10 More Misconceptions about World War II - TopTenz Reaction

See the original - • 10 More Misconceptions...
See my reaction to their first 10 misconceptions - • 10 World War II Myths ...
Check out (and subscribe) to Stories of the Civil War here - / @storiesofthecivilwar
Support VTH on patreon: / vth
See my new channel Stories of the Great War here - / @storiesofthegreatwar
VTH Gaming - / thehistoryguy
VTH Extra - / @vthextra
Follow me on instagram here - / vloggingthroughhistory
Follow VTH on Facebook here - www.facebook.c...
#reaction #history

[@MythosMaster1]

Talking about people not taking a stand in Germany, my uncle (USAF) was shot down in Germany. A family took him in and got him out of the country. They went on to be executed for their "treason" and my uncle lived to be 101 and always said he owed his life to this family and would be happy to see them again when he had gone. Things are never black and white.

[@ShadowGricken]

Guy: nazis didn't invent blitzkrieg Me: yeah, maneuver warfare has been known for centuries as- Guy: its a dirty trick Me: **what**

[@spiffy6451]

The people who believed in the cult of the offensive must have felt devious

[@mihel1640]

I've seen 'blitzkrieg' being summed up as combined arms warfare too...

[@Edax_Royeaux]

"this strategy [Blitzkrieg] was easily beaten by putting down multiple defensive lines to slow down the enemy." Yeah no. All of the defensive lines around Stalingrad got breached in about a day. The last word I'd describe the Battle of Kursk would be "easy".

[@JordanKerrigan]

That’s the equivalent of say the Allies using paratroopers in Normandy is a dirty joke.

[@cmoney3163]

Ah yes, the age old underhanded tactic of being fast.

[@markymark2820]

That dude is clearly an anti-American propagandist. The atomic bombings obviously played a massive role in japanese surrender. It's not a coincidence that the second bomb was dropped and then like 5 or 6 days later the emperor was on the radio reading his surrender speech to the people of Japan lol

[@charlesreid9337]

This isnt anti-American.. there is shitloads to criticize America about. This is just an attempt to be edgy about history without an actual history education

[@Edax_Royeaux]

11:27 "The sad thing is that even the greatest World War of all time didn't actually bring America truly together." A Gallup poll conducted days after the Pearl Harbor attack found that 97% of Americans approved of Congress's declaration of war on Japan, with only 2% disapproving.

[@hobs1466]

And yet there were multiple members of Congress working directly with agents of the German government to disseminate fascist propaganda.

[@Darth_Traitorous]

In 1942 about 6 or so months later Dutch harbor Alaska the only naval base in Alaska was bombed by the Japanese. They proceeded to take three islands and take all the people that live there as pows but they were still treated better by the Japanese even though they were still starving. Compared to FDR taking the other half that he was able to get and put them in Southeast Alaska with no food no tools to build shelters or anything they starve to death and had disease. Yes a Democratic president who is for the Democrat party did a dictator ideal by putting innocent people in harm's Way for his own gain.

[@coxmosia1]

Humans will never agree 100% on anything. It's our nature.

[@Darth_Traitorous]

@@coxmosia1 then how are we still alive today. Do they have said in the 1980s there was a particular gas that was destroying our ozone layer all of the world governments United behind a resolution by the UN to ban that gas they haven't used that gas sense in the ozone layer has been completely regenerated. You're just using an absolute and I give you one example of when the world government agreed on something to save humankind. The only time the world will agree on something is if everybody involved is going to die. That's the only time anything will ever get done.

[@rvds2040]

what was up with that last 1% ?

[@brucetucker4847]

"The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage" has to be one of the most absurd understatements in human history.

[@blazewardog]

Japanese people usually word things to avoid giving absolutes. As you go up their "formality tier", it becomes even harder to give absolutes. I am not certain, but it is possible the Emperor's keigo might not have vocabulary to say "we are getting our butt kicked and losing" anymore directly.

[@EzraFieldsofStrawberry]

​@@blazewardogOnly non-Japanese deal in absolutes

[@jaypandya7441]

It's a diplomatically perfect comment. U may not appreciate it, but as a law student, it's perfect

[@PalmelaHanderson]

This sounds like something a freshman college student would write after their first 100-level history class and they're trying to be contrarian.

[@matejbabjak9678]

Sadly in the world of today the primary target is the number of views and not the quality of the content. And the more controversial/inflammatory content, the more views it gets... Sad times.

[@BoatsNhoes824]

@@matejbabjak9678basically saying was made for this soft ass “modern audience”. Sad woke world we live in this days.

[@AbsoleteAim]

​@@BoatsNhoes824Not sure how you came to that conclusion. He's not popular among modern audiences. He gets views because it's controversial, not because the majority of the 'modern audience' agrees.

[@derekrosado9014]

YO HAHAHAH

[@garesonc9672]

Yes...well said!!!!

[@thomassmith8140]

I like that VTH reacts to bad/innacurate videos like this one, and not just good ones. Sometimes hearing the wrong thing can be helpful in learning whats right

[@TheBeastlyFollower]

I've always found his reactions to bad/inaccurate history/historians some of his most entertaining videos. That AI video he reacted to about the Civil War was really funny, as well as anything he's covered done by RazorFist.

[@barrettbritt]

This guy is a clown. Thanks for calling him out.

[@gmwdim]

To be fair they made it clear that the guy in the video is just the presenter and that the writing was done by someone else. But yeah not the best researched video you'll find.

[@JamesC1981]

@@gmwdim i blame simon whistler

[@markgrehan3726]

@@JamesC1981 Why? he wasn't the writer.

[@yj9032]

Being critical of USA is not being a clown

[@grassrootsdictator5701]

@@yj9032true but that doesn’t make the video less of a clown show

[@SMG2024]

This script was written by someone who wants a pat on the back for hating war. Newsflash bro: We all hate war.

[@soupordave]

Richard Franks has written and lectured extensively on the end of the War and the last days of the Japanese Ruling Council. They held meeting and kept notes and reports. After Hiroshima a team was sent to investigate and determine if it was an Atomic bomb that was dropped. Japan had nuclear physicists and had done some research and investigation into building an atomic bomb. They had previously concluded that building an atomic bomb was not feasible - Japan had no uranium or plutonium to build one, and the scientists thought that there wasn't any way to refine enough material to make a bomb. They stuck to this conclusion after the Hiroshima bombing and advised that the USA must be bluffing and there was no way they had more than one bomb. When Russia invaded Manchuria, the Council shrugged it off. All the best units that could be pulled out of mainland China had been brought to the Home Islands to defend the coming invasion so there was hardly anything there to stop them. Surrender was never seriously discussed. The "Peace Faction" had tried to send unofficial diplomatic feelers to the Soviets about mediating with the USA, but no one took it seriously as the Peace Faction had no power in the Council and the Militarists would not accept any peace deals that did not let them keep the conquered territory in China as well as Manchuria and Korea. It was not until after the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki that things actually started to unravel and the Emperor stepped in. And there was STILL a COUP ATTEMPT to stop the surrender!

[@paulfreeborn1493]

Heh--I was just about to respond that Richard Frank in "Downfall" argues persuasively (a LOT more persuasively than the guy in the original video) that the notion that Japan was about to surrender was a myth. True--the surrender was not the result of the atomic bombs alone. Not true: the atomic bombs had no impact on the decision to surrender.

[@MrWWIIBuff]

On top of that, I love the "Oh, the US only had 2 and they used them both!" Yeah, no. We had a whole mass production system for it, I believe it was 1 new bomb every ten days. With crews and targets already selected.

[@jordancee6595]

Perfect example of a personal narrative getting in the way of telling history accurately.

[@chuckvt5196]

Thanks for correcting some of this guy's comments. I don't find him particularly knowledgeable.

[@Valorum_]

It’s more so the guy that wrote the script than the host himself

[@EllenbergW]

As a side-note, the term "Blitzkrieg" was _never_ used by the Germans. What they described their tactics as was "Bewegungskrieg" or war of movement/maneuver and that doctrine goes back to the old Prussian army. Of course, the Prussians didn't invent it either, I mean what about Napoleon, outmaneuvering his enemies time and again. Hell, we can even look at the Romans, being able to move a lot faster and further than their enemies due their superior logistics. Now, how the Germans _implemented_ their Bewegungskrieg in WW2 was something special, but the concept itself was older than...something very, very old.

[@ericlane3256]

What do you call bewegungskrieg when you add air and armor to the equation? “Blitzkrieg”

[@EllenbergW]

@@ericlane3256 No. It's still bewegungskrieg, just with more components. Aircraft supplement conventional artillery, act as recon, can interdict enemy forces and communications and so on while armor just allows your troop to move while being shot at by enemy artillery and stuff and improved the overall mobility of your troops. There is absolutely no need to come up with a new word for it.

[@-CT7567-]

@@ericlane3256the Germans themselves never used the term blitzkrieg. The term “blitzkrieg” was fabricated by western media to describe the German attacks, and has persisted to this day.

[@Darth_Traitorous]

Blitzkrieg was invented by an Englishman Percy herbolt he was an officer of the tank division but England has a problem they still believe Calvary people on horses were better than tanks. I call this stick up the ass syndrome. Because you won't believe you are better than somebody else who has a better idea. Here in America if you have a better idea as a low-ranking person than your commanding officer will most likely take your advice.

[@wedgeantilles8575]

You are spot on. Especially Julius Caesar was famous for being incredible fast and having his armies in locations where the enemy still felt completly safe. There are many battles won by him that he could win because he was too fast for his enemies and his legions marched too fast for the enemy. The concept definitly is old - but the concept worked 2000 years ago. And it worked in WW2. But obviously it is not a magic spell that makes you win everything. It is a tool that can be used very effectivlely. But it alone can't win the war.

[@matthewhaynes6667]

Not relevant to the video at all but you were great on the History Channel last night!

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Thank you! Really happy with how that first episode turned out.

[@BaseballRoman]

Where can I access the episode?? Can’t believe I missed it!

[@Synto56]

Same here!

[@matthewhaynes6667]

@@BaseballRoman I used a Philo free trial

[@Alexs.2599]

Yeah saw it too. It was exciting to see Chris in it. It was almost like seeing your favorite history teacher on TV. It was great!

[@Synto56]

Hey VTH! I’d love to see you play RDR2!!! I think you would really enjoy the history and story to it!

[@PackerBacker23]

Yessss

[@luiebae]

If you think about it, he kind of resembles arthur morgan

[@gavinotheshitpostartist5586]

​@@luiebae Oh ma goodness

[@TheVeillin]

Good idea actually

[@steveclarke6257]

Some very odd takes on evidence here and so much is factually incorrect- 1- Yes Japan was concerned about the Soviet Union wanting to recover territory lost by the Tzar in 1905 but the Soviets doing amphibious landings in Japan ....thats a joke just look at the Soviet Navy in 1945 before you make any claim they could invade the main home islands so no the Soviet threat was not serious as Chris identified. 2- Blitzkrieg is not as he describes - it is not a "counter to trench warfare" the allies quite adequately did that in 1918 with what we now call "combined arms" tactics. Blitzkrieg is about breaking into your enemies rear capturing artillery and supply points with several narrow front armoured thrusts causing mass panic and confusion- each across a very narrow frontage using tactical air as support because you are out of range of your own artillery. It splits the enemy troops up into bite-sized pockets, such that you can quickly capture them with your own infantrymen following up. If you go too deep with the thrust you then run risk the enemy cutting you off because your forces are busy rounding up "prisoners" and not protecting your armoured troops supply line. 3- Fall of France- it didnt happen in quite as he describes, yes the Dunkirk evacuation was in May, but France keeps fighting until its armastice on June 22nd. Germany isnt effectively in control of the North until mid/late July which is when the Luftwaffe starts to attack attack land targets over Southern Britain. So there is almost a month where the french themselves still have full control over Northern and Western France, giving the Navy a chance to move ships to North Africa away from Germany hands, leaving the Vichy government to control the Southern part of France as per the armistice signed at the railway carrage in Compiegne. His suggestion the German conquest continues and in incomplete until 1942 is thefore incorrect that is something completely different. In terms of a video to react to its good to see bad research debunked.

[@AlexanderSamardzhiev]

Also when he says "the Soviets found they can counter it very easily", yes, after losing millions of men and millions of km2, they did find a way to counter it. The Blitzkrieg was nothing new in the sense that many people were researching the subject before the war (for instance Emile Mayer and Charles de Gaulle in France), but the Germans did employ it quite successfully and it's way more than just "the opposite of trench warfare".

[@lephinor2458]

I forgot who but wasn't there a red general that was researching this. I think he was known as the red Napoleon.

[@ИгорьПавлов-я4и]

​@@lephinor2458 It was Tukhachevsky. And he was executed in 37 and later blamed for loses of 41 and 42

[@lephinor2458]

@@ИгорьПавлов-я4и yeah thanks. If I remember his worse loss was when he tried invading Poland.

[@wedgeantilles8575]

To 1) Well, Ian Toll disagrees in some part with you in his Pacific War trilogy (which is extremly good IMO). According to him, the Sowjet success in Mandchuria and the prospect of not only an US invasion but a soviet one on top of that WAS a big concern for Japan. It added a lot to the acceptance that the war was lost. However, since Japan was preparing its people to gloriously die alltogether ("the death of the 100 million" it was called in Japanese Press), my guess is that the nuclear weapons were more of a key element to make the emperor accept an unconditional surrender. Because I don't see much of a difference if you prepare your country to die, if you die at the hands of the US or at the hands of the Sovjets. Dead is dead after all. But the nuclear bombs where just something different - not the death toll itself. Ian Toll writes that the two nuclear weapons was an important factor that made the Emperor change his mind. Hard to say and I guess there is no "correct" answer to the question: What made Japan capitulate. A lot of factors mixed together - and sheer luck IMO. I definitly see a version of events, where Japan did NOT surrender. Surrender was not inevitable.

[@HiveTyrant25]

Holy moly I’ll probably have to edit this comment soon as I watch more and more. Pushing back as well on the A-bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets! Why does no one ever mention that? Edit 1: First off, no one thinks that the USA was unanimously against the Nazis. Tons of people were antisemitic back then and also tons of Americans were of German descent. What united America was the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. It’s debatable how long we would’ve taken to declare on Germany (if at all) were it not for Hitler declaring on the U.S. first. What a clown take on the whole matter. ONE SINGLE vote against war was made! Edit 2: Blitzkrieg didn’t work on the Steppes in the East so it was a crap tactic. Sure, buddy. The Nazis achieved in a short time what their predecessors couldn’t do in four years, but that’s “cheap tricks.” Final: “it’s a misconception that Overlord succeeded due to planning and heroism” then proceeds to describe all the ways the Allies PLANNED to make the landings as easy as possible despite being an easily defendable position. Intelligence and planning helped carry the day why are we saying it’s a misconception? All in all, the writers for these shows do like 10 minutes of research and do so many scripts it’s easy to forget they have no clue what they’re talking about sometimes.

[@jeffgardiner7242]

To make his point that there were activities in the US during the war supporting Germany he posts a photo that in the text dates the Rally as February 1939.

[@bandit6272]

His comments on the atomic bombs is pure Soviet revisionism.

[@garesonc9672]

Well he's likely a Marxist revisionist so I am not surprised he is taking the Soviet line...

[@pharniel]

Re: Japan's surrender - My take is that the atomic bombings gave the Emperor the mechanism to save face required to allow unconditional surrender to allies, specifically the Americans.

[@ilikechestnuts9085]

Agreed. The Japanese government was aware that the war was lost and it was looking for a way out. A negotiated settlement would have been possible, but unconditional surrender was too much... until the atomic bombs dropped. So the nukes were not strictly necessary to end the war, but they did give the allies the result they were looking for, and in short order. Maybe a peace that kept the militaristic government in place would have led to another war later anyway, but we'll never know that for sure. World War 2 was ugly and incredibly brutal for civilians. Through the war, the allies' strategic bombing killed up to a million civilians (which means many more died to conventional bombs than nuclear ones). Maybe that was necessary, but let's not pretend it was a good thing; if that happenned today, a lot of people would be tried for war crimes.

[@wedgeantilles8575]

@@ilikechestnuts9085 The fire bombing of Tokyo earlier in the war costs way more lives than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. According to some sources, more people burned to death than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMBINED. I have no idea why most people only focus on the nuclear weapons when talking aobut the horrors of war and civilian casulties.

[@michaelyarnell1559]

@@wedgeantilles8575 Because it was the result of dropping 2 bombs, not thousands.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@wedgeantilles8575 And because Operation Downfall called for the use of 15 atomic bombs to support the invasion of Japan. A major escalation over what would happened to Tokyo. Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have only been a taste of what was to come.

[@janehrahan5116]

@@wedgeantilles8575 because method matters. With firebombings you know them days or weeks in advance, you can screen and even fight back to an extent even without air power (this was accounted for in ketsugo, the japanese warplan) a single high altitude bomber outside land attack range drops a single bomb, often not being picked up on radar at all, at any time on any day. And a city is gone.

[@ericlane3256]

7:35 his biggest fallacy is that he believes the Japanese are more like us westerners which is absolutely wrong. At this point, Bushido has been around for hundreds of years and resulted in a strict and obedient society that WOULD fight until the end. Men and women were preparing for it because they legitimately thought the Emperor was a god that was worth fighting to the end. Hence why the Emperor couldn’t explicitly tell the Japanese people to surrender

[@mse326]

Yup. All you have to do is look to Okinawa to see how civilians reasonably could be expected to react to a land invasion of the main land. Anytime you try to predict what people will do you can't be 100% but given what information they had in is incredibly reasonable to believe that less died in the bombs than would have died in an actual invasion.

[@hannibal-rb3go]

Slight counter point Bushido in the romanticized view was introduced with education during the Meiji restoration. But yeah 2-3 generations being told how honorable it is to fight and die for Japan is the greatest thing you can do. The Emperor had to wait for most of the government officials to snap back to reality before he was allowed to end the war. (On paper of course in reality he's powerless besides being a spiritual figure)

[@ericlane3256]

@@hannibal-rb3go That’s fine, probably a more historical definition of Bushido, but for those that don’t believe me when I say Japanese society is more rigid, the effects of Bushido are still seen in corporate cultures to this day.

[@jamesxiaolong2199]

Hell they sent their Super Battleship on a suicide mission instead of keeping it in harbor to fight off an invasion of their mainland.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@jamesxiaolong2199 That was because the Emperor asked what the navy was doing in reference to the many sacrifices the army was making, so indirectly the Yamato was sacrificed for the Emperor.

[@32a34a]

Just wanted to point out that the picture of the German woman is Irena Gut who as a Polish nurse saved the lives of many Jewish people and was rewarded with The Righteous Among The Nations honor. Lastly sure on Omaha beach it came close to failure if you will but the reason the Americans were successful on Omaha was the incredible amount of courage and heroism by the men who landed.

[@boundr2107]

Well that, plus the US Navy, who used their big guns to "disrupt" the concrete shore batteries/ machine gun pill boxes. Even Omar Bradley said at the time, "Thank God for the US Navy." He said that while aboard the Battle Ship Augusta, off the Normandy shore. The earlier attempts using rockets which fell short, and aerial bombing, had both failed.

[@brucenorman8904]

The other thing about Omaha was that I believe the casualties were below the predicted numbers.

[@Ugnep-sw9ng]

Hard disagree on his Hiroshima/Nagasaki take, as well as his implication that this was some narrative concocted by the US to save face. Also the idea that Japan would fanatically defend to the last man wasn't ludicrous... That was exactly what had happened on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. If the bombs hadn't been dropped, Japan might have been content to dare the Allies to invade the Home Islands, or try to negotiate a more favourable surrender which would keep the current regime in power. The operation to invade Japan was scheduled just a few months later in November 45.

[@TheLoneGamr]

I think the estimated deaths for an invading army of the Japan homeland was estimated in the millions. While the native deaths would have been in the tens of millions. The bomb did save lives despite what the clown writer wrote.

[@jasonc3462]

Was going to comment this. We already had a taste of what the mainland invasion was going to be like. The fighting on the mainland would only be more intense than Okinawa. Also Japan was not worried about the Soviets threatening the main islands. The Soviet Union had absolutely NO capabilities to conduct and amphibious invasion and the US wasn’t going to lend them the equipment to do it.

[@scottbaker1878]

This guy does not seem to be fond of the United States….takes extreme negative take on everything.

[@mayalackman7581]

I noticed that as well.

[@roseanro6753]

Yeah as an asian american (not japanese) I understand the use of nuclear bombs by the U.S and the argument of it being ethical or not. It’s war at the end of the day and unfortunate atrocities happen. it does not make it right to kill civilians but it was a common occurrence by japan in china and germany in europe etc. putting blame the u.s for everything is an occuring theme ive been noticing recently

[@chrisvibz4753]

who? Chris or the guy he is watching? because chris loves our country

[@mayalackman7581]

@@chrisvibz4753 the guy he is watching.

[@roseanro6753]

@@chrisvibz4753 Not chris lol

[@ryanalexander8513]

Trying to dismiss the A-bombs is nonsense. They were the primary, though not only, reason for Japans surrender. Japan's strategy was to bleed the US in hopes that they could eventually get better terms. Even conventional bombing raids were costly in terms of planes and crews. A single high altitude bomber wiping a city off the map with one bomb took away any ability for Japan to inflict damage on the US. The Soviets did enter the war, but that was a long term issue. They would have spent years bogged down fighting the Japanese in China, and likely the Chinese as well as they wouldn't want the Soviets occupying China as they had Eastern Europe. The USSR had no means of invading mainland Japan, their Pacific fleet was miniscule compared to the US and would have been shredded by Japanese kamikaze attacks. They may have been able to launch an invasion, but keeping it supplied and reinforced was far beyond their logistical capabilities. As for feeling guilty about the A-bombs, what was the alternative? More conventional bombing, blockade and starve Japan, wait for the Soviets to invade in 5 or 10 years. All of those would have taken far longer and resulted in many more deaths. The A-bombs were the quickest and least bloody way to end the war, claiming otherwise is the actual myth.

[@robertharrington703]

While I agree with this for the most part, the Soviets were overrunning Japanese troops in Manchuria before they even surrendered. It's a little naïve to assume they would've held on for years given the state of their navy, at least on the mainland.

[@ryanalexander8513]

@robertharrington703 The Soviets did easily overrun the Japanese army in Kwang Tung during their initial assault. However, as that army had been sitting inactive on the Soviet border for years, it was comprised mostly of inexperienced troops and had been stripped of most of its heavy weapons leaving it something of a paper army. The Soviets also had the element of surprise and largely open terrain to work with for that battle. That's alot different from the millions of Japanese veterans they would have faced, likely in a guerilla style war, as they continued pushing south. Not to mention the Chinese who would have resisted Soviet occupation, but how that would have played out is harder to say. Whatever the end result, it would have been a long bloody campaign

[@mikeoxlong3676]

​@@robertharrington703 yes the soviets could kick the Japanese out of China but the soviets didn't have a way to invade Japan is what they're saying.

[@snakejuice4300]

RANT: The guy who made this video lost credibility when he said that the US lies to itself to sleep well at night. And there was no indication the Japanese would continue to fight?? Tells me he only sees events in 1945 through the lense of 2023-24 which is straight ridiculousness. 1. The US fully understands the horror inflicted onto the Japanese innocents, ask any American. The reason we sleep well at night is because we know how many Americans we were losing and we were done fighting, (we valued life), whereas the Japanese were culturally medieval society with 20th century weapons and extreme militarists at the helm who would absolutely fight to the last old man, woman, and child. There is no doubt. NOT TO MENTION, their barbaric actions and pillaging of China and torture of POWs of any country cursed enough to be captured by them. That is why we sleep well at night. ALSO, if they weren’t prepared to surrender even after the bombs (3rd bomb should’ve been Tokyo) and only did once the Soviets joined, tells you a lot about why they then signed with the Americans. So sick of these “historians” revising history to make the US look bad when the fact is, nobody comes out clean from a war, crimes are committed, atrocities occur. But the evidence shows the US is the preferred victor by the defeated, because Japan/Nazi Germany knew their own evil would have been repaid 2x while the US only requires cooperation to show clemency.

[@Deano-Dron81]

Meh, you said all that, I listened then you called your country the victor and I stopped listening. Sorry, just makes me cringe when I hear that word by a single country in ww2.

[@sirboomsalot4902]

@@Deano-Dron81What he means is, out of the multiple victors in WW2, most Axis nations prefer to deal with the Americans and British than the Soviets.

[@godusopp2752]

As a completely unbiased, democrat who sees myself as hating war, i till this day don't understand why people don't understand the us of the nuclear bombs, I see people arguing the soviets invading japan would of been better than the nuclear bombs, That is a insane argument IMO, that would of just not only led to more people dying during the war, it would of led to more war after because a communist japan was not gonna happen in the allies eyes

[@AlexanderSamardzhiev]

The Soviets were never going to invade the Japanese mainland without the other Allies anyway, they were probably going to be a part of the invasion and would've gotten an occupation zone, as in Germany and Austria. The Soviet declaration of war did push the Japanese towards surrender as they lost the last chance for any diplomacy then, but the atomic bombs were also decisive.

[@mjsplicer78]

While I would consider myself to be merely a casual history individual, but I have a done decent amount of studying on major world events like WWII. There are several of these that are "myths" he brings up that I have never even heard of, let alone being common misconceptions

[@CyberDrewan]

Yeah, it felt like this video was not well researched or well written. I could see him wanting to talk about some of these myths to get his viewpoint out there, and then getting the rest of the entries based on one or two articles he found after a Google search.

[@harrisonbaylor1432]

Think he made more myths than debunked myths.

[@andreapirrone9761]

This is the most angry he's gotten since the "Wilson wasn't so bad" video. I don't blame him. I agree with his disagreement.

[@jerryduffin1358]

You can always cherry pick quotes to "prove" why the atomic bombs were necessary or not. I've seen far too many video essays that use dozens of quotes from senior war leaders "proving" why Japan would surrender within months whether the bombs were dropped or not. The problem is that all these leaders assumed the Japanese thought and acted the same way as the westerners. They didn't. To quote Dan Carlin, the Japanese had the same qualities as the westerners but cranked everything up to a 12.

[@erika_itsumi5141]

The bombs were dropped so we wouldn't have to invade mainland Japan, like what happened with Germany.

[@jerrymiller8313]

The mass meeting of the axis supporters picture was taken in 1939. What was the support level in 1942.

[@bazookacantgame]

It’s like using the Molotov-Rippentrop pact as evidence that that Soviets weren’t in the war in 1944

[@ShadowGricken]

Another fun myth that's gaining a lot of traction these days is that the soviet union almost single handily defeated the nazi's and that the other allies were little more than side shows taking undue credit.

[@BlitherVids]

Did the Russians do more of the work to defeat the Nazis than any other country? Sure they did. But the fact was that there were a LOT of counties, the US & UK included, that shed lots of blood and kicked lots of ass to help make that happen. The UK was invaluable with constant bombing and expertly run spy missions, while the US supplied thousands upon thousands of planes, ships, and tanks to the Soviets, allowing them to take the fight to the Germans. After D-Day, no one can say the Allies weren't doing their part. Did the Soviets ever step foot in Africa or Italy during WWII? No. It also seems to me that 90% of the fighting against the Japanese was done by just the US & China. The UK helped where they could, and no one should forget the Australians' sacrifices in places like the Kokoda Track. The only two countries that fought WWII as a WORLD WAR were the US & UK. Every other country fought WWII in their home region only.

[@jamesxiaolong2199]

@@BlitherVidsalso the Soviet Union only declared war on Japan in the summer of 1945.

[@paytonsmith7068]

Yeah, i find that one absurd. If the soviets never received lend lease aid, then they probably would have taken years longer to push the Germans back, or would have outright lost.

[@paytonsmith7068]

​@jamesxiaolong2199 true, but there were battles between soviet and Japanese forces earlier in the war like Khalkhin Gol in Mongolia where the soviets smacked the hell outta the Japanese.

[@anderskorsback4104]

That tends to be the case, every misconception breeds a reaction that overcorrects equally much in the opposite direction. For another WW2 example, the idea of the Tiger tank as this super awesome product of Nazi super-science spawned the opposite notion of it being a completely useless expensive paperweight that breaks the moment it hits a bump in the road.

[@KeganStucki]

I can't imagine why Simon is no longer associated with this channel lol. He has his flaws, but he's far more pragmatic and objective than this...

[@ConnarKent]

The person who ran the channel was a terrible manager

[@onyxdragon1179]

Who's Simon?

[@KeganStucki]

@onyxdragon1179 Simon Whistler. He used to be the presenter on this channel. He does Warographics and a bunch of other channels and podcasts now.

[@onyxdragon1179]

@@KeganStucki ah, that guy! I like him, has an easy to listen to voice, and love when he goes on tangents on one of his channels lol But yeah, I'd say Simon's flaws are sometimes his own writer's flaws

[@KeganStucki]

@onyxdragon1179 agreed! All of these guys have writers, and while I think Simon does a better job than most doing his own research on the topic, some biased opinions still make it through.

[@GOODYGOODGOOD789]

7:06 The KZbin channel Potential History made a great video titled "Why Japan Surrendered" that perfectly and basically goes over everything you did, TLDR there wasn't just one reason why Japan surrendered. 12:51 For a less serious example there are plenty of flat earthers despite the fact that there is no evidence against the fact that the earth is a sphere.

[@semiramisubw4864]

Funniest thing is that this weird Flerf cult is growing consistently and its mostly coming from the US..

[@jamesxiaolong2199]

The Nuclear attack claim he made is obviously missing most of the context. The Japanese fought to a man and many civilians committed suicide, wasting their greatest battleship on a suicide mission.

[@brandonpeters1618]

Wasn’t there a coup attempt by some powerful military and government officials in Japan on the afternoon of the 15th to stop the surrender from being carried out?

[@SupposeImRight]

the only dirty trick here is that guy passing this content off as informative. good work as always, VTH.

[@dannyv2468va2]

This guy is an anti-American revisionist. The US was united once we entered the war. Japan was prepared to fight to the death. My collage thesis was on if the Atom bomb was used properly. Yes, it was. Japan's military was in control and would have refused to surrender. The war would have gone on another year and millions more would have died. Russian entering the war was deceive but not the overall reason. The Japanese were not like today's Japan. The war ended after this and saved Japan from being divided like Korea was. The whole history of the world would have been totally different.

[@anathardayaldar]

12:50 "There are alot of idiots out there." Spitting facts.

[@garesonc9672]

And the Top Tenz presenter clearly landed himself in that camp with his video.

[@ronbednarczyk2497]

The Germans didn't call it blitzkrieg. A myth that this guy is promoting is that the French resistance was such a big force. It only became a big force after the war when everyone claimed to have been a member.

[@THE_ErwinRommel]

27:05 Hitler's best commanders were not available Erwin Rommel: Happy birthday to you! Wait a minute, THE ALLIES ARE STORMING NORMANDY?

[@celston51]

Rommel hurried back as fast as German transportation would allow. Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt was awake at an early hour and tried to respond as quickly as his hampered chain-of-command allowed. German commanders were available but none had authority to call in the panzer reserves without Hitler's say-so.

[@pacldawson]

When someone gets a basic truth like "Eva Braun was Hitler's wife" wrong, it automatically makes me question most anything else they say, unless I know what they are saying is true.

[@ricdimarco1499]

I’m a history and philosophy teacher. The video you’re reacting to is monocausal, moralizing, anachronistic, triumphalist, pseudo intellectual, ideological bullshit. That’s my professional opinion.

[@jamesfetherston1190]

While the firebombing of Tokyo took more lives than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it took hundreds of aircraft and thousands of bombs. The fact that the USA could deploy a single bomb from a single plane was something Japan couldn’t ignore for long.

[@danielbishop1863]

Some of the Hiroshima survivors said they thought that Enola Gay was just doing reconnaissance, because it would be absurd to send just one plane on a bombing mission. Until...

[@thetombo78]

Great points made - that original is a real tough watch

[@Letterman0412]

The Russians found the blitzkrieg pretty easy to beat... you know, after they lost about 10 million men first.

[@richardstarkey2247]

What is with this myth that the Soviets were somehow going to invade Japan with their phantom navy that keeps persisting these days?

[@andrewward5891]

The soviets couldn’t have invaded japans home islands but the bulk of the Japanese army was in China and the Russians steamrolled the Japanese forces in Manchuria (nothern China). So the Russians could have destroyed the rest of Japan’s army in China if they hadn’t surrendered.

[@jankusthegreat9233]

What in the name of Nanking is this??

[@britsareweak]

Chris, regarding the blitzkrieg point, he says that the Soviets easily managed to stop it by building multiple defense in depth lines. This is false, the Germans overran everything the Soviets put in their way in 1941 and 1942. The Russians also suffered massive casualties doing so. The only thing that saved Russia was strategic depth, the fact that they had unlimited territory to retreat into.

[@ulyssesgrant4324]

Isn't it well known that the winter and Fall weather stopped the Germans?

[@hannibal-rb3go]

Saying the soviets easily stopped it ignores the many millions of deaths and 4 years of constant struggle.

[@blauwbeer556]

yeah when i heard that i was also confused, even the battle of the bulge when the germans were at their weakest and the allies at their strongest it definitly wasn't the lines of defense that stopped the operation. Making an effective defensive line against a mechanised force is impossible.

[@roguemerc]

"They easily stopped the blitzkrieg by getting encircled so many times that the Germans had to spend resources capturing 100's of thousands of soldiers. I am smart!"

[@kevinrussell3501]

Yeah his comment on this is questionably worded to say the least. If fact, I remember seeing a quote of a Soviet general, I don't remember which one off hand, that the Germans taught them how they needed to fight early in the invasion. So the Russians unsurprisingly used the German tactics against them once the tide of war turned the other way. It's like every military adopting Napoleon's tactics.

[@PopeSixtusVI]

The reason "scholars" never cite Harry Truman's speeches or writings when saying that he nuked Japan to keep out the Soviets out is because there are no such sentiments expressed anywhere. This whole entire myth was concocted by (I'll he nice and say) Soviet-sympathetic academians and they really stretch for their conclusions.

[@gunbutter830]

I've learned when academics and activists (frequently the same people) cite unnamed scholars with the phrase "scholars say" that they are spreading bullshit. When ever I go looking for these esteemed scholars they never found.

[@macwatson7227]

This guy isn't actually stating misconceptions. He's just being a contrarian because he thinks it makes him sound more knowledgeable. People that talk about history like this drive me nuts.

[@notthestatusquo7683]

16:10 "The Soviets found..." Yeah after losing five million men and getting dangerously close to losing Moscow. Dude makes it sound like it was some simple trick that the Soviets saw right through. What disingenuousness....

[@ModernCowboy78]

I love how aggravated you get watching this show, I am glad I'm not the only one.

[@Corsair37]

I pretty much figured out his view on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when he referred to the US "slaughtering" Japanese in the bombings in section on whether Germany could have gotten the bomb. Your rebuttal was spot on.

[@JD-Media]

Yeah, you can tell by the writing on the Atomic Bomb section what the writer believes and why they are portraying it that way.

[@ConnarKent]

But it saved a lot more lives. Which people like the author isnt

[@oliversherman2414]

​@@JD-MediaJD! I didn't expect to see you here

[@JD-Media]

@@oliversherman2414 You've found one of my 589,343 comments! Find the rest to unlock the true ending!

[@JD-Media]

@@oliversherman2414 You've found one of my 595,842 comments! Find them all to unlock the true ending!

[@JanPopieluch]

The story about good-willing German civilians and using Irena Gut as an example is just ridiculous. Irena Gut was Polish, she was first captured (and raped) by Soviets. And later forced to work for Germans. She indeed was hiding Jews in the basement of a German officer's house. Although when he found out about it, he threatened to kill them all unless Irena became his mistress. So yeah, perfect example...

[@jilldesruisseau]

I appreciate Chris's points here. Like a lot of the comments as well as Chris' reactions, I really feel like this guy is inventing things to talk about. The thing that scares me about that is that he's an articulate, respectable looking dude doing a calm presentation that could be taken as truth if the viewer doesn't know enough about history. That kind of thing creeps me out.

[@ModernCowboy78]

The people who argue that the nukes didn't end the war would probably not even be here today if our grandfathers had invaded Japan's homeland!

[@Giddog40]

We both said “she was his wife” with a befuddled look at the same time when he mentioned Ava being the closest thing Hitler had to a girlfriend

[@kids.cats.crazy.]

Historian, strategy and policy expert Sarah C. M. Paine has said that dropping the bombs likely saved a great number of lives, both American and Japanese. A land invasion would have been costly for American soldiers and for Japan’s civilians and military. It is unfortunate and we all wish it was not the case, but I will take a world-renowned expert’s analysis on this topic over some guy on KZbin. Bravo for pushing back on this.

[@johnmclaughlin4292]

His take on nuking Japan is insulting and historically a load of BS. He is letting his personal anti-nuke (and anti-American) feelings get in the way of honest analysis. Fewer people died in the 2 bombings than would have died in either a blockade or invasion. I have no idea what points he made after this one because I stopped watching at that point. And I sleep just fine at night.

[@UncleGewehr]

You were smart to stop. The TopTenz guy is a woke revisionist. 90% of the points he made are so misinformed or not given the full context.

[@armani22]

We were having such a nice war going on until they pulled that dirty trick 😂😂😂

[@hankhooper1637]

Valuable work here: original video correcting Japanese leadership's own misconceptions about why they surrendered.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

16:10 "The Soviets that this strategy [Blitzkrieg] was easily beaten by putting down multiple defensive lines to slow down the enemy." This is wildly inaccurate. Even as late as the Battle of Stalingrad, the Germans had penetrated all of the Soviet defensive lines surrounding the city in almost a day, the breakthrough was so rapid many of those rear defensive lines were incomplete and unmanned and the Germans reached the Volga with a armored division and split the Soviet lines in two. Only as late as Kursk was the defensive in depth starting to work, but still with far greater casualties sustained by the Soviets and by the Germans. By no means can you say Blitzkrieg was "easily beaten" on the Eastern Front.

[@nickhfda223]

"Blitzkrieg" beat itself. Turns out logistics matter. Hard to maneuver and exploit stormtrooper breakthroughs without gas and all...

[@Jshmoney24]

This dude (not vth) does not seem to like America 😂 I get a lot of what he’s saying but to be fair the Japanese military was extremely unwilling to surrender even when they finally did. And without the hindsight we have now, a war dragging on longer after the devastation of the first and second wars as well as a Great Depression led to some desperate measures. A very sad and uncomfortable situation that I am happy world powers seems to be more careful of now. But this guy kinda is talking out of his ass in this vid. Glad you called him out

[@jessemeyer86]

When the history doesn’t match the narrative you get guys like this trying to change it to say the history was wrong

[@dws0828]

24:17 you know the writing for this video wasn’t great when Chris has to clarify stuff like this 🤣

[@sukositb]

To say that the Soviet counter German is False. They literally reached Moscow. One of the main reasons German loss is Soviet have lands to lose and The German is losing steam as the war continue on from the Allied bombing Campaign and African fronts.

[@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish]

Great job on last night's episode of The Great War. I'm excited about tonight's episode!

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Thanks! Even apart from the fact I was in it, I really enjoyed it. Can't wait to see tonight's episode.

[@ScooterWeibels]

I would like to address a misconception in that the French soldiers just surrendered, Thay actually fought well the big problem was the ineptitude of French command. Along with some real innovative strategy and tactics on the German side.

[@kogerugaming]

"Blitzkrieg is a dirty trick that was easily countered by multiple defensive lines" Yeah no. At the first part of the war, with plenty of resources, full strength divisions with sufficient amount of panzers, weapons, ammo, the blitzkrieg was as efficient as an attack can be, at that time. They swept away lines of defences rather easily. Then when the soviets got their shit together, it was still exteremely powerful attack and it still take lot of lives and effort to stop them in their tracks. Thats why they went back and forth. Later in the war, the blitzkrieg didnt worked well, simply because the germans were outnumbered with understrength divisions, complete lack of airsuperiority, with not enough ammo and fuel. You can not wage war for long without resources, but you can certainly not take offensive actions without it even for a day.

[@charlesreid9337]

They literally obliterated the French defensive line. They push tanks through a porous no one thought you could move troops through. They use gliders and airborne troops to completely overcome fortifications. No army on Earth which Germany had land access to at that time could have survived that

[@doc_adams8506]

"Band of Brothers" was written by Stephen Ambrose, one of the more if not the most decorated writers on American history. In addition to BOB, he wrote Citizen Soldier and Undaunted Courage, detailing the Lewis and Clark expedition. I would hazard to guess that Ambrose's qualifications far outstrip the talking head on this video.

[@Niitroxyde]

I do believe the atomic bombing played a role in the surrendering, but I also believe that referencing the bomb from Hirohito's perspective might very well be a way of shifting responsibility from the loss of the war to "a new type of weapon against which we can't do anything". It certainly was a nice excuse for him rather than just admit the military failures and miscalculations of the state. And yeah the Blitkrieg bit was weird. I completely agree that this is more of a myth than anything ("Blitzkrieg" always has been a Western made-up word for journalist sensationalism after all) as this was a doctrine about as old as warfare itself, the germans just adapted it to modern (mechanized) warfare. And even their adaptation wasn't original. Heinz Guderian, who has been a really big figure in the development of that doctrine for Germany, inspired himself by the theories of Charles De Gaulle (whose theories were rejected by the French Military itself who would lose to it a few years later, how ironic) and the doctrines and modernization of the Soviet Union military, which developped and put in practice the exact same philosophy of armored breakthrough in the 1930s. He writes about all of this in "Achtung Panzer!".

[@conamer6738]

"What a strange person."-Monti Python In Search of the Holy Grail

[@johndittmer8488]

Another innovative aspect of the blitzkrieg was that the Germans coordinate their air and ground campaigns to move quickly into enemy territory.

[@Trecesolotienesdos]

Unpopular opinon - Britain and the USA did more to defeat the Axis than the USSR did.

[@jamesxiaolong2199]

The USSR probably would have survived without the allies, but they’d have lost pretty much everything east of Moscow in an armistice. Without resupply they’d have likely dissolved into a civil war post armistice.

[@TheVeillin]

Not just an unpopular opinion but a factually inaccurate opinion as well

[@pangrey8931]

I'd say they all did their part, and wouldn't agree that the soviets carried the war in europe as many people say. The soviets would actually have broken as Hitler predicted if the USA didn't send in tons of equipment and vehicles and supplies, but the human sacrifice by the soviets cannot be understated anyway

[@donrog5035]

No definitely not. Just look at the numbers and the casualties. There were way more germans soldiers fighting and dying in the eastern front than in the western front. So not only your take is unpopular but it is factually not true. Like he said D day decided the outcome of the peace not the outcome of the war.

[@brianguthrie3196]

The Soviets would have won the war, but the world after the war looks a lot different. Most likely Germany falls under the iron curtain and probably France as well, but the next war is in Asia between the Soviets and the Western Powers

[@charlesreid9337]

This guy is that guy on Reddit with a high school level history education who read some things on Reddit and decided he was edgy. The Allies expected the invasion of Japan to cost millions of lives and so did the Japanese just to start. Let's add in the fact that American fire bombing campaigns were far more horrific than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those fire bombing campaigns were designed to create firestorms and are the biggest atrocities the US committed. Instead of instant death to a nuclear weapon.. the citizens were burned to death. The firestorms would create giant walls of fire that would melt the skin off people and cook them instantly. Most of the ones who survived would have been praying to die.

[@christinesaaty215]

Chris, you give such great arguments. You open up new ideas that I’ve never considered or heard about. You really get my brain moving. Thank you

[@loganmcdonald7750]

Hey VTH, I was wondering if you could give me any advice on how to trace my family history if my family doesn’t know much about the family history? Literally my grandfather doesn’t know his own grandfathers name. I know you were able to track so many of your ancestors very far back and I was wondering how you were able to do that?

[@thedoctor755]

Good counterpoints, Chris :) I figured you'd mention in the bit about US war protests that his statement about pro-Nazi demonstrations happened only BEFORE the US entered the war, which is what happened... he stated that they happened during the war (implying post-Pearl Harbor). To my knowledge, the American Bund was disbanded by then and were either in jail or scurried away in the cracks.

[@russiandragon45]

You also have to remember the biggest reason why we bomb Japan in the first place, but was because we didn't want a long and dragged out island hopping war that was already happening. The Japanese weren't a "hive mind" per-say, but at the time they did have a very radical honor/shaming based culture that looked down upon people who were against the war. It's why soldiers would rather kill themselves than be captured, or dive bomb planes into American ships rather than eject and be saved later. They were a very honorable culture, and because of this, the war would've only dragged on costing many American soldiers their lives. We took the chance and bombed two major cities: to force them to surrender, prevent Russia from engaging, and save AMERICAN lives that could've been potentially lost. As for us trying to stop the Russians from getting themselves involved because, yes, they were about to join in the fray, and we were afraid of they took over Japan they would become communist too. The red scare never really ended in the twenties and thirties. It continued until the cold war began, we just did the whole "Enemy of my Enemy is my friend" deal with Russia at the time. I hate this whole mentality of, "America bad, they nuked Japan how evil!!! 😢". When we kinda had two very hard decisions to make and we chose the lesser of the two. Plus without the bombs Japan wouldn't have made Godzilla so, that's a W in my book.

[@odonnell1218]

In reference to what you were saying about people being taken to Dachau for speaking up, this might interest you. After Hitler rose to power, Pope Piux XI penned the encyclical _Mit brennender Sorge_ which was the first and only encyclical written in German. It condemned the tenets of Naziism and Fascism without referring to them by name. Nevertheless, everyone knew that this was a condemnation of Hitler (referred to in the encyclical as “der Wahnprophet”). If the Gestapo could prove that you’d had a copy of that encyclical in your possession at any time, even if you hadn’t read it, you were sent to Dachau.

[@christopherdeguilio6375]

Yeah ...this series isn't so great... I feel like they try to pass off blame to the writers of each piece with that lame disclaimer at the beginning...and...Who are these writers anyway? No discipline here. Maybe it would just sound better coming out of Simon Whistler's mouth? I don't know... just not really good

[@michaelquinn8584]

That line about how Blitzkrieg could be "easily beaten by putting down multiple lines of defense" comes across as very disrespectful to the soldiers who died on those lines. I doubt it was "easy" for them.

[@scott91575]

I feel like he promotes a myth that the UK was close to being invaded. Germany's amphibious capabilities were minimal. Their Navy was no match for the British Navy even if they won the Battle of Britain (which is a massive if). Sea and air superiority was a pipe dream, and even if they pulled off that miracle they didn't have the amphibious capabilities needed for a large scale invasion. The Germans knew they were not going to invade the UK. Operation Sea Lion was a paper, well, sea lion. Their main hope was to get the UK to agree to peace terms so the Germans didn't have to worry about the UK invading France and could move troops out of North Africa. Then they could focus on the Soviets (and yes, I know they had not invaded The Soviet Union yet but that was clearly their intent at the time).

[@doc_adams8506]

This, I was going to say historian, but this individual doesn't earn that honor, revisionist is typical of his ilk, assuring himself that if he were Harry Truman, he would not have used the atomic bomb. Naive, self-aggrandizing, lacking in self-awareness or the ability to understand historical context.

[@bman6065]

I thought Blitzkrieg was combined arms. Which would have looked different than the Great War. Also what has this Oliver Stone worshipper done to Simon?!

[@TheHadley54]

I am so glad you pushed back on this guy and some of his “facts”. Maybe it was just me but either the script or the guys delivery or both came off very smug and gave a “I’m smarter than you and I’m right no matter what” kind of vibe.

[@michaelmartin8692]

I remember when I went to school and learned about WWII (High school history and in the US and was about 20 years ago) We learned that all Germans was bad or at least it was heavily implied. But I tend to find that even now as an adult it is hard to find people who don't label everyone in a group as being the same.

[@markefatdad]

Blitzkrieg wasn't even a term the Germans used. This guy is a clown. The proper term Bewegungskrieg, or warfare of movement/maneuver warfare.

[@Thraim.]

One thing I will say about your reactions to misconception videos is that as a historian, you're surrounded by more history savvy people. I've seen you doubt misconceptions that I definitely have heard before, but only from people who are not into history.

[@tomhalla426]

The criticism of the atomic bombings is an old one, and Soviet dezinformatsiya. The bombs gave Hirohito the excuse to overrule the high command, and order surrender.

[@bfallingstar]

I love your videos. But I stopped watching this one about a third of the way through because it was clear to me that the fellow you were talking about was severely deficient in historical analysis and pathetically heavy on fallacious political agenda.

[@rustyrolla5432]

That dude was such a a clown. Once again VTH impressives me with his intelligence to place himself in others shoes and he nuanced. Not everything is an absolute light and dark situation.

[@tada9827]

Day 3 of asking you to re-act to the battle of Vítkov hill by history marche

[@ChrisWagner-v6m]

Chris, this guy stinks. He seems to have approached this his own preconceptions, and consequently come to some iffy conclusions.

[@LTrotsky21stCentury]

On the surrender of Japan: Using the "Emperor's Words" in the surrender announcement is bad history. There were two Imperial General Headquarters Conferences prior to the surrender decision of August 14. In each of these conferences, the major discussion was the entry of the Soviet Union into the war. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not, to my memory, mentioned at all or if mention, only briefly. From the standpoint of the attendees at the IGHC (which included the Emperor), these attacks were just another city destroyed. At the final conference, the Emperor stated his justification for the surrender decision to the staff and political leaders. In this statement, the Emperor again does NOT mention the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For clarity, I will post those words of the Emperor here: "To make things clear, I will tell you my reasons for the decision. The Army and Navy reported that they could mount a decisive battle on the main islands and that they had confidence in their ability to do so; here again I feel worried. What the chief of staff says is seriously at variance with the reports of my aides de camp. In fact, almost no defenses are ready. According to what I hear, not all of the troops have guns even. What would happen if we embarked on a decisive battle in such a state of affairs? Continue fighting and we will be plunging the entire nation into further devastation and distress. I cannot bear any longer to see my subjects tormented under the cruelties of war. There are certainly that can hardly be accepted: Disarmament of the Imperial Forces by foreign hands for one. But we have to bear it now. I think of the spirit of those who have died for the nation's cause and I reflect on My incapacity to respond to their loyalty. My heart aches as I think of those who have faithfully fulfilled their duties and who now have to bear the disgrace. But this is the time when we must bear the unbearable." Statement of Emperor Hirohito at the Imperial General Conference of August 14, 1945. Source: "Japan's War" by Edwin P. Hoyt, pp 404-405. As you can see in this statement, there is no mention of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, and it wasn't a subject in the conferences leading to this decision. How the reference to the nuclear attacks got added to the Emperor's public announcement is a story in itself (and an interesting one), but it had nothing to do with the actual surrender decision.

[@shawnmcglamery812]

He also left out US projection of losses civilian and military had we conducted an invasion which was on Trumans mind when he decided to use the bomb , the Soviets did not have the naval assets to invade the home islands so a full Soviet occupation was very unlikely . Those would have been US troops , Japan fighting to the bitter end in that scenario one only has to look at Iwo and Okinawa where they did just that .

[@anderskorsback4104]

Japan is, though, a very short distance from the Soviet mainland. They could have Island-hopped via Sakhalin and Hokkaido, that wouldn't have required much in terms of naval power or transport capacity. It would still have been quite an undertaking, but given the depleted state of the Japanese navy and air force, and a likely simultaneous invasion elsewhere by the US, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that a continued war would have seen Soviet troops get hold of some part of the Japanese home islands.

[@shawnmcglamery812]

@@anderskorsback4104 I think you underestimate the complexity of a sustained amphibious operation which the Soviets had almost no experience , logistics , naval assets to land heavy equipment (10,000 light infantry would have been repelled easily even 20,000). Normandy was proof of need of heavy equipment in the first few hours, tanks artillery , ammunition, gas, food , the Soviets had no way to make a meaningful invasion of the home islands .

[@anderskorsback4104]

@@shawnmcglamery812 sure, if we're talking about a full-scale invasion. But something like a foothold at Hokkaido while the US does the main invasion elsewhere and diverts the main Japanese effort wouldn't necessarily be outside the realm of possibility. Many screw-ups would certainly have happened, but considering the state and relative power of the warring parties, the Soviets might just as well have made it by just brute-forcing their way through. If nothing else, just spam air power to make up for everything else you lack, and spam coastal artillery to keep up a ferry route from Sakhalin to Hokkaido. There's a reason why the Soviet invasion of Manchuria also included a seizing of the Japanese southern half of Sakhalin.

[@shawnmcglamery812]

@@anderskorsback4104 unrealistic idea as invading home island Japan the civilian population was going to be part of the defense . they were training school girls to charge with spears , if the god emperor ordered it it was the duty of every Japanese citizen to obey . The air force was battered but not dead the best planes were in Japan not Manchuria . Add the topography of those islands mostly jagged cliff . The Ussr or Russia has always been a land power its navy even to this day is weak and inept . If by some miracle they did gain some of the northern most islands (low population ,no industry ) it would achieve what on a strategic level? nada

[@junctioncitythriftstore4170]

I think the biggest problem with this TopTenz video is the host. Normally, Simon reads the script and offers his own opinion/insight to counter and/or provide much needed nuance. This guy's just reading the script with no personality whatsoever. I tried watching the original when it was released and couldn't get past the second point, because of the host.

[@Shifty51991]

I mean....Band of Brothers claimed Blithe Died in the war when he in fact went on to serve in Korea.....did they not think to look up his military records? He even attended the first Reunion of his Divison..... He died in 1967 from an ulcer.

[@pop5678eye]

In terms of prolonged wars the Mongolian invasion of Central Asia and Europe was perhaps the most devastating when measured against world population. Estimates range anywhere between 10-20% of the whole population of the world killed in those campaigns. (admittedly many of them through disease more than the sword but it is on record that the Mongolians deliberately used the spread of disease as a biological weapon)

[@916lori]

First of all my Dad was in the Second Marine Division who Relieved the First Marine Div at Guadalcanal and was moved to the Third Marine Div and went on to Bougainville then Guam. The War in the Pacific has always been of special interest to me, So when I people say things about this part of history all I can tell them look up the facts. According to Historians like Jon Parshall and Richard Franks who have read the notes of the meeting of the night when the Emperor intervened and said Japan should surrender, not one word in those notes said anything about the Russians.