What day did WWII start?

May 3 1928 Jinan Incident
September 18 1931 Mukden Incident
Julu 7 1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident
Or December 7 1941 The Battle of Pearl Harbor

The Japanese invasion of Manchuria was a local conflict, and a large one, but still only local.
The war only became a worldwide war when the United Kingdom, a global power, entered the war.

Manchuria was just one of many preludes to WW2, but it was not the start of it.

Crossing of the Rubycon. From then on, Europe has been at war.

Depends, do you consider the first causality between nations to be an announcement?

Well, the first war with a global theater was the 7 years war so the second begins on July 4, 1776 with battles related to the war being fought in Europe, Africa, the Americas and Asia .

WW2 was an european conflict up until 1941. It could have been over by mid-1940's but the brits insisted on dragging the US into the war just like with WW1

>It could have been over by mid-1940's

But it WAS over by the mid-1940's???

Made a typo right there ;-)

Meant2type "by mid-1940"

Seriously the fat sow drunkard churchill even had his last stand bunker propped up and ready to go because he expected operation sea lion to commence any moment but Hitler being far too generous didn't give the go-ahead with it

I saw in a documentary the other day that during that time the brits literally had like 2 artillery guns to defend like 50 miles of coastline, the germans would have taken London in a heartbeat had they actually attacked britain in mid-1940

It's so amazing how jaw-droppingly fucking close germany came to victory in WW2

So what happens to Hitler's already-in-place plans to attack Russia?

June 22, 2350 BC

You do know that Op Sealion was a total joke right?

>Let's cross the English channel in a few hundred river barges that have to be tugged across
>Let's hope there won't be any British ships nearby
>Or aircraft

thank you, I thought I was alone in this thought

Even with total air and naval supremacy they still didn't have enough boats to land enough men.

The most optimistic projections for Sealion had the Germans landing just shy of 100,000 troops and evacuating a measily 30k with the rest being killed or captured.

>we also have no fucking idea how to do an amphibous invasion nor the navy required for the support shelling

It's funny because the majority of islands in the Pacific saw little to no naval bombardment prior to landings because the japs always brought anti-ship artillery. After realizing just how badly they fucked up, the Marine Corps finally talked the navy into using planes to bomb the shit out of islands and provide CAS once the landings had begun. The shittiest part is that until the Japanese guns were silenced, the marines couldn't get resupplied so for battles like Peleliu you saw Marines going for nearly 3 days without water until they captured a water source from the Japanese. Anyways, getting off topic here: You don't need shore bombardments for successful amphibious assaults.

Italy invading Ethiopia was a more global conflict than the JapChink war 2.0.

>It's funny because the majority of islands in the Pacific saw little to no naval bombardment prior to landings
And what would these be?

Peleliu before the guns were taken, Makin before the guns were taken (Pretty much the entire Solomon islands campaign really), Guadalcanal until two months into the battle because skirmishes with the Japanese fleet right off the coast were extremely common. It led to a contention with the U.S. army because not only did the Army not get air support, they didn't get naval battery support or towed artillery either so they were left high and dry in the Pacific compared to the Marines. Naval bombardment was generally a support mission after the landings had succeeded in the Pacific unfortunately. I think Iwo, Okinawa and Tarawa (though not the rest of the Gilberts) were the only landings that had pre-landing bombardments.

You are a moron. Where the fuck are you getting your """""history""""" from? Even CoD was more realistic than your fantasy PTO.

Dissertations from Annapolis grads. Where are you?

Let's see those goalposts moving.

I should mention this is The Assault on Pelleliu produced by a marine major.

Hilariously enough, there is even a youtube video of ships bombarding Pelleliu.
youtube.com/watch?v=QeAzHYHzhsc

Makin, again from official US army history.

Tulagi
I have no fucking idea where you got the retarded fucking idea that the MUHREENS were fighting bearhanded with naked with no gun support until they finally convinced the navy to provide some CAS. You sure have an overactive imagination.

1st September 1939 for Europe (official, Invasion of Poland).
22nd June 1941 for Russia (aka "Great Patriotic War", a term used only in Russia)
7th December 1941 for USA (attack on Pearl Harbor).

/thread

>I have no fucking idea where you got the retarded fucking idea that the MUHREENS were fighting bearhanded with naked with no gun support until they finally convinced the navy to provide some CAS
Jesus, I'm not even that user and I still think you should stick to facts instead of strawmanning posts with YOUR overactive imagination. It would help your arguments to let the facts speak from themselves.

What facts are you talking about, you dumb faggot?
And you are definitely that user.

>strawmanning
Here's literally what you wrote.
>It's funny because the majority of islands in the Pacific saw little to no naval bombardment prior to landings because the japs always brought anti-ship artillery. After realizing just how badly they fucked up, the Marine Corps finally talked the navy into using planes to bomb the shit out of islands and provide CAS once the landings had begun.
That's hardly different from the slightly exaggerated MUHREEN caricature.

First day of Tulagi, 0800.

Tulagi, 1240
Are you still claiming that naval support was something only used after MUHREENS took down coastal guns with their chest hair?

I'm not actually. Pic related. The user never claimed "bearhanded" or naked. You should let YOUR facts speak from themselves instead of creating an exaggerated strawman of a blatantly wrong post. It would help your arguing skills.

Gavutu
It's like, the PTO *proves* that naval support isn't necessary for landings!

You should stick to arguing the topic rather than attacking the arguer.
Or just admit that you've got nothing.

I was talking Kriegsmarine and The Nazis, not the US Marines.

How did you even get to that topic.

>being so bullheaded that you can't recognize two different posters even when proof is posted
Christ. Stick to creating strawmen, whatever. People will surely take you seriously on a Samoan Palm Carving website. Whatever.

Where are those MAJORITY OF ISLANDS taken with little to no naval support now, faggot?

NOT THE SAME POSTER YOU FUCKING MORON

Or go ahead and show me those ANNAPOLIS GRADS DISSERTATIONS that claim that MUHREENS had no towed guns.

Or how the muhreens had no fire support because navy and army were so dumbdumb.
Go ahead, let ***your facts*** speak.

If the army had no towed guns, then why did the 7th division have divisional artillery? Such mystery.
Still waiting for those """"facts"""" and Annapolis Grad dissertations.