>My casual reading of the US strategic bombing survey Not something I hear often tbh

@Bird_Dog00

7 жыл бұрын

lol Not everyone has the same definition of "easy reading"...

@StinkySkunk100

7 жыл бұрын

I just think its funny, most people easy reading is just some magazine article or an easy novel, but he sits down with dry military reports. I meant no offense

@TINCANsquid

7 жыл бұрын

heh heh heh

@PrinceSoviet

7 жыл бұрын

When you're interested in a subject it indeed become "casual" in a sense of feeling for you to read it. I just finished to read Achtung Panzer in 1 week in english ( which is not even my first tongue ) because i'm that passioned by strategy.

@Zackaryyrakcaz

7 жыл бұрын

Hakkapeliitta Maybe it was a decision by the merchants themselves? Idk how any of that works... but I imagine trading with england would have been easier, quicker, and somewhat safer... and more profitable once they entered the war. Also... pardon my spotty history knowledge, but... was it Norway or Sweden that was invaded by the Soviets around that time?

"casual reading. . . .US strategic bombing survey" 0:01 That's my man Mil His Visualised!!

@evanoconnor3781

6 жыл бұрын

*MilHisVis

Very interesting video. Couple this with the fact that the Japanese did not use a convoy system to protect its merchant ships and you violate the first rule of warfare. An army marches on its stomach. No matter how good an army is it can not fight with out supplies.

"Casual reading of the US strategic bombing survey" Can't really criticize your choice of literature, I make a habit out of sitting down with a tall glass of champagne and reading about the influence of guinea pigs within the Taiwanese government.

@alfnoakes392

2 жыл бұрын

You too, small world, eh.

"My casual reading of the US strategic bombing survey" Why aren't we best friends :s

@mennoltvanalten7260

3 жыл бұрын

he is too busy casually reading things to talk with people?

Indeed, this is something i probably would not have considered myself, ever.

An eye opener. I knew Japan was practically forced into action by her resource situation but I hadn't connected the dots. Now I see why the submarine campaign against her was so brutally effective. Britain, even at the hight of the war in the Atlantic, had ships from all of her Allies (and neutrals?) coming in. Japan had only her own ships even before the submarine campaign started. If you look at it that way there's absolutely no way she could have won anything on the mid to long term.

@TheFranchiseCA

6 жыл бұрын

Prior to the war, Japan's small merchant marine meant much of its shipping requirements were handled by its trading partners, particularly the United States and Britain. Even before American submarines devastated Japanese shipping, it really wasn't adequate for the task at hand.

@twirlipofthemists3201

6 жыл бұрын

US also used subs better than Germany used UBoats, in my humble and uncontroversial opinion.

@BobSmith-dk8nw

5 жыл бұрын

The US Subs had severe torpedo problems at the beginning of the war but once they sorted that out - Japan was screwed. .

@peterright7742

3 жыл бұрын

@@twirlipofthemists3201 Based on what? The German U-boats destroyed around 5000 ships.

@ianwhitchurch864

3 жыл бұрын

@@peterright7742 Based on the German wolf pack tactics having a hard counter of enemy aircraft. Once the Allies had enough long range aircraft on patrol, wolf pack tactics just stopped working.

I actually knew this from playing hearts of iron I just never realized that it applied to real life

@Adidas_der_schwanger_war

7 жыл бұрын

when you got china its ok though

@talknight2

7 жыл бұрын

Videogames can be a great teaching tool :)

@shashwatsinha2704

4 жыл бұрын

Other than the military stuff, Victoria 2 is much better for diplomacy, economy, resources, industry, geopolitics, etc. Do you agree?

Interesting. I've always been fascinated by how the different theaters effected each other. Once again, good work!

So, they were basically doomed from the beginning.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

yes

@kostam.1113

7 жыл бұрын

Maybe not, if they were more rational. And if they limited their ambitions.

@jonathancarshow9573

7 жыл бұрын

SkyTech RTS they should of attacked Russia I'm sure no one would of got involved maybe a month before Barbarossa they would of took a lost at first but Russia would of fell I think

@robbreyne4452

7 жыл бұрын

japan needed resources so wasting them for a meaningless conquest would just have worsend their situation.

@neeneko

7 жыл бұрын

Pretty much. As I understand it, even if Japan had sat and done nothing it would have been in trouble. While their risk analysis was rather questionable, there was also risk in staying neutral and the domestic instability that would have caused.

I especially enjoy your videos about the various aspects of logistics in war. While tactics and weapons technology are important, it is logistics that wins or loses wars. That gave me a thought: Did you ever come across a comparison between the availability for operations of vehicles like tanks but also transport vehicles between the nations fighting in WW2? What I mean is: Every vehicle, be it a lorry, a tank or a dog-drawn cart, is only available for use for a part of it's existence. Most of the other time it sits somewhere being repaired or waiting for repairs or simply being out of fuel/dogs. I once read somewhere that during the african campaign, often less than 50% of the tanks in the Afrika Corps' inventory were available for combat operations.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

yeah, operational rates are very important, I cover those a bit (for planes) in the Why the Luftwaffe failed. Additionally, I have some data on Truck Production etc. in which Germany was lacking behind, whereas in motorbikes they were leading (one reason for the Kradschützen units). Sadly, logistics videos are usually not doing really well, thus I had reduced the number of these and/or try to use more "popular" titles / angles to make them more interesting.

@Bird_Dog00

7 жыл бұрын

It's a shame logistics isn't as popular with your viewers as direct combat. I guess it is to be expected, but still, logistics is the key. That's something playing Civilisation taught me in no uncertain terms, when I waged war against an AI enemy and made about every newbie-mistake I could make on the tactical level (having an army consisting mostly of horsemen and using them to attack cities for example) but still was never in danger because I had both the cities to replace my losses as fast as my tactical ineptness created them and the road net to get them to the frontlines quickly.

@Spurros

7 жыл бұрын

I read that one of the major factors in allowing the German Army to launch Barbarossa when it did, was the successful capture/surrender of large numbers of French motor units during the invasion of France, which the German military simply did not have available to it at the time.

@Spurros

7 жыл бұрын

I like the old quote 'Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics'!

@Riceball01

7 жыл бұрын

You've brought up a very important point and something that often gets overlooked in a lot discussions over military capabilities and procurement. A good example of this is the US carrier fleet, we have or want 13 carriers and people often argue why so many not realizing that we don't and never will have the full number of carriers available at any time.

there was no coordination of the war between Germany and Japan.

@STG44VOLVO

5 жыл бұрын

@@daltonagronomo1652 Congrats §ir.

@OberteufelPingu

5 жыл бұрын

@@daltonagronomo1652 You live in Brasil, gz. Who cares where you live??

@konstantinkarandashev558

5 жыл бұрын

That's the problem with egocentric people: it takes a lot to get them to cooperate. History may have turned very differently if the Soviets were tied by the Japanese in the East and defeated by Axis before a military US intervention, but the short-term gains for the Japanese were considered not worth the military effort, so they went East and South instead.

@TheLocalLt

5 жыл бұрын

Dalton Agrônomo the Emperor Hirohito had a mostly ceremonial role in the war a la King Victor Emmanuel in Italy, the prime minister of wartime Japan was Hideki Tojo. His expansionist ideas began before WWII but his transformation of Japan into a one-party fascist state in 1941 cemented his own personal power, at least until the Japanese had nearly lost and Hirohito fired Tojo, just as Mussolini got fired by Vittorio Emmanuel near the end of the war. But basically Tojo and Mussolini were both at heads of fascist civilian governments, while both remained technically subservient to a monarch.

@JamesJames-jt3ts

3 жыл бұрын

@James Henderson Would have changed situation completely. USSR would have lost in a matter of months. Britain even defeated would have been a greater power than it is today. The paradox is that Britain won the war allegedly but was reduced to a tiny island and a vasal of US. What a shit thinking english leaders had.

Really appreciate this, it's an aspect of the war I hadn't considered but seems quite obvious now that you point it out.

A good point that so many history fans overlook. Thanks for pointing out the logistics on the shipping.

What about the other end of the coin, how Japan's entrance weakened Germany? it could also be argued that italy also had an adverse effect on Germany during WW2, being a sinkhole for German resources and troops.

@michaelatorn8380

3 жыл бұрын

And then escaping from the front😂

@looinrims

2 жыл бұрын

Nope, no Italy no world war 2

Interesting as always my man, keep it up.

again thanks for your work a little known but vital subject presented in a fast clear illustration

fascinating and a fresh look. thanks! keep up the great work.

Sharp analysis. Well done!

wow, nice new aspect. Thanks!

This is quite the interesting find. Bravo, sir.

Hi Bernhard, you produce great lectures and you have refined your "art" as years go by. I would highly recommend that you teach at a University or War College (if you are not doing so already). You are bringing fresh thinking into the history of WW II - you think "out of the box". Your utilization of references, of extensive documentation, and your access to newer publications shed new light on old subjects. Your use of audio-visual and graphic symbols greatly amplifies your statements, illustrates your points while not distracting the viewer from the subject presented. You are a gifted teacher and have an outstanding delivery style - college students (and military cadets/officers alike) would greatly benefit from professors like you. Ciao, L Kapitän zur See USN (Retired)

@OberteufelPingu

5 жыл бұрын

Lol

Great quote at the start sir!

Great video!

I'd never thought about it!

Really nice work buddy.

never heard of such topics ...... impressive and it's my favorite....

that's some bloody interesting info there. I hadn't considered how the victories on the opposite fronts would have affected the outcome on the other side of the world before. I'm currently doing a study on the economic impacts of war (in general) and you've just added a new area to look at

Fascinating. I was totally unaware of this. And yet it makes sense. And as you say it demonstrates how interdependent events can be, often in surprising ways.

Huh, interesting. I never thought of that.

Thanks for explaining the surveys key finding regarding Transportation Logistics. Ivan is having a similar problem this year on his eastern border.

Whereas it may be outside your desired target audience, I would find it extremely cool to have a video or a few available in German too! Also, you're doing a great work and I'm enjoying your content a lot - cheers from Finland!

Thank you, I learned something new!

Good job!

Well done!

Interesting, I had never thought of this aspect. Everything has an effect on outcomes. Learn something new everyday is what my Dad taught me. Glad I have paid attention to that.

Wonder if similar aspects also affected earlier wars. We always hear how wars such as the 7 years war left countries deeply indebted in a way we can't even conceive today, France, for instance, but it's always assumed it is because of the cost of supplying the army. Perhaps the reduction in trade is, in fact, more important. Conversely the crusades almost certainly led to the renaissance because of the increase in trade with the middle east which was almost nonexistent before.

@tommy-er6hh

7 жыл бұрын

Have you ever seem the old film "Lloyd's of London"? It kinda deals with this in Napoleonic times.

*Previous comment was removed out of respect and due to missunderstanding. My apologies. I admire your work ALOT. Keep it up!

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

;) no worries and there will be more contemporary content anyway :)

This is actually really well displayed in Hearts of Iron IV. Japan can really struggle, as well as other nations once Germany goes to war. And for some nations which entirely depend on a country for all of their resources, the second they get dragged into a war, especially against their major supplier, they will struggle. Like going to war with Russia when you need lots of Tungsten or oil for your airplanes and tanks

@arturocevallossoto5203

7 жыл бұрын

HOI4 is for casuals.

@djeieakekseki2058

5 жыл бұрын

Arturo Cevallos Soto what is for hardcores then

@sebastianqvam8040

5 жыл бұрын

True, right now I'm playing as Norway. I went to war with Russia. (Finland Rejected the Russian Demand) I am now struggling with oil and aliminium

Good video, thank you. It would be interesting to get an analysis of how much Northern merchants supported the Southern war effort during the ACW.

From Wikipedia.org: 'Beginning in 1938, the U.S. adopted a succession of increasingly restrictive trade restrictions with Japan.' I.e. does suggest that Japan's economic woes began earlier than Germany's Victories in Europe.

@thomasdemay9805

6 жыл бұрын

of course they did but that doesn't mean the War in Europe didn't make a bad problem even worse. It's called being in a downward Spiral.

very nice perspective

This is actually pretty cool b/c yeah this something I never thought of considering, or even really think about.

I never would've thought of it that way. I kind of thought the war in the pacific and Europe were for the most part isolated from each other. Good video

Can you do more videos on ancient military history, like Caeser, Hannibal, people like that?

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

was originally planned, but the focus will be more on from 1789 onward up to present day, of course there will be exceptions like Prussia, Sieges of Vienna, Castle visits and probably Roman ruins. There are already channels focusing on the Ancient & Medieval times and I personally have a strong dislike for those times, because the source material is very limited.

@domagoj905

7 жыл бұрын

Hey! Nice video and channel! Could you take in consideration, pretty please, overview of the battle of Siget (1566.) ?

@jensdanbolt6953

7 жыл бұрын

The Prussian army has a reputation of unmatched discipline and quality, often winning battles and even wars against superior numbers, most famously in the Seven Years War when Prussia took the brunt of fighting on the continent against an alliance including Russia, Sweden, Austria and France. Half a century later they were humiliated by Napoleon before again showing superior quality in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war. They were not invincible "Space Marines" as they are jokingly called by players of grand strategy game Europa Universalis 4, but they have an unmatched reputation and it is not completely undeserved. I would love to have your factual input on this legendary fighting force. I get that the Prussian army changed throughout the decades, so it could be an idea to study the Prussian army in a specific conflict as well, but a broader look might be required to answer the big question: Does the Prussian army deserve its legendary status?

@smooth_sundaes5172

7 жыл бұрын

My knowledge of the Prussian army comes from studying the history rather than playing video games. It's important to remember that the Prussian Army of Frederick's day was a very different beast from that of the Wars of Liberation 1813/14 and post Napoleonic. One flaw you will find in the post Frederickan army is that it could be brittle and inflexible beyond brigade level which was demonstrated at Jena and Auerstadt in 1806. Although Corps organisation was adopted the Prussian army until after 1815 could at times be very unreliable being as it was filled with other Germans who were but a few months earlier allies of France. I think the efforts of people like Yorke; Gneisenau and especially Blucher cannot be underestimated during this period. The evolution of the Prussian army and state from the Marlburian period until the wars of German unification is an interesting but huge subject to cover in depth in a KZread post but worth it if it interests you.

@occasional_doomer

7 жыл бұрын

Check out Historia Civilis. He has series of videos on Caesar and Hannibal(along with a bunch of other stuff).

This is why I go to KZread. Thank you.

On tonnage... I understand the term and why we use that measurement, but it is somewhat hard to relate to. Maybe for the future, when talking about supply give an idea of numbers of ships involved (if possible). Especially there might be bottle necks with different types of ships you have for certain supplies and what might need? Or maybe not... Or you could just do a video on naval resupply in the pacific war, since you have been getting pretty deep into it, and with distances then logistical details are just as important (if not more important) than your fighting numbers.

@mikhailiagacesa3406

7 жыл бұрын

I like your comment; but trying to find the average tonnage of a ship during 30's and WW2 is a difficult undertaking. Most people come up w/ about 5000 Tons, but even this can be misleading(Japanese Mships were generally smaller than Allied). Both sides oil tankers and convoys were handled differently. It's a big topic.

@MrBigCookieCrumble

7 жыл бұрын

Are we using metric tons? i asume we are. Just wondering since we still use "nautical miles" and knots instead of km/h. i'm just curious wether (when talking about "tonnage") this is refering to an older measurement as well? A video on the logistical intricacies and capabilities of the different nations and how it worked would be a great topic to explore, since MHV has already touched on so many related topics.

@wwoods66

7 жыл бұрын

@Mr BigCookie - To make it more confusing, for cargo ships, "tonnage" is usually a measure of _volume,_ not mass. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnage

@twirlipofthemists3201

6 жыл бұрын

Ships are measured in tons. It's a measure of displacement. There's no other reasonable way to describe them. "2 miles of ships" doesn't really work.

was the puttro a bit short this time? I need that awkward silence to recoup and ponder over my life

Very interesting aspect. So additionally to the US hampering Japans resource supply because of the Sino-Japanese War the war in Europe made the situation even worse for the japanese economy, maybe even accelerating the "need" for a war to establish a safe supply base for its industry. Fascinating!

Very interesting.

once again you point out something that once examined is so obvious it's amazing it's not in the common school of thought.

Great recognition of a seldom noted aspect to world war.

Congrats on tackling a strategic aspect which is not specifically military in nature. This is actually a huge subject and i would like to see a more expansive and in-depth exploration of the subject. In what capacity, for example, would Japan have been employing European mercantile concerns for its own trade during time of war? How many of its trading partners would have withdrawn their services to a belligerent nation? Would Japan have simply interned or captured as much tonnage as it could? If not, then what would have been the legal status of merchant vessels carrying trade goods which would have benefitted Japan? Would these vessels have been considered to be transorting contraband by the Allies and thus been eligible for interception, capture or even sinking? This puts me in mind of the very hazy situation regarding Qing chartering of foreign-flagged merchant shipping for transporting its army to Korea in the build-up to (and during) the First Sino-Japanese War. During that crisi, japanese naval units were stopping and searching neutral ships and attempted to seize the Qing government troops aboard one vessel (Kowshing)which resulted in a stand-off followed by a highly controversial sinking and a major diplomatic incident between Japan & Britain. It strikes me that, had Germany not been at war or occupying Scandinavian / Dutch territory, that these nations' merchant marines might have found themselves on the receiving end of heavy treatment by the Allies. A few seizures or even cursory / accidental torpedoings may have caused them to stop chartering to Japanese operations, perhaps? The big question, of course, is what the invasion of the Dutch East Indies does. It seems that Japan still suffers from loss of trade carrying potential in that event anyway, all by dint of fighting a war of expansion by aggressive conquest. A lot really depends on quite how independent the tramp operators actually were, I suppose.

Owo whats this?! An MHV video? AND about WW2?! OH BOY

@votecthulhu9378

7 жыл бұрын

MOM GET THE LUBE

I very much enjoyed this video. The economics of war is not covered enough.

A little offtopic question: Why does the 2nd Sino-Japanese War does not count as the beginnig of WW2?

@wlee9888

7 жыл бұрын

I think a lot of people do believe that WW2 began in the 2nd Sino-Japanese War. Both of my grandfathers consider the invasion of Manchuria in 1931 (and the Mukden Incident that preceded it) as the beginning of WW2 and joined the military around that time. Even now, they hold a lot of disdain for the Japanese for occupying and enslaving their Taiwanese homeland.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

cause it involved only one major power of that time: Japan. China was still in a civil war. Whereas in Europe, it went from Germany vs. Poland immediately to Germany vs. UK + Commonwealth & France. Thus, 3 major powers.

@apudharald2435

7 жыл бұрын

Deborah Meltrozo the keyword being later. if it became part of it, then it isnt the start of it.

@seanlee7408

7 жыл бұрын

apud harald But how wasn't the invasion of China the start of it? Just because it's ONE major power does not mean it's not the definitive 'start', it's just like saying the Kingdom of Serbia didn't start WW I

@apudharald2435

7 жыл бұрын

Sean Lee it wasnt. it was a conflict that became part of it. in a similar fashion, the Dutch-Spanish 80 year war became part of the 30 year war, without being the start of the 30 year war. the trigger event for the second worldwar is the invasion of Poland and not of China. this is a very straightforward concept and not a matter of semantics. had there been no chinese-japanese war, we still would have had a WWII. Similarly, had the dutch and the spaniards gotten along famously, the german princes still would have had their powerstruggle, the French still would would​ have had rhenish claims, and for that matter even Sweden and Denmark would have had unfinished business predating the reformation.

I am just curious how do you find your sources, like do you have a preferred archive or something?

Excellent! Also this triggered memories of playing Japan in Axis and Allies (the board game). Never enough transports!

Japan in WW2 is a perfect example of globalization being closely tied to war. The dependency on trade forced Japan to nearly agree and withdraw from China after a treaty was signed with them. But Tojo refused. The ensuing embargo from US led to Japan going to war. Then we get to see Japan having over-burdened shipping due to war else where. And eventually how it help over-stretch the Japanese merchant fleet.

While on the Asia topic, any chance we're gonna see something about the actual invasion of China by Japan? I did a report on it a few years ago and its an enormous topic that is never discussed because its overshadowed by the Pacific war.

Amazing videos and great information but, and i know its not your fault, your accent is very heavy and hard to understand what you say sometimes so could you maybe put subtitles in your videos to make them even better....anyway great videos

another great video

@abdullelahfaiz9041

7 жыл бұрын

المسلم الموحد. هلا والله

@asadr9794

7 жыл бұрын

Abdullelah Faiz يالله حيه

@shellshockedgerman3947

7 жыл бұрын

المسلم الموحد. Hello

@asadr9794

7 жыл бұрын

hello...an interesting name you have there

@daltonater1212

7 жыл бұрын

المسلم الموحد. شَرموت

Have you ever mad a vid on the LRRP teams in the Vietnam conflict?

1929 is a bad year to start measuring. The US Stock Market Crash and the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act destroyed global trade. That would account for the most of the reduction in shipping. It's better to compare shipping from before and after 1939.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

interesting aspect, I assume the guys who wrote the US Strategic Bombing survey took it for a reason, probably because the data was available or because the turning point was there. Not sure, sadly usually I have to be happy to take any numbers that are out there, but I check them with excel for summing errors etc.

@BobSmith-dk8nw

5 жыл бұрын

That's a good point but I wonder if they didn't pick 1929 because of that. If they started before that - the 1929 adjustment would cause a disruption - whereas after that - this was the base line of what they were dealing with. If you get my point? .

"Tonnage" is not pronounced in French. It rhymes with "bridge" and not with "sabotage" (same thing with other words like storage, verbiage, sewage, etc.). Hope this helped!

The Norwegian merchant fleet as last I check was the third largest in the world, if I'm not mistaken

@erichvonmanstein1952

4 жыл бұрын

Today or past?Oooo

I am reading a very interesting book called African Kaiser, which is about how German East Africa remained undefeated throughout the Great War. I think this topic could very interesting to cover.

Marvelous scenario where you are articulating "The War In The Pacific", while New Zealand slowly drifts off the right hand side of my screen. That's Military History Visualized?... :~(

Very interresting! Does explain a bit why Japan felt so desperate in 1941 that they attacked an unreachable enemy with limitless recourses (USA)...

Thankfully, the world appears to have learned its lesson that wars for resources are utterly insane for a developed country that could just as easily trade for them.

@shashwatsinha2704

4 жыл бұрын

That is only possible if you're under the protection of a great power or are one yourself. Do you agree?

People in general do not realize how vitally important merchant shipping is to any modern war effort.

I thought this was going to be about how the success of the German U-boat campaign sold the US Navy on using its submarines against the Japanese merchant fleet instead of focusing on the enemy war fleet like the IJN did.

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

interesting point I need to investigate this.

great video but i have a modern day question for you, how has the youtube adpocolypse affected a channel like yours with no controversial material??

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

"no controversial material"? last time I checked I didn't do puppy videos. FYI since January 2016 (when I started this channel), my videos were demonetized on a regular basis only around June 2016 the manual review systems was added that allowed to request a "manual review". Since then almost all videos were re-monetized, but some are not and it takes a few hours up to a few days.

@montyburns3227

7 жыл бұрын

i always look at the start of vids to see if monetized ... and saw some of yours werent ... anyhow great material really enjoy it , and i think youtube is perfect format for it.

@Giloup92

7 жыл бұрын

Monty Burns How do you know wether a video is monetized or not ?

@montyburns3227

7 жыл бұрын

you will see an ad in it ... little yellow marker at the start of a video in the timeline of the vid, alot of YTers make 10 min vids to have most ads possible ..... alot of youtube content creators could become very wealthy .... pewdiepie for exampls has made millions but now that has dried up mostly it seems when advertisers pulled out of YT

Greatly insight! Fascinating to see how logistics played out globally.

interesting clip. the economics of war is often forgotten.

Also das der Welthandel im Kriegsfall fällt ist ja wohl klar. War die Japanische Wirtschaft wirklich so sehr von den Skandinavischen Handelsflotten abhängig? Dieser Punkt ging etwas unter. Aber tolle Arbeit so wie immer =)

@belisarius6949

7 жыл бұрын

Cicero Ich mein die hätten sowieso nicht mit Japan gehandelt.Was hat Deutschland damit zu tun?

@PyrrhoVonHyperborea

7 жыл бұрын

Is an den Haaren herbeigezogen. Japan breitete sich aggressiv aus in Ostasien, schon vor offiziellem start des "2. Weltkrieges", was britischen Interessen direkt entgegenstand (China, bsw., war britischer Alliierter; offiziell sogar auf britischer seite dem 1.Wk beigetreten; Japan führte Krieg gegen China, mit riesigen, aggressiven Landnamen, und Greueltaten an der Zivilbevölkerung). Die Idee, dass die Britten Japan vorbehaltlos darin unterstützt hätten, _wenn nur nicht Verluste in Europa sie zum Umdenken gezwungen hätten,_ ist durch und durch hirnrissig. clickbait at it's finest. Man muss schon sehr sehr unkritisch und blauäugig (und zumal uninformiert) sein, um das als "tolle arbeit" zu bezeichnen...

@argenys8

7 жыл бұрын

sorry i don't speak nazi just joking haha

@Prometheukles

7 жыл бұрын

Warum guckst dus wens so scheisse ist?

@argenys8

7 жыл бұрын

i like that! haha +Mr BigCookie

we have a new scout car

Hoo... as always coming in late on one of these. Yes, you're on the right track. No, you will have to consider the inherent inefficiencies of Japan, as a country solely dependent on vertical social institutions (compare to Putnam - Italy and pretty much anything you know about institutional economics). I.e. the inherent inefficiencies of Japan (still prelevant today) are actually more important as an expanation to Pearl than the public ABC-explanation. And still is, as in the case of China (South China Sea).

I'm not sure how valid the raw percentages are without taking into account Japanese shipping patterns affected by the various US trade embargoes. Not only that, but the en route times have an impact as well.A Japanese merchant ship no longer engaged in transporting scrap steel from San Francisco would be able to make multiple trips with other cargo from China within the same time frame. When fighting in the Mediterranean forced Britain to go around Africa; the increased transit times effectively reduced available shipping by over twenty percent. Likewise reduced trade to the US would increase available Japanese shipping tonnages. The oil embargo was the leading reason for Japan to go to war with the US. Yet once the war began Japanese tankers actually became more "efficient" because they were going to Malaysia, not the US west coast.

Logistics and the value of the Merchant Marine cannot be understated. Especially in the far reaches of the Pacific Ocean.

how does that link to the attack on Pearl Harbour?

not really about the video itself, but what do you think about the topic of mercator vs gall-peters projection? just had to think of it seeing the mercator projection in your video. I don't mean to be nut-picking, but a map that displays two land masses (greenland and africa) as being the same size despite one of them being ~15 times larger than the other seems pretty inaccurate to me

@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

7 жыл бұрын

personally: I dislike maps, cause I can't remember them, which means they are of limited use to me. Professionally: I don't have a choice due the tool-set using Mercator.

It helped Japan to focus on East Asia and not on the entire world trade, it made it more efficient and independent reducing the distances for its trade, they would had won the war they could have they own economy without the need to trade with Europe and America

О чём конкретно говорится? Как именно это происходило? Я не настолько хорош на слух.

Next please: Fortress Norway & Occupied France during WW2 ! ;)

i don't really get how there could be a large impact on Japan, the largest trading partner was the USA and Japan ended up under sanctions after fighting in Manchuria, also even with tankers from Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands being taken by the British i kind of doubt that many of them were going to Japan in the first place. Obviously the war in Europe had an effect on Japan as the war effort is going to destabilize the world economy but as i said the main trading partner was the USA

"...might be easily missed". Yeah, I guess. That's like a Deep Cut of history!

So how did the Japanese react? I never heard about a Japanese variant of the Liberty ship, i do know they used an massive number of barges.

I suspect that the decline in Japan's trade with "the rest of the world" during the war was due in large part of the vigilance of the Allied navies. And having broken the Japanese naval codes, the Allies knew when Japanese merchants ships would be at a given location. The U.S. submarine captains would complain if their targets arrived later than the code breakers had expected them to arrive.

Logistics, production and supply is everything in war. Me-2017 LOL

The dilemma over Japan's heavy dependence on maritime commerce reminds me of a lecture from a Korean who is an expert in international affairs. One of the topics covered was the emergence of Japan and its downfall. During its infancy as a growing major power, it struck an alliance with Great Britain, in order to secure the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria into its sphere of influence. In exchange, it countered the Russian advances into the Far East. This led to the annexation of Korea and eventual takeover of Manchuria. Between the late 19th century and the 1930s, Japan grew enormously, even defying the expectation of the Western powers. (You can say that Japan became stronger faster than they had anticipated.) However, this led to a growing dilemma: The more the Japanese found their economy growing and more heavily industrialized, it become correspondingly dependent on raw materials outside Japan. This eventually led Japan to wage wars against the Western powers -- i.e., the Dutch East Indies, the French Indochina, the US-dominated Philippines, and so on. The pivotal moment was the US embargo on Japan; Japan could no longer import petroleum and steel from the US. When this embargo took place, key Japanese higher-ups were pessimistic about what was to come. It was no less than a political crisis in Tokyo. When they pulled off the Pearl Harbor attack, they were not exactly elated.

Good analysis. Japanese shipbuilding could never come close to US Kaiser shipyards. Loss of Japanese & German skilled labor to armed forces was devastating. My three German uncles survived the war because of being mechanics behind the combat lines. But they were not home in the Schwarzwald factories

Chat does MIO stand for?

Well it was a World War. Still interesting. Perhaps leads to a better understanding why Germany and Japan even allied at all.

so you dont think all that trade would have been cut off throughout the war?

Yeah...I noticed if you're Japan in any 30'-40's Grand Strategy game...build Merchant ships, build Merchant ships, BUILD MORE MERCHANT SHIPS!

@samanli-tw3id

4 жыл бұрын

The Americans did the same by building Liberty and Victory ships.

Even so, despite this huge of a handicap, you have to admit that it's pretty impressive how Japan was able to pin down so many countries during WW2.

@svidentkyrponos7530

6 жыл бұрын

Not quite The japanese victory streak barely lasted from the pearl harbor attack to some point in 1942, from there after the midway defeat, everything got fucked up for them

Chermany

Who were the Churmans?

Something was lost in the explanation. I'm not enlightened on what happened.