The birth of WW2, why did it start?

Did I say the US was the principle causer of ww2? don't think so, what I said was that the US caused the Asian part of ww2. Japans oil import was 99% coming from the US.

The appeassement you call is nothing more nor less then the policy of the UK and France to push nazi-germany gently toward another enemy; Soviet-Union. Why else was Tschechoslovakia given away? Consider that this country was the gate to the soviet-union if you keep poland out of the question.

You may believe what you wish to believe, the point is that every war has a economic aspect. It's importance differs but it is there. In ww2 it was defenitely the economic aspect that played the big role.

 

Anton, the Pacific War was caused by Japanese aggression in China and elsewhere in Asia, not by the United States. Unless you are trying to make a case that the American government should have tried to stop Japanese aggression sooner than it actually did? The militarists who, for all intents and purposes, ruled Japan in the 1930s sought to expand Japan's Empire and give her access to more natural resources by whatever means they felt were necessary. The only way the Pacific War could have been avoided would have been for the Western Powers, including the USA, to have ignored Japanese expansionism and continued giving the Japanese the resources they wanted to continue their war in China.

 

I don't think the Germans ever paid much in the way of reparations, and what was paid was done with U.S. loans which were never repaid following the 1929 economic collapse.

I'm gonna hate myself for doing this but...
Yes Anton, your preamble does blame all the Western powers, and espicially the U.S. for starting the war. Blame them for being too isolationist, not for pushing Japan and Germany to war through withholding natural resources, or forcing the Netherlands to do so, that the Germans and Japanese were somehow entitled to. Just to throw fuel on the fire. the 1918-1919 intervention of the Entente (including the U.S.) in the Russian civil war was hardly an invasion.

Probably better for all of us if I had just kept my tongue.

 

Well, the issue of the USA’s involvement in the causes of WW2 is an interesting one.
Isolationism, and their complete withdrawal for the world (and Versailles) after Wilson essentially meant that the League of Nations was doomed. Imagine if you will the UN being even vaguely effective, or even surviving, without American backing.
Imagine trying to impose sanctions (say, oil & steel) upon bellicose nations like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy when the world’s biggest industrial nation refuses to acknowledge that the sanctions exist!
Britain & France were forced to keep Italy as an ‘ally’ against Nazi Germany because they believed the propaganda about how powerful Germany was, and believed that just the two of them could not stop Hitler, should anything go wrong. Therefore, Italy was allowed her little peccadilloes – Crete, Albania, Abyssinia, etc. The utter caving in of Britain & France on these issues convinced Mussolini that a) Hitler was a stronger Ally, b) Italy could recreate the Roman Empire. Arguably, with a USA that was more involved in world politics, such things would never have happened. Appeasement may even not have been needed…

With Japan, well, the USA did place sanctions. Japan had long realised that she faced 2 big threats to her expansionism would be the USA or the USSR, and laid plans to deal with either contingency (but not both simultaneously!). After the US imposed sanctions on (oil & steel among others?) Japan had to fight or back down. Hands up who thinks 1930s Imperial Japan would have backed down?
However, in this case, I do think America made the right choice. They surely must have realised there was a high chance Japan would have gone to war, and I salute them for their courage in refusing to appease (although to any clear thinker USA vs Japan was a much surer outcome than UK/France vs Germany).

 

Canambridge and Corpcasselbury; do you know what america's most used excuse for going to war is?

The US supported China with military goods and high qualified personell like fighter/bomber pilots, tank crews and ship crews.

Japan was in war with China already form 1923 and even beyond that year.

How does the US explains support from any nation to one of its enemies?

The US committed an act of war, this is precisely described in national and international rules of war. By aiding the enemy of Japan the US became a party in that war. The US was in war from 1931 not 1941.

What on earth had the US to do with asia? It was not japanese agression or expanding empire drifts. On the contrary, the us was expanding its empire and it collided with the japanese empire.

Before you respond with more nonsens { Moderator is aware of possibly insulting text. Watch yourself Anton!} try to find out what the us did in the first place in terms of economic santions. Sanctions like oil, steel, cole, machinery etc bans.

 

I would have to say that the cause of WW2, and indeed most wars, is economics. While the treaty of Versailles weighed heavily on German doctrine, it was the poor economy that allowed Hitler to come to power.

Being many things, he was a brilliant economist, but was quite evil. He would stop at nothing to further his own cause, and used the Jews as a stepping stone, blaming them for most of Germany's problems.

We can all go on and on about the cause, this or that happening, but in most wars, there is not a single cause. What happens is a series of events happening in succession, all adding fuel to the fire until it ignites into something more terrible than we can imagine.

"We call this war!"

:smok:

 

In fact the US government tried to stop the Japanese expansion by aiding Tschang Kai-Tsjek and his nationalists.

It is a part that is not very wel known, the us delivered military supplies and advisors. For example; the nationalist forces received the american Pattern 17 rifle chambered .30-06 modified to 8*57mm mauser.
Older Curtis P-40 and Boeing P26-A fighter planes with pilots and ground teams were also delivered with all additional materials.
Trucks and ''all-terrain'' vehicles were also delivered.

So in a sense what you state has been done by the us government. (altough I must admit it was not on the same scale as in ww2)

 

By Anton's standards the USSR and Nazi Germany were at war in 1936. And they didn't just supply arms, but troops as well! Oh wait, there were AMERICANS in Spain (the Lincoln and Washinton brigades) so they started it! Or was ithe British? Or the French? Or the Italians? Or ..., well you get the idea.

I hate to disabuse you of your cherished illusions of two hundred years of US aggression against the world, but supplying arms to a country under attack by an aggressor is not an act of war.

 

Italy's goal was to recreate the Roman Empire?! Thats interesting.

The U.S did not start the war in the Pacific, but they led Japan down the path. They knew what would happen if they cut the materials to Japan, and they ushered them down the path to attacking U.S. troops, thereby giving the U.S. a reason to join in the war. They didnt expect Pearl, but that got them into the war.

 

Mmmmm......

Canambridge, how was it again you called me????

someone who writes down without providing evidence and sources??

Yes indeed this little story is backed by sources and evidence.

Lets take a look at the facts;

argument number 1:

US deliberately used its economic power to drive Japan in a corner provoking a war by banning Japanese oil, steel, bauxite, rubber etc. imports.

Reply from Corps and Canambridge;

US did not use its economic power. No sources nor evidence
provided.

Argument number 2

The US, UK and France agreed in the treaty of Rapallo in 1922 to maintain ''zone's of influence''= imperial territory. Asia was not within US zone of influence.

Reply from Corps and Canambridge;

No reply.

Argument number 3

The Versailles Conference's (= winners of ww1 US,UK,France) refusal to include a Japanese-sponsored declaration on racial equality in the Leage of Nations Convenant, an insult to national pride exacerbated by the American immigration law excluding Japanese.

Reply from Corps and Canambridge;

No reply, as if this never happened.

Argument number 4

US had (and has) nothing to look for in Asia, no historical, economical or political reason. Philipines are not this reason because the US and Japan signed bilateral agreements in the period 1905-1917 in wich the deal was made that the US would not interfere in any mainland issue if Japan guaranteed the US positions in the Philipines.

Reply from Corps and Canambridge;

''US has the right to interfere when it wishes'', no sources
evidence nor arguments for this ridiculous idea.

Argument number 5

US interference in the mainland conflict between Japan and China. US supplied Tsjang Kai-Tsjek with arms, advisors (vietnam style) and money. By aiding an enemy of Japan the US became a party and this behaviour can be considered according to the rules of war as a declaration of war.

Reply from Corps and Canambridge;

No, not true no aid no rules of war (do they exist?) broken. If
the US wants to aid a ''ally'' it can do so and no rules apply for
the US because whatever the US does it does it with the
intention to do good. :lol:

Now I know you want sources and ''evidence'', here are three books with some info about it. Read them and then reply with sensible arguments not with wagon loads of patriotic retoric.

Sources: Secret Intelligence in the Twentieth Century by Constantine FitzGibbon chapter 3 , How Wars Begin A.J.P. Taylor chapter 4 and 5 , Makers of Modern Strategy edited by Peter Paret Part 3 and 4

 

Anton,

What I said (meant) is that your viewpoint is limited and you do not consider anything that doesn't fit your viewpoint, which I feel is anti-western and in particular, anti-American. but let's play the game:

1) I didn't reply because you were right. What I disagree with is your conclusion that this done to provoke the Japanese and is justification for the war. It was done to try and stop Japanese expanison in China without war. I also disagree as to the amount of influence the U.S had over the colonial powers, such as the Netherlands. I think the Netherlands, and the British Commonwealth, supported the embargoes because it was in their own best interests and it was the right thing to do.

2) Asia and the Pacific had been a U.S. "zone of influence" since at least the 1850's, Treaty of Rapolla or no. I've never read it, so I'll accept your summary if not your conclusions. When I get really bored and have some time, I may look it up and read it. The Americans obtained Pacific possessions in the Spanish-American War of 1898, including the Phillipines and Guam. The US (forceably) opened Japan to the modern world in 1868. The US had been long involved in China, and not always for altruistic reasons. Regardless of imperialistic treaties, the US had interests in the Pacific, Asia and the far east. But do you mean that by your reasoning it would have been all right for France, Portugal, the Netherlands and Britain to decide to fate of China, as France and Britain did for Czechoslovakia? All these European powers had colonial possessions in Asia.

3) No reply is not equivalent to "as if this never happened". Don't go speaking for me. The US was not in agreement with the Treaty of Versailles, but was pushed aside as the minor partner who had not sacrificed during the war, and therefore did not count. The US views on racial equality at the time were hardly praiseworthy and the immigration laws were disgraceful. But the same goes for nearly every other European power and most of the world. The treatment of Japanese-Americans (and Canadians) during the war were even more disgraceful. The Japanese were insulted by just about everything that didn't treat them as a major imperial power anyway. Insults are not, in my opinion, an excuse to invade China and commit mass murder. You also omit the Japanese attitudes towards racial superiority, which were (and are) even more disturbing.

4) It is only your opinion that the "US had (and has) nothing to look for in Asia". I believe history proves you wrong, but that is a mtter of interpretation. Believe what you will. You seem to being saying that as long as a treaty is signed between two nations, anything goes. No nation should stand by and allow the things that were done by the Japanese in China to go unopposed in my opinion. Or sell out a weaker nation for it's own interests.

5) This is just ridiculous and unworthy of you. Providing arms and support to a soveriegn nation to resist an attack is an act of war? By this reasoning Germany was at war with Japan. They supplied arms and instructors to China as well. So did the British and French. And many others I'm sure. Selling arms may be immoral, but it's not in viloation of international law and it's not a declaration of war. Not even theJapanese tried to claim that. The 1937(?) sinking of the US gunboat Panay (which was there legally) in China by the Japanese however, is a recognized act of war.

If you haven't already, you might want to read John Tolands book, "The Rising Sun". It is similar to William Shiers "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". Toland is an outright and strident crtitic of US policy towards Japan, so he is hardly a biased source, I would say he is pro-Japanese. Even the recent "Flyboys" contains a not very sympathetic account of US-Japanese history and relations.

The cause of WWII was German and Japanese aggression, with the USSR right in there. Insults and bad treaties that weren't honored anyway aren't valid reasons to overrun and enslave whole nations and commit genocide. Neither Germany or Japan were faced with national extinction before the war, but both were faced with opponents who were capable of interferring with their plans for expanison and racial purity.

I am amazed at how you single out the western powers, especially the US, as the source of WWII. Even the argument that Versailles "caused" WWII, which I don't agree with, is more credible, and US objection to Versailles is well documented. The greatest, but not only, contribution of the US to the start of WWII was refusing to get involved in international affairs. In Canada the general opinion is that the US waited too long and could have helped France and Britain contain Germany before it came to war, and should have entered the war sooner. But then France and Britain didn't want the US involved in Europe, it wasn't a US sphere of influence.

 

Camambridge, honour to your post! and I mean it, this is a good reply.

What you see as a focus on western 'guilt' from my side counts in my opinion the same for me; in my view you believe too much in the official story.

But it is not a crime for you nor for me to think of these ways. That is one of the few privilige's we have in our western society.

Oke I'll take up the glove and shoot my arrows.

 

Thanks and fire away, although I'm a little hurt by the "you believe too much in the official story". Sometimes the truth just isn't as exciting as we would like it to be.
If we all agree all the time it would be a very boring existience! :lol:

 

Congratulations you two! You managed to prevent a possible forum row of insults and solve your dispute in civilized manner. We should all take examples here. But still, both, please prevent them by not initiating them.

 

Well, for Italy, read Mussolini.

 

Excellent post, canambridge! I couldn't agree more with you. I didn't answer, Anton, because my already limited access to the Internet has lately been even more restricted by various factors beyond my control.

 

Gentlemen, history has shown us that there are no rules in war.

The rules are made by the victor, and with that thought, I can only pray that the USA never loses a war in my lifetime (which is rather doubtful).

In my opinion, who, when, and where (taught emphatically in the USA) is irrelevant. What is important is "WHY".

Because the "why" differs from generation to generation, and philosophy to philosophy, war will ever be present.

The winners will decide what is, and what is not. Do your best to be the winner.

There is "No second place winner in a gunfight".

:smok:

 

Fundamentally true. However, as a veteran, I can tell you that the American military emphasizes not deliberately attacking civilians.

 

*Applauds*

This is what many people don't understand, which is why they turn away from history as a whole, thinking it's all about some numbers and groups. They don't see that the real question is why.