NationStates Jolt Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov

Suvorov's Thesis:

According to Suvorov, the widely-accepted view that Hitler and the Nazi regime bear the responsibility for the outbreak of WW2 in Europe is faulty. Instead, Suvorov argues that Nazi Germany fought a preemptive war against a USSR that was poised to invade Germany in 1941. This is essentially the main line of Nazi propaganda in June 1941; Suvorov is thus endorsing this view.

In this thesis, Stalin must share a large part of the responsibility for WW2. To the extent that Stalin successfully manipulated Hitler into attacking other nations, he may in fact bear primary responsibility for WW2 in Europe, not merely the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

Suvorov further argues that Stalin's goal was the export of the communist revolution to other countries, and that to further this goal, an 'icebreaker' war was required. Once Hitler 'broke the ice', Soviet victory in the large-scale war that followed would enable the USSR to impose Stalinist regimes in additional areas of Europe. In this theory, Nazi military aggression would ironically form the icebreaker for communist revolution.



This could explain why Hitler rushed to invade the Soviet Union, if he didnt then the Soviet Union would have invaded two weeks later and eventually they would have taken over all of Europe(where Stalinist concentration camps would continue to operate even today and most of you wouldnt be alive right now)

BTW

Icebreaker is a hard to find book(since its the most honest about the nature of WWII) if you find it, you better read it.

I'm just going to be honest - utter crap.

Oh, so more Nazi propaganda?

There are several creditable schools of theory:

There's the traditional one - WWII started when Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland

More Modern One: WWII started in 1933 with Japan invading China

One theorised by John Keegan and Co: WWI and II in reality one long conflict with a thirty year 'peacetime' in the middle, which I tend to hold to.

Your Nazi one is a pile of crap though, really. Hitler invaded because he was foolish enough to think he could destroy Russia and wanted Lebensraum
for Germans. The only thing it has going for it is the truth that Stalin might eventually invade Nazi Germany.

The reasons for World War two could probably be traced back 200 years or so. I don't honestly think that Stalin's scheming, or indeed Hitler's craziness was the real reason.

The reasons for World War two could probably be traced back 200 years or so. I don't honestly think that Stalin's scheming, or indeed Hitler's craziness was the real reason.

I'm not sure 200 years. I'd say 1870's and such. German unification, Kaiser Wilhelm II, German attempts at superpower status 'Place In The Sun', WWI, then eventually WWII.

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/270850-DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

Well if that was the case why not leave Poland alone to act as a buffer state and then when the USSR (CCCP) invaded it Germany could counter attack with it's allies Checkoslovakia, France and England? Pretty freaking stupid Germans, huh?

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were very similar. Both were out to expand. But what Germany was doing prior to 1941 was not a defensive response to Soviet agression.

Oh, so more Nazi propaganda?

There are several creditable schools of theory:

There's the traditional one - WWII started when Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland

More Modern One: WWII started in 1933 with Japan invading China

One theorised by John Keegan and Co: WWI and II in reality one long conflict with a thirty year 'peacetime' in the middle, which I tend to hold to.

Your Nazi one is a pile of crap though, really. Hitler invaded because he was foolish enough to think he could destroy Russia and wanted Lebensraum
for Germans. The only thing it has going for it is the truth that Stalin might eventually invade Nazi Germany.

my "nazi" one? this theory is advocated by a soviet eastern front veteran.

Today no nazis advocate this theory because it undermines the strength of the third reich(in that the theory states that the nazis would be overrun and defeated by the soviet assault that was being put into motion)

I'm not sure 200 years. I'd say 1870's and such. German unification, Kaiser Wilhelm II, German attempts at superpower status 'Place In The Sun', WWI, then eventually WWII.

I beg to differ. What about Napoleon. Or the Crimean war?

Both of those did had knock-on effects (and were, probably, in some way, caused by other wars) and caused other wars, which caused other wars, and so on and so forth, until World War II. And then America's new status after World War two is still causing wars to this day.

There are probably links to whatever the hell the first war on the planet was, I imagine.

I beg to differ. What about Napoleon. Or the Crimean war?

Both of those did had knock-on effects (and were, probably, in some way, caused by other wars) and caused other wars, which caused other wars, and so on and so forth, until World War II. And then America's new status after World War two is still causing wars to this day.

There are probably links to whatever the hell the first war on the planet was, I imagine.

Hmmmm, you are indeed correct. I hadn't considered the unifying effect Napoleon had on the Germans. A good theory, sir.

my "nazi" one? this theory is advocated by a soviet eastern front veteran.

Today no nazis advocate this theory because it undermines the strength of the third reich(in that the theory states that the nazis would be overrun and defeated by the soviet assault that was being put into motion)

An eastern front veteran that has been widely discredited, as the wikipedia article you so kindly gave us illustrates quite nicely. The Soviets might have eventually invaded Germany, but not for a long while. Stalin believed he still had a fair time to build up forces for a puish and continue to industralise (Thus his disbelief at warnings of Barbarossa), and the Red Army was hardly in a condition for an invasion, as the first few months of Barbarossa showed.

Stalin didn't manipulate Hitler into attacking other countries. He did it on his own. Yes, another world war was expected in the Soviet Union after world war one which was supposed to bring about the end of capitalism, but Stalin's mind control powers didn't extend to making Hitler his puppet.

And Japan just decided to join the fun, eh?

An eastern front veteran that has been widely discredited, as the wikipedia article you so kindly gave us illustrates quite nicely. The Soviets might have eventually invaded Germany, but not for a long while. Stalin believed he still had a fair time to build up forces for a puish and continue to industralise (Thus his disbelief at warnings of Barbarossa), and the Red Army was hardly in a condition for an invasion, as the first few months of Barbarossa showed.


Of course he is being discredited. Russia doesnt want to be portrayed as the nation that was responsible for the second world war(who WOULD want to be responsible for that??) and the western nations dont want the people to know that they helped a nation that was responsible for the war.

And you are completely wrong about the red army being unprepared for INVASION. They were completely unprepared for DEFENCE but not invasion(those are two different things)

Stalin didn't manipulate Hitler into attacking other countries. He did it on his own. Yes, another world war was expected in the Soviet Union after world war one which was supposed to bring about the end of capitalism, but Stalin's mind control powers didn't extend to making Hitler his puppet.

Hell, Stalin didn't want a war (Well, at least not for a while), and thus disbelieved reports of Barbarossa being prepared and launched.

No more pussyfooting around - there's been a spate of Nazis, Neo-Nazis, Nazi symps, and your general all-round racist arseholes and Hitler apologists running amuck on the forums of late.

Motherfucking NAZIS STARTED THE MOTHERFUCKING SECOND WORLD WAR. THEY invaded POLAND. No scapegoating the Russians, no shifting blame to treaties written at the conclusion of WWI, no pass-cards of any sort.

Get a GRIP, people. High time we collectively put these bastard Nazi-wannabes in their place.

No more pussyfooting around - there's been a spate of Nazis, Neo-Nazis, Nazi symps, and your general all-round racist arseholes and Hitler apologists running amuck on the forums of late.

Motherfucking NAZIS STARTED THE MOTHERFUCKING SECOND WORLD WAR. THEY invaded POLAND. No scapegoating the Russians, no shifting blame to treaties written at the conclusion of WWI, no pass-cards of any sort.

Get a GRIP, people. High time we collectively put these bastard Nazi-wannabes in their place.

Whilst I wouldn't use quite that language, and I generally support Keegan's theory, I'd say this is quite accurate.

It was German forces who invaded Czechoslovakia, who invaded Poland, who invaded Belgium and France. They started the conflict on the Western and Eastern fronts, although the Japanese really started it in the Far-East a few years before that.

Hell, Stalin didn't want a war (Well, at least not for a while), and thus disbelieved reports of Barbarossa being prepared and launched.

This claim goes completely against his personality, he was extremely paranoid his entire life.

And he wanted a war, he just wanted to wait a few more weeks.

No more pussyfooting around - there's been a spate of Nazis, Neo-Nazis, Nazi symps, and your general all-round racist arseholes and Hitler apologists running amuck on the forums of late.

Motherfucking NAZIS STARTED THE MOTHERFUCKING SECOND WORLD WAR. THEY invaded POLAND. No scapegoating the Russians, no shifting blame to treaties written at the conclusion of WWI, no pass-cards of any sort.

Get a GRIP, people. High time we collectively put these bastard Nazi-wannabes in their place.


The Soviet Union invaded Poland as well. Why didnt the Allies declare war on the Soviets?

The cliam that Germany started the war by invading Poland is bullshit. They started a German-Polish war but they did not start WWII

This claim goes completely against his personality, he was extremely paranoid his entire life.

And he wanted a war, he just wanted to wait a few more weeks.

There are dozens of books that report Stalin would not believe the reports of the ionvasion or its preperation. Offhand, Alan Clarke's Barbarossa mentions it I believe, The Road To Stalingrad as well, though I forget who authored that. There's also an excellent piece in Alan Bullock's Hitler & Stalin on it I think; I haven't read them in a while and haven't got them with me.

Stalin was paranoid, but only believed what he wanted to hear. Thus, he wouldn't believe Barbarossa was occuring for some while after the first German forces attacked.

Bullshit. Stalin knew what Mussolini knew about his own army, that it wasn't ready, and it was being pushed into service too soon. Given the choice, neither would have fought until 1943 or so.

This claim goes completely against his personality, he was extremely paranoid his entire life.

And he wanted a war, he just wanted to wait a few more weeks.
And none of it alters the fact that the fucking NAZIS started the Second World War. And Skinny, I don't know about you, but I'll always use language like this to underscore the fact that the fucking NAZIS were nobody's heroes, and everybody's PAIN in the ASS. Except to other NAZIS, that is.

And none of it alters the fact that the fucking NAZIS started the Second World War. And Skinny, I don't know about you, but I'll always use language like this to underwscore that the fucking NAZIS were nobody's heroes, and everybody's PAIN in the ASS.

Seriously, dont post on my threads if all your going to contribute is slander and garbage.

Go watch Schindler's list for the 200th time or something.

Initially, many Soviet units were also hampered by Timoshenko and Zhukov's prewar orders (as demanded by Stalin) of non-engaging and "non-responding to provocations", followed by the first reaction "stand-and-fight-then-counterattack" order from Moscow (which left them vulnerable to German encirclements), a lack of experienced officers (this claim is contested, though), and bureaucratic inertia.

Wikipedia gives a nice summation, even if it isn't academic standards.

The Soviet Union invaded Poland as well. Why didnt the Allies declare war on the Soviets?

The cliam that Germany started the war by invading Poland is bullshit. They started a German-Polish war but they did not start WWII
I got no time for Nazi symps and Hitler apologists.

Seriously, dont post on my threads if all your going to contribute is slander and garbage.

Go watch Schindler's list for the 200th time or something.

It is 'Slander' that the Germans began WWII? Whilst Russian forces attacked Poland, Germany attacked Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, France...the list goes on. The Germans can hardly be absolved of blame, and it was their aggression that started a world-wide conflict, particularly in Europe.

Seriously, dont post on my threads if all your going to contribute is slander and garbage.

Go watch Schindler's list for the 200th time or something.
If all your posts are comprised of garbage, trust me, I'm sprucing this one up by refusing to allow you to revise a painful and dark chapter in human history.

It is 'Slander' that the Germans began WWII? Whilst Russian forces attacked Poland, Germany attacked Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, France...the list goes on. The Germans can hardly be absolved of blame, and it was their aggression that started a world-wide conflict, particularly in Europe.


Soviets invaded Estonia,Lithuania,Poland, Eastern Romania, .....


the list goes on :rolleyes:

Soviets invaded Estonia,Lithuania,Poland, Eastern Romania, .....


the list goes on :rolleyes:

After the Germans invaded the Lowlands and France, and before that Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Russians invaded those countries after the Germans invaded the Western countries, at the end of the war as the attacked for Berlin. The Germans attacked first; the Russians merely finished the job by invading those countries.

After the Germans invaded the Lowlands and France, and before that Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Russians invaded those countries after the Germans did, at the end of the war as the attacked for Berlin. The Germans attacked first; the Russians merely finished the job by invading those countries.


So its all a matter of time for you??

If the Germans attacked AFTER the soviets then in your opinion they would be completely innocent??

So its all a matter of time for you??

If the Germans attacked AFTER the soviets then in your opinion they would be completely innocent??

I never said the Soviets were innocent; they were not. Throwing back the Wehrmacht to the Russian border would have been justified, but advancing after there was justified only in completely destroying the Germans and gaining vengeance. Hardly noble motives, but more than understandable. If the situation were reversed, and the Russians had started the war (However unlikely) I would say the Russians started the conflict.

However, as the original point of my statement was, the Germans started the conflict in Europe by invading the Lowland countries and France, after Poland and Czechoslovakia. Thus, they began the conflict, and the Russian invasion of the eastern european states is not an issue; in essence, they ended the conflict by invading and capturing Berlin. They did not, however, start it. That onus falls onto the German military and Adolf Hitler.

However, as the original point of my statement was, the Germans started the conflict in Europe by invading the Lowland countries and France, after Poland and Czechoslovakia. Thus, they began the conflict, and the Russian invasion of the eastern european states is not an issue; in essence, they ended the conflict by invading and capturing Berlin. They did not, however, start it. That onus falls onto the German military and Adolf Hitler.
Thank-you, Skinny - nicely (if a tad too politely for my tastes) put. But I think I'll take a pass on listening to Strasse's lame attempts to shift the blame for the Second World War off the Nazis for the remainder of the afternoon.

Have fun with your revisionist agenda, Strasse.

Thank-you, Skinny - nicely (if a tad too politely for my tastes) put. But I think I'll take a pass on listening to Strasse's lame attempts to shift the blame for the Second World War off the Nazis for the remainder of the afternoon.

Have fun with your revisionist agenda, Strasse.

Oh, I know he won't accept it, and find some way to distort facts, but it's good debating practice for university against people have know what they're talking about and aren't revisionists.

Oh, I know he won't accept it, and find some way to distort facts, but it's good debating practice for university against people have know what they're talking about and aren't revisionists.


I think you two should get a room. :fluffle:

by whose yardstick is the invasion of the soviet union the start of world war 2?

and even if it WERE the start of ww2, wouldnt the part where it was, as described by suvorov, a pre-emptive war, mean that it was started by the fucking nazis?

I think you two should get a room. :fluffle:

I think you should reply to my answer of the question you yourself set instead of avoiding the issue.

World War II started in a cave, when one brother said to the other: "I hate you."

by whose yardstick is the invasion of the soviet union the start of world war 2?

and even if it WERE the start of ww2, wouldnt the part where it was, as described by suvorov, a pre-emptive war, mean that it was started by the fucking nazis?


Well what would YOU do if you knew this gigantic country was planning to invade and destroy yours?

Any government(no what their politics are) would have done the same in Hitler's position.

by whose yardstick is the invasion of the soviet union the start of world war 2?

and even if it WERE the start of ww2, wouldnt the part where it was, as described by suvorov, a pre-emptive war, mean that it was started by the fucking nazis?

An excellent point, which Strasse II seems bent on either avoiding or nitpicking at. The German armed forces started WWII; there really is no other way of looking at it. They ignited a world conflict by attacking Czechoslovakia, Poland and then, crucially, the Lowland Countries and France, forcing other countries to declare war on them.

Well what would YOU do if you knew this gigantic country was planning to invade and destroy yours?

Any government(no what their politics are) would have done the same in Hitler's position.

You're still avoiding replying to the answer I gave to the question you yourself set.

Russia threatened, Germany went nuts and attacked Poland and a bunch of other countries, and then attacked Russia, who had heard Germany was stealing all the countries and didn't want them to get all of them, so they took some for themselves.

Lesse, let's weigh the action:

Russia: Threatens.
Germany: Freaks out, attacks a bunch of people, starts a holocaust which pisses off Britain, gives USA a good reason to beat the living hell out of them after Japan invades and gets them involved, heads up the Axis powers as their leader, allies with Italy.

Who started it? Germany. Glad that's been solved, maybe we can move onto more important things now.

Russia threatened, Germany went nuts and attacked Poland and a bunch of other countries, and then attacked Russia, who had heard Germany was stealing all the countries and didn't want them to get all of them, so they took some for themselves.

Lesse, let's weigh the action:

Russia: Threatens.
Germany: Freaks out, attacks a bunch of people, starts a holocaust which pisses off Britain, gives USA a good reason to beat the living hell out of them after Japan invades and gets them involved, heads up the Axis powers as their leader, allies with Italy.

Who started it? Germany. Glad that's been solved, maybe we can move onto more important things now.

Good point, but the holocaust didn't start until '42 proper and Britain went to war over Poland, not the holocaust. Just to say, so Strasse II can't use it as 'OMG JEWISH PROPAGANDA!111'

An excellent point, which Strasse II seems bent on either avoiding or nitpicking at. The German armed forces started WWII; there really is no other way of looking at it. They ignited a world conflict by attacking Czechoslovakia, Poland and then, crucially, the Lowland Countries and France, forcing other countries to declare war on them.

That's one angle on it. I agree that Hitler went too far, but you're also ignoring the rest of the world's part in this. And history's part in the whole thing as well. I'm more inclined to agree with whoever posted "World War 2 started when one person said "I hate you" to another in a cave".

That's one angle on it. I agree that Hitler went too far, but you're also ignoring the rest of the world's part in this. And history's part in the whole thing as well. I'm more inclined to agree with whoever posted "World War 2 started when one person said "I hate you" to another in a cave".

If you read one of my first posts, you'll see I follow the Keegan theory of WWI and II being one continuous war started in 1914, with long-term effects going back as far as Napoleon. Although I believe that Hitler started WWII in Europe by creating a world conflict, there were other long-term reasons for it.

If you read one of my first posts, you'll see I follow the Keegan theory of WWI and II being one continuous war started in 1914, with long-term effects going back as far as Napoleon. Although I believe that Hitler started WWII in Europe by creating a world conflict, there were other long-term reasons for it.

Yeah, and the world's efforts between the wars didn't help. The LoN, which failed horribly in the 30's (although doing its job very well in the 20's) and appeasement were one of the main problems, as was the Wall Street Crash, and the reparations which the Treaty of Versailles enforced upon Germany.

Well what would YOU do if you knew this gigantic country was planning to invade and destroy yours?

Any government(no what their politics are) would have done the same in Hitler's position.
whether or not he was justified is quite different from him starting it.

its sorta like suggesting that because saddam hussein didnt come forth with details on his (nonexistant) wmd HE started this latest gulf war.

The Second World War was started by Hitler (nota bene: not Germany), but Stalin (not Russia) did everything in his power to help him along. People often forget that Hitler wouldn't have invaded Poland if it hadn't been for the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact. The pact gave Hitler the certainty that he won't be forced to wage a two front war, as it had been the case for Germany in WW1. It must also be told that Stalin traded his neutrality for a very heavy price. Actually, he got more out of the deal than Hitler. Germany got Western Poland. The USSR got Eastern Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and parts of Finland and Romania.

Something else that many people forget is that both Germany and the USSR attacked Poland in September '39, yet France and Britain only declared war on Germany. WW2 was effectivelly started by the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact of August 23rd 1939, through which Hitler and Stalin divided Eastern Europe between themselves. The fact that the western democracies declared war only on Germany was pure pragmatism. They needed an ally against the closer danger, even if the cure was worse than the disease.

Japan started WWII.

Japan started WWII.
*cookie to Francis Street*

A small cookie. Japan started the first of the conflicts that became WWII; it is resonable to treat the two halves of the war as separate until Pearl Harbour and the invasion of Malaya.

A small cookie. Japan started the first of the conflicts that became WWII; it is resonable to treat the two halves of the war as separate until Pearl Harbour and the invasion of Malaya.

Maybe from an American point of view, the Dutch would probably disagree due to their territories in the area being threatened.

Japan started WWII.
No. Japan started just a local Asian war, which didn't have any chances of turning into a global conflict on its own (let's be serious, if France hadn't been occupied by the Germans and Britain busy in Eurpe and North Africa fighting them, Japan wouldn't have dared attacking). This Asian war was simply engulfed into the larger conflict started in Europe when each participant had to choose its sides (Japan choosing the Axis and China the WA), as most of the rest of the world had to do.

But only threatened. The Japanese didn't take actions against any of the European holdings or enclaves until after Pearl Harbour; they were carful to restrict their offensive activities to the Chinese (which was bad enough, of course).

No. Japan started just a local Asian war, which didn't have any chances of turning into a global conflict on its own (let's be serious, if France hadn't been occupied by the Germans and Britain busy in Eurpe and North Africa fighting them, Japan wouldn't have dared attacking). This Asian war was simply engulfed into the larger conflict started in Europe when each participant had to choose its sides (Japan choosing the Axis and China the WA), as most of the rest of the world had to do.
Despite the fact that Dutch, French and British territories were being attacked or about the be invaded. Despite the fact that Japan and the Soviet Union fought in a land war prior to the outbreak in Europe. Despite the fact that the vast majority of academics really see the first conflicts of the Second World War were waged between the Chinese and Japanese.
Sure.

Nice Americo-centric view of the world that.

Well what would YOU do if you knew this gigantic country was planning to invade and destroy yours?

Any government(no what their politics are) would have done the same in Hitler's position.

Well, I certainly wouldn't have plans in place already to invade countries that weren't involved. I certainly wouldn't make it clear that I was trying to build a European empire. I certainly wouldn't take the chance to murder 12 million innocent civilians.

Stop trying to clear Hitler's name (he was a guilty, disgusting, peice of shit murderer). The Soviet Union was an evil, disgusting empire. So was Nazi Germany. They fall in as even in being the worst governments to ever come into being.

But only threatened. The Japanese didn't take actions against any of the European holdings or enclaves until after Pearl Harbour; they were carful to restrict their offensive activities to the Chinese (which was bad enough, of course).

Oh?
February, 1939: Japan captures Hainan Island, which is seen to have strategic implications by the British

Actually: nevermind, 'strategic implications' is not the same as having direct control over it.

I apologise.

No. Japan started just a local Asian war, which didn't have any chances of turning into a global conflict on its own (let's be serious, if France hadn't been occupied by the Germans and Britain busy in Eurpe and North Africa fighting them, Japan wouldn't have dared attacking). This Asian war was simply engulfed into the larger conflict started in Europe when each participant had to choose its sides (Japan choosing the Axis and China the WA), as most of the rest of the world had to do.

I can't agree. I would treat both the European and Asian conflicts to be important, regional wars; but neither could count as a World War. Unlike WWI, where battles sparkled around the globe as German and British/French/Japanese colonies fought it out, the European war was restricted to Europe, and some of North Africa, and the surrounding oceans. That just isn't enough to justify calling it a World War; nor would the US' intervention, on it's own. It was the fact that ther was an entire girdle of war around the earth, with conflict in every quarter of the globe, that made WWII a World War.

Thus, the Asian half of the conflict must be considered equally important to the European.

No. Japan started just a local Asian war, which didn't have any chances of turning into a global conflict on its own (let's be serious, if France hadn't been occupied by the Germans and Britain busy in Europe and North Africa fighting them, Japan wouldn't have dared attacking). This Asian war was simply engulfed into the larger conflict started in Europe when each participant had to choose its sides (Japan choosing the Axis and China the WA), as most of the rest of the world had to do.
*Japan invaded and occupied more territory than Germany.
*Japan attacked not only China but Korea, the USSR, USA, Britain, Australia and the Netherlands.
*In 1937 when Japan started WWII, she was already allied with Germany and Italy.

Japan's war was no more local than Germany's.

Oh?
February, 1939: Japan captures Hainan Island, which is seen to have strategic implications by the British

But, if I recall correctly, was OWNED by China. Britain didn't like it, but there wasn't anything they could do about it; no casus belli existed.

But, if I recall correctly, was OWNED by China. Britain didn't like it, but there wasn't anything they could do about it; no casus belli existed.
Yeah, I know- fixed it above.

To be entirely technically accurate, the period of War was instigated by the British. Japan made their grab for territory, yes, the various axis and Soviet pacts created tensions, yes, Anti-russian sentiment set the stage for Russia's involvement, yes, Germany annexed Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland, yes, but without the British actually standing up and saying "Enough is Enough", there would be no war; there would merely be invasions and occupations.

Despite the fact that Dutch, French and British territories were being attacked or about the be invaded.
Those territories were threatened and attacked because their owners were weakend and unable to respond with full force due to a 'minor' confict in Europe. If it hadn't been for that conflict, France, Britain and the Netherlands wouldn't have been weakend and Japan wouldn't have attacked. Ergo, the Japanese involvement was caused by the events in Europe.

Despite the fact that Japan and the Soviet Union fought in a land war prior to the outbreak in Europe.
And made peace after that. And really, how could a Soviet/Japanese war turn into a World War? It's not like the two countries were involved in a wide network of alliances.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of academics really see the first conflicts of the Second World War were waged between the Chinese and Japanese.
Vast majority? Some proof of that?


Sure.

Nice Americo-centric view of the world that.
Why is it Americo-centric? :confused: Euro-centric, at most.

There would still have been Operation Barbarossa, Kamsaki. That would most certainly have been a war.

Why is it Americo-centric? :confused: Euro-centric, at most.

Because unless it involves American action in the Pacific it was not deemed part of the World War. Merely a 'local conflict', which is bullshit.

WW2 started when Germany invaided Poland. Britain and France only declared war on Germany because before Germany attacked Poland, Britian and France had agreed to declare war on GERMANY if Germany attacked Poland. Russia as far as i can tell wasnt being aggressive before September 39 This then caused ww2 cause Britian and France had world wide empires and blah blah.....

There would still have been Operation Barbarossa, Kamsaki. That would most certainly have been a war.
That's not what started the period of World War, though. The first official declaration of war was British, which I take to be the necessary criteria for "starting the war" (in a purely technical sense, of course).

I can't agree. I would treat both the European and Asian conflicts to be important, regional wars; but neither could count as a World War. Unlike WWI, where battles sparkled around the globe as German and British/French/Japanese colonies fought it out, the European war was restricted to Europe, and some of North Africa, and the surrounding oceans. That just isn't enough to justify calling it a World War; nor would the US' intervention, on it's own. It was the fact that ther was an entire girdle of war around the earth, with conflict in every quarter of the globe, that made WWII a World War.

Thus, the Asian half of the conflict must be considered equally important to the European.
You are correct. However, events in Asia did not influence who declared war on whom in Europe. The events in Europe most definitelly influenced who declared war on whom in Asia. The fact remains that if we don't have a European war in 1939 and 1940, Japan does not declare war on the US, Holland, France or Britain. I'm not saying the war in the Pacific wasn't very important and deserving of equal attention as the war in Europe. I'm just saying that its extension from a simple Japanese/Chinese conflict to a larger one involving several European and America states was caused by events taking place in Europe. That's all.

You are correct. However, events in Asia did not influence who declared war on whom in Europe. The events in Europe most definitelly influenced who declared war on whom in Asia. The fact remains that if we don't have a European war in 1939 and 1940, Japan does not declare war on the US, Holland, France or Britain. I'm not saying the war in the Pacific wasn't very important and deserving of equal attention as the war in Europe. I'm just saying that its extension from a simple Japanese/Chinese conflict to a larger one involving several European and America states was caused by events taking place in Europe. That's all.

That's merely your opinion. You do not know that the Japanese High Command was planning. In fact given the oil embargoes imposed by the US on the Empire, it was only a matter of time before they hit Malaysia et al, regardless of Britain.

What is she going to do on the otherside of the planet?

You have a point; Japan would probably only have declared war on the US at first, rather than everybody in sight. I doubt it would have made much difference (unless Hitler didn't declare war on the US), but it could have meant no Burma or New Guinea campaigns.

Because unless it involves American action in the Pacific it was not deemed part of the World War. Merely a 'local conflict', which is bullshit.
Let's say Hungary declares war on Romania. They fight for a few years, until a larger war starts, between the EU and Russia. Hungary joins the European side, while Romania joins the Russian side. Does this mean the Great Russian-European War was started by Hungary? IMO, no.

That's merely your opinion. You do not know that the Japanese High Command was planning. In fact given the oil embargoes imposed by the US on the Empire, it was only a matter of time before they hit Malaysia et al, regardless of Britain.

What is she going to do on the otherside of the planet?

If there was no war she would have sent the largest navy accross and blown Japan out of the water....

It could be said that WWII started because the USA refused to back then President Wilson's ideas for peace and stability after the war.

This caused the League of Nations to being weak and ineffective leaving the world ripe for the continued growth of extremes of nationalism, communism and materialism. The League of Nations would not have by itself solved all of the worlds problems, but it would have, if properly applied, allowed certian principles of conduct between nations to begin the process international cooperation in solving common problems.

Let's say Hungary declares war on Romania. They fight for a few years, until a larger war starts, between the EU and Russia. Hungary joins the European side, while Romania joins the Russian side. Does this mean the Great Russian-European War was started by Hungary? IMO, no.

Yet, it is still considered accurate to say that WWI was started by a Serbian anarchist...

Let's say Hungary declares war on Romania. They fight for a few years, until a larger war starts, between the EU and Russia. Hungary joins the European side, while Romania joins the Russian side. Does this mean the Great Russian-European War was started by Hungary? IMO, no.
It depends.

*Japan invaded and occupied more territory than Germany.
What does this have to do with who started the war?

*Japan attacked not only China but Korea, the USSR, USA, Britain, Australia and the Netherlands.
1) Not Korea.

2) They did so after they became involved in Europe and unable to fight the attack with full force.

*In 1937 when Japan started WWII, she was already allied with Germany and Italy.
But Germany and Italy did not join Japan's war.

If there was no war she would have sent the largest navy accross and blown Japan out of the water....

You are discounting the fact that the Imperial Japanese Navy was one of the best in the world at this time, and that the British Navy was far from home. ;)

It could be said that WWII started because the USA refused to back then President Wilson's ideas for peace and stability after the war.

This caused the League of Nations to being weak and ineffective leaving the world ripe for the continued growth of extremes of nationalism, communism and materialism. The League of Nations would not have by itself solved all of the worlds problems, but it would have, if properly applied, allowed certian principles of conduct between nations to begin the process international cooperation in solving common problems.

I must disagree, for two reasons. First, Woodrow Wilson's plans were adopted only insofar as the setting up of the League; his other points, designed to create a Just Peace, were ignored, and Wilson himself repudiated the League in it's eventual form (one of the few ethical decisions the idiot ever made). Second, the League was not weak merely because the US was not present; at the time, the US was merely one among equals, considered equivalent to, but not superior to, the USSR, France, Japan and Great Britain. The real reason for the weaknes of the League was it's poor structure, inability to enforce decisions, and lack of prestige. US presence might have alleviated some of that, but not, I fear, sufficiently.

That's merely your opinion. You do not know that the Japanese High Command was planning. In fact given the oil embargoes imposed by the US on the Empire, it was only a matter of time before they hit Malaysia et al, regardless of Britain.

What is she going to do on the otherside of the planet?
Japan would not dare go to war against the US plus a France, Holland and Britain able to devote all their resources to fighting in the Pacific.

Edit: Nat. Income in 1937, totals and % spent on defense

US _____= $68bn __ 1.5% ____ $1.02bn
UK _____= $22bn __ 5.7% ____ $1.25bn
France __= $10bn __ 9.1% ____ $910mn
USSR ____= $19bn __ 26.4% ___ $ 5.01bn
Germany = $17bn __ 23.5% ___ $4bn
Italy ______= $6bn __ 14% _____ $840mn
Japan ____= $4bn __ 28.2% ____$1.13bn

You can see that even the UK alone had more than enough resources to fight Japan. It couldn't do so only because most of those resources were devoted to more important and vital tasks 9such as defending the home islands).

Japan would not dare go to war against the US plus a France, Holland and Britain able to devote all their resources to fighting in the Pacific.

Why would the US get involved? Why would she care? She was still involved in the 'isolationist' mentality.

Ooooh, the Dutch and French. Scary. Japanese had already defeated the French once in the late 19th C. and the French navy didn't exactly threaten anyone. The Dutch? No offense, but... no. Just no.

Britain was more concerned with watching a massive land army build up in Continental Europe, and would have been hesitant to put a large part of its force so far from home- especially if things turned nasty back in Europe.

Maybe, but I doubt it. If Japan timed it right (and not gotten so many divisions bogged down in China) then it might have worked.

Ooooh, the Dutch and French. Scary. Japanese had already defeated the French once in the late 19th C. and the French navy didn't exactly threaten anyone. The Dutch? No offense, but... no. Just no.
Wtf? :confused: Perhaps you mean the Russians?

Britain was more concerned with watching a massive land army build up in Continental Europe, and would have been hesitant to put a large part of its force so far from home- especially if things turned nasty back in Europe.
So you're saying Japan did not have to worry about Britain and was okay to declare war on them because the British were busy in Europe. Great! That's what I was saying, too. ;)

Yet, it is still considered accurate to say that WWI was started by a Serbian anarchist...

Hardly.

I must disagree, for two reasons. First, Woodrow Wilson's plans were adopted only insofar as the setting up of the League; his other points, designed to create a Just Peace, were ignored, and Wilson himself repudiated the League in it's eventual form (one of the few ethical decisions the idiot ever made). Second, the League was not weak merely because the US was not present; at the time, the US was merely one among equals, considered equivalent to, but not superior to, the USSR, France, Japan and Great Britain. The real reason for the weaknes of the League was it's poor structure, inability to enforce decisions, and lack of prestige. US presence might have alleviated some of that, but not, I fear, sufficiently.

I would have to agree with all of our points to one degree or another. But If the USA had not moved into an isolationist stance and insisted on a strong League of Nations that protected weak and poor nations from the strong, had insisted on a fair and Just Peace with Germany then WWII may not have had the "fuel" it needed to start. A League of Nations that had amoung its founding principles a just and fair distrubtion of resources amoung all nations (and not just to those who were strong enough to take them), a World Court in which national duisputes could be solved and the relinquishment of some unnecessary areas of national sovereignty the reasons for the start of WWII would, perhaps, not exist.

Hardly.


Really? That was the subject of my final examination at college.

I passed as the top of my class.

Wtf? :confused: Perhaps you mean the Russians?
Balls, was thinking Russians in 1905 and also of the influence of the 'jeune ecole' from the French, got be-fuddled. :p


So you're saying Japan did not have to worry about Britain and was okay to declare war on them because the British were busy in Europe. Great! That's what I was saying, too. ;)

Busy? No. Potentially busy? Yes. Having one eye on your front door, while trying to watch your upstairs bathroom window is a bit of a problem :D

My scenario was only based on the European Thr. not kicking off when it did, or at all.

Japan had designs on the area anyway (Co Prosperity and Economic Sphere?) so regarldless of the situation in Europe, sooner or later the militarists would have pushed for futher expansion.

Busy? No. Potentially busy? Yes. Having one eye on your front door, while trying to watch your upstairs bathroom window is a bit of a problem :D

My scenario was only based on the European Thr. not kicking off when it did, or at all.

Japan had designs on the area anyway (Co Prosperity and Economic Sphere?) so regarldless of the situation in Europe, sooner or later the militarists would have pushed for futher expansion.
Japan might have done something stupid. However, it's actions against the European colonial powers and the US were directly caused by the events in Europe, so the cause of WW2 as we know it lies (sp?) in Europe. I can give an analogy to this. The USSR might have eventually declared war against Germany. However, it's Germany that declared war first, so the Russian-German conflict as we know it was started by Germany.

Japan might have done something stupid. However, it's actions against the European colonial powers and the US were directly caused by the events in Europe, so the cause of WW2 as we know it lies (sp?) in Europe. I can give an analogy to this. The USSR might have eventually declared war against Germany. However, it's Germany that declared war first, so the Russian-German conflict as we know it was started by Germany.
A bit simplistic no?

Japan going into China was caused by events in Europe...? Because that was really where their expansion took off.

China then spreading southwards to IndoChina, Burma, Singapore, Malaysia....

I would have to agree with all of our points to one degree or another. But If the USA had not moved into an isolationist stance and insisted on a strong League of Nations that protected weak and poor nations from the strong, had insisted on a fair and Just Peace with Germany then WWII may not have had the "fuel" it needed to start. A League of Nations that had amoung its founding principles a just and fair distrubtion of resources amoung all nations (and not just to those who were strong enough to take them), a World Court in which national duisputes could be solved and the relinquishment of some unnecessary areas of national sovereignty the reasons for the start of WWII would, perhaps, not exist.

Quite so. Yet, I suspect this was a near impossibility at that time.

Today, we see the occupation and subjugation of areas and individuals to be, at best, a necessary evil, to be utilized only when absolutely necessary, and only for the shortest of periods possible. Yet in 1919, such activities were considered normal, natural; "superior" (i.e. white, with the grudging inclusion of the Japanese) nations had the right, or even obligation, to subjugate others "for their own good."
To acknowledge a doctrine of fairness and equality among nations, Great Britain and France would have been obliged to give up their empires, the US would likely have been forced to live up to it's various treaties with the Indians, and Japan would have had to give up Korea and Taiwan. To fail to do so would have been a level of hypocrisy even those hypocritical states wouldn't have been able to stand up about.
We have made many strides socially in our acknowledgement and treatment of others in the past ninety years. Our ancestors, good men though they were, were men of their times, and could only do so much.

Yet, it is still considered accurate to say that WWI was started by a Serbian anarchist...

However, in my example the second conflict was not caused by he first. It's just that the protagonists of the first conflict each chose a different side in the greater one. You can't realistically claim that the Japanese-Chinese war made the Germans invade Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Low Countries, Norway, France, Russia etc. On the other hand, one could not contest that the German occupation of France and Holland and their attack of Britain influenced the Japanese decisions.

A bit simplistic no?

Japan going into China was caused by events in Europe...? Because that was really where their expansion took off.

China then spreading southwards to IndoChina, Burma, Singapore, Malaysia....
Was China a European colonial Power? Was China the US? I stand by my original statement.

Really? That was the subject of my final examination at college.

I passed as the top of my class.

That's fairly shocking, then. There were loads of reasons for why World War one started. The French-German relations after the Thirty-years' war, colonial issues, the naval race, the Moroccan crises, the alliance systems, the splitting of the Slavs, Germany's need of Mesopatamian oil, the Balkan wars, and the autocratic, militaristic policies of Europe's leaders, amongst other things.

Franz Ferdinand's assassination was just a catalyst, if you will.

However, in my example the second conflict was not caused by he first. It's just that the protagonists of the first conflict each chose a different side in the greater one. You can't realistically claim that the Japanese-Chinese war made the Germans invade Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Low Countries, Norway, France, Russia etc. On the other hand, one could not contest that the German occupation of France and Holland and their attack of Britain influenced the Japanese decisions.

I agree that it had an influence, though as in your example, not causal. I was merely pointing out that the growth of small to large can be quite extreme.

I say not causal because the Japanese declaration of war with the US grew out of regional concerns. The US, being a casual ally of Nationalist China, was embargoing strategic materials to Japan, including (but not exclusively) oil. Japan was rapidly reaching the point of either doing something about the blockade or stopping the campaign in China.

Given the Imperial Government's mindset, war with the US was inevitable.

That's fairly shocking, then. There were loads of reasons for why World War one started. The French-German relations after the Thirty-years' war, colonial issues, the naval race, the Moroccan crises, the alliance systems, the splitting of the Slavs, Germany's need of Mesopatamian oil, the Balkan wars, and the autocratic, militaristic policies of Europe's leaders, amongst other things.

Franz Ferdinand's assassination was just a catalyst, if you will.

Actually, Yootopia, I did touch on all of those points (and a few others, such as the rivalry between branches of the Saxe-Coburg family, and Germany's military/social expectation of victory after the Franco-Prussian war); it was a twelve-page essay, after all.

But my position was, and still remains, that these were contributory to events, not directly causal. If a shack full of dynamite is exploded, you may institue rules to ensure that so much explosive is not placed in the one location again, but you do not place the blame on those who did the stacking. The blame is placed on the man who lit the fuse.

Actually, Yootopia, I did touch on all of those points (and a few others, such as the rivalry between branches of the Saxe-Coburg family, and Germany's military/social expectation of victory after the Franco-Prussian war); it was a twelve-page essay, after all.

But my position was, and still remains, that these were contributory to events, not directly causal. If a shack full of dynamite is exploded, you may institue rules to ensure that so much explosive is not placed in the one location again, but you do not place the blame on those who did the stacking. The blame is placed on the man who lit the fuse.

Aye, that's fair enough. I just thought that getting away with "The assassination of Franz Ferdinand" and getting top of the class was a bit odd. But you've allayed my fears. Hurrah.