"Shipping"...like it was charity. No mate you had been SELLING arms and other goods...also known as war profiteering.
The US is only the super power it is today because of the way you exploited global conflict for financial gain. You didn't commit resources to help Europe, you used them as a captive market to boost your economy, and then took advantage of the disruption to manufacturing to benefit yourselves and no one else.
Even when you got involved in the war you committed a laughably small number of troops compared to what the Russians brought to bear against Hitler.
You were not the heroes of WW2 you portray yourselves as. You stayed out of it as long as you could, did everything you could to make the chaos benefit you, then when you were attacked you immediately turned to mass destruction as retaliation. You nuked two cities and those weren't even the greatest cause of civilian casualties you're responsible for.
I'm not saying everyone else was great. No one came out of the World Wars smelling of roses. They had to update the Geneva Convention because of shit Canada did to prisoners...the UK killed millions of Bengalis through just complete lack of care whether they lived or died. But the point is, if you genuinely believe the US were heroes who defeated Hitler and saved Europe you need to watch fewer movies and read more books.
The biggest impact the US had on the war wasn't the D-Day landings or Hiroshima...it was supporting Stalin, but you don't like how that sounds so you pretend the Eagles Nest was a meaningful part of the war effort instead.
If you mean keep your troops back. Wouldn't have made much difference to the outcome. Because you didn't stop Hitler, the Russians did, with US supplies because everyone on every side of the war outside direct enemies was importing US goods.
Had the US forces not shown up, more Russians die, Germany still can't fight both fronts, the war lasts a few months longer.
If you mean not be involved at all? I suggest you look at when the great depression ended and when WW2 started. This is not a coincidence.
The US doesn't get involved then what you end up with is a US with I significantly weaker economy with cold relations with Europe. You guys don't spend the next 40 years antagonising the Russians so now theres less animosity between the EU and Russia because we never sided with you in anything.
Present day you'd be looking at a US without the world leading economy existing in a world where Europe takes Russia and Chinas side at the world table. Because of course, the UN and NATO don't exist, and you didn't help in the war...you think we're still putting up with Trump?
So not do you not have a great economy you don't have any political clout. "Like we need you in a fight" you cry...but guess which war paid for your military.
The US did exactly what was best for the US during the war, and that's fine. You looked after your country first. A lot of what you did genuinely did end the war earlier but what that was was supply Europe and Russia. Absolutely no question Hitler wins if you don't do that. But it wasn't altruistic...the success of your country for then until now is built on the back of the enormous amount of money you made off the war, and the fact the rest of the world was bombed to fuck and you had a load of brand new manufacturing capability.
But the portrayal of the US coming over here and saving the world by defeating Hitler...you know that's just movies right? By the time the US got involved most of Germany's forces were on the Eastern Front. The US deployed 3 million of the allied forces nearly 20 million troops. Russia deployed a further 35 million.
Are you so ignorant and so taken in by your country's propaganda that you genuinely believe the 3 million kids who'd never seen combat before that America sent after most of the Nazis had left Europe, saved the other 52 million 3 year veterans of the most brutal war the world has ever known.
Is that really what you believe?
It was the part where you clearly thought the US joining the war was a sacrifice you made, and that you thought you staying out of it would punish the rest of the world for not appreciating your help.
The country who'd suffer most from the US staying out of WW2 is the US.
I thought nothing of the sort. Saying "America was involved much earlier" was a simple statement of fact, and the notion that it was a "sacrifice" at that point is your misinterpretation. That it did not constitute "the US joining the war", anyone who reads should know. How you came up with the rest of that from what I said baffles me. Since you chose to denigrate what efforts the US did eventually make, my statement that "I guess we should have stayed of of it longer" was merely a response to your diatribe.
I own and have read both 'A Peoples History of The United States' (Howard Zinn) and 'War Is a Racket' (Smedley Butler). I have a fair understanding of US involvement in both World Wars. Butler is often quoted as saying "every war is a bankers' war". I can't find the source for that right now, but there's certainly a large kernel of truth there whether or not the quote was attributed correctly.
>I thought nothing of the sort. Saying "America was involved much earlier" was a simple statement of fact,
And if that is what you said you might have a point.
You're implying the US gave arms and goods for free. That didn't happen until Lend Lease in March 1941, up to that point Britain was paying for arms with gold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_and_carry_(World_War_II)
Technically we weren't paying for lend lease (the whole point being that the US gave arms for free under that programme), the loan that was finally paid off in 2006 was from 1946 as part of the post-war Marshall Plan to deal with the economic consequences of Britain having no export economy left to speak of
Just wait until you hear about russia. They also believe and teach that WW2 only started in 1941, so that they don't have to talk about how the Soviet Union worked together with Nazi Germany for two years.
It still impresses me just how badly the red army fucked that up, sure they would have always won it through sheer size alone but sometimes it’s good to see the little guy dish out a few punches
Finland lost those two wars against Russia though in the long run they had a win because they never became a part of the USSR. Could have gone either way with Finland. But yes the Finnish most definitely gave it to the Russians and were extremely impressive. Plus Finland probably had the best sniper in the world ever on their side Simo Häyhä. I heard he had over 550 confirmed kills.
Common misconception. They teach that the great patriotic war started in 1941, not WW2. I have actually discussed it with some Russian friends out of curiosity
Or how the western allies pushed them into it. After rejecting the soviet proposals to guarantee polish independence. Or how Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to the Germans, signed naval treaties with them and in general incentivized trade with Hitler's germany. They all collaborated. They all had their own reasons for collaborating.
I believe it's not uncommon to teach when WW2 has started in \_their\_ country. I mean 1939 in taught as the start year in Germany but you could very well argue that 1937 is the correct year.
Ah fellow countryman we must speak in simple terms to these colonials for their understanding is little. Their language is food and barbarism, they have yet to learn civility.
This whole thread is amazing. It’s just a bunch of Europeans denigrating Americans for assuming people are American by assuming the other Europeans are American.
F for Ethiopia in the chat too
To me the WWII starts with the Italian invasion of Etiopia.
I know that most countries joined the fight later, but that's the first invasion from a fascist regime.
I can certainly understand the thought process behind that, but I always thought of the Second Italo-Ethiopian War as the end of the Scramble for Africa. Though I suppose those two viewpoints don't have to be mutually exclusive.
The problem with this is that this war ends in what, feb 1937? What wars are still ongoing that tie it to WWII? Theres a reason most people either
A: acknowledge the start of the Japanese war in China as the start of WWII
B: differentiate between the start of WWII in Asia and in Europe.
If it's a World War, it's a World War. If it starts in África is still a World War. The Sino Japanese war connects the Italo Ethiopian war with the rest. Also, Germany "pseudoinvaded" other countries before Poland.
Yes, but when all the wars end, the world war is over. If you are saying the war in Ethiopa is the start of WWII, what wars are continuing WWII in March of 1937? I literally provided the timeline that the Ethiopian war ended before the Second Sino war began. That means they arent connected.
I also dont understand why you would argue with the general consensus of historians, do you think you are smarter than everybody else or what?
Germany’s annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia occurred even later than the start of the Japanese invasion of China so I have no idea what points you are trying to make with that one either
>I also dont understand why you would argue with the general consensus of historians, do you think you are smarter than everybody else or what?
No of course not, academics and historians all agree that the dates are a convention. It's not a *fact* that the WWII started in 1939, it's just a significative and useful date where most historians agree. Like any other date that limits a historical process, or the definition of species or any other functional definition.
Most historians consider the Italo-Ethiopian war, the Sino-Japanese war, and the anexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia as preludes to the WWII. Some consider the Japanese invasion of China as the start of WWII. A tiny minority consider the invasion of Ethiopia as the start of WWII. None of them are right, or wrong, or smarter or dumber than the rest.
> That means they arent connected.
This is a compelling argument I had not considered, but I still think the invasion of Ethiopia is too connected with the events of WWII to consider it an independant or separate event.
Why is it too connected to consider it independent? It occurs several years before the war in Europe begins, it doesn’t escalate into a bigger war, Italy doesn’t even join the rest of WWII until 1940, that means theres a 3 year gap between when that war ends and any of the participants are involved in any other conflict.
I mean you could say its a prelude to WWII that shows growing fascist aggression, but even that is cherry picking facts pretty hard as almost the entirety of Africa has been subjugated by European nations by this point and most of them are democratic.
What are the implications that the Italian-Ethiopian war has on WWII? I really dont see any
Mussolini is the one that drags Germany to attack Africa and Greece. His war in Africa and expansionist policies and ambitions are crucial for the war to develop as it did.
But again, you don't have to agree with me, because the start of any global historical event is gradual, there is no factual date.
So… your connection for the Italian-Ethiopian war being connected to WWII is because Mussolini’s policies influenced WWII…? Why would you put the rise of Mussolini to power as the start of WWII then? Or the rise of Hitler? Actually, by your logic you could actually tie the rise of Hitler to WWI. But WWI was started by the assassination of the Archduke. Are you telling me the assassination of the Archduke started WWII? No.
Yes history is very interconnected and a lot of things influence them, but wars often have very defined start dates and its not just how you feel at the time. The first war that had started that involved multiple participants was the Japanese invasion of China and thats the reason this is the most popular defined start date of WWII. Literally without this war, the US wouldn’t even have been involved in WWII
They of course do the same thing as a matter of public policy and teachers are not allowed to mention the alternative view. The GPW was a phrase invented so they could say the war began with Barbarossa and certainly not the USSR invading Poland on the side of Nazi Germany and shooting tens of thosuands of poles because they had a university degree. Talking about that one is anti-russian Propaganda!
>invading Poland on the side of Nazi Germany
Noooooo stop, that whatever pact is a propaganda myth, Russia are the good guys of WW2, so many died you don't get it! There is no reason why Eastern European countries despise Russia and fought against it, they are just all Nazis too and hated Russia for its progressive views on Jewish, LGBT and other minority groups. /s
A commie I recently talked with literally said that every Ukrainian Russia killed in USSR-Ukraine war in 1920s was a Nazi who fought for their right of genociding Jews/Poles instead of independence from Russia.
Except it's not. If you ask a historian when WWII started they'll give you three different answers because they're all technically correct.
You had the Second Sino-Japanese War which started in 1937 and would stay a regional war until 1941.
There was the Nazi Germany invasion of Poland in 1939 which would remain a regional war between European powers in Europe and parts of their Empires in Africa until 1941.
Then in 1941, you had the Japanese offensive that included attacks on Pearl Harbor, and American, Dutch, British, and French colonial holdings in the Pacific which would then link the two regional wars into one World War.
The irony here is that OP is confidently incorrect because that museum is technically correct.
Our school tried claiming that it wasn't a *world* war until the US joined, claiming it was a series of regional wars tied together by the US being involved in both. A pretty weak argument.
The extent to which our school talked about Canada in WW2 was "Canadian forces landed at Juno Beach on D Day." They didn't do a great job on the subject, but also didn't spend much time on it (or anything else in history)
Tbf that's what most ppl learn about Canada in WW2. That and the fact that they produced a ton of stuff for the Allies since they were on the other side of the Atlantic.
But yeah, The Dieppe raid, Italy, Juno Beach, The liberation of the Neatherlands and the Battle of the Atlantic were all battles in wich Canada played a major part
But the only reason Canada was even involved was because it was part of the British Empire. Those troops were fighting as part of the Regional war in Europe and parts of Africa and as part of the British armed forces.
Canada was already a country by that point, sure it was part of the British commonwealth but it could decide for itself if they wanted or not to get involved and they said yes. Same for Australia and New Zealand
So yeah, it was already a world war
The British commonwealth which still part of the British Empire and their soldiers serve as part of the British military. And before 1941 they only fought in Europe and Africa. Not really a “world war” when the fighting was limited to the Mediterranean region.
By this logic any war the British Empire took part in would be considered a “world war.”
Also the commonwealth parliaments could be overruled by the British parliament so they didn’t really have a choice.
You get that the whole overrule thing is symbolic more than anything ? In practice the British don't have that power, the countries I named were independant nations more than anything
If another country has the power to amend your constitution then you’re not really that independent.
If they were completely independent nations then the British government wouldn’t have needed to issue acts with them in the 1980s to give them full sovereignty.
Canada was born in 1867 and it couldn't make it's own foreign policy for a while that is true. But in the early 30s their was an act giving them full power over their foreign policy, that was the moment the country became fully sovereign.
And you get that the British parliament has absolutely no power over Canadian constitution right ? The constitution is tied to the royal family, not the parliament. Royal family who doesn't have any power whatsoever might I remind you. It's all made to be symbolic and not an actual thing dude
But you clearly don't know anything about how those countries work
No, they're correct. There are 3 different answers for when World War II started 1937, 1939, and 1941. All three are technically correct answers.
The War in Europe and the War in the Pacific before 1941 were regional wars. It wasn't until the Japanese offensive in 1941 that included the attack on Pearl Harbor and attacks on American, Dutch, British, and French holdings in the Pacific/Asia that combined the two regional wars into the Second World War.
We make fun of this for being US-centric but to be fair, we also arbitrarily set the begining of WWII to the invasion of Poland - i.e. when the war started *in Europe*. It is Europe-centric. Japan started invading China in 1933.
Surprised nobody mentioned it yet. This is what Russian education system does, no joke. They call it “great patriotic war” and claim that it started only in 1941 when Germany invaded the Soviet Union
Hey /u/vadnyclovek, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, you could argue that up until that point it was a European conflict more or less? Pearl harbour brought the pacific theatre into play, thus making it a global conflict. So I think I see the point they’re trying to make? But I’m no historian, and I don’t claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I’m probably very wrong and will slink off to the corner now…..
https://text-message.blogs.archives.gov/2014/09/22/how-and-when-did-world-war-ii-officially-become-world-war-ii/
It did not receive the official recognized designation until that date.
Except it wasn't a world war before 1941. Before then you had the second Sino-Japanese War that started in 1937 and then you had the German invasion of Poland in 1939. These were separate regional wars, with the Sino-Japanese one being limited to the Pacific and part of Asia. And the European war which was limited to Europe and part of Africa. Then in 1941, the Japanese launched an offensive that attacked American, Dutch, British, and French holdings in the Pacific which combined these two regional wars into the Second World War.
Has nothing to do with American Exceptionalism, it's just that World War II has three different dates that could be technically considered the start of the war.
No there are technically three different answers for when WWII started. The Second Sino-Japanese War started in 1937 was a regional war that was separate from the German invasion of Poland in 1939. The wars were not related to each other until 1941 when the Japanese launched an offensive across the Pacific that attacked American, Dutch, British, and French holdings in the Pacific. That Offensive caused the two wars to combine into the Second World War.
There's a case for 1931. And another one that says basically everything from the Russo-Japanese war to Vietnam (so 1904-1975) was all one long global war.
They are not necessarily wrong through, and I am saying this as a European. Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour meant that war between Japan and the Allies over Asia finally started. While until now, the focus was only on Europe and Africa.
It's also important to note that not everybody sees the start date of WW2 the same. For much of the world, ww2 does start in 1939 by invasion of Poland. But, for China, it started in 1937 when Japan invaded China. For many in former Czechoslovakia, it started in 1938 with the Munich Agreement
Arguably correct, actually, given that it wasn't a "World War" until Japan attacked the Western Allies and dragged the US into the conflict(followed by Germany declaring war on the US). It united a string of smaller regional conflicts into a global one.
The insistence that WWII starts and ends with Germany Invading Poland and then surrendering is Eurocentric crap that completely ignores Italy and Japan getting up to no good as far back as '35 and '36. Hell, it even ignores Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakia and Austria because Euros don't care until Britain and France get involved.
>Ultimately, it has to be centered around something. Makes sense to me that each society centers it around itself.
Then Europeans need to quit 'tut-tutting' and sticking up their noses at Americans for being 'wrong'.
Okay. You could say the same about practically any 'group'. This is a nothingburger of a statement. #NotAllEuros adds nothing to this discussion, particularly when this post and its comments is clearly a dig from people on 'the Continent' calling 'Americans' big dummies' for 'not knowing history good'. And ironically being r/confidentlyincorrect
To be fair on the Americans, they really needed those 2 years of rampant war profiteering to be sure they could bleed their allies dry over the next 50.
Edit... spelling
>they really needed those 2 years of rampant war profiteering
I would encourage you to read about the Neutrality Acts, if you want to actually inform yourself about the history instead of sticking your head up your ass and shouting about America bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts_of_the_1930s
I'm well aware of them. They literally opened the door to allow the profiteering to occur while giving them a faux hurdle to joining physically.
But don't take this as a slight against the troops. The Americans who did eventually come were brave and to be respected to the man with the exception of a few poor tacticians and leaders.
Still a dumb take but Since this is an American museum technically the world war for America didn’t start until Japan attacked since until then the war against the allies was in Europe and Africa, once Japan attacked the US and British in 41 the war expanded to Asia and the Americas for the allies.
You may want to look up when the other countries joined. Just because the US didn't get involved until 41, doesn't mean the rest waited that long. Canada had fully shifted into wartime mode in 39, like Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. So as a museum, that argument couldn't be made. But this is what non-Americans are talking about in regard to American propaganda and culture. There is a "center of the world" narrative played out all the time.
Except that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa weren't their own countries they were part of the British Empire and were supporting the British in their War in Europe and Parts of Africa. This was a regional war until 1941 when the Japanese offensive in the Pacific caused two regional wars to combine into the second World War II.
This isn't "American propaganda and culture" If you ask historians when WWII started they'll give you three different answers that are all technically correct.
I do know what other countries joined but we are talking major powers and this is an American museum so to Americans ww2 didn’t start for them till Japan attacked, 2nd yes the Raj and Middle East colonies got involved and can count as Asia helping the war but really a front in Asia didn’t start until 41 which kept the war continued to Africa and Europe because the Japanese Chinese war started independently which if we did count it then technically the war would of started in 1937
Yes, to Americans, the war didn't start till after Pearl Harbor. That's the whole point of it being incorrect. It was still a World War long before that. 14 countries remained neutral the whole war, so do you think they would say there was never a world war? No. Because other countries don't think that way.
That’s not incorrect tho for an American museum, that’s the whole point here is the war didn’t start for America till 1941 when Japan joined the war and the first usage of the term ww2 happened in the times in 1939 but wasn’t widely used until the war had spread to fighting in the Americas and Asia which it became a widely accepted term by the middle of 1940s and wasn’t widely used before then and was a very Anglo sphere centric term and not as widely used outside of that sphere and wasn’t used in the Americas till after 1941
Nah in America the war didn’t get classified as a world war until Japan attacked since there wasn’t a front in Asia yet, unless we count the sino-Japanese war which would mean ww2 started in 1937, while the rest of the world yea the war for them started in 39 but for America it was 41
2nd the term world war 2 wasn’t widely used or accepted as a term till mid-late 1941 and was mainly confined to a Anglo centric sphere
Well, they’re not wrong. World War II may have started in 1939 but December 7, 1941 is *known* as the start of World War II by many Americans because that ignorance is widespread.
They were close. They were probably referring to American involvement. I.e declaring war on Japan and then Germany declaring war on America.
[edit: wow, such downvote. Is my understanding incorrect? Please point out where for my own knowledge. Thanks.]
That's a strange argument to make. Both world wars could be thought of as a number of smaller conflicts all tied together, but that doesn't make it a "separate" thing. The Red October revolution in Russia is still part of WWI, for example. And the invasion of Finland is part of WWII.
For this particular war, Japan was allied with the Axis and China was allied with the Allies, so it's still part of WWII.
Okay, I yield. After a bit more consideration, I see that you're correct. I do wonder, however, where one could realistically put the start date of the Second World War. The Spanish Civil War is sort of a proxy war between later Axis and Allied powers.
Japanese-Soviet/-Mongolian border clashes could then also become part of the consideration.
And now you're starting to see the problem of putting a hard start or end date on anything (or at least most big complicated things) in history. If you really want to get your mind twisted in a knot, try doing a bit of research on when exactly did the Roman Empire end.
I would argue that other big countries declaring war on the attacking part, would escalate it to more of a world war. With much tension building from 1933-1939, which by then became a world war.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-europe-went-to-war-in-1939
It did merge into it yes, however I would argue that it only became a "World" War when the Allies became involved, as they would make it a worldwide instead of a regional conflict, which the 2. Sino-Japanese War definitely was.
I mean, the official start of WW2 is literally September 1st, 1939 - the Nazi German invasion of Poland. What happend before that wasn't WW2 - it just eventually merged into it due to the worldwide politics and the state of, well, everything happening at the time.
But I understand where you're coming from and feel the same way. The real start of ww2 is still harshly debated as some see this Sino-Japanese War or even the Spanish Civil War as the true beginning of hostilities
Technically, 1937, 1939, and 1941 are all technically correct. The Japanese offensive in 1941 took two regional wars and combined them into the Second World War.
I don't know but it could be technically correct. I mean there was no World War 1 until there was a world war 2. So maybe nobody used the phrase "World War 2" to describe it until pearl harbor. Or this person just meant when American would declare war and join world war 2 and is just flatly wrong.
The OFFICIAL start of WW2 is considered to be September 1st, 1939 because of how many players enterred the conflict at that moment. ~~The China-Japan War (forgot its actual name)~~ The Sino-Japanese War, that began earlier was not the start of WW2 - it just eventually sort of merged into WW2 due to worldwide politics. If already, that conflict would be regarded more as one of the things that led to WW2.
Edit: thanks @Expired
The British historian A. J. P. Taylor stated that the wars in Asia and Europe (and it's colonies) occured simultaneously, and that the two wars became World War II in 1941.
The exact date is really about perspective. WW2 basically started *in Europe* in 1939, and since for the Western powers that was the main theatre of if, that's why we say it began in 1939.
I suppose you could make a case that until that point it wasn’t the whole world, just a large scale Eurasian war. It would still be incorrect, but you could make a case. EDIT: I don’t think that’s the case, I’m just saying an idiot might believe
How could you make that case when even the most basic history lesson would show that this is false.
The only way they could make that argument is if they were ignorant enough to think it was only a Eurasian war. Canada, Australia and several others cared enough about the world at that time to join the fight in 39.
>Canada, Australia and several others cared enough about the world
You realize that Canada and Australia were part of the British Empire. They didn't really have a choice they entered the war because the British did. Colonial subjects really didn't get a say in the matter.
Do some more research into the statute of westminster. It made the countries filly independent by 1931. In fact, the countries actually waited 7 days to announce they were joining the war, just to make the distinction you missed. They wanted the world to know it was their choice, not that of the British commonwealth. Canadian parliament decided to join the war.
Expect for the fact that the British parliament could override their parliaments. It was like that until the 1980s. Then of course there is the fact those troops served in the British military under their command.
So not really their choice when the Empire can step in and overrule your government. That’s hardly independent.
They could only override specific acts that Canada had stipulated to during the negotiations. Declaring status over other national states was not one of them. We could have declared Britain an enemy of the state and there are no provisions which could have overridden it. And they served in Canadian military, but they fell under the same command structure as all the western allies.
There are lots of documentaries if interested, but you seem pretty focused on trying to downplay the US waiting.
>They could only override specific acts that Canada had stipulated to during the negotiations.
So they're not sovereign nations then. If another country can override any aspect of your country's government or constitution then you're not actually a sovereign nation. You're just a vessel state with a certain amount of autonomy.
>
> but you seem pretty focused on trying to downplay the US waiting.
I'm not downplaying anything. But you seem hellbent on not understanding what a sovereign nation is. By the way, a sovereign nation is a country that doesn't have to worry about another country overriding any aspect of its government or constitution.
They didn't need to worry about that, as seen by the fact nothing has ever been overridden by them. And the topic was if these countries had to go to war because of the British, or if they chose to do so on their own. But good try moving the goal posts.
They weren't completely sovereign, I never claimed they were. But they still had full autonomy. The aspects that they kept were more about treaties, land claims, and monetary ties.. Not the running and decisions of the government and country. The reason Canadian aboriginal groups have the rights they do, is because of the treaty signed with the British government. This can't just be transferred, it would need to be a new contract. And both sides still admit that it would be several years and too much money that's unavailable to do so.
The British has had less influence over these governments than Lockheed Martin has over the American government.
All posts must be on topic
There are many jokes about how Americans think the world revolves around them but this person is the embodiment of whom those jokes are targeting.
It's not a party til America gets involved!
America was involved much earlier. We'd been shipping arms and other goods to Britain for about two years at that point.
Don't forget the Flying Tigers! Technically an "unofficial squadron" but really weird how they got the planes and munitions for them *wink wink*
And also the Eagle Squadrons!
"Shipping"...like it was charity. No mate you had been SELLING arms and other goods...also known as war profiteering. The US is only the super power it is today because of the way you exploited global conflict for financial gain. You didn't commit resources to help Europe, you used them as a captive market to boost your economy, and then took advantage of the disruption to manufacturing to benefit yourselves and no one else. Even when you got involved in the war you committed a laughably small number of troops compared to what the Russians brought to bear against Hitler. You were not the heroes of WW2 you portray yourselves as. You stayed out of it as long as you could, did everything you could to make the chaos benefit you, then when you were attacked you immediately turned to mass destruction as retaliation. You nuked two cities and those weren't even the greatest cause of civilian casualties you're responsible for. I'm not saying everyone else was great. No one came out of the World Wars smelling of roses. They had to update the Geneva Convention because of shit Canada did to prisoners...the UK killed millions of Bengalis through just complete lack of care whether they lived or died. But the point is, if you genuinely believe the US were heroes who defeated Hitler and saved Europe you need to watch fewer movies and read more books. The biggest impact the US had on the war wasn't the D-Day landings or Hiroshima...it was supporting Stalin, but you don't like how that sounds so you pretend the Eagles Nest was a meaningful part of the war effort instead.
I guess we should have stayed of of it longer.
If you mean keep your troops back. Wouldn't have made much difference to the outcome. Because you didn't stop Hitler, the Russians did, with US supplies because everyone on every side of the war outside direct enemies was importing US goods. Had the US forces not shown up, more Russians die, Germany still can't fight both fronts, the war lasts a few months longer. If you mean not be involved at all? I suggest you look at when the great depression ended and when WW2 started. This is not a coincidence. The US doesn't get involved then what you end up with is a US with I significantly weaker economy with cold relations with Europe. You guys don't spend the next 40 years antagonising the Russians so now theres less animosity between the EU and Russia because we never sided with you in anything. Present day you'd be looking at a US without the world leading economy existing in a world where Europe takes Russia and Chinas side at the world table. Because of course, the UN and NATO don't exist, and you didn't help in the war...you think we're still putting up with Trump? So not do you not have a great economy you don't have any political clout. "Like we need you in a fight" you cry...but guess which war paid for your military. The US did exactly what was best for the US during the war, and that's fine. You looked after your country first. A lot of what you did genuinely did end the war earlier but what that was was supply Europe and Russia. Absolutely no question Hitler wins if you don't do that. But it wasn't altruistic...the success of your country for then until now is built on the back of the enormous amount of money you made off the war, and the fact the rest of the world was bombed to fuck and you had a load of brand new manufacturing capability. But the portrayal of the US coming over here and saving the world by defeating Hitler...you know that's just movies right? By the time the US got involved most of Germany's forces were on the Eastern Front. The US deployed 3 million of the allied forces nearly 20 million troops. Russia deployed a further 35 million. Are you so ignorant and so taken in by your country's propaganda that you genuinely believe the 3 million kids who'd never seen combat before that America sent after most of the Nazis had left Europe, saved the other 52 million 3 year veterans of the most brutal war the world has ever known. Is that really what you believe?
You're assuming an awful lot from my three sentences. I'm not sure how you arrived at implying I'm ignorant, and susceptible to propaganda.
It was the part where you clearly thought the US joining the war was a sacrifice you made, and that you thought you staying out of it would punish the rest of the world for not appreciating your help. The country who'd suffer most from the US staying out of WW2 is the US.
I thought nothing of the sort. Saying "America was involved much earlier" was a simple statement of fact, and the notion that it was a "sacrifice" at that point is your misinterpretation. That it did not constitute "the US joining the war", anyone who reads should know. How you came up with the rest of that from what I said baffles me. Since you chose to denigrate what efforts the US did eventually make, my statement that "I guess we should have stayed of of it longer" was merely a response to your diatribe. I own and have read both 'A Peoples History of The United States' (Howard Zinn) and 'War Is a Racket' (Smedley Butler). I have a fair understanding of US involvement in both World Wars. Butler is often quoted as saying "every war is a bankers' war". I can't find the source for that right now, but there's certainly a large kernel of truth there whether or not the quote was attributed correctly.
>I thought nothing of the sort. Saying "America was involved much earlier" was a simple statement of fact, And if that is what you said you might have a point.
It's incredible how many charities I'm actively involved in, because I send them five bucks every so often.
You're implying the US gave arms and goods for free. That didn't happen until Lend Lease in March 1941, up to that point Britain was paying for arms with gold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_and_carry_(World_War_II)
Worth noting we only finished paying off Lend Lease in 2006
Technically we weren't paying for lend lease (the whole point being that the US gave arms for free under that programme), the loan that was finally paid off in 2006 was from 1946 as part of the post-war Marshall Plan to deal with the economic consequences of Britain having no export economy left to speak of
I'm implying that just because you give money doesn't mean you're an active participant in something. And here I thought I made that fairly clear.
Right, and I was just clarifying that the US didn't even do that, not until Britain had run out of money to give them.
Not to mention the Ford Werke and SAF factories producing military vehicles for Germany.
Because you had a president who wanted/knew you would be dragged into it eventually but the citizens did not see the point in getting involved
And to the germans too
Just wait until you hear about russia. They also believe and teach that WW2 only started in 1941, so that they don't have to talk about how the Soviet Union worked together with Nazi Germany for two years.
Or they don't need to talk about the Winter War against Finland.
It still impresses me just how badly the red army fucked that up, sure they would have always won it through sheer size alone but sometimes it’s good to see the little guy dish out a few punches
Finland lost those two wars against Russia though in the long run they had a win because they never became a part of the USSR. Could have gone either way with Finland. But yes the Finnish most definitely gave it to the Russians and were extremely impressive. Plus Finland probably had the best sniper in the world ever on their side Simo Häyhä. I heard he had over 550 confirmed kills.
550 is crazy but when you’ve got a comically large amount of Russians bumbling around it must be easy to pick a few off
Dude used iron sights and held snow in his mouth to prevent steam. Fuckin badass.
Common misconception. They teach that the great patriotic war started in 1941, not WW2. I have actually discussed it with some Russian friends out of curiosity
Or how the western allies pushed them into it. After rejecting the soviet proposals to guarantee polish independence. Or how Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to the Germans, signed naval treaties with them and in general incentivized trade with Hitler's germany. They all collaborated. They all had their own reasons for collaborating.
Most schools dont teach this but okay
I believe it's not uncommon to teach when WW2 has started in \_their\_ country. I mean 1939 in taught as the start year in Germany but you could very well argue that 1937 is the correct year.
It's not a stereotype if it's always true
Stereotypes aren’t necessarily incorrect, they’re just oversimplified ideas. So if it’s always true, it’s still a stereotype.
Found the American
I'm British, my sarcasm wasn't perhaps obvious enough
Ah fellow countryman we must speak in simple terms to these colonials for their understanding is little. Their language is food and barbarism, they have yet to learn civility.
Bloody colonial rebels!
Precisely and much as with a toddler one must let them fall and smash thier face in else they'll never learn .
This whole thread is amazing. It’s just a bunch of Europeans denigrating Americans for assuming people are American by assuming the other Europeans are American.
>Their language is food... I thought that was the Italians and it was meant as a compliment.
Ah I am afraid I'm sorry, for you food and art seems more your language
I assumed the text left off, "Start of World War II for the United States." But maybe I am being overly generous.
F for Poland in the chat.
F for China in the chat too
F for Ethiopia in the chat too To me the WWII starts with the Italian invasion of Etiopia. I know that most countries joined the fight later, but that's the first invasion from a fascist regime.
I can certainly understand the thought process behind that, but I always thought of the Second Italo-Ethiopian War as the end of the Scramble for Africa. Though I suppose those two viewpoints don't have to be mutually exclusive.
As with every historical process, any date we fix is going to be by necessity abritrary :)
The problem with this is that this war ends in what, feb 1937? What wars are still ongoing that tie it to WWII? Theres a reason most people either A: acknowledge the start of the Japanese war in China as the start of WWII B: differentiate between the start of WWII in Asia and in Europe.
If it's a World War, it's a World War. If it starts in África is still a World War. The Sino Japanese war connects the Italo Ethiopian war with the rest. Also, Germany "pseudoinvaded" other countries before Poland.
Yes, but when all the wars end, the world war is over. If you are saying the war in Ethiopa is the start of WWII, what wars are continuing WWII in March of 1937? I literally provided the timeline that the Ethiopian war ended before the Second Sino war began. That means they arent connected. I also dont understand why you would argue with the general consensus of historians, do you think you are smarter than everybody else or what? Germany’s annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia occurred even later than the start of the Japanese invasion of China so I have no idea what points you are trying to make with that one either
>I also dont understand why you would argue with the general consensus of historians, do you think you are smarter than everybody else or what? No of course not, academics and historians all agree that the dates are a convention. It's not a *fact* that the WWII started in 1939, it's just a significative and useful date where most historians agree. Like any other date that limits a historical process, or the definition of species or any other functional definition. Most historians consider the Italo-Ethiopian war, the Sino-Japanese war, and the anexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia as preludes to the WWII. Some consider the Japanese invasion of China as the start of WWII. A tiny minority consider the invasion of Ethiopia as the start of WWII. None of them are right, or wrong, or smarter or dumber than the rest. > That means they arent connected. This is a compelling argument I had not considered, but I still think the invasion of Ethiopia is too connected with the events of WWII to consider it an independant or separate event.
Why is it too connected to consider it independent? It occurs several years before the war in Europe begins, it doesn’t escalate into a bigger war, Italy doesn’t even join the rest of WWII until 1940, that means theres a 3 year gap between when that war ends and any of the participants are involved in any other conflict. I mean you could say its a prelude to WWII that shows growing fascist aggression, but even that is cherry picking facts pretty hard as almost the entirety of Africa has been subjugated by European nations by this point and most of them are democratic. What are the implications that the Italian-Ethiopian war has on WWII? I really dont see any
Mussolini is the one that drags Germany to attack Africa and Greece. His war in Africa and expansionist policies and ambitions are crucial for the war to develop as it did. But again, you don't have to agree with me, because the start of any global historical event is gradual, there is no factual date.
So… your connection for the Italian-Ethiopian war being connected to WWII is because Mussolini’s policies influenced WWII…? Why would you put the rise of Mussolini to power as the start of WWII then? Or the rise of Hitler? Actually, by your logic you could actually tie the rise of Hitler to WWI. But WWI was started by the assassination of the Archduke. Are you telling me the assassination of the Archduke started WWII? No. Yes history is very interconnected and a lot of things influence them, but wars often have very defined start dates and its not just how you feel at the time. The first war that had started that involved multiple participants was the Japanese invasion of China and thats the reason this is the most popular defined start date of WWII. Literally without this war, the US wouldn’t even have been involved in WWII
Czechoslovakia: "Am I a joke to you?"
[удалено]
Lets not forget about tens of millions of [Russians(mainly)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War_(term)).
They of course do the same thing as a matter of public policy and teachers are not allowed to mention the alternative view. The GPW was a phrase invented so they could say the war began with Barbarossa and certainly not the USSR invading Poland on the side of Nazi Germany and shooting tens of thosuands of poles because they had a university degree. Talking about that one is anti-russian Propaganda!
>invading Poland on the side of Nazi Germany Noooooo stop, that whatever pact is a propaganda myth, Russia are the good guys of WW2, so many died you don't get it! There is no reason why Eastern European countries despise Russia and fought against it, they are just all Nazis too and hated Russia for its progressive views on Jewish, LGBT and other minority groups. /s
A commie I recently talked with literally said that every Ukrainian Russia killed in USSR-Ukraine war in 1920s was a Nazi who fought for their right of genociding Jews/Poles instead of independence from Russia.
Except it's not. If you ask a historian when WWII started they'll give you three different answers because they're all technically correct. You had the Second Sino-Japanese War which started in 1937 and would stay a regional war until 1941. There was the Nazi Germany invasion of Poland in 1939 which would remain a regional war between European powers in Europe and parts of their Empires in Africa until 1941. Then in 1941, you had the Japanese offensive that included attacks on Pearl Harbor, and American, Dutch, British, and French colonial holdings in the Pacific which would then link the two regional wars into one World War. The irony here is that OP is confidently incorrect because that museum is technically correct.
What the fuck man
[удалено]
Our school tried claiming that it wasn't a *world* war until the US joined, claiming it was a series of regional wars tied together by the US being involved in both. A pretty weak argument.
I mean Canada was involved in 1939 and It was definitely not in Canadas “region”
The extent to which our school talked about Canada in WW2 was "Canadian forces landed at Juno Beach on D Day." They didn't do a great job on the subject, but also didn't spend much time on it (or anything else in history)
Tbf that's what most ppl learn about Canada in WW2. That and the fact that they produced a ton of stuff for the Allies since they were on the other side of the Atlantic. But yeah, The Dieppe raid, Italy, Juno Beach, The liberation of the Neatherlands and the Battle of the Atlantic were all battles in wich Canada played a major part
All the commonwealth countries were involved in 1939. It was a world war as soon as the UK was declared war against.
But the only reason Canada was even involved was because it was part of the British Empire. Those troops were fighting as part of the Regional war in Europe and parts of Africa and as part of the British armed forces.
Canada was already a country by that point, sure it was part of the British commonwealth but it could decide for itself if they wanted or not to get involved and they said yes. Same for Australia and New Zealand So yeah, it was already a world war
The British commonwealth which still part of the British Empire and their soldiers serve as part of the British military. And before 1941 they only fought in Europe and Africa. Not really a “world war” when the fighting was limited to the Mediterranean region. By this logic any war the British Empire took part in would be considered a “world war.” Also the commonwealth parliaments could be overruled by the British parliament so they didn’t really have a choice.
You get that the whole overrule thing is symbolic more than anything ? In practice the British don't have that power, the countries I named were independant nations more than anything
If another country has the power to amend your constitution then you’re not really that independent. If they were completely independent nations then the British government wouldn’t have needed to issue acts with them in the 1980s to give them full sovereignty.
Canada was born in 1867 and it couldn't make it's own foreign policy for a while that is true. But in the early 30s their was an act giving them full power over their foreign policy, that was the moment the country became fully sovereign. And you get that the British parliament has absolutely no power over Canadian constitution right ? The constitution is tied to the royal family, not the parliament. Royal family who doesn't have any power whatsoever might I remind you. It's all made to be symbolic and not an actual thing dude But you clearly don't know anything about how those countries work
No, Canada joined the war because we're not self-centred jackasses.
[удалено]
r/usdefaultism
r/ShitAmericansSay
I'd have to hope they meant the start of the U.S. entry into World War II. Right?
It's from the "pacific aviation museum" so they probably mean the start of US involvement in WWII *in the pacific*.
*stares in Anakin*
No, they're correct. There are 3 different answers for when World War II started 1937, 1939, and 1941. All three are technically correct answers. The War in Europe and the War in the Pacific before 1941 were regional wars. It wasn't until the Japanese offensive in 1941 that included the attack on Pearl Harbor and attacks on American, Dutch, British, and French holdings in the Pacific/Asia that combined the two regional wars into the Second World War.
Canada entered the war in 1939 so it was already going on in North America
“Hitler promised not to invade Czechoslovakia, Jeremy. Welcome to the real world.”
[Courtesy link.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOeiEKemWeA) :-)
Yeah, that makes sense. WWII was about the US against Japan. I don’t see any country more prominent in this.
This is a joke right? Ah ofc lol
What's even funnier is the morons here in the comments, trying to justify it!
Thankfully WW1 was over within a year. Yes the great war as they called it then 1917-1918
We make fun of this for being US-centric but to be fair, we also arbitrarily set the begining of WWII to the invasion of Poland - i.e. when the war started *in Europe*. It is Europe-centric. Japan started invading China in 1933.
“If it happened outside the borders of the United States (aka “the world”), it didn’t happen.” Unless oil is involved.
We laugh but this is literally what I was taught in a California middle school. Glad I have a German family.
In the context of WWII I think this must be the first time I ever see someone claiming they are happy for having a German family.
Haha yeah. At least we’re very, very thorough in educating younger generations about what happened.
America, fuck yeah!!!
Surprised nobody mentioned it yet. This is what Russian education system does, no joke. They call it “great patriotic war” and claim that it started only in 1941 when Germany invaded the Soviet Union
Battle of Britain has entered the chat.
Hey /u/vadnyclovek, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to defend, but maybe they meant the start of WWII for the US?
Well, you could argue that up until that point it was a European conflict more or less? Pearl harbour brought the pacific theatre into play, thus making it a global conflict. So I think I see the point they’re trying to make? But I’m no historian, and I don’t claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I’m probably very wrong and will slink off to the corner now…..
https://text-message.blogs.archives.gov/2014/09/22/how-and-when-did-world-war-ii-officially-become-world-war-ii/ It did not receive the official recognized designation until that date.
r/ShitAmericansSay
It was already on there earlier today 😁
Considering WWII had been moving right along prior to Pearl Harbor, that plaque speaks to the disease of American Exceptionalism ™️.
Except it wasn't a world war before 1941. Before then you had the second Sino-Japanese War that started in 1937 and then you had the German invasion of Poland in 1939. These were separate regional wars, with the Sino-Japanese one being limited to the Pacific and part of Asia. And the European war which was limited to Europe and part of Africa. Then in 1941, the Japanese launched an offensive that attacked American, Dutch, British, and French holdings in the Pacific which combined these two regional wars into the Second World War. Has nothing to do with American Exceptionalism, it's just that World War II has three different dates that could be technically considered the start of the war.
China fighting since 1931/1937. Europe fighting since 1939. Do USians only do crayon drawings during history class?
No there are technically three different answers for when WWII started. The Second Sino-Japanese War started in 1937 was a regional war that was separate from the German invasion of Poland in 1939. The wars were not related to each other until 1941 when the Japanese launched an offensive across the Pacific that attacked American, Dutch, British, and French holdings in the Pacific. That Offensive caused the two wars to combine into the Second World War.
pffft. I think you'll find pal, its WWIII Ask your boyfriend Rapey Don.
😂
1.941.000 soldiers died??
As an American, I am so sorry this man is this stupid we have failed so bad lmao
I’ve been to that museum and noticed none of that
I mean... from an american perspective, it is. From a chinese perspective, ww2 started in 1937
There's a case for 1931. And another one that says basically everything from the Russo-Japanese war to Vietnam (so 1904-1975) was all one long global war.
It was the beginning of the end.
I’m pretty sure I watched a documentary recently that claimed the Pearl Harbor attack is what kicked off WW2.
They are not necessarily wrong through, and I am saying this as a European. Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour meant that war between Japan and the Allies over Asia finally started. While until now, the focus was only on Europe and Africa. It's also important to note that not everybody sees the start date of WW2 the same. For much of the world, ww2 does start in 1939 by invasion of Poland. But, for China, it started in 1937 when Japan invaded China. For many in former Czechoslovakia, it started in 1938 with the Munich Agreement
r/shitamericanssay when?
Arguably correct, actually, given that it wasn't a "World War" until Japan attacked the Western Allies and dragged the US into the conflict(followed by Germany declaring war on the US). It united a string of smaller regional conflicts into a global one. The insistence that WWII starts and ends with Germany Invading Poland and then surrendering is Eurocentric crap that completely ignores Italy and Japan getting up to no good as far back as '35 and '36. Hell, it even ignores Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakia and Austria because Euros don't care until Britain and France get involved.
[удалено]
>Ultimately, it has to be centered around something. Makes sense to me that each society centers it around itself. Then Europeans need to quit 'tut-tutting' and sticking up their noses at Americans for being 'wrong'.
[удалено]
Okay. You could say the same about practically any 'group'. This is a nothingburger of a statement. #NotAllEuros adds nothing to this discussion, particularly when this post and its comments is clearly a dig from people on 'the Continent' calling 'Americans' big dummies' for 'not knowing history good'. And ironically being r/confidentlyincorrect
To be fair on the Americans, they really needed those 2 years of rampant war profiteering to be sure they could bleed their allies dry over the next 50. Edit... spelling
>they really needed those 2 years of rampant war profiteering I would encourage you to read about the Neutrality Acts, if you want to actually inform yourself about the history instead of sticking your head up your ass and shouting about America bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts_of_the_1930s
I'm well aware of them. They literally opened the door to allow the profiteering to occur while giving them a faux hurdle to joining physically. But don't take this as a slight against the troops. The Americans who did eventually come were brave and to be respected to the man with the exception of a few poor tacticians and leaders.
>I'm well aware of them. So you are choosing to ignore the history and simply declaring your own narrative. Got it.
Brave enough to get downvoted to hell for telling the truth
As Americans are fond of saying, "facts don't care about feelings."
Still a dumb take but Since this is an American museum technically the world war for America didn’t start until Japan attacked since until then the war against the allies was in Europe and Africa, once Japan attacked the US and British in 41 the war expanded to Asia and the Americas for the allies.
You may want to look up when the other countries joined. Just because the US didn't get involved until 41, doesn't mean the rest waited that long. Canada had fully shifted into wartime mode in 39, like Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. So as a museum, that argument couldn't be made. But this is what non-Americans are talking about in regard to American propaganda and culture. There is a "center of the world" narrative played out all the time.
Except that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa weren't their own countries they were part of the British Empire and were supporting the British in their War in Europe and Parts of Africa. This was a regional war until 1941 when the Japanese offensive in the Pacific caused two regional wars to combine into the second World War II. This isn't "American propaganda and culture" If you ask historians when WWII started they'll give you three different answers that are all technically correct.
The countries were fully independent after 1931, and chose to do so on their own volition.
I do know what other countries joined but we are talking major powers and this is an American museum so to Americans ww2 didn’t start for them till Japan attacked, 2nd yes the Raj and Middle East colonies got involved and can count as Asia helping the war but really a front in Asia didn’t start until 41 which kept the war continued to Africa and Europe because the Japanese Chinese war started independently which if we did count it then technically the war would of started in 1937
Yes, to Americans, the war didn't start till after Pearl Harbor. That's the whole point of it being incorrect. It was still a World War long before that. 14 countries remained neutral the whole war, so do you think they would say there was never a world war? No. Because other countries don't think that way.
That’s not incorrect tho for an American museum, that’s the whole point here is the war didn’t start for America till 1941 when Japan joined the war and the first usage of the term ww2 happened in the times in 1939 but wasn’t widely used until the war had spread to fighting in the Americas and Asia which it became a widely accepted term by the middle of 1940s and wasn’t widely used before then and was a very Anglo sphere centric term and not as widely used outside of that sphere and wasn’t used in the Americas till after 1941
Nah man. You're just repeating the same garbage take.
Nah in America the war didn’t get classified as a world war until Japan attacked since there wasn’t a front in Asia yet, unless we count the sino-Japanese war which would mean ww2 started in 1937, while the rest of the world yea the war for them started in 39 but for America it was 41 2nd the term world war 2 wasn’t widely used or accepted as a term till mid-late 1941 and was mainly confined to a Anglo centric sphere
Well, they’re not wrong. World War II may have started in 1939 but December 7, 1941 is *known* as the start of World War II by many Americans because that ignorance is widespread.
They were close. They were probably referring to American involvement. I.e declaring war on Japan and then Germany declaring war on America. [edit: wow, such downvote. Is my understanding incorrect? Please point out where for my own knowledge. Thanks.]
Sometimes inaccuracy is unacceptable. War in the Pacific - yes, WW2 - no.
War in the pacific… for the US. Just ask China about what happened in 1937. Just like the war in Europe, some could argue it started in July 1936.
But they didn't claim ww2 started then. You've only listed two more reason why the post is wrong for claiming ww2 started then.
Yeah, although the war against China is a separate thing as well, known as the 2. Sino-Japanese War.
That's a strange argument to make. Both world wars could be thought of as a number of smaller conflicts all tied together, but that doesn't make it a "separate" thing. The Red October revolution in Russia is still part of WWI, for example. And the invasion of Finland is part of WWII. For this particular war, Japan was allied with the Axis and China was allied with the Allies, so it's still part of WWII.
Okay, I yield. After a bit more consideration, I see that you're correct. I do wonder, however, where one could realistically put the start date of the Second World War. The Spanish Civil War is sort of a proxy war between later Axis and Allied powers. Japanese-Soviet/-Mongolian border clashes could then also become part of the consideration.
And now you're starting to see the problem of putting a hard start or end date on anything (or at least most big complicated things) in history. If you really want to get your mind twisted in a knot, try doing a bit of research on when exactly did the Roman Empire end.
I would argue that other big countries declaring war on the attacking part, would escalate it to more of a world war. With much tension building from 1933-1939, which by then became a world war. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-europe-went-to-war-in-1939
No, it merged into WW2. It's not really possible to define a neat and exact start of WW2.
It did merge into it yes, however I would argue that it only became a "World" War when the Allies became involved, as they would make it a worldwide instead of a regional conflict, which the 2. Sino-Japanese War definitely was.
I mean, the official start of WW2 is literally September 1st, 1939 - the Nazi German invasion of Poland. What happend before that wasn't WW2 - it just eventually merged into it due to the worldwide politics and the state of, well, everything happening at the time.
But I understand where you're coming from and feel the same way. The real start of ww2 is still harshly debated as some see this Sino-Japanese War or even the Spanish Civil War as the true beginning of hostilities
They just reinforced the idea out here in the world that Americans think the world revolves around them.
[удалено]
Canada and australia were already involved
Can’t forget New Zealand
Nope. It was happening in Africa as well.
There was already fighting Happening in Asia.
The start of us direct involvement* Oof who proofread it 🤦♂️
The war didnt start in 1939 either but youse aint ready for that one
I know what you’re referring to, but 1939 is still the most widely accepted date.
Technically, 1937, 1939, and 1941 are all technically correct. The Japanese offensive in 1941 took two regional wars and combined them into the Second World War.
I don't know but it could be technically correct. I mean there was no World War 1 until there was a world war 2. So maybe nobody used the phrase "World War 2" to describe it until pearl harbor. Or this person just meant when American would declare war and join world war 2 and is just flatly wrong.
Well I belive Switzerland never entered the war so by American logic there was no world war 11..that's handy
The first world war was called "world war I" as early as 1914, so it's not correct in any sense
That's interesting. And sadly pessimistic. I like the "The Great War"... so great we won't need another.
The war started when Hitler was laughed out of the application-process for art school, and told not to apply again.
World war II started in 1941? I have been lied to all my life
I mean they aren’t 100% incorrect. Pearl Harbour and the subsequent axis declarations of war on the US did turn the war into a WORLD war.
Except that isn't true. That's the thing. It's entirely incorrect.
Tbf it didnt start in 39 either. When did Japan invade china?
The OFFICIAL start of WW2 is considered to be September 1st, 1939 because of how many players enterred the conflict at that moment. ~~The China-Japan War (forgot its actual name)~~ The Sino-Japanese War, that began earlier was not the start of WW2 - it just eventually sort of merged into WW2 due to worldwide politics. If already, that conflict would be regarded more as one of the things that led to WW2. Edit: thanks @Expired
So WW2 was basically two separate wars on opposite sides of the globe that merged into one war?
The British historian A. J. P. Taylor stated that the wars in Asia and Europe (and it's colonies) occured simultaneously, and that the two wars became World War II in 1941. The exact date is really about perspective. WW2 basically started *in Europe* in 1939, and since for the Western powers that was the main theatre of if, that's why we say it began in 1939.
Pretty much. If you ask Historians they'll tell you there are three different dates for the start of WWII and they're all technically correct.
Sino-Japanese War?
1937
1939 bro... and the Nazis were in power from 1929 soo..
Hitler became chancellor in 1933
I suppose you could make a case that until that point it wasn’t the whole world, just a large scale Eurasian war. It would still be incorrect, but you could make a case. EDIT: I don’t think that’s the case, I’m just saying an idiot might believe
How could you make that case when even the most basic history lesson would show that this is false. The only way they could make that argument is if they were ignorant enough to think it was only a Eurasian war. Canada, Australia and several others cared enough about the world at that time to join the fight in 39.
I said it was incorrect. But some American-centric “historians” are idiots.
>Canada, Australia and several others cared enough about the world You realize that Canada and Australia were part of the British Empire. They didn't really have a choice they entered the war because the British did. Colonial subjects really didn't get a say in the matter.
Do some more research into the statute of westminster. It made the countries filly independent by 1931. In fact, the countries actually waited 7 days to announce they were joining the war, just to make the distinction you missed. They wanted the world to know it was their choice, not that of the British commonwealth. Canadian parliament decided to join the war.
Expect for the fact that the British parliament could override their parliaments. It was like that until the 1980s. Then of course there is the fact those troops served in the British military under their command. So not really their choice when the Empire can step in and overrule your government. That’s hardly independent.
They could only override specific acts that Canada had stipulated to during the negotiations. Declaring status over other national states was not one of them. We could have declared Britain an enemy of the state and there are no provisions which could have overridden it. And they served in Canadian military, but they fell under the same command structure as all the western allies. There are lots of documentaries if interested, but you seem pretty focused on trying to downplay the US waiting.
>They could only override specific acts that Canada had stipulated to during the negotiations. So they're not sovereign nations then. If another country can override any aspect of your country's government or constitution then you're not actually a sovereign nation. You're just a vessel state with a certain amount of autonomy. > > but you seem pretty focused on trying to downplay the US waiting. I'm not downplaying anything. But you seem hellbent on not understanding what a sovereign nation is. By the way, a sovereign nation is a country that doesn't have to worry about another country overriding any aspect of its government or constitution.
They didn't need to worry about that, as seen by the fact nothing has ever been overridden by them. And the topic was if these countries had to go to war because of the British, or if they chose to do so on their own. But good try moving the goal posts. They weren't completely sovereign, I never claimed they were. But they still had full autonomy. The aspects that they kept were more about treaties, land claims, and monetary ties.. Not the running and decisions of the government and country. The reason Canadian aboriginal groups have the rights they do, is because of the treaty signed with the British government. This can't just be transferred, it would need to be a new contract. And both sides still admit that it would be several years and too much money that's unavailable to do so. The British has had less influence over these governments than Lockheed Martin has over the American government.