Comments by "Mike Armstrong" (@mikearmstrong8483) on "Gloster Gamecock – Oldest Fighter to Get a Kill in World War Two?" video.

I agree. But then we do we include the Sino-Japanese War? That was a significant part of WWII, but started years before. What about the Italian invasion of Ethiopia? That was even earlier, and the conflict in East Africa continued into WWII. What about the Spanish Civil War? 3 of the major European powers were directly involved. So how does one define the parameters for naming a specific war, and including or excluding conflicts which take place concurrently and affect the outcome?
4
There have been many dubious incidents of kills awarded. A US F-111 pilot in the Gulf War was credited with a kill on an Iraqi MiG-29 just because he flew so low trying to get away that it crashed on its own trying to get him. There has never been any formal criteria established for what constitutes an air-to'air "kill", although killing the enemy pilot or crew, or causing them to abandon the aircraft (usually by bailing out), or forcing the enemy aircraft to land, is generally considered to be a legitimate kill. This one is really pushing the definition.
3
@k3D4rsi554maq I get the feeling that the Poles would disagree with you on that. They didn't seem to think the invasion and defeat of their country was phony. Nor did the tens of thousands of Germans (and a few hundred Russians) who were casualties in that campaign.
2
@TheAnxiousAardvark The Winter War only saw Soviets invading Finland, but both France & Britain promised and planned intervention on Finland's part, so why doesn't that push the start of WWII back to 1938? The Sino-Japanese war continued until the Japanese surrender in 1945, and included the participation of US & UK forces, so why doesn't that push the start of WWII back to 1937? Some historians say it does. The Spanish Civil War featured 3 of the major powers of Europe, all belligerents during WWII, fighting each other, so why doesn't that push the start of WWII back to 1936? The Italian invasion of Ethiopia started conflict in East Africa that eventually involved UK forces, with fighting that continued until 1942, so why doesn't that push the start of WWII back to 1935? The reason Sept 1st 1939 is generally considered the start is because that is when Germany invaded Poland, which drew in Britain and France, and shortly after that the Soviet Union, so people think of that as a world war because 4 of the major powers were at war with each other. A very Euro-centric, if not outright condescending attitude if you ask me; does the invasion of little countries with less than 10 million people mean nothing? Does the killing of Asians mean nothing? Even if these conflicts involved some of the same belligerents who were still fighting each other later, during the period that is "properly" considered the war? As for your acquaintance insisting WWII started only with the beginning of US involvement, there must have been some misunderstanding between you two, because that is ignorance beyond comprehension. Incidentally, I'm his age and also a conservative, but apparently I know history better than him. Did he get his degree by bribing a professor?
2
@k3D4rsi554maq I hope you realize that Britain was not the only belligerent of the war. You're saying that only British decisions determine when the war started? Really? Tell that to the Poles. The Belgians. The Norwegians. The Lithuanians. The Danes. The Latvians. The Dutch. The Estonians. The Finns. Almost of whom had been invaded and defeated before France. The idea that only when Britain decides to get into the war does it begin, is as laughably ridiculous as the American idea that WWII started at Pearl Harbor.
1
In regard to US citizens that think WWII started at Pearl Harbor, that is not a matter of historical debate; it is an issue of pathetic education, if not outright propaganda promoted by biased teachers. Ask any North Korean and they'll tell you they soundly whooped the US and drove them put of Asia. Ask any Russian and they'll tell you that the Soviets alone won the war and the west had almost nothing to do with it. That doesn't make these ideas actual history.
1
@TheAnxiousAardvark Nationalism is one thing; saying "the war didn't start until we got into it" is laughable. And most Americans (which I use in reference to US citizens) these days are clueless that we were heavily involved in the war while we were still neutral. I doubt the Poles, or the Chinese, or the French, or the Britains, or the Danes, or the Belgians, or the Norwegians, or the Dutch, or the Ethiopians, or the Finns, or the Latvians/Lithuanians/Estonians would consider December 1941 to be the start of the war. In fact, Pearl Harbor seemed pretty irrelevant to most of them. I doubt that the Japanese who were casualties in China thought the war had not started yet. I doubt that the US casualties in the Atlantic thought that the war had not started yet. The average US high school graduate these days knows less about history, math, and science, than I knew entering the 7th grade. Edit for typos.
1
@richardpentelow655 Yes, WWI was fully resolved. In 1945. Or in 1991, if you want to go by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Or in 2001 if want to go by the end of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the Kosovo conflict, since Yugoslavia was an artificial nation formed of several ethnicities from smaller traditional nations, by the Versailles Treaty. Or it hasn't been resolved yet, since Brexit is still ongoing.
1