WW2 Start Date

[Josquius]

It had something to do with the Japanese trouncing the colonial powers, seizing their colonies, and humiliating them in the eyes of their former subjects.

Had the European countries in question not been occupied to you really believe Japan would have had so easy a time?

Also, Indochina-Indonesia != the world.

Staying even still within Asia for instance talks about independance for India after the war had been going on ever since the outbreak of hostilities with Germany.
Indian independance had been gaining a lot of momentum in the 30s anyway, few doubted that it would be more than a decade or two before it finally happened. It was the wrecked British economy and the post-war labour government wanting to get things sorted out in India ASAP before it could be more of a burden that led to independance in '47. Japan had very little to do with things.

[Valmy]

Hehe.  Notice how he just ignores Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

Losing Singapore was called the worst disaster in British history at the time.

[Jaron]

Dec 7, 1941

Until then it was a minor European squabble.

Actually for you it should be May 22, 1942, frijolero

Really? And why is that?

[Josquius]

Hehe.  Notice how he just ignores Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

Losing Singapore was called the worst disaster in British history at the time.

Hong Kong never got its independance.
True, I neglected Malaysian Borneo. Part of Malaysia (and Singapore) falls under Indochina however.

[Valmy]

Japan had very little to do with things.

Um...the campaign in Burma?

I am sorry the humiliation of the British in Asia during WWII is what made their Asian Empire untenable.  At least Slim allowed them to leave with some dignity intact.

[Jaron]

Tyr is the Alexander Seil of Britain.

[jimmy olsen]

Tyr is the Alexander Seil of Britain.

Who?

[Josquius]

Japan had very little to do with things.

Um...the campaign in Burma?

I am sorry the humiliation of the British in Asia during WWII is what made their Asian Empire untenable.  At least Slim allowed them to leave with some dignity intact.

The Burman campaign wasn't too significant in the grand scheme.
True, if the Indians and British had totally fucked up things would have went very different for India but as it was in real history it was the European war which decided India's fate.

[Jaron]

Tyr is the Alexander Seil of Britain.

Who?

Some kid who used to post on Paradox. He was totally fanatical about Russia. We used to argue for hours on IRC, he'd tell me about the mighty Russian fleet being restored in the Baltic and how the US eastern seaboard would fall under its might.

[saskganesh]

The Pacific war was a sideshow. The Chinese-Japanese cripple fight doesn't matter.

If the Japanese had won those Siberian divisions would not have been able to save Moscow.  Just saying.

the Japanese had limited logistical capability to invade Siberia while SE Asia and Indonesia had resources essential for their war effort. Siberia offered nothing.

If Japan tried to force the issue, I do believe the Russians could have still withdrawn those divisions, buy time through scorched earth, and then return at a time of their choosing to deal with the invaders. rope a dope leads to Khalhkyn Gol part II.

[jimmy olsen]

The Pacific war was a sideshow. The Chinese-Japanese cripple fight doesn't matter.

If the Japanese had won those Siberian divisions would not have been able to save Moscow.  Just saying.

the Japanese had limited logistical capability to invade Siberia while SE Asia and Indonesia had resources essential for their war effort. Siberia offered nothing.

Wasn't the presence of oil there already known?

[saskganesh]

The Pacific war was a sideshow. The Chinese-Japanese cripple fight doesn't matter.

If the Japanese had won those Siberian divisions would not have been able to save Moscow.  Just saying.

the Japanese had limited logistical capability to invade Siberia while SE Asia and Indonesia had resources essential for their war effort. Siberia offered nothing.

Wasn't the presence of oil there already known?

don't know. deposits may have been identified but the infrastructure would have bene less developed.

Malayasia also had 90% of the world's rubber plantations. it was extremely important.

[Zanza]

From a German perspective, WW2 started on 1 Sept 1939. The start of the war in Asia is just a footnote in our history books as far as I can tell. The only other date that would make sense from Germany's perspective would be 22 June 1941.

[Warspite]

If European powers had not gone to war in 1939, the Sino-Japanese war would have been considered in history a regional or continental affair.

But with the European powers going to war, remember you were mobilising worldwide assets. Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians, all from the New World, picked up rifles and went across oceans to Europe and Africa.

The fighting between the European Allies and the European Axis took place over oceans and two continents. Hell, the Graf Spee even scuttled in Latin American waters.

The above, of course, makes no claims about the relative scale of the conflicts in terms of numbers of men, human suffering, etc.

[The Minsky Moment]

Taken on its own the European theatre of WW2 was no more (or less) a world war than the Napoleonic Wars - it was simply yet another round of the struggle for European mastery dating back to the 16th century.  Yes there was fighting in North Africa and the Atlantic - but there was in the Nappy Wars as well.  The direct involvement of Japan and China is what gave WW2 its global dimension.

To the extent Tyr or others would aruge that absent the war, "x" would have happened anyways, the argument proves too much.  Of course, it is true that over time, long term historical trends will play out.  So what?  It's not like anything Germany was doing or could have done would have prevented the rise of American hyperpower (although if Germany had just stayed all quiet and Weimarlike it could have delayed the inevitable for a longer time).