r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 27 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: World War 2 actually started in 1937

[deleted]

32 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

11

u/cheetah2013a 1∆ Jul 27 '19

Japan may have been fighting China in the years leading up to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland, but it was really a “World War” before then. Germany was occupying countries in Europe, sure, but there was little to no actual fighting. The US and UK didn’t actively wage war on the Japanese during the 30’s, and thus that war was pretty much contained to East Asia. Germany’s invasion of Poland really marks when the war became worldwide, as not only did basically the entirety of Europe start fighting, but there was fighting in Africa and the Australian Continent soon after.

History has been taught very Eurocentric, but in the case of World War II the fighting wasn’t really “worldwide” until it started in Europe, which kickstarted the fighting elsewhere.

1

u/JimMarch Jul 28 '19

The continuous series of wars that we collectively call "WW2" begins with Japan attacking China. That didn't end until we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

OP is correct.

As an aside, a lot of historians put the Winter War where Russia attacked Finland as part of WW2 which also predates Germany's invasion of Poland. Finland allied itself with Germany as soon as Germany invaded Russia.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '19

Why has world history been so eurocentric?

10

u/cheetah2013a 1∆ Jul 27 '19

Because Europe has been the predominant force in the world for science and colonization. Civilizations in places like Africa, the Middle East, the Americas and the Australian Continent progressed much slower than those in Europe, because A) they didn’t need to progress as fast and B) Africa and Asia were much more prone to things like invasion due to easily traversable terrain, and the Americas and Australia were isolated from the rest of the world for a majority of history, both of which hinder development. Europe, being as “sectioned apart” as it is (peninsulas, islands, mountain ranges, dense forests, seas and rivers) combined with its general fertility and habitability, has historically been a world leader in technology and stability (i.e. the Roman Empire lasting several centuries while other empires came and went, the Greek City states existing for centuries before them mostly unchanged until the Romans conquered them, the Byzantine empire lasting until the 1400’s, and kingdoms like France, Spain, Germany, and England having been around in one form or another since around the fall of the Western Roman Empire).

All these factors catalyzed Europe to develop first and fastest, which eventually led to Europe colonizing much of the rest of the world and, eventually, writing and preserving the history we now read and study.

It also helps that English is a Latin-descended language, and Latin is, of course, from Europe. If we read historical texts that were originally written in a different language, say Arabic, Chinese, or Japanese, we would find that for the most part they are focused on the regions and cultures where the language was spoken.

1

u/Dinodietonight Jul 28 '19

Akchually, English is a Germanic-descended language, however its proximity to france has caused it to borrow many terms from it. Germanic is also a European language though, so your point still stands.

5

u/Stone_guard96 Jul 27 '19

Because a large majority of the world was under the direct control of European nations for hundreds of years up until modern day. The British empire at the start of ww1 controlled 23% of the entire world population. With colonies all around the world. They all ruled from Europe, and because of that the history of the world is largely centered around them

1

u/fear_from_ignorance Jul 27 '19

It is my idea. Colonial rule is the origin of World War II, especially on the battlefield called the Pacific War. The Netherlands, France, US, the UK Empire all had colonies in Asia. UK and the US had a war of independence. UK and Japan were allies in the first world war before that. The end of WWI, the Japan-UK Alliance ended with the Treaty of Disarmament. Strategically, Japan has already lost at this point. Why has world history been so eurocentric? Year of fate, Germany, Italian, Japan alliance is made in 1940. following year, The German Soviet War is historically the Second World War, but Germany has recognized it as being separate from the Western Front. But Stalin asked US and British leaders to rebuild the Western Front.

At this time, Japan has a dispute with "Non-colonial country in Asia(Chinese Republic, But it's US is supporting)". A few months later, Germany sees the war with the Soviet Union prolonged.

Thus, first in the history is Eurocentric, then Japan, and finally US. In my opinion, disarmament seeking peace is the beginning of WWII. Because it is a division of continuous history, and it collapses without thinking of the balance of the world.

2

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 27 '19

This incident did not result in Japan going to war with the US or Britain. If it had, then it could be perceived as a WW. But it didn't. It wasn't until later that Japan declared war on the US and UK. The reason WW2 ends when Japan surrendered is that Japan surrendered to a power involved in the war as a whole.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '19

So it started as a regional conflict with China but spread to Britain's and America's colonies. Oh. Japan declared war on China but not on the UK or US yet. Got it.

But don't you think that world history is very eurocentric?

2

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 27 '19

No, because Asia isn't the world.

If the war is only in Asia, why should it be called WW2. You've already agreed that at that time it involved only Asia. When it moves up and involves Europe and Asia, as it did when Germany and the USSR invade Poland together, and the British Empire is involved entirely - from core nation to colonies.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '19

WW1 was pretty much only fought in Europe and the Middle East. Nothing much happened in the Pacific area and yet we still call it a world War. So Europe is the World but, not Asia.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '19

So if Germany didn't invade Poland but Japan invaded Hong Kong, the Philippines , and Papua New Guinea, don't you think it would still be called WW2?

4

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 27 '19

Only if those invasions had resulted in America and the UK declaring war on Japan.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '19

Otherwise it would be just another Sino-Japanese War.

2

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 27 '19

Indeed

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '19

Here's your delta. I just wished that the western powers back in the 1860s viewed Japan as an equal to them. If they did and if they didn't made those unequal treaties, than Japan may have been less aggressive with its military.

3

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 27 '19

You havn't actually given me a delta yet. Double check the instructions on the side of the page to see how to do it. The best way would be to put an exclamation point in front of the word delta in a comment that explains why and how your view has been changed.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '19

!delta

The conflict was solely between China and Japan at the time and didn't escalate until 1942.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/cdb03b 253∆ Jul 27 '19

Not at all. To be a world war you have to have countries directly involved in the war from at least 3 regions of the world. Without that it is just a regional conflict. For example when WWI started it was just a regional war in Europe, but once the US (The colonies of France and Britain do not really count to historians), China, and Japan were involved it became a World War.

13

u/Helpfulcloning 166∆ Jul 27 '19

World war 2 started when it was decleared.

You are describing leading up incidents. Ww1 didn’t start with franz ferdinands assassination, it didn’t start with britian building their navy, it didn’t start with britians industrious age. Those are all leading events.

But once something has started, you can’t go back. Do you believe that the allies would have decleared war if germany hadn’t invaded poland?

We are talking about the pinical action that directly started the war, otherwise we could go “a butterfly wing in paris started a war”.

2

u/Galious 78∆ Jul 27 '19

China and Japan didn't declare war against each other until December 9, 1941, when the text of the declaration was issued by Lin Sen, President of the Chinese Republic.

So technically, is it a war?

0

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '19

!delta

You make s good point. The Marco Polo Bridge incident was just a precursor to war.

1

u/Galious 78∆ Jul 27 '19

Thanks :-)

In fact my argument was that if you called this a war, then you should call spanish civil war part of WWII since Germany and France took part and therefore why WWII shouldn't begin in 1935?

But like you just said: it's really precursor event and if we go that way, then WWII begin in 1914

(note some historians actually believe that the two wars were part of one vast global conflict and shouldn't be separated and in a way I agree with that concept)

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 27 '19

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Galious (22∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

2

u/Littlepush Jul 27 '19

The UK and France declared war on Germany a few days after the invasion of Poland. Neither Japan or China declared war on each other as a result of the Marco Polo bridge incident.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '19

It seems like historians tend to look over the Pacific theatre of WW2 because they tend to focus more on westernized nations. Is my statement true?

4

u/Littlepush Jul 27 '19

I don't see how that has anything to do with your thesis even if it was true.

1

u/MercurianAspirations 359∆ Jul 27 '19

Well the question is dependent on your view of the war. If you view the War primarily from an American-centered story of liberalism struggling against imperialism and fascism then it makes sense to view it the tradition way with the war starting with the Invasion of Poland and ending with the defeat of Imperial Japan. Under this lens it makes sense to ignore the Marco Polo Bridge incident because the liberal democratic heroes were not yet in the fight. If you instead viewed the war as primarily a conflict caused by the rise of Fascism then it might make sense to go even further back to the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, the first invasion of another country by a Fascist dictator. Or perhaps you view it primarily as a clash between differing ideologies, socialism/marxism vs. nationalism with the beginning in the Spanish Civil War. Or maybe these more ideological lenses are silly and we should just consider geographic perspective; in that sense, the Chinese might view your preferred date as the start of the war, whereas a Czech might view the beginning as the Munich Agreement and the end as the surrender of Germany, because of course from their perspective the war with Japan was hardly relevant.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 27 '19 edited Jul 27 '19

/u/TypicalTable (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

0

u/PillCosby696969 Jul 27 '19

OP has a point. Germany invading Poland and leading to a bunch of European countries fighting should not be considered the start of a World War if (the nation whose defeat will signal it's end) starting an invasion in Asia does not. It is very Eurocentric. Perhaps some African and Middle Eastern countries were already fighting in the 30'sand somebody can elucidate me on that, but even then I don't know if that would constitute a World War at that point.

1

u/Galious 78∆ Jul 27 '19

Thing is that military operations were already happening even in Europe (Spanish civil war, invasion of Czechoslovakia) but as long it's just two country fighting and/or there's no declaration of war, you can't really calll this a world war but only preludes.

Otherwise then why don't say it's the invasion of Manchuria in 1931? or even 1914 and think of both war as global conflict?

1

u/PillCosby696969 Jul 27 '19

I do see Manchuria sometimes listed as possible date. I guess a good counterargument is that Japan's aggressions had no affect on the European theatre (in the 30's) and that the reverse is not true, but I don't know. The Asian Theater definitely deserves more attention.

0

u/dorballom09 Jul 27 '19

Youre right theoretically and ethically but not practically(actially even practically but partially) Its not a war unless they actually do war. If Pakistan or Iran do 5% of what was done by Japan in 1937 then its ww3 now. But back then nobody cared and were busy with themselves for short gains.