When did WW2 become WORLD war?, What would be the date?

I'll paste what I said earlier on page 2:

IMO, WWII [...] starts when 2 or more global powers are in a state of war and things can no longer be contained, drawing in more and more small, medium and great powers. Hence, the starting point of a world war is the date on which the uncontainable war between those 2 or more powers started. And that date is obviously the date when France and Britain declared war on Germany.

Quoting MMM:

Oh come on, it's like we're lost in translation or something! The whole point of my previous post was to underline that there is a big difference between South America's involvement and South American involvement!

And like I said before, I agreed with the existence of South American involvement (Brazil) and with South America's diplomatic involvement, but I disagreed with Radub's contention of South America's military involvement.


This post has been edited by Imperialist on December 21, 2008 09:31 pm

Anyway, my oppinion (as if needed by anyone ) is that ww2 started as a series of separate conflicts which, generalizing, "flamed" the entire world, becoming thus of mondial scale - hence the "world war" term!

So, the declaration is important? Germany did NOT declare war on USSR, but still the ensuing conflict still is the bloodiest in history. Neither other states did declare war, USSR among them in certain occasions. Whatever...
Anyway, the date of 03.09.1939 is acepted by the western historians as the beginning, not 01.09 or others. Again, whatever...

This post has been edited by MMM on December 21, 2008 09:32 pm

Germany declared war, I think only the issue of timing it was different.

REICHFUEHRER ADOLF HITLER'S PROCLAMATION ON WAR WITH SOVIET UNION

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/410622a.html

This post has been edited by Imperialist on December 21, 2008 09:38 pm

No formal declaration, however; not BEFORE the beginning of the conflict. Right?

Germany was an European great power, whose military goals in 1939 were limited to Europe, hence the declaration of war of September brought about an European conflict.

Being one of Europe's great powers also meant being part of the world's great powers.

Germany's military goals were initially geographically limited to Europe, but the British and French empires' "nerve centers" were located in Europe too so politically the conflict was far from limited and once it started it no longer was containable. It was a war between 3 great powers (2 of which had possessions trhoughout the globe) with the world order being at stake. A world war.

True, dragos, but it was not a conflict whose results and imensity and outcome could have been predicted by any person or nation. This was not the case with WW1, except details such as the fall of czar, emperor of Germany and of Austro-Hungary They had scenarios for the ending which suited quite well, at least for 20 years.
Germany started only a "minor" conflict, solved in less than a month. If it were not for the intervention of France and especially UK, the conflict would not have been world war from 1939. Perhaps the USSR would not have attacked either on 17.09 - who knows?

That is another theory, developped by authors such as Ernst Nolte, who speaks about an "European civil war" between 1917-1991, or AJP Taylor who sees a 20-years-war from 1914 to 1945. Arguable, but sustainable theories...
It is also true that it was the first war about order (be it world order or, at least, in some countries), either fascist/nazi or communist. Who won?

Not all principal participants in WW 2 were totalitarian regimes. Some were (Western) democracies. And there was Japan, which was neither.

As for who won, we all know that Western democracies and Communism did. However, with the war barely at still, they already faced each other. And as it would turn out, Communism won the war, but eventually lost the peace...

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 22, 2008 09:17 am

1. Japan was much closer to a dictatorial regime (military) than to a democracy
2. It was a rhetoric question, given the known fact that the war started to "protect" Poland finished by translating it and leaving it with 10 million dead! I was just joking...

Imperialist,
Then, the war in the Falklands was not a war. Then, the war in Korea was not a war. Then, the war in Vietnam was not a war.

In all of these cases, life went on as usual at home while troops fought abroad.

There were still elections, farmers still ploughed their fields, workers still went to work, mothers still nursed their babies.
Even in World War 2, life went on as usual. Action happened only at the frontline. As the frontline moved on, life returned to normal. Those harrowing images that you see in movies, with refugees moving in masses, with cities levelled, with soldiers dying, all of that stuff did not happen all over the place all of the time. That horrible stuff happened only at the frontline. In fact, life went on as usual.

As an example, take the September 11 attacks. The images were harrowing, there was suffering, the nation felt under attack, economy was affected, planes were grounded, industry halted locally, the hospitals were groaning under pressure, people were desperate and upset. BUT, in Iowa, the farmer still got up in the morning and harvested his corn.

The same happened everywhere. When troops were landing in Normandy, the playboys still played Blackjack in Nice and the Champagne farmers still watered their vineyards. After France fell, they returned to their " le pain, le boursin et vin". After Austria was annexed, they still had concerts in Saltzburg.
When Berlin was bombed, the pretzel bakeries or beer gardens in Munich still opened for business as usual. Lufthansa still flew relatively regular flights. There was an Oktoberfest in 1944.

There is a war (well, some kind of military operations anyway) going on right now. In America, in the UK, or in Romania, although the boys are fighting abroad, people still have elections, they still go to work, life moves on, just like they did in WW2.

Life went on as usual. There were strains, there was suffering, there were shortcomings, but life went on.

What amd I saying by all this? Not all people living during the war had any real idea of the extent of the war that was going on around them. We know now that it was major, but then, with life going on around, people just knew that they were at war. People did not need to know that this was a "total war" to know that they were at war. That is all.

War is war. If two factions fight, then it is a "war". "Total" is not a prerequisite for a conflict to be called a "war".

Radu

Radu, this is to some extent correct. But, according to your theory, there never was a total war, because in all the countries there were moments of "business as usual". Perhaps less in USSR or in Germany, as Auschwitz and all the other pretty things were not "usual" before 1933. And the conflicts you've been so kind to mention were limited, to say the least.

I am not the one pushing the issue of "total war or nothing".
I am not the one who sees things in black and white.

All I said was that the state of "total war" as described by Imperialist was not reached by all nations involved. Furthermore, when it was reached, that state was reached quite late in the war. By that stage, those nations had been at war for a while.

As I said so many times before, war is war. It does not have to be "total war".

"Total war" is a side issue.

Radu

Who is pushing "total war or nothing"? I guess you mean me. I never did that. I said Brazil was militarily involved, but its involvement was token. "Token forces" doesn't mean "no forces". Saying Brazil sent token forces doesn't mean I claimed it was not involved.

I never said that all nations reached a state of total war. I categorised the nations involved in WW2 as (1) great powers involved in (total) war on one or several fronts alongside allied small or medium powers; and (2) states that were invaded (some of them twice - invaded and later on re-invaded/liberated), bearing the effects of war. Those categories make Europe and Asia clearly involved, while South America as a continent was not. A majority of its countries were diplomatically involved though. Which I never denied.

So why are we arguing?

Radub, war is war but some people have looked more in-depth into the issue and have identified different types of war.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on December 22, 2008 05:37 pm