China declared war onJapan on Dec 9, 1941?

[rkr1958]

I was surprised to learn that China didn't offically declare war on Japan until Dec 9, 1941. I guess most of you already knew that, but I didn't. Just thouht I'd pass this fact along.

[michaelbaldur]

then. what was the official china at that time .. did it even have a official government ..

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


then. what was the official china at that time .. did it even have a official government ..

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/411209bwp.html According to this bullent the dow also included Germany and Italy.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I was surprised to learn that China didn't offically declare war on Japan until Dec 9, 1941. I guess most of you already knew that, but I didn't. Just thouht I'd pass this fact along.

warspite1

I don't recall ever reading that, but then what significance does it have? China had been under attack by Japan since 1937. I must admit I never gave consideration to the need of the attacked power to declare war on an aggressor once they have been declared war on.

I guess it must have some importance in international law but I never thought about it.

[ACMW]

But the point is that, as I understand it, Japan didn't declare war on China. They merely acted in a warlike manner against them! War is arguable a bit less binary than it is sometimes envisioned. When did the USA and Japan go to war? 7 Dec 1941? Or when the U.S. Imposed an oil embargo on Japan? Pretty hostile act, that - even if the correct thing to do. Particularly with Japan engaged in a major war. Albeit an undeclared one!

Cheers

Adrian

[Numdydar]

Plus no one wants to be seen as an aggressor. Even though China definitely had a 'casus belli' for declaring war, Japan could have used that to help keep the US and others off their back since Japan had not declared war on China. It was just a 'police action' [:D]

So it was in both Japan's and China's interest to not have an official state of war to exist until necessary.

[Extraneous]

A Brief Timeline of Some of the Events in China Prior to World War II

09/18/1931 The Mukden Incident, or Manchurian Incident (Japan dynamites railroad line blames it on China)
09/19/1931 Japan invades Manchuria
02/18/1932 The Japanese puppet Manchu State (Manchukuo) is established
01/01/1933 - 01/03/1933 The Battle of Shanhai Pass: The Shanhaiguan Japanese garrison commander explodes a few grenades and fires a few shots. The Japanese demand the removal of the Chinese 626th Regiment of the Northeastern Army, guarding Shanhaiguan evacuate the pass defenses. When this is refused the Japanese attack with the the Japanese 8th Division, 4 armored trains, 10 tanks, air support, and shore bombardment. the Chinese The Chinese are forced to withdraw.
01/21/1933 The Defense of the Great Wall - Operation Nekka: The Japanese Army invades Rehe Province (Jehol Province).
This was annexed into Manchukuo in 1933.
12/01/1937 – 12/13/ The Battle of Nanking. The Kuomintang (KMT) is forced to relocate its capital to Chungking (now Chongqing).
12/13/1937 – 01/1938 The Nanking Massacre or the Rape of Nanking (approximately 200,000 to 300,000 Chinese are killed)
the Kuomintang (KMT) under Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek
07/07/1937 - 07/09/1937 Marco Polo Bridge Incident
07/07/1937 The Second Sino-Japanese War begins. The Imperial Japanese Army invades China.

08/13/1937 – 11/26/1937 The Battle of Shanghai (Japanese victory)
Chinese: 700,000 troops (75 divisions and 9 brigades), 250 planes, and 16 tanks. Casualties: 200,000 killed 83,500 injured or missing. 91 planes Total: 283,500 casualties
Japanese: 300,000 troops (8 divisions and 6 brigades), 3,000 planes, 300 tanks, and 130 naval ships. Casualties: 70,000 killed 22,640 injured or missing. 85 planes 51 ships Total: 92,640 casualties

06/09/1938 The Chinese open up the dikes of the Yellow River to delay the Japanese advance on Wuhan. Approximately 500,000 civilians are killed.

06/11/1938 - 10/27/1938 The Battle of Wuhan (Japanese victory)
Chinese: 1,100,000 (120 divisions), 200 planes, 30 ships. Casualties: 225,000.
Japanese: 350,000, 500 planes, 120 ships. Casualties: 107,000+.

11/13/1938: The Great Changsha Fire: Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek orders the burning of the city of Changsha to deny it to the Japanese. approximately 3,000 people lose their lives and over 56,000 (90%) of the city’s buildings are burned.

09/17/1939 – 10/06/1939 The First Battle of Changsha (Chinese victory)
Chinese: 240,000 troops (9th War Area consisting of 1st Army Group, 19th Army Group, 20th Army Group, 27th Army Group, and 30th Army Group), Casualties: 40,000
Japanese: 180,000 troops (11th Army consisting of the 3rd, 6th, 13th, 33rd, 101st, and 106th Division divisions), over 100 planes, 12 military navy vessels, and more than 100 motor boats. Casualties: 40,000

11/15/1939 – 11/30/1940 The Battle of South Guangxi (Chinese victory)
Chinese: 150,000 men (initially only 2 weak army groups, reinforced by 2 army groups, including 200th Division (only mechanized force in the Nationalist Chinese Army). Casualties: 5,600 killed 11,000 injured 800 missing 6,416 other casualties Total:23,816 casualties
Japanese: 100,000 men (5th Division, 18th Division(partial), Guards Mixed Brigade, Taiwan Mixed Brigade). Casualties: 4,000+ killed (including 85% of all officers) 4,000+ wounded 100 captured Total: 8,100+ casualties

[AbwehrX]

08/13/1937 – 11/26/1937 The Battle of Shanghai (Japanese victory)
Chinese: 700,000 troops (75 divisions and 9 brigades), 250 planes, and 16 tanks. Casualties: 200,000 killed 83,500 injured or missing. 91 planes Total: 283,500 casualties
Japanese: 300,000 troops (8 divisions and 6 brigades), 3,000 planes, 300 tanks, and 130 naval ships. Casualties: 70,000 killed 22,640 injured or missing. 85 planes 51 ships Total: 92,640 casualties

06/09/1938 The Chinese open up the dikes of the Yellow River to delay the Japanese advance on Wuhan. Approximately 500,000 civilians are killed.

06/11/1938 - 10/27/1938 The Battle of Wuhan (Japanese victory)
Chinese: 1,100,000 (120 divisions), 200 planes, 30 ships. Casualties: 225,000.
Japanese: 350,000, 500 planes, 120 ships. Casualties: 107,000+.

11/13/1938: The Great Changsha Fire: Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek orders the burning of the city of Changsha to deny it to the Japanese. approximately 3,000 people lose their lives and over 56,000 (90%) of the city’s buildings are burned.

Holy crap! I didnt know the casualties were that enormous in those campaigns. Its almost like a Verdun or Stalingrad! [:(]

[AlbertN]

I was unaware of these "Chinese" Victories, but the Japanase army was always focused in China.
The troops in the Pacific were only a tiny minority of the whole Japanese Army, and due to the extension of the territories the China always had the largemost armies.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: ACMW

But the point is that, as I understand it, Japan didn't declare war on China. They merely acted in a warlike manner against them! War is arguable a bit less binary than it is sometimes envisioned. When did the USA and Japan go to war? 7 Dec 1941? Or when the U.S. Imposed an oil embargo on Japan? Pretty hostile act, that - even if the correct thing to do. Particularly with Japan engaged in a major war. Albeit an undeclared one!

Cheers

Adrian

warspite1

I would like to see that argument stick. Hostile act? Yes, if Japan were happily proceeding through life in a peaceful manner. I suspect right minded people agree that the war in China - including episodes like the Rape of Nanking - absolve the US of any blame. They were trying to stop the war.

If you follow that logic, the French and British were both totally responsible for starting WWII - after all it was they that declared war on Germany. If Japan waging brutal war against the Chinese - a war that would cost at least 15 million Chinese lives - doesn't count then nor does Germany attacking Poland. So Hitler was blameless after all......

[AlbertN]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: ACMW

But the point is that, as I understand it, Japan didn't declare war on China. They merely acted in a warlike manner against them! War is arguable a bit less binary than it is sometimes envisioned. When did the USA and Japan go to war? 7 Dec 1941? Or when the U.S. Imposed an oil embargo on Japan? Pretty hostile act, that - even if the correct thing to do. Particularly with Japan engaged in a major war. Albeit an undeclared one!

Cheers

Adrian

warspite1

I would like to see that argument stick. Hostile act? Yes, if Japan were happily proceeding through life in a peaceful manner. I suspect right minded people agree that the war in China - including episodes like the Rape of Nanking - absolve the US of any blame. They were trying to stop the war.

If you follow that logic, the French and British were both totally responsible for starting WWII - after all it was they that declared war on Germany. If Japan waging brutal war against the Chinese - a war that would cost at least 15 million Chinese lives - doesn't count then nor does Germany attacking Poland. So Hitler was blameless after all......

If we speak of "faults" - in general I see the WW2 as the war of the "small" Major Powers against the "big" Major Powers.

The non economically independant, pratically deprived of colonies of worth, lacking an self sufficient resource income to fuel their industrial expansion - and on top of that frustrated by WW1 defeat (or eventually to have got crumbles at the table of the winners, in the case of Italy and Japan) fought a war against the odds, against the "colossuses" of the world - in terms of economy, colonial expansion, raw resources, etcetera.

From a Geopolitical standpoint perspective it's a "David against Goliath" case, where David got crushed. I cannot feel to spite the Axis leader for wanting to expand their nation and making it stronger (Underlining that, and not involving other factors); they just happened to arrive there a bit too late in the history to achieve a result where some egemonies were already established.

China-Japan war is no very different than a Britain-Boer war of conquest of gem-rich territories, for example. But none was there by then to be able to "oil embargo" Britain.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Cohen

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: ACMW

But the point is that, as I understand it, Japan didn't declare war on China. They merely acted in a warlike manner against them! War is arguable a bit less binary than it is sometimes envisioned. When did the USA and Japan go to war? 7 Dec 1941? Or when the U.S. Imposed an oil embargo on Japan? Pretty hostile act, that - even if the correct thing to do. Particularly with Japan engaged in a major war. Albeit an undeclared one!

Cheers

Adrian

warspite1

I would like to see that argument stick. Hostile act? Yes, if Japan were happily proceeding through life in a peaceful manner. I suspect right minded people agree that the war in China - including episodes like the Rape of Nanking - absolve the US of any blame. They were trying to stop the war.

If you follow that logic, the French and British were both totally responsible for starting WWII - after all it was they that declared war on Germany. If Japan waging brutal war against the Chinese - a war that would cost at least 15 million Chinese lives - doesn't count then nor does Germany attacking Poland. So Hitler was blameless after all......

If we speak of "faults" - in general I see the WW2 as the war of the "small" Major Powers against the "big" Major Powers.

The non economically independant, pratically deprived of colonies of worth, lacking an self sufficient resource income to fuel their industrial expansion - and on top of that frustrated by WW1 defeat (or eventually to have got crumbles at the table of the winners, in the case of Italy and Japan) fought a war against the odds, against the "colossuses" of the world - in terms of economy, colonial expansion, raw resources, etcetera.

From a Geopolitical standpoint perspective it's a "David against Goliath" case, where David got crushed. I cannot feel to spite the Axis leader for wanting to expand their nation and making it stronger (Underlining that, and not involving other factors); they just happened to arrive there a bit too late in the history to achieve a result where some egemonies were already established.

China-Japan war is no very different than a Britain-Boer war of conquest of gem-rich territories, for example. But none was there by then to be able to "oil embargo" Britain.

warspite1

Yes, you could argue they arrived too late on the scene, but that does not make what they did acceptable. Was China different to the example of the Boer War? In the final analysis not really - except that there was no concept of nations ganging up to try and stop such action (other than ad-hoc coalitions if the circumstances were right). That concept came post WWI - but sadly failed.

The whole point of the (failed) League of Nations was to try and stop future wars. It is ironic that the League is (rightly) blamed for the failures in the 30's with Italy and Japan but when the US tried to employ the type of embargo on Japan in 1940/41 that would have probably worked against Mussolini (Ethiopia) and Japan (Manchuria) in the previous decade, there is then the suggestion from some quarters that their embargo was too hostile. As I said, the argument that the US were wrong to try and stop Japan is false, and indeed the fact that Japan took the option they did, simply shows that the US were right.

[AlbertN]

Admittedly the League of Nations embargoed Italy, but only France and UK truly pushed for that and enacted it. The US kept merrily trading with Italy, because they deemed politically laughable that the two nations with the most colonies had a problem with Italy gaining a piece of rocks in Afrika.

China had heavy investment from USA - the famous China Lobby. They took the defence of China because USA has economical interests in China, but had none in Ethiopia.
Again, Kuwait War for oil, same thing. Many other wars of aggression non relevant to the world economics ... are forgotten.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Cohen

Admittedly the League of Nations embargoed Italy, but only France and UK truly pushed for that and enacted it. The US kept merrily trading with Italy, because they deemed politically laughable that the two nations with the most colonies had a problem with Italy gaining a piece of rocks in Afrika.

China had heavy investment from USA - the famous China Lobby. They took the defence of China because USA has economical interests in China, but had none in Ethiopia.
Again, Kuwait War for oil, same thing. Many other wars of aggression non relevant to the world economics ... are forgotten.

warspite1

Countries goes to war over Kuwait (oil) but does nothing about Zimbabwe (no oil) - well yes there is nothing new there. That's the real world.

The USA took up the defence of China to protect her interests? Well of course - that's the real world. Its what countries do - see above.

Don't forget re Italy that certain factions in France and Britain tried to get around the embargo on Italy - the ill-fated Hoare-Laval pact. But the fact that the US continued trading with Italy - thus negating its effects - is a prime example of why the League of Nations was such a failure. The US did not join. Blockades and embargoes have to hurt to be effective or they are just pointless.

A proper embargo against Italy would have seen Mussolini climb down - Italy had no other choice (other than go to war) which would have been impossible if the entire League was against her.

Nothing you have said negates the truth of the matter; USA embargoing Japan did not mean the USA started the Pacific War. Japan had a choice - SHE chose war.

[Extraneous]

You know I always find some interesting information when surfing WWII.


Some Highlights on China

09/19/1939 The Japanese launched a poison gas attack on the Chinese forces along the Sinchiang River. Yes, this was against the laws of war set by the Geneva Protocol. Japan used chemical warfare a lot in China.

The Battle of Wuhan
During the Battle foe Wanjialing
The Japanese had to frequently airdrop officers onto the bases of surrounded units of the 106th division. 300 officers had to parachute into the battlefield to save the division.
The Japanese 101st and 106th divisions started with a combined strength of over 31,000 troops. By the end of the battle, only a little over 1,000 troops had escaped the encirclement by the Chinese army.

[AlbertN]

I am not denying that Japan chosed to go to war; but the Oil Embargo was a clear message from USA to Japan about the Japan having to be dependant from third parties for their economics, etcetera.
In my eyes, a clear act of hostility - when more than one nation decide alltogether to sever trades with another nation.

But that is just opinion debate - it is only natural someone in a stronger position has all the interest to keep anyone in an inferior position, in that place; in order to retain supremacy.
I am not blaming the USA for the Oil Embargo - it was right as choice with insight of their interests and to maintain their supremacy position. That it was a move to maintain peace, on the other hand, I totally disagree. It "pushed" the Japanese in either backing off from their economical progress (and remain a subsidiary power subject to the whims of the "Western Powers" even if USA is east to Japan, the "Western technicaly / mentality" issue is how it is usually referred when Japan interacts with Europeans and company.), or go to war with the USA & Co. to ensure oil provisions.

The Oil Embargo was the last of the offers which the nations traded truth be told.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

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]

ORIGINAL: Cohen

I am not denying that Japan chosed to go to war; but the Oil Embargo was a clear message from USA to Japan about the Japan having to be dependant from third parties for their economics, etcetera.
In my eyes, a clear act of hostility - when more than one nation decide alltogether to sever trades with another nation.

But that is just opinion debate - it is only natural someone in a stronger position has all the interest to keep anyone in an inferior position, in that place; in order to retain supremacy.
I am not blaming the USA for the Oil Embargo - it was right as choice with insight of their interests and to maintain their supremacy position. That it was a move to maintain peace, on the other hand, I totally disagree. It "pushed" the Japanese in either backing off from their economical progress (and remain a subsidiary power subject to the whims of the "Western Powers" even if USA is east to Japan, the "Western technicaly / mentality" issue is how it is usually referred when Japan interacts with Europeans and company.), or go to war with the USA & Co. to ensure oil provisions.

The Oil Embargo was the last of the offers which the nations traded truth be told.

warspite1

How do you maintain peace when there is a full blown, and incredibly brutal, war going on in China? As I said, the US were trying to stop that war. That there was self-interest is not in doubt, and not up for debate - of course there was - that's real life.

[AlbertN]

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?

For the little I know of that timeline, it was the appearance of a Portughese steamboat at the shores of Japan that made them "review" their isolationist policy; more than an external push, their own realization of the technology gap.

[Extraneous]

Sakoku (locked country)

The foreign relations policy of Japan under which no foreigner could enter nor could any Japanese leave the country on penalty of death. The policy was enacted by the Tokugawa shogunate under Tokugawa Iemitsu through a number of edicts and policies from 1633–1639 and remained in effect until 1853 with the arrival of the Black Ships of Commodore Matthew Perry (United States Navy) and the forcible opening of Japan to Western trade. It was still illegal to leave Japan until the Meiji Restoration (1868). It was preceded by an era commonly referred to as Sengoku, or the Warring States period of Japanese history.

Japan was not completely isolated under the sakoku policy. It was a system in which strict regulations were applied to commerce and foreign relations by the shogunate, and by certain feudal domains (han). The policy stated that the only European influence permitted was the Dutch factory at Dejima in Nagasaki. Trade with China was also handled at Nagasaki. Trade with Korea was limited to the Tsushima Domain (today part of Nagasaki Prefecture). Trade with the Ainu people was limited to the Matsumae Domain in Hokkaidô, and trade with the Ryûkyû Kingdom took place in Satsuma Domain (present-day Kagoshima Prefecture). Apart from these direct commercial contacts in peripheral provinces, trading countries sent regular missions to the shogun in Edo.

It is conventionally regarded that the shogunate imposed and enforced the sakoku policy in order to remove the colonial and religious influence of primarily Spain and Portugal, which were perceived as posing a threat to the stability of the shogunate and to peace in the archipelago.




Least that's what they taught me in school.