This is such a great example of what happens when poor preparation and lack of cohesion leads to the worst possible strategy having to be implemented simply because there are no other options left.
If you have the time, a video on the Chinese civil war in terms of military movements and strategy would be very interesting. It's a topic that is rarely covered in the west from a military and tactical perspective, with most commentators focusing on societal dimensions and how the opposing sides implemented policy to win support from different segments of the Chinese population rather than what military maneuvers they made, the effectiveness of those decisions, and the logistical and strategic constraints that led to those decisions.That might be due to a lack of English sources covering the Chinese civil war in detail, but as someone fluent in Chinese (I'm assuming) you might be able to find books that detail military movements blow by blow. Since the conflict stretches in 3 stages from the 1930s to 1949, there's also opportunity to analyze how the different sides switch military strategies as the war progressed or even make a multi-part video depending on how much info you find. Great channel, lots of interesting analysis and clear but also detailed presentation. Your videos are some of the few I can enjoy watching without leaving due to historical inaccuracies, oversimplification, or just blatant politicking. Keep up the good work!
Third! As a Canadian war buff the East, Africa and South America are sort of black holes in my knowledge as I struggle to find content in english. The western information bias is a thing, I just wish people could comment citing helpful links with english sources. ( good luck I know)
Great sources and from skimming through my impression is that is likely a great video. Nice one, keep it up! Edit: since my facebook followers confirmed my first impression, I gave it a share on my community tab, hopefully you get more views and subs.
@Marty Man The rape of nanking, slaughter of untold civilians, the production of enough bubonic plague to kill the planet was just a misstep in liberation...I guess..
I haven't even watched the video yet to form my own opinion on it or the channel as a whole. But an endorsement from Military History Visualized is worth as subscription to me.
Excellent presentation; perhaps the most memorable 40-odd minutes I've spent on RUclips in many months. The low-key narration worried me at the start, but after just a couple minutes of viewing you had me hooked! Even your minimalist production values and simplified graphics come across very well and add considerably to the educational value, which is remarkable in light of the subject-matter's intense complexity. I hope you won't mind some polite suggestions: (1) Consider briefly highlighting the captions as they appear, with highlights sync'd to your voiceover; (2) For sake of the viewer's reading (whether follow-along or catch-up), maybe allow the graphics a bit more screen-time as each segment trails off to a new title; (3) Provide voiceover or a visual key for some abbreviations, like 'DEI' - took me a minute to figure that one out! Again, I very much enjoyed this video. Thanks for posting it to RUclips!
@@decem_sagittae Of all the comments where someone tries to provide advice to a RUclipsr, this is one of the most respectful that Ive seen. It suggests rather than demands. I think this constructive critisism was meant in good faith, and was well received (see Strategy Stuff's comment).
@@StrategyStuff Did you quit uploading? Was hoping you’d address some of the things Citino and Roberts said about the Wehrmacht and wether they were entirely accurate or just somewhat. Cheers
I am Japanese myself. I have found it difficult to understand the dynamic in the Japanese military where a mid to low ranking officer could influence events and his superiors to such a degree. Very interesting time.
@@-caesarian-6078 Look into the concept of the “strategy corporal”, it was a popular concept in western militaries in the 2000s and early 2010s. It is becoming less popular now though as technological improvements mean political and military decision makers have access to intelligence much faster. In short, for much of the afghan and iraq wars, the lowest level of battlefield leader was empowered and enabled to make real time decisions as regards use of force, interaction with local allies and resources. The men on the field were trusted to have made the best decision at the time as they had the most up to date information. The advantage is greater ability to rapidly take control of highly chaotic situations, the disadvantage is policy makers and logisticians are often left out of the loop. The men on the ground may also be unaware of larger political and strategic factors and constraints, hence it is falling out of favour. You might also like to research the western military concept of “mission command”.
@@DavidSharpMSc This is a good explanation of the US policy of mission command, but I disagree that it is the same thing as what I understand the original poster to be referring to. It is sometimes referred to as gekokujō: where someone of a lower position overthrows someone of a higher position using military or political might. There were numerous incidents of sweeping changes to military policy/strategy and assassination of high-ranking officers and political leaders by lower level Japanese officers. 1) A well known example is the Mukden/Manchurian Incident, the false-flag operation to provoke a war with the Chinese forces in Manchuria before a Major General sent by the Japanese Minister of War could arrive and reign in the more junior insubordinate and militarist officers in charge on the ground. 2) There was the Huanggutun incident, where a junior officer in the Kwantung Army cooked up and led a plot to assassinate their own ally/puppet, the warlord in control of Manchuria. 3) In the May 15 Incident, young naval officers and army cadets assassinated Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi. In all cases, the perpetrators received either no punishment or light sentences and were considered heroes by other right-wing militarists. Any of these actions would lead to court-martial and serious repercussions in the US military or modern Japanese military. 4) Similar incidents culminated in the February 26 Incident, "an attempted coup d'état in the Empire of Japan on 26 February 1936. It was organized by a group of young Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) officers with the goal of purging the government and military leadership of their factional rivals and ideological opponents." [Wikipedia] This time, the consequences for the perpetrators were severe, but their actions had a had a lasting effect: "[...] the military, now free from infighting, increased its control over the civilian government, which had been severely weakened by the assassination of key moderate and liberal-minded leaders."[Wikipedia] I believe these incidents strongly contributed to Japan's headstrong militarism and loss of civilian political control, which led to them start a war that they could not win.
This is the most well-researched, balanced, and insightful explanation I have found on the Internet about the factors and reasons that led to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. What amazes me is how out of touch with reality Japan's warrior class was in the period leading up to Pearl Harbor.
dude, they were experimenting with strategies, you'll have to be somewhat thinking outside the box to actually. experiment some of those strategies. as during those times, it's Eat or Be Eaten. =_= besides, technically, Japan can still hold of US Invasion even after the loses at Okinawa to battle of Attrition. it will result in a stalemate as the reinforcement from the other colonies haven't truly been defeated yet. only with the Atomic Bomb, which they have no way of Countering that they finally surrendered and captured total victory over the Japanese Forces.
@@ayami123 You are sort of correct, but the Americans proved they could do just as much damage with fire bombing as they did with the atomic bomb. America could have simply burned every city to the ground unopposed by any meaningful air force. Accomplishing the same thing. It would not have forced a surrender as quickly. But im inclined to believe it eventually would
@@joelgrosschmidt5507 a US invasion of the home islands was also inevitable. the soviet invasion of manchuria also destroyed the kwantung army, in addition to the political effects it has on japan
@@ayami123 No the true reason Japan surrendered to the US was not the Atomic Bomb strikes, that was just use as an excuse by the emperor. The real reason was because the Soviet Union was about to invade hokkaido and surrendering to the US would have a far higher chance of allowing the emperor to survive as well as retain some independence as a nation instead of being made into a Soviet puppet or straight up annexed. Surrendering to the US was basically a defence mechanism against the approaching red army.
@@ayami123 No Japan was ready to die to the last soldier it's when the Soviets came down and destroyed their last major army in Manchuria did Japan surrendered not being wanted to be spilt in 2 by the 2 superpowers like Germany.
So the lesson is: don't ever ever ever let military have control over grand strategy. Work in conjunction, yes, have control, no. They will be taking actions that lead to their budget being increased. And also, don't ever ever ever let a branch of the military disagree with the grand strategists. Have initiative, yes, disagree on the grand strategy, no.
Civilian control has not proven better, though. The (American) war in Vietnam and Bush II's war in Iraq, for example, were both abject failures at enormous cost. And as far as strategy goes, with hindsight we ask, "What on earth were they thinking?" Besides, how often do we have civilian leaders with enough expertise in military strategy?
In a totalist/facist state all oposisjon to the army is assasinated. In reality it was a internal conflict between millitary and politicians of power over investments and manpower. The young facists in the millitary acted on theyre own. Problem is always a lack of grandstrategy and konflicts and incompetence. Reality is that they where desperate and they saw the white empiers where agressiv and high tech. It was become a empire or become a slave of the white man. Thou its sad and barbaric as the Germans to see individuals as just a tool, and experiments on humans.
@@gj8683 Vietnam was lost because Congress refused to take full action and only made small escalations for 10 years. Had the USA taken action and moved to Occupy all of Vietnam and built up a functioning economy and military to secure the region, like they did with Japan and Germany and even South Korea, then the war would have been won. But instead the civilian population demanded that the USA stay out of war due to exhaustion from WWII and the Korean War happening only 5years after WWII. Iraq was a victory. Saddam was gone and a democracy was being established. However, the civilian sector (again) was exhausted after 7yrs of occupation for a war that was started under global pretense of cooperation with terrorists and possession of WMDs. Both being false. The following President then pulls out before a powerful enough government was put into place. This lead to internal collapse and ISIS beginning its take over. Now we are back in the region, ISIS is defeated, and Iraq is once again stable but has to recuperate because of what ISIS caused. We succeeded in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. All those nations had 100% involvement on the USA's part. Vietnam and Iraq both suffered from partial participation and small incremental escalation leading to public distrust in the possible success in the regions. TLDR; Basically, the "failures" of Vietnam and Iraq has more to do with politics than actual war and strategic issues.
@@gj8683 Vietnam was a setback. it did not lead to the invasion and occupation of the US. Likewise Iraq. So they're hardly comparable. Neither Johnson nor Bush was gambling with the existence of the US as a sovereign state.
Yes, but their naval military strategy was so successful early in the war that they almost pulled it off. The Zero was a miracle of modern engineering, as good as you could get with the technology of it's time. Twice the range anyone thought possible and totally outclassed early U.S. fighter aircraft. They had very good anti-ship torpedoes. Their naval landings in south east Asia were very well planned and executed. The size of U.S. naval forces was more than three times that of Japan. Our industrial base was vastly larger and we had many times the manpower to throw into the fight. British naval air-power was mostly non-existent. U.S. airpower in the Philippians was quickly neutralized. The U.S. basically had a non-functioning torpedo and really didn't believe in submarine warfare anyway. The U.S. had enough resources that they could adapt, make due with inferior armaments, and make quite a few mistakes. For the Japanese every mistake was significant if not catastrophic. They also needed to be consistently lucky, and there is no such thing as consistent luck. They ran out of luck at Midway, catastrophically. The American fleet found their carriers first and destroyed them.
@@rayray6490 it wasn't enough for them because that was nowhere near the size of the European empires, and they had relatively few resources, and very small economies at that time, if you were a Japanese military leader, you would seek expansion as well
Great video, thanks for your depiction of such a complex issue in an understandable form without necglecting a scientific/objective approach. Allways happy and thankful to see such well made and researched videos still exist.
Excellent work. Very detailed explanation of how Japan lurched towards an unwinnable war through a combination of reactionary short-term decisions and lack of an adequate industrial base.
The weak link for Japan was the Meiji Constitution in which the military was not under the control of the civilian government but which answered only to an Emperor who could not even speak to the military under rules of imperial protocol. This allowed the militarists to do what they wanted under a weak young Hirohito including assassination of civilian ministers including prime minister Tsuyoshi. The German Empire suffered under a similar constitution in WWI where the military was not under the control of the civilian government but under the Kaiser.
Actually, the German Kaiser Actually Haven't Lost yet. but the Moral of the People is Declining at a Fast Rate. also his Moral has decline after the Jews Move all their Factories to Safer locations like UK and US. which in turn Crippled the Manufacturing base of the German Empire WWI so the Weak Link isn't really a Weak Link, Under Competent people. it will be a Perfect Deal. Under a Idiot People. it's a Disaster
This makes sense to me in the context of my mother's account of her father who was a Japanese diplomat during this period. He was ambassador to Iraq during WW2. He spoke of how the militarists had gone mad.....
Actually, Japan copied the Prussian system of military command structure, which is that what you said, because they saw it as the recipe for future success after seeing the Prussian-led German victory during its war with France in 1870.
@@StrategyStuff We eagerly await this! I've seen you participate in collaborations with other channels recently. I understand you "gotta do what you gotta do" in order to make money and build your channel, but I have to say I don't think those channels are worthy of you. Nothing I've seen on RUclips really compares to the videos you make, and I think you should continue to build your channel if you can.
Very well researched and put together. Japanese decision-making in the pre-war period is confusing. This video really helped me develop a better understanding. Thank you!
A less aggressive strategy would likely have resulted in controlling more territory both directly and indirectly. This is the nonintuitive reality that the totalists could not accept. The Navy could also have been placated by guaranteed budgets to maintain the best possible quality and quantities of all types within treaty limits. Essentially give the Navy a qualitative rather than quantitative advantage, which means continued rapid ship building to modernize all types to the latest standards. Any spare capacity can be used for supporting ships such as transports. Advances by the Army in China should have been dealt with swiftly and harshly by leadership to keep manageable borders with defensible front lines that are not overextended. The Traditionalists would be given the opportunity to make limited gains but only against the USSR. Any unauthorized advances elsewhere could demand immediate execution of those responsible and orders to withdraw, with any disobedience treated as treasonous rebellion. The control over the militaries and their leadership would be key to walking the fine line between regional control and avoiding provoking foreign powers to respond with economic penalties and increased military spending. A more benevolent foreign policy within Asia could have avoided much fear and animosity that hurt economic interests and increased resistance. Respect and tolerance for cultural differences could have led to more effective puppet states and partners. The imperialist strategy by other powers was already in decline for many of the same failures.
This does neglect the reality Japan saw, though. The Soviet Union posed a real threat to the Japanese as well as the other European powers. But Japanese severely lacked the resources it needed to defend itself from external threats. China was fractured by civil war. When you refer to "China" are you referring to Chang Kai Chek, Mao Ze Dong, or the other warlords in their respective territories? Japan would have to choose who to support in the civil war (probably the nationalists) in hopes that they win and are willing to negotiate and have an alliance with a strategically weaker Japan. A unified China meant a neighbor with a greater industrial capacity, all the resources it needs, and a population that can supply a massive army. Make them an ally and you're golden. However, that's the trick. If you support the nationalists then their is potential risk in the idea of Chinese supremacy being revived. China historically dominated East Asia for centuries and made sure it was the hegemonic leader in the region by conquest or cultural dominance. Japan's language derives directly from Han Chinese already. If Mao Ze Dong and the Communists won (as they have in real life) you now have a potential ally for the Soviets to move in and overthrow the lifestyle of the Japanese. The Soviets had already proven they were not opposed to invading their neighbors when they attacked The Baltic region, Finland, the Caucasus nations, Tannu Tova, Manchuria, and East Poland. Japan could never allow a communist China to exist and it was extremely risky to try and make an alliance with a nation that, historically, wouldn't likely tolerate its neighbors being equally as powerful or more powerful than them especially if their neighbor is relying on their nation's own resources to be that powerful. Even today with China actively trading with the USA and other nations it is expanding into the South China sea by making artificial islands for naval bases and is projecting power into its neighbors. Japan, today, is debating rebuilding portions of its military because of Chinese expansion and its backing of N. Korea (which is quite frankly a Chinese puppet). Japan was in a horrible position. If it depended on trade with China it risked the civil war establishing a government that would at some point be potentially antagonistic or openly hostile to Japan. But if it expanded into China it would require resources they didn't have to win the war. But it DID open the door to potential dominance in the region without the possibility of dealing with a foreign power for necessary goods. The Japanese either risked dealing with a uncooperative China or hostile China. Or a colonial empire that, while not totally stable, meant it could reap the benefits of having all the resources it needed to defend itself from Western powers
@@CasshernSinz1613 Japan already controlled what is now the highly industrialized Northern part of China via puppet states. These needed investment in order to provide the resources Japan needed. Investment there was delayed in order to divert to short term military needs. Attempting to control all of China would bankrupt the Japanese economy as they slowly tried to develop it. China had the same problem after their civil war and did not make much progress until the very end of the 20th century as foreign investment and trade increased. Japan on the other hand recovered very rapidly by focusing on peaceful import of goods and materials needed and export or finished products. They might have enjoyed similar growth without the need for war if people of the right mindset came to power. Such people existed but their views were suppressed by others who wanted to copy a colonialist model that already was shown to cause long term problems. In an effort to stave off so called Western influences the totalists wound up emulating European colonialism and making the same mistakes. They became the thing they were trying to avoid. Others pointed out the irony and futility of this approach but a militarist mindset saw this as defeatism. In fact, Japan would have had both a stronger economy and military through peaceful trade. The desperate resource situation is often cited as a reason they felt compelled to go to war and this is true but most of this lack of resources and economic hardship was caused by a series of trade barriers put in place by the USA and Europeans as a reaction to aggression with China. Demonstrating a willingness to be less aggressive with China and making some concessions could lead to those trade barriers disappearing. The post war resource situation was far more desperate but they recovered quickly because they were able to trade freely. Japan did not need to necessarily pick any side in the conflicts in China but could wait and try to smooth tensions with all of them. Then if and when Communists started to gain power the USA and Europe would be inclined to ally with Japan to counter this influence.
@@stupidburp Part of the problem in analyzing Japanese strategy is looking at it entirely on a rational basis. The video gave a great presentation on Japanese strategic choices but it left out the psychological mindset of the people making those decisions, the militarists. The strategy you propose certainly makes sense from a rational perspective, but to the militarists it was unacceptable because it meant acting as a member of a community of nations and not acting purely in accordance with their own will and ambitions. Such a course was, as you note, seen as weakness. You see much the same in European fascists and Nazis, although the cultural context that led to such thinking was a bit different. But they all shared the belief that strong nations did what they wished and took all they could, and only weak nations courted or relied on the goodwill of their potential rivals.
Japan focused too much on Manchuria and the Han Chinese homeland (Central-East China) when they should have focused more in Southeast China and then expanded inward. They would have likely found more allies the further they expanded westward in the form of non-Han ethnic minorities. Although the coastal Southeast doesn't have much agriculture, if they ventured deeper and made it to Hunan and Sichuan then they would have had a lot of agriculture there. If that were to be successful, then they could next form alliances in Tibet and East Turkestan which would have given Japan leverage over Britain and the Soviet Union. Japan already held Taiwan and they very receptive to Japan, and likewise Japan actually treated them well (both the Han and Austronesians) unlike mainland Han Chinese. They should have expanded from Taiwan into the Southeast mainland and kept Manchuko as an "island" in the north rather then trying to expand southward from there. The Japanese Army holding the north, and the Japanese Navy conquering the south-with China proper in-between the two-would have been a realistic scenario.
Interesting. I think Japan's main flaws in planning were an over-optimistic take on what was possible. The Totalists obviously wanted great reform quickly, but were unable to get the control they needed right off the bat to achieve their aims. Furthermore, the fractured state of the navy and army resulted in too many compromises. Both needed to work together to achieve limited aims, and instead they wound up overextending themselves multiple strategies where no one could achieve their aims. When you have limited resources you either need to focus all your resources or take risks. Japan, in the end, gambled hard. If they had won it would have resulted in incredible gains (in their perspective) but as the saying goes, don't gamble with what you can't afford to lose. It is interesting how, in some ways, they were chasing a dream that became more and more unrealistic as time went on. The harder they tried to grasp at their Defense State, the more it slipped from their grasp.
Over-Optimistic? The Russo-Japanese war was a great win how could they not be as optimistic? Just to mark everything they did: They defeated one of the "best" fleet of the world. They won a war with one of the big 5 (Prussia, France, Britain, USA, Russia) and no one was optimistic about their chances of success ^^ Just saying. Optimistic sure! Over? not really.
You, sir, do quality work. Can someone PLEASE explain to me why this has only 93K views in five months and why the channel only has 20K subscribers?! I have no faith in humanity (aside from these 20K people of course). Sir(s and/or ma'am's and everyone else involved in the production of this amazingness), you have earned another Subscriber!
Clearly because I'm far too lazy to maintain a regular schedule :). In all fairness I live in Hong Kong so I've been sidelined by the events of June. I'll be back in August. And 20k is more than I ever expected from this channel...
@@StrategyStuff You earned a legitimate guffaw. Well done! I can only imagine the events there. Stay safe and I hope the situation becomes... a bit more benign. I've definitely recommended your channel to my friends who would appreciate it. I hope your viewership increases rapidly. Take care.
Good vid, but I do encourage you to work on your delivery. It feels a bit stilted, but with a smoother delivery you could expand your subscriber base greatly. The content is that good.
I see a trend toward longer videos. maybe decide on a length you like and if it goes much beyond that break it into 2 or 3 parts either released as a set or strung out 1 a week or some such. just a thought keep making great vids, i'll keep watching
Congratulations Strategy Stuff, your research has payed off. This quality work has been recognised by the youtube gods, many new subs will be your reward.
Following the flood of new (to me) information in the narrative precluded me from absorbing most of the information in the graphics. I will obviously have to watch it again. Great job.
It’s astounding how Japan thought it could sustain its territorial expansions into foreign land while at the same time being dependent upon foreign resources. Combine that with internal administrative strife, it’s a miracle that the Japanese war machine could have operated as successfully as it did. How did England do so well in conquest?
IMHO the idea of “Japan had no chance in WWII due to logistics, so their war was illogical” gets the logic exactly backward - the Japanese military class (totalists and traditionalists) appreciated that their country wasn’t ready for total war, but rather than acting as a deterrent, that understanding ENCOURAGED them towards more aggressive action in order to secure the necessary resource/workarounds to sustain their post-1915 hegemony in east Asia. They chose aggression because the other major alternative was to surrender their hegemony (even creating a friendly alliance would mean sharing power with RUS CHI USA in E Asia), and few countries have ever done this willingly. As for U.K., off the top of my head I would say that their success was due to a) their geog position which allowed them to gatekeep trade to Europe; b) close enough to European competition to promote a strong fiscal-military state; c) yet also isolated by the Channel from the worst of European competition, which allowed a govt that could afford to deliberate and consult w/stakeholders to create pragmatic policy (esp when dealing with competitors like USA); and d) luck/opportunity in the decline of Mughal/Qing empires etc.
@@StrategyStuff I wouldn't say England's geographic position gave them any 'gatekeeping' ability. Britain was located in the Northwest of Europe, unlike Portugal and Spain who could gate keep Europe from the west and the Ottomans and the Italian states who could gate keep from the east. Alongside having a strong navy, Britain's success came from its strategy of building trading ports, and only gradually expanding their influence until when they had enough power that they could subjugate the entire country, thereby going from a simple trading partner to a colonizer by either establishing a Protectorate or outright owning it. Britain did this across Asia and Africa. The Spanish did the same in the Philippines and the Dutch did so in Indonesia. The CCP has learned from this model and is their motivation behind their "String of Pearls" strategy and its Belt & Road Initiative essentially facilitates that.
Please cover more modern history like this; you offer highly unique insight into the internal political circumstances that affected grand strategic thinking, as opposed to viewing a country's interests and values as unified, as in the typical way of learning history which is often egregious for studying this era.
The Russo Japanese War saw an internally unstable Russia (which was easily fractured by a defeat that served as a catalyst for the following 1905 unrest) who could not afford societal costs of a long term war as Ww1 would later prove. Ww2 saw a relatively internally stable US, which a strike instead of fracturing, galvanized public opinion. When it comes down to it if the Japanese planners wanted to avoid a protracted war they truly misread the American public.
If they thought the American public would demand surrender because of a strike, then yes, they were utterly delusional. If they thought the US ability to project force in the Pacific would be crippled, leading to Japanese victory, leading to US instability and a free hand, then their thinking was simply overoptimistic. Their model for understanding how a power reacts to defeat was shaped by Russia in 1905 and 1917, and Germany in 1918. They had little appreciation for the fact that the US might be different, or might never surrender and simply rebuild its fleets. But no power goes into a conflict thinking it will be a long protracted war, and once in a protracted war, the big push to end it is always around the corner. Japan, like Hitler with the USSR, saw an action within their capability that would set off a perceived set of dominoes. So they took the big gamble in a context where their situation demanded a swift resolution, and spent the rest of the war chasing that decisive blow when the dominoes didn't fall.
The Japanese were simplistic in their assumptions about what was going to happen--which is more common for most every country that people might think. The Japanese assumed/hoped that the flow of a war against America would follow the lines of the Russo-Japanese War earlier that century. As the Russians sent their Baltic Fleet across the globe toward Japan, so the assumption was that America would send its pacific Fleet from San Diego to Japan. As the Russian fleet was destroyed in decisive battle, so the assumption was that America, like Russia, suffered from the fact that its fleet would have to sail at such a large distance while the Japanese fleet operated close by Japan, and like Russia,, could be destroyed near the home islands. The Japanese called this idea Kantai Kessen--the decisive battle. The US relocation of the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor in 1940 was but one of the problems undermining Japanese assumptions.
Good stuff. An excellent and detailed description on the events that led to their decision to attack America. I've had only a glimmer of what was going on in the game Hearts of Iron 4 as they had Manchuria in that game, but no backstory. It also explains where the name Greater Coprosperity Sphere came from. I am normally a history buff and know many things, yet this video alone gave me a great depth of knowledge I have not had in a long while.
This is an excellent channel that deserves hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Another excellent video, well done. I’d love to see a video explaining the modern day strategy of Australia by the way. It’d be a very interesting case study of the evolving situation in the Indo-Pacific, as well as the importance of maritime corridors and strategic depth. :)
I thought this was great, I’d just say, do some work on the audio/visuals, there are some pretty cheap deck mics out there, ~30$, still a bit pricy, but not crazy. Also, maybe showing pictures with some description of the people (e.g. job, what they did/were in charge of) you’re talking about and maybe see if there’s some way to show plans on the map, draw lines in or something. But, overall pretty neat, great content, just needs some polish,
Definitely the best, most comprehensive and synthetic explanation of this topic I've ever seen. Liked and subscribed and looking forward to check more content of your channel. Cheers!
A great work! Not often to see such a comprehensive study on Far East. If the pre-war American government knew, at the time, anything you have described here in the Far East regional conflicts, the outcome of the war could have been very different, and many tragedies prevented. Compared to the US involvement in the European theatre, its commitment in the Pacific theatre was much confused, short-sighted. At least, this time round, it has learned something, though not against Japan, but China.
**The Grand Strategy of Imperial Japan circa. 1919 - 1945** 1. Sucker punch the other guy as hard as you can. 2. The other guy thinks, "Oh wow, nobody had the balls to do that to me! You're so brave and awesome!!" 3. Make favorable treaties with the other guy who now likes you a lot after you've punched him, and enjoy peace and prosperity.
Japan tried that 3 times, 1st against Qing China, 2nd against Imperial Russia, 3rd times against the United States. They did win the first 2 times they tried.
Japan sucker punched Freedom-Loving America, expects consequences to turn to their favor. Leftists sucker punched Freedom-Loving American, expects consequences to turn to their favor.... Guess we all know the similarities and results.
@@skybattler2624 meh..before WW2..USA was whitey only....after WW2 when Japan made USA pay for the war...then US became liberal ...it was Japan that took the great away.. guess you should not have a picked a war with the older Japanese warriors..uh?.. now you such a whitey whiny culture..fight harder next time..pussy cat
You should do: The The Grand/General Strategy of Tsarist Russia 1547-1721 The The Grand/General Strategy of Early Imperial Russia 1721-1815 The The Grand/General Strategy of Late Imperial Russia 1815-1914 one of the Soviet Union would be cool too.
Great stuff! Often outsiders view history as a carefully planned conspiracy by a unified elite, when it is just a struggle by several factions through unexpected events. History explanation can be expanded indefinitely, but I must add a little to the fact that Japan was not simply greedy for power. They saw what happened to country after country, being colonized and exploited, from India, Philippines, Hawaii, and the entire South-East Asia. Modernization and militarization was not only seen as mandatory for survival, but also served Japan quite well in the 1894 Sino-Japanese war and the 1905 Russo-Japanese war. The experience gained and lessons learned from these successes were directly responsible for the later loss.
Yes. Another point that is often lost to us now is how recent much of this European and American colonial activity was that was going on around the Japanese. It all might merge together to us now with Victorian and much earlier imperialism going back to the days of Portuguese sailing ships, the spice trade and Vasco da Gama. But the American presence in the Philippines was obviously recent, and much of what the British, French and Dutch were doing economically in their longer established SE Asian colonies was new too. For example, they were setting up rubber plantations to supply rubber tires for the rapidly rising number of motor vehicles on roads around the world. Similarly oil production was being massively and urgently expanded, not just to feed recent transport developments, but to power the world's navies which were converting from coal to oil in the 1920s. This was all contemporary reality to the Japanese planners and factions, not ancient history. Colonialism was the modern thing, even futuristic - like Jazz, gramophone records or flying boats!
This sounds like an oral defense of a Ph.D. candidate in Japanese military history, or summary of a doctoral dissertation. Extremely impressive, although some of the details could be argued with. Not that they are "wrong", just some perhaps are misapplied, but still an impressive presentation.
He Mandarin pronunciation is much better than Japanese pronunciation though, which is unusual among native English speakers. The pronunciation for Zhang Zuolin is pitch perfect.
Excellent review of Japanese strategic moves leading to the Pacific War. You nicely summarize the whole process and Japanese thinking. The amazing thing is that the Pacific War was the outcome of in depth study and planning, unlike the situation in Europe where three men (Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini) launched the War without any serious study or planning. I see one basic issue Japan just ignored. In a world dominated by military power, how would Japan fare once the NAZIs dominated Europe and the Soviet Union. Khalkhin Gol proved that the Japanese Army was not up to Red Army standards, let alone those of the Wehrmacht.
Let's all subscribe so that one day StrategyStuff can hire a video production team and he can focus on tons and tons of well-researched content and scripts :D
Working on some fiction involving this place and time. Your video showed up on my phone and I am checking it out. Mind. Officially. Blown. Only 18 min into the video and I have to stop and process this. Again and again you are showing the man behind the curtain, stuff I have read years ago makes more sense now. I will share the fiction with you as I work on it and give you credit as a major inspiration source. Subscribed
While there's lots of info and I'm sure it's well researched, the presentation is... well... busy. Rule of thumb: people can either listen to you or look at your presentation, not both. That's a basic rule of business presentations. You put a LOT of information up on the screen at the same time. But it's kind of thrown on there wherever there's space, making it difficult to tie the various components together into a coherent picture. Also, it's the difference between the presentation of theoretical strategy, and actual historical events, isn't always easy to distinguish. I tip my hat to you about the high level of effort you put into this video, but I recommend you look at some of the other history channels here on RUclips to see how they present their subjects.
Openeyees As great as PDX games are, and as absolutely fantastic it would have been if they aligned with the thinking of these videos, HOI4 has a focus tree system which is intended to make almost all such decisions for you.
I really love your content. Where can i donate so u can get a better mic. I listen to your videos in podcast style and low audio quality kinda ruins it for me.
What kind of minor industry or economic resources were located Micronesia? Just noticed one of your maps. Reading about the US campaigns in the area currently so I'm curious. Great video by the way, you've got my sub, hope to see more. Thanks.
Coconut/Copra (as feed or into biodiesel), and phosphates esp. British Nauru. The key use would still be as a massive defense zone/flank which would harass/slow down the US Navy as it proceeded westwards for decisive battle.
EXCELLENT! 10,000 Extra Thumbs Up...Your economic resources approach really nails it. I thought it was all just about the oil...which is still going on. Very thorough. Grateful Fred
Thank you for an enlightening and educational video on the history of Japan's evolving grand strategy that tragically led to Pearl Habor on 7 December 1941. It helps viewers better understand (but not necessarily accept) the Japanese perspectives. Admittedly, it's impossible to cover all aspects of this strategy as it responded to external developments. Based on archival research by other authors, both Japan and the USA had began to see each other as a growing threat to their national interests since the early 1900s. On one hand, Japan's territorial ambitions, turning more ultra-nationalist and turning away from democracy towards militarism under Baron Giichi Tanaka's premiership in 1927-1929 threatened neighbouring countries and Western powers. On the other hand, the US naval build-up in the Pacific also threatened Japan's ambitions. US opposition to Britain-Japan alliance of 1902-1923 and some British leaders' (like Churchill) advocacy to discontinue this alliance in favour of US-British alliance, helped to set the stage for an eventual Japan's attack on British Imperial Far East possessions. What was also dysfunctional and tragic was that the upper echelons of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) and the Japanese civilian political decision-making elite, lost control over lower ranking or more junior IJA ultra-nationalist officers, under threat of assassinations. The prevailing atmosphere of militarism and ultra-nationalism, easily drowned out voices of reason and moderation against war. It was not conducive to calm, level-headed and wise decision-making. This was compounded by the Japanese culture of group consensus decision-making that encouraged harmony, and bravado expressions of nationalistic patriotism, even though individuals within the group harbored private reservations about going to war with USA and Britain. This was despite knowing that IJN naval war gaming exercises had predicted that Japan could not hope to win a long-term war of attrition with the world's largest industrial power in the USA. The pro-war voices also ignored (Tiger of Malaya) Tomoyuki Yamashita's advice to extricate Japan from an unwinnable war in mainland China. His jealous rival, PM Hideki Tojo didn't want to withdraw Japanese armed forces from China (a US demand), citing that doing so would make Japanese lives lost in fighting China be in vain (sunk cost fallacy). Neither was Yamashita's advocacy of maintaining friendly relations with the USA and Britain heeded. Worse, IJA and IJN had no idea how to end the Pacific war after starting it. Like fire, nationalism can be a good servant (to legitimize regime self-preservation as the first law of human nature), but a terrible master. Without an exit plan, ultra-nationalistic pride dictated that Japan would fight to the bitter end, at the cost of many more lives, until common sense was restored to Emperor Hirohito when the Japanese race was threatened with annihilation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and USSR forces overran Manchukuo. Lurking behind historical grievances lay the dynamics of unlimited ambition, lust for more power and national pride, interacting with one another in a combustible mix that fuel the regional security dilemma and spiral / edge nations towards war. The self-deception, irony and fallacy is this: many accumulate more power out of insecurity. But the more power one accumulates, the more insecure one can become. This dynamic is still present in the world (though no more in Japan) today. Has mankind really drawn the appropriate lessons from WWII?
HF, this is a quantum leap in YT content quality. Who TF are you?! If there's a way to support your production (other than Patreon, who lost me forever in the Sargon affair), I'd like to know about it.
Just a random dude interested in history... thanks for your kind words, but I wouldn't feel comfortable asking for money when I can't get a regular schedule going (I certainly don't like it when Patreon-ees do that). I'll resume uploading in August.
@@StrategyStuff That's respectable. But if by any chance you feel some donation can help your production even a little bit, please consider Patreon. People like me want quality and do not want to compromise quality for the sake of, say, frequency of upload. I think you will find a group of supporters perfectly ok with irregular schedule. For an actual example of a channel that does not upload regularly and its Patreon supporters are ok with it, Eastory (ruclips.net/channel/UCElybFZ60Hk1NSjgCf7I2sg) which produces animation of WWII eastern front troop movement comes to mind. Patreon supports pledge of donation per upload. So you won't owe your supporters if you don't upload. (You will owe them if your upload is compromised in quality relative to their expectation. But that doesn't seem to be an issue.)
This channel will make a fine addition to my collection!
Ok Greivous
General Kenobi! You are a bold one!
What else do you have in your collection?🤔
General Grevious, you’re shorter than I expected. Oops...we have a channel to watch and must try not to upset him! Sorry, Master Kenobi!
Exactly my thought!
This is such a great example of what happens when poor preparation and lack of cohesion leads to the worst possible strategy having to be implemented simply because there are no other options left.
Uyevgdhhx6jehreghdytgejyeyu3
like US trying to start a proxy war with China over Taiwan...
Yeh..plus radicals always succeed when moderates are not decisive
not to mention being squeezed onto a string of ragged volcanoes rich only in obsidian.
If you have the time, a video on the Chinese civil war in terms of military movements and strategy would be very interesting. It's a topic that is rarely covered in the west from a military and tactical perspective, with most commentators focusing on societal dimensions and how the opposing sides implemented policy to win support from different segments of the Chinese population rather than what military maneuvers they made, the effectiveness of those decisions, and the logistical and strategic constraints that led to those decisions.That might be due to a lack of English sources covering the Chinese civil war in detail, but as someone fluent in Chinese (I'm assuming) you might be able to find books that detail military movements blow by blow. Since the conflict stretches in 3 stages from the 1930s to 1949, there's also opportunity to analyze how the different sides switch military strategies as the war progressed or even make a multi-part video depending on how much info you find.
Great channel, lots of interesting analysis and clear but also detailed presentation. Your videos are some of the few I can enjoy watching without leaving due to historical inaccuracies, oversimplification, or just blatant politicking. Keep up the good work!
I second this
Third! As a Canadian war buff the East, Africa and South America are sort of black holes in my knowledge as I struggle to find content in english. The western information bias is a thing, I just wish people could comment citing helpful links with english sources. ( good luck I know)
The Red Star Over China is a classic covering Chinese civil war I believe
Great sources and from skimming through my impression is that is likely a great video. Nice one, keep it up!
Edit: since my facebook followers confirmed my first impression, I gave it a share on my community tab, hopefully you get more views and subs.
Can confirm, I'm here because of that community post. I enjoyed this video! Time to go through anything else posted here and see how I feel about it.
Good work I am watching entirely. Can work on voice to make it sound deeper
@Marty Man The rape of nanking, slaughter of untold civilians, the production of enough bubonic plague to kill the planet was just a misstep in liberation...I guess..
I haven't even watched the video yet to form my own opinion on it or the channel as a whole. But an endorsement from Military History Visualized is worth as subscription to me.
Great and very informative video. Thank you
Excellent presentation; perhaps the most memorable 40-odd minutes I've spent on RUclips in many months. The low-key narration worried me at the start, but after just a couple minutes of viewing you had me hooked! Even your minimalist production values and simplified graphics come across very well and add considerably to the educational value, which is remarkable in light of the subject-matter's intense complexity.
I hope you won't mind some polite suggestions: (1) Consider briefly highlighting the captions as they appear, with highlights sync'd to your voiceover; (2) For sake of the viewer's reading (whether follow-along or catch-up), maybe allow the graphics a bit more screen-time as each segment trails off to a new title; (3) Provide voiceover or a visual key for some abbreviations, like 'DEI' - took me a minute to figure that one out!
Again, I very much enjoyed this video. Thanks for posting it to RUclips!
Great suggestions. I’ll see what I can do with them! Thank you for watching!
Stop telling him what to do
@@decem_sagittae Of all the comments where someone tries to provide advice to a RUclipsr, this is one of the most respectful that Ive seen. It suggests rather than demands. I think this constructive critisism was meant in good faith, and was well received (see Strategy Stuff's comment).
@@StrategyStuff Did you quit uploading? Was hoping you’d address some of the things Citino and Roberts said about the Wehrmacht and wether they were entirely accurate or just somewhat.
Cheers
I am Japanese myself. I have found it difficult to understand the dynamic in the Japanese military where a mid to low ranking officer could influence events and his superiors to such a degree. Very interesting time.
Same thing is happening in the USA right now.
@@lewisforsythe1403 I would say I disagree, but I have no idea what you are even referring to here.
@@-caesarian-6078 Look into the concept of the “strategy corporal”, it was a popular concept in western militaries in the 2000s and early 2010s. It is becoming less popular now though as technological improvements mean political and military decision makers have access to intelligence much faster.
In short, for much of the afghan and iraq wars, the lowest level of battlefield leader was empowered and enabled to make real time decisions as regards use of force, interaction with local allies and resources. The men on the field were trusted to have made the best decision at the time as they had the most up to date information. The advantage is greater ability to rapidly take control of highly chaotic situations, the disadvantage is policy makers and logisticians are often left out of the loop. The men on the ground may also be unaware of larger political and strategic factors and constraints, hence it is falling out of favour.
You might also like to research the western military concept of “mission command”.
@@DavidSharpMSc This is a good explanation of the US policy of mission command, but I disagree that it is the same thing as what I understand the original poster to be referring to. It is sometimes referred to as gekokujō: where someone of a lower position overthrows someone of a higher position using military or political might. There were numerous incidents of sweeping changes to military policy/strategy and assassination of high-ranking officers and political leaders by lower level Japanese officers.
1) A well known example is the Mukden/Manchurian Incident, the false-flag operation to provoke a war with the Chinese forces in Manchuria before a Major General sent by the Japanese Minister of War could arrive and reign in the more junior insubordinate and militarist officers in charge on the ground.
2) There was the Huanggutun incident, where a junior officer in the Kwantung Army cooked up and led a plot to assassinate their own ally/puppet, the warlord in control of Manchuria.
3) In the May 15 Incident, young naval officers and army cadets assassinated Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi. In all cases, the perpetrators received either no punishment or light sentences and were considered heroes by other right-wing militarists.
Any of these actions would lead to court-martial and serious repercussions in the US military or modern Japanese military.
4) Similar incidents culminated in the February 26 Incident, "an attempted coup d'état in the Empire of Japan on 26 February 1936. It was organized by a group of young Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) officers with the goal of purging the government and military leadership of their factional rivals and ideological opponents." [Wikipedia] This time, the consequences for the perpetrators were severe, but their actions had a had a lasting effect: "[...] the military, now free from infighting, increased its control over the civilian government, which had been severely weakened by the assassination of key moderate and liberal-minded leaders."[Wikipedia]
I believe these incidents strongly contributed to Japan's headstrong militarism and loss of civilian political control, which led to them start a war that they could not win.
I’m American 🇺🇸 and I wish we were never enemies 🇯🇵
Holy crap, this is beyond incredible. How do you only have 1400 subs?!
+1400 in a week
+4100 in four days. Now at 8.7K
9,833 as of 02/05/2019
@@nixxel2278 10,041
12 K!
Undoubtedly the best summary of the evolution of Japan's strategic position during the period that I've seen. Look forward to more of your work.
I could not have said it any better! This is outstanding
This is the most well-researched, balanced, and insightful explanation I have found on the Internet about the factors and reasons that led to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. What amazes me is how out of touch with reality Japan's warrior class was in the period leading up to Pearl Harbor.
dude, they were experimenting with strategies, you'll have to be somewhat thinking outside the box to actually.
experiment some of those strategies.
as during those times, it's Eat or Be Eaten. =_=
besides, technically, Japan can still hold of US Invasion even after the loses at Okinawa to battle of Attrition. it will result in a stalemate as the reinforcement from the other colonies haven't truly been defeated yet. only with the Atomic Bomb, which they have no way of Countering that they finally surrendered and captured total victory over the Japanese Forces.
@@ayami123 You are sort of correct, but the Americans proved they could do just as much damage with fire bombing as they did with the atomic bomb. America could have simply burned every city to the ground unopposed by any meaningful air force. Accomplishing the same thing. It would not have forced a surrender as quickly. But im inclined to believe it eventually would
@@joelgrosschmidt5507 a US invasion of the home islands was also inevitable. the soviet invasion of manchuria also destroyed the kwantung army, in addition to the political effects it has on japan
@@ayami123 No the true reason Japan surrendered to the US was not the Atomic Bomb strikes, that was just use as an excuse by the emperor. The real reason was because the Soviet Union was about to invade hokkaido and surrendering to the US would have a far higher chance of allowing the emperor to survive as well as retain some independence as a nation instead of being made into a Soviet puppet or straight up annexed.
Surrendering to the US was basically a defence mechanism against the approaching red army.
@@ayami123 No Japan was ready to die to the last soldier it's when the Soviets came down and destroyed their last major army in Manchuria did Japan surrendered not being wanted to be spilt in 2 by the 2 superpowers like Germany.
This channel is a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
So the lesson is: don't ever ever ever let military have control over grand strategy. Work in conjunction, yes, have control, no. They will be taking actions that lead to their budget being increased.
And also, don't ever ever ever let a branch of the military disagree with the grand strategists. Have initiative, yes, disagree on the grand strategy, no.
Civilian control has not proven better, though. The (American) war in Vietnam and Bush II's war in Iraq, for example, were both abject failures at enormous cost. And as far as strategy goes, with hindsight we ask, "What on earth were they thinking?" Besides, how often do we have civilian leaders with enough expertise in military strategy?
Also make sure the top leadership always maintains control over the military. Those that go rogue should be treated as such.
In a totalist/facist state all oposisjon to the army is assasinated. In reality it was a internal conflict between millitary and politicians of power over investments and manpower. The young facists in the millitary acted on theyre own. Problem is always a lack of grandstrategy and konflicts and incompetence. Reality is that they where desperate and they saw the white empiers where agressiv and high tech. It was become a empire or become a slave of the white man. Thou its sad and barbaric as the Germans to see individuals as just a tool, and experiments on humans.
@@gj8683 Vietnam was lost because Congress refused to take full action and only made small escalations for 10 years. Had the USA taken action and moved to Occupy all of Vietnam and built up a functioning economy and military to secure the region, like they did with Japan and Germany and even South Korea, then the war would have been won. But instead the civilian population demanded that the USA stay out of war due to exhaustion from WWII and the Korean War happening only 5years after WWII.
Iraq was a victory. Saddam was gone and a democracy was being established. However, the civilian sector (again) was exhausted after 7yrs of occupation for a war that was started under global pretense of cooperation with terrorists and possession of WMDs. Both being false.
The following President then pulls out before a powerful enough government was put into place. This lead to internal collapse and ISIS beginning its take over.
Now we are back in the region, ISIS is defeated, and Iraq is once again stable but has to recuperate because of what ISIS caused.
We succeeded in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. All those nations had 100% involvement on the USA's part. Vietnam and Iraq both suffered from partial participation and small incremental escalation leading to public distrust in the possible success in the regions.
TLDR; Basically, the "failures" of Vietnam and Iraq has more to do with politics than actual war and strategic issues.
@@gj8683 Vietnam was a setback. it did not lead to the invasion and occupation of the US. Likewise Iraq. So they're hardly comparable. Neither Johnson nor Bush was gambling with the existence of the US as a sovereign state.
So Japan's situation was really dire since the beginning huh
Yes, but their naval military strategy was so successful early in the war that they almost pulled it off. The Zero was a miracle of modern engineering, as good as you could get with the technology of it's time. Twice the range anyone thought possible and totally outclassed early U.S. fighter aircraft. They had very good anti-ship torpedoes. Their naval landings in south east Asia were very well planned and executed.
The size of U.S. naval forces was more than three times that of Japan. Our industrial base was vastly larger and we had many times the manpower to throw into the fight. British naval air-power was mostly non-existent. U.S. airpower in the Philippians was quickly neutralized. The U.S. basically had a non-functioning torpedo and really didn't believe in submarine warfare anyway.
The U.S. had enough resources that they could adapt, make due with inferior armaments, and make quite a few mistakes. For the Japanese every mistake was significant if not catastrophic. They also needed to be consistently lucky, and there is no such thing as consistent luck. They ran out of luck at Midway, catastrophically. The American fleet found their carriers first and destroyed them.
It depended how you looked at things ... it was only dire if you were an imperialist.
Korea, Taiwan, even Manchuria is not enough for them. There is a empty void in your heart, Imperial Japan and it's name is greed
@@rayray6490 it wasn't enough for them because that was nowhere near the size of the European empires, and they had relatively few resources, and very small economies at that time, if you were a Japanese military leader, you would seek expansion as well
@@cyberpotato63 That's the problem when a lesser power attacks a greater power: the lesser can't afford to make mistakes, but the greater can.
Great video, thanks for your depiction of such a complex issue in an understandable form without necglecting a scientific/objective approach. Allways happy and thankful to see such well made and researched videos still exist.
Excellent work. Very detailed explanation of how Japan lurched towards an unwinnable war through a combination of reactionary short-term decisions and lack of an adequate industrial base.
The weak link for Japan was the Meiji Constitution in which the military was not under the control of the civilian government but which answered only to an Emperor who could not even speak to the military under rules of imperial protocol. This allowed the militarists to do what they wanted under a weak young Hirohito including assassination of civilian ministers including prime minister Tsuyoshi.
The German Empire suffered under a similar constitution in WWI where the military was not under the control of the civilian government but under the Kaiser.
They say that by 1914 the Kaiser was losing power while his Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff were gaining it.
Actually, the German Kaiser Actually Haven't Lost yet. but the Moral of the People is Declining at a Fast Rate.
also his Moral has decline after the Jews Move all their Factories to Safer locations like UK and US. which in turn Crippled the Manufacturing base of the German Empire WWI
so the Weak Link isn't really a Weak Link, Under Competent people. it will be a Perfect Deal. Under a Idiot People. it's a Disaster
This makes sense to me in the context of my mother's account of her father who was a Japanese diplomat during this period. He was ambassador to Iraq during WW2. He spoke of how the militarists had gone mad.....
Actually, Japan copied the Prussian system of military command structure, which is that what you said, because they saw it as the recipe for future success after seeing the Prussian-led German victory during its war with France in 1870.
@@choysakanto6792 was just about to type that when I saw your comment.
The amount of research that went into this video is incredible - and though it is a lengthy video, you kept me engaged throughout. Great job!
A lot of countries in different time periods could receive your grand strategy treatment, say Nazi Germany in WW2 or the superpowers in the Cold War
Yes, I do plan on doing a playlist of videos on on WWI/WWII/Cold War geopolitics at some point, albeit not in a chronological order...
Same with Germany in WW1 or Napoleonic France.
@@LiberalsGettheBulletToo the alternate timeline you inhabit sounds like an interesting place.
@@StrategyStuff We eagerly await this!
I've seen you participate in collaborations with other channels recently. I understand you "gotta do what you gotta do" in order to make money and build your channel, but I have to say I don't think those channels are worthy of you. Nothing I've seen on RUclips really compares to the videos you make, and I think you should continue to build your channel if you can.
Hidden gem, you deserve more subscribers
Very well researched and put together. Japanese decision-making in the pre-war period is confusing. This video really helped me develop a better understanding. Thank you!
Outstanding, an excellent and historically accurate Post, Thank You for sharing.
Love the research analysis and insights here. The turbulent politics of the interwar years are now starting to come into focus. Well done!
Counting this one, I have watched 3 videos from this channel, as of 1/23/2019 -- This channel is why I watch RUclips.
A less aggressive strategy would likely have resulted in controlling more territory both directly and indirectly. This is the nonintuitive reality that the totalists could not accept. The Navy could also have been placated by guaranteed budgets to maintain the best possible quality and quantities of all types within treaty limits. Essentially give the Navy a qualitative rather than quantitative advantage, which means continued rapid ship building to modernize all types to the latest standards. Any spare capacity can be used for supporting ships such as transports.
Advances by the Army in China should have been dealt with swiftly and harshly by leadership to keep manageable borders with defensible front lines that are not overextended. The Traditionalists would be given the opportunity to make limited gains but only against the USSR. Any unauthorized advances elsewhere could demand immediate execution of those responsible and orders to withdraw, with any disobedience treated as treasonous rebellion. The control over the militaries and their leadership would be key to walking the fine line between regional control and avoiding provoking foreign powers to respond with economic penalties and increased military spending.
A more benevolent foreign policy within Asia could have avoided much fear and animosity that hurt economic interests and increased resistance. Respect and tolerance for cultural differences could have led to more effective puppet states and partners. The imperialist strategy by other powers was already in decline for many of the same failures.
This does neglect the reality Japan saw, though. The Soviet Union posed a real threat to the Japanese as well as the other European powers. But Japanese severely lacked the resources it needed to defend itself from external threats.
China was fractured by civil war. When you refer to "China" are you referring to Chang Kai Chek, Mao Ze Dong, or the other warlords in their respective territories?
Japan would have to choose who to support in the civil war (probably the nationalists) in hopes that they win and are willing to negotiate and have an alliance with a strategically weaker Japan.
A unified China meant a neighbor with a greater industrial capacity, all the resources it needs, and a population that can supply a massive army.
Make them an ally and you're golden. However, that's the trick.
If you support the nationalists then their is potential risk in the idea of Chinese supremacy being revived. China historically dominated East Asia for centuries and made sure it was the hegemonic leader in the region by conquest or cultural dominance. Japan's language derives directly from Han Chinese already.
If Mao Ze Dong and the Communists won (as they have in real life) you now have a potential ally for the Soviets to move in and overthrow the lifestyle of the Japanese. The Soviets had already proven they were not opposed to invading their neighbors when they attacked The Baltic region, Finland, the Caucasus nations, Tannu Tova, Manchuria, and East Poland.
Japan could never allow a communist China to exist and it was extremely risky to try and make an alliance with a nation that, historically, wouldn't likely tolerate its neighbors being equally as powerful or more powerful than them especially if their neighbor is relying on their nation's own resources to be that powerful.
Even today with China actively trading with the USA and other nations it is expanding into the South China sea by making artificial islands for naval bases and is projecting power into its neighbors.
Japan, today, is debating rebuilding portions of its military because of Chinese expansion and its backing of N. Korea (which is quite frankly a Chinese puppet).
Japan was in a horrible position. If it depended on trade with China it risked the civil war establishing a government that would at some point be potentially antagonistic or openly hostile to Japan. But if it expanded into China it would require resources they didn't have to win the war.
But it DID open the door to potential dominance in the region without the possibility of dealing with a foreign power for necessary goods.
The Japanese either risked dealing with a uncooperative China or hostile China. Or a colonial empire that, while not totally stable, meant it could reap the benefits of having all the resources it needed to defend itself from Western powers
@@CasshernSinz1613 Japan already controlled what is now the highly industrialized Northern part of China via puppet states. These needed investment in order to provide the resources Japan needed. Investment there was delayed in order to divert to short term military needs.
Attempting to control all of China would bankrupt the Japanese economy as they slowly tried to develop it. China had the same problem after their civil war and did not make much progress until the very end of the 20th century as foreign investment and trade increased.
Japan on the other hand recovered very rapidly by focusing on peaceful import of goods and materials needed and export or finished products. They might have enjoyed similar growth without the need for war if people of the right mindset came to power. Such people existed but their views were suppressed by others who wanted to copy a colonialist model that already was shown to cause long term problems.
In an effort to stave off so called Western influences the totalists wound up emulating European colonialism and making the same mistakes. They became the thing they were trying to avoid. Others pointed out the irony and futility of this approach but a militarist mindset saw this as defeatism. In fact, Japan would have had both a stronger economy and military through peaceful trade.
The desperate resource situation is often cited as a reason they felt compelled to go to war and this is true but most of this lack of resources and economic hardship was caused by a series of trade barriers put in place by the USA and Europeans as a reaction to aggression with China. Demonstrating a willingness to be less aggressive with China and making some concessions could lead to those trade barriers disappearing. The post war resource situation was far more desperate but they recovered quickly because they were able to trade freely.
Japan did not need to necessarily pick any side in the conflicts in China but could wait and try to smooth tensions with all of them. Then if and when Communists started to gain power the USA and Europe would be inclined to ally with Japan to counter this influence.
@@stupidburp Part of the problem in analyzing Japanese strategy is looking at it entirely on a rational basis. The video gave a great presentation on Japanese strategic choices but it left out the psychological mindset of the people making those decisions, the militarists. The strategy you propose certainly makes sense from a rational perspective, but to the militarists it was unacceptable because it meant acting as a member of a community of nations and not acting purely in accordance with their own will and ambitions. Such a course was, as you note, seen as weakness. You see much the same in European fascists and Nazis, although the cultural context that led to such thinking was a bit different. But they all shared the belief that strong nations did what they wished and took all they could, and only weak nations courted or relied on the goodwill of their potential rivals.
Japan focused too much on Manchuria and the Han Chinese homeland (Central-East China) when they should have focused more in Southeast China and then expanded inward. They would have likely found more allies the further they expanded westward in the form of non-Han ethnic minorities.
Although the coastal Southeast doesn't have much agriculture, if they ventured deeper and made it to Hunan and Sichuan then they would have had a lot of agriculture there. If that were to be successful, then they could next form alliances in Tibet and East Turkestan which would have given Japan leverage over Britain and the Soviet Union.
Japan already held Taiwan and they very receptive to Japan, and likewise Japan actually treated them well (both the Han and Austronesians) unlike mainland Han Chinese. They should have expanded from Taiwan into the Southeast mainland and kept Manchuko as an "island" in the north rather then trying to expand southward from there. The Japanese Army holding the north, and the Japanese Navy conquering the south-with China proper in-between the two-would have been a realistic scenario.
Interesting. I think Japan's main flaws in planning were an over-optimistic take on what was possible. The Totalists obviously wanted great reform quickly, but were unable to get the control they needed right off the bat to achieve their aims. Furthermore, the fractured state of the navy and army resulted in too many compromises. Both needed to work together to achieve limited aims, and instead they wound up overextending themselves multiple strategies where no one could achieve their aims.
When you have limited resources you either need to focus all your resources or take risks. Japan, in the end, gambled hard. If they had won it would have resulted in incredible gains (in their perspective) but as the saying goes, don't gamble with what you can't afford to lose. It is interesting how, in some ways, they were chasing a dream that became more and more unrealistic as time went on. The harder they tried to grasp at their Defense State, the more it slipped from their grasp.
Over-Optimistic? The Russo-Japanese war was a great win how could they not be as optimistic? Just to mark everything they did: They defeated one of the "best" fleet of the world. They won a war with one of the big 5 (Prussia, France, Britain, USA, Russia) and no one was optimistic about their chances of success ^^ Just saying. Optimistic sure! Over? not really.
Excellent vid. Well researched and very informative. This just won you a subscriber. I look forward to seeing what else your channel has to offer.
Terrific job! Love these!
You, sir, do quality work. Can someone PLEASE explain to me why this has only 93K views in five months and why the channel only has 20K subscribers?!
I have no faith in humanity (aside from these 20K people of course).
Sir(s and/or ma'am's and everyone else involved in the production of this amazingness), you have earned another Subscriber!
It's fairly new channel is it not? Channels take time to build up subscribers
Clearly because I'm far too lazy to maintain a regular schedule :). In all fairness I live in Hong Kong so I've been sidelined by the events of June. I'll be back in August. And 20k is more than I ever expected from this channel...
@@StrategyStuff You earned a legitimate guffaw. Well done!
I can only imagine the events there. Stay safe and I hope the situation becomes... a bit more benign.
I've definitely recommended your channel to my friends who would appreciate it. I hope your viewership increases rapidly.
Take care.
Wow! Great visuals and information! I hope for more in the future.
Criminally underrated channel, you just earned yourself a like and a new subscriber 👍
Good vid, but I do encourage you to work on your delivery. It feels a bit stilted, but with a smoother delivery you could expand your subscriber base greatly. The content is that good.
This video is incredible, please make more!
This video is insanely detailed. I just discovered your channel.
I see a trend toward longer videos. maybe decide on a length you like and if it goes much beyond that break it into 2 or 3 parts either released as a set or strung out 1 a week or some such. just a thought keep making great vids, i'll keep watching
This channel is going to be a HUGE success.
Wow wow wow this channel is amazing! I'm in love, hope to see more
Congratulations Strategy Stuff, your research has payed off. This quality work has been recognised by the youtube gods, many new subs will be your reward.
Your channel is fantastic. I've just subbed. Keep up the good work.
Following the flood of new (to me) information in the narrative precluded me from absorbing most of the information in the graphics. I will obviously have to watch it again. Great job.
Really great video.
It’s astounding how Japan thought it could sustain its territorial expansions into foreign land while at the same time being dependent upon foreign resources. Combine that with internal administrative strife, it’s a miracle that the Japanese war machine could have operated as successfully as it did.
How did England do so well in conquest?
Maybe my country could learn a thing or two from Japan.
IMHO the idea of “Japan had no chance in WWII due to logistics, so their war was illogical” gets the logic exactly backward - the Japanese military class (totalists and traditionalists) appreciated that their country wasn’t ready for total war, but rather than acting as a deterrent, that understanding ENCOURAGED them towards more aggressive action in order to secure the necessary resource/workarounds to sustain their post-1915 hegemony in east Asia. They chose aggression because the other major alternative was to surrender their hegemony (even creating a friendly alliance would mean sharing power with RUS CHI USA in E Asia), and few countries have ever done this willingly.
As for U.K., off the top of my head I would say that their success was due to a) their geog position which allowed them to gatekeep trade to Europe; b) close enough to European competition to promote a strong fiscal-military state; c) yet also isolated by the Channel from the worst of European competition, which allowed a govt that could afford to deliberate and consult w/stakeholders to create pragmatic policy (esp when dealing with competitors like USA); and d) luck/opportunity in the decline of Mughal/Qing empires etc.
@@StrategyStuff I wouldn't say England's geographic position gave them any 'gatekeeping' ability. Britain was located in the Northwest of Europe, unlike Portugal and Spain who could gate keep Europe from the west and the Ottomans and the Italian states who could gate keep from the east.
Alongside having a strong navy, Britain's success came from its strategy of building trading ports, and only gradually expanding their influence until when they had enough power that they could subjugate the entire country, thereby going from a simple trading partner to a colonizer by either establishing a Protectorate or outright owning it. Britain did this across Asia and Africa. The Spanish did the same in the Philippines and the Dutch did so in Indonesia.
The CCP has learned from this model and is their motivation behind their "String of Pearls" strategy and its Belt & Road Initiative essentially facilitates that.
Please cover more modern history like this; you offer highly unique insight into the internal political circumstances that affected grand strategic thinking, as opposed to viewing a country's interests and values as unified, as in the typical way of learning history which is often egregious for studying this era.
I really liked the video. It was a comprehensive and in-depth look at their thinking at the time. It makes much more sense now. Keep up the good work!
The Russo Japanese War saw an internally unstable Russia (which was easily fractured by a defeat that served as a catalyst for the following 1905 unrest) who could not afford societal costs of a long term war as Ww1 would later prove.
Ww2 saw a relatively internally stable US, which a strike instead of fracturing, galvanized public opinion.
When it comes down to it if the Japanese planners wanted to avoid a protracted war they truly misread the American public.
If they thought the American public would demand surrender because of a strike, then yes, they were utterly delusional. If they thought the US ability to project force in the Pacific would be crippled, leading to Japanese victory, leading to US instability and a free hand, then their thinking was simply overoptimistic. Their model for understanding how a power reacts to defeat was shaped by Russia in 1905 and 1917, and Germany in 1918. They had little appreciation for the fact that the US might be different, or might never surrender and simply rebuild its fleets.
But no power goes into a conflict thinking it will be a long protracted war, and once in a protracted war, the big push to end it is always around the corner. Japan, like Hitler with the USSR, saw an action within their capability that would set off a perceived set of dominoes. So they took the big gamble in a context where their situation demanded a swift resolution, and spent the rest of the war chasing that decisive blow when the dominoes didn't fall.
The Japanese were simplistic in their assumptions about what was going to happen--which is more common for most every country that people might think. The Japanese assumed/hoped that the flow of a war against America would follow the lines of the Russo-Japanese War earlier that century. As the Russians sent their Baltic Fleet across the globe toward Japan, so the assumption was that America would send its pacific Fleet from San Diego to Japan. As the Russian fleet was destroyed in decisive battle, so the assumption was that America, like Russia, suffered from the fact that its fleet would have to sail at such a large distance while the Japanese fleet operated close by Japan, and like Russia,, could be destroyed near the home islands. The Japanese called this idea Kantai Kessen--the decisive battle. The US relocation of the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor in 1940 was but one of the problems undermining Japanese assumptions.
Great work , it comes across as analytical and unbiased, keep it up!, graphics are simple and very effective.
Well done. A great presentation, which has enhanced my level of understanding of the reasons for Japan doing what it did.
Good stuff. An excellent and detailed description on the events that led to their decision to attack America. I've had only a glimmer of what was going on in the game Hearts of Iron 4 as they had Manchuria in that game, but no backstory. It also explains where the name Greater Coprosperity Sphere came from. I am normally a history buff and know many things, yet this video alone gave me a great depth of knowledge I have not had in a long while.
This is an excellent channel that deserves hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Another excellent video, well done.
I’d love to see a video explaining the modern day strategy of Australia by the way. It’d be a very interesting case study of the evolving situation in the Indo-Pacific, as well as the importance of maritime corridors and strategic depth. :)
I have to be honest. I have rarely seen a video so clear and so professional on the argument. You are really talented. Chapeau 🎩
very well done. obviously cant fit everything into a 45 minute video, but you came pretty close.
Extremely well done, clarifying Japan's limited options that led to a disastrous war. Good job on a complex subject!
I thought this was great, I’d just say, do some work on the audio/visuals, there are some pretty cheap deck mics out there, ~30$, still a bit pricy, but not crazy. Also, maybe showing pictures with some description of the people (e.g. job, what they did/were in charge of) you’re talking about and maybe see if there’s some way to show plans on the map, draw lines in or something. But, overall pretty neat, great content, just needs some polish,
Definitely the best, most comprehensive and synthetic explanation of this topic I've ever seen. Liked and subscribed and looking forward to check more content of your channel. Cheers!
Great video. Very interesting and informative
This is excellent quality work. Almost to the level of Military History Visualized. I'm eager to see more.
Hey this channel is fantastic.
If you're picking your brain for ideas, might I suggest French strategy in Africa from 1945-present?
Thank you for making these videos.
I just found this channel and I love it. Saw some of your old videos in China and was amazed by your Chinese .
Amazing video, thank you for sharing that information with us. :D
A great work! Not often to see such a comprehensive study on Far East. If the pre-war American government knew, at the time, anything you have described here in the Far East regional conflicts, the outcome of the war could have been very different, and many tragedies prevented. Compared to the US involvement in the European theatre, its commitment in the Pacific theatre was much confused, short-sighted. At least, this time round, it has learned something, though not against Japan, but China.
Thank you for this. It was very informative.
**The Grand Strategy of Imperial Japan circa. 1919 - 1945**
1. Sucker punch the other guy as hard as you can.
2. The other guy thinks, "Oh wow, nobody had the balls to do that to me! You're so brave and awesome!!"
3. Make favorable treaties with the other guy who now likes you a lot after you've punched him, and enjoy peace and prosperity.
this is what i expect from an anime
@Dark PePe As a vassal.
Japan tried that 3 times, 1st against Qing China, 2nd against Imperial Russia, 3rd times against the United States. They did win the first 2 times they tried.
Japan sucker punched Freedom-Loving America, expects consequences to turn to their favor.
Leftists sucker punched Freedom-Loving American, expects consequences to turn to their favor....
Guess we all know the similarities and results.
@@skybattler2624 meh..before WW2..USA was whitey only....after WW2 when Japan made USA pay for the war...then US became liberal ...it was Japan that took the great away..
guess you should not have a picked a war with the older Japanese warriors..uh?..
now you such a whitey whiny culture..fight harder next time..pussy cat
Thank you for posting very informative and well presented.
Excellent video. I really enjoyed it and i thought it was a great in detail explanation.
Wow! Great video and data. Thank you
This channel is great, keep up the goodwork brother
You should do:
The The Grand/General Strategy of Tsarist Russia 1547-1721
The The Grand/General Strategy of Early Imperial Russia 1721-1815
The The Grand/General Strategy of Late Imperial Russia 1815-1914
one of the Soviet Union would be cool too.
Outstanding presentation. Well done!
Great stuff! Often outsiders view history as a carefully planned conspiracy by a unified elite, when it is just a struggle by several factions through unexpected events.
History explanation can be expanded indefinitely, but I must add a little to the fact that Japan was not simply greedy for power. They saw what happened to country after country, being colonized and exploited, from India, Philippines, Hawaii, and the entire South-East Asia. Modernization and militarization was not only seen as mandatory for survival, but also served Japan quite well in the 1894 Sino-Japanese war and the 1905 Russo-Japanese war. The experience gained and lessons learned from these successes were directly responsible for the later loss.
Yes. Another point that is often lost to us now is how recent much of this European and American colonial activity was that was going on around the Japanese. It all might merge together to us now with Victorian and much earlier imperialism going back to the days of Portuguese sailing ships, the spice trade and Vasco da Gama. But the American presence in the Philippines was obviously recent, and much of what the British, French and Dutch were doing economically in their longer established SE Asian colonies was new too.
For example, they were setting up rubber plantations to supply rubber tires for the rapidly rising number of motor vehicles on roads around the world. Similarly oil production was being massively and urgently expanded, not just to feed recent transport developments, but to power the world's navies which were converting from coal to oil in the 1920s. This was all contemporary reality to the Japanese planners and factions, not ancient history. Colonialism was the modern thing, even futuristic - like Jazz, gramophone records or flying boats!
This was a hell of a informal video. Thank you very much. Subscribed!
This is excellent ! thank you for this work
This sounds like an oral defense of a Ph.D. candidate in Japanese military history, or summary of a doctoral dissertation. Extremely impressive, although some of the details could be argued with. Not that they are "wrong", just some perhaps are misapplied, but still an impressive presentation.
He Mandarin pronunciation is much better than Japanese pronunciation though, which is unusual among native English speakers. The pronunciation for Zhang Zuolin is pitch perfect.
@@paiwanhan He is from Hong Kong, which explains that :)
Great Channel! Continue and will be among the greathest
this is so amazing! just what i craved!!
So very good & thorough. Thank you.
Excellent review of Japanese strategic moves leading to the Pacific War. You nicely summarize the whole process and Japanese thinking. The amazing thing is that the Pacific War was the outcome of in depth study and planning, unlike the situation in Europe where three men (Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini) launched the War without any serious study or planning. I see one basic issue Japan just ignored. In a world dominated by military power, how would Japan fare once the NAZIs dominated Europe and the Soviet Union. Khalkhin Gol proved that the Japanese Army was not up to Red Army standards, let alone those of the Wehrmacht.
Very interesting video!
This was a fun watch. Thank you!
Let's all subscribe so that one day StrategyStuff can hire a video production team and he can focus on tons and tons of well-researched content and scripts :D
Well thought out video. Presents some ideas I hadn't considered before.
1000 extra credit for pronouncing Zhang Zuolin's name in the most authentic way possible
This video is brilliant.
6:30 the “have” and “have not” can be seen as the difference between old imperialism and new imperialism
Thanks RUclips, your algorithm works on occasion.
Fantastic videos and channel! Subbed!
Working on some fiction involving this place and time. Your video showed up on my phone and I am checking it out.
Mind. Officially. Blown.
Only 18 min into the video and I have to stop and process this. Again and again you are showing the man behind the curtain, stuff I have read years ago makes more sense now.
I will share the fiction with you as I work on it and give you credit as a major inspiration source.
Subscribed
While there's lots of info and I'm sure it's well researched, the presentation is... well... busy. Rule of thumb: people can either listen to you or look at your presentation, not both. That's a basic rule of business presentations. You put a LOT of information up on the screen at the same time. But it's kind of thrown on there wherever there's space, making it difficult to tie the various components together into a coherent picture. Also, it's the difference between the presentation of theoretical strategy, and actual historical events, isn't always easy to distinguish. I tip my hat to you about the high level of effort you put into this video, but I recommend you look at some of the other history channels here on RUclips to see how they present their subjects.
Very nice, but how do i incorporate this knowledge into my HOI4 games?
Openeyees As great as PDX games are, and as absolutely fantastic it would have been if they aligned with the thinking of these videos, HOI4 has a focus tree system which is intended to make almost all such decisions for you.
Take IWO JIMA! :D
Cool stuff man. Subscribed
Impressive presentation...two thumbs-up 👍👍
I really love your content. Where can i donate so u can get a better mic. I listen to your videos in podcast style and low audio quality kinda ruins it for me.
Great job, thanks a million!
What kind of minor industry or economic resources were located Micronesia? Just noticed one of your maps. Reading about the US campaigns in the area currently so I'm curious. Great video by the way, you've got my sub, hope to see more. Thanks.
Coconut/Copra (as feed or into biodiesel), and phosphates esp. British Nauru. The key use would still be as a massive defense zone/flank which would harass/slow down the US Navy as it proceeded westwards for decisive battle.
EXCELLENT! 10,000 Extra Thumbs Up...Your economic resources approach really nails it. I thought it was all just about the oil...which is still going on.
Very thorough.
Grateful Fred
Very well presented.
Very interesting and very well done! I have subscribed.
Very good. Keep the good job!
very interesting thanks for making
Thank you for an enlightening and educational video on the history of Japan's evolving grand strategy that tragically led to Pearl Habor on 7 December 1941.
It helps viewers better understand (but not necessarily accept) the Japanese perspectives.
Admittedly, it's impossible to cover all aspects of this strategy as it responded to external developments.
Based on archival research by other authors, both Japan and the USA had began to see each other as a growing threat to their national interests since the early 1900s. On one hand, Japan's territorial ambitions, turning more ultra-nationalist and turning away from democracy towards militarism under Baron Giichi Tanaka's premiership in 1927-1929 threatened neighbouring countries and Western powers. On the other hand, the US naval build-up in the Pacific also threatened Japan's ambitions. US opposition to Britain-Japan alliance of 1902-1923 and some British leaders' (like Churchill) advocacy to discontinue this alliance in favour of US-British alliance, helped to set the stage for an eventual Japan's attack on British Imperial Far East possessions.
What was also dysfunctional and tragic was that the upper echelons of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) and the Japanese civilian political decision-making elite, lost control over lower ranking or more junior IJA ultra-nationalist officers, under threat of assassinations. The prevailing atmosphere of militarism and ultra-nationalism, easily drowned out voices of reason and moderation against war. It was not conducive to calm, level-headed and wise decision-making. This was compounded by the Japanese culture of group consensus decision-making that encouraged harmony, and bravado expressions of nationalistic patriotism, even though individuals within the group harbored private reservations about going to war with USA and Britain.
This was despite knowing that IJN naval war gaming exercises had predicted that Japan could not hope to win a long-term war of attrition with the world's largest industrial power in the USA. The pro-war voices also ignored (Tiger of Malaya) Tomoyuki Yamashita's advice to extricate Japan from an unwinnable war in mainland China. His jealous rival, PM Hideki Tojo didn't want to withdraw Japanese armed forces from China (a US demand), citing that doing so would make Japanese lives lost in fighting China be in vain (sunk cost fallacy). Neither was Yamashita's advocacy of maintaining friendly relations with the USA and Britain heeded. Worse, IJA and IJN had no idea how to end the Pacific war after starting it.
Like fire, nationalism can be a good servant (to legitimize regime self-preservation as the first law of human nature), but a terrible master.
Without an exit plan, ultra-nationalistic pride dictated that Japan would fight to the bitter end, at the cost of many more lives,
until common sense was restored to Emperor Hirohito when the Japanese race was threatened with annihilation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and USSR forces overran Manchukuo.
Lurking behind historical grievances lay the dynamics of unlimited ambition, lust for more power and national pride, interacting with one another in a combustible mix that fuel the regional security dilemma and spiral / edge nations towards war. The self-deception, irony and fallacy is this: many accumulate more power out of insecurity. But the more power one accumulates, the more insecure one can become. This dynamic is still present in the world (though no more in Japan) today.
Has mankind really drawn the appropriate lessons from WWII?
Thank you for the video 😊
HF, this is a quantum leap in YT content quality. Who TF are you?! If there's a way to support your production (other than Patreon, who lost me forever in the Sargon affair), I'd like to know about it.
Just a random dude interested in history... thanks for your kind words, but I wouldn't feel comfortable asking for money when I can't get a regular schedule going (I certainly don't like it when Patreon-ees do that). I'll resume uploading in August.
@@StrategyStuff That's respectable. But if by any chance you feel some donation can help your production even a little bit, please consider Patreon. People like me want quality and do not want to compromise quality for the sake of, say, frequency of upload. I think you will find a group of supporters perfectly ok with irregular schedule. For an actual example of a channel that does not upload regularly and its Patreon supporters are ok with it, Eastory (ruclips.net/channel/UCElybFZ60Hk1NSjgCf7I2sg) which produces animation of WWII eastern front troop movement comes to mind. Patreon supports pledge of donation per upload. So you won't owe your supporters if you don't upload. (You will owe them if your upload is compromised in quality relative to their expectation. But that doesn't seem to be an issue.)