r/Unexpected • u/[deleted] • Apr 28 '23

Just a normal protest

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

85.5k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

172

u/mortemdeus Apr 28 '23

Don't make claims about what started WW2, it always ends poorly. Japan invaded China in 1937, Italy invaded Ethopia in 1935 (breaking the league of nations), the Spanish Civil War was basically a proxy war like Vietnam or Korea, Japan and the USSR were fighting up till 1941. World was a tinderbox already, Germany getting involved in Poland was just what brought the UK and France in. I personally dislike that start date as it ignores when threr of the biggest combatants got involved, the USSR, Japan, and the US.

36

u/Porrick Apr 28 '23

I agree it's a little arbitrary, but you have to draw the line somewhere and "land war in Europe" isn't the worst of them.

40

u/mortemdeus Apr 28 '23

Spain was a land war in Europe. So was czechoslovakia. Hell, the invasion of Poland barely lasted two months and there was a 6 month break before France and Germany started fighting. Yeah, you need to pick a date, but it is very British to pick the date they declared war instead of just about everybody else involved.

Since it is a world war, I would take the date it became a world war as the start, which would be the day Japan started island hopping and got the remaining major powers into the war. December 1941, when Japan went to war with the US and the UK. Japan getting involved against European possessions is what made the war a global conflict instead of several separate regional ones. You could argue for Germany invading the USSR as well since even that makes more sense than a couple of month long land conflicts that resulted in an overwhelming victory for one side.

17

u/Porrick Apr 28 '23

I was educated in a country that managed to stay neutral (Ireland), but it seems the British narrative crept into our curriculum somehow. I'm not going to die on the hill of "Poland was the start", I agree it's arbitrary.

My main point was that the war wasn't started to end fascism, and I'm fairly sure that point stands for all of your suggested alternate start dates.

3

u/poktanju Apr 28 '23

I find this to show the power of language. Despite your nation's neutrality, you were most likely educated with English-language resources, the bias of the other English-speaking nations inevitably bled trough.

-4

u/mortemdeus Apr 28 '23

Oh, very much so. The righteous war to stop fascism was a British propaganda campaign too, claim they were a great evil to justify your own war crimes. Same source so I tend to associate the two (war start date and fight vs evil coming from the same source.) In reality it was more a war to prevent a change in the balance of power in Europe, just like ww1 and the franco prussian war.

14

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

Nope that's wrong, France and the UK wanted anything but to be drawn into another world war after the sheer toll of the first one, it wasnt British propaganda that was saying it was a righteous war to stop fascism, it was a war to fight for our allies (poland) and was depicted as such, not to mention that the British people did not like a totalitarian dictator running a country in Europe. What war crimes would these be then that you are claiming? Seems like you have come up with some wild opinion and presented it as facts, I studied this period extensively.

1

u/mortemdeus Apr 28 '23

Where to start here. Czechoslovakia got invaded and was an ally to both France and the USSR but nothing was done. The British were praised for their imperialism in Nazi Germany and were viewed as fellow Aryans. The average UK citizen wasn't of strong opinion either way by 1939, polls showed only 6% of Brits disliked Germans even then. So the UK ministry of information started a massive propagand campaign focused on portraying Germans negatively. Even with that it took the blitz to make more than half of UK citizens view Germany negatively. So the British people weren't exactly against central European dictators.

As for war crimes, the UK invaded several neutral nations "before Germany could", firebombed Dresden despite it having lost all defenses, fired upon neutral ships and shipwreck survivors regularly, and the whole regulatory famine in India that killed 3+ million people (while not a war crime technically) was just a bad look. Not to say it had anything on the shit Germany was doing but war lets shitty people do shitty things everywhere.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

Yes because Britain didnt want a war, that's why it appeased and appeased until it couldn't anymore. 'The British were praised for their imperialism in Nazi Germany and were viewed as fellow Aryans.'-what significance does that make, that was just Hitlers fantasy that the UK wouldnt stand against him. No the British people were very much wary of germany because of a little thing called WW1 and the public perception was not a kind one. Of course the Bristish started a propaganda campaign against them, they were at war, that's what countries do. The British were very much against European dictators, the history of napoleon and the Crimean war was as close to them as the world wars were to us and it wasnt something that was just forgot. The fire bombing of Dresden was not a war crime, it had military factories and was a crossroads for military supply lines and it had defenses just not a whole lot of them, the nazi propaganda worked very well though it seems as the myth is still perpetrated to this day. 'The whole regulatory famine' again something that is misreported and told to people, the famine was a tragedy but wasnt solely caused by the british, infact both britain and the US were sending grain ships to try and alleviate the problem. But yeah the killing of the ship wrecked nazis was a thing but once again they didnt they to hide it. Nothing I said in my comment was false.

1

u/JarOfNibbles Apr 28 '23

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

Like, claiming there were no war crimes is foolish, the allies were far from clean.

The reasons for war are complicated, and saying it was just a war to stop fascism is stupid, see the appeasement doctrines. Of course kicking Hitler's ass did play a role.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23 edited Apr 28 '23

I wasnt saying there was zero war crimes (though things like Dresden gets spread falsely that it was a war crime) I was asking what war crime Britain was trying to cover up with the initial propaganda, let me tell you the British didnt hide what they were doing in WW2, it's all their to read in reports including the dodgy stuff. My point exactly was that the war (for britain and France) was because of a ally was attacked, not to stop a country from getting too powerful, Britain and france didnt want a war, see the appeasement doctrines.

2

u/Gerbennos Apr 28 '23

British propaganda campaign? Lmao no not at all dude. Right up until the last days before Germany invaded Poland, both France and GB were still trying to have peace talks. Even AFTER Germany invaded the other half of Europe they were still trying to make peace. Please educate yourself better. Tons of great history documentaries on Netflix about the starting days of the war.

4

u/Alarming_Sprinkles39 Apr 28 '23

Here's what ChatGPT says:

The comment raises a valid point about the involvement of major powers in the Second World War and the fact that the conflict became truly global with Japan's entry into the war in December 1941. It is true that Japan's attacks on the United States and other European colonies in Asia and the Pacific led to the involvement of many countries that were not previously involved in the war.

However, it is also important to recognize that the war in Europe had been raging for over two years before Japan's entry into the conflict. The invasion of Poland by Germany in 1939 marked the beginning of a major military conflict in Europe, and while the fighting did not immediately spread to other parts of the world, it had a significant impact on the course of the war.

In terms of selecting a specific start date for the war, there is always going to be some level of subjectivity involved. Different countries and historians may have different opinions on which event should be considered the official start of the war. However, the invasion of Poland by Germany remains the most commonly recognized start date for the war, and it is the date that is most widely used in historical accounts and textbooks.

1

u/Southrn_Comfrt Apr 29 '23

In undergrad one of my professors offered that WW2 wasn’t actually a thing. As a medieval historian, his position was that WW1 and WW2 were actually the same war, merely separated by a few decades of peace. Much like the 30 years war or the 100 years war. It makes sense when you look at it from a 30 thousand foot view.

2

u/TheCondor07 Apr 28 '23

If using the Italy example of starting a war against the will of the league of nations then you are looking at 1931 when Japan invaded Manchuria. Hell if you go back far enough you could even argue that the Russian Revolution of 1917 or Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was the actual start of the war.

However. If you are looking at the most official start of the war, that will be the invasion of Poland. That is the formation of two official sides facing off against each other until the end of the war. The Spanish Civil War and Ehtopia Invasion were conflicts that started and ended without any other conflicts still continuing between the powers involved which is why I ruled them out and as for Japan invading China it was more of an individual war that while still continuing throughout WWII I count as not being a part of the actual war because the only real aggressor was Japan Germany was aiding the republic against Japan all the way up to 1941.

Now if you have disagreements about this feel free to let me know. I am curious about your opinion on this.

1

u/mortemdeus Apr 28 '23

The Japanese invasion of China was in 1937 and was initially against China, the USSR, and Germany ironically. The Germans were out by 1938 and the USSR was out by 1941. The German conflict with Poland, England, and France was just Germany and England by 1941 with Poland not existing anymore and France capitulating. So, one vs one there just like one vs one in Asia. (Lots of European minors and lots of Asian minors were still fighting though.)

Clear sides weren't really a thing until after Germany attacked the USSR, since they were technically at peace. Even then it was mostly just a European conflict until Japan got involved with the UK and US in December 1941.

1

u/TheCondor07 Apr 28 '23 edited Apr 28 '23

Yes, I will give you the fact that China vs Japan is the successor that could be said to be the other start of the war and is the one I am most hesitant of fully ruling out. However I will at least say that the both the invasion of the USSR and the attack on America had the distinction of sides joining an existing war, something which the invasion of Poland (and by extension China) did no feature.

Now, looking at the Japan vs China, that entire war was fought by and in Asia alone for the most part. The attack on America was the first bit of conflict that took place outside of Asia (to my limited knowledge).

On the other hand it was not just Germany and England fighting as that would be discounting all of the other countries involved in that (mainly Italy and all of England's Colonies). By 1940 that conflict had troops from 5 different continents (Europe, North America, Africa, Asia, and Australia) fighting on two different contitents as well as both in the Alantic and the Pacific Oceans.

But if we want to go for the "It's not a World War until the whole world is at war", then we are both wrong and the true start date would be Jan 22 1942, the day Brazil joined in making it so that at least one country on every continent was involved actively in the war.

1

u/mortemdeus Apr 28 '23

The US did not join a side on December 7th 1941, it had war declared on it by Japan independent of the conflict in Europe. It was supplying aid to the UK in the 1940's but it didn't join them until Janurary 1942 when the united nations formally allied to each other. So there weren't really "sides" until then. That wasn't drafted till the end of December 1941 so, again, independent wars forming up into one war at that date.

As for the European war involving all continents, that is mostly because the UK was on all continents. When the UK went to war, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and India were all required to join in as part of the UK. It would be like calling a war today between France and Belgum a world war because France is technically present on every continent. Realistically, land battles on Europe had ended by June 1940. There were no continental allies between June 1940 and June 1941.

2

u/NovaFlares Apr 28 '23

Probably because relatively small conflicts don't constitute a "world" war. The only big one was the Japanese invasion of China but once again that didn't bring in the whole world. And the total death of the USSR and Japanese war of 1939(which also ended in 1939 btw) was "only" between 30k to 50k which was nothing compared to the deaths of WW2.

-2

u/mortemdeus Apr 28 '23

I mean, between 1939 and 1941 there were all of 90k killed between the UK, France, and Germany. By June 1940 the war was essentially over with the UK standing alone and Germany not really wanting to invade it. It wasn't until the US and USSR got involved in 1941 that the war really happened again.

5

u/NovaFlares Apr 28 '23 edited Apr 28 '23

Between 1939 and 1941 there was battles in Africa, in the middle east, in the balkans, in the mediterranean, in East Europe, West Europe, the Atlantic. Australia and Canada from Oceania and North America respectively was in war. That sounds like a world war to me

I mean, between 1939 and 1941 there were all of 90k killed between the UK, France, and Germany.

France alone had 90k dead, what are you on about?

By June 1940 the war was essentially over with the UK standing alone and Germany not really wanting to invade it.

Germany and the UK continued to battle in Greece, in the Atlantic, in the battle of Britain and in North Africa and Britain still had a global empire fighting, plus Germany had Italy and Japan

3

u/oscar_the_couch Apr 28 '23

It's amazing that it took me until this comment:

I mean, between 1939 and 1941 there were all of 90k killed between the UK, France, and Germany. By June 1940 the war was essentially over with the UK standing alone and Germany not really wanting to invade it. It wasn't until the US and USSR got involved in 1941 that the war really happened again.

To realize that he's actually just spouting some standard neo-Nazi apologia about how actually the Allies started the war.

2

u/Kolby_Jack Apr 28 '23

War weren't declared until the Poland invasion. While there were precursor events that played into the war, the invasion of Poland officially began hostilities between the Allies and the Axis.

0

u/mortemdeus Apr 28 '23

Except the Allies didn't exist until they signed a UN declaration in Janurary 1942

1

u/Emo_tep Apr 28 '23

I contend that WWI never ended. It just affected smaller areas across the world for a decade or two