Transformers/GI JOE comic

[Spriggan]

once the US got involved then It became part of WW2.  Since we were fighting both wars at the same time.  American history books put them as the same war, so there

[Fellfrosch]

The Manchurian incident was a part of the same war just like all of Germany's preliminary strikes were part of the same war. Just because it took a while before all of the elements came together doesn't mean that they never did.

[Entsuropi]

just like all of Germany's preliminary strikes were part of the same war.

You are the first person to say that. Generally, they are regarded as the run up to the war, not part of the war itself. The Rhineland was not WW2.

[Spriggan]

I should get Steve, my roomate, to come settle this.  All he does is read books on WW2 and play Video games.  I think he's got like 20+ on the subject.

[Entsuropi]

Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor than there's a good chance you'd be speaking German right now.

Not likely... we would either be speaking english or russian.

If the germans had conquered britain, which was looking pretty damn unlikely at the time of pearl harbour, then when russia won we would have been sumsumed into the motherland.

If we held the germans off, as was likely, then the cold war would have been situated at the english channel.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

You honestly think that Germany would have been destroyed by Russia alone without Germany having to divide it's military resources to mulitiple fronts? I don't think Germany could have taken Russia, but neither do I think Russia would have simply been able to liberate all of Europe without a western front.

[Entsuropi]

Yes. Russia had an enourmous military. After stalingrad, there was nothing stopping them. The german army in the east would have been nailed just like it was, and the western troops would have been able to only slow that.

And they would have needed to keep lots of troops in france just to deter a british landing aimed at helping a french uprising. It might not have been terribly likely, but it would have been real enough to necessitate lots of troops in france.

[House of Mustard]

Wow.  I ignore the topic for a couple of days and it all goes to heck.

Where to begin?
1)  Japan invaded China, who just happened to be an ally of the U.S..  I find it comical that you refer to an invasion, and a decade long occupation as an 'incident.'  Japan was tromping around shooting things long before Pearl Harbor.  It was very much part of the war in the sense that it was all done for exactly the same reason: to build the Southeast Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.  You're making a very eurocentric argument there: "Because the war was in Asia it wasn't part of the World War."

2)  

Generally, they are regarded as the run up to the war, not part of the war itself. The Rhineland was not WW2

Rhineland?  How was the Rhineland a preliminary strike?  The germans marched on in, gave a couple of high-fives to the local government and never took the safety's off their rifles.  This was thanks, in part, to the fact that the Rhineland was disputed territory anyway, and no one wanted to start a war over it.  It was also thanks, in part, to Neville "Appeasement" Chamberlain.  He was a winner.

Regardless, the point is that Rhineland wasn't a 'preliminary strike' and it can't be compared to a bloody invasion.  Perhaps you could compare the Manchurian Invasion to Poland - Oh wait!  That is when the European war started!

3)  Germany couldn't have conquered Britain?  It wasn't a sure thing, but odds were probably in favor of Germany.  I will most certainly concede that the Battle of Britain went poorly for the Reich, but that's not where things would end.  The german army was larger, better equipped and better supplied.  The germans were getting darn close to owning the Atlantic before the US came wandering over.  It wouldn't have been hard to render the UK impotent.  Really, all Germany had to do was surround the islands, wiping out any attempt at a navy, to end the war.  You could have gone and bombed the crap out of Germany all you wanted, but, without any possibility of invasion, you would have had little logical justification for it.  The most likely event was that Germany would control Europe and make temporary peace with Britain.

3)  Russia poses a problem.  I would venture to guess that if the Germans weren't so worried about invasion on the west, and all the North Africa business, then they would have taken Moscow in 42.

Furthermore, if Germany wasn't being so befuddled in North Africa, then they would have had considerably less reason to throw themselves on Stalingrad's spears.  (Incidentally, even as it was, almost every historian believes that Germany could have done substantially better against Russia if they'd just ignored Stalingrad.  It wasn't a question of the Russians being better - they weren't - the Germans just made some really really bad operational decisions.)  Anyway, if Germany had been able to get the oil they wanted from the Middle East (by controlling the Mediteranean via North Africa) then they would have had much less reason to go invading the Caucuses.

[House of Mustard]

I forgot to address something:

you said ages ago that at the same time as the american revolution, there was rebellions in other british colonies. Would you say those colonies were fighting in the american revolution?

No.  Of course not.  I would say, however, that the American Revolution was part of a grander British war that included France, Spain and India (to name a few.)  Some colonies (like India) saw the revolution in America as an ideal opportunity to start a rebellion of their own.  Other countries like France and Spain saw it as a good opportunity to attack an old enemy.

The attack by Spanish and French forces on Gibralter in 1781 had nothing to do with America.  Then again, the attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with Germany.  The question, however, is: Did the two attacks affect each other?  Certainly.

Spain was not fighting the American Revolution, much as Italy was not participating in the Invasion of Manchuria.  But the American Revolution was part of a larger British war, and the Invasion of Manchuria was part of World War 2.

[EUOL]

I believe there's an old saying that warns against two miltary ideas:

First, never get involved in a land war in Asia.  Second, never get in an argument with Mustard about World War II.  

[House of Mustard]

Ah EUOL, thanks for the compliment (assuming that is a compliment).  I truly look forward to the day when you and I can again argue inane things in exceptionally long posts.

[EUOL]

Just don't expect me to let myself get sucked into any sort of historical war argument again.  Learned my lesson last time....

[Entsuropi]

Second, never get in an argument with Mustard about World War II.

I had pretty much figured that out halfway through this thread. Damn you mustard! I'll get you yet! *shakes fist*

And on the subject of inane arguments, i remember some of those. Like the "can god be omnipotent?" thread.

It is probably only a matter of time before the habit of you two to argue and the habit of me and SE to argue creates some hideous evil monster...

[Tiger]

I thought the famous quote was: "Never fight a land war in Asia" and "Never bet a Sicilian when Death is on the line"

Anyway, I got into this late.  If anyone wants to watch a great movie about the Brits fighting the Japanese, go rent 'Bridge Over the River Kwai' (I hope that is the right time frame, I remember it being WWII).

Also, remember that you can never eliminate Indiana Jones from the WWII picture, who knows what crazy adventures he might have gotten into if the US hadn't entered the war...

[Entsuropi]

Yes, thats a good WW2 flick. Of course, i am the subject of british conditioning, which tells me to search out british alternatives to anything foreign.