StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In light of the recent 75th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland I began wondering if 9/1/1939 was in fact the most accurate place from which to date the Second World War, or if the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War on July 7 1937 would be better.

World War Two was in many ways a collection of connected wars running together. In Europe, you had German war against the western allies which was kicked off by the invasion of Poland in September '39, followed by the start of the larger German-Soviet war in June '41. In the Asia there the full-scale Sino-Japanese war began with the Marco Polo Bridge "incident" in July '37, which later was joined by the Japanese war on the US and the other allies after Pearl Harbor.

While there had been fighting between Japan and China before 37, and the Chinese Civil War picked up after 45, the war from July 7 1937 to September 2 1945 was distinct, continuous, and brutal. Chinese casualties were on the order of 20 million, including civilians, second only to the losses suffered by the Soviet Union. To put the war's start at the invasion of Poland while reducing the Sino-Japanese war to merely being a separate conflict that was later absorbed into the actual World War serves only to sideline and obscure this conflict.

The Soviet Union's contribution to defeating the Nazis has long been downplayed in the West, but is by now widely acknowledged. I think a similar change should take place in regards to China. It wouldn't much change serious study of history, but dating the overall war from 1937-1945 would have a major impact on the popular understanding of the war. Besides simply forcing the average person to acknowledge the Chinese portion of the war, it would also put the American diplomacy with Japan before Pearl Harbor, and the pre-1939 diplomacy and conflict in Europe, in a broader context. It would also help people in the West I think gain a bit more understanding about the emotional legacy of the War in China, Japan, and their neighbors today.

Thoughts?

EDIT: It'd also make it easier to make sense of the Soviet-Japanese conflicts.

The events in China had no direct link to the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939. Japan was only able to enter the world war after Hitler smashed one of Japan's main enemies and crippled two others. Japan never expected nor intended for this at any point. Indeed all Japanese planning before mid 1940 has basically nothing to do with anything that happened earlier. In the end the entire Pacific theater was a sideshow. The fact that it began earlier has little relevance, and overall far more people died in Europe in less time.

Nope don't see a real argument for it. Certainly not one which you could focus in on 1937, and not say 1935, or 1931 or the fact that the Washington Naval Treaty had simply destabilized the rational basis of power in the world and someone was bound to try to exploit it.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The events in China had no direct link to the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939. Japan was only able to enter the world war after Hitler smashed one of Japan's main enemies and crippled two others. Japan never expected nor intended for this at any point. Indeed all Japanese planning before mid 1940 has basically nothing to do with anything that happened earlier. In the end the entire Pacific theater was a sideshow. The fact that it began earlier has little relevance, and overall far more people died in Europe in less time.

Events in China actually did have a slight impact on the outbreak of the European war. The fighting between the Soviets and Japanese in Manchuoko certainly influenced Stalin's thinking leading up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the ceasefire there had a direct impact on the timing of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

Leaving that aside though, it doesn't matter. Japan's war with China was the prime cause behind the outbreak of war between Japan and the US/WAllies. Japanese strategic planning was schizophrenic at best, but rational or not the Pacific theater of WW2 was launched for the clear purpose of seizing the resources necessary to prosecute the war in China.

The European war was bigger, yeah, but that was only once the Soviet Union got brought into it. If you look at the war up to 1941, the Asian theater was significantly larger in both area and human cost than the European one. World War is a fairly vague term, but for WW2 to be a world war and not just Great European War Round 2 the war against Japan has to be considered as an integral part. If you'd like to divide it up into two separate though closely related wars, the larger of which went from the invasion of Poland to the capture of Berlin, fine, but that doesn't mean that the smaller of the two only began with Pearl Harbor. The wars which ended with the surrender on the USS Missouri had been underway for four years before Japan decided to gamble on attacking the US.

There'd certainly been fighting between China and Japan before the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, but it was generally localized and relatively sporadic. After that and the battle of Shanghai China and Japan were in a continuous and full scale war up to the Japanese surrender in 1945. For this war to be considered part of WW2 from 1941 to 1945 but not from 1937 to 1941 seems a major oversight, particularly when you compare the 2nd Sino-Japanese War to the war between the Axis and Allies in Europe before the invasion of the Soviet Union and the entry of the US into the war.

Well the utter disaster that was the Winter War for the Soviets made Germany more certain the Operation Barbossa would work, yet Winter War isn't considered part of World War 2 (it's related to WWII but not a part of it)

A-Wing_Slash wrote:The Soviet Union's contribution to defeating the Nazis has long been downplayed in the West, but is by now widely acknowledged. I think a similar change should take place in regards to China.

As in, recognizing Chinese contribution?

I don't think China contributed much besides being bleeding ground, certainly not on a Soviet scale of engaging and causing 90% Nazi casualties. Yes, they tied up most of Japanese army but it's not like it could have changed anything in Pacific or any other region. Deleting the China campaign wouldn't strengthen Japanese navy as it was already limited by resources and industrial output. In fact, Soviet invasion of Manchuria dealt larger blow to Japanese in 3 weeks than China front in 3 years.

As for date, 1 September is the time when the war became global (though, as my US friend commented once, if you looked at Hollywood output you'd think war lasted from June 1944 to May 1945, with perhaps brief addition of December 7). If you added Sino-Japanese conflict, what about Germany and Austria/Czechy, or Italy and African and Albanian campaigns?

Irbis wrote:As for date, 1 September is the time when the war became global (though, as my US friend commented once, if you looked at Hollywood output you'd think war lasted from June 1944 to May 1945, with perhaps brief addition of December 7). If you added Sino-Japanese conflict, what about Germany and Austria/Czechy, or Italy and African and Albanian campaigns?

Or adjust it to 1941 to account for the USSR/USA's entry?

"WW2" is a problematic label at best, acting as a collection for a bunch of various related wars happening at the same time.

Gandalf wrote:Or adjust it to 1941 to account for the USSR/USA's entry?

"WW2" is a problematic label at best, acting as a collection for a bunch of various related wars happening at the same time.

Well, in September 1939 war went from involving states from single continent to involving people from all inhabited continents, so there's that. USSR and USA were involved in the war in a lot of ways even before 1941, their entry was mostly a formality by then, IMHO.

A-Wing_Slash wrote: Events in China actually did have a slight impact on the outbreak of the European war.

A lot of things had very slight impacts, but that does not make for an argument for 1937 over numerous other dates, all of which are inferior to 1939.

The fighting between the Soviets and Japanese in Manchuoko certainly influenced Stalin's thinking leading up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the ceasefire there had a direct impact on the timing of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

But the Soviets invasion of said points did not cause WW2, it happened because WW2 had already started from the French and British declaring war on Germany placing a large portion of the worlds industrial power at war including a planet spanning empire of colonies. Thus the World War bit.

Leaving that aside though, it doesn't matter. Japan's war with China was the prime cause behind the outbreak of war between Japan and the US/WAllies.

So what? You aren't arguing for WW2 started in 1941. Fighting in 1937 was primarily caused by Japan occupying large areas of China in 1931. Japan occupied this land primarily because Chinese rule had fallen apart two decades earlier. Chinese rule fell apart because Japan and Russia and everyone in Europe had dismembered her sovereignty for fifty years before then. This is endless. The fact remains that in 1939 fighting in Asia was fighting between two nations, second and forth rate powers, in a geographically limited area. That is by no means world war to the tune of what was coming.

Japanese strategic planning was schizophrenic at best, but rational or not the Pacific theater of WW2 was launched for the clear purpose of seizing the resources necessary to prosecute the war in China.

See above.

The European war was bigger, yeah, but that was only once the Soviet Union got brought into it. If you look at the war up to 1941, the Asian theater was significantly larger in both area and human cost than the European one.

The area of the British and French Empires was much larger then that of China, and fighting had taken place across a vast area of land and sea to that point. And on the industrial side of things, Japan and China were small fish. Which is really what defined the wars anyway, unprecedented industrial mobilization. If you are just concerned about dead bodies then I would point out that China had civil wars much earlier then this which killed just as many people. China has a lot of people to fight each other. It doesn't mean much on its own. Other countries have taken much higher proportional losses in wars in the past. The heaviest proportional losses of WW2 fell on Poland, some 20% of the entire population. China lost closer to 5% over a greater period of time.

World War is a fairly vague term, but for WW2 to be a world war and not just Great European War Round 2 the war against Japan has to be considered as an integral part.

Then you also have to consider the huge empires of France and the UK, and the fact that heavy land fighting by 1940 spanned from North Cape to Somalia, a distance of more then 4,500 miles, which is over twice the span of the actual combat zone in China, which was actually pretty damn focused in the north, almost all of it in a zone of about 800 x 500 miles. Meanwhile the naval war, of which the Sino Chinese War had functionally none, had had combat as far away from Europe as Nauru in that year. The fighting in China does not make a world war on its own, the European theater however actually did reach all over the damn place, just as the first one did. And that is why the Second World War started in 1939.

The fact is war in China in no way what so ever made WW2 inevitable, and being a contribution simply places it in the ranks of many others, Italy invading Ethiopia without serious opposition mattered as much if not more. Hitler invading Poland did however make it inevitable, and it would still be reasonable to call WW2 the Second World War even were it only confined to the European-African-Naval theaters, while Japan vs China alone would blatantly never be such a thing.

A-Wing_Slash is correct however, that in the US education system, (at least in the past two decades), the fact that the Nazis were mostly defeated by the USSR is heavily downplayed. Going through the American education system, you'd get the impression that US tanks just showed up at Auschwitz one day and declared victory. In other words, we heard a lot about Normandy, but not so much about Stalingrad, and the fact that Berlin was ultimately taken by the Red Army.

The idea that Chinese efforts against Imperial Japan could be similarly overlooked in the US education system is entirely reasonable. It's just that the Chinese contribution to WW2 wasn't anywhere near on the scale or international significance as that of the USSR.

In other words, we heard a lot about Normandy, but not so much about Stalingrad, and the fact that Berlin was ultimately taken by the Red Army.

I'm willing to bed that Russian history downplays the contribution of Normandy in the way that US history downplays the contribution of the Red Army. Fact is that both events needed to happen for Nazi Germany to die in any sort of reasonable timeframe, but since when has history trumped national pride?

Borgholio wrote:

In other words, we heard a lot about Normandy, but not so much about Stalingrad, and the fact that Berlin was ultimately taken by the Red Army.

I'm willing to bed that Russian history downplays the contribution of Normandy in the way that US history downplays the contribution of the Red Army. Fact is that both events needed to happen for Nazi Germany to die in any sort of reasonable timeframe, but since when has history trumped national pride?

The difference is that the Soviets destroyed the majority of the Wehrmacht. Minimizing American importance was slightly more accurate than minimizing Soviet involvement.

The difference is that the Soviets destroyed the majority of the Wehrmacht. Minimizing American importance was slightly more accurate than minimizing Soviet involvement.

I would argue they are of equal importance and neither should be minimized. Yes, the Soviets destroyed a large portion of the German Army and were the ones who took part in the bloody street fighting in Berlin. But it would have been much harder for them had we not opened up a second front in Normandy and forced the German defenses to face in two directions at once. Then there is the not-so-trivial fact that the US helped liberate France, Luxembourg, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy, North Africa, and at least as much physical territory in Austria and Germany as the Soviets did.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The heaviest proportional losses of WW2 fell on Poland, some 20% of the entire population. China lost closer to 5% over a greater period of time.

I mostly agree with post, one nitpick here, though. Heaviest would be Belarus, with 25%. Poland was close second.

Borgholio wrote:I'm willing to bed that Russian history downplays the contribution of Normandy in the way that US history downplays the contribution of the Red Army.

Gee, when you done 90% of the work you don't really need to downplay anything.

Borgholio wrote:But it would have been much harder for them had we not opened up a second front in Normandy and forced the German defenses to face in two directions at once. Then there is the not-so-trivial fact that the US helped liberate France, Luxembourg, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy, North Africa, and at least as much physical territory in Austria and Germany as the Soviets did.

By 1944, second front didn't matter anything anymore. It came too late, against a handful of broken divisions resting from eastern front. Even if western allies didn't landed, Wehrmacht would still need to keep almost same forces in France against the possibility of the invasion (see Norway, which still pointlessly had 350.000 strong Nazi garrison at the time of capitulation). The real western contribution, air campaign and lend lease supplies, would have happened even without landing.

As for liberating territory, please. Germans were withdrawing from US forces almost faster than they could advance, while resisting Soviets with all they still had got. To the point Nazi capitulation was criminally delayed by a week as they tried to surrender to western allies only, and even after refusal 8 may Nazi surrender was to just USA in all but name. On eastern front fights lasted 6 more days. This map can tell you something about balance of forces involved on both sides.

Lord Revan wrote:Well the utter disaster that was the Winter War for the Soviets made Germany more certain the Operation Barbossa would work, yet Winter War isn't considered part of World War 2 (it's related to WWII but not a part of it)

In most US history texts it's covered as part of World War II; from our point of view it's all people on the same continent killing each other.

Now, the Finns have reason not to call it part of the same war because they were quite prickly about being 'co-belligerents' of the Axis later, not members. The Continuation War must be a little awkward for the only polity ever to fight on the same side as the Nazis for basically honorable reasons.

But from a remote perspective, the events of the Winter War look a lot like another part of World War II, since they could never realistically have happened without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the overall distraction of all major European powers by the German invasion of Poland.

Channel72 wrote:A-Wing_Slash is correct however, that in the US education system, (at least in the past two decades), the fact that the Nazis were mostly defeated by the USSR is heavily downplayed. Going through the American education system, you'd get the impression that US tanks just showed up at Auschwitz one day and declared victory. In other words, we heard a lot about Normandy, but not so much about Stalingrad, and the fact that Berlin was ultimately taken by the Red Army.

I didn't. Or rather, I heard a lot about the US's participation, but there was plenty in World History on the subject of what the foreigners were up to.

Irbis wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:The heaviest proportional losses of WW2 fell on Poland, some 20% of the entire population. China lost closer to 5% over a greater period of time.

I mostly agree with post, one nitpick here, though. Heaviest would be Belarus, with 25%. Poland was close second.

Belarus was not, however, an independent country at the time, so nitpicknitpickNITPICK!

Irbis wrote:

Borgholio wrote:I'm willing to bed that Russian history downplays the contribution of Normandy in the way that US history downplays the contribution of the Red Army.

Gee, when you done 90% of the work you don't really need to downplay anything.

Well, that right there in isolation is an example of downplaying. If you view the task of defeating Germany as consisting solely of shooting German infantrymen, you are neglecting logistics. Badly.

So, for example, what about the fact that British naval blockade and American embargos made it impossible for the Germans to import war materiel to strengthen their hand against the USSR, while material support from those same nations bolstered the Soviet war effort?

What about the fact that the Germans wound up devoting something like a third of their total production of artillery and ammunition for heavy guns to flak? The need to protect themselves against Anglo-American bombers motivated that; I wonder if giving the Wehrmacht 50% more artillery shells to fire would have given the Soviets a few tougher days than they had historically?

What about the masses of resources that had to be spent repairing infrastructure damaged or destroyed by Allied bombs in Western Europe. The Germans had to do this rather than build up the infrastructure and defenses in Eastern Europe to support first their offensive, then their defensive. Could that have mattered?

What about the way that resistance movements in occupied Western European countries, and Allied propaganda, reacting to Nazi atrocity, discouraged people from those nations in joining the Germans when they pronounced a 'crusade against Bolshevism?' Some did, but not nearly as many as were formally or even violently anticommunist before the war.

I'm not saying the Germans would have won if they were fighting the Soviets alone and not having to worry about the Western Allies. But it would have been vastly harder for the Soviets to sustain their war effort and even defend themselves, let alone counterattack, if the rest of the world had sat out of the fight.

Simon_Jester wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:Well the utter disaster that was the Winter War for the Soviets made Germany more certain the Operation Barbossa would work, yet Winter War isn't considered part of World War 2 (it's related to WWII but not a part of it)

In most US history texts it's covered as part of World War II; from our point of view it's all people on the same continent killing each other.

Now, the Finns have reason not to call it part of the same war because they were quite prickly about being 'co-belligerents' of the Axis later, not members. The Continuation War must be a little awkward for the only polity ever to fight on the same side as the Nazis for basically honorable reasons.

But from a remote perspective, the events of the Winter War look a lot like another part of World War II, since they could never realistically have happened without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the overall distraction of all major European powers by the German invasion of Poland.

Actually the Winter War is generally dealt as part of WWII here, hell I didn't even know it was suppose to be seperate until I read some articles writen in english about it.

as for the The Continuation War, well historically speaking Finland has 3 alliances it could call upon in case of an attack, but the Swedes wanted to stay neutral and the russians were ones attacking, we were left with just German as a realistic option for assistance against the soviets so that removes most the akwardness when discussing that matter. that said the alliance with Germany didn't come until after the Winter War had ended (from what I heard Brit were even willing to assist Finland during the Winter War if they joined allies but that was nullified By Germans conquering Norway and the soviets joining the allies).

Simon_Jester wrote:Belarus was not, however, an independent country at the time, so nitpicknitpickNITPICK!

One, I don't believe the sentence I responded to specified 'independent countries', two, even if so, it was Soviet Republic. Which, in theory, was independent state inside Soviet Union, it even had its own seat in United Nations. So, overruled!

If you view the task of defeating Germany as consisting solely of shooting German infantrymen, you are neglecting logistics. Badly.

So, for example, what [long list]

I mentioned really vital parts of allied support (air campaign and lend lease) so I am not sure who the 'how about' part is directed to. Plus, most of the things you mention were pretty irrelevant to land war effort.

Naval blockade? III Reich still traded crucial war materials with Switzerland, Spain, Turkey and Sweden, so it didn't even worked, really. Nazis traded with everyone not allied against them within reach, only stopping when France and central Europe were overrun.

Resistance movements? Sorry, west European ones pale in scale next to Polish, Yugoslavian, and Soviet underground efforts. Each of these 3 alone outweighs all West resistance movements combined by order of magnitude.

That is not to say allies did nothing, occupying the forces of Luftwaffe and extra supplies were pretty vital in 42-44, but but time of Overlord it was just mopping up, IMHO. By then, game was who will grab more land, not how the war will end. Even if landing in France didn't happen, Soviets would have won. Didn't Churchill even had to ask them for renewing winter offensive to relieve western Allies during battle of the Bulge?

Lord Revan wrote:Actually the Winter War is generally dealt as part of WWII here, hell I didn't even know it was suppose to be seperate until I read some articles writen in english about it.

Well, that raises the question, "supposed to be separate" by who? The people asserting that may not have grounds to compel others to listen to them.

as for the The Continuation War, well historically speaking Finland has 3 alliances it could call upon in case of an attack, but the Swedes wanted to stay neutral and the russians were ones attacking, we were left with just German as a realistic option for assistance against the soviets so that removes most the akwardness when discussing that matter.

Well, the Finns have excellent reason to have acted the way they did, it is not a national shame, and you will note that I used the word 'honorable' to describe the Continuation War.

that said the alliance with Germany didn't come until after the Winter War had ended (from what I heard Brit were even willing to assist Finland during the Winter War if they joined allies but that was nullified By Germans conquering Norway and the soviets joining the allies).

Yes- Finland was trying to regain the lost territory and establish a stronger position at the expense of Russia (which had just invaded them without provocation less than two years ago). Under the circumstances, I don't blame them. And, yes, the Allies did seriously consider aiding Finland, and it turned out to be impractical enough that nothing came of it.

Irbis wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:Belarus was not, however, an independent country at the time, so nitpicknitpickNITPICK!

One, I don't believe the sentence I responded to specified 'independent countries', two, even if so, it was Soviet Republic. Which, in theory, was independent state inside Soviet Union, it even had its own seat in United Nations. So, overruled!

During the Second World War? What seat in the UN?

If you view the task of defeating Germany as consisting solely of shooting German infantrymen, you are neglecting logistics. Badly.

So, for example, what [long list]

I mentioned really vital parts of allied support (air campaign and lend lease) so I am not sure who the 'how about' part is directed to. Plus, most of the things you mention were pretty irrelevant to land war effort.

I am uncertain about that myself. It would require a detailed analysis to say, because in many cases you get a complex, interlocking effect from the many problems in play.

For instance, you're fighting a bigger country, you cannot effectively recruit allies from foreign nations you've subjugated. You cannot manufacture arms at a rapidly increasing rate because your economy is overclocked and foreign trade is greatly reduced. You are forced to scrounge all over Europe for whatever captured (and somewhat obsolete) weapons you can find, you are limited in your ability to build up infrastructure to support operations in the theater your main war effort is fought in.

All these things make it much harder to prosecute a war effectively.

Naval blockade? III Reich still traded crucial war materials with Switzerland, Spain, Turkey and Sweden, so it didn't even worked, really. Nazis traded with everyone not allied against them within reach, only stopping when France and central Europe were overrun.

The largest suppliers of many of these materials, though, they could not trade with, or could trade with only in limited quantity.

Resistance movements? Sorry, west European ones pale in scale next to Polish, Yugoslavian, and Soviet underground efforts. Each of these 3 alone outweighs all West resistance movements combined by order of magnitude.

I count not only men under arms, but also the fact that just by existing in the fight, the ongoing resistance of the Western Allies (as opposed to complicity in the Nazi campaign against the USSR) helped foil any attempt by the Germans to make any real propaganda success out of their desire for a 'crusade against Bolshevism.'

Given the large, varyingly violent, and radically anticommunist right-wing movements of the prewar era, I think that taking that possibility off the table was worth something to the war effort on the Eastern Front.

That is not to say allies did nothing, occupying the forces of Luftwaffe and extra supplies were pretty vital in 42-44, but but time of Overlord it was just mopping up, IMHO. By then, game was who will grab more land, not how the war will end. Even if landing in France didn't happen, Soviets would have won. Didn't Churchill even had to ask them for renewing winter offensive to relieve western Allies during battle of the Bulge?

It is debateable, I think, whether that was necessary- but yes, the issue arose; it always does when two or more allies with exterior lines are coordinating against an opponent with interior lines.

Double post; apologies.