"...big enough favor that France take its colonies back." Vietcongs: but Fun Fact, no Edit: Viet Minh is more historically correct, as people pointed in responses.
About 15 years ago I was visiting Japan and met an elderly man who had been a child during WWII. He lived near Toyohashi, southeast of Nagoya. He said that when American planes began bombing his region very late in the war, there was, ironically, happiness among many people in that area because they knew it meant the US would occupy the area after the end of the war, and not the Soviets. They were very concerned about what would happen under a Soviet occupation.
My dad was with the Third Armored, and when rolling the tank columns through Germany, they were cheered by the German civilians because although they were afraid of the U.S. and British, they were TERRIFIED of the Soviets. History of course has shown us what happened the Soviet half of Germany.
To be fair the the Veitnam thing started long before the US was involved, both the Korean war and the wars in indo China started at the same time. By the time the US went to Indo China there had been 11 years of most the other big powers in the area stomping around leaving a mess. It didn't help that barely trained kids were getting dropped into the middle of this war and told to fight a defensive policing action , not to pursue enemy units, and not to violate any boarders even the enemies while the other side was fighting an offensive full out war and using boarders to safely bypass southern defenses and move supply lines around openly. Also the almost 11 years of conflict, betrayal, and corruption before we got there left a place where not even an ally could be trusted. A complete breakdown of society that the US was not ready for having based their estimates on Korea which didn't account for terrain, local geography, or the effects of the previous prolonged fighting. Every modern war the US had been in featured a functioning society and power structure along with well defined belligerents and goals, in Veitnam there was none of this. (Minor edit where autocorrect changed the word didn't to did)
@@KelsaRavenlock Yeah, and they only failed because they refused to go up North and decided to only defend the south instead of fighting the actual problem.
@@gofish7388 American politics was also at play. When Nixon was replaced by a Democrat, they didn't want to keep his promises to the south, that's why the commies won, they tested the Americans by going village by village and when no definitive retaliation from the USA, they just took over Vietnam.
One thing often forgotten is how fortunate it was for the Japanese to have MacArthur calling the shots after occupation. There were no other officers or statesmen with a better understanding of and respect for the history and belief system of the Japanese and other Asian countries. He was careful to interfere as little as possible with the traditional Japanese way of life when laying out the terms of the occupation. The transition of Japan from a vanquished, humiliated Pacific nation into global economic powerhouse in a short period of time waa largely due to the start he gave them. I always thought this was MacArthur's crowning achievement rather than anything he did during the war.
Is this the same guy that wanted to commit genocide on North Koreans and Chinese because they were commies? Is this the same guy who illegally used biological weapons against Chinese (also on Chinese soil) and Korean troops and wanted to nuke them? Wasn't it the guy who used bio-weapons designed by Isshi Shiro from Unit 731 who just committed a brutal genocide on the Chinese? What a nice and understanding guy he was.
One of his best decision is probably letting the monarchy stay relevant in a way instead of totally destroying it and replacing it with another with the condition that they must admit that the emperor is not a deity, but another human being
@@arthas7 Germany and Japan are not really "occupied" since the end of WWII. There is a foreign military presence but there is no economical exploitation of those countries by a foreign power. On the contrary, Japan and Germany got lots of help to recover. Plus they have larger populations than Italy, and their military budget is really low so that they can invest more in their economy. For instance, German military budget in lower than its French counterpart while Germany has 15M more inhabitants. Rakings of those 3 countries seems pretty logical to me.
@@christopheripoll2580 the GDP ranking is an outcome of their situation/s. I am in no way saying Italy had it easy or anything. And yeah, both Germany and Japan were occupied post WW2. The point of original post was Italy was in a way saved of the harshest hardships but luckily the outcome of that led to their rise. Since under US protection they didn't couldn't re-militarize, hence ofcourse saved on defense spending and their populations are generally known for their hard working etiquette. Hence prospered at a faster rate than Italy, and mind you they had to pay heavy reparations for war as well so it's not all sun and roses, but western powers helped build their economy because of learnings from WW1. Prosperity is the only way to mutual peace
@green dragon I know splitting Korea was a horrible idea now half of Koreans in the Korean peninsula are in severe poverty and communism thankfully it didn't happen to Japan and all of Japan is thriving
@green dragon But the west had no problem doing something similar to China, while you're here talking about "the proper thing to do" after all those war crimes. What a bunch of assholes.
@@jamesblack2179 It's worth analyzing historical decisions to determine which actions led to positive results, and which didn't; it really doesn't warrant any hostility.
@War X IIRC the USA felt some guilt over it atomic bombing the 2 cities in Japan, so to make amends it helped funded the country's subsequent economic development
True they didnt have the favorable position of the US like in ww1 and ww2 generating huge profits trading with germans and the brits and french alike and only joining the war at the end getting the biggest spoils.
USA: K we won, Japan is ours now. The other allied powers: wait... Why don't we get some? USA: ok yeah, you get a share equivalent to how many nukes you dropped here...
My granduncle who was an officer in the Australian Army was in the occupation force in Japan. He once said that the American camps had their dinner very early and the British camps had their dinner very late.
@Cpl. Rook the USSR was broke too. That was why they started ripping up everything in Eastern Europe that wasn't nailed down (and much that was). In fact, while you can argue that the Cold War was inevitable, what actually started it was when the US stopped sending the USSR lend lease aid. We kept sending it to the Western Allies, and eventually replaced it with the Marshal Plan, Truman cut the USSR off as soon as the bullets stopped flying. The Soviets had been dependant on that aid, and by suddenly removing it, we did a great deal of harm to them. They were understandably pissed at us.
Americans love japan, we didnt want it destroyed, we wanted a quick win, and for japan to do thier thing and be good allies with us. which has and is beneficial for both parties. when pearl harbor happened it was the biggest mistake japan has ever made but it was also a blessing in disguise. Imperial japan wasnt a good nation to begin with, look at all the atrocities they committed. could you imagine what japan would be like today if they won. Lets just say it would be a really ruthless place constantly trying to oppress outsiders for being different and racism and bigotry and nationalism would be running rampant.
“So we been talking about splitting Ja- What’s that your unpacking US?” *The US:* “just my A bomb so what were we talking about?” *Allies:* “we been talking about giving you Japan”
It was not a matter of giving us Japan. No one else was there besides the Japanese. Take a look a the size of US forces in the Pacific. It was very different in Europe where the Russians did most of dying on the Allied side. Wiki By the end of World War II the U.S. Navy was by far the largest and most powerful navy in the world with 7,601 ships, including 28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv I mean, you can’t really say it’s not funny. Because you’re not the one that can say if it’s funny, I think 135 people thought it was funny. Thus the likes.
@@V1nce_man Oh but I can say it isn't ALL THAT funny. I can type it. Really I can. You even read it so I CAN say/type it. Also at that time, we didn't have another bomb. There was the one uranium bomb, the test plutonium bomb and the other plutonium bomb and a third plutonium core, AKA the Demon Core. That was it for quite a while as even the plutonium was hard to deal with. Note that it was 3 plutonium to 1 uranium. There were 2 tests in 46 then 3 in 48. This stuff was tricky.
Japan has been divided...Korea, Taiwan, the United States, China, and the Soviet Union have separated.It's like separating two states like Texas from the United States.
I would say the American fleet played a bigger role. The Soviet fleet was next to nonexistent right after ww2 and would not dare challenge the American fleet, which was the largest fleet ever assembled when ww2 ended.
@@yuchenchen8012 The largest fleet in the world is still nothing compared to a bomb that a single plane can deliver and will wipe out an entire city. The world feared the USA's nukes far more than they did their navy.
I am so glad there was at least one thing that was learned from WW1 which was to help rehabilitate the defeated countries to avoid what happened after WW1 (which was WW2).
Agreed. The Soviets first looted East Germany as payback and to help their industries, even pulling up the rail lines. But they realized this would leave an angry economic wreck. The West figured that out faster, though the French made a grab for the Saar.
Yeah, the bastards who run the world now’s predecessors castrated their enemies and made them worship and thank people who slaughtered and raped their way across their nations
The US offered Marshall plan Aid to everyone, including the soviets and eastern Europe. (The general idea being poor people are desperate and more likely to back "undesirable" ideologies, which to the US is anything not market capitalism) Stalin refused to accept the aid because he didn't want to appear weak, and he also forbade all the nations now under his influence from accepting it either. The end result being that eastern Europe took much longer to recover than the West which was getting lots of aid from the relatively untouched and economically recovered USA. (WW2 greatly contributed to ending the great depression, turns out crazy high demand for manufacturing will fix an economy)
I have learned through these videos that so many things that happen after wars because one side or another had no money. I never thought of it before, but now it makes total sense.
@@safiahmed4302 Nope, they the 5th largest economy in the world. Pretty impressive for a country with no natural resources guess India was draining it's resources.
I'm pretty sure that was the case. The Soviets would have been much more "unpleasant" than the U.S who let most of the government keep there positions.
There’s one major difference between a “Japanese war” and the Korean war, Japan is highly populated in the South, the North has like nobody compared to it. Osaka, Tokyo, Kyoto, are in the south. The much smaller Sendai and Sapporo are the only cities take are some what major. South Japan would obliterate North Japan easily, with their massive population difference.
But then China, Russia, and the US (NATO) would get involved and suddenly local population differences matter less than the relative strength of the outsiders. In this scenario the south should still win because the US Navy could blocked the isalnd completely, the US almost conquered all of Korea but because of China conceded a large amount of conquered land back to the communists. (Pissing off a lot os soldiers who's friends had died for nothing as a result)
well true. Korea was largely populated in the south before the divide as well. We had the major cities of Seoul, Kaesong(now north korean but used to be below the 38th parallel), and Busan. Meanwhile in northern Korea, there was only Pyeongyang. The reason why the south was more populous was because it was richer. The south had more fertile lands and the capital was located there and there were major ports in the south. Even now we see South Korea having 2 times the population of that of North Korea. But as a South Korean, I can't really say we can obliterate North Korea easily. They have a very large army, with each individual serving in the army for a long time, and most importantly they have nukes. In some ways we still may be stronger than them because of the idea of democracy, large reserve army, better weapons, healthy individuals and support by the west and her allies.
Well actually same with Korea. Southern Korean population are twice than North and only Pyongyang and hamhung major cities there. The only difference North have metal industries due to natural resources there and proximity with manchuria.
@@johnburns9634 the ones in the North were mostly Puritans who mostly supported the Commonwealth whereas those in the South were mostly Anglican Royalists.
Interestingly, the one place the US allowed France to have back, Vietnam, was a big mistake. Letting Vietnam have independence after WWII might have mitigated the communist influence and the later reasons for war. Certainly letting the French back in control didn't help anything
are you sure about that? I might be saying nonsense but communism mostly spread where there are poverty and a newly independant vietnam that got ravaged by war and that did not industrialise for years thanks to colonisation wouldn't be a wealthy country
fire creeper well I think IF America did have control over them I think it would have been rebuilt better so it might not had been so bad for them. If the French couldn’t build back their own land how could they build back their territories? We will never know though.
@@alonelyvessel2268 the orginal comment talked about an independant vietnam, you're about an occupied vietnam, this is different. based on the american occupation of latin american (inferior) countries I think they wouldn't really industrialise the place greatly. they'd probably put military there though, but would they be able the vietcong in this timeline? I don't think so, they were efficient thanks to their abuse of the geneva convention, that wouldn't change here, and the us public would probably be more anti war than they were here as they'd say the conflict is just a response to the us occupation. so I don't think an occupied vietnam would be better, unless they'd do something like allying to the chinese nationlist and stop communism spread early then I don't know how it'd be better
The north's gov flat out admitted they didn't give a shit about Communism, and just didn't want to be ruled by the French(cannot blame them). They just wanted to be freed from the French, which China and the USSR helped them achieve. Which funny enough, after the war, Vietnam and China went to war. Vietnam also ranks as one of the most pro-US countries in the world constantly. lol Giving Vietnam back to France was a huge mistake.
@@alonelyvessel2268 to be honest with there is no other power except USSR and US have the power have the ability to keep territory for themselves. The French already broke so did the British. Holding on to your fomer colony seems to be a bad choice in this post WW. Even the British see this because their lost their most treasure colony India. Even though India is their Empire seats of power. Losing it their Empire is not going to be the 1st world power anymore.
My great granddad helped with the rebuilding of Japan. He was an engine room artificer and when the bomb landed on Hiroshima, he was sent to Canada, where he rode a train all across Canada, when he got to Japan, he was sent to Hiroshima. My Grandma has a picture of him stood with other British sailors and a Japanese building in front of the now Japanese peace memorial
Unlikely US will gave Tokyo to Soviet and USSR despite being enthusiastic for their shares never have any interest with their occupied terriories in far east because they still busy in Europe.
"No catalogue of horrors ever kept men from war. Before the war you always think that it’s not you that dies. But you will die, brother, if you go to it long enough.” ― Ernest Hemingway
in simpler term... you don't get anything in japan.. since no resource and most just nuclear waste land and you also had to feed them....since their economy was borken from ww2..
I mean, we get anime, video games, and Godzilla, they get Disney, iPhones, and pro-wrestling. I see this as an absolute win in the end. I just wish it didn't take 2 nukes to do it. But we are friends now.
@Katie Lewis after some "woke" thing emerge from disney,there are some decline regarding that,the same thing happened with marvel,i forget about those new heroes group name tho
You should do a video on “Why no Dutch Battleships?” Considering they had a Colonial Empire to protect and even minor powers like Spain and Argentina built dreadnoughts
As an American, I wouldn't normally say this as I don't feel a lot of patriotism, but I feel like the decision to keep Japan under the control of ONLY the U.S. was the best plan. I can't imagine what kind of conflicts could have arose from having Britain, China, Soviets, and the U.S. in the same space. Germany clearly didn't work out so great, what with the whole East/West Germany thing for years after.
The British and America could get along sharing occupation zones.Since they have similiar values and culture. But in the case of Japan likes stated in the Video Britain was completely broke at that point so they couldn't continue there occupation.The British did crucially saved the Japanese Monarch as the Americans were ready to oust them.And Britain did built infrastructure hence why former British occupied part of Japan use British outlets abd drive on the left side of the road.
As a history major who intends to lecture and has only recently found your videos, I just wanted to say thank you so much for making such entertaining and educational content. You're an inspiration and I hope that one day my lectures will be half as good as these videos
@@Erik_830 Difference is that the british were busy with the germans and italians when they lost Singapore. Meanwhile the philippines was lost when the US had absolutely no other engagements at the time. A much bigger fuck up. Besides, the british were going to land on Singapore and retake it in 1945, but the americans forced a delay on it, while knowing the exact date the japanese would surrender. Thus making it so that the recapture of sinagpore and malaya happened after it and thus, not during the war. Once the go ahead went on the british landed on Malaya days after the japanese surrender was announced, as the invasion fleet was merely on standby.
@@wulfB Seriously. The UK could no longer even fight a one-front war at home, let alone a 2nd front war on the other side of the globe. They were reduced to a ceremonial role in Postwar Japan. Give them credit for being the moral victors of WW2 who started and ended the war on the side of right and paid a price for it- compared to the Soviets who helped Hitler start the war then needed U.S. supplies to save their skins and ended the war with their borders enlarged.
I want to say that I really appreciate the details, like the uniforms (including MacArthur's pipe!) and the accuracy of each country's rifle drawings. That goes for all the videos, but this one had a nice variety so I'll comment it here 😁
The Pacific was mostly a war between the US and Japan, with the other powers only losing colonies or territories, which would become indepent in the future anyway. Plus, Truman's suspicions about the soviets were correct, and allowing a Soviet presence in Japan would only cause separation and war between it's as what happened with Korea.
@@shellblaster6932 Not to mention that closer to the end, the Civil war was kicking back up. So one way or another, China wasn't gonna be doing occupying even if it wanted to.
In Japan there are literature, manga and anime that are based on the premise that Japan was split up after the war. For fiction, there are A.ja.pan by Toshihiko Yahagi, Seito by Daisuke Kato, Ichinobun no ichi by Hisashi Inoue, Nihon bunretsu by Yusuke Yamada. For manga the best known is 国境のエミーリャ kokkyo no Emilia by Kunihiko Ikeda. For anime there is The Place Promised in Our Early Days (雲のむこう、約束の場所) by Makoto Shinkai of “Your Name” fame.
It also happens in the Harry Turtledove novel Joe Steele, where the Manhattan Project never happened and consequently the Soviets invaded along with the US and took a portion for themselves.
Good thing the US did, imagine how Japan would have been if it was split between 4 countries, disaster. All and all the Americans did a fine job of the occupation, considering it was able to build itself up again and become one of the largest economies in the world. Btw, no I don't think the various bombings on the mainland were good, since it basically just killed many innocent people. But it's history now.
If that's your opinion, can't change it. But, I think the bombs were crucial in the sense, it gave Japan a scar. A reminder, a motivator to come out on top of this horrid situation. Also, if the bombs weren't dropped, I don't think Japan would have surrendered. It would have cost even more bloodshed throughout the nation (more innocent lives) since both the Soviets and the Americans would have had no choice but to invade the mainlands. Imperial Japan was not a easy country to fight. Their resolve and perseverance was insane. Surrendering was worse than death to them. They had to have been forced into submission somehow, otherwise they never would have stopped the madness. For crying out loud, they were an Axis country who literally killed their own people as suicide pilots to secure a national victory. I mean.... How insane was that??? I think the first atomic bombs in history were used justly for the greater good of the not just Japan, but the world at large. Japan wouldn't be where they are today if that faithful day of August 6th 1945 didn't happen.
@@tigervalley62 Oh yeah of course, the atomic bombings were needed to end the war. The Japanese and Americans would have kept fighting until other countries came in, crippling the country even further. I more meant the bombers who weren't suppose to bomb Tokyo, because innocent people were killed. I think we can all agree war is ugly and people aren't evil unless they're led by an evil leader. So it's just a very bad situation. Personally I don't dwell on what happened 70 years ago, unlike like some people, it's just interesting history.
@@angryfilmgamer570 Well, history is history. I don't think there were many things about that world war that were excitable. It was ugly. We can sit here and beat a dead horse, but the fact is its over with, like much of other parts of history. Yet some people in the 21st century still want to keep history alive by weaponizing it and keep up the finger pointing and blaming. Born and raised in the US, but I've been to Japan. I love the country, i like the people, and i love the culture. Whatever past issues we had with that nation is in the past. Even with tensions rising with China today, I still try to remember that I can dislike governments but still like people from that nation. One of my closest friends is Chinese. Her and I rarely ever agree on US-China issues, but I still like her all the same.
As a Korean, I honestly feel a sense of hatred to BOTH the Soviets and The US for dividing my country, while Japan, who occupied us and helped the Nazis got off as the victim, and faced minimal punishment. The bombs were horrible, and a tragic tragedy, but it was neccessary in stopping the war in the sense.
@@nomad8130 Anger at the US? What would have happened if the US had rolled over and given all of Korea to USSR occupation? And make no mistake, that was the only realistic alternative.
@@jackbenny4458 Like father, like son. His father arthur mcarthur was the governor general of the american occupied Philiplines. Douglas was glad he followed his fathers path.
Truman was right about the fact, that the Soviet Union doesn't leave once it occupies a place. When the USSR occupied the Kurile Islands they stated that those are rightfully Japanese and they only take them temporarily. Well they always prolonged that and even recently Russia said that the occupation is only temporary. This temporary period lasts now for 75 years.
Honestly, Russia needs no more land especially for small island chains like Kuril. Unlike Crimea or Vladivostok which has significant strategic value, I think Kuril has none (maybe it has resources like oil and fish, idk, but Russia has so much of them already) While the only notable Japanese islands outside of the mainland are probably Okinawa and Bonin islands. Which are pretty populated. Giving it to Japan will improve relation, But it's almost impossible to peacefully annex a region nowadays, the national and international outrage will be immense, just like what happened to Crimea and Hong Kong.
@@potato88872 Three words: warm water port. Japan isn't giving it up because of treaty of San Francisco, Russia ain't gonna give it up because sea of okholsk is warm at the south and the southern tip of the islands are the gateway to the pacific.
Australia played a huge role in the war fighting Japan. The New Guinea campaign in particular was a brutal affair with the Australian military playing a crucial role, and taking the brunt of allied causalities.
And also: Eastern Poland Vs. Western Poland. There was a plan in, I believe, Yalta Conference, to split Poland in two. Western was supposed to look exactly the same as Poland looks today, and Eastern Poland was supposed to be made out of every territory Poland had lost in result of this war. Imagine ,,Połączenie" (Polish word for English ,,Unification" and German ,,Anschluss") of those two Polands😀
The Prussian Commie Slayer Hund. It was Stalin and his soldiers who committed genocide and then gave the land to the Poles. They didn’t steal anything. Source: grandparents who once lived there
I've always been interested in this as I was born on a military base in Japan just after the occupation ended... I was told by an officer who served as one of MacArthur's advisors that MacArthur refused to concede anything to the Soviets... who actually sent officers to serve in the occupation governing council and MacArthur ignored them. However, they did occupy Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. Japan signed all rights to Sakhalin (a big loss since enormous oil reserves have been discovered there) and the Northern Kurils away in the Treaty of San Francisco, but still claims the Southern Kurils. Continued Russian occupation of those islands are the reason no final peace treaty has been successfully concluded between Japan and Russia to "end" WW2.
No joke. What the video narrator conveniently ignores is that the Soviets only joined mere days after the second bomb was dropped when it was clear that Japan was going to lose. While Sakhalin was theirs, the Kuril was an opportunistic claim. The USSR had almost no contribution to the Pacific theater, so why should they have been able to claim a 1/4 of Japan?
@@davidford3115 Yes. They had just destroyed their huge army on the continent and cut them off from resources. How dare they claim the territory of the former Russian Empire?
@@doflamingo1360 Cart before the horse. Stalin was dithering on his entry into the Pacific War; he only declared war immediately AFTER the second bomb dropped when it became obvious that the war was already over.
None of that was up to MacArthur. He was following the directives of the President and the Joint Chiefs in terms of unyielding opposition to the designs of the USSR having influence in Japan. Mac Arthur's massive ego aside, the US policy would have been the same no matter which US General was in charge of the occupation. Harry Truman and George Marshall were the decision makers. MacArthur was the implementer of those decisions. MacArthur carried out the policy well but it wasn't his policy. Whatever the USSR got was only because the US approved it, the US government that is, not Gen. MacArthur. He lost his job during the Korean War because he didn't understand the difference.
IIRC there is a Makoto Shinkai movie (Director of Kimi no Na wa) that has that alternate timeline as a plot premise (edit: found it: Kumo no Mukō, Yakusoku no Basho (2004))
Say what you want about the US, but this literally saved Japan from any future conflicts. If it got split there would a North Korea/South Korea like situation. Also, knowing the Soviets, you can bet that atrocities would happen in the first months of occupation. Just look at how people in Poland and East Germany were treated in the end of WW2.
@@unkown686 Worst than that - they'd shoot civilians unless they gave them women - both Japanese and Chinese. Besides we're justa' bunch of communists and hey our great grandchildren will call themselves ANTIFA
America didnt "build their economy". American's in cooperation with Japanese government made reforms to land ownership, workers rights and market competition. The economic growth itself was done by japanese working hard and the gov supporting important industries. Stop talking out of your ass.
@@yxz4308 Well to be fair, Liberia was made because the US wanted to kick the Africans out since there were racist, and Liberia wasn't even controlled by the US government itself, its controlled by African-Americans.
@@konsta9600 That's a lie. The Japanese received lots of help building their economy. As an example, the UK taught Japan how to build cars as a way of building its economy. Today, the British have virtually no auto industry and the Japanese have a thriving auto industry.
@@kevinbrown-ge6sz No it’s not, what a stupid thing to say. ”The UK taught Japan how to build cars as a way of building its economy”. You got source on that? If you mean the modernization process that started after Meiji Restauration, the Japanese studied all Western sciences and developed their political system and education system on the basis of German and British models. Do you call that ”uk helping japan”? Or do you mean after the war? What? Japan’s automotive industry’s rise after war had nothing to do with UK. Of course Japan got a huge economic boost from Korean war by producing arms and steel for US and hosting their troops. The rise of the strategic industries after war was most because of government bureaucracy led planning of the said industries, for example coordinating prices of raw materials as a way of getting out of market failures and thus becoming a competitive import oriented economy.
I haven't learnt much about the Pacific theater but the split of Japan with the USSR having the north is terrifying! I am so glad that it never came to that, its sad to think how different Japan would have been had that happened.
Don't forget, the USSR only declared war on Japan days after the second bomb dropped. They wanted the US to do all the work and come in at the last minute to claim war spoils. While Sakhalin Island was theirs to earn, the Kuril Islands were not.
@@davidford3115 Actually the USSR declared war on Japan the day before the bombing of Nagasaki and invaded Manchuria on the same day, and this was in accordance with an agreement at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 that the USSR would enter the war against Japan within three months of the end of the war in Europe. The Kuril Islands were part of the price the Soviets demanded for their agreement (Frank, Downfall p. 32).
Besides retaking the south Sakhalin, Stalin also yoinked (I believe that is the technical term nowadays) the Kuril Islands, which remain a point of contention between Russia and Japan to this day.
@@myczxr IIRC the Japanese residents at the Kuril islands/Northern Territories were evicted when they were conquered by the USSR upon Japan's defeat in WWII (though the residents are currently allowed to return to visit for short periods I recall). As they're mostly elderly, maybe it's believed that Japan's fight for those islands will weaken in the near future when those residents pass on?
Everyone else: "we won the war against japan so let-" America: no Everyone else: "but we-" America: *pulls out atomic bombs* look at me. I'm the captain here.
Small point of order: A brigade of Australian infantry were responsible for guarding the Japanese Imperial Palace between 1946-1952, and Australian forces occupied Hiroshima from the end of 1945. The first battalion of Australian troops to fight in the Korean War in 1950 arrived from Japan, as did the first Royal Australian Air Force squadrons of P51D Mustang fighter aircraft.
I remember being a kid in school in the 70s and asking my teacher if we also rounded up the German americans when we were interning Japanese americans.......
@@robc.6629yea most she most likely had no choice back then you would get bootjacked by the McCarthy Nazi's if you didn't talk right...all the while Nixon was saling us out to the Chinese commies!!!
andee zaima Thats true, they don’t have a good view on China, South Korea and Russia, due to island disputes. My GF lives in japan and she still me their daily news
@@coffeelink943 and a sour relation with the rest of Eastern Asia due to not being like Germany and denying proven war crimes and not teaching it to newer generations so that it doesnt happen again
"In August 1945, the Kwantung Army was engaged by Soviet troops during the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. The Kwantung Army surrendered to the Soviets the day after the Surrender of Japan and was subsequently dissolved. The Kwantung Army was responsible for many of the worst Japanese war crimes during World War II, including the sponsorship of Unit 731 which performed biological warfare and human experimentation on civilians and prisoners of war." from Wikipedia. Seems like USSR made a big effort too, like US did, maybe even more. upd: okay, i got that kwantung army was a shit at that time, stop replaying. But at the same time, like some guy said, it accelerated surrender of japan, so I'm still considering that USSR made a big effort on Japan's defeat and got for it half of Korea, Sakhalin and Kurils. I DON'T SUPPORT COMMUNISM, IM JUST A RUSSIAN. I just didn't like the "only 2 days" thing. Hope you, "muricans" will understand. Peace and prosper for everyone.
@@topgear3128 Of course the army surrendered. How could the country surrender and still have an active invading army? In fact, the terms we gave Japan specifically were against the Japanese armed forces, and to withdraw from occupied territory. General Umezu signed for the armed forces. . Look, we are grateful that Russia decided to declare war on Japan. We had been asking them to for a while, because the atomic bombs may not have worked, and even if they did, the Japanese may have still fought on. Contrary to what many people think now, the Japan was not a weak country: they had deployed at least ten million personnel during the war, they fought ferociously, and they'd be fighting a defensive war. If they didn't accept the Potsdam declaration, the fighting would have been long and brutal. Having more allies would have sped up an invasion and decreased overall casualties. You can read Russia's declaration of war yourself for this. So we needed Russia to declare war on them to put extra pressure on them to surrender, and to help us in the invasion of Japan and in China and Korea in case they didn't. . But if you think that fighting for a few days against the meager troops left behind in the North makes Russia the top contributor, you are very wrong. Keep in mind that most of the Japanese Army was fighting in central China or preparing for an American invasion of the main islands. The troops that were left behind in the north were just a small garrison and police force. Russia and Japan had a Neutrality Pact between them, so Japan had no reason to post many troops on the border. In the same way, the Neutrality Pact had allowed Russia to pull most of its Eastern garrison to fight the Germans years earlier. Perhaps if Japan did not surrender, Russia would have been a top contributor in the years to come. But even then I seriously doubt that would have fought more than China did. . Russia did continue to fight Japan for a few weeks after Japan surrendered, but that was only to gain control of the Kuril Islands and Sankhalin. The Potsdam Accord already included giving up occupied China, Mengkukuo, Manchukuo, Korea, and most of their Pacific islands, so Russia was not fighting to free anymore in these few weeks. You could say this time period - after Japan surrendered - is similar to how Italy invaded France after France surrendered to Germany, because they wanted to gain some territory.
@@TKnightcrawler How does it cancel the fact that red army have completely destroyed Kwantung army? And, yeah, I can't say that USSR should to take half of japan, but he gets south Sakhalin, Kuril islands and power in Korea anyway. So, i just didn't like how you said "we fight for 2 days". USSR made a lot of effort too and it was very helpful for US, thank you for Western front and lend lease. Peace. last but not least: use "USSR" and "soviet" instead of "Russia" and "Russian". There's big difference between them.
@@topgear3128 I said "Russia" because I'm still not entirely sure when Russia proclaimed itself the USSR, and from what I have heard, it seems like Russia was really the only national power that had a voice in the USSR. I'm a bit confused, so I just said Russia/Russian. I will try to learn a bit more in the future, and I apologize if that offended you. . Well to the best of my knowledge, the Red Army never really fought the main Kwantung Army, they fought second-string garrison/police units. Imagine if Japan attacked the USSR in 1942. Or what if Turkey joined the Axis and attacked the USSR from the South in 1942? What kind of units do you think they would be fighting for the first few weeks? It's also similar to the German push through the Ardennes Forest in France; people say there was nobody defending it, but that's not quite true. There was a unit made entirely out of "old" men. Like I said, Japan's main army was a thousand miles south of where Soviet units were when Japan surrendered. Manchuria was captured by Japan in the 1932, and their army pushed south from there 8 years beforehand. However, if the war continued, the Red Army PROBABLY WOULD HAVE crushed the main Japanese army. Their supply lines would have been cut by the Red Army marching south, and the Japanese would have been sandwiched between Chinese and Russian forces. The only hope for the Japanese army in China would have been to retreat to the coast so they could put all their enemies ahead of them, but I don't think they would have done that. The Japanese home islands would have been difficult to attack for both the USSR and USA, but both our nations were ready to do so. . I said the USSR was only at war with Japan for 2 days, but after looking it up today, they declared war on August 9th, and Japan formally surrendered and agreed to the Potsdam Declaration on August 14th. On the 14th, Hirohito also sent his 3 brothers with military positions to Asia to personally inform the army units of the surrender, in case some wanted to keep fighting or didn't believe it. So it was 6 days. Hirohito's speech to the Japanese public was recorded on the 14th and broadcast on the 15th. The Soviet Union kept attacking for another 2 or 3 weeks. . I learned a lot while doing a bit of research to reply to you, though. I learned there was a failed coup on the night of August 14th/15th to keep Japan in the war. I learned that one man's paranoia really paid off, because he hid the recording well. And I learned that the Japanese also had scientists doing research on atomic bombs, and they had told their superiors that they doubted the US really had atomic bombs (this was before the second bomb was dropped), but if they did, that they only had a few. And you know what, those scientists were absolutely right. We used one bomb for testing and dropped two; we were out of bombs after Nagasaki. It would have taken another few weeks to make another bomb. . So what's my point? My point is if the Soviet Union did not decide to join the war, Japan might have called our bluff. To most Japanese, surrender was unthinkable (hence the attempted coup). They may have kept fighting, in a desperate hope that we had used all our bombs, or that they could shoot down all our bombers. And then a few weeks later, we would have used another bomb. The target would have either been Sapporo (to demonstrate that we could hit targets anywhere in Japan) or the Emperor's palace in Tokyo (which we had purposely avoided bombing through the whole war, even during the Doolittle Raid). So the USSR joining the war probably saved an entire Japanese city. . At the end of the day, I'm just glad the killing came to an end and Japan was able to prosper. Peace. :-)
The other Allied countries played smaller roles in WWII in Asia vs in Europe I guess, with the ROC busy defending greater China from Japan (besides HK, which was the UK colony then & got conquered IIRC), the USSR entering the war theatre around the Japan region later in the war (1945 I think), and the British, French & Dutch colonies capitulating to Japan by 1942 I think. Though on the flip side I guess, while the USA returned sovereignty back to most of Japan in 1952 (with Okinawa following suit 20 years later), Russia still controls the Sakhalin region (e.g. Kuril islands/Northern Territories) till the present day, as it wants a military presence deeper in the Pacific I think
@@bobing1752 HK: Hong Kong; IIRC: If I remember corrently; ROC: Republic of China (the government of Taiwan today, but also mainland China from 1910-1949 before the Chinese Communist Party took over). I meant that compared to in Europe, the USA did a larger proportion of the Allied war effort in Asia, so I guess it felt more entitled to a larger area of Japan
@@lzh4950 but Germany hasn't been shared equally compared to war participation. France wouldn't have got a lot and the USSR would have got most oh it. Still it hadn't been done so... that's why I don't feel that's THAT fair. But anyway the other Allies couldn't afford reparations except the USSR maybe, but that's still better than the US have rather than the USSR annex it forever.
@@basicnoob3832 No? The ROC still claims Tibet, Xinjiang, parts of India and even Mongolia until recently as a part of China. In fact its actually more ambitious than the PRC.
@@googane7755 just to be clear, the reason the modern ROC "claims" all that territory on paper is that giving it up is a clear signal to the mainland that Taiwan is fully breaking off ties and considering itself independent, which they don't really want to do
@@jojbenedoot7459 Relinquishing the borders of a dead empire over a 100 years ago doesn't mean you can't be the successor to china. I personally don't get people who use this logic, if this was the case then Mongolia and the UK has a legitimate claim on the entire world.
@@googane7755 the ROC doesn't press this claim or really care about legitimacy because it's not a "real" claim. They only have to maintain it on paper. The retake the mainland movement hasn't been big in Taiwan for decades
My grandfather spent a fair bit of time after the war on sentry duty outside the British Embassy in Tokyo. I remember him saying there was no way they'd divvy up Japan like they did Germany.
This is really interesting. I had always assumed the "partition" happened in Korea instead simply because American troops beat the Soviets to Japan. Didn't realize it was an agreed-upon thing beforehand, and never considered that the British and French had wanted their own sectors.
Well FDR talk several time about international trusteeship for korea to Churchill, Chiang and Stalin but result is still in gray area but most obvious is in yalta when FDR make agreement with Stalin for Soviet join pacific three month after war in Europe and according to agreement Soviet will take care japanese at mainland and US will take care Japanese on their main island because American think they will busy in japanese main island make them unable to send troops to korean peninsula but something unexpected happened suddenly scientist successfully developed nuke and then FDR die and replace by Truman. US gov decided to used nuke on japan to make them surrender with wasted any soldier to invaded them then after nagasaki, Soviet invaded manchuria then japanese surrender make power vacuum in Korea. Situation get tricky because Truman consider korea as part of Japan want share of korea for US then he decided to sent two young officers to decided border for both Soviet and American occupational forces next rest for history
My old metal working teacher served in Japan after the war as part of J force, a New Zealand armed services occupation force. So while the main occupation was by the USA, there was more than just Australian and Indian forces as part of the British empire team that served there.
Apart from the financial, political, and economic difficulties it would bring, another factor in why Chiang Kai-Shek and China opposed a divided occupation is because of Chiang's desire to create "an Asia for Asians". Chiang understood that an occupying force would not be desirable morally because he knew the Japanese were very strong willed and would resist, especially if the occupying forces were Chinese. He wanted a united Japan to keep it's independence (albeit in a weaker state) so that they could pursue self-determination without foreign influence. This didn't entirely happen because of the US occupation but he simply stated that if an occupation and division of any country was to happen, China would play no part in it. Not to mention that all the Asian powers wanted to stop any further European+US influence. Even during the war, Chiang was supportive of pro-independance movements in India, the Philippines, Indochina, Korea and more and promised that they would receive support after the war ended (this didn't happen unfortunately because of Chinese Civil War but still).
This part of history always left one sad and wondering what China/Asia/the world would be like if this alternative history were to happen. Though Chiang is a nationalist meaning that territorial disputes between China and neighbouring countries would probably still play a part but due to his strong stand against communism the relations between China and these countries (with the US standing behind) is likely to be much better. We probably would have a much more integrated and confident Asia with prosperity and solidarity.
Disclaimer: I am not a communist, just a student of history. This is incorrect. Chiang was not such a proponent for Asia for asians. In fact it was Mao Zedong and his communist who stood for that. The reason why toward the end of the War Mao won was due to popular support from the cities and rural areas. Why? 1) The rural areas became communist in their time fighting as guerillas under Mao 2) The cities intellectuals like in Shanghai were angered by Chiang's policies. At the end of the war, the US has bases in Shanghai, Guangzhou and there were many high profile rape cases of US soldiers on chinese women. Chiang allowed this to happen and welcomed US troops, creating a law that the US would handle these cases alone. (Often the US soldiers got away -merely returning to USA, one soldier recently passed away in the USA in the 21st century.) Many saw this as giving in to Western influence and it was why support was drawn away from Chiang.
Chiang would still be a thorn on Asia's side if they won, especially with the 9-dash line BS he claimed in 1942. To put it shortly, the fate of Asia rested between China and Japan...
@@devinwwt The US would not back China once the Soviet Union collapses. They would still be rivals but we could see United Korea and Japan more friendly with China and actively try to kick the US out, or maybe not due to the border disputes. Either way, a democratic China will still be an evil China in the eyes of the USA. In fact, China may not even be democratic under the KMT since Taiwan only became democratic because: 1) It was a small country (If Chiang died in control of a large China, no guarantee his son could democratize to the country as a larger country means more people vying for power. 2) It needed to differentiate from the Mainland (not much explanation needed) 3) Chiang was lost power (he was a dictator)
@@devinwwt Current China is an economic monster and the entirely of the world is majority its trade partners. East asia is prospering rapidly because of China. The nationalists would have opted for nationalist polices, such as protectionism and anti-trade leagues and would have been far more aggressive militarily towards their neighbours and would have soon not economic, but military domination of korea and japan.
New video suggestion: "What happened to Italy after the Second World War?" Since we always hear about Germany being divided, Japan being nuked and occupied by American forces, (see: this video,) but what the Allies did with Italy is an obscure enough interesting topic that would be perfect for a History Matters video.
Japan's land area smaller than the " State of California" occupied it very well. The U.S. power and influence also helped the Southern half of the Korean Peninsula.
That’s actually a very complex issue there were several reasons why. - the allies never truly trusted the Soviet Union and did not want them have anymore territory than they started with. -No one really knew how much Japanese civilians would have fought back. - an invasion would have prolonged the war, some thought until 1947 or 1948 at the latest. - A naval blockade was to prolong the war indefinitely, plus the famine that would have began. -then there’s the partial demobilization of the US military, they did not want to lose all their combat experienced troops from Europe, many who expected to be discharged. Nor did they want to lose their combat veterans from the pacific theater who would been expected to spearhead the invasion. Also the fact some troops sent to Europe saw little to no combat and were looking at discharge, but many from the pacific who had spent many months in combat zones yet their war was still going.
1:20 "Unsure if they would ever leave" That's a nice way of putting it considering the Soviet Union refused to leave every single holding it stuck its fingers into until the 1990's, and modern Russia is *still* trying to control some former Soviet territories that are definitely not theirs.
To be fair, the US never left Japan either, or any country they occupied after WWII for that matter ; unless they were kicked out (France for example). Granted, their situation isn’t as bad as warsaw pact countries, but they are still puppets with little to no self determination.
@@ufhb6649 I don't really agree. While I dislike American cultural hegemony and I think its decline is ultimately a good thing for the rest of the First World, I don't think you can compare the two. The US did spend decades asserting control over other nations, in particular Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines etc, but also Australia, the UK, France etc, but as early as the 1950's these countries were able to start pushing back because nobody in the US leadership was willing to go full Stalin and threaten to invade France if things didn't go their way. By the 70's Japan, South Korea and Taiwan were very much able to do their own thing. It doesn't really compare at all to East Germany, Soviet Romania, Soviet Mongolia, Chinese-occupied Tibet, etc.
HellbirdIV these countries are still full of American military bases, are pretty much forced to trade with the US, and in have no geopolitical weight at all except for Germany, who gained some back with the EU ; and they don’t have a say in this. This situation is indeed better that the one of Soviet puppets, but they’re still puppets.
@@HellbirdIV There are no "former Soviet" territories since the Soviet Union is the permanent member of the UN Security council (article 23 of the acting UN Charter), Russia has never passed an admission to the UN as a new independent country, She just sat in the place of the USSR and can reclaim its territorial integrity just like China kicked Taiwan from the UN in 1970.
Great video, I had no idea there were plans for dividing Japan, thank you for informing about it. Also here is an idea for new video I think could be super interesting and is not so simple idea: How did Poland get its borders after WW1? There were a lot of struggle between people and I think it would be a great topic to cover.
campkira That’s not true, the USSR absolutely destroyed the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea, so much that the Japanese High Command felt threatened and surrendered afterward.
@@alexandrebriard9175 if you think Russia smashing the feeble under strength Manchurian army is what caused japan to surrender, your understanding of history is pathetic.
In memory of the British Occupation Zone of Japan, the US didn't force all of Japan to switch to driving on the right side of the road (although they did Okinawa, which switched back to the left in 1978).
Patton reportedly said while we got the army let’s push Russia out. Seeing how the Cold War went and modern Russia are personally I think he was right.
@@codename1176 The Allied forces in Europe just couldn’t have stood up to the Red Army at the time. Europe was recovering from harsh losses and really proper American support would not arrive for quite a long time. Even with functional nuclear weapons, it would have been a slaughterfest. That’s why Patton was assassinated.
Not possible with the way Germany was divided up. To add more problems they had to leave NAZI's in key places after the war. The reason for that is if you hadn't been in a concentration camp for at least 6 months by the end of the war it's because you were an active and willing NAZI.
Before watching: I assume that part of the reason Germany was split and Japan wasn't is that there weren't multiple allied armies occupying Japan when they surrendered and that they unconditionally surrendered an intact state to the United States specifically. Germany was occupied by more than one enemy nation and the entire state was destroyed.
I am actually glad Japan wasn't carved up like Germany and Korea were; I don't want to imagine how much hell that would be considering what happened in those countries
Amazing to think how poor the northern half of Japan would be right now if it had been under control of the Soviets. Would literally be another Korea situation. Thank god more people weren't involved in such pointless suffering.
@@SuperCatacata dont place Japan with Korea lol. Japan would be much better as communists than North Korea, simply cus Japan society always had strong socialism veins, and still have them. i mean, even China is better at communism than North Korea. i would even call modern Japan as Capitalist Socialism, lmao. best from two worlds. smartest people in the world.
"because it was too expensive" oh if they only had James Bisonette
Kelly Moneymaker in this case!
@@TheKardiacKid Don't forget Danny Maloney and Rob Waterhouse
Nah, it’s Phil The Oink Oink.
@@martymethuselah looks like the 2 A bombs that y'all ate has cause your brain to mutate. Take your psych meds and scurry off to bed Scooter.
@@martymethuselah i mean 4 million of them died so u tell me who really won
Imagine there being a north and south Japans
Bruh
Not to difficult, in most of history it was like that
Ireland was divided into north and south and still is to this day
Then there wouldn’t be any 'good' anime coming from North japan
@@itsme-sn5gi But they both have similar goverment types
"...big enough favor that France take its colonies back."
Vietcongs: but Fun Fact, no
Edit: Viet Minh is more historically correct, as people pointed in responses.
Especially considering the French didn't oppose Japanese forces' arrival as they were under Vichy France's orders.
And then decolonisation of Africa thing...
Let's be real. When the Japanese came to Indochina, the French either surrendered or fled immediately. So they had no rights to come back there.
Umm, Akchually... it was the Viet Minh at that point
They're about the only European power left that still has sizable colonies.
About 15 years ago I was visiting Japan and met an elderly man who had been a child during WWII. He lived near Toyohashi, southeast of Nagoya. He said that when American planes began bombing his region very late in the war, there was, ironically, happiness among many people in that area because they knew it meant the US would occupy the area after the end of the war, and not the Soviets. They were very concerned about what would happen under a Soviet occupation.
Wow, interesting… Makes sense
My dad was with the Third Armored, and when rolling the tank columns through Germany, they were cheered by the German civilians because although they were afraid of the U.S. and British, they were TERRIFIED of the Soviets. History of course has shown us what happened the Soviet half of Germany.
And the soviet occupied half of Europe.
ikr 😅 there was even an operation to get germans to the allied controlled area of germany
Right they must have been so happy to get nuclear-bombed
This literally saved Japan from becoming another Korea. 100% guaranteed..
HailAnts and they tried to save another korea later. well, it failed sadly.
To be fair the the Veitnam thing started long before the US was involved, both the Korean war and the wars in indo China started at the same time. By the time the US went to Indo China there had been 11 years of most the other big powers in the area stomping around leaving a mess. It didn't help that barely trained kids were getting dropped into the middle of this war and told to fight a defensive policing action , not to pursue enemy units, and not to violate any boarders even the enemies while the other side was fighting an offensive full out war and using boarders to safely bypass southern defenses and move supply lines around openly. Also the almost 11 years of conflict, betrayal, and corruption before we got there left a place where not even an ally could be trusted. A complete breakdown of society that the US was not ready for having based their estimates on Korea which didn't account for terrain, local geography, or the effects of the previous prolonged fighting. Every modern war the US had been in featured a functioning society and power structure along with well defined belligerents and goals, in Veitnam there was none of this.
(Minor edit where autocorrect changed the word didn't to did)
@@KelsaRavenlock Yeah, and they only failed because they refused to go up North and decided to only defend the south instead of fighting the actual problem.
@@gofish7388 American politics was also at play. When Nixon was replaced by a Democrat, they didn't want to keep his promises to the south, that's why the commies won, they tested the Americans by going village by village and when no definitive retaliation from the USA, they just took over Vietnam.
@@facelesstrader1351 Communist take-over of South Vietnam took place under the Nixon and Ford administrations.
"Chiang Kai-shek was mostly concerned with getting the island of Formosa back..."
*It's a surprise tool that will help us later*
@@triandfit1 lmaoooo
best comment here, lmao
As someone living in Taiwan (Formosa), I ROFLed at this comment 🤣
Chiang Kai-shek be like: I know a place.
triandfit1 lol
America wanted to ensure the creation of anime
He knows too much.
A Potato which they later abandoned and Japan profit form it XD
*hentai
And NTR
.... Yes I'm an asshole
Douglas MacArthur's secret plan. It's why he kept the Emperor in power, he was a massive weeb.
One thing often forgotten is how fortunate it was for the Japanese to have MacArthur calling the shots after occupation. There were no other officers or statesmen with a better understanding of and respect for the history and belief system of the Japanese and other Asian countries. He was careful to interfere as little as possible with the traditional Japanese way of life when laying out the terms of the occupation. The transition of Japan from a vanquished, humiliated Pacific nation into global economic powerhouse in a short period of time waa largely due to the start he gave them. I always thought this was MacArthur's crowning achievement rather than anything he did during the war.
Is this the same guy that wanted to commit genocide on North Koreans and Chinese because they were commies? Is this the same guy who illegally used biological weapons against Chinese (also on Chinese soil) and Korean troops and wanted to nuke them? Wasn't it the guy who used bio-weapons designed by Isshi Shiro from Unit 731 who just committed a brutal genocide on the Chinese? What a nice and understanding guy he was.
One of his best decision is probably letting the monarchy stay relevant in a way instead of totally destroying it and replacing it with another with the condition that they must admit that the emperor is not a deity, but another human being
He was certainly a more respectful leader to the Japanese than he was to his own troops.
@@mcuddy799 The guy was a war criminal. He was even too much for Eisenhower. But will always be remembered as the guy who "helped" Japan.
@@kogoromori30 none of this negates what black circle said
“Britain was always happy to do a bit of occupying”💀💀frolicking through the field of flowers.. cracking me up not gonna lie.
"It's our thing!"
That with the frolicking was just more perfect when expected!
Yep. Not many many countries we haven't invaded, faught or generally pissed off. Still going strong at it as well.
Every single nation/country was happy doing a little occupying
I mean my country had the dutch east indies 😂 so yeh can't really say much about that and a i think a small part in the North in South ametica
"spreading civilization" actually.
Germany: *divided*
Japan: *nuked*
Italy: *laughs*
Germany and Japan went on to be economic powers, while Italy crying in the corner
@@arthas7 Italy is a large economic power. About 2/3 of Germany. It is not negligeable. Btw, I am not Italian.
@@christopheripoll2580 Italy at #9, while Japan and Germany at #3 and #4 despite being occupied is an achievement
@@arthas7 Germany and Japan are not really "occupied" since the end of WWII. There is a foreign military presence but there is no economical exploitation of those countries by a foreign power. On the contrary, Japan and Germany got lots of help to recover.
Plus they have larger populations than Italy, and their military budget is really low so that they can invest more in their economy. For instance, German military budget in lower than its French counterpart while Germany has 15M more inhabitants. Rakings of those 3 countries seems pretty logical to me.
@@christopheripoll2580 the GDP ranking is an outcome of their situation/s. I am in no way saying Italy had it easy or anything. And yeah, both Germany and Japan were occupied post WW2. The point of original post was Italy was in a way saved of the harshest hardships but luckily the outcome of that led to their rise. Since under US protection they didn't couldn't re-militarize, hence ofcourse saved on defense spending and their populations are generally known for their hard working etiquette. Hence prospered at a faster rate than Italy, and mind you they had to pay heavy reparations for war as well so it's not all sun and roses, but western powers helped build their economy because of learnings from WW1. Prosperity is the only way to mutual peace
I personally think avoiding a Japanese edition of the Korean War was fundamentally the best decision
@green dragon I know splitting Korea was a horrible idea now half of Koreans in the Korean peninsula are in severe poverty and communism thankfully it didn't happen to Japan and all of Japan is thriving
@green dragon But the west had no problem doing something similar to China, while you're here talking about "the proper thing to do" after all those war crimes. What a bunch of assholes.
@@jamesblack2179 It's worth analyzing historical decisions to determine which actions led to positive results, and which didn't; it really doesn't warrant any hostility.
@@UwU-ok2jr 1/3 of all koreans as south korea has twice as many people.
@@malgusvitiate7002 Yeah, it's not like doing exactly that to Germany after WWI is what lead to WWII or anything...
That "Now, it shouldn't surprise you that Britain was always happy to do a bit of occupying. it's our thing" made me laugh so hard
USA during WW2: I’m gonna end this man’s whole career
Also USA: I’m gonna start this man’s whole career
*Japan’s post war economic miracle
Normie
Dead meme
@War X IIRC the USA felt some guilt over it atomic bombing the 2 cities in Japan, so to make amends it helped funded the country's subsequent economic development
@@lzh4950 And they wanted to stop communism from spreading to Japan as well.
Funny how thing's work out, eh?
France and Britain: Can we join?
USA: You're all poor
And México only seeing from the other side f the room
To be fair, the US did invite the UK, but they were too poor and NOPED out. Giving France back Indochina was a mistake.
@@mrbisshie And rightly so, over one third of The US pacific fleet was actually the British Pacific fleet.
True they didnt have the favorable position of the US like in ww1 and ww2 generating huge profits trading with germans and the brits and french alike and only joining the war at the end getting the biggest spoils.
USA: Gives them a piece anyway.
Britain: Fails due to being poor.
USA: Told you so. Neener-neener
USA: K we won, Japan is ours now.
The other allied powers: wait... Why don't we get some?
USA: ok yeah, you get a share equivalent to how many nukes you dropped here...
USA: and how much money you have as well.
Allies: ok yeah, you get a share equivalent to how much u helped with the Germans
@@freshhbro The USA secured the possibility of DDAY therefore thinning Germanys forces out
ahking __revived no they didn’t, DDay would have gone ahead either way
Hori shet
My granduncle who was an officer in the Australian Army was in the occupation force in Japan. He once said that the American camps had their dinner very early and the British camps had their dinner very late.
That’s pretty cool, did he say anything else interesting regarding the occupation?
Fook me, mind blown 🙄.
Yes, interesting but a bit beside the point - no offense though.
is that a metaphor or are you literally talking about dinner
Incredible
Allies and USSR: We want a piece of Japan as well!
USA: I have nukes
Allies and USSR: _Understandable, have a great day_
@Cpl. Rook The USA had money because it didn't have its country bombed to shit.
@Cpl. Rook Thanks, Captain Obvious! I totally didn't know that!
That's why this is called a *M E M E*
@Cpl. Rook the USSR was broke too. That was why they started ripping up everything in Eastern Europe that wasn't nailed down (and much that was). In fact, while you can argue that the Cold War was inevitable, what actually started it was when the US stopped sending the USSR lend lease aid. We kept sending it to the Western Allies, and eventually replaced it with the Marshal Plan, Truman cut the USSR off as soon as the bullets stopped flying. The Soviets had been dependant on that aid, and by suddenly removing it, we did a great deal of harm to them. They were understandably pissed at us.
Jesse Berg well damn maybe they shouldn’t have occupied and puppeted all of Eastern Europe then if they didn’t want the aid removed lmao.
Britain did get some though, were you not watching the video?
America: "Britain and it's colonies didn't do anything in the Pacific."
Australia: *Anger*
Australia wasn't a British colony.
@@arrgghh1555 Neither was New Zealand, but he's clearly referring to both in the video.
@@arrgghh1555 Yes it was.
Arrgghh it was a dominion, settled by British colonists.
@@dbdb9334 Not in WWII
In short, as being the archnemesis of Japan, the US actually saved Japan from its own defeat
That’s rather confusing but you’re right lol
Americans love japan, we didnt want it destroyed, we wanted a quick win, and for japan to do thier thing and be good allies with us. which has and is beneficial for both parties. when pearl harbor happened it was the biggest mistake japan has ever made but it was also a blessing in disguise. Imperial japan wasnt a good nation to begin with, look at all the atrocities they committed. could you imagine what japan would be like today if they won. Lets just say it would be a really ruthless place constantly trying to oppress outsiders for being different and racism and bigotry and nationalism would be running rampant.
@@kcried1081 if that happens, i will be so disapointed as there will be no anime.
@Chris Sennwood in what regard, think every country has its own issues?
@Chris Sennwood Great comment mate.
“So we been talking about splitting Ja-
What’s that your unpacking US?”
*The US:* “just my A bomb so what were we talking about?”
*Allies:* “we been talking about giving you Japan”
It was not a matter of giving us Japan. No one else was there besides the Japanese. Take a look a the size of US forces in the Pacific. It was very different in Europe where the Russians did most of dying on the Allied side.
Wiki
By the end of World War II the U.S. Navy was by far the largest and most powerful navy in the world with 7,601 ships, including 28 aircraft carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv
It’s a joke. Take the joke. Laugh at the joke.
@@V1nce_man
I know its a joke. Its just not all that funny nor does that stop me from bringing in reality.
@@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv
I mean, you can’t really say it’s not funny. Because you’re not the one that can say if it’s funny, I think 135 people thought it was funny. Thus the likes.
@@V1nce_man
Oh but I can say it isn't ALL THAT funny.
I can type it. Really I can. You even read it so I CAN say/type it.
Also at that time, we didn't have another bomb. There was the one uranium bomb, the test plutonium bomb and the other plutonium bomb and a third plutonium core, AKA the Demon Core.
That was it for quite a while as even the plutonium was hard to deal with. Note that it was 3 plutonium to 1 uranium.
There were 2 tests in 46 then 3 in 48. This stuff was tricky.
Short Answer: We don't like Communists
Long Answer: We don't like Communists, and we want Anime.
EXTRA THICC answer: we don't like communists, and we want anime and mario
The USA did stop supporting the ROC/ _KuoMinTang_ in the civil war against the Chinese Communist Party/PRC due to the former's corruption though IIRC
Don't forget its squid porn subsidiaries.
but we want the opposite but ok
But Anime is Communism
Britain: Scissors beats paper
USSR: Rock beats scissors
USA: Nuke beats everything!!!
Nuke also means Joe don't get Hokkaido...
USA: Here's your rock *gives south Sakhalin*
Japan has been divided...Korea, Taiwan, the United States, China, and the Soviet Union have separated.It's like separating two states like Texas from the United States.
I would say the American fleet played a bigger role. The Soviet fleet was next to nonexistent right after ww2 and would not dare challenge the American fleet, which was the largest fleet ever assembled when ww2 ended.
@@yuchenchen8012 The largest fleet in the world is still nothing compared to a bomb that a single plane can deliver and will wipe out an entire city. The world feared the USA's nukes far more than they did their navy.
I am so glad there was at least one thing that was learned from WW1 which was to help rehabilitate the defeated countries to avoid what happened after WW1 (which was WW2).
Agreed. The Soviets first looted East Germany as payback and to help their industries, even pulling up the rail lines. But they realized this would leave an angry economic wreck. The West figured that out faster, though the French made a grab for the Saar.
Yeah, the bastards who run the world now’s predecessors castrated their enemies and made them worship and thank people who slaughtered and raped their way across their nations
The US offered Marshall plan Aid to everyone, including the soviets and eastern Europe. (The general idea being poor people are desperate and more likely to back "undesirable" ideologies, which to the US is anything not market capitalism)
Stalin refused to accept the aid because he didn't want to appear weak, and he also forbade all the nations now under his influence from accepting it either. The end result being that eastern Europe took much longer to recover than the West which was getting lots of aid from the relatively untouched and economically recovered USA. (WW2 greatly contributed to ending the great depression, turns out crazy high demand for manufacturing will fix an economy)
Rehab for enemy combatants but not for american citizens in prison, very american
Rehab the defeated countries ?
What happened after WWI ?
wtf are you talking about ?
I have learned through these videos that so many things that happen after wars because one side or another had no money. I never thought of it before, but now it makes total sense.
America: Here you go Britain, have some Japan.
Britain after a few years: Wait this costs money
Lmao
Doesn't that sum up the British Empire for like 3/4 of its history? "Woah! Ooff...this empire thing is expensive! Now...where do we get more cash?"
@@thunderbird1921 The British go to their cash cow....British Raj,Oh wait they became independent.Guess the british are broke now.
@@safiahmed4302 Nope, they the 5th largest economy in the world. Pretty impressive for a country with no natural resources guess India was draining it's resources.
@@alastair9446 its the other way around u fool
Kinda upset that there was no joke at the end :(
Also didn't Japan surrender to the US so they wouldn't be under occupation from the USSR?
They surrendered because they werent a fan of getting nuked by the usa
@@vitoscalita nukes played almost no role in making Japan surrender
@@fukinyouup
It did and he made a video about how their government reacted
I'm pretty sure that was the case. The Soviets would have been much more "unpleasant" than the U.S who let most of the government keep there positions.
@@fukinyouup saying absolutely nothing is absurd. Maybe not entirely due to Manchuria but it must of been a contributing factor
Japan *looks to the west*
USSR: *soon*
Murica: *not if I can stop you!*
edge lord Japan: we surrender America
Just don’t let Stalin hurt me
USA...opps i faked the Missouri show,.,.
sorry... Japan won..it is now the law...we lied
hehehe
@roosevelt__ How rude of you!
my nukes can stop you*
There’s one major difference between a “Japanese war” and the Korean war, Japan is highly populated in the South, the North has like nobody compared to it. Osaka, Tokyo, Kyoto, are in the south. The much smaller Sendai and Sapporo are the only cities take are some what major. South Japan would obliterate North Japan easily, with their massive population difference.
But then China, Russia, and the US (NATO) would get involved and suddenly local population differences matter less than the relative strength of the outsiders. In this scenario the south should still win because the US Navy could blocked the isalnd completely, the US almost conquered all of Korea but because of China conceded a large amount of conquered land back to the communists. (Pissing off a lot os soldiers who's friends had died for nothing as a result)
Also, there's no land border with China or the USSR so intervention from either countries will be very difficult.
well true. Korea was largely populated in the south before the divide as well. We had the major cities of Seoul, Kaesong(now north korean but used to be below the 38th parallel), and Busan. Meanwhile in northern Korea, there was only Pyeongyang. The reason why the south was more populous was because it was richer. The south had more fertile lands and the capital was located there and there were major ports in the south. Even now we see South Korea having 2 times the population of that of North Korea. But as a South Korean, I can't really say we can obliterate North Korea easily. They have a very large army, with each individual serving in the army for a long time, and most importantly they have nukes. In some ways we still may be stronger than them because of the idea of democracy, large reserve army, better weapons, healthy individuals and support by the west and her allies.
imagine if theres another kim jong ruling north japan
Well actually same with Korea.
Southern Korean population are twice than North and only Pyongyang and hamhung major cities there.
The only difference North have metal industries due to natural resources there and proximity with manchuria.
How did the Americans react to the English civil war?
I know Virginia was royalist but that's about it
It was KURWA!
American’s weren’t Puratin’s?
@@johnburns9634
Only in the north
@@johnburns9634 the ones in the North were mostly Puritans who mostly supported the Commonwealth whereas those in the South were mostly Anglican Royalists.
The American response to the Glorious Revolution was way more of a confusing shitshow.
Let me Sum up the video for you
Allies:No Nuke
USA: Nuke
Make that TWO nukes.
well those era nukes aren't really known yet,except in 1945
Interestingly, the one place the US allowed France to have back, Vietnam, was a big mistake. Letting Vietnam have independence after WWII might have mitigated the communist influence and the later reasons for war. Certainly letting the French back in control didn't help anything
are you sure about that?
I might be saying nonsense but communism mostly spread where there are poverty and a newly independant vietnam that got ravaged by war and that did not industrialise for years thanks to colonisation wouldn't be a wealthy country
fire creeper well I think IF America did have control over them I think it would have been rebuilt better so it might not had been so bad for them. If the French couldn’t build back their own land how could they build back their territories? We will never know though.
@@alonelyvessel2268 the orginal comment talked about an independant vietnam, you're about an occupied vietnam, this is different.
based on the american occupation of latin american (inferior) countries I think they wouldn't really industrialise the place greatly. they'd probably put military there though, but would they be able the vietcong in this timeline? I don't think so, they were efficient thanks to their abuse of the geneva convention, that wouldn't change here, and the us public would probably be more anti war than they were here as they'd say the conflict is just a response to the us occupation.
so I don't think an occupied vietnam would be better, unless they'd do something like allying to the chinese nationlist and stop communism spread early then I don't know how it'd be better
The north's gov flat out admitted they didn't give a shit about Communism, and just didn't want to be ruled by the French(cannot blame them). They just wanted to be freed from the French, which China and the USSR helped them achieve. Which funny enough, after the war, Vietnam and China went to war. Vietnam also ranks as one of the most pro-US countries in the world constantly. lol
Giving Vietnam back to France was a huge mistake.
@@alonelyvessel2268 to be honest with there is no other power except USSR and US have the power have the ability to keep territory for themselves. The French already broke so did the British. Holding on to your fomer colony seems to be a bad choice in this post WW. Even the British see this because their lost their most treasure colony India. Even though India is their Empire seats of power. Losing it their Empire is not going to be the 1st world power anymore.
I like it when you upload videos I enjoy watching it
My great granddad helped with the rebuilding of Japan. He was an engine room artificer and when the bomb landed on Hiroshima, he was sent to Canada, where he rode a train all across Canada, when he got to Japan, he was sent to Hiroshima. My Grandma has a picture of him stood with other British sailors and a Japanese building in front of the now Japanese peace memorial
Oh,. My,.
@Sam Turver Fascinating history. Thanks for sharing.
Let's be real, nobody wants a hentai communist propaganda
Wait-
>:I :I yeah imma go 'shower' now
UwU *Stalin you really ARE a man of steel*
Snoop Fraud
Stalin: Destroys anime and hentai
America: I won’t let them even I don’t know or care what it is if you surrender to us only
OUR girlfriend
You had my interest, now you have my attention
Allies: So, we're not splitting Japan?
USA: You're God Damn right.
Lol
Koreans: WE WILL KILL EACH OTHER BECAUSE WE LOVE IT!!!!!
I expect Truman said exactly that.
They never did
Alternatively...
Allies: So, how about Japan?
USA: We have nukes.
Allies: Understood.
Very good sir. You are brilliant to minimize the length of a subject matter like this.
Could you imagine if Tokyo was another Berlin during the Cold War?
PS2 game Ring of Red explores Japan being split between the Russians and USA, and obviously it led to both sides creating Gundams and fighting it out.
@@SSky06 wtf
Unlikely US will gave Tokyo to Soviet and USSR despite being enthusiastic for their shares never have any interest with their occupied terriories in far east because they still busy in Europe.
"No catalogue of horrors ever kept men from war. Before the war you always think that it’s not you that dies. But you will die, brother, if you go to it long enough.”
― Ernest Hemingway
You are everywhere
Bot deteced
Ur self promoting
in simpler term... you don't get anything in japan.. since no resource and most just nuclear waste land and you also had to feed them....since their economy was borken from ww2..
so THATS why the Americans like anime so much
@Katie Lewis *iPhone. Only country with more iOS than Android.
@Katie Lewis
it's only natural. Anime was originally inspired by Disney to begin with.
HETALIA:
After the war America and Japan found they shared same hobbies.
I mean, we get anime, video games, and Godzilla, they get Disney, iPhones, and pro-wrestling. I see this as an absolute win in the end. I just wish it didn't take 2 nukes to do it. But we are friends now.
@Katie Lewis after some "woke" thing emerge from disney,there are some decline regarding that,the same thing happened with marvel,i forget about those new heroes group name tho
You should do a video on “Why no Dutch Battleships?” Considering they had a Colonial Empire to protect and even minor powers like Spain and Argentina built dreadnoughts
They rarely join major wars
As an American, I wouldn't normally say this as I don't feel a lot of patriotism, but I feel like the decision to keep Japan under the control of ONLY the U.S. was the best plan. I can't imagine what kind of conflicts could have arose from having Britain, China, Soviets, and the U.S. in the same space. Germany clearly didn't work out so great, what with the whole East/West Germany thing for years after.
you did have britain in the same space..
The British and America could get along sharing occupation zones.Since they have similiar values and culture. But in the case of Japan likes stated in the Video Britain was completely broke at that point so they couldn't continue there occupation.The British did crucially saved the Japanese Monarch as the Americans were ready to oust them.And Britain did built infrastructure hence why former British occupied part of Japan use British outlets abd drive on the left side of the road.
American, britain and roc could get along but not for Soviet
As a history major who intends to lecture and has only recently found your videos, I just wanted to say thank you so much for making such entertaining and educational content. You're an inspiration and I hope that one day my lectures will be half as good as these videos
Go for it! I believe in you!
You got this bro
South Japan : Loves games, anime, sentai, doujins and hentai
North Japan : Hate all of those things
perfectly balanced
Well American influence Japanese popculture a lot
@@mimorisenpai8540Do you ever know the concept of splitting the country
@@fakihfakirullah9462 pretty much know
As a James myself, I do enjoy the half shoutout at the end of all videos.
When you did all the work in the group project and your partners say we all worked hard.
Lmao, to think Britain wanted to occupy Japan despite fucking up in defending Singapore. No sire, no thank you
@@dwaynethewokjohnson6646 just about a big fuck up as the phillippines in 1942
@@wulfB
difference is that the US managed to retake the Philippines a few years later
@@Erik_830 Difference is that the british were busy with the germans and italians when they lost Singapore. Meanwhile the philippines was lost when the US had absolutely no other engagements at the time. A much bigger fuck up. Besides, the british were going to land on Singapore and retake it in 1945, but the americans forced a delay on it, while knowing the exact date the japanese would surrender. Thus making it so that the recapture of sinagpore and malaya happened after it and thus, not during the war. Once the go ahead went on the british landed on Malaya days after the japanese surrender was announced, as the invasion fleet was merely on standby.
@@wulfB Seriously. The UK could no longer even fight a one-front war at home, let alone a 2nd front war on the other side of the globe. They were reduced to a ceremonial role in Postwar Japan. Give them credit for being the moral victors of WW2 who started and ended the war on the side of right and paid a price for it- compared to the Soviets who helped Hitler start the war then needed U.S. supplies to save their skins and ended the war with their borders enlarged.
USA: We are mighty, we defeated a mighty empire, and we now have weebs.........
ahh So they defeated the US in the Long Term then
@@oaples8790 what?
Anime is fucking good though
@@mrcaboosevg6089 agree
I'm a self proclaimed weeabo
USA to UK: Ok you did your bit, here's your bit of Japan.
UK: Actually old chap we're broke, you can have the lot :) GL HF
Yep... UK loves to occupy, so when they turn down an offer to occupy, you know they are not in good shape. LOL
I want to say that I really appreciate the details, like the uniforms (including MacArthur's pipe!) and the accuracy of each country's rifle drawings. That goes for all the videos, but this one had a nice variety so I'll comment it here 😁
The newest episode of questions i never thought of but i am now interested in
Same
This channel is just asking questions that I never knew I wanted to know but I always wanted to know
alot of japanese history skip alot of these.. but we all know usa don't share if they don't had to... nothing new there..
campkira what were the Russians gonna do? Swim to Japan?
The Pacific was mostly a war between the US and Japan, with the other powers only losing colonies or territories, which would become indepent in the future anyway. Plus, Truman's suspicions about the soviets were correct, and allowing a Soviet presence in Japan would only cause separation and war between it's as what happened with Korea.
To be fair, Australia contributed some as well. The Chinese did well to save Burma. The rest, though, were a disaster.
@@volbound1700 Burma was saved by British Indian troops dumb
@@shellblaster6932 it was saved by both chinese and british indians
@@jwdominionpyroraptor4775 most was done by British Indian troops . China already had his hands full against Japan on their eastern frontier
@@shellblaster6932 Not to mention that closer to the end, the Civil war was kicking back up. So one way or another, China wasn't gonna be doing occupying even if it wanted to.
In Japan there are literature, manga and anime that are based on the premise that Japan was split up after the war. For fiction, there are A.ja.pan by Toshihiko Yahagi, Seito by Daisuke Kato, Ichinobun no ichi by Hisashi Inoue, Nihon bunretsu by Yusuke Yamada. For manga the best known is 国境のエミーリャ kokkyo no Emilia by Kunihiko Ikeda. For anime there is The Place Promised in Our Early Days (雲のむこう、約束の場所) by Makoto Shinkai of “Your Name” fame.
Anime is a sin
It also happens in the Harry Turtledove novel Joe Steele, where the Manhattan Project never happened and consequently the Soviets invaded along with the US and took a portion for themselves.
@@IAMMRON Yeah, you probably *LOVE* that crap Hollywood has been putting out as of late.
@@SenileOtaku shhhh, let him consooooom his ultra hyperwoke comics and movies that is totally and objectively 1000% excellent
@@IAMMRON Are you joking?
Good thing the US did, imagine how Japan would have been if it was split between 4 countries, disaster. All and all the Americans did a fine job of the occupation, considering it was able to build itself up again and become one of the largest economies in the world.
Btw, no I don't think the various bombings on the mainland were good, since it basically just killed many innocent people. But it's history now.
If that's your opinion, can't change it. But, I think the bombs were crucial in the sense, it gave Japan a scar. A reminder, a motivator to come out on top of this horrid situation. Also, if the bombs weren't dropped, I don't think Japan would have surrendered. It would have cost even more bloodshed throughout the nation (more innocent lives) since both the Soviets and the Americans would have had no choice but to invade the mainlands. Imperial Japan was not a easy country to fight. Their resolve and perseverance was insane. Surrendering was worse than death to them. They had to have been forced into submission somehow, otherwise they never would have stopped the madness. For crying out loud, they were an Axis country who literally killed their own people as suicide pilots to secure a national victory. I mean.... How insane was that??? I think the first atomic bombs in history were used justly for the greater good of the not just Japan, but the world at large. Japan wouldn't be where they are today if that faithful day of August 6th 1945 didn't happen.
@@tigervalley62 Oh yeah of course, the atomic bombings were needed to end the war. The Japanese and Americans would have kept fighting until other countries came in, crippling the country even further. I more meant the bombers who weren't suppose to bomb Tokyo, because innocent people were killed. I think we can all agree war is ugly and people aren't evil unless they're led by an evil leader. So it's just a very bad situation.
Personally I don't dwell on what happened 70 years ago, unlike like some people, it's just interesting history.
@@angryfilmgamer570 Well, history is history. I don't think there were many things about that world war that were excitable. It was ugly. We can sit here and beat a dead horse, but the fact is its over with, like much of other parts of history. Yet some people in the 21st century still want to keep history alive by weaponizing it and keep up the finger pointing and blaming.
Born and raised in the US, but I've been to Japan. I love the country, i like the people, and i love the culture. Whatever past issues we had with that nation is in the past. Even with tensions rising with China today, I still try to remember that I can dislike governments but still like people from that nation. One of my closest friends is Chinese. Her and I rarely ever agree on US-China issues, but I still like her all the same.
As a Korean, I honestly feel a sense of hatred to BOTH the Soviets and The US for dividing my country, while Japan, who occupied us and helped the Nazis got off as the victim, and faced minimal punishment. The bombs were horrible, and a tragic tragedy, but it was neccessary in stopping the war in the sense.
@@nomad8130 Anger at the US? What would have happened if the US had rolled over and given all of Korea to USSR occupation? And make no mistake, that was the only realistic alternative.
Short answer: anti-communism.
Also, let's admit the fact that Douglas "Big Mac" MacArthur did some nice job to rebuild Japan.
You could say MacArthur's administration of Japan was a crowing achievement to a storied career!
Anyone who’s played Kaisserreich could tell you that
He was surely a competitive man...
Because when Rokossovsky took a power over Polish People's Armed Forces, they were still weak.
@@harrymorris2361 when I play as US, I pick either him or my boy Garner.
Best. Duo. Ever.
@@jackbenny4458 Like father, like son. His father arthur mcarthur was the governor general of the american occupied Philiplines. Douglas was glad he followed his fathers path.
Truman was right about the fact, that the Soviet Union doesn't leave once it occupies a place. When the USSR occupied the Kurile Islands they stated that those are rightfully Japanese and they only take them temporarily. Well they always prolonged that and even recently Russia said that the occupation is only temporary. This temporary period lasts now for 75 years.
Well it is temporary because eventually Earth will ne destroy and the Kurile islands will be no more. There for, it is a temporary occupation
Honestly, Russia needs no more land especially for small island chains like Kuril. Unlike Crimea or Vladivostok which has significant strategic value, I think Kuril has none (maybe it has resources like oil and fish, idk, but Russia has so much of them already)
While the only notable Japanese islands outside of the mainland are probably Okinawa and Bonin islands.
Which are pretty populated.
Giving it to Japan will improve relation, But it's almost impossible to peacefully annex a region nowadays, the national and international outrage will be immense, just like what happened to Crimea and Hong Kong.
Whot this island have to be' so special for both country?
I am curios about it
@@potato88872 Three words: warm water port.
Japan isn't giving it up because of treaty of San Francisco, Russia ain't gonna give it up because sea of okholsk is warm at the south and the southern tip of the islands are the gateway to the pacific.
Australia played a huge role in the war fighting Japan. The New Guinea campaign in particular was a brutal affair with the Australian military playing a crucial role, and taking the brunt of allied causalities.
@usuckcock i know right wtf. these history revisionists are a major insult to the US MARINES!
USA: We won!
USSR: what about me?
USA: No.
Japan: yay
What yay? The nukes?
@@Acalmujannahmalaysia Commie Lose
@@Touhou2006 what?
@@Acalmujannahmalaysia capitalism go brr
USA: You have Eastern Germany and everything in between. We want anime, dammit.
Meanwhile in an alternate universe:
North Japan vs South Japan
And also: Eastern Poland Vs. Western Poland.
There was a plan in, I believe, Yalta Conference, to split Poland in two. Western was supposed to look exactly the same as Poland looks today, and Eastern Poland was supposed to be made out of every territory Poland had lost in result of this war.
Imagine ,,Połączenie" (Polish word for English ,,Unification" and German ,,Anschluss") of those two Polands😀
@@Admiral45-10 You mean the western half of prewar Poland. There's no way that Poland would steal the Ostgebiete without losing the Kresy.
The Prussian Commie Slayer Hund. It was Stalin and his soldiers who committed genocide and then gave the land to the Poles. They didn’t steal anything. Source: grandparents who once lived there
どさくさに紛れて北海道ソ連に取られそう
There's an old PS2 game called Ring of Red about that exact scenario. It's set in the 60s and giant robots are involved.
James bizonet has returned
He was never gone...
he never left my dude
It's Bisonette.
Didn’t know I left
James Bissonette Hi Patreon Saint Of Cuba Im Julia from Bohemia
I've always been interested in this as I was born on a military base in Japan just after the occupation ended... I was told by an officer who served as one of MacArthur's advisors that MacArthur refused to concede anything to the Soviets... who actually sent officers to serve in the occupation governing council and MacArthur ignored them. However, they did occupy Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. Japan signed all rights to Sakhalin (a big loss since enormous oil reserves have been discovered there) and the Northern Kurils away in the Treaty of San Francisco, but still claims the Southern Kurils. Continued Russian occupation of those islands are the reason no final peace treaty has been successfully concluded between Japan and Russia to "end" WW2.
No joke. What the video narrator conveniently ignores is that the Soviets only joined mere days after the second bomb was dropped when it was clear that Japan was going to lose. While Sakhalin was theirs, the Kuril was an opportunistic claim. The USSR had almost no contribution to the Pacific theater, so why should they have been able to claim a 1/4 of Japan?
@@davidford3115 Yes. They had just destroyed their huge army on the continent and cut them off from resources. How dare they claim the territory of the former Russian Empire?
@@davidford3115 I think the threat of Soviet invasion partially contribute to the decision of Japanese emperor to surrender
@@doflamingo1360 Cart before the horse. Stalin was dithering on his entry into the Pacific War; he only declared war immediately AFTER the second bomb dropped when it became obvious that the war was already over.
None of that was up to MacArthur. He was following the directives of the President and the Joint Chiefs in terms of unyielding opposition to the designs of the USSR having influence in Japan. Mac Arthur's massive ego aside, the US policy would have been the same no matter which US General was in charge of the occupation. Harry Truman and George Marshall were the decision makers. MacArthur was the implementer of those decisions. MacArthur carried out the policy well but it wasn't his policy. Whatever the USSR got was only because the US approved it, the US government that is, not Gen. MacArthur. He lost his job during the Korean War because he didn't understand the difference.
Imagine if there's a North/South Japan divide similar to Korea. Sounds like an interesting alternate history timeline
@Greek Republican yes.
Greek Republican no
Nuke Germany
Split japan
Italy stays the same
IIRC there is a Makoto Shinkai movie (Director of Kimi no Na wa) that has that alternate timeline as a plot premise (edit: found it: Kumo no Mukō, Yakusoku no Basho (2004))
@Greek Republican nein
Say what you want about the US, but this literally saved Japan from any future conflicts. If it got split there would a North Korea/South Korea like situation.
Also, knowing the Soviets, you can bet that atrocities would happen in the first months of occupation. Just look at how people in Poland and East Germany were treated in the end of WW2.
You should read what those bastards did when they 'liberated' Manchuria
@@rusoviettovarich9221 Did the soviets raped the civilians?
I don't think US is a big fan of splitting countries, it's more of Brits fetish
@@rusoviettovarich9221 what did they please tell me
@@unkown686 Worst than that - they'd shoot civilians unless they gave them women - both Japanese and Chinese. Besides we're justa' bunch of communists and hey our great grandchildren will call themselves ANTIFA
America beating japan and them building them an amazing economy is the equivalent to slapping someone to their senses to stop them from going crazy.
America didnt "build their economy". American's in cooperation with Japanese government made reforms to land ownership, workers rights and market competition. The economic growth itself was done by japanese working hard and the gov supporting important industries. Stop talking out of your ass.
Why doesn't the United States help Liberia build a strong economy? The rapid economic development of Japan is because they are Japan
@@yxz4308
Well to be fair, Liberia was made because the US wanted to kick the Africans out since there were racist, and Liberia wasn't even controlled by the US government itself, its controlled by African-Americans.
@@konsta9600 That's a lie. The Japanese received lots of help building their economy. As an example, the UK taught Japan how to build cars as a way of building its economy. Today, the British have virtually no auto industry and the Japanese have a thriving auto industry.
@@kevinbrown-ge6sz No it’s not, what a stupid thing to say. ”The UK taught Japan how to build cars as a way of building its economy”. You got source on that?
If you mean the modernization process that started after Meiji Restauration, the Japanese studied all Western sciences and developed their political system and education system on the basis of German and British models. Do you call that ”uk helping japan”? Or do you mean after the war? What?
Japan’s automotive industry’s rise after war had nothing to do with UK. Of course Japan got a huge economic boost from Korean war by producing arms and steel for US and hosting their troops. The rise of the strategic industries after war was most because of government bureaucracy led planning of the said industries, for example coordinating prices of raw materials as a way of getting out of market failures and thus becoming a competitive import oriented economy.
You crack me up with your animations! That little guy running through with a sign saying “it’s our thing” made me laugh out loud
I haven't learnt much about the Pacific theater but the split of Japan with the USSR having the north is terrifying! I am so glad that it never came to that, its sad to think how different Japan would have been had that happened.
USSR would have ruined Hokkaido.
@@Fools_Requiem they already ruined the 4 islands, which weren’t even included in the deal
Don't forget, the USSR only declared war on Japan days after the second bomb dropped. They wanted the US to do all the work and come in at the last minute to claim war spoils. While Sakhalin Island was theirs to earn, the Kuril Islands were not.
@@davidford3115 Actually the USSR declared war on Japan the day before the bombing of Nagasaki and invaded Manchuria on the same day, and this was in accordance with an agreement at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 that the USSR would enter the war against Japan within three months of the end of the war in Europe. The Kuril Islands were part of the price the Soviets demanded for their agreement (Frank, Downfall p. 32).
@@charlesburton8124 technically it was 2 days prior, but yeah. The US knew what they were plotting
Besides retaking the south Sakhalin, Stalin also yoinked (I believe that is the technical term nowadays) the Kuril Islands, which remain a point of contention between Russia and Japan to this day.
We are still at war with Japan
@@Loreless but y'all seem rather cool
it noman land...
@@campkira if i remember correctly, the natives are already warming up to russian rule...
@@myczxr IIRC the Japanese residents at the Kuril islands/Northern Territories were evicted when they were conquered by the USSR upon Japan's defeat in WWII (though the residents are currently allowed to return to visit for short periods I recall). As they're mostly elderly, maybe it's believed that Japan's fight for those islands will weaken in the near future when those residents pass on?
Everyone else: "we won the war against japan so let-"
America: no
Everyone else: "but we-"
America: *pulls out atomic bombs* look at me. I'm the captain here.
tocayo
😂
Most of the allies didn't help there ,it was mostly the us and the two atomics sealed the deal no more fighting required.
To be honest really the other allies didn’t help and no other country is qualified to occupy japan.
America: That word, we, I don't think you know what it means.
Small point of order:
A brigade of Australian infantry were responsible for guarding the Japanese Imperial Palace between 1946-1952, and Australian forces occupied Hiroshima from the end of 1945.
The first battalion of Australian troops to fight in the Korean War in 1950 arrived from Japan, as did the first Royal Australian Air Force squadrons of P51D Mustang fighter aircraft.
Because they knew they wouldnt have anime in the future if they did
They still have anime because japanese animation already exist in 1900
I remember being a kid in school in the 70s and asking my teacher if we also rounded up the German americans when we were interning Japanese americans.......
Most of them already changed their names into english by WW1.
Your teacher ignored your question and reminded you that Franklin Roosevelt is still a civil rights hero to the Democrat Party.
@@robc.6629yea most she most likely had no choice back then you would get bootjacked by the McCarthy Nazi's if you didn't talk right...all the while Nixon was saling us out to the Chinese commies!!!
@@hymedude7378 Bitter pill FDR fanboy? That Democrat President sent 10,000 Asian Americans to concentration camps. FACT.
@@robc.6629 so why do you keep bringing him up?...
1:45
Japan to Stalin: "We hate you".
Lmao
Stalin: Cope
They are not wrong...
Japan kinda has bitter relations towards most if not all of it's nearest neighbors
andee zaima Thats true, they don’t have a good view on China, South Korea and Russia, due to island disputes. My GF lives in japan and she still me their daily news
@@coffeelink943 and a sour relation with the rest of Eastern Asia due to not being like Germany and denying proven war crimes and not teaching it to newer generations so that it doesnt happen again
Chiang Kai-shek when asking for Formosa: "It´s a suprise tool, that will help us later."
Russia: "Hey, we've been at war with Japan for 2 days, so... give us half of Japan!"
"In August 1945, the Kwantung Army was engaged by Soviet troops during the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. The Kwantung Army surrendered to the Soviets the day after the Surrender of Japan and was subsequently dissolved. The Kwantung Army was responsible for many of the worst Japanese war crimes during World War II, including the sponsorship of Unit 731 which performed biological warfare and human experimentation on civilians and prisoners of war." from Wikipedia.
Seems like USSR made a big effort too, like US did, maybe even more.
upd: okay, i got that kwantung army was a shit at that time, stop replaying. But at the same time, like some guy said, it accelerated surrender of japan, so I'm still considering that USSR made a big effort on Japan's defeat and got for it half of Korea, Sakhalin and Kurils. I DON'T SUPPORT COMMUNISM, IM JUST A RUSSIAN. I just didn't like the "only 2 days" thing. Hope you, "muricans" will understand. Peace and prosper for everyone.
@@topgear3128 Of course the army surrendered. How could the country surrender and still have an active invading army? In fact, the terms we gave Japan specifically were against the Japanese armed forces, and to withdraw from occupied territory. General Umezu signed for the armed forces.
.
Look, we are grateful that Russia decided to declare war on Japan. We had been asking them to for a while, because the atomic bombs may not have worked, and even if they did, the Japanese may have still fought on. Contrary to what many people think now, the Japan was not a weak country: they had deployed at least ten million personnel during the war, they fought ferociously, and they'd be fighting a defensive war. If they didn't accept the Potsdam declaration, the fighting would have been long and brutal. Having more allies would have sped up an invasion and decreased overall casualties. You can read Russia's declaration of war yourself for this. So we needed Russia to declare war on them to put extra pressure on them to surrender, and to help us in the invasion of Japan and in China and Korea in case they didn't.
.
But if you think that fighting for a few days against the meager troops left behind in the North makes Russia the top contributor, you are very wrong. Keep in mind that most of the Japanese Army was fighting in central China or preparing for an American invasion of the main islands. The troops that were left behind in the north were just a small garrison and police force. Russia and Japan had a Neutrality Pact between them, so Japan had no reason to post many troops on the border. In the same way, the Neutrality Pact had allowed Russia to pull most of its Eastern garrison to fight the Germans years earlier. Perhaps if Japan did not surrender, Russia would have been a top contributor in the years to come. But even then I seriously doubt that would have fought more than China did.
.
Russia did continue to fight Japan for a few weeks after Japan surrendered, but that was only to gain control of the Kuril Islands and Sankhalin. The Potsdam Accord already included giving up occupied China, Mengkukuo, Manchukuo, Korea, and most of their Pacific islands, so Russia was not fighting to free anymore in these few weeks. You could say this time period - after Japan surrendered - is similar to how Italy invaded France after France surrendered to Germany, because they wanted to gain some territory.
@@TKnightcrawler How does it cancel the fact that red army have completely destroyed Kwantung army? And, yeah, I can't say that USSR should to take half of japan, but he gets south Sakhalin, Kuril islands and power in Korea anyway. So, i just didn't like how you said "we fight for 2 days". USSR made a lot of effort too and it was very helpful for US, thank you for Western front and lend lease. Peace.
last but not least: use "USSR" and "soviet" instead of "Russia" and "Russian". There's big difference between them.
@@topgear3128 I said "Russia" because I'm still not entirely sure when Russia proclaimed itself the USSR, and from what I have heard, it seems like Russia was really the only national power that had a voice in the USSR. I'm a bit confused, so I just said Russia/Russian. I will try to learn a bit more in the future, and I apologize if that offended you.
.
Well to the best of my knowledge, the Red Army never really fought the main Kwantung Army, they fought second-string garrison/police units. Imagine if Japan attacked the USSR in 1942. Or what if Turkey joined the Axis and attacked the USSR from the South in 1942? What kind of units do you think they would be fighting for the first few weeks? It's also similar to the German push through the Ardennes Forest in France; people say there was nobody defending it, but that's not quite true. There was a unit made entirely out of "old" men. Like I said, Japan's main army was a thousand miles south of where Soviet units were when Japan surrendered. Manchuria was captured by Japan in the 1932, and their army pushed south from there 8 years beforehand. However, if the war continued, the Red Army PROBABLY WOULD HAVE crushed the main Japanese army. Their supply lines would have been cut by the Red Army marching south, and the Japanese would have been sandwiched between Chinese and Russian forces. The only hope for the Japanese army in China would have been to retreat to the coast so they could put all their enemies ahead of them, but I don't think they would have done that. The Japanese home islands would have been difficult to attack for both the USSR and USA, but both our nations were ready to do so.
.
I said the USSR was only at war with Japan for 2 days, but after looking it up today, they declared war on August 9th, and Japan formally surrendered and agreed to the Potsdam Declaration on August 14th. On the 14th, Hirohito also sent his 3 brothers with military positions to Asia to personally inform the army units of the surrender, in case some wanted to keep fighting or didn't believe it. So it was 6 days. Hirohito's speech to the Japanese public was recorded on the 14th and broadcast on the 15th. The Soviet Union kept attacking for another 2 or 3 weeks.
.
I learned a lot while doing a bit of research to reply to you, though. I learned there was a failed coup on the night of August 14th/15th to keep Japan in the war. I learned that one man's paranoia really paid off, because he hid the recording well. And I learned that the Japanese also had scientists doing research on atomic bombs, and they had told their superiors that they doubted the US really had atomic bombs (this was before the second bomb was dropped), but if they did, that they only had a few. And you know what, those scientists were absolutely right. We used one bomb for testing and dropped two; we were out of bombs after Nagasaki. It would have taken another few weeks to make another bomb.
.
So what's my point? My point is if the Soviet Union did not decide to join the war, Japan might have called our bluff. To most Japanese, surrender was unthinkable (hence the attempted coup). They may have kept fighting, in a desperate hope that we had used all our bombs, or that they could shoot down all our bombers. And then a few weeks later, we would have used another bomb. The target would have either been Sapporo (to demonstrate that we could hit targets anywhere in Japan) or the Emperor's palace in Tokyo (which we had purposely avoided bombing through the whole war, even during the Doolittle Raid). So the USSR joining the war probably saved an entire Japanese city.
.
At the end of the day, I'm just glad the killing came to an end and Japan was able to prosper. Peace. :-)
@@topgear3128 And just so you know I'm not a hater, I do realize and agree that the USSR fought more in WWII than any other allied power.
*Before the video*
Me: "Because 'MURICA"
*After the video*
Also me: "Because 'MURICA"
The other Allied countries played smaller roles in WWII in Asia vs in Europe I guess, with the ROC busy defending greater China from Japan (besides HK, which was the UK colony then & got conquered IIRC), the USSR entering the war theatre around the Japan region later in the war (1945 I think), and the British, French & Dutch colonies capitulating to Japan by 1942 I think. Though on the flip side I guess, while the USA returned sovereignty back to most of Japan in 1952 (with Okinawa following suit 20 years later), Russia still controls the Sakhalin region (e.g. Kuril islands/Northern Territories) till the present day, as it wants a military presence deeper in the Pacific I think
@@lzh4950 What do HK, IIRC, and ROC stand for? I really don't understand the first part of your com but I want to know.
@@bobing1752 HK: Hong Kong; IIRC: If I remember corrently; ROC: Republic of China (the government of Taiwan today, but also mainland China from 1910-1949 before the Chinese Communist Party took over). I meant that compared to in Europe, the USA did a larger proportion of the Allied war effort in Asia, so I guess it felt more entitled to a larger area of Japan
@@lzh4950 oh yeah you're right
@@lzh4950 but Germany hasn't been shared equally compared to war participation. France wouldn't have got a lot and the USSR would have got most oh it. Still it hadn't been done so... that's why I don't feel that's THAT fair. But anyway the other Allies couldn't afford reparations except the USSR maybe, but that's still better than the US have rather than the USSR annex it forever.
China: "So, you are saying that island of Shikoku is Chinese? Ok then. Added to the list of provinces soon to be reunited with the motherland."
The republic of China, allowed Tibet and other western chinese countries to become independent, it was the PRC which Wanted to annex all of china
@@basicnoob3832 No? The ROC still claims Tibet, Xinjiang, parts of India and even Mongolia until recently as a part of China. In fact its actually more ambitious than the PRC.
@@googane7755 just to be clear, the reason the modern ROC "claims" all that territory on paper is that giving it up is a clear signal to the mainland that Taiwan is fully breaking off ties and considering itself independent, which they don't really want to do
@@jojbenedoot7459 Relinquishing the borders of a dead empire over a 100 years ago doesn't mean you can't be the successor to china. I personally don't get people who use this logic, if this was the case then Mongolia and the UK has a legitimate claim on the entire world.
@@googane7755 the ROC doesn't press this claim or really care about legitimacy because it's not a "real" claim. They only have to maintain it on paper. The retake the mainland movement hasn't been big in Taiwan for decades
My students loved this. even they don't like learning but this video calmed them down
My grandfather spent a fair bit of time after the war on sentry duty outside the British Embassy in Tokyo. I remember him saying there was no way they'd divvy up Japan like they did Germany.
do some geography...& u may know why, germany divide but not japan,
@@gibraltarchan9750 Do some geography?
This is really interesting. I had always assumed the "partition" happened in Korea instead simply because American troops beat the Soviets to Japan. Didn't realize it was an agreed-upon thing beforehand, and never considered that the British and French had wanted their own sectors.
Well FDR talk several time about international trusteeship for korea to Churchill, Chiang and Stalin but result is still in gray area but most obvious is in yalta when FDR make agreement with Stalin for Soviet join pacific three month after war in Europe and according to agreement Soviet will take care japanese at mainland and US will take care Japanese on their main island because American think they will busy in japanese main island make them unable to send troops to korean peninsula but something unexpected happened suddenly scientist successfully developed nuke and then FDR die and replace by Truman. US gov decided to used nuke on japan to make them surrender with wasted any soldier to invaded them then after nagasaki, Soviet invaded manchuria then japanese surrender make power vacuum in Korea.
Situation get tricky because Truman consider korea as part of Japan want share of korea for US then he decided to sent two young officers to decided border for both Soviet and American occupational forces next rest for history
Stalin, Attlee, de Gaulle: We want some say in Japan.
Truman: And people in Hell want ice water.
My old metal working teacher served in Japan after the war as part of J force, a New Zealand armed services occupation force. So while the main occupation was by the USA, there was more than just Australian and Indian forces as part of the British empire team that served there.
You guys do such an awesome job with these! Perfect amount of information along with humor. Thank you for these!
I'm reminded of South Park, except the characters do no talking.
Apart from the financial, political, and economic difficulties it would bring, another factor in why Chiang Kai-Shek and China opposed a divided occupation is because of Chiang's desire to create "an Asia for Asians". Chiang understood that an occupying force would not be desirable morally because he knew the Japanese were very strong willed and would resist, especially if the occupying forces were Chinese. He wanted a united Japan to keep it's independence (albeit in a weaker state) so that they could pursue self-determination without foreign influence. This didn't entirely happen because of the US occupation but he simply stated that if an occupation and division of any country was to happen, China would play no part in it.
Not to mention that all the Asian powers wanted to stop any further European+US influence. Even during the war, Chiang was supportive of pro-independance movements in India, the Philippines, Indochina, Korea and more and promised that they would receive support after the war ended (this didn't happen unfortunately because of Chinese Civil War but still).
This part of history always left one sad and wondering what China/Asia/the world would be like if this alternative history were to happen. Though Chiang is a nationalist meaning that territorial disputes between China and neighbouring countries would probably still play a part but due to his strong stand against communism the relations between China and these countries (with the US standing behind) is likely to be much better. We probably would have a much more integrated and confident Asia with prosperity and solidarity.
Disclaimer: I am not a communist, just a student of history.
This is incorrect. Chiang was not such a proponent for Asia for asians. In fact it was Mao Zedong and his communist who stood for that. The reason why toward the end of the War Mao won was due to popular support from the cities and rural areas. Why?
1) The rural areas became communist in their time fighting as guerillas under Mao
2) The cities intellectuals like in Shanghai were angered by Chiang's policies. At the end of the war, the US has bases in Shanghai, Guangzhou and there were many high profile rape cases of US soldiers on chinese women. Chiang allowed this to happen and welcomed US troops, creating a law that the US would handle these cases alone. (Often the US soldiers got away -merely returning to USA, one soldier recently passed away in the USA in the 21st century.) Many saw this as giving in to Western influence and it was why support was drawn away from Chiang.
Chiang would still be a thorn on Asia's side if they won, especially with the 9-dash line BS he claimed in 1942. To put it shortly, the fate of Asia rested between China and Japan...
@@devinwwt The US would not back China once the Soviet Union collapses. They would still be rivals but we could see United Korea and Japan more friendly with China and actively try to kick the US out, or maybe not due to the border disputes. Either way, a democratic China will still be an evil China in the eyes of the USA. In fact, China may not even be democratic under the KMT since Taiwan only became democratic because:
1) It was a small country (If Chiang died in control of a large China, no guarantee his son could democratize to the country as a larger country means more people vying for power.
2) It needed to differentiate from the Mainland (not much explanation needed)
3) Chiang was lost power (he was a dictator)
@@devinwwt Current China is an economic monster and the entirely of the world is majority its trade partners. East asia is prospering rapidly because of China. The nationalists would have opted for nationalist polices, such as protectionism and anti-trade leagues and would have been far more aggressive militarily towards their neighbours and would have soon not economic, but military domination of korea and japan.
Love the British man running through the fields.
New video suggestion:
"What happened to Italy after the Second World War?"
Since we always hear about Germany being divided, Japan being nuked and occupied by American forces, (see: this video,) but what the Allies did with Italy is an obscure enough interesting topic that would be perfect for a History Matters video.
2:31 LMAO That disappointed look from the US is sending me🤣🤣🤣
LMAO thank you :D
Japan's land area smaller than the " State of California" occupied it very well. The U.S. power and influence also helped the Southern half of the Korean Peninsula.
That’s actually a very complex issue there were several reasons why.
- the allies never truly trusted the Soviet Union and did not want them have anymore territory than they started with.
-No one really knew how much Japanese civilians would have fought back.
- an invasion would have prolonged the war, some thought until 1947 or 1948 at the latest.
- A naval blockade was to prolong the war indefinitely, plus the famine that would have began.
-then there’s the partial demobilization of the US military, they did not want to lose all their combat experienced troops from Europe, many who expected to be discharged. Nor did they want to lose their combat veterans from the pacific theater who would been expected to spearhead the invasion.
Also the fact some troops sent to Europe saw little to no combat and were looking at discharge, but many from the pacific who had spent many months in combat zones yet their war was still going.
"Who nobody argued with due to their unique nuclear arsenal" had me laughing out loud!
1:20 "Unsure if they would ever leave"
That's a nice way of putting it considering the Soviet Union refused to leave every single holding it stuck its fingers into until the 1990's, and modern Russia is *still* trying to control some former Soviet territories that are definitely not theirs.
To be fair, the US never left Japan either, or any country they occupied after WWII for that matter ; unless they were kicked out (France for example).
Granted, their situation isn’t as bad as warsaw pact countries, but they are still puppets with little to no self determination.
@@ufhb6649 I don't really agree. While I dislike American cultural hegemony and I think its decline is ultimately a good thing for the rest of the First World, I don't think you can compare the two.
The US did spend decades asserting control over other nations, in particular Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines etc, but also Australia, the UK, France etc, but as early as the 1950's these countries were able to start pushing back because nobody in the US leadership was willing to go full Stalin and threaten to invade France if things didn't go their way.
By the 70's Japan, South Korea and Taiwan were very much able to do their own thing. It doesn't really compare at all to East Germany, Soviet Romania, Soviet Mongolia, Chinese-occupied Tibet, etc.
HellbirdIV these countries are still full of American military bases, are pretty much forced to trade with the US, and in have no geopolitical weight at all except for Germany, who gained some back with the EU ; and they don’t have a say in this. This situation is indeed better that the one of Soviet puppets, but they’re still puppets.
@@HellbirdIV There are no "former Soviet" territories since the Soviet Union is the permanent member of the UN Security council (article 23 of the acting UN Charter), Russia has never passed an admission to the UN as a new independent country, She just sat in the place of the USSR and can reclaim its territorial integrity just like China kicked Taiwan from the UN in 1970.
Great video, I had no idea there were plans for dividing Japan, thank you for informing about it. Also here is an idea for new video I think could be super interesting and is not so simple idea: How did Poland get its borders after WW1? There were a lot of struggle between people and I think it would be a great topic to cover.
Russia: Can I have some Japan?
USA: COMMUNISM DETECTED ON AMERICAN SOIL _readies nuke_
LETHAL FORCE ENGAGED
hard since they had no army in that side to force people to gave people land... they allover europe...
campkira That’s not true, the USSR absolutely destroyed the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea, so much that the Japanese High Command felt threatened and surrendered afterward.
@@alexandrebriard9175 if you think Russia smashing the feeble under strength Manchurian army is what caused japan to surrender, your understanding of history is pathetic.
In memory of the British Occupation Zone of Japan, the US didn't force all of Japan to switch to driving on the right side of the road (although they did Okinawa, which switched back to the left in 1978).
This was the best possible outcome for Japan, and they profited enormously from it in the short and long term. If only Germany had been so lucky.
Patton reportedly said while we got the army let’s push Russia out. Seeing how the Cold War went and modern Russia are personally I think he was right.
@@codename1176 The Allied forces in Europe just couldn’t have stood up to the Red Army at the time. Europe was recovering from harsh losses and really proper American support would not arrive for quite a long time. Even with functional nuclear weapons, it would have been a slaughterfest. That’s why Patton was assassinated.
Germany fucked around and found out
Not possible with the way Germany was divided up. To add more problems they had to leave NAZI's in key places after the war. The reason for that is if you hadn't been in a concentration camp for at least 6 months by the end of the war it's because you were an active and willing NAZI.
West Germany did pretty well.
2:09 the angry Stalin portrait in the back got me good
This is amazing, and considering that I studied Japanese history in college, I am shocked that I didn't know this.
Imagine if Japan were split though. Hatsune Miku might have spoken a language more strongly influenced by Russian than the Tokyo dialect.
Germany and Korea: I envy you Japan
Japan: ,,But you know I became an American Protectorate?"
West Germany and South Korea: *Who said we're not?*
*Vietnam crying in the corner*
USS Anime DD24 envy japan? korean should eternally grateful for that they saved from communists.
Germany & Korea - I envy you Japan.
USA - Then I nuke you . Twice
Patryk Podbiał
Thats bullshit
Only Bavaria and Hesse were american protectorates for about 4 years
to summarize
only the US has the moral and financial asset to occupy Japan
Before watching: I assume that part of the reason Germany was split and Japan wasn't is that there weren't multiple allied armies occupying Japan when they surrendered and that they unconditionally surrendered an intact state to the United States specifically. Germany was occupied by more than one enemy nation and the entire state was destroyed.
I am actually glad Japan wasn't carved up like Germany and Korea were; I don't want to imagine how much hell that would be considering what happened in those countries
Amazing to think how poor the northern half of Japan would be right now if it had been under control of the Soviets.
Would literally be another Korea situation. Thank god more people weren't involved in such pointless suffering.
@@SuperCatacata dont place Japan with Korea lol. Japan would be much better as communists than North Korea, simply cus Japan society always had strong socialism veins, and still have them. i mean, even China is better at communism than North Korea.
i would even call modern Japan as Capitalist Socialism, lmao. best from two worlds. smartest people in the world.