When did WW2 start?

Wasn't that the M43?

 

Selling or donating arms doesn't count as involvement, surely

 

The German's seeking greater influence in the region had provided training and equipment to the Nationalists. The German trained KMT divisions were the best the Chinese had. They bore the brunt of the fighting when Japan invaded Shanghai on August 13, 1937. During the fighting up the Yangtze to Nanking, Hankow, Hanyang and Wuhan, the Japanese destroyed most of these divisions. Per the article you linked, Germany sent 220,000 helmets, and most of these were lost along with the soldiers that wore them during the series of campaigns leading up to the capture of Wuhan.
When the Nazi's came to power in 1933, Hans von Seeckt was sent to China to oversee Sino-German economic and military relations. (May 1933)
The ties remained fairly strong despite Ribbentropp seeking closer ties with the Japanese, the German military favoring the Sino-German alliance and Japan leadership questioned the utility of an alignment with Germany. The 25 November 1936, anti-Comintern Pact between Germany and Japan was to have included China. Germany saw it as a way to maintain relations with both China and Japan, Japan saw it as a check on their primary enemy, Communist Russia, and Chiang's Chinese, though at this time had become anti-communist and Russia was supporting the Chinese Communists, did not want to remove the potential of aid from Russia if Japan again attacked China. Geman-Chinese relations were still good. A high-level visit by KMT officials, in June 1937, who met with Hitler, Goring and others, resulted in a German loan of 100 million Reichsmark to China. It was the loss of Shanghai, Nanking and the move on Wuhan that convinced Germany to side with Japan over China. By April of 1938 Germany had stopped all military shipments to China, had recalled its military officers and cancelled its economic contracts.
It was in December 1937 that Japan attacked the USS Panay.
So back to the original question, Germany, Japan, Russia, the United States and Britain were all involved in China. The outbreak of hostilities on 13 August 1937 should be the opening hostilities for WWII. It affected most of the major combatants.

 

It depends upon your perspective and national alignments. The US and most of Europe see arms to Ukraine as a legitimate, non-war act. Russia and its allies regard western support of Ukraine as warlike conduct. We view arms shipments to Russia, from Iran and China as illegal and seek to impose sanctions. It is a slippery slope.

Here's a thought-provoking question. Germany and Britain are at war and Britain has declared its blockade/embargo. Seizure of American ships, and mail going to Italy (America was still neutral) by British blockading forces, engendered a good deal of outrage from American citizens.
What if Japan had sent a shipment of food and/or civilian use raw materials on Japanese flagged vessel(s), to neutral French ports in the Mediterranean (the US recognized Vichy France). Britain attempted to board, fired upon, or seized these Japanese vessels. Would they have been justified in demanding an apology and reparations from the British? Would they not have been justified in attacking/seizing British shipping in the east as retaliation? What if they sent a second shipment, escorted by warships? If the British accosted them would that not be defacto war? It is pretty certain that Britain would have been seen as the aggressor in the press. Think about it.

 

Should be?! According to who?
"On July 7, 1937, a skirmish broke out between Chinese and Japanese troops stationed on the outskirts of Wanping, a village southwest of Beijing, that subsequently became known internationally as the “Marco Polo Bridge Incident.” Although the local forces were able to come to an agreement, the event ignited the powder keg of latent tension between the Tokyo and Nanjing (then China’s capital under the Nationalists) governments. By the end of July, Japanese troops had launched their rapacious, full-scale invasion of China.
Since then, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident became the unofficial marker of the start of China’s War of Resistance against Japan. That is, until January 2017, when China's Ministry of Education made an unprecedented announcement: the official starting date of the war would be shifted to an event six years earlier."
How China’s leaders changed the history of the War of Resistance to bolster Party prestige
Even the Chinese can't agree.

And they apologised and paid compensation. Donations also poured in from various Japanese organisations and individuals.
Not acts you normally associate with a state of war.

 

To my mind (for what that is worth!) there is a difference between a World War and a Global War.

A Global War is a continental war that is fought around the globe
ie: Britain vs France often included naval actions in the Pacific and pitched battles in the Americas & Africa & Asia, but rarely any non-European nations (aside from Colonial levies)

A World War is a war fought by nations from around the world, on battlefields around the world.


Now any attempt to define precisely is always impossible, because you could easily argue that the Punic wars fall into that category (African vs European, both sdes invaded both continents!) but the basic idea is there

 

If selling arms counts, then almost every war since the Industrial Revolution counts as a World War, and the distinction becomes meaningless.
Every little local war in South America, for example, featured arms bought across Europe and North America - with purchases usually increasing during the wars. But no way could they count as World Wars.

As to your scenario - sadly I know very little of relevant international law here. But going by historical example... if you attempt to break a blockade your ship will be stopped. Protests can be made but if the ship did carry items specifically against the blockade (food in your example - or mail for Germany on those American ships) you will not get an apology simply because you knew what the risks were. Any retaliation or attempts to attack the blockading forces is an escalation / attack by the blockade-breakers.
Put simply, if A blockades B, and C tries to break the blockade, C knows that their only real options long-term are to stop or to enter armed conflict

 

I could accept that as the start date. I didn't choose the Marco-Polo Bridge incident because it was still basically a regional border clash. It was definitely the precursor.

True, but nations frequently take actions that they then walk back and pay reparations for and issue disingenuous apologies. In the Panay case the Americans were an impediment to Japan's operations, Japan eliminated the impediment. Then paid reparations and apologized in order to avoid the political backlash.
Israel did the same thing with their attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, during the Six Day War. The survivors to this day don't buy it was an accidental attack. They believe it was to cover the Liberty's interception of communications relating to the attack on the Golan Heights or the massacre of Egyptian POW's. Certain information declassified over the last couple decades suggest that it might have even been an attempt to simulate an Egyptian attack on a US vessel in order for the US to intervene militarily. LBJ was President and we now know what he did with the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Worked once so why not try again? We may never know because the NSA and CIA still refuse to declassify most of the information related to the incident, despite many military officers and intelligence operatives stating that they collected the information they are now claiming they don't have. Plus, the Whitehouse itself ordered Naval carrier aircraft launched to assist the Liberty to return to their ships not once but twice.

"Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State at the time of the incident, wrote:
I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."
USS Liberty Memorial (gtr5.com)
USS Liberty Veterans Association

I myself have been involved in deliberate "incidents" that were at first denied and then apologized for by the aggressors. On the ground you usually know if it is deliberate or accidental. Once diplomats get involved it becomes a case of mistaken identity or a tragic accident, apologies are exchanged and some symbolic compensation paid, then life goes on.[/QUOTE]

 

I agree that it is difficult to define, "What makes a war a world war?" Even in the two world wars we have defined as such, many nations remained neutral. You could probably make a good case that the Napoleonic Wars were a world war as well. They involved all of Europe, parts of Africa and the conflict extended into the Americas (War of 1812 among others).

 

I agree! The problem, and it relates to the thread's main discussion, when does material, military support reach the point that it is actual participation?

In the British blockade example, the items were not headed to Germany directly but to nations the US regarded as neutral. The US did file diplomatic protests over the searches and seizures, Britain apologized and continued as before. Our government was theoretically neutral, but our sympathies were with British. So, if the British blockade was legitimate in attempting to prevent supply's from reaching its adversary, if you are actually neutral, you trade with either neither or both belligerent nations. Correct?
How could we, as a neutral, comply with the British embargo yet be angered with German attempts via submarines and commerce raiders from stopping shipments to England?
If Japan had decided to escort the example ships, being a neutral at the time, into a neutral nation, refused to stop and be boarded and the British fired upon said ships to enforce the embargo, Japan could have claimed, justifiably, it was an act of war and would be justified in attacking British shipping, or even colonies in the east. Logically, with no bias I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. If there is some logical argument I am missing please inform me.
In relation to today, what if Russia declared a blockade of war materials going into the Ukraine? Would they be justified, anymore than the British were in WWII of using force to enforce the embargo? I know my and most others on here have a western bias and we see providing the aid as just, but we are displaying our bias. It angers me when I read that China is supplying the Russians with military aid, but that is my bias. A Chinese citizen may look at Russia's invasion as just, an attempt at resisting the expanding of NATO into Ukraine. They are closer allied with Russia than the US, so providing aid to Russia I am sure seems justified.
Now, you have a demonstration of the old saying, "might makes right". China can send what it wishes to Russia, and we won't do any more than protest, China is too strong militarily to intimidate and too closely tied to our economy to impose serious sanctions on. Same-same with the British in WWII, they had the base locations and naval might to enforce the blockade, legal or not. Smaller nations had to comply; the United States would turn a blind eye due to our government being run by Anglophiles. The American public may gripe and moan about the blockade, but it really didn't affect their lives so the majority were not passionate about it. Most of the generation that had gone off to fight in France in 1918 had no love for Germany but wanted no part in a new European conflict.
Japan could have tested the blockade but didn't. Historically, they were preoccupied with China and SE Asia. They were still getting raw materials and fuel from the US (they were our biggest trading partner) so had no desire to escalate tensions with the west. It wasn't until 28 July 1941 that we turned off the spigot and set the irreversible course to conflict with Japan. The blockade had been in force since September 1939, so suddenly trying to bypass it after nearly two years would have rightfully been perceived as a provocation. However, in 1939 early 1940 they could probably have pulled it off.

 

Did you mean Manchuria in 1931?

I'm still going with Czechoslovakia as the precursor, and Poland as the start.
This is from the British War Bluebook
Sir Neville Henderson to Viscount Halifax, May 28th 1939, recounting a recent visit to Karinhall and a conversation with Goering.
"...7. As my time was limited, I told Field-Marshal Goering that I was well aware of the reasons adduced by his Government to justify its action, but I thought it more important that he himself should understand the British point of view in consequence of it. As the result of the Prague coup His Majesty's Government and the British people were determined to resist by force any new aggression. No one desired an amiable arrangement between Germany and Poland in respect of Danzig and the Corridor more than ourselves. But, if Germany endeavoured to settle these questions by unilateral action such as would compel the Poles to resort to arms to safeguard their independence, we and the French as well as other countries would be involved, with all the disastrous consequences which a prolonged world war would entail (my emphasis), especially for Germany, &c. Field-Marshal Goering did not appear to question our readiness to fight and restricted his reply to an attempt to prove that circumstances in 1939 were different to those in 1914, that no Power could overcome Germany in Europe, that a blockade this time would prove unavailing, that France would not stand a long war, that Germany could do more harm to Great Britain than the latter to her, that the history of Germany was one of ups and downs, and that this was one of the "up" periods, that the Poles had no military experience and that their only officers of any value were those who had acquired their training in the German army, that they were not and never had been a really united nation and that, since France and ourselves could not, and Russia out of self-interest would not, give them any effective military assistance, they would be taught a terrible lesson, &c. The field-marshal used, in fact, all the language which might be expected in reply to a statement that Germany was bound to be defeated. While I was perturbed at his reference to the unreality of Polish unity, which resembled the German arguments last year in regard to Czecho-Slovakia, he gave me the impression, by somewhat overstating his case, of considerably less confidence than he expressed...
...I said that nobody in their senses could contemplate modern war without horror, but that we should not shrink from it if Germany resorted to another act of aggression. If, therefore, war was to be avoided, patience was necessary and the wild men in Germany must be restrained..."
The Avalon Project : The British Bluebook
In this and other sources, they're talking about the need to prevent the start of another war; no-one seems to be talking about containing the spread of an existing one.

 

Yeah, can agree with that.

 

Damned unfair, old boy. Will I have a word?