No Washington Treaty...

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:53 am

Seems we have here tweedledum y tweedledee passing some common wisdom to one another. :lol:

During the last weeks we have only one, now we have two trying to gain some land for the navweaps gospel. Useless...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by neil hilton » Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:52 pm

Djoser wrote: Of course, there is this notion that it began in '39, but that is a limited viewpoint. The case could be made that it was much earlier, in China. Plus future generations might lump them together, rather like 'The Napoleonic Wars', Hundred Years War, etc. The intervening years of jockeying for position and skirmishing seem like a long time to us less than a century later, but in 500 years it would be the blink of an eye. There was the little intermediate practice session in Spain as well. The bloodless invasion of Czechoslovakia was an invasion nonetheless. And so forth.
World War 2 began in Sept '39, not in China in '37. That war was a regional war between Japan and China not a World War. It was sunsumed into WW2 when Japan attacked US at PH and Britain in Hong Kong and Singapore. Most Chinese think WW2 began in '37 simply because they believe China is the world, the rest of the world doesn't count for some reason, philosophical reasons I think or religious.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7612
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by RF » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:04 am

WW2 was essentially two separate wars that took place at basically the same time.

Germany and Japan, though linked by alliance, fought their own separate wars in almost complete isolation from each other, the only minimal collaboration was in the naval sphere.

Japan's invasion of China quickly involved the US diplomatically because US interests and property were attacked. It was the war in China that led up to and made possible the attack on PH.

Personally I think that to say WW2 started in China in 1937 is correct, even though virtually everbody in Britain believes it started on 3 September 1939, the day Britain declared war on Germany. And why 3 September - Poland was attacked on 1 September was it not......
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by neil hilton » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:01 pm

If you use those criteria to determine the definition of World War, then World War 2 should actually be the Napoloenic War, the first should be the war between Britain and France in the mid 1700s, the one over India.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by lwd » Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:59 pm

neil hilton wrote: ...World War 2 began in Sept '39, not in China in '37. That war was a regional war between Japan and China not a World War. I
Could not the same be said of the conflict in Europe at least until the USSR was invaded?
It was sunsumed into WW2 when Japan attacked US at PH and Britain in Hong Kong and Singapore. Most Chinese think WW2 began in '37 simply because they believe China is the world, the rest of the world doesn't count for some reason, philosophical reasons I think or religious.
It was the first conflict of several that evolved into WW2. The case you make against it can equally be made against the invasion of Poland being the start of the war only invoking Eurocenterist rather than Sinocenterist coments. Clearly it was a world war on as of 11 Dec. When before that one chooses to say it started will be somewhat arbitrary.

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by José M. Rico » Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:15 pm

Well, I guess some could also make a case of the Spanish Civil War and say that WWII started in 1936.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7612
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by RF » Thu Mar 03, 2011 10:58 am

I was wondering whether the Spanish Civil War would be raised.

I would exclude it from WW2 because that conflict finished before any countries within Europe were officially at war with each other. There was a clear gap between the end of that conflict and the invasion of Poland. Neither did the Spanish Civil War have any connection with the Japanese or their invasion of China.

The question would be more problematic if Spain had entered WW2 on the Axis side. However it didn't.

The fact that Germany, Italy and the USSR played relatively minor roles in that war overall is insufficient to link it in to WW2, any more than the Italian involvement in the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay would be relevant.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by neil hilton » Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:25 pm

lwd wrote:
neil hilton wrote: ...World War 2 began in Sept '39, not in China in '37. That war was a regional war between Japan and China not a World War. I
Could not the same be said of the conflict in Europe at least until the USSR was invaded?
It was sunsumed into WW2 when Japan attacked US at PH and Britain in Hong Kong and Singapore. Most Chinese think WW2 began in '37 simply because they believe China is the world, the rest of the world doesn't count for some reason, philosophical reasons I think or religious.
It was the first conflict of several that evolved into WW2. The case you make against it can equally be made against the invasion of Poland being the start of the war only invoking Eurocenterist rather than Sinocenterist coments. Clearly it was a world war on as of 11 Dec. When before that one chooses to say it started will be somewhat arbitrary.
It all depends on your personal definition of waht World War means I suppose. My view is that it requires fighting to actually take place on multiple continents and oceans and involve the militaries of multiple nations (more than just two opposing). As far as I'm aware the Japanese and Chinese only fought each other in China not in Africa or on the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean etc etc. In fact I don't think the Chinese actually had an oceanic navy for the Japanese to fight.
In other words a World War in my opinion has to actually involve a significant chunk of the world not just two nations with economic links to other nations.
WW2 can only be called a world war because Britian and France were fighting German sea raiders and submarines in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean etc from sept 1939.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7612
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by RF » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:34 pm

neil hilton wrote: As far as I'm aware the Japanese and Chinese only fought each other in China not in Africa or on the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean etc etc. In fact I don't think the Chinese actually had an oceanic navy for the Japanese to fight.
Chinese land forces were involved with the Americans in northern Burma and played a significant role in the Burma campaign.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7612
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by RF » Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:40 pm

neil hilton wrote: In other words a World War in my opinion has to actually involve a significant chunk of the world not just two nations with economic links to other nations.
WW2 can only be called a world war because Britian and France were fighting German sea raiders and submarines in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean etc from sept 1939.
I agree with the first sentence. The point to remember is that the wars spread as more countries become involved. WW2 did eventually involve some shooting on every continent of the World, including Antarctica and North America. And of course Uruguay was dragged in as a no-belligerent participant by the AGS, so even Latin America was directly involved. And don't forget that Mexico and Brazil declared war on Germany because U-boats targetted their shipping off their coastlines.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by lwd » Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:13 pm

neil hilton wrote: ... It all depends on your personal definition of waht World War means I suppose.
Indeed. But it also depends on what you consider the starting point of such a war.
My view is that it requires fighting to actually take place on multiple continents and oceans and involve the militaries of multiple nations (more than just two opposing).
Well then WWII doesn't start in 39 as conflict on multiple continents doesn't start until 1940 and then it's very close to Europe.
As far as I'm aware the Japanese and Chinese only fought each other in China not in Africa or on the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean etc etc. In fact I don't think the Chinese actually had an oceanic navy for the Japanese to fight.
But if you consider it to start in September of 39 your criteria don't apply either.
In other words a World War in my opinion has to actually involve a significant chunk of the world not just two nations with economic links to other nations.
WW2 can only be called a world war because Britian and France were fighting German sea raiders and submarines in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean etc from sept 1939.
But the naval battles in the Indian Ocean were pretty minimal weren't they? At least in 39. You don't really get serious fighting any distance from Europe until the Asian and European conflicts merge. So do you say the war started when the first of them started or when it became truly a world wide conflict. In one case the best date is 7 July 1937 in the other 7 or 11 Dec 1941.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7612
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by RF » Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:13 am

lwd wrote:
You don't really get serious fighting any distance from Europe until the Asian and European conflicts merge.

Which ignores, as a lot of people do, the war in East Africa from June 1940.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by lwd » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:54 pm

I'll admit I forgot about that one but it's still pretty close to the Med and as you say took place in 1940 so doesn't really count for 1939 as a start date. Indeed there's no real fighting in Africa at all until after the Italians joing the war and that's in 1940.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7612
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by RF » Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:51 am

Without wishing to be overly pedantic, the intervention of Italy came nine months into the war that started with Hitler's attack on Poland, but eighteen months before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. So it could be argued that it was a major extension of the war well before the Americans or indeed the Russians became involved.

And with regards to Italy's war being Med centric, I would say that Somaliland is closer to India than the Med and roughly equidistant between the Med and South Africa.

I think that a 1937-1945 time period does make the most appropriate span of WW2. Yes, the war in China was ''undeclared'' until the PH attack, but it was the one conflict that lasted the full period, longer indeed than the Battle of the Atlantic. Incidently the ''undeclared'' period of war also involved the Russians fighting the Japs on the borders of Mongolia.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: No Washington Treaty...

Post by neil hilton » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:18 pm

RF wrote:
neil hilton wrote: As far as I'm aware the Japanese and Chinese only fought each other in China not in Africa or on the Atlantic, Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean etc etc. In fact I don't think the Chinese actually had an oceanic navy for the Japanese to fight.
Chinese land forces were involved with the Americans in northern Burma and played a significant role in the Burma campaign.
Which started in 1942 when it really was a World War, the point I was trying to make was that before this China and Japan fought only in China therefore it can't really be called a World War because it doesn't involve a sizeable part of the World (politically speaking not the physical size of the nations involved).

The main reason I believe WW2 started in Sept 39 was because it involved the whole British empire, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc and the French empire. And that figthting at sea began immediately over a great area of the World (hunting the early German commerce raiders such as Graf Spee etc).
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

Post Reply