I hate what the Nazis did in the war (no offence againest any German people)killing millions of people died inastant people (sorry I am a bad speller)but what do you think...
What has WWI got to do with this? (except from it being a cause of WWIIetc. cos the Germans were annoyed at the ToV and Hiotler used it to rile people)
And just saying, shouldn't the title be switched... WWI and WWII??
But a lot of people did die in WWI, we're actually studying it in my history class right now, but they didn't die because of the Nazi's, who weren't even formed yet.
The nazis believed in a pure master race and were trying to achieve it. It was wrong of them because no one single group of people should have an advatage over others.
Useless? I wouldn't consider discussion on this to be useless. Though if you are talking about the fact that there are topics like this already in existence in these forums, then this topic is pretty useless.
I believe that WWII was caused in part (if not in whole) by WWI.
I believe that WWII was caused in part (if not in whole) by WWI
I wouldn't say that. Regardless of if the Nazis were around Japan would have still tried for control over all of Asia. That would have caused the entire war anyway. So both were equally responsible for the war in my opinion.
I wouldn't say that. Regardless of if the Nazis were around Japan would have still tried for control over all of Asia. That would have caused the entire war anyway. So both were equally responsible for the war in my opinion.
Really? I'm not so sure Japan may have tried for Asia but I'm don't think it would have caused a war on the scale of WWII. Germany was right in the heart of Europe which is one reason why it got so big because people got dragged into it. (+ other stuff but I'm lazy) In Asia, Russia would have gotten involved and so may have australia (just becasue of proximity) this may drag some European countries into it thanks to alliances etc. but on the whole they would want to keep out especially after WWI and the depression (even though the war helped fix the depression)
That is valid but the alliance was everybody minus America if you look at the allies. Also, India were part of the commonwealth so regardless of Australia being attacked the allies would have gotten involved. Also, the Japanese brought America into the war. First with an "accidental" bombing of a clearly marked American ship and then with the not so accidental incident at Pearl Harbour.
Though I do agree with you that it probably wouldn't have been on the same scale I do think it would have been big enough to be classified as a World War.
The US concentrated only 15% of their forces in the East during WW2.
Granted it would have been a large conflict, but the Japanese didn't have the capacity to wage war on a global scale. Without the US' involvement, it would have been a war between Japan and the British Commonwealth in the East, not a global war.
If the Japanese didn't have the capacity to wage war on a global scale then how come they did? The war going on in Europe had nothing to do with their involvement, they saw China starting to weaken so they went for it. Their mentality also went a VERY long way. Everybody underestimated them. None of the countries fighting them had seen willingness to kill and die like that before. That alone won battles for them. Like the failed defence of the Bataan Peninsula. When the Allies surrended they had more supplies and troops left but the ferocity of the Japanese atttacks shook them too hard.
Furthermore, all of the countries being invaded would be fighting together aswell. In world war 2 the entire world didn't get involved. Just a large part of it and I think all of Asia along with the commonwealth would constitute a World War.
If the Japanese didn't have the capacity to wage war on a global scale then how come they did? The war going on in Europe had nothing to do with their involvement, they saw China starting to weaken so they went for it.
They didn't wage war on a global scale. They defeated an inept Chinese military, and then annexed mostly ungaurded islands, all in the Pacific. That's not war on a global scale.
Their mentality also went a VERY long way. Everybody underestimated them. None of the countries fighting them had seen willingness to kill and die like that before. That alone won battles for them.
Fanatacism would not make it a world war, just a ferocious one.
That alone won battles for them. Like the failed defence of the Bataan Peninsula. When the Allies surrended they had more supplies and troops left but the ferocity of the Japanese atttacks shook them too hard.
I would put that down to piss poor leadership rather than anything else. That goes for Singapore too.
Furthermore, all of the countries being invaded would be fighting together aswell. In world war 2 the entire world didn't get involved.
Pretty much every military superpower of the time did get involved: Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Italy and the US. That's why it was a world war.
No, but what I was saying is Great britain plus Asia vs. Japan. I think would constitute a world war. The thing about ferocity was just to say that they were very capable of winning battles themselves and I wouldn't call it bad leadership. There's only so much you can take when you see people throwing themselves onto barbedwire so people can climb over it. Or people running at machine guns screaming. I think it would do alot to you emotionally.
No, but what I was saying is Great britain plus Asia vs. Japan. I think would constitute a world war. The thing about ferocity was just to say that they were very capable of winning battles themselves and I wouldn't call it bad leadership. There's only so much you can take when you see people throwing themselves onto barbedwire so people can climb over it. Or people running at machine guns screaming. I think it would do alot to you emotionally.
Still only 2 of 6 military superpowers of the time. A large conflict indeed. But a world war? No. From a geographical perspective it would be confined to a relatively small area in comparison to WW2.
I had a great uncle who served in Burma and Okinawa in the British special forces. From what he told me, most people either got used to it, or were killed. He also mentioned how out of touch most of the top brass were. When you look at Singapore for example, hardly a shot had been fired, and yet the generals took the decision to surrender. You can't put that down to intimidation.
