Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (5) 1 2 [3] 4 5   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> When did WW2 become WORLD war?, What would be the date?
Radub
Posted: December 20, 2008 09:42 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



Hi Imperialist,
Brazil WAS NOT the only South American country involved in the war. Also, in my opinion, 25.000 troops is far from "token".

You say that what makes a country be "part of war" is some sort of significant effort. I say that the size of effort matters very little. What matters is a "state of war". If a declaration of war is made, then the countries involved are "at war". A declaration of war puts a country on a war footing, such as mobilisation of troops, seisure of objectives and supplies of military importance, etc. you know, the kind of stuff that you do when you are "at war". If a declaration of war leads to no harm, then that is a bit of good luck, but it does not invalidate the declaration of war.

The continent of Australia was the only "entire continent" involved in the war. That is because it is the only nation (it is a federal union of states) that spans a whole continent. Europe was not "entirely" at war since many countries (Spain, Sweden, etc.) remained neutral thoughout the conflict. Asia was not "entirely" at war because some countries (Turkey for example) remained neutral. Same with Africa.

But I repeat, this argument that it is "the whole continent or nothing" is a red herring and a side show. This was brought in as a "considering factor" a couple of answers back. The only one that seems to make it the "deciding factor" is you.

I suppose that the the war became "world war" when a large enough majority of countries of the world were officially "at war" either due to declaration of war, military operation or occupation.
Here is a list of the coountries that had something to do with the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II

Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: December 20, 2008 10:26 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Radub @ December 20, 2008 09:42 pm)
Hi Imperialist,
Brazil WAS NOT the only South American country involved in the war. Also, in my opinion, 25.000 troops is far from "token".

You say that what makes a country be "part of war" is some sort of significant effort. I say that the size of effort matters very little. What matters is a "state of war". If a declaration of war is made, then the countries involved are "at war". A declaration of war puts a country on a war footing, such as mobilisation of troops, seisure of objectives and supplies of military importance, etc. you know, the kind of stuff that you do when you are "at war". If a declaration of war leads to no harm, then that is a bit of good luck, but it does not invalidate the declaration of war.

But I repeat, this argument that it is "the whole continent or nothing" is a red herring and a side show. This was brought in as a "considering factor" a couple of answers back. The only one that seems to make it the "deciding factor" is you.

I suppose that the the war became "world war" when a large enough majority of countries of the world were officially "at war" either due to declaration of war, military operation or occupation.

We're not talking about a country being "part of war" (as in any war), we're talking about a country being part of WWII, which was total war.

Among other things, total war implies:

a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a total mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use their rival's capacity to continue resistance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

Now you're telling me that Brazil's expeditionary force and squadron of airplanes represented the mobilization of a majority of Brazil's manpower? Or that the economic effort involved to support them represented most of Brazil's GDP? Or that the equipment needed to arm them necessitated most of Brazil's industrial capacity? Come on. It's beyond doubt that Brazil's contribution was token contribution part of a wider coalition effort in which Brazil was a junior "partner".

As for the "involved continent" issue. I never made it an issue of "the whole continent or nothing"! Don't put words into my mouth.

And I remind you of my post which started this discussion. I asked some relevant and simple questions in it:

What does "involved continents" mean?
Russia has a part on the European continent but Russia waging war on Japan doesn't make the whole European continent involved.

Is the involvement of continents relevant for the definition of a world war?

And does it have to be (direct/indirect) military involvement or only diplomatical?

Do all of them have to be involved?

If that is so then WWII was not a world war since South America was left out.


http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=68568

I think the questions were legitimate and intended to clarify the discussion. They were certainly not red herrings.

Instead of focusing on the questions, you and Denes picked off the detail about South America being involved because Brazil sent some planes and expeditionary corps:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=68575

I think we're starting to go in circles and not clarifying anything. Concerning the main question, I already said that 1939 is the date when WW2 started IMO.
PM
Top
Radub
Posted: December 20, 2008 10:44 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



You are introducing concepts that have very little to do with what this thread is about.
The question was when did the war that started in 1939 become a "world war".
No one asked when it became a "total war".

Just in case you did not notice:
SOUTH AMERICA WAS NOT LEFT OUT!

Have fun, I am out of this.
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: December 20, 2008 11:36 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Radub @ December 20, 2008 10:44 pm)
You are introducing concepts that have very little to do with what this thread is about.
The question was when did the war that started in 1939 become a "world war".
No one asked when it became a "total war".

Just in case you did not notice:
SOUTH AMERICA WAS NOT LEFT OUT!

Have fun, I am out of this.
Radu

No, I'm introducing relevant concepts and stressing the need to agree on the terms we use.

We cannot identify when the war that started in 1939 became a world war if we cannot agree on what a world war means and what its traits are. You do realise that I hope. So I fail to understand why you're angry with me for going into details with this. I've tried to be as clear and amiable as I could be.

South America was not left out. Yes, I agreed with that from a diplomatical point of view. I disagreed with that from a military point of view. From a military point of view only Brazil participated. With the note that its participation was token and it was not geared to a total war.

Now if you wanted this to remain at a chat level ("I think it started in ..."/ "No, I think it started in ...") then I'm sorry for bringing such complexities in it.




PM
Top
MMM
Posted: December 21, 2008 08:25 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE
2 or more global powers are in a state of war

This is right; however, at the beginning of ww2, there wasn't yet the concept of global powers as it is now or as it was in the 1960's. Anyway, it is a very good conclusion!
As for the South America part: there was a certain level of involvement, but not comparable with Europe or Asia. I agree it's not fair to judge whole continents!
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
MMM
Posted: December 21, 2008 08:28 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE
geared to a total war

Except SU and US :D no other state was geared for a total war. Germany in the last years, and UK in a little measure. That's all!
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: December 21, 2008 09:22 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4336
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Radu, please refrain from shouting. Thank you.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: December 21, 2008 06:04 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



So, again, a definite conclusion is both impossible and unsought...
Oy-vey! :lol:

This post has been edited by MMM on December 21, 2008 06:16 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Radub
Posted: December 21, 2008 07:49 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



Sorry Victor, you are right. I find it frustrating that, yet again, the discussion is getting sidetracked into all sorts of weird tangents.

Brazil is part of South America. If Brazil got involved in the war, to whatever degree, then there was South American involvement in the war. This is a historically recorded fact, not a matter of opinion. Period.

When a country is at war, it is at war. Some put more effort into it, some put less effort into it. It does not have to be "total" to be a "war". Great Britain was at war as soon as it declared war, not when it became "total war", whatever that may be. Imagine Churchill asking: "Are at war yet?" and the other guys going "Nope, not yet, the total mobilization of all available resources at our disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use our rival's capacity to continue resistance is not yet complete. I am afraid we are not at war yet." Chuchill says: "But London just got blitzed! Is that not an act of war?". The others say: "Nope, if it ain't total war, then it ain't war at all". Silly, to say the least. :blink:

Anyway, now I am out of this. We got bogged in a side issue.
The question was when did the war became "world war", not when it became "total war" (whatever the [expletive] that is.)

BTW, the answer has already been issued http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wars

Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Radub
Posted: December 21, 2008 07:52 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



Quote from the Wikipedia article:

Three months before World War II began in Europe, Time magazine first used the term "World War I" in its issue of June 12, 1939, when comparing the last war with the upcoming war.[4]

The term "Second World War" was coined in the 1920s. In 1928, US Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg advocated his treaty "for the renunciation of war" (known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact) as being a "practical guarantee against a second world war". The term came into widespread use as soon as the war began in 1939. Time magazine introduced the term "World War II" in the same article of June 12, 1939, in which it introduced "World War I," three months before the start of the second war.

End of quote
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: December 21, 2008 08:08 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



That I didn't know! I just knew that before the WW2, WW1 was called "The Great War"...
And, regarding the wiki as a source, I'm not sure this is entirely reliable; plus, I wanted to see other people's oppinions on this; more precisely, other people who knew what they're talking about. It seems those were you, Cantacuzino, Victor, Imperialist and Denes. Seemed enough :)
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Radub
Posted: December 21, 2008 08:17 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (MMM @ December 21, 2008 08:08 pm)
That I didn't know! I just knew that before the WW2, WW1 was called "The Great War"...
And, regarding the wiki as a source, I'm not sure this is entirely reliable; plus, I wanted to see other people's oppinions on this; more precisely, other people who knew what they're talking about. It seems those were you, Cantacuzino, Victor, Imperialist and Denes. Seemed enough :)

Oh no! I make no claims of superior knowledge. Don't rely on me. :lol:

Wikipedia can be wrong sometimes, but not always. "Sift the chaff away from the flour" and you can find some truth there.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on December 21, 2008 08:18 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: December 21, 2008 08:38 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Radub @ December 21, 2008 07:49 pm)
Sorry Victor, you are right. I find it frustrating that, yet again, the discussion is getting sidetracked into all sorts of weird tangents.

QUOTE
Brazil is part of South America. If Brazil got involved in the war, to whatever degree, then there was South American involvement in the war. This is a historically recorded fact, not a matter of opinion. Period.


I did not disagree with you about the existence of South American involvement, in fact I clearly stressed that I agree as far as Brazil is concerned. However you claimed South America as a continent was involved. Diplomatically yes, again I agreed, the military part was the only thing I disagreed with.

QUOTE
When a country is at war, it is at war. Some put more effort into it, some put less effort into it. It does not have to be "total" to be a "war". Silly, to say the least.  :blink:


It doesn't have to be total to be a war? Who could have thought. Really? :)
Seriously now, there are different types of wars and the differences between those types are pretty relevant in international relations. There's nothing silly in that, in fact the number of academic studies and researches written on these subjects are quite extensive. And believe me, the approach they use is complex and if you couldn't stand this simple discussion then the approach would in fact be very complex in your perception.

The world wars stand out as total wars. And yes, that is relevant. Not for the date on which WW2 started, but for the token or non-token character of Brazil's or of the South American continent's involvement in the world war which we were talking about.

QUOTE
We got bogged in a side issue.
The question was when did the war became "world war", not when it became "total war" (whatever  the [expletive] that is.)


The issue of total war was raised in our discussion about the South American continent's involvement, not in the one about the date on which WWII started! I never said or implied that WWII started when it became total war. I don't know what to make of this, do you read any of my posts?

PM
Top
dragos
Posted: December 21, 2008 09:07 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



So are you saying the war became a world war before it became a total war? Because France and UK were not in a total war versus Germany until 1940, but in a "phoney war" ;)
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
MMM
Posted: December 21, 2008 09:23 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



Oh, sorry, it sems I forgot Dragoş frm the contributors' list. :ph34r: And dead cat and drgeorge as well... :ph34r:
The phony war was called so because of the lack of military activity. They clearly did NOT have any notion about total war back then, much less other nations. Again, the exceptions were SU (totalitarian state, according to Suvorov already geared up for war) and US (the most powerful industrial "source"), which entered the war at a later stage - though Russians invaded Poland from 17-th Sept. 1939!
RE: imperialist: let's say that south american involvement was minimal, but WAS! How about that?
RE: superior knowledge: I'm sure it was a joke - after all, we're quite equal in here and no one is supposed to be "superior"; if it is in knowledge, then share! :P
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (5) 1 2 [3] 4 5  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0273 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]