So, when *did* World War II start?

[DGuller]

Sheilbh, are you arguing that the response from major powers to Japanese aggression against China forced their hand to escalate?

[Zoupa]

Or, and I know this is hard to understand, the Japanese soldiers could have just gone home.

[DGuller]

Or, and I know this is hard to understand, the Japanese soldiers could have just gone home.

If that was the argument you wanted to make, wouldn't it have been simpler to make it at the beginning, bypassing the unprovoked abuse stage?

[HisMajestyBOB]

An ultimately unconvincing case could be made that, given the size of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, any war involving the UK would be a world war.

So really, WWII started in 1066 with the start of what would become modern England.

[grumbler]

That's not what I said. I said that the relationship between the Sino-Japanese conflict and Japan's wider position and conflict cannot be disentangled. There's sort of a metronomic relationship of the inability to end the "regional" conflict and the attempt to break out of it through more "global" war.

I think that this is correct.  The Japanese expanded their war on China to include the Allied powers because they could see no other way to force China into negotiations on ending the war.  Their invasion of Indochina was undertaken to cut off supplies going to China via Haiphong.  That set them on an immediate collision course with the US, which responded with its near-total embargo.

It is possible that, absent a war in China, Japan might still have struck at the Western Powers (there was a strong "don't miss the bus" sentiment in Japan as a result of German victories in Europe), but the immediate cause of the crisis was due to Japan's war on China.

[viper37]

Mmmm... not sure about that. In 1937 there's still a decent chance that the Sino-Japanese war remains a regional war, and thus no global conflict.

I suppose WWII only becomes "WW" in 1941, once the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor and attack the European colonies, and Hitler DoWs the US for some reason. Then you have belligerents spanning all over the globe.

But I'm no scholar!

Wouldn't the entry of the Commonwealth countries in 1939 make it a ww?

Against Germany, not Japan. That did not happen until 1941, as stated a few times in this thread.

The moment the Commonwealth becomes involved in the war, it becomes a world war though, even if there is not yet fighting all across the globe, there is a war effort ongoing for every continent.

Australia did enter the war in 1939.  So did India, has a colony of the British Empire.  The African colonies were de facto at war with Germany too.  Most of South America wasn't at war and officially neutral, but still it was profoundly affected from 1939 and on.

[Zoupa]

Or, and I know this is hard to understand, the Japanese soldiers could have just gone home.

If that was the argument you wanted to make, wouldn't it have been simpler to make it at the beginning, bypassing the unprovoked abuse stage?

Get thicker skin. Also go fuck yourself, for good measure.

[jimmy olsen]

Mmmm... not sure about that. In 1937 there's still a decent chance that the Sino-Japanese war remains a regional war, and thus no global conflict.

I suppose WWII only becomes "WW" in 1941, once the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor and attack the European colonies, and Hitler DoWs the US for some reason. Then you have belligerents spanning all over the globe.

But I'm no scholar!

Sure, there was a chance, and it makes for good alternate history scenarios, but the 2nd Sino-Japanese war was a major front of the World War and it was the first to begin in earnest, so I would put the beginning of the war at July 7th, 1937.

A world war doesn't have to start with blows between world powers, it can start small and slowly grow and spiral out of control.

[The Brain]

Well, how far back can you trace a state of war from any participant in the 1939-45 conflict?

[Norgy]

Boy, do I regret even posting this. 

[crazy canuck]

That's not what I said. I said that the relationship between the Sino-Japanese conflict and Japan's wider position and conflict cannot be disentangled. There's sort of a metronomic relationship of the inability to end the "regional" conflict and the attempt to break out of it through more "global" war.

I think that this is correct.  The Japanese expanded their war on China to include the Allied powers because they could see no other way to force China into negotiations on ending the war.  Their invasion of Indochina was undertaken to cut off supplies going to China via Haiphong.  That set them on an immediate collision course with the US, which responded with its near-total embargo.

It is possible that, absent a war in China, Japan might still have struck at the Western Powers (there was a strong "don't miss the bus" sentiment in Japan as a result of German victories in Europe), but the immediate cause of the crisis was due to Japan's war on China.

Except that is my argument.  The Japanese conflict did not become part of the "world war" until Japan attacked GB and the US. Sheilbh is making an argument that World War II can be said to have begun before 1939 in Asia which is entirely dependent on that occuring.

Also, the "near total embargo" by the US did not occur until 1941.

It is all hindsight.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's debated.

However, there is general agreement that World War 3 was started by Norgy on September 8, 2025, about 41 posts up from here.

[crazy canuck]

I think there is a clear consensus, rare for Languish, on that point.  The only real issue now is whether Norgy was influenced in his actions by the assassination of Grand Duke Ferdinand.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

While Norgy may have set events in motion, I think it's clearly my escalation of breaking this out of the GOP thread into its own that was the true start of the war, as that made it truly a world war.

[Zoupa]

Really, you forced Norgy's hand. He had absolutely no other choice but to start WW3.