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

OK, if it was a joke, then it was a joke. No problemo.

Brazilian airmen did fight over Italy, so South America was militarily involved, too. Antarctica was not, however.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 19, 2008 05:37 pm

by that definition, WW1 was the Seven Years War (on 3 continents) and WW2 the Napoleonic Wars (also 3 continents).

A lot of South America was involved.

Have a look at the parties involved in the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers_of_World_War_II

Radu

PS As an aviation enthusiast, I have a good bit of interest in the Brazilian P47s that flew alongside Allied aircraft in Europe
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...num=4&ct=title#

A lot of South America was involved.

Have a look at the parties involved in the war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers_of_World_War_II

Radu

PS As an aviation enthusiast, I have a good bit of interest in the Brazilian P47s that flew alongside Allied aircraft in Europe
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...num=4&ct=title#

Yes I was well aware that the countries of South America were diplomatically involved. I meant South America was not a theater of war.

I was not aware that Brazil sent an expeditionary force of 25,000 to Europe (according to your Wiki link) and I don't know if that force fought or not - I certainly haven't heard about it in the documentaries I've seen.

Still, Brazil's expeditionary force and planes and Mexico's squadron doesn't mean the whole South America was involved in the world war.

That expeditionary force must have accounted for a small % of Brazil's or the continent's forces and I doubt Brazil's economy was geared for total war. It's involvement in WWII was rather symbolic.

Which brings me back to the need to clearly define the terms we use. What are we supposed to understand by "involved continent"? 1/3 of it taking part in direct military action? Parts of it as theater of war? Indirect involvement? Simple declarations of war from a majority of its countries (without any subsequent wars) would suffice?

Does it really matter if these troops saw a lot, some or no action? What does "involvement" mean? There are hundreds of people who went to war and never saw any "action" because they worked decoding radio messages, operated a radar station or refuelled planes on an airfield and never got a chance to fire a gun in anger. Shall we deny them the glory of being called "participants"? In my opinion, if their nation sent them to fight, then they were "involved" - the fact that they saw little "action" is a touch of good luck, but not a disclaimer. You tell a Brazilian that their pilots were irrelevant when they shot down German planes in Italy and you may get a very strong response.

Well, if we are to say that "involvement of a continent" is limited only to people fighting on home ground, then the North American continent did not see much "action" either. And then, if we are to use that rule, does that mean that Africa was not really involved because the majority of the guys fighting there were not locals?

I assume that the involvement of a continent refers to the fighting nation rather than the location of the battle.

That is why I said that there are lots of answers and all may be right.

Radu

WWII was a total war. Involvement in a total war implies certain things. When saying a whole continent was involved in a total war then that's not big, that's huge.

You say "I assume that the involvement of a continent refers to the fighting nation rather than the location of the battle".

But that would mean that if 1 state from a continent is involved in the war then that whole continent is involved.

Well that's obviously incorrect since that 1 state contains only a share of the continent's people/resources/economy. Even if that 1 state is geared for total war that would still not mean the whole continent is involved.

When you add that a majority of that continent's states are not militarily involved in that war, and that no major battles took place on that continent then saying that the whole continent is involved would be wrong.

Moreover, the couple of South American participants were not in a total war stance and their involvement amounts to an expeditionary corps and some air force squadrons sent as token forces part of a far bigger coalition. Their economic effort is incomparable to the one exerted by the other participants.

So those couple of countries are indeed minor participants, nobody can deny that, but that is very far from calling it the involvement of their whole continent.

How about that Nazi UFO base in Antarctica?
Radu

Imperialist,
Very often, you see things like "War in the Pacific", "European Conflict", "Asian market", "American Literature" etc. If we start picking them apart, of course there are holes in these terms because "not everyone is involved". All of those terms are rather symbolic.

I cannot possibly understand why you would not give the South American states the recognition they deserve. And Brazil (larger even than Europe) was not the only one involved.

Anyway, in my opinion, when the "continent" issue was brought about, it was only to figure out the spread of the conflict in the sense of "how far across the globe it reached".

No one in their right mind can possibly claim "total continental involvement" as a grounds for "evaluation of world war" simply because the only entire continent that was totally involved was Australia and that was only because it is the only state+continent. In the case of other continents, each featured a plethora of states with varying degrees of involvement varying from none to total.

Radu

In South America, which is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SACN_member_states.jpg

Only Brazil was militarily involved by sending token forces. The majority of South American states were not militarily involved while other continents were either ravaged by war or major states located on them were conducting large 2-front campaigns of total war (United States). There is really no comparison.

Australia was not the only continent involved.

In Europe a majority of states were involved (either invaded or invadors or both in various successions). The ones not involved in the war were a minority - Portugal, Spain, Sweden (anyone else?). We can clearly state that Europe was an involved continent.

In Asia a majority of (today's) states were invaded and/or involved in total war campaigns: China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (French Indochina), Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore (British Malaya), Indonesia (Dutch East Indies), Burma, Philippines, China, Russia, Iran. We can clearly state that Asia was an involved continent.

South America? Not only did it not have great powers involved in total war campaigns (the likes of Japan in Asia, Germany/Russia in Europe or US in North America), but also it did not experience invasions from powers engaged in total war campaigns (the list of countries invaded by the countries listed above).

So it can be safely said that South America was not an involved continent.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on December 20, 2008 11:14 am

Sorry to say, but South America wasn't really left out: aside from the late declarations of war of some countries, let's not forget the underground front (funny as it may sound) and the maritime battles: does La Plata tell you anything? Or the sinking of the virtually entire Brazilian merchant fleet?
Neither was Africa, as most of it belonged - as colonies - to European powers involved. WW2 effectively forced all the states to pick sides more or less; yes, even Switzerland! They were in good relations w/ 3-rd Reich... Neutrality was quite over-rated but this would be worthy of another topic (maybe).

OOPS! My reply was a little "out of date", as I haven't seen the last page w/ its posts. I should rephrase some of it...
However,

is an interesting point. What can we say then about the SU, whose Asian part is bigger than the rest of Asia? Would this mean that in 1968, for example, Asia invaded Czechoslovakia?
And other affirmation, about continents ravaged by war, also doesn't apply to North America because there weren't any land battles there, nor air bombing (except the handful of incendiary balloons sent by the Japanese) or blocade...
It is - as always - very hard to include these extremely different situations under one heading, especially when considering the fact that even the headings (such as total war, world war, involvement etc.) aren't agreed upon by all. In fact, nothing is and that's the beauty of it all, right?
What UFO base, Radub?

About wikipedia: look what can be found on it!

What brilliant thinking! SEVERAL?!?!?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_UFOs

There are a few who believe this to be true.

Radu

For all practical purposes, the Second World War actually started at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (Trianon Hall).........!!!!!!!!!!! That's when the involvement of more than one continent started. If the war had not escalated in Europe (to involve the Japs' allies, the Germans) it would have stayed in Asia and continued there (maybe to spread to oceania, south america or the middle east!!).

All this just speculation!!!

is an interesting point. What can we say then about the SU, whose Asian part is bigger than the rest of Asia? Would this mean that in 1968, for example, Asia invaded Czechoslovakia?

And other affirmation, about continents ravaged by war, also doesn't apply to North America because there weren't any land battles there, nor air bombing (except the handful of incendiary balloons sent by the Japanese) or blocade...

It is - as always - very hard to include these extremely different situations under one heading, especially when considering the fact that even the headings (such as total war, world war, involvement etc.) aren't agreed upon by all. In fact, nothing is and that's the beauty of it all, right?
What UFO base, Radub?

Why do you bring size into this? It doesn't matter if Russia's Asian part is bigger than the rest of Asia, Russia is not the only state in Asia. That was my point. Nor is it the only state in Europe. So it would be wrong to say the Asian continent was involved in the war of 1968 (Russia against Czechoslovakia) or the European continent was involved in the war of 1905 (Russia against Japan).

About continents ravaged by war. Yes, North America was not ravaged by war, but the US was involved in total wars on 2 fronts! I think anyone can figure out America was pretty much involved in WWII. Brazil's "involvement", though worthy of mention, is out of the league of WWII and it isn't even close of representing even a fraction of the capabilities of the entire South American continent.

If we can't agree on the terms we use then the whole discussion becomes pointless or chaotic. Since we can't agree on "involved continent", we should stop using it.

IMO, WWII doesn't start when all continents are "involved", it 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.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on December 20, 2008 09:36 pm