Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The British armed Japan partly as a bulwark against Communist Russia. Then lost their Pacific fleet and some of the jewels of the Colonial Empire to them 15 years later.
If you look at say France in 1940 then economics had nothing to do with the defeat of France and so you can ascribe tactics morale and other things because it was a run wot u brung and so nothing could be done long term because there was no long term.
The USSR had bad winter, huge land mass and large population so even the default setting is a winning hand.
But Russia collapsed in ww1 but didn't in ww2. And USSR should have collapsed but didn't. By 1942 the German Army had started to weaken and had to use troops from its axis allies. But point is the USSR was not fighting alone and benefitted heavily from Western equipment, the bombing raids and the 2nd fronts such as D-day and Italy. So the Soviet situation improved as the Germans grew weaker.
For much of the time Tsarist Russia was a pain in the side of the British Empire.
Ww1 when we were allied to Russia and France was historically abnormal.
Wars are not won by tactics and strategy but by having a decidedly bigger technology advanced military against weaker military.
Informative...........but disheartening.To emphasize this point, it's enlightening to read the synopsis of atrocities in the wake of the Boxer Rebellion circa 1902, (from the Wiki)
Boxer Rebellion - Wikipedia
"
From contemporary Western observers, German, Russian, and Japanese troops received the greatest criticism for their ruthlessness and willingness to wantonly execute Chinese of all ages and backgrounds, sometimes burning and killing entire village populations.[119] The German force arrived too late to take part in the fighting, but undertook punitive expeditions to villages in the countryside. Kaiser Wilhelm II on July 27 during departure ceremonies for the German relief force included an impromptu, but intemperate reference to the Hun invaders of continental Europe which would later be resurrected by British propaganda to mock Germany during the First World War and Second World War:
" Should you encounter the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, may the name German be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German.[120] "
One newspaper called the aftermath of the siege a "carnival of ancient loot", and others called it "an orgy of looting" by soldiers, civilians and missionaries. These characterisations called to mind the sacking of the Summer Palace in 1860.[121] Each nationality accused the others of being the worst looters. An American diplomat, Herbert G. Squiers, filled several railroad cars with loot and artifacts. The British Legation held loot auctions every afternoon and proclaimed, "Looting on the part of British troops was carried out in the most orderly manner." However, one British officer noted, "It is one of the unwritten laws of war that a city which does not surrender at the last and is taken by storm is looted." For the rest of 1900–1901, the British held loot auctions everyday except Sunday in front of the main-gate to the British Legation. Many foreigners, including Sir Claude Maxwell MacDonald and Lady Ethel MacDonald and George Ernest Morrison of The Times, were active bidders among the crowd. Many of these looted items ended up in Europe.[122] The Catholic Beitang or North Cathedral was a "salesroom for stolen property."[123] The American commander General Adna Chaffee banned looting by American soldiers, but the ban was ineffectual.[124]
Some but by no means all Western missionaries took an active part in calling for retribution. To provide restitution to missionaries and Chinese Christian families whose property had been destroyed, William Ament, a missionary of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, guided American troops through villages to punish those he suspected of being Boxers and confiscate their property. When Mark Twain read of this expedition, he wrote a scathing essay, "To the Person Sitting in Darkness", that attacked the "Reverend bandits of the American Board," especially targeting Ament, one of the most respected missionaries in China.[125] The controversy was front-page news during much of 1901. Ament's counterpart on the distaff side was doughty British missionary Georgina Smith who presided over a neighborhood in Beijing as judge and jury.[126]
While one historical account reported that Japanese troops were astonished by other Alliance troops raping civilians,[127] others noted that Japanese troops were 'looting and burning without mercy', and that Chinese 'women and girls by hundreds have committed suicide to escape a worse fate at the hands of Russian and Japanese brutes.'[128] Roger Keyes, who commanded the British destroyer Fame and accompanied the Gaselee Expedition, noted that the Japanese had brought their own "regimental wives" (prostitutes) to the front to keep their soldiers from raping Chinese civilians.[129]
The Daily Telegraph journalist E. J. Dillon stated that he witnessed the mutilated corpses of Chinese women who were raped and killed by the Alliance troops. The French commander dismissed the rapes, attributing them to "gallantry of the French soldier." A foreign journalist, George Lynch, said "there are things that I must not write, and that may not be printed in England, which would seem to show that this Western civilization of ours is merely a veneer over savagery."[122]
"
I have to admit, cynical as I am, I was a little shocked to read that missionaries were deeply involved in looting, reprisals, and rapes. I guess I'm naive. But it does put the rape of Nanking in some context. It's not just Japanese troops who went nuts in China, China suffered a great deal at the hands of foreigners, and while we may have forgotten most of these stories, or filtered them to point up the sins of our enemies, the Chinese have not. They remember it all too well.
I actually agree with most of this but that attitude, about smothering or sacrificing 'lesser' powers (like Japan as an example of the former and Czechoslovakia as an example of the latter) was itself dangerous and in no small part what led to WW II. The British armed Japan partly as a bulwark against Communist Russia. Then lost their Pacific fleet and some of the jewels of the Colonial Empire to them 15 years later. The British and French threw small but highly comptent Czechoslovakia under the buss and then faced a German armored spearhead pouring into France, 1/3 comprised of Czech tanks, which were quite good by the standards of the day.
View attachment 558132
As you said, British arming Japan is somewhat analogous to the US arming the Mujahadeen in the 1980s, in both cases to throw a barrier in front of Russia. However arms to the Muj / Taliban didn't rise to the equivalent height of the pagoda on the Kongo...
The Soviets benefited heavily from allied equipment and supplies, but lets keep in mind, the major Allied interventions all took place after Stalingrad, and the Germans never successfully conducted a major campaign after Stalingrad.
I'm sure D-Day helped accelerate matters but the truth is the Germans were already doomed more than a year before the first boot hit Omaha beach.
The Soviets reieved 17,499,861 tons of aid. In '41 and '42 this aid was 16% of the total aid. In '43, '44 and '45 this aid was 84% of the total.
Engines of the Red Army in WW2
Would you care to explain this?
The Kongo was the last major Japanese warship built by a non-Japanese company. her 3 sister ships were built in Japan with varying amounts of British Supplied materials.
The Kongo was completed 16 August 1913.
The Japanese helped hunt for German surface raiders in WW I. They had a small flotilla of ships in the Med assisting the British during or after the Dardanelles operation. They took over the German islands/possession in the Orient, part from greed and part to prevent them from being supply points for German raiders.
All of this was before the Russian revolution. Perhaps the British did assist the Japanese navy in modernising after WW 1 and perhaps it was to help counter bolshevism, but Japan had served as an ally during WW I and for the most part, the British were only "arming" Japan with technical knowledge about aircraft and aircraft operations. And selling small numbers of aircraft to Japan. Japan purchased no large ships from the British after WW I. The British certainly didn't "give" the Japanese much of anything in the way of weapons after WW I.
Informative...........but disheartening.
What the F is wrong with so many people. No honor? It occurs to me more and more that 10% of the people are basically evil, 10% are basically good, and the remaining 80% have no moral core and will bow to the prevailing winds of wichever 10% is dominant at the moment.
Trying to get in topic....
Even though the USA of the time had serious human rights issues, most (like 99%) were the result of state and local governments' laws and policies (including tacit support of terrorist organizations), not federal ones (even the Japanese internment during WWII was pushed by local governments, although endorsed and enforced by the national one), there was not the sort of anti-US feeling among Hawaii's citizens as there was anti-imperium feeling as there was among the peoples under the British Raj, if for no other reason than Britain's deliberate destruction of local economic activity that inconvenienced the British. Japan would find even less support amongst the inhabitants of Hawaii than they did in the Raj.
All quite true. From a strictly military point of view, I suspect Japan could not occupy and hold all of Hawaii. It may have been able to occupy and hold Oahu long enough to destroy it as a useful base, though. Given the Japanese methods of rule, they would not make any friends in the archipelago.I don't want to keep bringing up bummer stuff but lets not forget though US colonial policies for example in the Spanish American War (notably in the Philippines) and also down in South and Central America and so on. US Federal government policy could be pretty ruthless and nasty just like the Europeans (or the Japanese).
And then there is all the firebombing during WWII, then Korea etc.
And unlike the poor unarmed Chinese Peasants that they could simply do with what they pleased, many of those living on Hawaii may have been armed. Not actually sure of how well civilians on the island were armed, but at that time the mainland USA was very well armed.(I still don't see them having a prayer of successfully invading Oahu)All quite true. From a strictly military point of view, I suspect Japan could not occupy and hold all of Hawaii. It may have been able to occupy and hold Oahu long enough to destroy it as a useful base, though. Given the Japanese methods of rule, they would not make any friends in the archipelago.
I don't agree, in 1940-42 Japan was definitely a 1st rate power. Italy was a bit worn out by 10 years of Fascism before WW2 even started, but they never achieved the stunning victories the Japanese did... and Kamikazes came with the defeat not with the expansion.
One of the interesting things I learned listening to Dan Carlins "Supernova in the East" was that Japan was one of the most ardently and intransigently anti-Communist States on Earth, maybe even more than Nazi Germany. They really, really, really hated communists. So it's a bit ironic that during most of the war they had a peaceful border with the Soviets. No doubt something to do with their defeat by General Zhukov early in the war.
True - as I said they got a lot of help particularly logistical. Aircraft sent by Britain and the US most definitely helped stabilize the front at a crucial time.
I was backing up your statement.