The Mad Monarchist gives the politically incorrect truth about Japan in World War II, focusing this time on the Marco Polo Bridge/China Incident. Who was really at fault and whose interests were best served by escalating the conflict...
History is told by the winners. History also repeats itself. How do we stop it from repeating when so much of it is stifled? Do your research and stay mad people.
Remember from corrupt emperors, to lack of resources, to communism, British and German presence, and fear of the Soviet Union. There is plenty of pretext to go into China. Atrocities occurred on all sides. Now General MacArthur said when he looked at the island of Japan and it's lack of resources. He said, "we would of done the same thing." Japan then is exonerated for its war crimes.
Jay Mendoza The Japanese surrendered after the Battle of Midway. The Allies refused to accept it, and sought the stupid notion of "unconditional surrender", which is basically a Napoleonic concept. Then they punished Japan out of pure hate and anger.
The arguments those Japanese historians made are actually quite compelling, but I understand your reasoning as to how "credible" their accounts are on the subject. The Japanese were deathly afraid of Communism (with good reason). The belief that the Marco Polo Bridge incident was instigated by Chinese commies might, on the surface, sound like nothing more than red paranoia or conspiracy theory. I've had the pleasure of reading "The Rising Sun" and it is quite an interesting book.
It is not perfect but is more fair than most you will read, particularly in English-language books which are usually extremely prejudiced against Japan. The far-right historians are often quite correct but they sometimes hurt their own cause by saying that the mainstream histories critical of the Japanese Empire are all wrong but at the same time cite them when they are critical of the French, British, German etc Empires and say those are all correct. That hurts their credibility and makes loyal, tradition-minded people in the west unsympathetic to their counterparts in Japan. Happily, the facts are the facts and anyone can and should bring them to the attention of everyone.
I heared USA naval attache wirelessly delivered US gov that "chinese army would begin fighting against Japan" at around July 7th, 1937. Japanese navy heared it at Owada(near Tokyo) by wireless and told it to army, but army treated it as a wrong information. . It was argued at Tokyo judgement to say japan did not start the war. USA quickly went quiet and obedient hearing the sent message. There were some conflicts between china and japan armies, but they tried to minimize it. When japanese army did practice, seen by chinese national army. Chinese communists shot Japan and chinnese national armies at same time. Japan and chinese national armies minimized it again. But it happened again and again, then some people escalated it into war. It was a sad history.
because they liberated south east asian nation from western colonizer. before world war 2, almost the entire region of southeast asia was under, france, usa, uk, portugal, netherlands and russia
@100260631067940910060 Korea? If they didn't The Russian Empire Would of. The rest were strategic invasions either for resources or to knock out a military threat after they went to war with the United States since the US was starving Japan of resources trying to provoke Japan to go to war with the US. If they didn't take those territories they wouldn't of stood a chance at a war with the United States, and in most respects still didn't stand a chance after. Might of made the Japanese last one more year occupying those lands. Japanese Aggression in WWII is so badly taken out of context that it's disgusting.
@Kristian Mandrup That isn't entirely true. Hitler wanted to take back all Pre-WWI German Territories, this would include Pozen and Danzig. If not peacefully, but by force. He was able to get most of his claims peacefully, but Poland was stubborn. Hitler actually wanted Poland to become part of the Anti-Comintern Pack, but Poland didn't want to antagonize the Soviets which could lead to war. He was willing to abandon Germany's Colonial Claims and Territory in the West to avoid war with the Western Powers, and even made such offers after France/Britain declared war hoping to get them to back down. Hitler's obsession with getting Pozen and Danzig back, combined with a change in leadership in Poland that wanted nothing more than a Neutral position between the Fascist in Central Europe, and Communist in the East. Combined with the Fact Stalin considered Poland Personally responsible for his Humiliation in the Failed Red Invasion of Poland in 1919 (Stalin took the brunt of the Blame for the Red Army's defeat in Poland, as he commanded a detachment of Cavalry that didn't join the main army when they were ordered to). Well Poland found herself trying to be neutral but at the same time utterly hated by both Totalitarians surrounding her. Which lead to the unthinkable, an Alliance to destroy her.
Your series is impressive , do you have a bibliography, most historians now know ww1 was unnecessary, and the death of Christianity in the west, Japan role in ww2, is something I desperately need to research , it obvious the lies about the Eureopean continent.
To a certain extent you make an interesting case although you neglected to mention that the civil government of Japan at the time of the bridge incident had very little control over the Japanese military and repeatedly attempted to hold back its own commanders without success. Also I take issue with the notion that China had no claim on Manchuria, it certainly did have a claim... to say China had no claim to Manchuria is like saying the USA has no claim the state of Maine, the three northern provinces encompassing historical Manchuria were a part of China from the mid-1600s to the mid-1800s when half the territory was handed over under duress to Russia.
Maine joined the US by choice. What you're saying would be like America claiming Britain and Ireland because they had both been part of the British Empire. Manchuria was never a part of China. They were both part of the Qing Empire and the fact that the Chinese did not want to be ruled by the Qing Emperor should not have had any effect on anyone other than China and certainly not Manchuria which had been independent under the Qing dynasty well before the Qing Emperor ruled over China.
Mad Monarchist Would it not be more like the US claiming Canada, since both were part of the British Empire and had historically close ties? The US, of course, did claim Canada, and tried to take Canada several times.
True but I think England is a better example because that is where the King was from. Just because George III stopped being King of the American colonies did not mean he stopped being King of Great Britain and Ireland. Similarly, the Qing had ruled Manchuria before ruling China and if the Chinese did not wish to be ruled by the Qing Emperor, it should have had no impact on the fact that he was still the Emperor of Manchuria. Look at it like this; the Guelph/Wettin royals ruled the Electorate of Hannover in Germany. Then, by a change in the law, the King of Hanover became the King of Great Britain and Ireland (George I). Later, when there was the second Jacobite rising, George II was prepared to move back to Hanover if the Jacobites were successful. If they had been, he would have lost the British and Irish thrones but he still would have been the King of Hanover.
Ur theory and and research find natives at fault in protecting their land and pride. Great theory. All world history points to controing trad trade route s and teadeceners.
Jim Key You’re not too bright....the US imposed completely unjustified sanctions on japan and cut off their oil....japan ATTEMPTED to negotiate, but US refused. They had no choice but to either lose to China and face the threat of communism, OR they could fight! They chose the latter option....which is exactly what the US gov wanted
@@rhysnichols8608 how dare you calling him "not too bright"?! Anyway, your respond is 1 year late. Jim has passed away last year. I am sure he was 1,000 brighter than whoever wrote this respond.
Jim Key My condolences, no disrespect intended. Still doesn’t change the fact he was wrong though, he did NOT have a true understanding of the facts surrounding pearl harbour
@@jimkey920 You (NOT *Jim Key* , the person using Jims account) have the impression that if somebody is dead, that means his arguements & beliefs are perfect and cannot be held up to scrutiny. You refuse to look at the error of his claims, because you have a rose tilted view of Jim Key. Your entire defense for his arguements is "Respect the dead, dont call his arguements out for the falsity of his claims." Maybe if you took off the rose colored view of Jims views, you could see the error of his statements.
@@rhysnichols8608 Hey friend. My old account was suspended. This is an alt made in its image.. So I beseech you to be careful or else you and I will have no way of contacting (Im a ask what that other method of contact was you said had no limits on freedom of speech.) On this thread - I dont know why you give condolence to somebody you would have no respect for if he were still alive. The bitch who said that Jim Key was, quote, 1000 times brighter than you, I would never respond kindly to such an insult. I dont know you well enough but that was awefully kind of you to say.
Your baseless claims only makes you an idiot. Many people don’t study WWI and WWII enough. The real villains of WWII was Franklin Delano Roosevelt with his trusty sidekick Vice President Harry S. Truman. Stalin of course is the main villain, but many will never say Chiang Kai Shek or Mao Zedong enough.
yes in some parts but real villains like Britain and American Imperial who caused both world wars lost colonies and today they are shamelessly talking about human rights and anti-racism despite they had treated coloured races as dogs or pigs for hundreds of years. Those Anglo-Saxons also lost WW2.
