So, when *did* World War II start?

[Norgy]

The Koumintang itself had, uhm, certain tendencies towards fascism.

Most modern historians see World War II starting with the Marco Polo bridge incident, rather than being a purely Hitler invading Poland affair.
THAT IS GLOBALISM FOR YOU!

[The Minsky Moment]

Most modern historians see World War II starting with the Marco Polo bridge incident,

Obviously, it started with the ill-fated birth of the demon-child Winston Churchill.
I wouldn't stop there though; I blame the Duke of Marlborough.

[Valmy]

Most modern historians see World War II starting with the Marco Polo bridge incident, rather than being a purely Hitler invading Poland affair.
THAT IS GLOBALISM FOR YOU!

  Do they?

I mean as big and important as a war between Japan and China is, it isn't a world war.

But really that just means Churchill didn't come to power until two years after the war started.

[Sheilbh]

Most modern historians see World War II starting with the Marco Polo bridge incident, rather than being a purely Hitler invading Poland affair.
THAT IS GLOBALISM FOR YOU!

Because of woke.

I'm totally in that school of thought though (Possibly because it's faddish and I am easily swayed)

[Valmy]

Because of woke.

I'm totally in that school of thought though (Possibly because it's faddish and I am easily swayed)

I'm not. I disagree. It only became a World War once the British and French got involved, without that there is no direct link between the Pacific and European theatres.

[HVC]

To me it feels like people taking china's world position now and adjusting back.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not. I disagree. It only became a World War once the British and French got involved, without that there is no direct link between the Pacific and European theatres.

The British aren't involved in the Pacific until 1941 - the French have already fallen by then and the Japanese taken over Indochina. Until then it's a less "world" war than WW1 with similar features of British Indian army troops being used west of Suez. .

I don't think you can make sense of the war in the Pacific or Soviet policy, including, in Europe without the war in China and I don't think that is changed in 1941 - I think it's part of the same conflict. I think Khalkin Gol is really important - and the Japanese risk is a huge part in Soviet thinking of reaching an accord with the Nazis. At the same time the failure there (and Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) re-focuses Japan's attempt to break the war in China by globalising it from the Soviet Union to South-East Asia and the Americans, Australians, Brits and Dutch. But also part of Soviet policy in supporting and intervening to keep Chiang a going concern after the Xi'an incident is also shaped by their concern about Japan. So Soviet policy in Europe is shaped by what's going on in China as well as its policy in China which is having an impact on the war there.

To me it feels like people taking china's world position now and adjusting back.

So there's something to this. But I think it is also moving away from Eurocentrism in a way that I think is valuable as it in turn provides a better explanation/history. So in my view this is one of the really strong examples (especially reading Kotkin's biography of Stalin and just how much attention is spent on China and Japan) where I think China is kind of like this black hole. The "traditional" history sees and explains the effects of it but not the thing itself - I think there's something similar with India.

And I think from a perspective of "global" history certainly from the 18th century on - I think a lot of things make an awful lot more sense if you integrate what is happening in China and India. And vice versa - I think there's a lot more to the Qing for example if the way you look at them includes Central Asia or the impact of the contraction in global silver supply. I think it provides useful information that a simpler view purely based on European interactions with China misses.

Edit: Also I suppose while it is faddish and now - it was also arguably something that was considered at the time. China was the first country to sign the UN Charter for that reason.

[Valmy]

I'm not. I disagree. It only became a World War once the British and French got involved, without that there is no direct link between the Pacific and European theatres.

The British aren't involved in the Pacific until 1941 - the French have already fallen by then and the Japanese taken over Indochina. Until then it's a less "world" war than WW1 with similar features of British Indian army troops being used west of Suez. .

I don't think you can make sense of the war in the Pacific or Soviet policy, including, in Europe without the war in China and I don't think that is changed in 1941 - I think it's part of the same conflict. I think Khalkin Gol is really important - and the Japanese risk is a huge part in Soviet thinking of reaching an accord with the Nazis. At the same time the failure there (and Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) re-focuses Japan's attempt to break the war in China by globalising it from the Soviet Union to South-East Asia and the Americans, Australians, Brits and Dutch. But also part of Soviet policy in supporting and intervening to keep Chiang a going concern after the Xi'an incident is also shaped by their concern about Japan. So Soviet policy in Europe is shaped by what's going on in China as well as its policy in China which is having an impact on the war there.

To me it feels like people taking china's world position now and adjusting back.

So there's something to this. But I think it is also moving away from Eurocentrism in a way that I think is valuable as it in turn provides a better explanation/history. So in my view this is one of the really strong examples (especially reading Kotkin's biography of Stalin and just how much attention is spent on China and Japan) where I think China is kind of like this black hole. The "traditional" history sees and explains the effects of it but not the thing itself - I think there's something similar with India.

And I think from a perspective of "global" history certainly from the 18th century on - I think a lot of things make an awful lot more sense if you integrate what is happening in China and India. And vice versa - I think there's a lot more to the Qing for example if the way you look at them includes Central Asia or the impact of the contraction in global silver supply. I think it provides useful information that a simpler view purely based on European interactions with China misses.

And Japan did not really become part of the World War until 1941, beyond the Khalkin Gol incident which was only loosely connected to the Japanese invasion of China in 1937. The Japanese were in Manchuria already.

I don't think recognizing the European Colonial Empires made European conflicts World Wars is necessarily Eurocentric. It was just a reality in that period of time.

[crazy canuck]

And Japan did not really become part of the World War until 1941, beyond the Khalkin Gol incident which was only loosely connected to the Japanese invasion of China in 1937. The Japanese were in Manchuria already.

Yeah, it was not until 1941 that Japan was at war with the Britain and its Commonwealth, not to mention the Yanks.  Until then it is hard to say the war Japan was waging was anything other than a regional conflict.

Weirdly, I somehow remember this as the Yanks being latecomers to the war against Japan, but over the years Grumbler has set me straight about my misconception.

 

[Duque de Bragança]

Most modern historians see World War II starting with the Marco Polo bridge incident, rather than being a purely Hitler invading Poland affair.
THAT IS GLOBALISM FOR YOU!

Because of woke.

I'm totally in that school of thought though (Possibly because it's faddish and I am easily swayed)

Most modern historians see World War II starting with the Marco Polo bridge incident, rather than being a purely Hitler invading Poland affair.
THAT IS GLOBALISM FOR YOU!

Because of woke.

I'm totally in that school of thought though (Possibly because it's faddish and I am easily swayed)

Problem is, the China-Japan war goes back to the invasion of Manchuria in 1931 but Chang-Kai-Shek had other concerns.

[celedhring]

Mmmm... not sure about that. In 1937 there's still a decent chance that the Sino-Japanese war remains a regional war, and thus no global conflict.

I suppose WWII only becomes "WW" in 1941, once the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor and attack the European colonies, and Hitler DoWs the US for some reason. Then you have belligerents spanning all over the globe.

But I'm no scholar!

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Mmmm... not sure about that. In 1937 there's still a decent chance that the Sino-Japanese war remains a regional war, and thus no global conflict.

I suppose WWII only becomes "WW" in 1941, once the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor and attack the European colonies, and Hitler DoWs the US for some reason. Then you have belligerents spanning all over the globe.

But I'm no scholar!

Wouldn't the entry of the Commonwealth countries in 1939 make it a ww?

[crazy canuck]

Mmmm... not sure about that. In 1937 there's still a decent chance that the Sino-Japanese war remains a regional war, and thus no global conflict.

I suppose WWII only becomes "WW" in 1941, once the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor and attack the European colonies, and Hitler DoWs the US for some reason. Then you have belligerents spanning all over the globe.

But I'm no scholar!

Wouldn't the entry of the Commonwealth countries in 1939 make it a ww?

Against Germany, not Japan. That did not happen until 1941, as stated a few times in this thread.

[celedhring]

Yeah, in 1939 you have a major conflict in Europe and then a war in Asia, but the beligerents are separate. The Commonwealth nations were fighting solely in the European theater.

Again, it's an academic discussion, but that's a fine languish (and EUOT) tradition.

[DGuller]

Mmmm... not sure about that. In 1937 there's still a decent chance that the Sino-Japanese war remains a regional war, and thus no global conflict.

I suppose WWII only becomes "WW" in 1941, once the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor and attack the European colonies, and Hitler DoWs the US for some reason. Then you have belligerents spanning all over the globe.

But I'm no scholar!

On the other hand, the Sino-Japanese War made US engage in economic warfare with Japan, which I would argue forced their hand with attacking US and the Allies in 1941.