1937 Sino-Japanese war was the real beginning of WW2. Overlooked history.

The real reason was that every country was planning to invade each other including America.

The Japs stabbed Chinese in the back which Hitler didn't expect. Germany was already supporting the Nationalist of China before Japanese invasion.
German supports ROC

This was sign to counter Soviet.
en.wikipedia.org...

US already had war plans to invade the rest of the world while at it. The very reason why US stayed out for awhile.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: makemap


Japan had set up Manchuria as a puppet state while Germany was in violation of the Versailles Treaty well before 1937.

I am a World War II junkie since I was 12.

People could say the lesser known start of World War II and the rise of Japanese imperialism. Happened after the Japanese forcefully occupied Korea in 1905 and annexed it in 1910. Which happened after they won the Russia-Japanese War for imperial ambitions over Manchuria and Korea .

But I could see were that would just be a technicality.

Because Japan really unleash their power in China .

Which led to the oil embargo, which led to pearl harbor .

originally posted by: Fallingdown
I am a World War II junkie since I was 12.

People could say the lesser known start of World War II and the rise of Japanese imperialism. Happened after the Japanese forcefully occupied Korea in 1905 and annexed it in 1910. Which happened after they won the Russia-Japanese War for imperial ambitions over Manchuria and Korea .

But I could see were that would just be a technicality.

Because Japan really unleash their power in China .

Which led to the oil embargo, which led to pearl harbor .

That was still the Opium War. Japanese couldn't even puppet the Chinese properly. They have no way of conquering China. They even had to learn mandarin to talk to the Chinese before or during the war. You should know for a fact that the Japs had spies as much as the Chinese do. Even some Japs were converting to Chinese side due to corrupt Japanese laws. Only the brainwashed went genocidal mode(samurai suicide law).

China preserved Buddhism way better than the Japs.

a reply to: makemap

The Spanish Civil War ( 1936-39 ) was the precursor to WW II

Hitlers Nazi Party had their first taste for combat.

The Spanish Civil War of 1936–39 is remembered today as a sort of Second World War-in-training, a playoff game before the championship match between Team Axis and Team Allies a few years later

nationalinterest.org...

a reply to: alldaylong

Tiny civil war meant nothing though. Neither of the nations started massive war after Spanish civil war.

Japanese invasion is where they got China, Germany, British Colonies, and American colonies involved. Forced Nazi Germany to choose side. Soviet was secretly supporting communist China internally already. Soviet and Japs didn't invade each other yet.

a reply to: makemap

Germany
France
Italy
Portugal
Soviet Union
Morocco
Mexico
Ireland
The Vatican
An International Brigade ( which had George Orwell in it's ranks )

All those played a part in The Spanish Civil War. It was a mini WW II in the making.

During Germany's involvement in The Spanish Civil War, they had already invaded Czechoslovakia and Austria.

a reply to: makemap

The opium wars were fought between the British and China .

originally posted by: alldaylongThe Spanish Civil War ( 1936-39 ) was the precursor to WW II

Hitlers Nazi Party had their first taste for combat.

The real precursor to WW1 was the Treaty of Versailles and its very unfair treatment of Germany with reparations and the theft of German lands in the east plus the dismemberment of Austria, indeed creating all those eastern European new type nations was the the real precursor to WW2

a reply to: makemap

The US had contingency plans for a myriad of possibilities, including war with Britain, orange if i recall correctly, but they han no imperialist designs of starting a war with anyone.

Roosevelt, privately, was in favor of aiding GB, including declaring war on Germany if necessary. Publicly, however, he presented himself as an isolationist to win an election.

The Russians, and Japanese had by that point already had a war so costly to both that they wanted no part of each other while Russia was fighting Germany, and Japan had their hands full with the British, Dutch, Chinese, Australians, Indians, etc.

As far as the "official" start of WWII, the two main schools of though are 1937 (Japanese invasion of China), or 1939 (German invasion of Poland).

A strong case has been made for earlier dates, but I'm not sure what value there is in any specific date, as I'm positive that it is irrelevant to the 50 million plus ppl that were killed, or the uncounted hundreds of millions who's lives were shattered by all sort of brutal atrocities.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: makemap

Germany
France
Italy
Portugal
Soviet Union
Morocco
Mexico
Ireland
The Vatican
An International Brigade ( which had George Orwell in it's ranks )

All those played a part in The Spanish Civil War. It was a mini WW II in the making.

During Germany's involvement in The Spanish Civil War, they had already invaded Czechoslovakia and Austria.

I'm sure Hitler was a tad dismayed when Franco chose neutrality, rather than repaying him for his help, without which Franco never would have been in power.

The genesis of World War II both in Europe and in the Pacific was results of Treaty of Versailles and League of Nations stipulations, long term national ambitions, economic forces and lax treaty enforcement during time period between wars.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: alldaylongThe Spanish Civil War ( 1936-39 ) was the precursor to WW II

Hitlers Nazi Party had their first taste for combat.

The real precursor to WW1 was the Treaty of Versailles and its very unfair treatment of Germany with reparations and the theft of German lands in the east plus the dismemberment of Austria, indeed creating all those eastern European new type nations was the the real precursor to WW2

If you think Versailles was bad don’t look into the Brest-Litvosk treaty Imperial Germany forced Russia to sign.

Compared to the treaties the other major central powers members were forced to sign Versailles looks like a slap on the wrist. After Trianon and Sevres the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires respectively ceased to exist.

Luckily the Allies 30 years later did not show the same leninancy towards Germany as the Triple Entente did.

originally posted by: Phoenix
The genesis of World War II both in Europe and in the Pacific was results of Treaty of Versailles and League of Nations stipulations, long term national ambitions, economic forces and lax treaty enforcement during time period between wars.

Could you expound on how the VT corralates to Japanese imperialist ambitions?

I don't see it.

I realize the British, and her colonial assets, were fighting the Japanese pre Pearl Harbor, but the only thing tying German aggression to Japanese asperations of an imperial Asia, was a treaty of convenience between Germany, and Japan. They really had no parralell interests.

I remember reading something about Nazi's and American's being in Nanking when the Japanese attacked (air raid). The German's or Americans ended up staying in the other's embassy, IIRC. I think it may have been American's in German embassy b/c I remember seeing the swastica being placed on the roof b/c they may have had some agreement with Japan by then.


Did you look into the Russo-Japanese war, which was from 1904-1905 and a large part was fought over Mancuria / Korea.

Looking at the Manchurian/Korean history, I have to say I can't blame them for their position of seeking nuclear arms as they have been a vassel or puppet state of Japan, Russia or China for a very long time and they have suffered some of the worse abuses I've read about in history - much of it being wars fought in their terrotory and them being used as a buffer state - the first area to be hit when neighbors went to war. We are seeing that again to a large degree, but I think they are fighting to gain a foothold of independence, which is their right. Sorry for the tangent, but Korea is an area of high contention and it might be a catalyst for another major war - looking at it's history and understanding it might be useful in adverting a bad situation.

a reply to: Ohanka

Many thanks for the info Ohanka I will read up on the Brest Litovsk thing later when have a moment, you obviously really know yur stuff on this time period

a reply to: Mach2

Roosevelt, privately, was in favor of aiding GB, including declaring war on Germany if necessary. Publicly, however, he presented himself as an isolationist to win an election.

Is that right? Joe Kennedy was US ambassador to the UK at the time and advised against giving any support to the UK as he said he could see swastikas in Downing street before too long. Not sure it was just to win an election.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Mach2

Roosevelt, privately, was in favor of aiding GB, including declaring war on Germany if necessary. Publicly, however, he presented himself as an isolationist to win an election.

Is that right? Joe Kennedy was US ambassador to the UK at the time and advised against giving any support to the UK as he said he could see swastikas in Downing street before too long. Not sure it was just to win an election.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, as he resigned under pressure shortly after making those comments, not coincidentally, during the battle of Britain, when it was obvious that appeasment was not a viable course of action.

Kennedy's views were aligned with Chamberlain's rather than Churchill's.

Churchhill and Roosevelt, however, shared the beleif that Hitler was a clear and present danger to the entire western world.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Mach2

Roosevelt, privately, was in favor of aiding GB, including declaring war on Germany if necessary. Publicly, however, he presented himself as an isolationist to win an election.

Is that right? Joe Kennedy was US ambassador to the UK at the time and advised against giving any support to the UK as he said he could see swastikas in Downing street before too long. Not sure it was just to win an election.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, as he resigned under pressure shortly after making those comments, not coincidentally, during the battle of Britain, when it was obvious that appeasment was not a viable course of action.

Kennedy's views were aligned with Chamberlain's rather than Churchill's.

Churchhill and Roosevelt, however, shared the beleif that Hitler was a clear and present danger to the entire western world.

Wasn't making a point, more an observation as to whether Roosevelt agreed with him or not. Battle of Britain wasn't enough to convince Roosevelt, neither at that point was the invasion of France, the low countries, Austria etc.

Mainly interested in whether his memoirs at the time (prior to the election) reflect his personal feelings as you suggest them and his reasoning for putting them to one side for national political purposes.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Mach2

Roosevelt, privately, was in favor of aiding GB, including declaring war on Germany if necessary. Publicly, however, he presented himself as an isolationist to win an election.

Is that right? Joe Kennedy was US ambassador to the UK at the time and advised against giving any support to the UK as he said he could see swastikas in Downing street before too long. Not sure it was just to win an election.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, as he resigned under pressure shortly after making those comments, not coincidentally, during the battle of Britain, when it was obvious that appeasment was not a viable course of action.

Kennedy's views were aligned with Chamberlain's rather than Churchill's.

Churchhill and Roosevelt, however, shared the beleif that Hitler was a clear and present danger to the entire western world.

Wasn't making a point, more an observation as to whether Roosevelt agreed with him or not. Battle of Britain wasn't enough to convince Roosevelt, neither at that point was the invasion of France, the low countries, Austria etc.

Mainly interested in whether his memoirs at the time (prior to the election) reflect his personal feelings as you suggest them and his reasoning for putting them to one side for national political purposes.

Understand.

No, the battle of Britain was not enough, and, apparently, neither was the sinking of cargo ships sailing under the American flag.

Nothing short of having war declared on the US, would have swung public opinion to the point of accepting another conflict, where American lives would be lost in, what was seen as a European matter.

Of course PH, and the subsequent declaration of war by Germany, changed public opinion. Even after the attack on Pearl, the US did not declare war on Germany, although, as Hitler saw it, the arming of the allies, including Russia, nullified any pretext of neutrality by the US.

Then, there are those that beleive the US had already decided, but was waiting as long as possible to allow the other allies, primarily Russia to bear the brunt of the human costs. Personally I beleive that was a British strategy (and not a bad one, given the circumstances), moreso than an American one.

I find the political history to be as fascinating as the actual combat.