So, when *did* World War II start?

[The Brain]

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.

[crazy canuck]

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.

See WWI

[Josquius]

I wonder if its in terms of % of the world population or economy. Just Europe + India + Africa has to make up a majority at the time?

[Sheilbh]

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.

Also not a scholar but I think this is actually helping me clarify what I'm thinking on it - and to recant what I said before.

My argument would be that what distinguishes 1937, to DB's point, from previous "incidents" in China is the scale and ambition of Japanese aggression and Chinese resistance. It is also that which I think means it cannot be contained as a regional conflict anymore. It is changing American policy in the Pacific and Soviet policy in Asia and Europe, with the ongoing Japanese-Soviet clashes testing possibilities. In turn every Japanese escalation in the Pacific, but also in China (such as Ichi-Go) are in large part caused by the relationship between that "regional" conflict and Japan's global position because I don't think they can be disentangeld. As it happens I think each Japanese escalation just drags them further in and does not provide the escape they're aiming for.

It's perhaps like if the Czechs had resisted in 38 and then Germany invades Poland as a way to escape the bind they have found themselves in.

To a large extent I think Japanese and German aggression are the twin engines of the war and this is where it revs up decisively. So perhaps WW2 only becomes global in 1941, but starts in 1937.

I wonder if its in terms of % of the world population or economy. Just Europe + India + Africa has to make up a majority at the time?

Yeah I mean the British Indian Army in the Second World War is, I believe, still the largest army ever without conscription.

See WWI

Yeah I think the better argument for WW1 as a world war would be about its global consequences especially with the collapse of the Ottomans, Russian Revolution/collapse of the Tsarist empire plus, again, Japan and China.

I've said it before but I think there's a really interesting global history to be done on the 20s. It's an extraordinary period.

[Zoupa]

On the other hand, the Sino-Japanese War made US engage in economic warfare with Japan, which I would argue forced their hand with attacking US and the Allies in 1941.

You can't be serious. 

[DGuller]

On the other hand, the Sino-Japanese War made US engage in economic warfare with Japan, which I would argue forced their hand with attacking US and the Allies in 1941.

You can't be serious. 

Valuable addition to the discussion, as always.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Also not a scholar but I think this is actually helping me clarify what I'm thinking on it - and to recant what I said before.

My argument would be that what distinguishes 1937, to DB's point, from previous "incidents" in China is the scale and ambition of Japanese aggression and Chinese resistance. It is also that which I think means it cannot be contained as a regional conflict anymore. It is changing American policy in the Pacific and Soviet policy in Asia and Europe, with the ongoing Japanese-Soviet clashes testing possibilities. In turn every Japanese escalation in the Pacific, but also in China (such as Ichi-Go) are in large part caused by the relationship between that "regional" conflict and Japan's global position because I don't think they can be disentangeld. As it happens I think each Japanese escalation just drags them further in and does not provide the escape they're aiming for.

It's perhaps like if the Czechs had resisted in 38 and then Germany invades Poland as a way to escape the bind they have found themselves in.

To a large extent I think Japanese and German aggression are the twin engines of the war and this is where it revs up decisively. So perhaps WW2 only becomes global in 1941, but starts in 1937.

I wonder if its in terms of % of the world population or economy. Just Europe + India + Africa has to make up a majority at the time?

Yeah I mean the British Indian Army in the Second World War is, I believe, still the largest army ever without conscription.

See WWI

Yeah I think the better argument for WW1 as a world war would be about its global consequences especially with the collapse of the Ottomans, Russian Revolution/collapse of the Tsarist empire plus, again, Japan and China.

I've said it before but I think there's a really interesting global history to be done on the 20s. It's an extraordinary period.

I don't follow your argument.  Take a counter factual - what if Germany does not invade Poland and instead Hitler realizes that is pushing too far.  Is the war Japan is fighting still a world war?  Perhaps a war involving France, the Commonwealth and the US occurs eventually. But almost certainly not Germany, Italy, the Balkans - the list goes on.

Further, you say you don't think the conflict in Asia and the conflict in Europe can be "disentangled" but the assertion that they were entangled needs to be established first, and not simply through a bald assertion.

If your point is that events in the world effect others in the world then what makes the Japanese conflict a world war and not other more recent wars. 

[Zoupa]

Don't feel like arguing an insane take. You might want to calibrate your chatgpt input terms.

On the other hand, the Sino-Japanese War made US engage in economic warfare with Japan, which I would argue forced their hand with attacking US and the Allies in 1941.

You can't be serious. 

Valuable addition to the discussion, as always.

[Sheilbh]

I don't follow your argument.  Take a counter factual - what if Germany does not invade Poland and instead Hitler realizes that is pushing too far.  Is the war Japan is fighting still a world war?  Perhaps a war involving France, the Commonwealth and the US occurs eventually. But almost certainly not Germany, Italy, the Balkans - the list goes on.

Well I think that would mean that would end my argument that WW2 is basically driven by twin engines or motors of German and Japanese aggression and the scale of their ambition. If Hitler or the Japanese could be sated than I don't think you have WW2 in any sense. One of the conditions of it is no longer present - same as if Japan was satisfied in 1937 but Hitler still invades Poland.

However I think at the same time the Sino-Japanese war would not have stayed "regional" and would have involved eventually either the Soviets or the Americans.

Further, you say you don't think the conflict in Asia and the conflict in Europe can be "disentangled" but the assertion that they were entangled needs to be established first, and not simply through a bald assertion.

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.

[Josquius]

However I think at the same time the Sino-Japanese war would not have stayed "regional" and would have involved eventually either the Soviets or the Americans.

I'm not sure there.
For sure there was an issue that China wouldn't surrender no matter how much Japan took. And obviously giving everything up and going home was never on the cards for Japan.

But then even in history as we know it Japan knew war with the US was a risk. They had to launch the Pearl Harbour attack and hurt America severely and quickly to try and get a quick peace.

Without WW2 in Europe they've the added issue there of the UK and other Europeans still appearing and (to a lesser extent) actually being far more of a threat.
Going against he US alone was a huge risk they would rather not have taken.... Going against everyone else was madness.

But then what else was going to happen. The die was cast. Was there no chance of cause correction for Japan.

For the Soviets... That's complicated. Depends what we are doing with them when we say no WW2 in europe. As for sure that's where their attention was.
I do think absent the Nazis and German aggression you'd end up with a WW2 against the Soviets.
No nazis would change a lot of course but assuming things otherwise went on track the west actually helping Finland for instance.

[DGuller]

Don't feel like arguing an insane take. You might want to calibrate your chatgpt input terms.

On the other hand, the Sino-Japanese War made US engage in economic warfare with Japan, which I would argue forced their hand with attacking US and the Allies in 1941.

You can't be serious. 

Valuable addition to the discussion, as always.

If you did feel like arguing, I'm sure you'd come up with something insightful, judging by your very clever and original attempt at a putdown.

[Razgovory]

Don't feel like arguing an insane take. You might want to calibrate your chatgpt input terms.

On the other hand, the Sino-Japanese War made US engage in economic warfare with Japan, which I would argue forced their hand with attacking US and the Allies in 1941.

You can't be serious. 

Valuable addition to the discussion, as always.

[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.

Ok, the war effort of Japan cannot be disentangled from the Japanese war effort.  Where does that get us?

[Zoupa]

Don't feel like arguing an insane take. You might want to calibrate your chatgpt input terms.

On the other hand, the Sino-Japanese War made US engage in economic warfare with Japan, which I would argue forced their hand with attacking US and the Allies in 1941.

You can't be serious. 

Valuable addition to the discussion, as always.

If you did feel like arguing, I'm sure you'd come up with something insightful, judging by your very clever and original attempt at a putdown.

I'm sure I would too. It's nice that I don't have to though.

[Sheilbh]

Ok, the war effort of Japan cannot be disentangled from the Japanese war effort.  Where does that get us?

The reason I don't think the Sino-Japanese war could be contained as a regional conflict. The Japanese could not understand why the Chinese now, after all the previous incidents of the 30s and 20s were resisting, and inflicted fury at that resistance on the Chinese, which only strengthened it - deepening the quagmire. They were trapped and unable to get out. Despite incredible success against various various centres of power in China: the army, the economy, various capitals, civilian populations/will to fight, the Chinese clung on and were still fighting. The remaining power was foreign aid - initially through Guangzhou, then Indochina, then the Burma road and, always, from the Soviet Union too. So the route to victory in the regional war was to expand it and close off the foreign support.

That made Soviet support for the Chinese all the more valuable for Stalin who through the 30s was as preoccupied with Japanese militarism as the Nazis. It also outraged the Americans and increased their support for the Chinese. The Japanese viewed themselves as being encircled and needing to break out either through war with the Soviets or the US - which they understood as a risk (estimated their chance of victory against the US as 50-50) but better than "being ground down without doing anything". It was fight or perish. One leader noting that the prospects of war "are not bright" and how they all wondered if there wasn't a peaceful solution before concluding "on the other hand, it is not possible to maintain the status quo. Hence one unavoidably reaches the conclusion that we must go to war."

And in much the same way as they were incapable of understanding why China wouldn't give in, in the event Tojo's assessment was that the US would be "enraged for a while, but later [...] come to understand" why Japan attacked. Military escalation was always their solution, there was no balancing of ends and means or risk and reward and a catastrophic inability to understand how others would respond or view their strategic picture. There's a similar dynamic with Ichigo which was accompanied with a peace offering to the Nationalists (one of many and Chiang was constantly threatening to accept them).

They get stuck in a quagmire, the only way out is escalation which involves them in a wider war to which the only solution is to end the quagmire with escalation (and not very good terms). The only solution is always to wade in further. And as I say I think it's that dynamic which is the driver of WW2 in Asia - in much the same way as Hitler's aggression is in Europe. It starts earlier in Asia and metastasises (and ends) later.