2:10 Calling Kalkhin Gol a "border skirmish" is kind of a huge understatement. The battle went on for months, involved entire armies, and resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. Neither the Japanese nor the Soviets wanted to back down, but they both weren't ready to escalate the conflict further, so the battle basically just ground on for months. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#
Okay, not to play Devil's Advocate here, but why would you trust a Japanese author any less than a Chinese one? Sounds like some racism to me, and rather unwarranted considering what appears to be a lack of sympathy or research from the other point of view.
This part of the war is so often overlooked and China gets almost no credit in defeating Japan. People only know that Japan advanced a lot but don't know that they were loosing in China by the war's end. The neglect against China is so bad that if you search up the battle of west hunan on google, (an often overlooked major Chinese victory) the two flags that show up are Japan's and America's, and only 11 of America's pilots died in the 2 month battle. It pisses me off that the rest of the world doesn't recognize the sacrifice made by the Chinese was almost as great of that of the USSR
Yep. He's delusional. Here's some real evidance. Testimony from Imperial Japan veterans. edition.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9808/16/japan.war.crimes/ Japanese newspaper during the invasion of Nanking. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword
I can tell no one is going to change your mind about this issue and you are not going to change anyone else's, is there really a point to arguing about this then?
I do not get when people say that the Japanese weakened the Kuomintang. Chiang Kai-shek was in a more powerful position and control more of China by the end of the second Sino-Japanese war. From what I can see, the fall of the Kuomintang in mainland China was by poor decision making, corruption, lack of trust and support of the Chinese people, and further support of the Chinese communist party by both the Soviet Union and the Chinese people.
Chiang Kai-shek was absolutely not in a better position after the war. China's infrastructure and industry (which Chiang's government had put so much effort into building up during the Najing Decade) was smashed and devastated. The Nationalist army was exhausted after nearly a decade of constant combat, while the Communists had become stronger by allowing Chiang to take the brunt of the attack. Of course, Chiang himself made many mistakes (kind of an understatement), but the Communists simply wouldn't have been in a position to take power if the war had never happened.
The communists also had higher morale. The KMT lacked the will to fight by 1947, and the Beijing offensive by the communist saw 2 million Chinese defecting to their side. The KMT had a chance in the Manchurian offensive of 1946 to wipe them out but was stopped by the US in fear it would provoke the Soviet Union.
***** even the Japanese created Indian POWs cruelly. There was an incident after the battle of Singapore, where Japanese soldiers used Sihks for target practice.
I read the Poppy War (book 1) and seeing as the author had studied history I decided to check out how much was real...... most of the horrible acts were indeed based on truth.
Saying you would trust a Japanese account of this history as much as a Chinese account is like saying you would trust someone who did something terrible to an innocent person and then denied it all ‼️ People are generally biased against Chinese people, for whatever reason i dont know. But if Chinese people did something like the nanjing massacre to japan way more people would be condemning the chinese than people are condemning the japanese now. Why doesnt japan admit and apologise for SOMETHING AS TERRIBLE AS UNIT 731.
+William If you study history you know not to trust either side fully. I mean the Chinese account now says the Communist party played a far more decisive role in the war than they did and often ignores Americas involvement. Or say you medieval history, sometimes they say a massacre killed tens of thousands, when in reality it was probably just a few hundred. Being the victim doesnt make your sources and claims more accurate.
Jabzy Well do u dispute the numbers of the Holocaust? no. because people already fully condemned the nazis. the same cant be said of the japanese who committed the nanjing massacre and UNIT 731 (both of which were worse than anything the nazis ever did)! What the video conveniently DIDNT mention was that the madmen of unit 731 ended up leading successful careers after the USA bought their experimental data and granted them immunity. The whole thing is crazy, and no one seems to condemn it? if they granted any nazis immunity there would be massive backlash! I think it boils down to bias against chinese people, which is worsened by the so-called "weeaboos". and im a law student not a history student but i still see the bias against chinese people
William Yes, you are obviously not a history student, lol. The holocaust numbers are accepted not just because we hated the Nazis, but because people went there counted remains, looked at records, and exhumed remains that weren't cremated. Also, interviewed guards, workers and witnesses. And quite a few Nazis were given immunity, mostly scientists and engineers, who went to both the United States and the Soviet Union. You ever heard of Werner von Braun? Smh
Hey Jabzy, I've wondered - back in 2015 your voice sounded a lot better, clearer, probably because you used a different mic. Why the sudden decline in voice quality (ie why did you get a new mic?)
It is two independent wars, but this Second Sino-Japanese War bled over into WW2 relations outside of just Chinese and Japanese. So it's also considered by some to be part of WW2.
tip, when you look at history, look at the ones who lost everything, not the ones who took everything. Japan never even apologized for the nanjing massacre/rape of nanjing.
More in the line that the USSR was the common potential foe of both Japan and Germany. Nazis being Nazis and the threat Stalin posed to Manchuria put them as likely allies against the Soviets (resulting in the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1936). The outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937 forced Hitler to choose a side and he chose the latter.
anonymous anonymous The Nazis and the Japanese fascists clicked. The Chinese-German relations still stemmed back to Weimar Republic ties, and mostly centered around Chinese resources against German Know-How. Hitler was stupid, so he supported the eastern nazi, that would lose, while the KMT enjoyed good relations with the allies.
Correction, Japan was not fascist. It had a few traits that at first glance seems fascist but it is not. It is a de-facto military dictatorship. Fascism has state-controlled industry. Japan did not. In fact there is Zaibatsu which is more plutocratic in nature, a sign of hardcore capitalism. Not exactly in line with fascism. Later on japan did start taking control of the industry, but because that is during desperate wartime, this is actually common practice in nations that are in total war. Various allied countries did the same, like US which rationed food and ceased automotive production so the factories could be used for tanks. And nationalism. Nationalism is a key defining part of fascism, but nationalism alone is not a sole determining factor as many right-wing and even some left-wing political ideas have heavy sense of nationalism. The Germans were also not Fascist. They were national-socialism. Similar in many ways except for a key difference. Race. Fascism is only for one purpose and that is national unity. Regardless of class or race or religion. It doesn't abolish the class system like communism but it doesn't discriminate against them. National socialism targets selected people where as fascism would incorporate them. Germany isn't fascism since, isolating a group of people is not unity in which Fascism preaches. Italy is fascist, and maybe Spain, but I haven't read enough about Spain to be 100% sure.
Overall your stuff is good, but I keep seeing you separate Tibet from China in several videos of Chinese modern history, such as Sino-Jap wars and Chinese civil war...etc. which is incorrect and very close to historical revisionism. Tibet was never really independent during that period, both ROC and PRC regime never agree with it, besides,Tibet still accepted government representative of ROC during republic era. Maybe you can double check your sources. Here is a documentary made by US during WWII and you can see they didn't separate them apart back then. ruclips.net/video/H9yKqcs699k/видео.html
The map on that video is terrible. It includes Mongolia which had broken away from China and seems to include Nepal and Bhutan. But Tibet declared independence in 1913 and it ran itself virtually independently. China had virtually no influence there, for instance in 1930 the Tibetans even tried to invade the West and it was only after the battle of Chamdo that the Chinese re-entered Tibetan politics.
The problem is even if Chinese central government had very little control there before 1950 doesn't mean you can just separate them apart all you like. That's not how most people saw it back then. Tibet ran itself virtually independently but there were almost no one recognized its independence other than very very few countries such as British (Old British's interference is also one of the reasons there are so many issues exist till today ), and Chinese central government, regardless the regimes, never abandon its sovereignty in Tibet, and it always has state department to run business there, how much influence did it have is another matter. And during 1940, the ROC government had already tried to reestablish relationship between Lhasa and central government, peacefully. You can address that China's territory was divided or disputed or government had little influence back then, but you cannot just totally ignore its existence, otherwise it will be rewriting history.
FYI, during WW2, the ROC government in Chongqing(重慶國民政府) even had plan to relocate the central government to Lahsa to keep fighting if Chongqing fall to Japanese army. So if you think most people back then thought Tibet is not China's territory then you're wrong, Japanese imperial army certainly didn't think so.
Mao made the new historical term " Second Sino-Japanese". Who declares war? There were negotiations form both of them. during the period. It was Mao communist who set fighting between Japan and Chiang Kai Shek.
Another reason I think of you as a credible presenter. Unlike so many others, you don't instantly and blindly credit the atomic bombs with the Japanese Surrender. The Soviets invaded at midnight on August 8th and entirely crushed the Japanese army in China (which had over a million men) in less than a week. The Japanese didn't surrender because America was bombing them. America had been bombing them for months, burning their cities with incendiaries and murdering millions. Bigger bombs don't change that dynamic. What changed was that the Japanese Army was completely destroyed in Manchuria. In under a month, Japan lost practically all of their mainland holdings and the entire army defending it. Japan had to surrender immediately or else it would have been Japan, not Korea, which was split in half and jointly occupied by the allied powers. A Soviet occupation would mean no more Emperor and the Japanese officials would have stood trial for both their war crimes and their atrocities during the war. Avoiding Soviet occupation of Japan was the reason the US accepted the Japanese surrender even though it came with the condition that the Emperor not be deposed. The United States: Always willing to let mass murderers off the hook if it'll keep capitalism and corporations in power. ...*yay*
gnet kuji Looks like someone's been watching alternate history hub. Dropping the bomb was essential. Just not for the reason you think it is. It prevented a World War 3 that would be coming very soon and reshape do the mindset of most people on Massive wars.
I've never watched alternate history hub. If they agree with me, then yay for them, I suppose. As for "It prevented WW3" I disagree. The Soviets having atomic weapons prevented WW3. If the US alone had had atomic weapons, they would have found an excuse to go to war with the USSR and then used the bombs to win the war. Instead the Soviets managed to steal the plans for atomic weapons and develop their own before the end of the decade. Without a nuclear armed Soviet Union, there would have been no reason for Truman to limit the Korean War or to fire MacArthur for trying to provoke a wider conflict with China. That's not to say that the Soviets were automatically more moral than the US. It's entirely possible that if the USSR had had atomic weapons and the United States did not, then WW3 might well have still happened. It's not having the power to use such weapons without fear of retaliation in kind which prevented another great war.
gnet kuji This point isn't to debate if the two atomic bombings were the specific reason Japan surrendered, but they were a paradigm shift in the nature of strategic bombing. You went from a situation where a huge force had to be put up to mount an effective raid to one where a few aircraft could wipe a city out. Clearly, there must have been enormous fear that the US would drop a nuclear bomb on Tokyo and given the desperate state of air defence at that point in the war the chances of bringing a nuclear sortie down was slim. Plus the US atom bomb building machine was just coming up to speed and the US could have sustained a series of nuclear attacks over several months.
Lmao the americans dealt the most damage against the Japanese, from bombing and taking their pacific colonies through island hopping as well as completely destroying their navy which was the backbone of their military
Pradhyumna Pradhyumna You lost on the other thread and decided to come here? You must be a Japanese Superfan. And he said they are all evil, can't you read?
So typical selective bias. What about testimony from Imperial Japan veterans? edition.cnn.com/ what about Japanese newspaper during the invasion of Nanking? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword
Asia is important and interesting, dont let them discourage you from continuing this series
2:10 Calling Kalkhin Gol a "border skirmish" is kind of a huge understatement. The battle went on for months, involved entire armies, and resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. Neither the Japanese nor the Soviets wanted to back down, but they both weren't ready to escalate the conflict further, so the battle basically just ground on for months.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#
JurzGarz Ive done a video on it
Plundering: *exists
Japan: now this is some gourmet shit
With all the atrocities the Japanese committed on the Chinese its easy to tell why they despise each other so much.
*****
Even if it happened to be a hoax we still have things like Unit 731 and other massacres that the Japanese did
Pradhyumna Pradhyumna please it's a hoax by the chinese, look at this absolutely not biased, impartial source a japanese website
***** Random Japanese author? LOL! More bullshit. The original population of Taiwan are not Hakka.
Okay, not to play Devil's Advocate here, but why would you trust a Japanese author any less than a Chinese one? Sounds like some racism to me, and rather unwarranted considering what appears to be a lack of sympathy or research from the other point of view.
Pradhyumna Pradhyumna agent orange isn't a fucking hoax you traitor to Asia.
yup.. still confused as heck.. but still a good video Jabzy
"The Greater East Asia CoProspriety Sphere"
This is the sorriest justification for a war I've ever heard
Alpha Killer basically japan just want to expanded there empire.
They didn’t have many natural resources, China on the other hand did so it was invasion time.
true true, almost as silly as invading a country while accusing them of having weapons of mass destruction while having thousands of A-bombs
@@alx3238 lmao too real
Although if you listen to americans talk about it, it was clearly for "muh freedoms" lol
Thank you for uploading this video. This is very detailed and accurate.
these are great videos Jazby!
This part of the war is so often overlooked and China gets almost no credit in defeating Japan. People only know that Japan advanced a lot but don't know that they were loosing in China by the war's end. The neglect against China is so bad that if you search up the battle of west hunan on google, (an often overlooked major Chinese victory) the two flags that show up are Japan's and America's, and only 11 of America's pilots died in the 2 month battle. It pisses me off that the rest of the world doesn't recognize the sacrifice made by the Chinese was almost as great of that of the USSR
Really like this series on china, it's been very interesting!
Hey Jabzy, what sources did you use to make this video? I'm thinking about making a video on WW2 in the Far East as well.
Isn't that a Japanese guy?
Yep. He's delusional. Here's some real evidance.
Testimony from Imperial Japan veterans.
edition.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9808/16/japan.war.crimes/
Japanese newspaper during the invasion of Nanking.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword
***** These were Japanese mate.
Hyperion just ignore his dumbass.
I can tell no one is going to change your mind about this issue and you are not going to change anyone else's, is there really a point to arguing about this then?
Awesome stuff! Do the Vietnam War next? Pretty please? :)
I do not get when people say that the Japanese weakened the Kuomintang. Chiang Kai-shek was in a more powerful position and control more of China by the end of the second Sino-Japanese war. From what I can see, the fall of the Kuomintang in mainland China was by poor decision making, corruption, lack of trust and support of the Chinese people, and further support of the Chinese communist party by both the Soviet Union and the Chinese people.
Chiang Kai-shek was absolutely not in a better position after the war. China's infrastructure and industry (which Chiang's government had put so much effort into building up during the Najing Decade) was smashed and devastated. The Nationalist army was exhausted after nearly a decade of constant combat, while the Communists had become stronger by allowing Chiang to take the brunt of the attack.
Of course, Chiang himself made many mistakes (kind of an understatement), but the Communists simply wouldn't have been in a position to take power if the war had never happened.
+محمد بك not true, you're deceived by Communist propaganda, the communists did nothing except hinder the Koumingtang, the true government of China
The communists also had higher morale. The KMT lacked the will to fight by 1947, and the Beijing offensive by the communist saw 2 million Chinese defecting to their side. The KMT had a chance in the Manchurian offensive of 1946 to wipe them out but was stopped by the US in fear it would provoke the Soviet Union.
***** even the Japanese created Indian POWs cruelly. There was an incident after the battle of Singapore, where Japanese soldiers used Sihks for target practice.
***** Nanking was not a "garrison town". It was the fucking capital city of China back then.
Oh! Like from Ip Man! I learned about the war from that movie.
Is it possible if I can get the transcript?
Lol.
can you do the Angola civil War
reincarnation of Kurt Cobain this!
No battle of West Hunan? Dang.
Earliest I've been on a video. Nice one :)
I read the Poppy War (book 1) and seeing as the author had studied history I decided to check out how much was real...... most of the horrible acts were indeed based on truth.
coming here after reading the poppy war as well
Here from the poppy war as well! It’s amazing how much true history is weaved in the book
Great video
4 minute history****
did it for the memes
That was great!
So, now you're out of early 20th Century China. What are you going to do next?
I've redone the Chinese Civil War, then the Finnish Civil War, Portuguese War of Succession and Herero and Namaqua Genocide
Why are you re-doing the Chinese Civil War?
anonymous anonymous to focus more on the communists
Jabzy I thought it was to focus on everything in more detail.
Could you perhaps go into the New Zealand wars?
Saying you would trust a Japanese account of this history as much as a Chinese account is like saying you would trust someone who did something terrible to an innocent person and then denied it all ‼️ People are generally biased against Chinese people, for whatever reason i dont know. But if Chinese people did something like the nanjing massacre to japan way more people would be condemning the chinese than people are condemning the japanese now. Why doesnt japan admit and apologise for SOMETHING AS TERRIBLE AS UNIT 731.
+William If you study history you know not to trust either side fully. I mean the Chinese account now says the Communist party played a far more decisive role in the war than they did and often ignores Americas involvement.
Or say you medieval history, sometimes they say a massacre killed tens of thousands, when in reality it was probably just a few hundred. Being the victim doesnt make your sources and claims more accurate.
Jabzy Well do u dispute the numbers of the Holocaust? no. because people already fully condemned the nazis. the same cant be said of the japanese who committed the nanjing massacre and UNIT 731 (both of which were worse than anything the nazis ever did)! What the video conveniently DIDNT mention was that the madmen of unit 731 ended up leading successful careers after the USA bought their experimental data and granted them immunity. The whole thing is crazy, and no one seems to condemn it? if they granted any nazis immunity there would be massive backlash! I think it boils down to bias against chinese people, which is worsened by the so-called "weeaboos". and im a law student not a history student but i still see the bias against chinese people
William Yes, you are obviously not a history student, lol. The holocaust numbers are accepted not just because we hated the Nazis, but because people went there counted remains, looked at records, and exhumed remains that weren't cremated. Also, interviewed guards, workers and witnesses.
And quite a few Nazis were given immunity, mostly scientists and engineers, who went to both the United States and the Soviet Union. You ever heard of Werner von Braun? Smh
Keith Roy no excavation were ever done in the supposed death camps, you sir just merely soak up the victors version of history.
Keith Roy ruclips.net/video/mmrHBT5h-BA/видео.html
Hey Jabzy, I've wondered - back in 2015 your voice sounded a lot better, clearer, probably because you used a different mic. Why the sudden decline in voice quality (ie why did you get a new mic?)
who invited this kid
getcho ass out
even though your animation is not that good still its good
Taiwan and Mainland friendship forever!
My social studies teacher sent me here😃🤛
Wait so the Second Sino-Japanese war is WW2? I thought they were two separate wars according to Japan
More accurately put, Second Sino-Japanese war is a part of WW2, Just like Eastern Front(German-Soviet War) .
It is two independent wars, but this Second Sino-Japanese War bled over into WW2 relations outside of just Chinese and Japanese. So it's also considered by some to be part of WW2.
tip, when you look at history, look at the ones who lost everything, not the ones who took everything. Japan never even apologized for the nanjing massacre/rape of nanjing.
Um how about 4 mins cuz it is
Early July,11,1938 Oct,28,1938 540,000 Chinese Japanese Have Died That War
Please do the Vietnam War
Chinese guy in the thumbnail has a very similar mustache.....
could you do the hungarian uprising?
Ip Man
Why did the Japanese form an alliance with Germany when the Chinese already did?
Both Germany and Japan saw US and Britain as future rivals
Ah.
More in the line that the USSR was the common potential foe of both Japan and Germany. Nazis being Nazis and the threat Stalin posed to Manchuria put them as likely allies against the Soviets (resulting in the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1936). The outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937 forced Hitler to choose a side and he chose the latter.
anonymous anonymous The Nazis and the Japanese fascists clicked. The Chinese-German relations still stemmed back to Weimar Republic ties, and mostly centered around Chinese resources against German Know-How. Hitler was stupid, so he supported the eastern nazi, that would lose, while the KMT enjoyed good relations with the allies.
Correction, Japan was not fascist. It had a few traits that at first glance seems fascist but it is not. It is a de-facto military dictatorship.
Fascism has state-controlled industry. Japan did not. In fact there is Zaibatsu which is more plutocratic in nature, a sign of hardcore capitalism. Not exactly in line with fascism.
Later on japan did start taking control of the industry, but because that is during desperate wartime, this is actually common practice in nations that are in total war.
Various allied countries did the same, like US which rationed food and ceased automotive production so the factories could be used for tanks.
And nationalism. Nationalism is a key defining part of fascism, but nationalism alone is not a sole determining factor as many right-wing and even some left-wing political ideas have heavy sense of nationalism.
The Germans were also not Fascist. They were national-socialism. Similar in many ways except for a key difference. Race. Fascism is only for one purpose and that is national unity. Regardless of class or race or religion. It doesn't abolish the class system like communism but it doesn't discriminate against them. National socialism targets selected people where as fascism would incorporate them. Germany isn't fascism since, isolating a group of people is not unity in which Fascism preaches.
Italy is fascist, and maybe Spain, but I haven't read enough about Spain to be 100% sure.
"3 minute history"
this is 4 minutes 44 seconds.
still good tho
3 minute history???
The misleading political ads on every history video I try to watch are very worrying
Overall your stuff is good, but I keep seeing you separate Tibet from China in several videos of Chinese modern history, such as Sino-Jap wars and Chinese civil war...etc. which is incorrect and very close to historical revisionism. Tibet was never really independent during that period, both ROC and PRC regime never agree with it, besides,Tibet still accepted government representative of ROC during republic era. Maybe you can double check your sources. Here is a documentary made by US during WWII and you can see they didn't separate them apart back then.
ruclips.net/video/H9yKqcs699k/видео.html
The map on that video is terrible. It includes Mongolia which had broken away from China and seems to include Nepal and Bhutan. But Tibet declared independence in 1913 and it ran itself virtually independently. China had virtually no influence there, for instance in 1930 the Tibetans even tried to invade the West and it was only after the battle of Chamdo that the Chinese re-entered Tibetan politics.
The problem is even if Chinese central government had very little control there before 1950 doesn't mean you can just separate them apart all you like. That's not how most people saw it back then. Tibet ran itself virtually independently but there were almost no one recognized its independence other than very very few countries such as British (Old British's interference is also one of the reasons there are so many issues exist till today ), and Chinese central government, regardless the regimes, never abandon its sovereignty in Tibet, and it always has state department to run business there, how much influence did it have is another matter. And during 1940, the ROC government had already tried to reestablish relationship between Lhasa and central government, peacefully.
You can address that China's territory was divided or disputed or government had little influence back then, but you cannot just totally ignore its existence, otherwise it will be rewriting history.
FYI, during WW2, the ROC government in Chongqing(重慶國民政府) even had plan to relocate the central government to Lahsa to keep fighting if Chongqing fall to Japanese army. So if you think most people back then thought Tibet is not China's territory then you're wrong, Japanese imperial army certainly didn't think so.
Wait this is 4:44 minutes 😂
Suez Crisis
Earl Johnson Yes!
Mao made the new historical term " Second Sino-Japanese". Who declares war? There were negotiations form both of them. during the period. It was Mao communist who set fighting between Japan and Chiang Kai Shek.
Motoko Cheng Any evidence for somehow ‘negotiations’? Clearly Japanese had to invade China to get a better strategic advantage in Pacific area.
What a conspiracy theory
this is 4 mins
Another reason I think of you as a credible presenter. Unlike so many others, you don't instantly and blindly credit the atomic bombs with the Japanese Surrender. The Soviets invaded at midnight on August 8th and entirely crushed the Japanese army in China (which had over a million men) in less than a week. The Japanese didn't surrender because America was bombing them. America had been bombing them for months, burning their cities with incendiaries and murdering millions. Bigger bombs don't change that dynamic. What changed was that the Japanese Army was completely destroyed in Manchuria. In under a month, Japan lost practically all of their mainland holdings and the entire army defending it. Japan had to surrender immediately or else it would have been Japan, not Korea, which was split in half and jointly occupied by the allied powers. A Soviet occupation would mean no more Emperor and the Japanese officials would have stood trial for both their war crimes and their atrocities during the war. Avoiding Soviet occupation of Japan was the reason the US accepted the Japanese surrender even though it came with the condition that the Emperor not be deposed. The United States: Always willing to let mass murderers off the hook if it'll keep capitalism and corporations in power. ...*yay*
gnet kuji Looks like someone's been watching alternate history hub. Dropping the bomb was essential. Just not for the reason you think it is. It prevented a World War 3 that would be coming very soon and reshape do the mindset of most people on Massive wars.
I've never watched alternate history hub. If they agree with me, then yay for them, I suppose. As for "It prevented WW3" I disagree. The Soviets having atomic weapons prevented WW3. If the US alone had had atomic weapons, they would have found an excuse to go to war with the USSR and then used the bombs to win the war. Instead the Soviets managed to steal the plans for atomic weapons and develop their own before the end of the decade. Without a nuclear armed Soviet Union, there would have been no reason for Truman to limit the Korean War or to fire MacArthur for trying to provoke a wider conflict with China. That's not to say that the Soviets were automatically more moral than the US. It's entirely possible that if the USSR had had atomic weapons and the United States did not, then WW3 might well have still happened. It's not having the power to use such weapons without fear of retaliation in kind which prevented another great war.
gnet kuji This point isn't to debate if the two atomic bombings were the specific reason Japan surrendered, but they were a paradigm shift in the nature of strategic bombing. You went from a situation where a huge force had to be put up to mount an effective raid to one where a few aircraft could wipe a city out. Clearly, there must have been enormous fear that the US would drop a nuclear bomb on Tokyo and given the desperate state of air defence at that point in the war the chances of bringing a nuclear sortie down was slim. Plus the US atom bomb building machine was just coming up to speed and the US could have sustained a series of nuclear attacks over several months.
leakycheese Tokyo was already in ruins it was firebombed to hell
Lmao the americans dealt the most damage against the Japanese, from bombing and taking their pacific colonies through island hopping as well as completely destroying their navy which was the backbone of their military
You are liar video not long 3 minuts it's 4
this is video is 4:44 -_- hehe jk
Wuhan, ha
164th
first
Killllll
Coexist Azeri /MappingArmen 2.0/ War in a nutshell
TENOHEIKKA BANZAIII!!
rape of nanking never happened, that's silly revisionism
Gwynlar It happened. Deal with it.
Deal with what? Fairy tales? おろかもの。
Pradhyumna Pradhyumna You lost on the other thread and decided to come here? You must be a Japanese Superfan. And he said they are all evil, can't you read?
+Pradhyumna Pradhyumna We gave you confessions from the Japanese themselves, and yet you'd still believe Agent Orange. LOL.
So typical selective bias.
What about testimony from Imperial Japan veterans?
edition.cnn.com/
what about Japanese newspaper during the invasion of Nanking?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword
Nanjing not 'nanking'. beijing not 'peking" xiang gang not 'hong kong'
And Hong Kong is still the generally accepted name for that city.
liang longlong Xiang gang is the Chinese name of Hong Kong.
Hyperion yes mandarin chinese, Hongkong is cantonose chinese
...Why would you insist everyone to use Pingyin? It serves no purpose whilst making life difficult for all...
南京not "nanjing: 北京not "beijing" 香港not "xiang gang"
Asian Jew :)