本文利用中、英文原始檔案，旨在探討發生在1930年代、向來較不為人所知的康藏與青藏戰爭，以及該時期康藏邊區各股不同政治勢力之間所發生的軍事衝突。本研究嘗試跳脫以往將這些西南邊界戰爭視為「英帝國主義所支持」的西藏與中國之間的對抗此一看法，或者是視這一系列衝突為中、英兩國競爭西藏下的一個結果。本文同時把南京國民政府、西南各省軍閥與西藏政府作為三個不同主體來看待，藉以重新建構與還原1930年代西南中國青、康、藏地區的政治、社會與軍事面貌；而藉由對這些發生在西南邊陲地區大小戰事的分析。本文也希望能夠對於「戰爭」對民國時期的中國西南邊疆議題、近代漢藏關係，與國民政府1930年代在中國西南的國家建構(state-building)與政權鞏固(regime consolidation)所帶來的意涵，做更進一步的探索與釐清。本文研究指出，1930年代西南中國的西藏、西康、青海軍閥與南京國民政府中央，彼此之間在政治上具有相當微妙的關係，而當時西南軍閥政權亦享有強大的自主性，這些因素對於吾人分析1930年代西南邊陲地區的政治與軍事版圖，具有密不可分的關係。本研究同時也欲指出，1930年代西藏、西南軍閥及南京國民政府三方面，事實上對於「戰爭」皆有所需求，並且都期待、製造與利用戰事的發生，以藉此帶給各自政治勢力在軍事、政治與財政上的有利作用。在這場1930年代中國西南地區的軍政勢力角逐的過程中，青海的馬步芳與西康的劉文輝可說是贏家，西藏政府則失去了自民初以來在康區所保有的領土與軍政優勢，而蔣介石所代表的國民政府，雖利用戰事的發生，以種種名目欲將中央勢力帶進西南邊陲，然而直到二次世界大戰結束，其終究未能在此一地區建立起有效與牢固的統治。

　　　　　This paper examines the relatively understudied Sino-Tibetan borderland warfare, as well as a series of armed conflicts that occurred among various political groups in southwest China, in the 1930s. Previous works tend to interpret these border wars and armed conflicts as the result of conventional confrontation between China and the British or "British-supported" Tibet. Leaving aside this analytical framework, this paper views the Nationalist "Central Government" in Nanjing, the Tibetan Government in Lhasa, and the southwestern warlords, as three different and independent political groups, all of which sought to profit from various agendas, politically, militarily, and financially. By placing Nanjing, Lhasa and the southwestern warlord regimes in a wider historical context, this study also seeks to draw a clearer political landscape in southwest China in the 1930s by scrutinizing the implications of these border conflicts in terms of modern China's state-building and regime consolidation projects. An interesting and politically ironic fact is that, during the 1930s, as the Nationalist Central government in Nanjing exercised little if any authority in southwest China, the Tibetan Government, the southwestern warlord regimes, and even the Guomindang itself, did not actually reject war to satisfy their respective demands and further their political interests. As a result, what has traditionally been regarded as China's frontier and Tibetan agendas may present some new viewpoints that deserve careful reexamination.