View previous topic | View next topic

What if "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" got it wro

Page 5 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Sadurian Mike
475631.  Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:25 pm Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
OK - I know I'm being pedantic but......

No? You?



bobwilson wrote:
It really doesn't matter who was fighting who at what time - what matters is when the conflict became a single global conflict.

The point is that there has to be a single date set. If the criteria is, as you suggest, when everyone is involved who eventually got involved, then the start of WWII would be 9th August 1945 (when Mongolia declared against Japan). If narrowing it down to Germany then we have March 27th when Argentina declared against both Germany and Japan. There may even be later such declarations that I am not aware of at the moment.

Instead, historians look for trigger points as to what started it all. Had the US not declared war then we would still have seen countries from Europe, Asia, Australasia, South America and Africa involved, so the war would still have been worthy of the title "World War".

The title, however, is pretty academic as we are actually concerned with the conflict against Nazi Germany (and, later, Imperial Japan). Germany was not at war until she invaded Poland. Germany-Poland was certainly a war but it could have been "dismissed"* like the Italian-Eritrean and Sino_Japanese conflicts except that it acted as the trigger for other countries to declare war on Germany. The first of many such declarations was 3rd September and so this is when the war is taken to have started.


*This is not in any way belittling the effects of the war, rather I am saying that the conflict could have been dismissed as being outside the causes of WWII, just as we tend to do with the Sino-Japanese and Italian campaigns.

 
zomgmouse
475694.  Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:17 am Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
zomgmouse wrote:
Sadurian Mike wrote:
bobwilson wrote:
The start of WW2 is often given as the date of declaration of war by England v Germany. But it couldn't be considered a World War until at least the Soviet Union was involved (June 1941),

The Soviet Union invaded Poland in Sept 1939.


According to my grandma WWII started in 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland, but the war in the USSR didn't start until 5am on the 22nd of June 1941 when Hitler crossed the Soviet borders.

She is sort of right, zomgmous. The USSR only entered the war against Germany in 1941 but had invaded Poland in Sept 1939 as part of the German-Soviet Pact. At that time the USSR had an agreement with Germany to divide Poland between them; they were not exactly allied but it was a marriage of convenience. In addition, the USSR was at war with Finland from November 30th 1939 to March 13th 1940.

Most people, however, view the USSR's entry into the war from the time Germany invaded.


I know what you mean Mike; I always take the beginning of the war to have been when Germany invaded Poland. However I think what she means by the "real" war is the point when there was any imminent danger posed to the people of the USSR.

 
exnihilo
477342.  Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:24 pm Reply with quote

It's all rather moot, there are a great many historians including many of my won colleagues who will argue that there is no start date to WWII because it hasn't yet happened and that the conflict generally so named is part and parcel of an ongoing conflict that sufficient remove from the events we will view as the first and only World War.

 
Sadurian Mike
477405.  Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:55 pm Reply with quote

That's another problem. Wars and conflicts around the globe are pretty-much continuous. It's the same issue as with WWII not including the Sino-Japanese War or the Italian invasion of Eritrea; where do you start and end?

However, as most historians go with the war being primarily against Nazi Germany and the trigger for all those countries to start declaring war being the Polish invasion, the 3rd September is the most logical choice.

 
bobwilson
477549.  Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:31 pm Reply with quote

Well here's a question - when our civilisation* is ancient history and future historians are rooting through the scraps in the way that we try to reconstruct the history of Rome or Assyria or Greece, how will they refer to the conflict?

*using the word loosely

 
Sadurian Mike
477598.  Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:12 pm Reply with quote

Probably using the terms that we use if they are relying on our current wealth of stored information. If they find out about it through archaeology but have no access to any written or recorded information... I have no idea!

 
Theblazeuk
527745.  Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:47 pm Reply with quote

I wonder if in the future, people will know the reason behind the elevated radiation levels (and other long-term effects) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and I guess of the nuclear test sites).

Though I suppose there is a chance they will be insignificant compared to the global level by that point :) (no wait, a smiley face isnt right!)

But still, I think its quite interesting that WW2 left a fairly unique type of historical evidence behind.

 
bobwilson
527784.  Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:13 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
I wonder if in the future, people will know the reason behind the elevated radiation levels (and other long-term effects) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki


I've sometimes wondered whether future civilisations (say in about 10,000 years after we're just relics and fragmented histories) will come across nuclear dump sites and treat the warnings as we would treat "watch out for the dragons" signs.

But to get back to the original point of the thread - I've just watched an episode of Eggheads where the question was "Which is the largest lake in the Lake District?". Bassenthwaite wasn't one of the choices.

 
soup
528000.  Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:10 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:

But to get back to the original point of the thread - I've just watched an episode of Eggheads where the question was "Which is the largest lake in the Lake District?". Bassenthwaite wasn't one of the choices.


I seem to remember a piece of information following a question on QI that there were very few lakes in the lake district, them all being meres or waters or tarns.
However Bassenthwaite lake IS the only body of water in the Lake district with lake in its name. Perhaps it could be argued that this is the only lake in the lake district. Shall Google Bassenthwaite and see if it turns up anything.

Edited to add :-
From
http://www.lake-district.gov.uk/index/learning/facts_and_figures.htm

14 main lakes in order of size

Area is to the nearest hectare. A hectare is equivalent to 10,000 square metres

1. Windermere - 1459
2. Ullswater - 884
3. Derwentwater - 531
4. Bassenthwaite - 518
5. Coniston - 475
6. Haweswater - 387
7. Thirlmere - 327
8. Ennerdale - 301
9. Wast Water - 283
10. Crummock Water - 258
11. Buttermere - 93
12. Grasmere - 61
13. Loweswater - 61
14. Rydal - 31

 
djgordy
528006.  Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:24 am Reply with quote

soup wrote:
However Bassenthwaite lake IS the only body of water in the Lake district with lake in its name. Perhaps it could be argued that this is the only lake in the lake district. Shall Google Bassenthwaite and see if it turns up anything.


Bassenthwaite Lake isn't the only lake in the Lake District. It just happens to be the only one which has the word "lake" as part of it's name. All the other "meres" and "waters" etc are lakes too because they conform to the definition of the word "lake".

http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?title=21st&query=lake

 
dr.bob
528026.  Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:23 am Reply with quote

Theblazeuk wrote:
I wonder if in the future, people will know the reason behind the elevated radiation levels (and other long-term effects) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki


Given that there aren't elevated radiation levels at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, I'm guessing it's not something people will wonder about in the future.

 
soup
528027.  Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:23 am Reply with quote

djgordy wrote:
soup wrote:
However Bassenthwaite lake IS the only body of water in the Lake district with lake in its name. Perhaps it could be argued that this is the only lake in the lake district.


Bassenthwaite Lake isn't the only lake in the Lake District. It just happens to be the only one which has the word "lake" as part of it's name. All the other "meres" and "waters" etc are lakes too because they conform to the definition of the word "lake".



Note the perhaps could be argued (not by me I don't care enough, just thought I would post about something dimly remembered).

 
djgordy
629268.  Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:51 pm Reply with quote

On this week's "Mastermind" there was a question which went roughly "what name was given to flying dinosaurs". The answer given was "pterodactyl".

The Pterodactyoidea were only one of two orders of pterosaurs, the other being the Rhamphorhynchoidea, and they weren't dinosaurs.

 
Celebaelin
629319.  Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:38 pm Reply with quote

On the Egghead challenge prog. recently - the one where they look for new panel members, I forget the exact title - they asked a multiple choice question about the difference between a metric tonne and an imperial ton in pounds and none of the answers were correct.

metric 1000Kg x 2.208lb/Kg = 2208lbs

imperial 2240lbs

Difference = 32lbs

The 'correct' answer they gave was 16 lbs.

 

Page 5 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group