[bearoutwest]

I agree that the basis of WW2 was the foundation laid from the Versaille Treaties and the breakup of the various "eastern" Empires (Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Ottoman, etc), but you could easily say that WW1 was due in part to the unequal peace accords of the Franco-Prussian War (loss of Alsace-Lorraine, etc) and hence it also had a direct effect on WW2.

However, what I'd like to explore thought on is the generally accepted "start" of WW2, being 1.Sep.1939 with the German invasion of Poland. If the generally accepted end of hostilities (overall) in August 1945 with the formal surrender of Japan, then from a continuous warfare perspective, is 7.7.1937 a more appropriate beginning of overall hostilities, with the Japanese attack on the Marco Polo Bridge in Beijing?

I'm ignoring (at present) the battles in Manchuria 1931, Shanghai 1932, Abyssinia 1936, Spain 1936-1939, as they either ended with a significant time lag before resuming, or in the case of Spain concluded without additional direct conflict.

What do other people think? Not trying to rewrite history - just trying to explore if any other seemingly unconnected conflicts in fact led directly into the greater world conflict.

Regards,
...geoff