[Mustang1]

bootlegga wrote:

Well, Britain and France still had empires at the time, and declared war on their behalf. India and French Indo-China were included in those declarations for example. Only the 'Dominions' had the right to choose if and when to join the conflict. So, I would say that they did in fact create a global war on September 3rd. Germany might not have fought in other theatres until later in the war (the sinking of the Graf Spee of Montevideo for example), but the possibility still existed.

Would you consider German involvement in the Spanish Civil War also part of WW2? That involed the "killing of people in a foreign land".

Had you said that The Sino-Japanese wars and Abyssinian conflicts began imperial expansions/conquests for those empires I would have agreed with you.
The key here is that neither conflict expanded beyond the original two combatants, so 'semantically', they weren't the beginning of WW2, as that happened only after Poland was invaded. Poland as they say, was the 'straw that broke the camels back' and caused European leaders to finally realize appeasement was an utter failure and the only way to deal with Hitler was through war.

I agree. What Axeman can't establish here is a cause/effect relationship. He can't demonstrate that the Sino-Japanese conflict had a larger effect on the cause of WWII than Hitler. The invasion of Poland has an effect on the Asian region but the same can't be said (with significance) of the Sino-Japanese hostilities. They didn't bring WWII to Europe, Europe brought it to them.

[Axeman]

Mustang1 wrote:

And? HOW does this make them equal to instigating WWII? All you’ve done is insist that a belligerent of later WWII is equally culpable for starting the war because they had a history of atrocities. So? That predates the war and belongs rightly classified as the “background” of a WWII combatant but it does nothing to prove that they “instigated” the war. In fact, you really didn’t answer the question because all you could muster was trying push a point that defies historical soundness – because, if this is the case, isn’t the USSR an instigator? Didn’t they sign a non-Aggression pact and became active participants with Germany during the invasion of Poland? Are you now claiming that the USSR is an equal instigator with Hitler too?

Japan is equal to Germany as instigators in WWII because they were the aggressors in one of the two primary theatres of war. The USSR, I suppose, could be considered PARTLY an aggessor and instigator for its actions in Poland, as is Italy for its actions in Africa, but Germany and Japan certainly were GREATER instigators than either the USSR or Italy. Was Germany MORE important? Maybe to westerners, but certainly not to the millions killed by Japanese aggression.

Quote:

Actually, my disingenuous chum, you claimed, “and Britain started it in Europe when they imposed Versailles” so either you’re lying or now trying to shift away from a completely bogus statement. Either way, you claimed it. And didn’t prove it.

And HOW exactly did Britain “impose” Versailles again? This should be good for entertaining responses (you do know that nations from Britain to France to the U.S. had vastly different mindsets regarding the treaty, right?). Oh and please, please demonstrate how CANADA is now on the hook for Versailles too. Lastly, the U.S. didn’t even ratify it, so how again are they responsible? Damn. At what point do you simply admit you have ZERO idea about what you post here?

Now you're picking gnat shit out of pepper. Britain was the chief nation in the the authorship of Versailles. The other Allies went along with the gameplan, including Canada. You're correct, they all had different mindsets, but are ALL, at part, to blame for German aggression in its wake. I agree, the USA's role was lesser, but they were involved. Still not sure why you're being hostile.

Quote:

Nope not semantics, it’s called History.

Your intellectual flaw is your insistance that history = facts. History is interpretation. As an academic, I'm allowed to challenge traditional thinking. That doesn't make it revisionist. Just because the whole world once believed the earth was flat, that didn't make it so.

Quote:

1.On what date did World War II begin and where?
Answer – September 1939. Want specifics? September 1, 1939 (and two days later Great Britain and France formally declare war).

That's the grade 10 textbook answer.

Quote:

Answer – December 1941 (after Pearl Harbor) the 2nd Sino-Japanese conflict became part of the greater WWII event. Prior to that, it was a separate conflict.

and the German invasion of Poland was a "separate conflict". Without the Asian theatre, it wasn't a WORLD WAR either.

Quote:

I don’t “believe” anything here, I know. This is objective fact. Historians rightly see the invasion of Poland to the official start of WWII. Only revisionists, agenda-pushers and the unaware would suggest anything otherwise.

NO IT'S NOT AN OBJECTIVE FACT. It is a label; it's PURE semantics. It's easily accepted by those that think encyclopedic facts are history. But when you start to do serious research and make academic inquiry into the past, you have to be willing to see events in their broader contexts.

Quote:

Answer – yep, but it’s got nothing on Hitler. He instigated genocide against his own people and inhabitants of occupied territories! His lust for Lebensraum instigated a global conflict that rocked Europe, Asia, Africa and involved millions. The Sino-Japanese conflict doesn’t measure up to the influence and any way you slice it, it had little impact on European affairs whereas Hitler’s quest for hegemony and race-based outcomes clearly influenced the Asian geopolitical scene.

That's the first bit of History you've posted. That's the first time you've used a little intellectual muscle to grapple with, interpret and conclude. Everything else you've gotten your knickers in a twist over is pure semantics and an insistance that History textbook-facts are truths.

I have two more questions for you:

1. Here's two statements: Which one is FACT and which one is INFERENCE? a) 5,315 Canadians participated in the Dieppe Raid; b) Adolf Hitler was an evil dictator?

2. Were Vietnam and Korea "wars"?

[Sapio]

bootlegga wrote:

Would you consider German involvement in the Spanish Civil War also part of WW2?

Many modern historians have started to talk about just one World War. In many ways WW2 is just a continuation of the WW1.

[Axeman]

Sapio wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Would you consider German involvement in the Spanish Civil War also part of WW2?

Many modern historians have started to talk about just one World War. In many ways WW2 is just a continuation of the WW1.

Yes, that's an excellent hypothesis. Other historians argue that WW1 was not a World War at all. Indeed, it was much more localized fighting even then, say, the US Civil War. But others on this thread just can't seem to get past the notion that history is NOT facts. And it's our conjecture that makes it fun!

[Mustang1]

Axeman wrote:

Japan is equal to Germany as instigators in WWII because they were the aggressors in one of the two primary theatres of war. The USSR, I suppose, could be considered PARTLY an aggessor and instigator for its actions in Poland, as is Italy for its actions in Africa, but Germany and Japan certainly were GREATER instigators than either the USSR or Italy. Was Germany MORE important? Maybe to westerners, but certainly not to the millions killed by Japanese aggression.

And yet the Chinese don't consider 1931 the beginning of WWII. No one does. It's 1939 and while many aggressors were indeed in action PRIOR to this date, their actions don't form a component of WWII proper.

Quote:

Now you're picking gnat shit out of pepper.

Nope - i'm ripping your junk history to shreds. I guess this means you'll be dodging yet again? Thought so.

Quote:

Britain was the chief nation in the the authorship of Versailles.

More than France? More than the United States? Got some history for that one?

Quote:

The other Allies went along with the gameplan, including Canada.

Really? Wrongo againo - i'm sensing a pattern here. The U.S. didn't even ratify the treaty, Canada objected and Great Britain actually sought a fair peace (the didn't like the Wilsonian self-determination angle nor did they seek the revenge that France sought). Evidently you haven't read up on this BEFORE posting, huh?

Quote:

You're correct, they all had different mindsets, but are ALL, at part, to blame for German aggression in its wake.

How? Be specific here - how was Canada to blame for the failures of the Weimar , the civil strife in Germany, hyperinflation, ultra-Nationalism, race-politics, the rise of National Socialism and Hitler? I'll be very interested in seeing how you weave some history out of this one.

Quote:

I agree, the USA's role was lesser, but they were involved. Still not sure why you're being hostile.

Again, until you've prove your behavior (the hypocrisy, the condescending tone) is beyond reproach, your little Dr. Phil routine won't wash with me. Practice what you preach.

Oh...and if the United States didn't even ratify the treaty, why should they shoulder the blame? And please explain how Wilson's 14 points were so destructive.

Quote:

Your intellectual flaw is your insistance that history = facts.

No flaw - unlike you, i get history, historiography and historical inquiry. History is, in large part, facts. Are you saying there was no Holocaust? Franklin Roosevelt never existed? England is a figment of someone's imagination? A P-51 is total fiction? Don't be absurd and don't try pushing intellectual relativist dreck on me. You're flat wrong.

Quote:

History is interpretation.

Some of history is interpretation (but it's based on an adherence to the inquiry model). A great deal of history is objective fact. The Great Pyramids exist. Just because you don't think so makes little difference to the fact that they're independently verifiable. WWII occurred. Unless you change the parameters, alter the lexicon and ignore objective facts, it occurred. Sorry.

Quote:

As an academic, I'm allowed to challenge traditional thinking.

You're no academic - no academic interested in intellectual pursuit or discourse would EVER rely on ignoring objective facts or simply state (with ZERO evidence) that traditional thinking is even flawed. The historical narrative of WWII hasn't been simply conjured up - it's been part of a long, peer-reviewed, methodologically-adhered to process that has withstood a myriad of challenges. ANY academic would know that - in fact, if you're an academic perhaps you could give us a quick historiographical examination of WWII and point out its narrative development's flaws.

Quote:

That doesn't make it revisionist.

If it lacks facts, ignores objective truth, relies on little to know standard sources, ignores academic consensus and refuses to acknowledge its faults, then, yep, it's revisionist.

Quote:

Just because the whole world once believed the earth was flat, that didn't make it so

Huh? How is that analogous. You're an alleged academic and your pushing this kind of argumentative fallacy? Come on - WWII is an objective fact whereas the flat earth perception is a function of a past milieu's worldview (one that, in fact, lacked any evidence).

Quote:

That's the grade 10 textbook answer.

And university texts, WWII texts and Veteran Affairs. They're wrong, but you're right? Please - how does an "academic" rationalize all these separate, intellectually motivated, learned sources ALL arriving at the same conclusion? How did they so egregiously err?

Quote:

and the German invasion of Poland was a "separate conflict". Without the Asian theatre, it wasn't a WORLD WAR either.

The German invasion started WWII.

Quote:

NO IT'S NOT AN OBJECTIVE FACT. It is a label; it's PURE semantics. It's easily accepted by those that think encyclopedic facts are history. But when you start to do serious research and make academic inquiry into the past, you have to be willing to see events in their broader contexts.

Actually it is a fact. Besides, you've made dozens of historical errors and made numerous bush league conclusions so who are you to judge history? You've demonstrated on numerous occasions that you really don't know much about what you post (want a list?) but now we're to believe that you are the sole arbiter of truth? You've done serious research into the past? Bull. I'm calling you out - you give me a list of the serious research you've conducted (primary, secondary and historiography) into the past that suggests Japan was an equal instigator into WWII, Britain was solely culpable for Versailles and that Hitler's Poland invasion had the same impact on WWII as Japan's invasion of Manchuria.

Quote:

That's the first bit of History you've posted.

Says you, and your opinion here really doesn't hold much currency.

Quote:

That's the first time you've used a little intellectual muscle to grapple with, interpret and conclude.

Actually, i've used a lot but evidently it keeps sailing over your sloped head. Here's the thing - i'm right and while you keep hoping that by posting anything it's something, all you've done is portray yourself as first rate ignoramus. I noticed in you desperate attempt to dodge you didn't actually address anything. Typical

Quote:

Everything else you've gotten your knickers in a twist over is pure semantics and an insistance that History textbook-facts are truths.

I'll quote academic, peer-reviewed sources by learned scholars all day long. Anti-intellectuals like you can retreat to your relativist dreck all day, but you've provided nothing to suggest that my sources are flawed. I can even list numerous WWII historians that have arrived at the same conclusions. All you'll be able to do is throw out banal logical fallacies.

Quote:

I have two more questions for you:

1. Here's two statements: Which one is FACT and which one is INFERENCE? a) 5,315 Canadians participated in the Dieppe Raid; b) Adolf Hitler was an evil dictator?

(A) is incorrect. 4,963 Canadians set out for Dieppe. The irony that you would, again, screw up history, is priceless. Seriously, sit this one out - this is becoming a joke.

(B) is a fact. Most Western narratives explore Hitler's "evilness" as a component of a moral historical lesson (in fact many including Browning add that Hitler was the antithesis to "goodness") . When one adds the Nuremberg Laws, T-4, Einsatzgruppen and the Holocaust then the conclusion that Hitler was cruel, selfish, uncaring and possessed the absence of kindness, justice and empathy has some serious weight behind it. But, by all means, you try and prove me wrong.

Here's a list of questions that are still lingering - and provide facts this time.

1. How is Japan EQUAL to Germany in instigating the war? Cause/effect relationship - you establish it.
2. How is Britain responsible for Versailles? How is Canada responsible for Versailles? How is the United States responsible for Versailles?
3. How was Canada to blame for the failures of the Wiemar , the civil strife in Germany, hyperinflation, ultra-Nationalism, race-politics, the rise of National Socialism and Hitler?
4. Why do Japan and China refer to events prior to WWII as the 2nd Sino-Japanese War, or Japan-China war or the War of Resistance (in China)? If WWII started allegedly in 1931, why don't the Japanese and Chinese acknowledge it as WWII?
5. Demonstrate with accessible and verifiable independent academic sources that the Sino-Japanese conflict had a larger effect on the cause of WWII than Hitler.
6. Provide a historiographical examination of WWII and point out its narrative development's flaws.

Until you correctly answer the aforementioned questions with some degree of competence, i'm not entertaining your begging the question tactics or educating you, as it's not my role here. First error and you're done.

[Mustang1]

Axeman wrote:

But others on this thread just can't seem to get past the notion that history is NOT facts.

The sad part are those that actually believe there's no facts. You'll notice they're the minority on this thread.

[Axeman]

bootlegga wrote:

Would you consider German involvement in the Spanish Civil War also part of WW2? That involed the "killing of people in a foreign land".
Had you said that The Sino-Japanese wars and Abyssinian conflicts began imperial expansions/conquests for those empires I would have agreed with you.
The key here is that neither conflict expanded beyond the original two combatants, so 'semantically', they weren't the beginning of WW2, as that happened only after Poland was invaded. Poland as they say, was the 'straw that broke the camels back' and caused European leaders to finally realize appeasement was an utter failure and the only way to deal with Hitler was through war.

Yes, I certainly would consider the Spanish Civil War as a theatre of World War II. The reason is it's a war that was borne out of the prevailing conflict of the time (struggle with economic depression, rise of aggressive dictators and conflicts of political ideology (left vs. right). That's just an extension of my original hypothesis...that the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was a symptom of the same ill that ultimately put most of the world at war. I absolutely agree that Poland was a KEY expansion of the aggressions, but the global conflicts I mentioned above were well under way elsewhere. Furthermore, there are MANY examples of international newspapers using the phrase "World War II" LONG before September 1939. Everyone KNEW it was coming. Choosing an exact date for the start of it (like Sept 1, 1939) makes for a nice grade 10 multiple-choice exam question, but it's not terribly meaningful. It's rather like saying a patient isn't sick until the doctor makes the diagnosis.

[Mustang1]

Wait a second - Spanish Civil War?!?!? Didn't some relativist claim there are no facts in history? And yet, isn't this being presented as one? Interesting...i guess some can't even keep there approach of the day consistent for two posts.

[Thanos]

Quote:

Britain was the chief nation in the the authorship of Versailles. The other Allies went along with the gameplan, including Canada. You're correct, they all had different mindsets, but are ALL, at part, to blame for German aggression in its wake.

The only ones responsible for German agression were the Germans.

[Mustang1]

Thanos wrote:

Quote:

Britain was the chief nation in the the authorship of Versailles. The other Allies went along with the gameplan, including Canada. You're correct, they all had different mindsets, but are ALL, at part, to blame for German aggression in its wake.

The only ones responsible for German agression were the Germans.

Exactly, but our esteemed academic eschews facts so you'll have to rely on rainbows and steam to make your points

[Axeman]

Mustang1 wrote:

Until you correctly answer the aforementioned questions with some degree of competence, i'm not entertaining your begging the question tactics or educating you, as it's not my role here. First error and you're done.

You've reached that stage with me as well. You're done.

[Mustang1]

Axeman wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

Until you correctly answer the aforementioned questions with some degree of competence, i'm not entertaining your begging the question tactics or educating you, as it's not my role here. First error and you're done.

You've reached that stage with me as well. You're done.

Translation: you're done.

[commanderkai]

Just curious Mustang, what do the Japanese call all the events after December 7, 1941? Do they call it by the Western "World War Two" or do they have its own name, much like the USSR called World War Two "The Great Patriotic War?"

[Mustang1]

commanderkai wrote:

Just curious Mustang, what do the Japanese call all the events after December 7, 1941? Do they call it by the Western "World War Two" or do they have its own name, much like the USSR called World War Two "The Great Patriotic War?"

The 2nd Sino-Japanese war technically continued till 1945, but after 1941, it amalgamated with the larger global conflict of WWII. I've seen Japanese secondary sources certainly refer to it as WWII, especially when it concerns the American Pacific struggle.

[Sapio]

Axeman wrote:

But others on this thread just can't seem to get past the notion that history is NOT facts.

Very true, many people find it hard to understand that history is not just the pass, but how we view the past today.