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!
Quote from: Norgy on September 08, 2025, 06:11:40 AMMost 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.
Quote from: Norgy on September 08, 2025, 06:11:40 AMMost 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!
:hmm: 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.
Quote from: Norgy on September 08, 2025, 06:11:40 AMMost 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 :ph34r: (Possibly because it's faddish and I am easily swayed) :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2025, 12:07:23 PMBecause of woke.
I'm totally in that school of thought though :ph34r: (Possibly because it's faddish and I am easily swayed) :lol:
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.
To me it feels like people taking china's world position now and adjusting back.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2025, 12:25:01 PMI'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.
QuoteTo 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2025, 12:52:02 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 08, 2025, 12:25:01 PMI'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.
QuoteTo 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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2025, 12:58:49 PMAnd 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2025, 12:07:23 PMQuote from: Norgy on September 08, 2025, 06:11:40 AMMost 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 :ph34r: (Possibly because it's faddish and I am easily swayed) :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2025, 12:07:23 PMQuote from: Norgy on September 08, 2025, 06:11:40 AMMost 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.
QuoteI'm totally in that school of thought though :ph34r: (Possibly because it's faddish and I am easily swayed) :lol:
Problem is, the China-Japan war goes back to the invasion of Manchuria in 1931 but Chang-Kai-Shek had other concerns. :P
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!
Quote from: celedhring on September 09, 2025, 03:01:06 AMMmmm... 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?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 09, 2025, 06:10:22 AMQuote from: celedhring on September 09, 2025, 03:01:06 AMMmmm... 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.
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.
Quote from: celedhring on September 09, 2025, 03:01:06 AMMmmm... 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.
An ultimately unconvincing case could be made that, given the size of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, any war involving the UK would be a world war.
Quote from: The Brain on September 09, 2025, 10:21:59 AMAn ultimately unconvincing case could be made that, given the size of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, any war involving the UK would be a world war.
See WWI
I wonder if its in terms of % of the world population or economy. Just Europe + India + Africa has to make up a majority at the time?
Quote from: celedhring on September 09, 2025, 03:01:06 AMMmmm... 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.
Also not a scholar but I think this is actually helping me clarify what I'm thinking on it - and to recant what I said before.
My argument would be that what distinguishes 1937, to DB's point, from previous "incidents" in China is the scale and ambition of Japanese aggression and Chinese resistance. It is also that which I think means it cannot be contained as a regional conflict anymore. It is changing American policy in the Pacific and Soviet policy in Asia and Europe, with the ongoing Japanese-Soviet clashes testing possibilities. In turn every Japanese escalation in the Pacific, but also in China (such as Ichi-Go) are in large part caused by the relationship between that "regional" conflict and Japan's global position because I don't think they can be disentangeld. As it happens I think each Japanese escalation just drags them further in and does not provide the escape they're aiming for.
It's perhaps like if the Czechs had resisted in 38 and then Germany invades Poland as a way to escape the bind they have found themselves in.
To a large extent I think Japanese and German aggression are the twin engines of the war and this is where it revs up decisively. So perhaps WW2 only becomes global in 1941, but starts in 1937.
QuoteI wonder if its in terms of % of the world population or economy. Just Europe + India + Africa has to make up a majority at the time?
Yeah I mean the British Indian Army in the Second World War is, I believe, still the largest army ever without conscription.
QuoteSee WWI
Yeah I think the better argument for WW1 as a world war would be about its global consequences especially with the collapse of the Ottomans, Russian Revolution/collapse of the Tsarist empire plus, again, Japan and China.
I've said it before but I think there's a really interesting global history to be done on the 20s. It's an extraordinary period.
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2025, 07:43:56 AMOn 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.
You can't be serious. :lol:
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2025, 01:40:36 PMQuote from: DGuller on September 09, 2025, 07:43:56 AMOn 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.
You can't be serious. :lol:
Valuable addition to the discussion, as always.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2025, 01:09:51 PMQuote from: celedhring on September 09, 2025, 03:01:06 AMMmmm... 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.
Also not a scholar but I think this is actually helping me clarify what I'm thinking on it - and to recant what I said before.
My argument would be that what distinguishes 1937, to DB's point, from previous "incidents" in China is the scale and ambition of Japanese aggression and Chinese resistance. It is also that which I think means it cannot be contained as a regional conflict anymore. It is changing American policy in the Pacific and Soviet policy in Asia and Europe, with the ongoing Japanese-Soviet clashes testing possibilities. In turn every Japanese escalation in the Pacific, but also in China (such as Ichi-Go) are in large part caused by the relationship between that "regional" conflict and Japan's global position because I don't think they can be disentangeld. As it happens I think each Japanese escalation just drags them further in and does not provide the escape they're aiming for.
It's perhaps like if the Czechs had resisted in 38 and then Germany invades Poland as a way to escape the bind they have found themselves in.
To a large extent I think Japanese and German aggression are the twin engines of the war and this is where it revs up decisively. So perhaps WW2 only becomes global in 1941, but starts in 1937.
QuoteI wonder if its in terms of % of the world population or economy. Just Europe + India + Africa has to make up a majority at the time?
Yeah I mean the British Indian Army in the Second World War is, I believe, still the largest army ever without conscription.
QuoteSee WWI
Yeah I think the better argument for WW1 as a world war would be about its global consequences especially with the collapse of the Ottomans, Russian Revolution/collapse of the Tsarist empire plus, again, Japan and China.
I've said it before but I think there's a really interesting global history to be done on the 20s. It's an extraordinary period.
I don't follow your argument. Take a counter factual - what if Germany does not invade Poland and instead Hitler realizes that is pushing too far. Is the war Japan is fighting still a world war? Perhaps a war involving France, the Commonwealth and the US occurs eventually. But almost certainly not Germany, Italy, the Balkans - the list goes on.
Further, you say you don't think the conflict in Asia and the conflict in Europe can be "disentangled" but the assertion that they were entangled needs to be established first, and not simply through a bald assertion.
If your point is that events in the world effect others in the world then what makes the Japanese conflict a world war and not other more recent wars.
Don't feel like arguing an insane take. You might want to calibrate your chatgpt input terms.
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2025, 02:24:48 PMQuote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2025, 01:40:36 PMQuote from: DGuller on September 09, 2025, 07:43:56 AMOn 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.
You can't be serious. :lol:
Valuable addition to the discussion, as always.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2025, 02:49:23 PMI don't follow your argument. Take a counter factual - what if Germany does not invade Poland and instead Hitler realizes that is pushing too far. Is the war Japan is fighting still a world war? Perhaps a war involving France, the Commonwealth and the US occurs eventually. But almost certainly not Germany, Italy, the Balkans - the list goes on.
Well I think that would mean that would end my argument that WW2 is basically driven by twin engines or motors of German and Japanese aggression and the scale of their ambition. If Hitler or the Japanese could be sated than I don't think you have WW2 in any sense. One of the conditions of it is no longer present - same as if Japan was satisfied in 1937 but Hitler still invades Poland.
However I think at the same time the Sino-Japanese war would not have stayed "regional" and would have involved eventually either the Soviets or the Americans.
QuoteFurther, you say you don't think the conflict in Asia and the conflict in Europe can be "disentangled" but the assertion that they were entangled needs to be established first, and not simply through a bald assertion.
That's not what I said. I said that the relationship between the Sino-Japanese conflict and Japan's wider position and conflict cannot be disentangled. There's sort of a metronomic relationship of the inability to end the "regional" conflict and the attempt to break out of it through more "global" war.
QuoteHowever I think at the same time the Sino-Japanese war would not have stayed "regional" and would have involved eventually either the Soviets or the Americans.
I'm not sure there.
For sure there was an issue that China wouldn't surrender no matter how much Japan took. And obviously giving everything up and going home was never on the cards for Japan.
But then even in history as we know it Japan knew war with the US was a risk. They had to launch the Pearl Harbour attack and hurt America severely and quickly to try and get a quick peace.
Without WW2 in Europe they've the added issue there of the UK and other Europeans still appearing and (to a lesser extent) actually being far more of a threat.
Going against he US alone was a huge risk they would rather not have taken.... Going against everyone else was madness.
But then what else was going to happen. The die was cast. Was there no chance of cause correction for Japan.
For the Soviets... That's complicated. Depends what we are doing with them when we say no WW2 in europe. As for sure that's where their attention was.
I do think absent the Nazis and German aggression you'd end up with a WW2 against the Soviets.
No nazis would change a lot of course but assuming things otherwise went on track the west actually helping Finland for instance.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2025, 02:51:08 PMDon't feel like arguing an insane take. You might want to calibrate your chatgpt input terms.Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2025, 02:24:48 PMQuote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2025, 01:40:36 PMQuote from: DGuller on September 09, 2025, 07:43:56 AMOn 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.
You can't be serious. :lol:
Valuable addition to the discussion, as always.
If you did feel like arguing, I'm sure you'd come up with something insightful, judging by your very clever and original attempt at a putdown.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2025, 02:51:08 PMDon't feel like arguing an insane take. You might want to calibrate your chatgpt input terms.
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2025, 02:24:48 PMQuote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2025, 01:40:36 PMQuote from: DGuller on September 09, 2025, 07:43:56 AMOn 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.
You can't be serious. :lol:
Valuable addition to the discussion, as always.
(https://i.imgur.com/SVVLrNr.jpeg)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2025, 03:18:25 PMThat's not what I said. I said that the relationship between the Sino-Japanese conflict and Japan's wider position and conflict cannot be disentangled. There's sort of a metronomic relationship of the inability to end the "regional" conflict and the attempt to break out of it through more "global" war.
Ok, the war effort of Japan cannot be disentangled from the Japanese war effort. Where does that get us?
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2025, 04:21:44 PMQuote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2025, 02:51:08 PMDon't feel like arguing an insane take. You might want to calibrate your chatgpt input terms.Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2025, 02:24:48 PMQuote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2025, 01:40:36 PMQuote from: DGuller on September 09, 2025, 07:43:56 AMOn 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.
You can't be serious. :lol:
Valuable addition to the discussion, as always.
If you did feel like arguing, I'm sure you'd come up with something insightful, judging by your very clever and original attempt at a putdown.
I'm sure I would too. It's nice that I don't have to though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2025, 05:20:23 PMOk, the war effort of Japan cannot be disentangled from the Japanese war effort. Where does that get us?
The reason I don't think the Sino-Japanese war could be contained as a regional conflict. The Japanese could not understand why the Chinese now, after all the previous incidents of the 30s and 20s were resisting, and inflicted fury at that resistance on the Chinese, which only strengthened it - deepening the quagmire. They were trapped and unable to get out. Despite incredible success against various various centres of power in China: the army, the economy, various capitals, civilian populations/will to fight, the Chinese clung on and were still fighting. The remaining power was foreign aid - initially through Guangzhou, then Indochina, then the Burma road and, always, from the Soviet Union too. So the route to victory in the regional war was to expand it and close off the foreign support.
That made Soviet support for the Chinese all the more valuable for Stalin who through the 30s was as preoccupied with Japanese militarism as the Nazis. It also outraged the Americans and increased their support for the Chinese. The Japanese viewed themselves as being encircled and needing to break out either through war with the Soviets or the US - which they understood as a risk (estimated their chance of victory against the US as 50-50) but better than "being ground down without doing anything". It was fight or perish. One leader noting that the prospects of war "are not bright" and how they all wondered if there wasn't a peaceful solution before concluding "on the other hand, it is not possible to maintain the status quo. Hence one unavoidably reaches the conclusion that we must go to war."
And in much the same way as they were incapable of understanding why China wouldn't give in, in the event Tojo's assessment was that the US would be "enraged for a while, but later [...] come to understand" why Japan attacked. Military escalation was always their solution, there was no balancing of ends and means or risk and reward and a catastrophic inability to understand how others would respond or view their strategic picture. There's a similar dynamic with Ichigo which was accompanied with a peace offering to the Nationalists (one of many and Chiang was constantly threatening to accept them).
They get stuck in a quagmire, the only way out is escalation which involves them in a wider war to which the only solution is to end the quagmire with escalation (and not very good terms). The only solution is always to wade in further. And as I say I think it's that dynamic which is the driver of WW2 in Asia - in much the same way as Hitler's aggression is in Europe. It starts earlier in Asia and metastasises (and ends) later.
:hmm: Sheilbh, are you arguing that the response from major powers to Japanese aggression against China forced their hand to escalate? :unsure:
Or, and I know this is hard to understand, the Japanese soldiers could have just gone home.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2025, 07:11:43 PMOr, and I know this is hard to understand, the Japanese soldiers could have just gone home.
If that was the argument you wanted to make, wouldn't it have been simpler to make it at the beginning, bypassing the unprovoked abuse stage?
Quote from: The Brain on September 09, 2025, 10:21:59 AMAn ultimately unconvincing case could be made that, given the size of the greatest empire the world has ever seen, any war involving the UK would be a world war.
So really, WWII started in 1066 with the start of what would become modern England.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2025, 03:18:25 PMThat's not what I said. I said that the relationship between the Sino-Japanese conflict and Japan's wider position and conflict cannot be disentangled. There's sort of a metronomic relationship of the inability to end the "regional" conflict and the attempt to break out of it through more "global" war.
I think that this is correct. The Japanese expanded their war on China to include the Allied powers because they could see no other way to force China into negotiations on ending the war. Their invasion of Indochina was undertaken to cut off supplies going to China via Haiphong. That set them on an immediate collision course with the US, which responded with its near-total embargo.
It is possible that, absent a war in China, Japan might still have struck at the Western Powers (there was a strong "don't miss the bus" sentiment in Japan as a result of German victories in Europe), but the immediate cause of the crisis was due to Japan's war on China.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2025, 06:31:05 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 09, 2025, 06:10:22 AMQuote from: celedhring on September 09, 2025, 03:01:06 AMMmmm... 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.
The moment the Commonwealth becomes involved in the war, it becomes a world war though, even if there is not yet fighting all across the globe, there is a war effort ongoing for every continent.
Australia did enter the war in 1939. So did India, has a colony of the British Empire. The African colonies were de facto at war with Germany too. Most of South America wasn't at war and officially neutral, but still it was profoundly affected from 1939 and on.
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2025, 07:45:19 PMQuote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2025, 07:11:43 PMOr, and I know this is hard to understand, the Japanese soldiers could have just gone home.
If that was the argument you wanted to make, wouldn't it have been simpler to make it at the beginning, bypassing the unprovoked abuse stage?
Get thicker skin. Also go fuck yourself, for good measure.
Quote from: celedhring on September 09, 2025, 03:01:06 AMMmmm... 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!
Sure, there was a chance, and it makes for good alternate history scenarios, but the 2nd Sino-Japanese war was a major front of the World War and it was the first to begin in earnest, so I would put the beginning of the war at July 7th, 1937.
A world war doesn't have to start with blows between world powers, it can start small and slowly grow and spiral out of control.
Well, how far back can you trace a state of war from any participant in the 1939-45 conflict?
Boy, do I regret even posting this. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on September 09, 2025, 08:19:57 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2025, 03:18:25 PMThat's not what I said. I said that the relationship between the Sino-Japanese conflict and Japan's wider position and conflict cannot be disentangled. There's sort of a metronomic relationship of the inability to end the "regional" conflict and the attempt to break out of it through more "global" war.
I think that this is correct. The Japanese expanded their war on China to include the Allied powers because they could see no other way to force China into negotiations on ending the war. Their invasion of Indochina was undertaken to cut off supplies going to China via Haiphong. That set them on an immediate collision course with the US, which responded with its near-total embargo.
It is possible that, absent a war in China, Japan might still have struck at the Western Powers (there was a strong "don't miss the bus" sentiment in Japan as a result of German victories in Europe), but the immediate cause of the crisis was due to Japan's war on China.
Except that is my argument. The Japanese conflict did not become part of the "world war" until Japan attacked GB and the US. Sheilbh is making an argument that World War II can be said to have begun before 1939 in Asia which is entirely dependent on that occuring.
Also, the "near total embargo" by the US did not occur until 1941.
It is all hindsight.
It's debated.
However, there is general agreement that World War 3 was started by Norgy on September 8, 2025, about 41 posts up from here.
I think there is a clear consensus, rare for Languish, on that point. The only real issue now is whether Norgy was influenced in his actions by the assassination of Grand Duke Ferdinand.
While Norgy may have set events in motion, I think it's clearly my escalation of breaking this out of the GOP thread into its own that was the true start of the war, as that made it truly a world war.
Really, you forced Norgy's hand. He had absolutely no other choice but to start WW3.
There are some people who believe that the China thread, commenced much earlier, was the real start of the War. However, I think that although the China thread has been sporadically contentious and seemingly interminable, it is otherwise unrelated to the start of WW3 here. The China thread only became entangled in WW3 when it was later raised in this thread and thereby became connected to the broader conflict. By me. Just now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2025, 02:20:33 PMI think there is a clear consensus, rare for Languish, on that point. The only real issue now is whether Norgy was influenced in his actions by the assassination of Grand Duke Ferdinand.
ARCHDUKE! :mad:
My connections to The Black Hand are unproven! Fake news! :mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 09, 2025, 11:25:41 PMSure, there was a chance, and it makes for good alternate history scenarios, but the 2nd Sino-Japanese war was a major front of the World War and it was the first to begin in earnest, so I would put the beginning of the war at July 7th, 1937.
A world war doesn't have to start with blows between world powers, it can start small and slowly grow and spiral out of control.
Why not October 3rd, 1935? Your Ethiopian erasure is unforgivable!
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2025, 02:57:30 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2025, 02:20:33 PMI think there is a clear consensus, rare for Languish, on that point. The only real issue now is whether Norgy was influenced in his actions by the assassination of Grand Duke Ferdinand.
ARCHDUKE! :mad:
No kidding. Treating an Austrian Archduke like some degenerate Romanov uncle? That's that sort of thing that causes world wars right there.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2025, 05:08:25 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 10, 2025, 02:57:30 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2025, 02:20:33 PMI think there is a clear consensus, rare for Languish, on that point. The only real issue now is whether Norgy was influenced in his actions by the assassination of Grand Duke Ferdinand.
ARCHDUKE! :mad:
No kidding. Treating an Austrian Archduke like some degenerate Romanov uncle? That's that sort of thing that causes world wars right there.
I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry....
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2025, 02:39:03 PMThere are some people who believe that the China thread, commenced much earlier, was the real start of the War. However, I think that although the China thread has been sporadically contentious and seemingly interminable, it is otherwise unrelated to the start of WW3 here. The China thread only became entangled in WW3 when it was later raised in this thread and thereby became connected to the broader conflict. By me. Just now.
I think we need to go back a bit further than that:
QuoteIn the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move
As for the when WW2 started, well there's an argument for 1792 being the start date.
Quote from: PJL on September 10, 2025, 05:12:41 PMAs for the when WW2 started, well there's an argument for 1792 being the start date.
My favourite "very long 19th century" was 1789 to 1989 :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on September 10, 2025, 05:12:15 PMI think we need to go back a bit further than that:
QuoteIn the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move
Stop distracting us and making excuses Jacob. We all know you started that China thread. The blood is on your hands.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2025, 05:20:27 PMStop distracting us and making excuses Jacob. We all know you started that China thread. The blood is on your hands.
I had no choice!
You could all have ignored the thread, but instead you responded!
Quote from: Jacob on September 10, 2025, 06:42:52 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2025, 05:20:27 PMStop distracting us and making excuses Jacob. We all know you started that China thread. The blood is on your hands.
I had no choice!
You could all have ignored the thread, but instead you responded!
Sure, blame us victims
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2025, 06:48:48 PMSure, blame us victims
Victims? Co-conspirators, more like it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2025, 05:08:25 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 10, 2025, 02:57:30 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2025, 02:20:33 PMI think there is a clear consensus, rare for Languish, on that point. The only real issue now is whether Norgy was influenced in his actions by the assassination of Grand Duke Ferdinand.
ARCHDUKE! :mad:
No kidding. Treating an Austrian Archduke like some degenerate Romanov uncle? That's that sort of thing that causes world wars right there.
I mean, at least the Grand Duke was actually a GRAND Duke:
(https://i.imgur.com/ahKeGOk.png)
Archduke Franz Ferdinand was not much of an arch. :(
Don't let that fool you, that's just two kids in a trench coat
If he'd arched his back a bit, the archduke might not have been hit by my old pal Gavrilo Princip.
That's what I call normal sized
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2025, 11:07:39 AMExcept that is my argument. The Japanese conflict did not become part of the "world war" until Japan attacked GB and the US. Sheilbh is making an argument that World War II can be said to have begun before 1939 in Asia which is entirely dependent on that occuring.
Also, the "near total embargo" by the US did not occur until 1941.
It is all hindsight.
But my argument is not your argument. You are arguing from the perspective of a Canadian, for whom the Japanese conflict did not seem significant until after Dec 7. My argument is that, as far as the Japanese are concerned, the war did start in 1937 and the attacks on the Allies (especially France and the UK) were just a continu=ation of that war.
And yes, the "near total embargo" didn't occur until 1941. That is, not coincidentally, also the year the Japanese openly attacked the Allies.
"When WW2 began" is a matter of perspective, not history.
Is history not a matter of perspective?
I don't dispute a war started in 1937.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2025, 10:50:53 AMIs history not a matter of perspective?
I don't dispute a war started in 1937.
Interpretations of history are always a matter of perspective. History itself isn't (i.e. what happened happened, even if we don't know it happened or think that something else happened).
Whether WW2 was actually a world war or two regional wars is a matter of perspective. That Japan sank
HMS Repulse on Dec 10, 1941 is not.
Quote from: grumbler on September 11, 2025, 11:00:01 AMQuote from: Valmy on September 11, 2025, 10:50:53 AMIs history not a matter of perspective?
I don't dispute a war started in 1937.
Interpretations of history are always a matter of perspective. History itself isn't (i.e. what happened happened, even if we don't know it happened or think that something else happened).
Whether WW2 was actually a world war or two regional wars is a matter of perspective. That Japan sank HMS Repulse on Dec 10, 1941 is not.
True. World War 2 itself is not a historical event in the same sense that the UK declared War on Germany on 3 September 1939.
Quote from: grumbler on September 11, 2025, 10:28:15 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2025, 11:07:39 AMExcept that is my argument. The Japanese conflict did not become part of the "world war" until Japan attacked GB and the US. Sheilbh is making an argument that World War II can be said to have begun before 1939 in Asia which is entirely dependent on that occuring.
Also, the "near total embargo" by the US did not occur until 1941.
It is all hindsight.
But my argument is not your argument.
Exactly, you were just agreeing with Sheilbh ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 11, 2025, 11:32:37 AMExactly, you were just agreeing with Sheilbh ;)
That you would think that just tells everyone that you didn't actually comprehend what I wrote. That's a common occurrence here that I am okay with. :)