h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh and the time line on that site could be misinterpreted by those that know a little about WWII than I, "Soviets invade Poland" could be misconstrued as the Soviets entering the war as our allies, they weren't, Hitler and Stalin had signed a pact some time before agreeing on how to carve up Poland after the invasion.

One question, what age range is that history text book aimed at?

Even so, Stealth. The conflict characterised as WWII started with the invasion of Poland. This is what caused all the following events. Arguably, if Britain had stood by its treaty obligations, the invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938 would have been the defining moment.

But really, 1939-1945 *is* WWII. America was on a war footing even though it hadn't decided which side to support (it was supplying both).

RF

You're acting terribly USian, you faced with the simple fact that there were *two* unrelated wars that became at a certain date *one* war. The war called World War Two. Go to the Imperial War Museum and they will tell you what I have been.

If you take Spetmber 1st is a completely arbitarty date. Why not take Japan 1931 incursion into southern Manchuria as the start date? Or if that early the 1937 invasion of China proper by Japan? Or Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935? Or German occupation of the Rhineland in 1936? These are arbitary date just like 1939 is, because they are about seperate wars, not one global or *World* War.

And by-the-by the defining moment was the that last point, when France and Britain began appeasment of Germany by failing to stop German re-militerisation of the Rhineland.

The appeaesement of re-arming the Rhine wasn't a "hot" war in modern parlance.

World war? well, people from 5 of the six populated continents were fighting on 3 of the populated continents. The absence of *1* country shouldn't really stop it being defined as a world war.

RF

In view of all this, might I ask when World War I began? I mean, I'd always assumed it was 1914 - but should I be referring to it as the 1917-18 war instead?

Reddyfreddy, as is perfectly clear from my posts it isn't about "The absence of *1* country", it is about who was at with whom and when.

Why are you so closed-minded? Why did you jump to the assumtion of that I was in the USA? Perhaps before you start giving opinion on USians arrogance and belief that they are always right you should look at your own prejudices etc...

As I just said wether it is a World War or not is *not* about wether one nation is involved or not. The first shot fired in WWI was fired in Australia! It was world war as the entire British and French and Tsarist Empires were mobalised against Germany and the Ottoman Empire fighting took place throughout all theatres from the off.

Where as in fighting was taking place in two *unrelated* wars until Japan and Nazi Germany declared war on the US. Note that it was Hitler that started the War against the US not visa versa, who knows wether the US would have entered the European war of it's own free will... Until then the war is Asia and the war in Europe were different wars with different players, after that they were different theatres of one wars withe the same players.

It is a very simple distinction that I can not fathom how you fail to comprehend.

Austria, not Australia.

(More pedantically, the first shot was in what is now Bosnia-Herzegovina, but was then Austrian territory - but I'll let that slide...)

Ivan.

No darling, Autralia, more precisely Australian waters, I would imagine that it would be quite hard to sink a German Merchant Navy vessle puttintg out to sea if you are in Austria.

Well, what characterises it as a world war were the participants. They came from all over the world, some joined in at different times, but overall there was a confict that involved two separate sides fighting against each other between the years 1939 and 1945, spread all over the world. I don't see Belgium (for example) claiming that WWII ended in 1944 because that's when they were liberated.

And the entire British Empire was mobilised in WWII as well as WWI, so I don't see how you're making a distinction there.

RF

>>The first shot fired in WWI was fired in Australia!<< Sorry, I don't understand what that refers to (serious question )

I do see what you mean about there being two separate wars prior to December 1941, but I don't know that they were as entirely separate as you make it sound - direct military connections there may not have been, but there was plenty of political manoeuvring going on. Japan did have an alliance with Germany and Britain was preparing (or, as many Australians will tell you, under-preparing) for war in the far east from a fairly early stage.

But I'd suggest that the reason this does raise hackles is that when the dates '1941-45' are produced it does seem to privilege the American experience, even if that isn't the intention. Personally, I'd be all in favour of talking about the 1937-45 war (since, if '1941' privileges the American experience, it might be argued that '1939' does the same for Europe - and the Chinese experience of the war is all too often left out of the reckoning, appalling as it was).

After all, by the same reckoning of truly 'global' conflict, wouldn't it be true to say that WWII ended with the defeat of Germany, rather than, as most people reckon it, rightly in my opinion, with the defeat of Japan?

See posts 204 and 207.

taking it from the point of view of two wars (Japanese and German) joined together by one nation, it would seem that Hitler's defeat was only the end of one section of the war.
A cursory mention that Japan, although acting idependently, was an ally of Germany, further drives home this point.
Only after Japan was defeated as well, could one say that the war was over.

(from a purely intellectual point of view: after Germany was defeated, it was no longer a World War, since Europe was generally not involved.)

No nothing I have said means that WWII ended with the victory in Europe, if read my posts you see I pointed out that Russia entered the war in Asia after the defeat of Germany, Britain and the Commonwealth nations remained at war with Japan, I don't see how you can say that WWII ended with the defeat of Germany, it seems a rather fatuous comment to try a make out like I'm saying something I am in no way saying.

Ah, I see. The 'Emden' was sunk on the 9th of November 1914. It may have been the first maritime loss of the war - I'm not sure - but it certainly wasn't the first shot fired.

I didn't say you did say it - I was just pointing out what seemed to me to be a flaw in the logic. If you say it started only when all the major participants were involved, when the two wars became one, then, logically, it should be taken to end when one of the two wars drops out of the reckoning.

I *can* see your point Howl, the US certainly did run the show in the Pascific with little major involvedment from the European powers themselves, however India was still British and the British territories and bases and vessles were involved in the conflict so... I would still lean towards calling it the end of the one war rather than devolving back into an Asian war.

It isn't as though *every* nation involved in the European theatre of war suddenly stopped and said 'Oh, Germany's defeated now, lets go home.'
As you *should* know the UK stayed at war in South Asia and the Pacifric. So just how can you logically say that the war was over when gloabal powers were still in the game?

Er ... I'm not. I was making it clear that when I raised the idea, I wasn't saying that you *had* said it, because you didn't: as a consequence, I'd ask you not to do the same thing to me. Apart from the suggestion that it would actually be quite beneficial to refer to it as the 1937-45 War, as a reflection of human suffering rather than the technicalities of 'declarations of war', I haven't said anything on the matter yet.

It should be possible to discuss this without arguing about it, if you see what I mean.