WW2 Start Date

[Oexmelin]

I blame Bushitler.

[The Brain]

Yellow wars are of little consequence. 1 Sep 1939.

[derspiess]

Can I change my vote?  I want to be harrangued...

ewwwww.

Yeah, Harang is rather ugly.

[jimmy olsen]

If this poll was aimed at the general American public, 12-7-1941 really isn't a bad option since there are plenty of people I am sure who have no idea that the war had been going on more than two years prior to Pearl Harbor.  But obviously if you have no interest in history, you're not going to be posting here.

Indeed. Seeing the WWII monument in Washington (apart from its fascist conception) inscribed with: «World War II: 1941-1945» is horribly strange to a foreign eye.

Well for a memorial I think those dates make sense since American involvement in the war only began on Decemeber 7th, 1941.

[The Larch]

I voted September the 1st, as it's the canonical date after all, but if I wanted to be nitpicky I would have chosen the 16th of July, 1936.

[Barrister]

Indeed. Seeing the WWII monument in Washington (apart from its fascist conception) inscribed with: «World War II: 1941-1945» is horribly strange to a foreign eye.

Well for a memorial I think those dates make sense since American involvement in the war only began on Decemeber 7th, 1941.

Lend-lease?

[jimmy olsen]

I blame Bushitler.

Actually, Clinton is the one who authorized the memorial.

[jimmy olsen]

Indeed. Seeing the WWII monument in Washington (apart from its fascist conception) inscribed with: «World War II: 1941-1945» is horribly strange to a foreign eye.

Well for a memorial I think those dates make sense since American involvement in the war only began on Decemeber 7th, 1941.

Lend-lease?

Combat involvement.

[The Larch]

Indeed. Seeing the WWII monument in Washington (apart from its fascist conception) inscribed with: «World War II: 1941-1945» is horribly strange to a foreign eye.

Well for a memorial I think those dates make sense since American involvement in the war only began on Decemeber 7th, 1941.

Lend-lease?

And wasn't there also some limited naval warfare in the North Atlantic, with the US navy protecting British convoys?

[Valmy]

The 1937 date was bound to be popular on Languish because around here people like to a) be contrarian, and b) prove they are GENIOUSes by pulling out more obscure bits of knowledge--though in this case 1937 should have at least been a poll option.

Don't you think it is a little weird the WWII ends with Japan losing the war they started in 1937?

[Eddie Teach]

The 1937 date was bound to be popular on Languish because around here people like to a) be contrarian, and b) prove they are GENIOUSes by pulling out more obscure bits of knowledge--though in this case 1937 should have at least been a poll option.

Don't you think it is a little weird the WWII ends with Japan losing the war they started in 1937?

It ends with them losing the war they started in 1941.

[Valmy]

Well for a memorial I think those dates make sense since American involvement in the war only began on Decemeber 7th, 1941.

I wonder if in Danish Textbooks it says:

"World War II occured between 4:15 AM and 6:15 AM on the 9th of April 1940"

[Valmy]

with them losing the war they started in 1941.

China was not part of WWII now?

I mean the whole reason they attacked us was because of what was going on in China and our objection to it.  How are they not part of the same war?  That makes no sense.

[derspiess]

Indeed. Seeing the WWII monument in Washington (apart from its fascist conception) inscribed with: «World War II: 1941-1945» is horribly strange to a foreign eye.

Maybe that's because it's called the *National* World War II Memorial. 

[Valmy]

Maybe that's because it's called the *National* World War II Memorial. 

Yeah we don't have a faggy tribute to our allies like in the Korean War one.