WW2 Start Date

[Strix]

Not to state the obvious but didn't WWII really begin when Hitler became Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934?

If Hitler doesn't rise to power than a World War doesn't take place. Who shot who first and where is just the first overt sign of Hitler's actions and plans. He had a clear plan and goal in mind before taking power. Once he got control the resulting conflict was inevitable. The only thing left to be decided was where and when someone would try to stop him.

[Ideologue]

I always thought it was weird that the 1914-18 conflict was given the moniker of a "world war" (although, granted, iirc only after WW2).  Did the participation of the Ottoman Empire, a basically European state that was a perennial factor in pan-European conflicts, create a universal conflagration?  Did the addition of Indian troops to the British order of battle globalize the conflict?  Did the dick moves of the Japanese at Tsingtao and in the Pacific really make the Great War a world one?

I agree with the plurality that puts the beginning of World War II in 1937--with the rider that I would also find December, 1941 very acceptable, since that is when, Russo-Japanese non-aggression pact notwithstanding, the two previously independent conflicts merged into a single, mostly-integrated global war.

[Zanza]

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.

We should rename WW2 into WW1 then as the war we know as WW1 was fought almost exclusively in Europe too.

[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.

We should rename WW2 into WW1 then as the war we know as WW1 was fought almost exclusively in Europe too.

tell that to all the dead Turks.

[Zanza]

Not to state the obvious but didn't WWII really begin when Hitler became Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934?

That was stating the obvious. The important events like the Enabling Act and the "Gleichschaltung" happened in 1933.

If Hitler doesn't rise to power than a World War doesn't take place. Who shot who first and where is just the first overt sign of Hitler's actions and plans. He had a clear plan and goal in mind before taking power. Once he got control the resulting conflict was inevitable. The only thing left to be decided was where and when someone would try to stop him.

WW2 was hardly inevitable in 1933/34. I would say that Britain and France had the power to stop Hitler with a minor conflict until say 1936.

[Ideologue]

tell that to all the dead Turks.

Depends on whether you define Turkey as extra-European.  If you define Turkey as extra-European, you might as well define Russia as outside the borders of Europe, and the Napoleonic Wars become "World War I" (or World Wars I-IV if I remember the numbers of starts and stops correctly) and the Crimean War would be "World War II" (or V).

Edit: and geographically, yes, the decisive campaigns in the Turkish part of the war were fought in Asia, to a great degree by Arabs.  But you've pointed out that the removal in space and in context does not remove the essentially regional, European dimension of the war as a whole.

[Zanza]

tell that to all the dead Turks.

Those that fell in Gallipoli?

[Valmy]

tell that to all the dead Turks.

Those that fell in Gallipoli?

The Turks who fought with New Zealanders to prevent Serbs from killing Austrian Archdukes?  Yep.

[Strix]

WW2 was hardly inevitable in 1933/34. I would say that Britain and France had the power to stop Hitler with a minor conflict until say 1936.

It was inevitable given the power players and politics involved at the time. That Britain and France had the power to stop Hitler is moot because Britain and France lacked the resolve to do so. 

[frunk]

If you want to play that game you could also call the 7 Years War a world war as it had significant and more important long term battles in America and India.  I'd argue against either that or the Napoleonics, as the major participants were all European powers.  It wasn't until WW I that a major power outside of Europe (counting Turkey/Ottomans as part of Europe) participated in these conflicts.

[The Minsky Moment]

Millions of troops were mobilized and fought and died in western Asia in WW1.  No matter how you define "Turkey" I dont see how anyone could possibly consider places like Arabia or Kut - both sites of significant fighting - to be part of Europe.  And the outcome of the war had at least as significant an impact - if not more so - for that part of the world then for any other.

In addition, tens of thousands of soldiers fought up and down East Africa, with very significant impacts for the millions of people living in that region.  And the German colonial possessions in East Asia in the Pacific - while not major sites of armed confrontation - did ahve real strategic significance.

[Valmy]

In addition, tens of thousands of soldiers fought up and down East Africa, with very significant impacts for the millions of people living in that region.  And the German colonial possessions in East Asia in the Pacific - while not major sites of armed confrontation - did ahve real strategic significance.

And the somewhat pathetic outcome that squabling for the dinky former German islands led to a major rift between Japan and the United States.

[Zanza]

The Turks who fought with New Zealanders to prevent Serbs from killing Austrian Archdukes?  Yep.

New Zealanders also fought Germans to prevent them from killing Poles in a period that Minsky does not consider to be a world war yet.

[Valmy]

New Zealanders also fought Germans to prevent them from killing Poles in a period that Minsky does not consider to be a world war yet.

But that actually makes sense since it was the Germans who were killing the Poles.

[Warspite]

I suppose until someone actually defines what a "World War" is, then this debate will go round in circles. I think what separates a "World War" in our conventional usage from other kinds of global conflict is its industrial and "total" character. For the British, in this sense there is even a marked rupture from the Great War, in that the British government thought it could fight it with a 'business as usual attitude'. No such illusions in 1939, however.

But for me, the entering into war of three major industrial global powers (including two globe-spanning empires) in September 1939 seems the most logical start date.