NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking about this for the past few days. WW2 seems more like two wars than one. The European war is WW2 and the Pacific war is the Japano-American war. Although Japan and Germany allied, the fighting in both areas was completely different. The European war was really like a world war, but the Pacific war was really just Japan vs. America (and Britain, Austrailia, and eventually the USSR).

Any thoughts?

The one common ingredient is the US. Japan attacked us first, December 7, then Germany declared war on us. There are two distinct theaters of war, but they are linked.

You'd be better off classifing WWI and WWII as the same war, with an armsistace in between. Russia and Japan were enimies during the war. Just because a large country existed between the fronts doesn't make it two wars.

By this logic, WWI was two wars (Germany had two fronts) and WII would actually be three wars.

You'd be better off classifing WWI and WWII as the same war, with an armsistace in between. Russia and Japan were enimies during the war. Just because a large country existed between the fronts doesn't make it two wars.

By this logic, WWI was two wars (Germany had two fronts) and WII would actually be three wars.

Actually, four.

Eastern Front
Western Front
Pacicfic War
Sino-Japanese War

the Pacific war was really just Japan vs. America (and Britain, Austrailia, and eventually the USSR)

Did you actually read that sentence, or is it just words as they came to you?

The one common ingredient is the US. Japan attacked us first, December 7, then Germany declared war on us. There are two distinct theaters of war, but they are linked.

Umm, Germany and Japan attacked Britain, France, and Holland waaay before attacking the US.

Did you actually read that sentence, or is it just words as they came to you?

He has somewhat of a point. Consider the USSR was neutral. Japan had been fighting China since 1933, china took no part in the European theater and there was remarkably little co-ordination between the activities and interests of the Berlin/Rome axis and Tokyo. [Indeed the Berlin, Tokyo were really more co-belligerents].

So from a certian perspective, it is like two seperate wars of global reach going on at the same time.

Umm, Germany and Japan attacked Britain, France, and Holland waaay before attacking the US.

Japan attacked the US before the UK. (Well british empire, it never actually attacked the UK).

It never attacked France or Holland.

Japan attacked the US before the UK. (Well british empire, it never actually attacked the UK).


they attacked both sides on the same day (just the international date line got in the way). Canadian soldiers were in Hong Kong when it was attacked.

I'd say WWI and WWII were more like one war, than WWII was two wars.

He has somewhat of a point. Consider the USSR was neutral. Japan had been fighting China since 1933, china took no part in the European theater and there was remarkably little co-ordination between the activities and interests of the Berlin/Rome axis and Tokyo. [Indeed the Berlin, Tokyo were really more co-belligerents].

So from a certian perspective, it is like two seperate wars of global reach going on at the same time.

He has a bad point. How can he simultaneously claim that the war was not of world proportion, but involved countries from all over the world? It makes no sense.

Japan attacked the US before the UK. (Well british empire, it never actually attacked the UK).

It never attacked France or Holland.
They attacked French and Dutch possessions in SE Asia.

He has a bad point. How can he simultaneously claim that the war was not of world proportion, but involved countries from all over the world? It makes no sense.

That's because he is not expressing it very well.

You can think of it as two independant wars of global proportions, that shared some - but not all - belligerent parties.

I don't know why you'd do that. And it's slightly limping, because in part it was Hitler's attack of the USSR that enabled Japan to look east to pearl harbor. But it's not a completely stupid idea.

They attacked French and Dutch possessions in SE Asia.

Holland didn't exist at that point, and I don't believe Vichy had any control over those french-indo china.

In any case, Pearl harbor came first.

Japan attacked the US before the UK. (Well british empire, it never actually attacked the UK).

It never attacked France or Holland.

Japan attacked their colonies in Asia

That's because he is not expressing it very well.

You can think of it as two independant wars of global proportions, that shared some - but not all - belligerent parties.

I don't know why you'd do that. And it's slightly limping, because in part it was Hitler's attack of the USSR that enabled Japan to look east to pearl harbor. But it's not a completely stupid idea.

I see the overarching point expressed quite nicely in the thread title. but this

The European war was really like a world war, but the Pacific war was really just Japan vs. America (and Britain, Austrailia, and eventually the USSR).

Which implies that the pacific war was not a world war, is very silly indeed.

Umm, Germany and Japan attacked Britain, France, and Holland waaay before attacking the US.

Japan attacked USA on 7 december 1941 and at the same time declared war to the Netherlands (Indonesia), Great Britain (Burma and India) and the rest of the Allies which didn't have much interests in the Pacific. Subsequent attacks on the Phillipines, Singapore, etc... followed immediatly after each other. Don't know the exact date when Hitler was foolish enough to declare war but it was after Pearl Harbor.

Japan was actually already in a war versus nationalist china and a whole lot a China fraction like communist China. And they annexed the French territories of Indochina after French surrenderd and Vichy was installed.

It is actually one war but different theatres. Years before the war Italy, Germany and Japan signed different pacts like the Tripartie-pact (which divided the Europe, Asia and North-Africa between the three Axis) and the anti-Commintern pact (versus Russia and her allies). There was also technological trade: the feared Zero is based on the Me-109. The diffrent theaters are, according to me:

Western Europe (Allies versus Germany and Italy)
North Africa and Southern Europe (Allies versus Germany and Italy)
Eastern Europe (Germany, Italy, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland versus Russia)
Pacific: the Island Hoppers: Midway, Okinawa, Guadalcanal (Japan versus the Allies)
Pacific: China and the Southern Asia (Japan versus the Allies and very late Russia)

Read Your History, don't listen to the Politicians or Fox news.

As for WWI, there was some decision making in the USA as to which side to join. Just think what a "roll of the dice" means to human history.

Yes, WWI and WWII are very much related and could be considered as one. The USA stayed out as long as possible. Churchhill and Roosevelt used every trick in the book to sell it to the American public.................Maybe that is where George learned how to manipulate the people.........

The Japs let their ego get ahead of themselves, if they had waited for a few more months, things would have been different. They gave Roosevelt the means to sell the American public on fighting.

Of course, if Hitler had some patience to wait another year or so, the world would have been hard paced to thwart his moves, and Japan today would still be a feudalistic society and Germany would be controlling the oil fields. Maybe the USA also...............damn....that means no George W to create excitement in the world today....................

Which implies that the pacific war was not a world war, is very silly indeed.

Well that is very silly.

Holland didn't exist at that point

The Netherlands (Holland) became independent from Spain during the 16th century

The goverment in exile of the Netherlands still had control of the Duch East Indies

Holland didn't exist at that point, and I don't believe Vichy had any control over those french-indo china.

Then why did the Allies fight so hard to get them back?

"Oh, they took Indochina. Well, there's no France anymore, so I guess that's ok."

Japan attacked the US before the UK. (Well british empire, it never actually attacked the UK).

It never attacked France or Holland.


Japan over ran many British, French and Dutch outposts in the far east. Thousands of British, French and Dutch soldiers died and were imprisoned before the USA took off its blind fold at Pearl Harbor..

Holland didn't exist at that point, and I don't believe Vichy had any control over those french-indo china.

In any case, Pearl harbor came first.


You sure have a different slant on history..............Just when do you think Holland came into existance????

I've been thinking about this for the past few days. WW2 seems more like two wars than one. The European war is WW2 and the Pacific war is the Japano-American war. Although Japan and Germany allied, the fighting in both areas was completely different. The European war was really like a world war, but the Pacific war was really just Japan vs. America (and Britain, Austrailia, and eventually the USSR).

Any thoughts?

I do not see how it can be split apart.

I'd say WWI and WWII were more like one war, than WWII was two wars.

I dont really think so. In world war I....Germany was just the opposition...(they really only sprang into action once Russia mobilized so you could say its Russias fault) and wasnt really wrong in its actions. Hell...if America wasnt against Germany, I was have sided with Germany in WWI...after all thats where my family was. However, in WWII, Germany was the aggressor, and was obviously...at the risk of sounding cliche, evil. I just see the wars very differently, from the people leading Germany, to the reason why there was a war.

I'd say WWI and WWII were more like one war, than WWII was two wars.

Its more like the period 1914-1945 was filled with wars, but the thing is, that all of history was filled with war

Japan over ran many British, French and Dutch outposts in the far east. Thousands of British, French and Dutch soldiers died and were imprisoned before the USA took off its blind fold at Pearl Harbor..

*Cough* again, the attacks happened on the same day...the international dateline east was the 8 (hong kong, Singapore) and west, the 7th in Hawaii.

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

7: Japanese aerial attack on Pearl Harbor brings United States and Japan into the war. Air attacks also on Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Thailand, the Philippines, and Shanghai.

*Cough* again, the attacks happened on the same day...the international dateline east was the 8 (hong kong, Singapore) and west, the 7th in Hawaii.

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

7: Japanese aerial attack on Pearl Harbor brings United States and Japan into the war. Air attacks also on Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Thailand, the Philippines, and Shanghai.

Wasn't that in Roosevelt's speech?

yes

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_speech

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

heh. finally lost my "new member" tag

yes

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_speech



heh. finally lost my "new member" tag

Thanks and may God Rest Roosevelt's Soul!

Umm, Germany and Japan attacked Britain, France, and Holland waaay before attacking the US.


Ummmm. Germany didn't attack Britain. We declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland.

Ummmm. Germany didn't attack Britain. We declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland.

I meant they were fighting, and they attacked British and French troops during the Phoney War

Holland didn't exist at that point.


Huh? Holland has existed in one form or another since about the 9th Century. The Netherlands was invaded on 10 May 1940 by Germany

Yes, WWI and WWII are very much related and could be considered as one.



I'm not entirely convinced by this. My interpretation is that, yes WWI and WWII are related (the origins of WWII lie directly in part in WWI, or rather, the end of it) but that they are two separate wars.

Reason:

Ok, firstly, my memory's a bit hazy and I don't have my ref books with me but ...

WWI was essentially a war between the various aristocratic states of Europe. Owing to a nexus of treaties and alliances, and the general prevailing political culture, everyone got sucked into the war even non-Europeans. WWI was, more or less, a European war (albeit a big one) in which everyone was invited to take part. A series of gross simplifications, but you get the idea. Now WWI killed so many people (and followed by diseases and plagues etc) it radically altered the structure of European society.

The chaos and aftermath of the war, followed by some stupid decisions (the Chancellor's decision to salute the returning German troops as 'those undefeated on the battlefield' thereby allowing the lie that politicians betrayed germany to poison the Wiemar democracy; decision of the Weimar to allow hyperinflation), adept political manoeuvering (just about anything Hitler and the Nazis did) and some damn bad luck (death of Gustav Streseman, Wall Street Crash etc) gave rise for a set of conditions in which Nazism could flourish.

Now, whereas WWI was basically a war on the old order and could roughly be described as a war between nationsplaying the great power game, WWII was fundamentally different in that it was a war of ideologies - the war between liberal democratic capitalism, fascism/nazism and socialism communism. Once the allies won, they prompty turned on each other in the cold war until there was only one real ideology remaining, liberal democratic capitalism (albeit in its many, varied and mutated forms).

Sooooooooo ... two related, but separate, wars.

It is actually one war but different theatres.


Agreed. The commonality that links the theatres are ...

Unity of participants - largely the same people fighting in all areas
Unity of time - from around 1939 to 1945
Unity of battle plan - Allies had a co-ordinated battle plan and, largely, fought together (Note that the Axis powers didn't do that tho')

And the most important unity ...

Unity of ideology. WWII was a war of ideology. People tended to fight according to the ideology they identified with. For example, I remember seeing a documentary about some Belgian and Dutch units that fought on the side of the Axis. There were some Axis nationals that fought on the side of the Allies. And when there was a change of govt in Italy (and a change of ideology) they swapped sides. WWII should, IMHO, really be thought of as a war for the soul of mankind rather than a territorial war fought between various nations.

I meant they were fighting, and they attacked British and French troops during the Phoney War


Phoney war ... remind me ... wasn't that the six months or so after Britain declared war on germany but there was relatively little engagement, except at sea?

That's right. The French Army and British Expeditionary Force basically decided to let Germany "Blunt it's Teeth" on the Maginot Line - which Germany promptly didn't do.

The Germans used the time to prepare their forces for the Blitzkrieg through the Low Countries and into France, and solidify their hold on the ground they'd already taken (such as half of Poland).

There was a fair amount of naval conflict, mostly U-Boats vs. Convoys (the beginning of the Battle of the Atlantic) and both sides fought fiercely in the air. Britain benefitted the most from that - they got a few stupid notions ("The Bombers Always Get Through") knocked out of their heads and had a chance to reorganize the RAF - just in time for the Battle of Britain.

No its not two different wars. Its called a WORLD WAR for a reason, you know it was fought all over the world (yes a few exceptions no fighting in south america or Antartica), if anything WW1 was misnamed. Japan and Germany coordinated efforts (as did the allies, and both sides faught all over the world because of colonies and the like) to dominate different sectors. They were different theatres of operations, and so it was rightly named as were the theatre's of combat operations.

I've been thinking about this for the past few days. WW2 seems more like two wars than one. The European war is WW2 and the Pacific war is the Japano-American war. Although Japan and Germany allied, the fighting in both areas was completely different. The European war was really like a world war, but the Pacific war was really just Japan vs. America (and Britain, Austrailia, and eventually the USSR).

Any thoughts?
No, they were two theatres of the same war. In both theatres you had either the same countries or close allies on both sides. Also, in the Asia/Pacific theater you forget to mention China.

No its not two different wars. Its called a WORLD WAR for a reason, you know it was fought all over the world (yes a few exceptions no fighting in south america or Antartica)
Many South Americans fought in WW2, it shouldn't be forgotten.

Many South Americans fought in WW2, it shouldn't be forgotten.

Or The Battle of the River Plate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Plate).

I think that the U.S. was fighting one war, against Japan, Germany, Italy, etc. This war was not dissimilar to WWI--it was a war between rival powers over the division of resources, markets, etc. The two wars were different in that the alliances and strategic interests of the powers fell out differently. Fascist Portugal, btw, was on the U.S. side in this war.

However, I think that two of the other conflicts in WWII that got entangled with this imperialist war were different in nature ... first is the war to restore capitalism in the USSR, which was prosecuted by the Finnish, Ukrainian nationalists, etc., as well as by the Germans. This war, it should be noted, was supported by the UK, U.S., and the other "Allies," who, like Hitler, only reached accommodations with the USSR for pragmatic reasons and with the hopes of stabbing it in the back later.

The other conflict that was separate was the fight of the occupied nations (Burma, China, Vietnam, Puerto Rico, Quebec, Korea, the Philippines, etc., as well as France, Yugoslavia, and so forth) for independence ... in which they used the conflicts of the great powers to win space to maneuver.

Of course this distinction is made by a process of abstraction, and in reality all three conflicts bled into one another, so to speak.