Is 1940 Europe and 1940 Pacific still "to be released"?

[CWO Marc]

@Private:

And I thought you were American Wolf! But that WWII lasting six years suggests you are European? German perhaps?

I don’t quite follow the line of reasoning here.  There’s a difference between how long WWII lasted and how long any particular country was at war as part of the conflict.  The US was at war from 1941 to 1945, but that doesn’t alter the fact that WWII itself is general considered to have lasted from September 1939 to September 1945, which is six years.

[Wolfshanze]

I’m an AMERICAN… but that doesn’t mean I think the war only lasted as long as we were in it… was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?  Hell NO!!!

[Private-Panic]

Good to hear you both being so enlightened! I have both seen and heard US references to WWII being from 1941 to 45, which can be a little irritating to us “we stand alone” Brits.

But then the Chinese would object to our thinking it started in 1939. We then try to justify the choice of start date by referring to the global tag, but that probably does not mollify them much.

And let’s not get started on the problems with the “we stand alone” tag ……

[CWO Marc]

I think of WWII as starting, for practical purposes, in 1937 with the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War.  Unlike some of the wars leading up to WWII (like the Spanish Civil War), the Second Sino-Japanese War was still in progress when WWII started in Europe, and it continued until the end of WWII in the Pacific.  So basically, I see WWII as having three active phases that run into each other: 1937-1939, 1939-1941, and 1941-1945.

[CWO Marc]

@Wolfshanze:

was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?  Hell NO!!!

Gosh, I’d heard that the Ben Affleck movie Pearl Harbor (which I’ve never seen) had severe flaws in terms of historical accuracy, but I never knew it was that bad.

[Wolfshanze]

@CWO:

@Wolfshanze:

was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?  Hell NO!!!

Gosh, I’d heard that the Ben Affleck movie Pearl Harbor (which I’ve never seen) had severe flaws in terms of historical accuracy, but I never knew it was that bad.

I’m surprised it took you guys that long to notice… well, to all you “Foreigners” on this board, I am a product of the American school system… just like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zc0BI7T1LA

[CWO Marc]

@Wolfshanze:

I’m surprised it took you guys that long to notice…

The timestamp of my post indicates when I commented on the error (which took me a while), not when I noticed it (which was immediately).

[Private-Panic]

Perhaps Pearl Harbour was that inaccurate. Having seen the US navy capture an Enigma machine, the British commit atrocities against innocent American Patriots while Gibson’s character as a paragon, William Wallace father Edward II, and so on, nothing would surprise me!

[Wolfshanze]

That one line from Animal House was always a favorite of mine (as a kid, I actually lived at Hickam AFB and visited Pearl Harbor frequently)… when the computer game Pacific General came out, which offered many tactical-scale battles on customizable maps with a scenario editor, I even made a “Germans attack Pearl Harbor” scenario complete with the German Kriegsmarine (Z-Plan style), with Graff Zeppelin class carriers, loaded down with carrier-capable Ju-87Cs and Me-109Ts. As completely absurd as it was, it was hilariously fun as an homage to John Belushi.

P.S.
You guys should watch Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor if you haven’t seen it… just because it’s no Saving Private Ryan, doesn’t mean its unwatchable… at worst, you can have fun picking out the things that are wrong with it… if you like explosions, you can’t go wrong with a Michael Bay film.

[Witt]

Edward III, PP: one of your greatest monarchs, very much in the mold of his grandfather, Edward I.

The scene when the Japanese attach Pearl is very good. Haven’t rewatched the film, since it came out though, for all the points already mentioned. Was, understandably, excited about it,  before it did.

[Private-Panic]

@wittmann:

Edward III, PP: one of your greatest monarchs, very much in the mold of his grandfather, Edward I.

Correct Witt. One of OUR greatest monarchs. Tell me pray - did any of Italy’s Kings measure up by comparison?

[Witt]

We only had four. And they were all bell ends. Our Dictators were infinitely better.

[Private-Panic]

Haha … Did Benito make the trains run on time then?

[Witt]

Was thinking of Julius Caesar, actually.

[Wolfshanze]

Oh, I thought he was talking about Alessandra…

[Private-Panic]

@wittmann:

Was thinking of Julius Caesar, actually.

How many millions of Gauls do you have to kill to be a great Dictator? And didn’t Rome conquer Italy?

[Witt]

Like London is England, Rome is Italy! Actually, I was merely pointing out that Julius Caesar was not an Emperor. I hate that people say or think he was the first one.

[Private-Panic]

Actually, Augustus did not call himself Emperor either. Tiberius was the first to use the title.

[CWO Marc]

@Private:

Actually, Augustus did not call himself Emperor either. Tiberius was the first to use the title.

Yes, that’s correct.  Augustus liked to maintain the image that he was simply a “first among equals” (I think the term was “Princeps”) in relation to the members of Senate.  He avoided using terminology that in any way suggested that Rome had gone back to the system of one-man monarchical rule that the Republic was supposed to have abolished.  In addition to being a talented general and a skillful politician, he had a good grasp of what today would be called marketing.

[Wolfshanze]

Totally legit…