gol, then captured and press ganged by the Germans at Kharkov, and then press ganged once again in to serving for the Germans in Normandy. Things weren't as isolated as people assume.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

It was good practise for the Luftwaffe, but I would say it was seperate enough from the rest of the conflict to not be included. Maybe if one of the allied nations was officially involved I'd consider it.

As I recall there were Allied powers sending in arms/munitions?

Actually, they promised not to, in the Non-Intervention treaty (London comite) which left the republicans abandoned by the democracies and the traitors supported by the Italians and the Germans (and the Portuguese).
If only we had managed to hold seven months longer...

Of course by then the republicans were in the hands of the communists and the soviets, which means WWII would have been a bit more complicated, but hopefully even if we had lost mid-wwi someone would have kicked out Franco instead of having us wait until he died.


As for when WWII started, I'll go with Ferdinand Foch's assertion that Versailles was just a 20 year long armistice and that WWI never ended.

That view assumes that WW2 was inevitable, as if the peace was merely a cease fire allowing the combatants to reorganise and improve their forces.

If you read the history of Germany between the wars, and the rise of the Nazis, it is clear that the loss of WW1 contributed to a feeling that Germany had been cheated out of victory and unfairly crushed by the vindictive Allies.

However, the real trouble was caused by the Great Slump which did immense damage to German society and politics, making the rise of the Nazis much more easy. Similar regimes arose in other European countries which suffered economically, Italy and Rumania, for example.

if the Weimar Republic had managed to survive these challenges, it is very unlikely to have wanted to begin a new war. In fact the Nazis didn't have a lot of popular support for starting the war, but they managed to create a regime that didn't worry about such things, and early success in the Rhineland and Austria helped turn opinion more in their favour.

I agree with Kilkrazy, Nazi support was actually on the fall in the months leading up to the great depression, it was only after that that it boomed. Also, it actually started to drop again once the economy started to get back to normal. Then Hilter became chancellor.....

 aldo wrote:
Actually, they promised not to, in the Non-Intervention treaty (London comite) which left the republicans abandoned by the democracies and the traitors supported by the Italians and the Germans (and the Portuguese).
If only we had managed to hold seven months longer...

Of course by then the republicans were in the hands of the communists and the soviets, which means WWII would have been a bit more complicated, but hopefully even if we had lost mid-wwi someone would have kicked out Franco instead of having us wait until he died.

There's a fairly direct line between the failure of the Soviets to bring any of the western democracies in to support the Republic (via their failure over Czechoslovakia) to the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact.

As an aside I've always wanted to war game the French annexation of Catalonia. One of my favourite historical 'What ifs'.

There was a show on the History channel talking about many of the leaders that participated in both World Wars. Hitler, Churchill, Patton, MacArthur, and many other leaders on both sides who fought in WW1 and then were in leadership positions in WW2. The show was awesome and definitely got me thinking about how WW2 was just the second round of the Great War.

Economic hardships and depressions, alongside nationwide angst have always been used as a means to get radical individuals into power. The fact that Trump and Hillary are running as the main nominees for president this term is proof enough of that

The treaty of Versailles was pretty much tailor made to foster this kind of situation, so much so to the point that I would argue you couldn't make it worse if you tried. It managed to

*Vilify the Germans
*Blame them for starting the war
*Humiliate the Germans
*infuriate them by feeling like they were cheated out of victory (after the events in the Spring of 1918, I'd be ticked as the Germans too, when they had come so close to a breakout)
*Take away their military to really hammer home that they lost
*Charge them a ridiculous fee for damages that everyone knew they had no possible means to pay.
*carved up its empire and the victors didn't even try to hide how gleeful they were to kick Germany while it was down
*make it 'confess' to warcrimes that the allies were just as guilty of.

And then, just to show that they thought of everything, they made sure to leave the asians out of the talks for racial reasons, just to make sure that someone would be angry enough to start a round 2.

The treaty of Versailles, and the events surrounding it, is quite possibly one of the most stupid, egotistical, and shortsighted things mankind has ever done. Maybe WWII, in the way we know it, may not have been 100% inevitable, but there is no way anyone can possibly think that that series events wouldn't possibly lay the ground work for some sort of "WWII".

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Economic hardships and depressions, alongside nationwide angst have always been used as a means to get radical individuals into power. The fact that Trump and Hillary are running as the main nominees for president this term is proof enough of that

The treaty of Versailles was pretty much tailor made to foster this kind of situation, so much so to the point that I would argue you couldn't make it worse if you tried. It managed to

*Vilify the Germans
*Blame them for starting the war
*Humiliate the Germans
*infuriate them by feeling like they were cheated out of victory (after the events in the Spring of 1918, I'd be ticked as the Germans too, when they had come so close to a breakout)
*Take away their military to really hammer home that they lost
*Charge them a ridiculous fee for damages that everyone knew they had no possible means to pay.
*carved up its empire and the victors didn't even try to hide how gleeful they were to kick Germany while it was down
*make it 'confess' to warcrimes that the allies were just as guilty of.

And then, just to show that they thought of everything, they made sure to leave the asians out of the talks for racial reasons, just to make sure that someone would be angry enough to start a round 2.

The treaty of Versailles, and the events surrounding it, is quite possibly one of the most stupid, egotistical, and shortsighted things mankind has ever done. Maybe WWII, in the way we know it, may not have been 100% inevitable, but there is no way anyone can possibly think that that series events wouldn't possibly lay the ground work for some sort of "WWII".

And just to think, in one of many grand "what if" thought experiments: If the US hadn't been slipping a few bills the Germans' way until the '29 crash, how much sooner could/would they have broken the treaty, rearmed and jumped back into fighting?

Hold on a minute here, a thought just occured to me.

We're obviously debating when WW2 became global, many have succintly argued that it wasn't until after Pearl Harbour, which is fair enough, but what about WW1?

The bulk of the fighting was done in Europe, with very little outside Europe, apart from colonial skirmishes, but that's considered a world war, and nobody blinks twice at that.

If WW2 didn't get global until 1941, then when the dakka did WW1 get global?

I'm confused

There was serious fighting in Africa with up to 100.000 Commonwealth soldiers involved IIRC. Plus German ships fought in the pacific and Latin America and Japanese declared war on the Germans and attacked their colonies in the Pacific. Sure Antarctika (sp) was free from conflict...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hold on a minute here, a thought just occured to me.

We're obviously debating when WW2 became global, many have succintly argued that it wasn't until after Pearl Harbour, which is fair enough, but what about WW1?

The bulk of the fighting was done in Europe, with very little outside Europe, apart from colonial skirmishes, but that's considered a world war, and nobody blinks twice at that.

If WW2 didn't get global until 1941, then when the dakka did WW1 get global?

I'm confused

Japan hopped in like the first week, taking many possessions throughout the pacific and in Mainland China from Germany, and there was fighting in Africa from the very beginning, and the Ottomans entered and engaged in central asia with Russia before 1914 was out.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hold on a minute here, a thought just occured to me.

We're obviously debating when WW2 became global, many have succintly argued that it wasn't until after Pearl Harbour, which is fair enough, but what about WW1?

The bulk of the fighting was done in Europe, with very little outside Europe, apart from colonial skirmishes, but that's considered a world war, and nobody blinks twice at that.

If WW2 didn't get global until 1941, then when the dakka did WW1 get global?

I'm confused

Japan hopped in like the first week, taking many possessions throughout the pacific and in Mainland China from Germany, and there was fighting in Africa from the very beginning, and the Ottomans entered and engaged in central asia with Russia before 1914 was out.

I don't doubt that, but when I made the point that Australian troops fighting in North Africa in late 1940 constituted a global war, I was shot down in flames!

I see no real difference in this regard when you compare the two.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hold on a minute here, a thought just occured to me.

We're obviously debating when WW2 became global, many have succintly argued that it wasn't until after Pearl Harbour, which is fair enough, but what about WW1?

The bulk of the fighting was done in Europe, with very little outside Europe, apart from colonial skirmishes, but that's considered a world war, and nobody blinks twice at that.

If WW2 didn't get global until 1941, then when the dakka did WW1 get global?

I'm confused

Japan hopped in like the first week, taking many possessions throughout the pacific and in Mainland China from Germany, and there was fighting in Africa from the very beginning, and the Ottomans entered and engaged in central asia with Russia before 1914 was out.

I don't doubt that, but when I made the point that Australian troops fighting in North Africa in late 1940 constituted a global war, I was shot down in flames!

I see no real difference in this regard when you compare the two.

I think there's several differences. First, the fighting in colonial areas in WW1 is much further away than North Africa, most of it sub-saharan, and it involved a whole lot more native forces and a whole lot more effect on the local populations. Likewise, Japan hops in early as not only a geographically but ethnically and culturally Asian power to fight in Asia as opposed to Australia (being largely both ethnically and culturally European despite its geographic location) being brought in during WW2 to fight under European command in Europe (or European colonies just over the Med. lake) as opposed to being engaged in extensive fighting in the Pacific.

That's at least how I'd see that.

British forces fighting German forces in Africa from day one. Japanese forces fighting German forces throughout the whole of the Pacific. British forces doing likewise, but mostly in naval engagements (the Japanese went ashore and took territory). While colonial forces might not count in your view, Japan wasn't anybody's colony. It was its own distinct nation, and it picked a fight with Germany. That puts two nations on different sides of the planet in direct conflict. That's World War by my estimation.

As for when the second one kicked off, I would say the start of WWII was when the ink dried on the Treaty of Versailles. As has been pointed out already, there is no way the Treaty of Versailles was intended to do anything other than force Germany to start another war. That treaty was every bit as over the top and unreasonable as the ultimatum the Austro-Hungarians sent to Serbia following the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. You know, the ultimatum that practically demanded Serbia become a vassal state to Austro-Hungary?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not wanting to derail the Overlord thread, I thought I'd expand on some of the issues raised there.

So, as the thread suggests, when did WW2 start?

Yes, I know that the offical date is 3rd September 1939 when Britain and France declare war on Germany as a result of the invasion of Poland,

but many would argue 1937 (Sino Japanese War)

1931 (Japanese occupation of Manchuria)

1939 Soviet Union Vs. Japan

Or even 1914 - the 21 year gap between the end of WW1 and the start of WW2 merely being all sides pausing for breath.

So, what do my fellow dakka members think?

Personally, I think it's all of these and none of these

I always go with the "official", accepted date. Mostly because it was the spark that lit the powder keg, so to speak.


Everything before that, and after WWI, were "sideshow" conflicts. In other words, the last few matches in the box. Small outbreaks of pressure through the cracks (international tension), as the kettle was expanding towards full-on explosion. Which happened when the Third Reich and U.S.S.R. invaded and carved up Poland.

1941 is a false date as for two years prior to this a global war had been fought.

The Uk/France and Germany both had global power progression, one war was being fought on both hemispheres and on of close offshore of most continental landmasses. Also the invasion plans for one side of another pletty much included anywhere as fair game.

Prior to 1941, June of December WW2 was being fought across Europe, across the north atlantic, inttermittently in the south atlantic and in other sea zones. Africa had been invaded as a third party battleground and Italy's colonies were in direct conflict with those of France and the Uk.
French colonies again worldwide were involved in a Vichy vs Free French struggle which continued limited fighting into Madagascar and South East Asia. To top it off the declaration of War by the UK was mirrored by Canada and Australasia and New Zealand, and while the Axis had limited power to strike at those territories prior to Japanese involvement Axis naval forces did engage them and consider their theatres valid operation zones.
It was a world war long before Soviets, Japanese and Americans got involved directly.

1931/7 are false start dates as the invasions may have meant Japan was in continual conflict from 1937 to 1945, however the invasion of Manchuria did not start a world war, and frankly the powers of the day didnt care much. Or at least did not care enough to declare war, has Manchuria been enough for the allies to start hostilities against Japan then there would be a case.

Poland however was different, it directly preceded and included in hostilities. 1st September is therefore the correct start time, even though it was a further two days before the UK and France declared war.

 JamesY wrote:
That isn't relevant at all. And, being from a country is no guarantee of knowledge of it's history. I'm not trying to suggest ignorance on your behalf, there was just no acknowledgement of the point I made in your post. When Britain, France and Germany where fighting, regiments from around the world where dragged into it. I'd say at a point where you have a conflict that is directly involving military forces from three or four continents, regardless of where military decisions might originate, you've got a world war.

Then we've had a lot of world wars, not just two. Once you include the little known Sri Lankan contribution to the Second Boer War, that fight had soldiers from four continents


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Australia never turned up for those rugby and cricket tests against England

I'm not sure we turned up against Sri Lanka just recently, either.

But to address your point, I think Japan's surrender in 1945 has no bearing on the status of its war with China, and should be treated with isolation in that respect, becuase regardless of Japan's participation in WW2, that war would have ended one way or another.

For example, if Japan had defeated China in '37 or '38, or even early '39, it wouldn't be considered part of WW2. IMO.

But the point, of course, is that it didn't end. It started, and it kept going until the very end of the war. And while a lot of people think of it as that other thing... Japan's invasion of China was the defining element in relations between the US and Japan. The invasion of China led to the US oil blockade, and the oil blockade, and that led to Pearl Harbour,

I think the important thing in all of this isn't pick one date or another for the war, but to understand how linked together all these things are.

Japan occupied Indo-China in 1940. I don't consider that a 'part' of WW2, but rather as a consequence of WW2.

It was one of Japan's territorial conquests undertaken in their phase of expansion, no different to the Phillipines or Singapore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
if the Weimar Republic had managed to survive these challenges, it is very unlikely to have wanted to begin a new war. In fact the Nazis didn't have a lot of popular support for starting the war, but they managed to create a regime that didn't worry about such things, and early success in the Rhineland and Austria helped turn opinion more in their favour.

This is a key point. The Nazis weren't overwhelmingly popular, and their wars even less popular. Much of Hitler's early viability rested on the clean and easy victories he was able to deliver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
The treaty of Versailles was pretty much tailor made to foster this kind of situation, so much so to the point that I would argue you couldn't make it worse if you tried.

Sort of. The treaty was certainly a really bad idea, but there's this idea that it was a uniquely punitive. The reparations were actually pretty standard, even on the mild end. They were actually less than those inflicted on the French by Prussia at the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war.

What made the Versailles Treaty so harmful was that it was put in place in a continent that was absolutely ravaged by the first world war. In this very fragile environment, German would be forced to try and rebuild a devestated economy, with export partners who equally devastated. The reparations were the final straw, but it was more the circumstance they were applied to than the anything unique about the reparations themselves.

*infuriate them by feeling like they were cheated out of victory (after the events in the Spring of 1918, I'd be ticked as the Germans too, when they had come so close to a breakout)

Close to a break out, but it failed and by the end defeat was inevitable. I saw a fantastic graph once, during a presentation on the end of WW1, showing German rates of surrender, which spiked dramatically in the last few months of the war. It wasn't just economically that German had started to collapse, the morale of soldiers on the front had finally collapsed as it became clear that they weren't going to break the French, British and Americans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hold on a minute here, a thought just occured to me.

We're obviously debating when WW2 became global, many have succintly argued that it wasn't until after Pearl Harbour, which is fair enough, but what about WW1?

The bulk of the fighting was done in Europe, with very little outside Europe, apart from colonial skirmishes, but that's considered a world war, and nobody blinks twice at that.

If WW2 didn't get global until 1941, then when the dakka did WW1 get global?

Yeah, this is the problem with the "WW2 became a global war with Pearl Harbour", because it means if you consistently apply it then WW1 is only a global war in early 1918 when the Americans first deploy troops, which is a bit of an odd conclusion

But of course all the other definitions are as bad, if not worse. If you do it by listing countries involved and their continent of origin, then the Boer War might make the list. It would mean the US led invasion of Afghanistan probably qualifies, because that had five countries from three continents, fighting in another continent

The problem is that all of that leaves out scale - when a lot of major world powers are fighting in something close to total war you've a world war, but exactly what number of world powers and how committed the fighting has to be to become a world war ends up a fairly silly conversation. It is more useful to discuss what happened, than to debate exactly how we should classify and define when a thing becomes another thing.

And that's really my point I've been trying to get at. We can say that the first of the fights that would make up World War 2 began in 1937, and we can say in December 1941 the last of the major powers joined the war. And in between more and more countries got dragged in to the war. Exactly when it becomes a world war is a ship of therseus question.

 sebster wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
That isn't relevant at all. And, being from a country is no guarantee of knowledge of it's history. I'm not trying to suggest ignorance on your behalf, there was just no acknowledgement of the point I made in your post. When Britain, France and Germany where fighting, regiments from around the world where dragged into it. I'd say at a point where you have a conflict that is directly involving military forces from three or four continents, regardless of where military decisions might originate, you've got a world war.

Then we've had a lot of world wars, not just two. Once you include the little known Sri Lankan contribution to the Second Boer War, that fight had soldiers from four continents

The Boers had no power projection. The Third Reich had global power projection due to the U-boat fleet, and a limited number of fast capital ships deployed prior to the closing of the North Sea.

 sebster wrote:

But the point, of course, is that it didn't end. It started, and it kept going until the very end of the war. And while a lot of people think of it as that other thing... Japan's invasion of China was the defining element in relations between the US and Japan. The invasion of China led to the US oil blockade, and the oil blockade, and that led to Pearl Harbour,

But it didn't lead directly to war. A chain of events is not historical causality because there has to be a cutoff somewhere. For example there would be no Pearl Harbor if Hawaii was not traded away by the UK, and that wouldnt have happened without 1776 which wouldn't have happened without the Mayflower, which wouldn't have happened without Columbus, which wouldn't have happened without the completion of the Reconquista etc etc on and on back to prehistory.

Yes of course it is relevant but starts of historical events are delimited by the immediate causes, because in modern history everything is ultimately interconnected. Most military actions have a political precedent which has an economic one. There second world war had a lot of seminal events that shaped history notably the Treaty of Versailles and the October revolution, but even though they have definitive timeline points in 1917 and 1919, both began in 1870.

 sebster wrote:

It would mean the US led invasion of Afghanistan probably qualifies, because that had five countries from three continents, fighting in another continent

Then Iraq would definitely quality, because as I recall, there were troop contingents from something like 34 countries at one point... I mean, there was us, Australia, England/UK, Japan, Lithuania, Macedonia, Tonga.... and that's just who I personally had contact with in the course of my time there.

Let's think about the question from a different angle.

Suppose Britain and France had ignored the invasion of Poland in 1939 and not declared war. The Germans would not have had to invade western Europe generally in 1940 and they of course would not have attacked the UK in the Battle of Britain and Battle of the Atlantic. The Italians would have had no excuse for joining in the war, so Africa would have remained peaceful. This would obviate the various invasions in the Balkans (Greece, Yugoslavia, etc.)

The Germans may or may not have invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. Hitler had an obsession with "lebensraum" and wiping out the Slav/Communist threat, true, OTOH he had a very nice deal going with Stalin for exports and stuff. With Poland at his command the need for space was satisfied for the medium term at least, so let's suppose that his megalomania found at least a temporary limit. Without the stunning victory over France, the German generals would have had less confidence in invading the Soviet Union.

In this scenario therefore the war would have started with the Japanese general attacks in late 1941 against the USA, British Empire, Dutch Empire and Australia. Would this have been a World War? Probably not unless the Germans joined in, because it would have been Japan versus everyone. Britain and Holland were already over-stretched by events in Europe which in my new scenario never happened. Actually, therefore, it is likely the Japanese would not have attacked without this advantage.

End results; the Germans make merry in eastern Europe. The Japanese make merry in China. The western allies and the Soviet Union are not engaged. There is no World War.

Thus from this reading of things, the key event was the declaration of war by Britain and France in 1939, and that actually is the start point for WW2.

 Orlanth wrote:
But it didn't lead directly to war.

Umm, it didn't lead directly to war? It was war. It was the second most bloody theatre behind the Eastern Front. 3 million dead Japanese soldiers, 4 million dead Chinese soldiers, and maybe something around 20 million dead civilians.

A chain of events is not historical causality because there has to be a cutoff somewhere.

There is only a cut off... if you insist there has to be a cut off. As I've been fething saying, a decent answer on this question is acknowledge that fighting began in 1937, and more and more countries got involved until December 1941 when all major powers and a huge number of minor powers had become involved.

Once again, ship of therseus. It is a puzzle only if you insist there must be a distinct point. If you do the sensible thing instead of recognising the move over time from one thing to another, it's not so hard.

There's also the interpretive issue to consider. Even if we were to conclude that WWII started with the opening of the war in Europe, you'd still have to delve back to events before 1939 to understand the Pacific War. The dramatic arc is a really useful way of imparting and conceptualizing events. History need not start in medias res. In fact history is best understood when being as encompassing as can be managed.