Sad Survey.....

But at that point it was still pretty much centered in Europe with some action in the Med and Atlantic except for the completely separate conflict between Japan and China. It didn't truly become global until Japan attacked the US and British (of course Germany attacking Russia broadened it quite a bit as well) so essentially the same argument can be made for 1941 being a better choice. On the other hand "The Great Chicago Fire" isn't listed as starting when several neighborhoods were up in flames but from the time O'Leary's barn caught fire. If that's the criteria one wants to use (and it has considerable merit IMO) then 1937 is the date to go with.

 

... Except the British and French empires were still global empires. Therefore, the action did span the globe.

There was action in the Indian Oceans as well:
23 March 1940: The Royal Navy established the Malaya Force of cruisers, destroyers and submarines to stop German merchant ships leaving the Dutch East Indies.
11 May 1940: German merchant raider Atlantis entered the Indian Ocean from the South Atlantic.
7 June 1940: Italian warships began minelaying off Massawa and Assab.
etc...

And the fact the Indians were involved from the start in the Mediterranean mean that it was far from "just a European affair."

Trying to claim the start from 1937, is like trying to date the fire from the production date of the match.

 

I don't know about all of you, but the first time a History class I took even touched the World Wars wasn't until I was in college end elected to take an 'Interwar Germany' Course. All prior history courses saved the World Wars until the end of the semester and generally had no time to even touch it. I can't recall ever going over the World Wars in HS. For me, it was more out of self interest and the books I've read that I have come to learn about WW2 etc.

 

That has been my experience thus far here at high school as well. Everything I've learned about WW2 has been on my own time, everything I learned in school I knew about years before, certainly helped my grades!

 

For Me I had a couple years in middle school where the subject was taught. Then again we spent no more than a week on it having a end of week quiz and a handful of questions on the end of semester test. One of those years my homeroom teacher (where attendance was taken) on occasion led unofficial discussions on the matter. He had been a veteran of the Pacific War, serving on the USS Franklin. I keenly recall that he once showed a well know documentary on it and offered a 'A' to anyone who could spot him in the footage. No one got the grade as he was below deck during the whole footage, but everyone watched keenly

 

In first grade, while I was living in Monument Colorado, my regular teacher had a baby and missed the last 2 months of the school year. The substitute Mr. Miller, a 50 year old former engineer, was everyone's favorite teacher that year, and the following year he got a full time job teaching at the school (I never got his class though ). Mr. Miller was very knowledgeable on just about everything, and one day when he saw I was looking at a world war II picture book with a few other kids when we were supposed to be doing math, (Actually Aviation art of WW2 to be exact) he sat down and talked to the 3 of us looking, for about 30 minutes. He talked about the air war, and the war at sea, and the empire of Japan, and other things regarding my book. I came away so excited to find someone else who knew what I was talking about, that every day at Recess I tried to think of a question to ask him each day, being the great man he was, he answered almost all of my questions. By that time I was already hooked on WW2, but his contributions and knowledge made me want to learn more! Tragically Mr.Miller was killed in January 2009 when he lost control of his car on an icy road and got into a head-on collision killing him instantly, and paralyzing the other driver who just so happened to be a parent of one of the students at my elementary school. I remember the sadness and pain me, and so many others felt. But I mostly remember his willingness to listen to a six year old, and answer every question I seemed to have had...

 

Trying to claim the start from 1937, is like trying to date the fire from the production date of the match.[/QUOTE]
The action outside of Europe was pretty minimal though especially if you are looking at land combat. The Napoleonic wars have a greater claim to being world wars. A few subs and a raider or two just don't hold up to much compared to what's happening on the land. There was of course some action in North Africa but it again it's pretty limited. It isn't until 41 that you have major battles taking place in the Pacific region and of course the flare up again in Eastern Europe and then there's the German efforts in North Africa as well.

It most certainly is not. That's when the fighting started (without interruption) between two of the major nations involved.

The more I think on it the more Eurocentric the 1939 date looks to me.

 

Except those two major powers in conflict in '37 were not global in reach, and the start of the war did not immediately cause a wider conflagration as a succession of events within a short timeframe, nor was it really feared that it would in the immediate term. So it was entirely local/regional. Had the US and/or Britain declared war as a result of the Japanese invasion of China, then it would be a very different matter. You can't use the start of a clearly local war without direct outside entanglement for years as a measure of when WW2 started.

So, yes, it most emphatically is. Otherwise you can just go ahead and assign both of the conflicts WW1 and WW2 to the First Sino-Japanese war, or better yet Second Opium War and Prussia's invasion of France in 1870...

And why on Earth would one restrict themselves to "land combat?" The fact is European powers' losses in manpower (sea, air or land) were minimal in the first year. But wider conflict was spreading, with an obvious catalyst being the invasion of Poland, which can be seen from the collection of dates presented earlier.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course.

 

True but not particularly relevant IMO. The invasion of Poland didn't cause a wider conflegtation in a short timeframe either. The fighting didn't really spread much until the next spring.

Not sure that's true. China was any many ways the driving force between Japan going to war with the US, Britain, and the Dutch. That this might occur was clear in many prewar discussions.

Much as the war in Europe was until it exploded in the Pacific as well.

It was recongized at the time by many that the oil embargo which directly resulted from Japan's attack on China would result in a war with Japan. So I don't think this holds water.

If it later becomes part of a wider war and indeed plays a significant role in that war I most certainly can.

I disagree.

No, there is a crucial difference. The above conflicts all terminated and the fighting stopped for a considerable length of time. That's why I don't date it to the earlier 30's and the China Japanese fighting that took place then.

It's not so much land combat as the minimal amount of combat going on at sea during that period.

But it really explode in intensity in 41 and the China Japanese conflict was as much a catalyst for that as Poland was.

I think arguments can be made for 1937, 1939, and 1941. It's my opinion however that unless you give a more precise definition of what is meant the argument in favor of 1939 is the weakest.

 

As an aside, I see that the Chinese government is now stating that the war with Japan started in 1931. It is now to be known as the "14-year War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression."

You'll be updating your Sinocentric date to match?

 

Tell that to the Indians, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, getting kitted out and sent away. Of course it took time to get them trained and embarked. But it wasn't because of anything that happened in China.

No. It was just as much hoped that the Oil and Steel Embargo would cause Japan's offensive to grind to a halt and the aggression to cease.

Doesn't help when one of the "two major combatants" just unilaterally redefined when its war started.

And on that we disagree. No one physically outside the Japanese Empire and China was affected until the wider war erupted.

 

And on that we disagree. No one physically outside the Japanese Empire and China was affected until the wider war erupted.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about that. Italy Invaded Abyssinia and Albania in 1935, Germany Annexed the Austria, and the Czech republic in 1938 after the appeasement of Hitler at Munich. I understand the events involving Germany I listed never had shots fired, but they very well affected Millions of Czechs and Austrians, and I almost forgot about the battle at Khalkhin Gol when Japan and Soviet Russia duked it out truly days before the Germans invaded Poland.

 

??? Perhaps not those in 39 or 40 but by 41 events in the Pacific were having an impact on them and certainly afterwards. Not sure it has all that much relevance to what we consider the start of the war though.

Hope yes but it wasn't really expected to, especially once the Embargo was interpreted as freezing all Japanese assets.
...

On that you are absolutely wrong. For just one example the USS Panay.

 

I don't see any particular reason to. I listed my criteria i.e. continuous fighting.

 

What? When did the "World War" start? When people from all over the globe became involved. How is that not relevant? When two global Empires get involved, and all their colonies send men off to war. Not because one regional power fights another.

No. Absolutely not wrong. Read the sentence again. You may notice, USS Panay was physically in China. It wasn't exactly sailing past San Francisco...

 

This argument is going nowhere. The war was a reality to different peoples at different times. Historians put a date to it for educational purposes but that does not really matter as long as we know the overall impact. A 10 year old Scottish boy said that the war began for him when the neighbouring family was wiped out by a German bomb and he lost his home and community.

 

I think in many ways Toki is right, I would say that from WW1 to the end of colony wars in the 70's should be considered "The World at War". There had been more than 300 wars, armed conflicts and violent coups and uprisings since the first World War to 1979. I think from 1980 till now could arguably be one of the most peaceful times in the history of humanity.

 

If that were to be true, World War 2 should hereby be renamed to World War 131...Global empires have been going to war for centuries, but it is only recently that we have taken to calling them "World" Wars.

Conversely, soldiers came from all over the globe to fight on a tiny peninsula of land called "Korea." Yet, I have heard of no one calling that a "World" war.

 

And on that we disagree. No one physically outside the Japanese Empire and China was affected until the wider war erupted.[/QUOTE]

Context. Context. Context.

Those events had little if nothing to do with events in the Second Sino-Japanese war. Therefore, the Second Sino-Japanese war did not physically affect people physically outside of China and the Empire of Japan.

Italy didn't invade Abyssinia in 1935, because of the impending/ongoing war in China. They did it, because the League of Nations was weak, and the French and British Empires were unwilling to do anything.
Germany annexation of Austria, did not happen, because of anything in Second Sino-Japanese war.
While the Munich agreement may have been affected by the fact that the British realised their Navy was unable to deal with Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time, should conflict arise, at the time, a more important concern was trying to avoid going to war over some inane border conflict in central Europe, for which Britain really had no interest.

Khalkin Gol was really just a minor border skirmish, over an ill-defined line in a remote backwater. It wasn't even really Japan, it was the Kwantung Army which was running amok. Considering the size of Mongolia and the Soviet Union, and the length of their border with Manchukuo, this was a very limited conflict, albeit using relatively large amounts of forces (70,000 Soviets vs 35,000 Japanese) for quite a small area, with very limited goals. Indeed, centrally Japan was trying to prevent the border conflict from spreading, and restricted the use of its air assets after June 27th. The Red Army invasion of Poland used upwards of 450,000 men. Some sources say 1 million.

The Molotov pact killed any further Japanese belief in a Northern Strategy. Events in Europe superseding those in Asia.

 

And yet for the longest time, the fight against Napoleon was "The Great War." Until we had WW1.

Did any fighting occur outside Korea as a direct result of the war in Korea? Any ships get sunk in some other Ocean? Some piece of land fought over outside Korea?

Italian forces entered Kenya in 1940... because Italy entered the War in Europe... because France declared war on Germany... because Germany invaded Poland... because Japan invaded China???

Okay......