WW2 Start Date

[Martinus]

So what do you think?

[ulmont]

July 7, 1937, with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident that opened the Second Sino-Japanese War.

[The Minsky Moment]

1937 is a pretty obvious choice - poor poll design here.

[Valmy]

Of the choice provided Sept 1 1939.

I agree that if you consider the Pacific part of WWII (and we should) 1937 is the better start date.

[Josquius]

Hmm...Sept '39 certainly...Lets split the difference and say the 2nd.

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

[Jaron]

Dec 7, 1941

Until then it was a minor European squabble.

[PDH]

28 July 1914.

[ulmont]

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

10-20 million Chinese dead, 3 million Japanese dead, the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime, and marine units with over 100% casualties is a sideshow?

[PDH]

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

10-20 million Chinese dead, 3 million Japanese dead, the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime, and marine units with over 100% casualties is a sideshow?

Recognize the source, For Tyr the following applies:  Sideshow= British action was mainly humiliation.

[Josquius]

10-20 million Chinese dead, 3 million Japanese dead, the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime, and marine units with over 100% casualties is a sideshow?

Compared to the battle for the fate of the entire world that was the European war yes.

[ulmont]

Compared to the battle for the fate of the entire world that was the European war yes.

Not sure how you decide the "fate of the entire world" while ignoring the war going on in fully half of it.

[Eddie Teach]

10-20 million Chinese dead, 3 million Japanese dead, the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime, and marine units with over 100% casualties is a sideshow?

Compared to the battle for the fate of the entire world that was the European war yes.

Pffft. We'd have just beaten the Nazis in the Cold War instead.

[Josquius]

Compared to the battle for the fate of the entire world that was the European war yes.

Not sure how you decide the "fate of the entire world" while ignoring the war going on in fully half of it.

Even today the European region is more significant than Asia.
Back then the gap was huge.
Even if Japan managed to conquer China and create its co-prosperity sphere...it still wouldn't dominate the world. It would be a very powerful country and given a few decades could be a super power sure but it wouldn't become too massivly powerful when compared to the more industrialised western countries.
Germany however dominating Europe-Russia...Now that is a very very scary prospect. It could indeed dominate the world.
Euro-centric sure, but back then the world was a very euro-centric place.

Also in the evil stakes the prize just has to go to Germany. Even ignoring the relative powers of the two.
Japan was a country which just out of living memory had still been a medieval, feudal state. Continuing to act in a medieval manner...meh.
Germany though had been a corner-stone of the 'civilized world' for as long as there had been such a thing. They then despite their advancment decended into high-tech industrialised mass-murder.

[Valmy]

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.

[Tamas]

28 July 1914.

And the Sino-Japanese thing does not matter. Without the war in Europe, it would have not been a bigger deal than Italy's adventure in Ethiopia