Comments on: The War Begins? Part Deux http://www.historynet.com/the-war-begins-part-deux.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Wed, 22 May 2013 01:07:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: The Forester http://www.historynet.com/the-war-begins-part-deux.htm#comment-794889 The Forester Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:39:48 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681407#comment-794889 The 1931 invasion of Manchuria marks a better start to the war - it led directly to all of the other incidents in Asia. Btw, Chiang did NOT continue resisting the invaders or suspend his war against the Commies. The KMT had far more in common with the Japanese imperialists than they did with the Reds. Per Stilwell, the "G'mo" had no interest in fighting the invaders & only did the minimum necessary to keep US aid flowing, while stockpiling it for future use against Mao's forces. The 1931 invasion of Manchuria marks a better start to the war – it led directly to all of the other incidents in Asia.

Btw, Chiang did NOT continue resisting the invaders or suspend his war against the Commies. The KMT had far more in common with the Japanese imperialists than they did with the Reds. Per Stilwell, the "G'mo" had no interest in fighting the invaders & only did the minimum necessary to keep US aid flowing, while stockpiling it for future use against Mao's forces.

]]> By: Rob Citino http://www.historynet.com/the-war-begins-part-deux.htm#comment-149597 Rob Citino Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:11:41 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681407#comment-149597 You're no broken record, Paul--you're just someone making a strong argument! Crtialny the 1939 campaign (whether "Khalkin-Gol" or "Nomonhan") was of crucial importance to the course of the war. You're no broken record, Paul–you're just someone making a strong argument! Crtialny the 1939 campaign (whether "Khalkin-Gol" or "Nomonhan") was of crucial importance to the course of the war.

]]> By: paul penrod http://www.historynet.com/the-war-begins-part-deux.htm#comment-148084 paul penrod Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:30:44 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681407#comment-148084 I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but Japan's incursion into China came into conflict with the Soviets. What occurred in Mongolia in the summer of 1939 was not only, what I believe to be the start of a world war, but also determined it's ultimate outcome I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but Japan's incursion into China came into conflict with the Soviets. What occurred in Mongolia in the summer of 1939 was not only, what I believe to be the start of a world war, but also determined it's ultimate outcome

]]> By: Mike Hegarty http://www.historynet.com/the-war-begins-part-deux.htm#comment-120061 Mike Hegarty Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:05:36 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681407#comment-120061 1937 is a correct date for the start of the war. Japan's militarization of Manchuria and subsequent invasion of China is a starting point that doesn't get recognition because of the media's Eurocentric view at the time. Few people recognize the fact that the bulk of the Japanese Army was not scattered across the Pacific but rather located in China. 1937 is a correct date for the start of the war. Japan's militarization of Manchuria and subsequent invasion of China is a starting point that doesn't get recognition because of the media's Eurocentric view at the time. Few people recognize the fact that the bulk of the Japanese Army was not scattered across the Pacific but rather located in China.

]]> By: Andrew Morris http://www.historynet.com/the-war-begins-part-deux.htm#comment-116092 Andrew Morris Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:12:01 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681407#comment-116092 As much as the Treaty of Versailles was a horrendous piece of diplomacy, it is only with hindsight that we can see how it led to WW2. In between Versailles and September 1939 were the more critical events, in my opinion, of the Great Depression and Hitler's rise to power. I would argue that without those two critical events intervening, you cannot argue that the Treaty of Versailles, as signed in 1918-1919, would have inevitably led to the catastrophe of another world war 20 years later. As much as the Treaty of Versailles was a horrendous piece of diplomacy, it is only with hindsight that we can see how it led to WW2.
In between Versailles and September 1939 were the more critical events, in my opinion, of the Great Depression and Hitler's rise to power.
I would argue that without those two critical events intervening, you cannot argue that the Treaty of Versailles, as signed in 1918-1919, would have inevitably led to the catastrophe of another world war 20 years later.

]]> By: Robert M. Citino http://www.historynet.com/the-war-begins-part-deux.htm#comment-113720 Robert M. Citino Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:50:46 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681407#comment-113720 Bill-- Good point. I guess I woul separate the shorter term causes from the longer term ones ("short fuses" and "long fuses"). But as long as we don't make the WWII arise INEVITABLY from 1918, I'm with you: the way WWI ended laid the groundwork for the next war. --RC Bill–

Good point. I guess I woul separate the shorter term causes from the longer term ones ("short fuses" and "long fuses"). But as long as we don't make the WWII arise INEVITABLY from 1918, I'm with you: the way WWI ended laid the groundwork for the next war.

–RC

]]> By: Bill http://www.historynet.com/the-war-begins-part-deux.htm#comment-113716 Bill Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:02:13 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681407#comment-113716 Another date could be the dictation of terms after WWI. Those terms and the lack of backing for the League of Nations made most of it possible. Another date could be the dictation of terms after WWI. Those terms and the lack of backing for the League of Nations made most of it possible.

]]>