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.

 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

There's a case to be made, I suppose, that the wars between Britain, France, Spain and anyone else who wanted a go (including the Napoleonic wars, the French and Indian war, the American Revolution, assorted goings-on as the Spanish empire in South America disintegrated and the war of 1812) were a "world war".

 sebster wrote:

 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.

Of course it was a war, but only a local one.

 sebster wrote:

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.

Manchuria was just another ongoing colonial war of the time. Abyssinia was invaded by Italy in 1935, do we start WW2 then?
The invasion of Poland is a logical start date as it caused direct intervention of major powers on both sides.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 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

There's a case to be made, I suppose, that the wars between Britain, France, Spain and anyone else who wanted a go (including the Napoleonic wars, the French and Indian war, the American Revolution, assorted goings-on as the Spanish empire in South America disintegrated and the war of 1812) were a "world war".

They clearly were and it has been said by historians. Warfare ranged across the globe, in Europe, the Caribbean, North and South America, and the Indian sub-continent. The American War of Independence, for example, involved Britain versus the French, Spanish and Dutch Empires.

My memory is a bit hazy, but wasn't Brutain fighting Japan in the Pacific prior to Pearl Harbor?

 skyth wrote:
My memory is a bit hazy, but wasn't Brutain fighting Japan in the Pacific prior to Pearl Harbor?

Yes, but it was low intensity compared to the conflict in Europe. The most well known event of that time is probably the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse.

 Orlanth wrote:
Manchuria was just another ongoing colonial war of the time. Abyssinia was invaded by Italy in 1935, do we start WW2 then?

As already explained, actions that started and ended before the outbreak of general fighting obviously cannot be the start of the conflict. The occupation of Abyssinia happened, and ended, years before other fighting broke out.

The invasion of Poland is a logical start date as it caused direct intervention of major powers on both sides.

The invasion of Poland, and the UK and French declarations of war is obviously a major point in the timeline. But calling it the starting point is very weird, because it isn't the point at which continuous fighting began, and it isn't the point at which all major powers were engaged. It's the point at which three major powers, and a bunch of minor powers, became involved. But you still had Soviet Russia and the USA yet to get involved in any fighting, and at this point there still remained no direct connection between the war in Europe and the war in Asia.

Think of it this way - if the war in Europe had resolved without spreading to other countries, and from beginning to end been just a fight between Germany, Britain (& the Commonwealth) and France, would we have called it a world war? Obviously not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Yes, but it was low intensity compared to the conflict in Europe. The most well known event of that time is probably the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse.

Before Pearl Harbour, the Japanese were basically taking French assets, in many cases negotiating deals of control and governance with the Vichy government. The British were basically playing little buddy to the US big buddy, backing up US statements to Japan to stop their military expansion.

I'm not aware of the British undertaking any military action against the Japanese during this time, up until Pearl Harbour.

The British and Japanese are only at war after Pearl Harbour leads to a British declaration of war. Three days later Prince Wales and Repulse are sunk. Then you get direct attacks on British colonies, culminating in the fall of Singapore two months after Pearl Harbour.

 sebster wrote:


The British and Japanese are only at war after Pearl Harbour leads to a British declaration of war. Three days later Prince Wales and Repulse are sunk. Then you get direct attacks on British colonies, culminating in the fall of Singapore two months after Pearl Harbour.

Oh. I thought the Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk earlier in the year, and Burma, but I guess all that started after Pearl after all.

 LordofHats wrote:
Oh. I thought the Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk earlier in the year, and Burma, but I guess all that started after Pearl after all.

Fair enough. I was responding thinking "what am I missing here, what does LordofHats know that I don't?"

Just because I pretend to be a know it all doesn't mean I actually know it all XD

I would say it started with The Treaty of Versailles in 1919.