China declared war onJapan on Dec 9, 1941?

[Centuur]

Japan was a very interesting enterprise for the Dutch East Indies company. They made an awful lot of money by trading Japanese art in Europe. Those items were in high demand in the 17th. and 18th. century at the rich and nobility. If you could affort a "Japanese" room, you were really an important man in Europe...

The reason the Dutch got the "Factorij" in Decima was the fact that they agreed only to trade with Japan, while the Spanish, Portuguese and later the British were always trying to make Japan a colony. So for as long as there was only trade and no politics, the Dutch were allowed to have their trading post.

However the governors of that post weren't that happy, since they were in a sort of "prison". They were not allowed out of the compound at all, except when ordered to go to the Japanese local governor or other high placed officials. And that didn't happen often, because westeners were considered to be barbarians...

[brian brian]

Good points, Cohen, thank you. The Western Empires using the ideas of Human Rights, etc., to oppose the expansion of the evil Axis empires did finally lead to the end of the Western Empires, for the most part. The USA was saying only it's historical friends could exploit other peoples; new competitors weren't welcome. Any American President who has tried to truly use principles of Human Rights in American Foreign Policy, is still roundly despised by American nationalists.




I can't recall the details, but I remember from studying the Kuomintang a little that there were strange reasons for them not to issue a true Declaration of War on Japan.

[WIF_Killzone]

Hmmm, I wonder if there was basically no upside to declaring war earlier lest the full might of the Japanese would fall upon them. Once the Allies were involved it may have simply suited them to draw sides then and declare "we are with you", not a dumb play politically.

[brian brian]

China was a very complicated place, internally, and quite far from being a unified country like most other participants in WWII. I think the calculus for Chiang was that if he issued the formal DoW, he might lose support from other WarLords who were perpetually on the fence about fighting or just cooperating with Japan. The Kuomintang had plenty of internal enemies aside from the Japanese.

[WIF_Killzone]

+1

[Ur_Vile_WEdge]

An interesting fact that I was a bit stunned to find out lately were some combat statistics stemming out of the armored war in France, 1944. Far from it being the story of "you need 5 Shermans to beat a panther, and expect to lose most of them", and the bulk of the German armor losses being inflicted by aircraft, the Shermans were actually running rampant over the bigger and better gunned German tanks.

According to Table II, the most common type of engagement was Shermans defending against Panthers, and the Shermans fired first. In 19 engagements, involving 104 Shermans and 93 Panthers, 5 Shermans were destroyed compared to 57 Panthers.

Actually, just in general, shooting first was the single biggest predictor of how these tank engagements seemed to work out.

[Numdydar]

And if you have more tanks .... [X(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Good points, Cohen, thank you. The Western Empires using the ideas of Human Rights, etc., to oppose the expansion of the evil Axis empires did finally lead to the end of the Western Empires, for the most part. The USA was saying only it's historical friends could exploit other peoples; new competitors weren't welcome. Any American President who has tried to truly use principles of Human Rights in American Foreign Policy, is still roundly despised by American nationalists.

warspite1

So what do we conclude from this? What is it that you are both saying? That the US should simply have let Japan carry on their war in China and wherever else they may wish to take it?

That the British and French should have responded to Hitler with a "Yeah sure, you go fight your war in the east - take Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Baltic States, the Soviet Union, whatever"?

This thread of the conversation started because it was suggested that the date of the start of the Pacific War could have been the date America imposed the embargo on Japan. If that date is taken then there is only one conclusion; the USA was responsible for the war in the Pacific. If that is true, then Britain and France started WWII in Europe - after all, in the same way that the US tried to bring a halt to Japan's war in China, the Western Powers were trying to thwart Hitler's dream of Lebensraum (because they were "late to the party" the Germans, like the Japanese, were perfectly entitled to attack any sovereign nation they chose to in order to continue their "economic progress"). How are the actions of the US and the Western Allies different in the final analysis?

Sorry but I simply don't understand this thinking.

[brian brian]

What I conclude from WWII is exactly what Cohen said. The Russian, French, British, Dutch, and American Empires said No to the Axis countries doing the same things those countries did while they colonized the world in the 19th Century and earlier. I think the Japanese in particular were a little flabbergasted at this response to their activity in China, and the hypocrisy heightened their determination to do what they wished without a bunch of other Imperialists telling them they couldn't. And at a certain root level this drove HItler as well.

The victors in WWII had long, long histories of attacking other countries and subjugating populations via the application of military force solely in the interest of continuing their own economic progress. This continued even after WWII though afterwards this had to be done in alliance with local elites, as in Guatemala, Iran, and the Congo, to name just a few examples. This was encapsulated in the famous American expression about a Latin American Dictator - "He may be a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch." We are just now wrapping up and dealing with the consequences of ending that type of policy after the removal of Saddam Hussein and the ongoing, slow, bloody re-configuration of the Middle East.

The great, and good, irony of WWII is that once Human Rights and National Determination, etc, was used as a Casus Belli for starting a War, that Genie could never be put back in the bottle and the age of Imperialism slowly drew to a close.

[Extraneous]

This is an extremely brief timeline for the period in China

08/01/1894 - 04/01/1895 The First Sino-Japanese War (China cedes Korea, Taiwan, and the Penghu Islands to Japan. China also pays 13,600 tons of silver as reparations to Japan.)

08/1899 – 09/1901 The Boxer Rebellion

09/04/1901 The Boxer Protocol: US $333 million or £67 million at the exchange rates of the time) were to be paid as indemnity over a course of 39 years to the eight nations involved.
The Chinese paid the indemnity in gold on a rising scale with a 4% interest charge until the debt was amortized on 12/31/1940. After 39 years, the amount was almost 1 billion taels (precisely 982,238,150), or 1,180,000,000 troy ounces (37,000 tonnes) @ 1.2 ozt/tael.

10/10/1911 – 02/12/1912 The Xinhai Revolution (The Qing dynasty is overthrown and the Republic of China is established)

1916–1928 China's Warlord Era

07/09/1926 - 1928 The Northern Expedition (to defeat the Chinese Warlords and unite China)

08/01/1927 – 12/22/1936 The Chinese Civil War

03/21/1927 - 03/27/1927 Nanking Incident (not be confused with the Nanking Massacre in 1937): Large scale rioting against foreign interests, burning houses and attacking the British, American, and Japanese consulates. The exact amount of Chinese reparations were made secret as a face saving effort.

04/12/1927 Shanghai massacre of 1927: Chiang Kai-shek purges the Chinese Communist party

12/1936 The Xi'an Incident: Chiang Kai-shek is arrested by Marshal Zhang Xueliang. this forces a truce between the Nationalists and the Communists so as to form a united front against the Japanese.
07/07/1937 - 09/09/1945 The Second Sino-Japanese War.

[warspite1]

Fair enough – but it didn’t answer the point (not that you have to of course).

So the old imperialists (to which of course you should add Germany, Italy and, to a slightly lesser extent Japan) said no to the Axis powers doing what they themselves had previously done. Well yes, but as I said, that is not the point.

Moreover and again, that they did this is not in dispute, that they did this with a large dollop of self-interest, is not in dispute. The question was whether the US, in so doing, were effectively responsible for the start of WWII in the Pacific – and by extension, the British and French were responsible for starting WWII in Europe.

That the countries saying no to Germany and Japan were guilty of such territorial gain in the past does not make it wrong that they should seek to stop these two odious regimes from territorial expansion does it? a) Two wrongs don’t make a right and b) times, and standards evolve and change. And no, life ain’t fair and there are plenty of examples of when things have not been consistent – but that does not alter the rights and wrongs of 1939 and 1941.

One of the frustrations with these types of arguments is that often hindsight is used and/or people ignore the situation that faced the world leaders at the time. Getting back to Japan and the US (which raised the question) the motive put forward for America acting in the way she did is that she did so entirely out of some kind of hideous self-interest. But let’s just put 1941 into context.

Look at the situation that Roosevelt faced in the summer of 1941 when the US embargoed Japan. So what exactly was the position?

Western Europe was largely under the jackboot. France had been beaten and the UK, ejected from the continent. In the east, all considered military thinking was that the Soviets were beaten and her conquest was a matter of months if not weeks away. This would have given Germany rule over Europe – and, with the USSR defeated, the UK would have been next. Meanwhile in the US backyard, the Japanese, shortly to be free of threat from the USSR could turn the Kwantung army on China.

So, as can be seen, given the above it doesn’t take a huge leap of imagination to see that by sometime in 1942 the might of the Wehrmacht is to be thrust upon the UK and Egypt. French, Dutch and British possessions in the Far East are ripe for the taking and China is on the brink. Where does that leave the US exactly?

Roosevelt could see what was likely to happen. But what does Roosevelt say to congress? Oooohh I’d really like to do something about this potentially disastrous situation but I won’t because I don’t want people saying in years to come I was acting in a hypocritical manner……
The idea that the US started the Pacific War (and that the British and French started the war in Europe (David Irving’s wet dream) is simply ridiculous.

The idea that Human rights and self-determination being used as a casus belli is new is perplexing. As has previously been agreed, human rights and self-determination are important when oil or some other key interest is present. If not? ……….

Imperialism was coming to an end anyway – the war thankfully sped up the process, but no way has the right to self-determination and human rights taken over from self-interest. Look at what the effect of the right to self-determination and human rights had on the Falkland Islanders. If it had not been for a Prime Minister with balls the size of church bells (and assistance from the US and a few others), those islanders would be under Argentine rule. The islanders rights meant jack to many of our fellow Europeans….

[Extraneous]

Ok, My opinion is that to some extent the Allies were responsible for World War II. BUT mostly they were not.


The Allies carving up Germany after World War I sowed the seeds for World War II.

What did Italy receive for being on the Allied side in World War I?

Creating treaties limiting the size of ships for each major power after World War I was a a direct insult to Japan.

Japan wanting exclusive rights to Asian resources was self serving.

Germany secretly training in the Soviet Union. Remember the Allies invaded the Soviet Union 1918 - 1920.

France not occupying the Ruhr when Germany marched in was a huge error. War could have ended before it started.

Appeasement only fed Germany's apatite for more.



All events lead up to a confrontation that could have been avoided. There were people who gave warnings but they were ignored.

[Centuur]

Did Chamberlain not go to Munich? That gave Germany the impression they could get away with capturing Poland. Don't forget that the Polish state as created after WWI was a huge affront to Germany because of the Polish corridor.

It is my firm believe that the Versaillles Treaty at the end of WWI laid the fundament for WW II.

On the Japanese involvement in China it is very clear that Japan was trying to colonize the country. Due to the ever lasting civilian wars in China, the country was presenting itself for any nation to attack it. The Japanese took the opportunity and they were really flabbergasted by the action of the US against them. Don't forget that the United States themselves had been a colonising country too (the Phillipines...). I truly believe that if the US would not have embargoed the Japanese, the Pacific war would not have started at all.

The US involvement in China was nothing more than an attempt to try to get a piece of that cake too. It didn't work out that way in the end for both Japan and the US after WW II...

[warspite1]

Interesting that a lot of views are being put forward but no one appears, for whatever reason, to want to answer the question.

This last post goes close - without actually saying it

Don't forget that the Polish state as created after WWI was a huge affront to Germany because of the Polish corridor.

So what does that mean? Germany were justified in attacking the sovereign state of Poland - thus it was the British and French that started WWII when they declared war on innocent Germany?

Although I guess

I truly believe that if the US would not have embargoed the Japanese, the Pacific war would not have started at all.

pretty much says it in the case of the US.

[AlbertN]

Territories historically owned and then lost - maybe even still populated by an amount of people speaking your nation language and so on - tend to be a very strong lure, and historically that movement is called "Irrendentism", the desire to "redeem" territories from someone else possession, which you feel belonging truly to your nation.

Most of these situations are due to "territorial changes" after wars of the past. With a political hindsight the rule is simple, in these case. Claims are made when one is in a condition to do so.

About the Treaty of Versailles, it is pratically acknowledged by all the historians I've read books from that such was laid the premises for the WW2 to happen.
The "Appeasement" policy was also due to the factor of the rampant Communist movement that was spreading across Europe - which was the biggest concern (and not Germany at the time) of the western Democracies. They saw in the new nationalist movement in Germany a wall to "stop" the spreading of the communism ideals springing from Soviet Union.

[warspite1]

All events lead up to a confrontation that could have been avoided.

I don’t see how anyone can sit here now and confidently state that a war could have been avoided. There are too many variables. World War II as we know it could have been avoided in a multitude of ways, but to suggest that for example Germany and the Soviet Union were never going to square up to each other in the pre-nuclear age is a difficult one to envisage.

Treaty of Versailles……. was laid the premises for the WW2 to happen

It is my firm believe that the Versaillles Treaty at the end of WWI laid the fundament for WW II

The Allies carving up Germany after World War I sowed the seeds for World War II.

I doubt that there are many people who believe that the Treaty of Versailles was the best way to conclude WWI. Whilst I have a large degree of sympathy for the French, the treatment of Germany, was considered too harsh even by many at the time – and with the benefit of time and hindsight, that feeling has only gained strength.

To many at the time (though not it seems the right people) it did not need hindsight or great powers of vision to realise that such a treaty would cause bitterness and resentment in years to come. In that sense, Versailles did give the German people a reason to be angry at their treatment.

That said, the idea that Versailles = WW2 is just too simplistic a notion and a nice get out of jail card for the Hitler worshippers (and no I am not claiming that any of you are in this camp). Yes there was a second war, yes it was started (regardless of what the likes of David Irving believe) by Germany (the “wronged” party at Versailles) but it took 21-years, it took a worldwide economic depression, it took a sociopathic leader to emerge that was not interested in putting Versailles right, it took a policy of appeasement – in short a hell of a lot of water flew under the bridge between 1918 and 1939. Given the foregoing WWII was hardly a direct result of Versailles.

Curiously, given that Versailles was the reason for WWII to some people, no mention is made of the fact that by 1939 the treaty had been renounced by the Germans, the restrictions on the armed forces imposed at that time were gone, the Saar, the Rhineland and the Sudeten-German lands were under Reich control, the Anschluss was complete, the Western Allies were falling over themselves to make concessions in colonial and economic spheres to Germany. It is perfectly feasible that a more reasoned leader could have emerged in Germany, and one that could take advantage of the west’s willingness to maintain the peace.

Versailles was a contributory factor to the circumstances in which an Adolf Hitler type character could come to lead a well-educated, first world country like Germany. But in Hitler’s rise to power and his ability to appeal to the masses, Versailles was only one part of his two pronged attack to get Germany behind him. The other was little to do with Versailles – his railing against the so-called Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy and those within Germany that had turned traitor and sold the undefeated Fatherland out at the end of WWI.

Versailles was not the cause of WWII. The British and French were not the cause of WWII. The responsibility for WWII – at least in Europe - goes to Adolf Hitler and Germany.

Some of the answers above are also contradictory. E.g:

Versailles was responsible for WWII

, but also

France not occupying the Ruhr when Germany marched was a huge error.

So which is it? If Versailles was wrong (and as said, most think it was) then were the Allies destined to compound that mistake for ever more? Were the poor politicians that followed (who had to make the best of the mess they were handed) not right in trying to put right some of the excesses of Versailles? It seems like we are in “cake and eat it” territory. Sure, one sure fire way of stopping Germany start another war was to insist, clause for clause, on implementing Versailles – thus the occupation of the Rhineland would not have been allowed for example. But do you not see the contradiction? Germany was badly done by…but then you are saying the allies should have reinforced all provisions of that unfair treaty???

Another related contradiction and hypocritical stance is around western appeasement vs US action. So some people say western appeasement gave the Germans the opportunity to re-arm etc. The obvious counter to that is that the west should not have allowed any appeasement of Germany i.e. war. Okay….. so if that is true, then why is the claim being made that the US were wrong to embargo Japan? Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either you take tough action with the monstrous regimes or you appease them. Seems to me from the answers above we are back in contradictory world; the western Allies were wrong for using appeasement to keep the peace while the US were wrong for using a big stick approach and not appeasing Japan…….

Another example of contradiction is in the statement below:

Did Chamberlain not go to Munich? That gave Germany the impression they could get away with capturing Poland.

Not sure where this came from. Yes of course Chamberlain was at Munich – the appeasement policy is rightly, and forevermore, linked with the British Prime Minister. But it is the sentence that followed that is strange – should the western allies have appeased or used the big stick – which, I repeat, the US were apparently wrong to do against Japan? If you think Hitler thought they could get away with conquering Poland as a result of Munich – then yes, but only to the extent that the allies did not go to war over Czechoslovakia. Remember Germany had to go to all sorts of lengths to play the game that got the Munich agreement done. Remember Hitler uttered those famous words “I have no more territorial demands” to throw the allies off the scent for a few months. Britain gave Hitler pause for thought with the guarantee to Poland after the take-over of the rump of Czechoslovakia.

Then added to this there was:

Appeasement only fed Germany's appetite for more.

Again, even ignoring the contradiction, the statement is simply not true and fails to understand Hitler and his motivation. What very few people – German as well as others – really understood in the 30’s was that Hitler was not to be bargained with – except to the extent that any short term bargain made (e.g. The German-Polish non-aggression pact, The Anglo-German Naval Agreement, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact) was fine - and could be dispensed with as soon as it had served its purpose - so long as it could be used as part of the ultimate goal – the oil, the agriculture and the minerals of the Soviet Union. Appeasement did not feed Hitler’s appetite. Hitler’s appetite – his goal – was already set in his mind – read that turgid nonsense Mein Kampf. Appeasement allowed that goal to become a possibility. What we know all too well now is that only war would stop his attempts to reach his goal, his raison d’etre, his holy grail – Lebensraum in the Soviet Union.

There were a few other points:

Don't forget that the Polish state as created after WWI was a huge affront to Germany because of the Polish corridor.

There is mention above about territorial changes and the wish for nations to bring back under its control, territory formally owned, and peoples of the same ethic group. Well quite, and that was the thinking behind much of the appeasement that happened – the Anschluss and the Sudetenland – i.e. the allies trying to make up for some of the excesses of Versailles. But again, this seems to work one way only. Apparently the Germans had every right to be unhappy at loss of territory and German-speaking population – but what about others? The Polish nation wasn’t plucked from thin air in 1918. The Polish-Lithuanian state that existed in the late 18th century (before being partitioned) was similar in border area to what became Poland in 1918 for a reason. Yes, those contested areas of Germany were once Polish. Poland had been carved up and kicked around for hundreds of years. And as the crimes of the imperialists were brought up in a previous post - let's treat Germany in the same way; what about Schleswig-Holstein or Alsace-Lorraine?

Creating treaties limiting the size of ships for each major power after World War I was a a direct insult to Japan.

The treaties were a way of trying to stop another naval arms race. The intention was good. Insult? Why should Japan (with only the Pacific to look to) have the same size navy as the US and the UK? As the start of WWII proved, there was never any certainty that the UK and the US would remain Allies or agree to join the other’s fight. In the event that either went to war with Japan alone, those countries would need to practically abandon their other commitments (essentially Europe, the Atlantic and the Mediterranean for the UK and the East Coast for the US) in order to bring the advantage in ships to bear. Having the same size navy was a distinct advantage to Japan. Of course with hindsight – knowing how things turned out – there was no need for such a treaty. The Japanese could never hope to keep up naval building with the USN, and Britain and the US would go to war with Japan at the same time. But obviously they didn’t know that at the time.

Germany secretly training in the Soviet Union. Remember the Allies invaded the Soviet Union 1918 - 1920.

I do not see the actions of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union between the wars as being co-ordinated in any way shape or form. The Soviet Union and the new Communist regime were not “Allies”. The ill-fated and ultimately pointless intervention in the civil war reflected that. Allowing Germany to train her army in the Soviet Union was still further evidence of that.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Just for fun I want to go ever more back in time.

Earlier Japan was very closed country. In 1853 US forced Japan to open its borders trade "or deal with consequences". After that Modernization started in Japan and they needed raw materials. Would they have stayed in their own islands without US forcing them to open borders?

warspite1

Hi Mayhemizer - here is a thread that explains a little more about Japan being a closed country. Certainly changed my accepted understanding!

tm.asp?m=3864120&mpage=1&key=inward%2Clooking&#3864524

[Twisted1]

Keeping it very simple - did Hitler use the situation for his own advantage or did the situation create Hitler?

I am of the opinion that Hitler used the situation to his own advange.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Twisted1

Keeping it very simple - did Hitler use the situation for his own advantage or did the situation create Hitler?

I am of the opinion that Hitler used the situation to his own advange.

warspite1

It's a good question - and I agree. Versailles - or similar – cannot create a monster like Hitler but it can give voice to such people, and that is what it helped to do in Germany; it gave such a vile creature, who in more “normal”, prosperous times would likely have been consigned to a footnote of history (if even that) something to use to his advantage to gain power.

As said previously, Germany was a well-educated, advanced, first-world country. For a country like Germany to have put a sociopath like Adolf Hitler and a hate-filled political party like the Nazi’s into power means something has gone very, very wrong.

In order for the Nazi’s to achieve power, they needed a point or two to focus the minds of the population that would allow the German people to rally behind those focal points and work together to destroy what was holding Germany back. One of those points had nothing to do with Versailles (the great Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy and the “stab-in-the-back) but the other was Versailles itself, and the economically and militarily difficult situation the German people found themselves in as a result. The Jews/Bolsheviks and Versailles were useful in creating a situation within the chaos of post-war Germany in which an extreme group could take root – other actions and events (internally, the presence of communist groups in Germany and, externally, the Great depression, were a big help in that regard) would then allow that group to grow flourish.

[Centuur]

I don't think it was the "Jewish-Bolshevik" conspiracy which was the reason why Hitler came to power. It was the fact that none of the other political parties in Germany in that time wanted to throw the Versailles treaty overboard.

Think about it. The twenties weren't "roaring" in Germany and Austria at all. Those years are still remembered as the years of extreme poverty and femine. There was no money for the agriculture, no money for spare parts, a huge unemployment and that was before the depression started. I've got a banknote somewhere which says 1 billion German Marks. At that time this banknote was worth about ten pence in the UK...

It is my believe, that if a strong fascist leader (instead of a Nazi leader) would have emerged in Germany (such as Mussolini and Franco) things would have been exactly the same, apart from the holocaust.