What do you consider "the beginning of the war?"

I'd go with that...The participants at that time were globaly based whether British Empire or not...Belonged to all corners of the world. If its geography that matters as in world war..then participants of British empire ranged all over the globe.

 

As I'm sure I've said before, it boils down to European v American perspectives; most Europeans would go with September 1939.

 

Continuity among the Great War and WW2 is yet another myth even though they have some related elements. Their character and scope are entirely different.[/QUOTE]

Care to elaborate ?

WW1-WW2
Which one am I describing?

Germany attempts to dominate the European mainland.
Britain defends Belgium and joins France and Russia.
New weapons appear, civillians are targeted. (U-Boats, air attacks on London)
Japan tries to expand during Europe's preoccupation. (Germany-and the Russian thing)
America, neutral at first, is decidedly pro-Allied until it's drawn into the conflict.
Throughtout Germany gambles both diplomatically and militarily.
It's a huge blood bath that only gets nastier -- gas, unrestricted U-Boats, civil wars encouraged.

Change Belgium to Poland, mustard gas for atomic bombs, civil wars to partisan/pro-fascist activity.
Keep -getting nastier all the time.


By the way - the British and French Empires spanned the globe in both conflicts. WW1 saw quite a bit of fighting in East Africa, even the Falklands.

 

This American agrees that the real fighting began in 1939 (or May, 1940). Perhaps the US views it later is that the US did the bulk of the fighting in the Pacific.
(This does not in any diminish the efforts of the Chinese or the assorted other Allies in Asian Theaters). It's just that the naval war was so massive and the island hopping so savage and the US really took it all the way to the Home Islands, it's hard not to see Dec,41 as the real start. I wonder what date our Russian friends would put on it? Maybe June 41 ?

 

I suspect that Asians especially Chinese and possibly Japanese would go with 37 though. Personally as I thin I've said before it depends on how you define it. I could go with any of a number of dates based on exactly what the question was.

If Britain's involvement in a war means it is a world war does that mean the Easter Rebellion was a world war?

 

I can understand that, but not the attempts to push it back to '30s China; is that based on the attack on the USS Panay?
USS Panay - Home

 

My impression was the earlier fighting between the Japanese and Chinese but since there was a significant period without any fighting before it resumed in 37 I don't see pushing it back any further.

One of my critieria for a "world war" by the way would be significant land combat on several continents. The simple participation of a world spannig Empire doesn't seem adequate to me nor does the battle against a few raiders scatter across various oceans.

 

Unlikely, since the World War had already been ongoing for nearly two years.
Neither does US involvement indicate a World War.

 

Well, that's arguable. The Japanese seized French bases in Indochina in July 1940 with the approval of the Vichy government. Britain, America and the Dutch declared oil embargoes on Japan in July 1941, as well the US freezing Japanese assets. Why didn't this happen earlier if the US saw Japan as such a threat? They had the perfect excuse with the Panay.

 

I wouldn't defend 30's China as a date, but the Panay? Do many Americans cite the 30's date? Maybe if you're searching for the roots of a US - Japanese conflict and don't like the Dec 7 date?

lwd
The Easter Rebellion was a rebellion. It's not Britain's involvement that matters, but the British Empire. Do troops from Europe,Aus,Canada,NZ,South Africa,Nepal,India and 100 other places take part in the fighting? Is there fighting of any type in these places? I suppose you can ask the same question about France. I think WW1 and WW2 denote a Great War that really has no name. The 7 Years War was a world war as were many others during the age of empires or Napoleon.

 

It's interesting that the Japanese don't seem to consider WW2 starting before 1941-
Japanese history: Militarism and World War II

 

I've seen a few do so, but I don't know how widespread that is.

 

No mate...Britain was not at war with Ireland. Rebellion yes...war no...

 

Very true. US public sympathy was with China, but was much more in favor of isolation. Roosevelt seems to have just continued the US position of wanting an 'Open Door' policy toward China and was diplomatically opposed to Japanese expansion there. He was also somewhat of an anti-imperialist. But there was no way that the Panay would stir a war movement with the public or the government. The isolationists in congress were a problem right up till the US went to war. I think Roosevelt hopped that economic pressure would control Japanese aggression. US isolation feeling was so strong that some importantly situated people tried to pass Nazi secrets to the US as late as 1939 and were just thanked and ignored by all the government circles. Just not our concern.

 

I think many people have confused isolationist with non-interventionalist.
There were isolationists in Congress who didn't want to have any trade with belligerants, but it seems the majority of people supported helping out the Allies except by going to war.

From the link you posted "The fact of the matter is that many people were aware that we had to face up to the fact that we would drawn into the war, and, albeit it reluctant to face the maelstrom yet again, knew that we would have to fight the Axis."

From the gallup results, most supported the Allied war effort, but didn't want the US to enter the war. I wonder if they really believed that US entry into the war was inevitable, or whether they still hoped that some kind of "deal" could be worked out?

 

It is difficult to be elaborate on such a complex and yet so obvious subject. By seeking just similarities among wars we may even relate the WW2 to Teutonic knights. However, there are many differences that separate the Great War and WW2 but I will focus to the most important:

1. The Great War was a »normal« war of conquest whilst the WW2 was a war of annihilation targeted to erase entire nations.
2. The objective of German Nazis was to gain the Lebensraum deprived from the original population. Likewise, Japan had its concept of Co-Prosperity Sphere.
3. German and Austro-Hungarian empires were lead by normal politicians while Nazi Germany was lead by a bunch of criminals.
4. Organized industrial slaughter in concentration camps.
5. ...
N. ...

The list may be even longer. By merging these entirely different wars, a Nazi component of German history would become just a continuation of the previous German policy. Nazis, however were a disruptive element in otherwise great German history and should be treated separately.

 

This, from my personal story: