source : estudyassistant.com
The map shows territory captured by nazi germany in 1941. hitler was confident about invading russia because he had recently
Hitler was confident about invading Russia because he had recently captured France.
Hitler annexed Austria which was part of France without any fleshly battle. The annexation gave him the sureness to invade Russia. Austria’s occupationof Nazi Germany was finished on 12th March 1938, alsolabeled as “Anschluss”. Before the occupation, he received a robust sustenance for occupation from the occupants of both the nation for coalition. His intention to invade Russia was ruined by the entrance of the U.S in the Second World War. The German armies were checked by the American forces and it became difficult for fulfillment of Hitler’s desire.
Adolf Hitler was a statesman of the “Nazi party” whogained his authority as the front-runner of Germany. His despotism over Germany continued amid 1933 and 1945 and was also the one behind the initiation of WWII by assaulting Poland on 1st September 1939.His beliefs always laid stress on military operation,conveying his alignment towards force and detested coaxing. His doctrine was always considered the most evil one and is also known to be the most brutal dictator to have been existed, who took away millions of lives just for the sake of absolutism.
1. the impact of Furman v. Georgia (1972) was that states had to promise to use the death penalty only with approval from the supreme court. throw out the old Miranda warning and write a new one. agree to throw out all state laws regarding crime and impose national standards. create clear Miranda to be applied Georgia before imposing the death penalty?
2. in which section of the declaration of independence is the purpose of government described?
3. In a parliamentary system of representative democracy, the prime minister is appointed by the monarch. is elected by representatives chosen by the people. is the leader of the party that won the most seats in parliament. is elected directly by the people?
Grade: High School
Keywords: Adolf Hitler, Nazi party, front-runner, Germany, World War II, Poland, 1st September 1939, military operation, detested, coaxing, Austria, Russia, Nazi Germany, Anschluss, Second World War.
The map shows territory captured by nazi germany in 1941 – The map shows territory captured by nazi germany in 1941. hitler was confident about invading russia because he had recently History, 29.01.2020 02:52 gabbihardy7980 The map shows territory captured by nazi germany in 1941. hitler was confident about invading russia because he had recently capturedStalin was afraid of Hitler. Hitler had broken a pact and attacked. The map shows territory captured by Nazi Germany in 1941. (sorry, no map). Hitler was confident about invading Russia because he had recently captured Spain. France. Great Britain. Switzerland. Soviet Union. Before invading Poland, Hitler reached a secret agreement withWhy Hitler Might Have Thought Invading Russia Would Be Easy (Thanks to Finland) The territory the Soviets had captured in 1940 and then lost in 1941 would be restored, plus Finland would cede
WWII begins Flashcards | Quizlet – Hitler's invasion of the ____ in June 1941 proved that he would consistently break agreements. The map shows territory captured by Nazi Germany in 1941. Hitler was confident about invading Russia because he had recently captured.Hitler by his own admission in his memoir Mein Kampf had plotted the destruction of communism since before he had risen to power. Hitler watching German soldiers marching into Poland in September 1939.Photo: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-S55480 / CC-BY-SA 3.0. So it would have been very simple to just use his own words against him.After breaking his non-aggression pact with Stalin in the summer of 1941, Hitler was so confident he could conquer Russia as quickly and efficiently as he had Western Europe that his forces were not properly equipped for winter. Russia's resilience, however, was stronger than the Führer had anticipated. Once the weather worsened, German
Why Hitler Might Have Thought Invading Russia Would Be – avantikar Hitler was confident about invading Russia because he had recently captured France.Hitler was actually very conscious of Napoleon. One of the reasons he insisted on attacking Leningrad was because he was reluctant to follow Napoleon's main route to Moscow. That helped account for the delay in reaching Moscow. Some have argued that if Hitler had ignored Leningrad he could have captured Moscow.Hitler was confident about invading Russia because he had recently captured France. Further Explanations: Adolf Hitler was a politician of the "Nazi party" whogainedhis authority as the front-runner of Germany.His despotism over Germany continued from 1933 and 1945 and was the one behind the initiation of World War II by assaulting Poland on 1st September 1939.His beliefs always laid
19.1 The Russian Revolution(s) of 1917 – What is the link between this egg, that
Disney Princess, and that military parade? This and much more today on Prof.
Girard's world history course.
When Karl Marx first came up with the notion of
communism he predicted that the revolution would happen first in highly
industrialized countries like Germany or France, maybe Britain, and yet the first major revolution in world history happened in
Russia of all places, a country that Karl Marx would have regarded as backward and not quite ready for revolution yet. How did that happen?
That is today's question. The people who ruled Russia before WWI were
known as the czars, the Tussian version of Caesar. They came from a dynasty
called the Romanovs, specifically Nicholas the second, last czar of the Romanov
dynasty of Russia. You see him here in that beautiful family photo with his
wife, the czarina, and you notice that they both had a daughter first and
another daughter and another daughter. Now there's nothing wrong with daughters,
I have said several myself, but if you're a king you want a man to take up the throne.
Ultimately after many attempts they had a boy at long last, the Tsarevich, except
for one issue: he suffered from hemophilia, a kind of
disease that was very prevalent among the royal dynasties of Europe in the
early 20th century. Hemophilia is a genetic disease. We now know that it's
passed on through the female line. A passive carrier of the gene was Queen
Victoria of England. Since she and her children had married into all the
royal dynasties of Europe it was quite common for her descendants to have
hemophilia. The disease itself is revealed through the boys.That will
mean that you have a hard time clotting blood after an injury, which could
be potentially life-threatening. So the family was kind of torn over the little
boy, elated that he had family come but at the same time torn that he might pass away the one and only boy, the heir to the Romanovs. So in
that case when a family is so distraught about their little boy,
they tend to be easy prey for quacks of all sorts, and that's exactly what
happened: they came into contact with a weird man, a Siberian mystic called
Rasputin, who was not from noble family. But because he claimed to have
supernatural powers he was able to inch his way into the Royal Palace (which back
then was in St. Petersburg not Moscow). Rasputin eventually came to call
the shots behind the scenes at the Royal Palace, not only giving advice on how to
cure the little boy from hemophilia, or so he claimed, but also giving advice on
how the family ought to be governing Russia. This do not sit well with other
Nobles from the Russian autocracy, who eventually arranged for the murder of
Rasputin–which by itself is a whole story. Basically some of the nobles tried
to give him some cakes laden with arsenic or cyanide and somehow he seemed nothing worse for the wear. Then they gave him tea that was poisoned and that
didn't seem to do anything. And then they shot him and left him for dead in the
basement, came back a couple hours later, and then he leaped at the the aggressors
because he was still alive and kicking and screaming: a little bit like Glenn
Close in Fatal Attraction. Finally after shooting him one more time, supposedly
dead, they put him in a burlap sack and threw him into the river. The story
is (and I'm not sure about the whole details and whether they're accurate) is
that when they finally did dug his body out of the river, he was in there but he
had tried to get himself out of the sack and there was water in his lungs: meaning
what killed him eventually him was not the two rounds of poison or the two
rounds of shooting but drowning. Some of the details may be apocryphal.
Anyway I'm telling that story to explain that the Russian Czars were not the most
popular by the early 20th century: they claimed to rule by divine right but they
might be influenced by some weird Siberian mystic. This led to
a major revolution in 1905 which is the same year that Russia
suffered a humiliating defeat when fighting against Japan all the way in the Far East. We'll have another video about that. That revolution eventually
did not topple the Russian czars but it was a warning shot that maybe not all
was good in the kingdom of the Russians. That 1905 revolution is also important
for cinephiles like myself, and I'm sure yourself, because it was a subject of the
movie by Eisenstein: Battleship Potemkin, one of the classic movies of old Russian
cinema there's a scene in particular when the workers are going down the
steps and Cossacks are going up the steps shooting it's just masterful
editing really groundbreaking and very fluent role for later movie makers who were
inspired by it. I recommend it: Battleship Potemkin by Eisenstein.
It's in this difficult context that in 1914 WWI began. As we saw in an
earlier video, WWI was fought between Germany and Austria and Hungary and the
Ottoman Empire on one side, the Central Powers, and then Britain France Italy
Russia later the US on the other side, the Entente powers or the Allies.
Russia was not quite ready for the revolution. It was in the process of industrializing
but it had a very large population and that's what made it such a valuable ally
for the French and the British and the Americans. When the war began many of the
communists who wanted to start a revolution (remember that at that point
the Communists in Russia were a tiny tiny minority, the country had not
industrialized, you don't have much of a blue-collar worker force in Russia),
those communists typically thought that the war was not a good thing. People tend
to rally around the flag in times of war, and people start to pray to the church
and hope that the Emperor his family were doing well. And many communists
thought that's it: the Revolution had been delayed by many many years, nobody will
dare to betray Mother Russia during a war. The one leader that was a bit more
for farsighted was Vladimir Ilich, one of the leading communists. He's not
known as Vladimir Ilich: he's known by his codename Lenin. Russian autocracy was
pretty strict toward the dissidents like the Communists so many of them had an
alternate identity. Think of them as a Bruce Banner or Clark
Kent. In that case his secret code name was Lenin and
that's how we know him. Lenin famously said that to him WWI was a gift
to the revolution. Sure enough, in the run, people might get excited about the
war, rally around the flag, praise the the autocrat, but then just
wait a few months or a few years, when the casualty lists start coming in and
people realize that war was not all fun and games: many people would die,
especially in Russia that was woefully unprepared for the war. And then
two years, three years down the line, that would be the time to get the whole
house of cards tumbling down. His prediction came correct in his absence
(because he lived in exile in Switzerland). The Russian army fought bravely
in WWI as it did in WWII, but with tremendous casualties. Also
this was an army that was quite hierarchical. The nobility would be in the
officer position, in fancy uniforms, and would really look down upon the
privates that were mudjiks, peasants from far into the countryside of Russia.
So you have stories and a lot of them actually correct, of Russian
peasants drafted into the army and told: get out of the trenches, this is WWI,
go across no-man's land, attack the German trenches: a suicidal campaign already, but do so without a gun because we haven't produced enough guns
for every soldier in the army. So there might be only one gun for every two or
three soldiers. But don't worry: many people die in WWI so half-way through no-man's land all the men around you will be dead and you'll just pick up
a gun from one of the deceased comrades and then just carry on the fight.
Clearly the kind of policy that does not instill confidence in the leadership of the czar.
By 1916-17 you start having quite a few mutinies in the Russian army,
which were partly due to strict discipline, social warfare, and also the
limitations of the industrial power of Russia. In the meantime you also have
much unhappiness in the cities: Moscow or the capital at the time St. Petersburg,
also known as Petrograd, the city of Peter. In that case it would be involving
more civilians, especially because Russia was not quite prepared
economically to deal with such a massive WWI there would be severe
shortages. What little was produced would typically go to the army on the
front line and then civilians would just have to tighten the belt. Agricultural
production was also down because some of the peasants had been drafted into the
army and so could only produce so much back at home. At the result there
would be bread shortages that would be deeply felt in the big cities like St.
Petersburg and you have plenty of women that are hungry and their kids are
hungry and not too happy and they go into the streets and demonstrate and
start having bread demonstrations. This being an autocracy the sole response
was to send in the Cossacks, the armed police, and just start to slash some
skulls and so forth. If you're interested in another movie there is a great one
called Dr. Zhivago based on the Boris Pasternak novel.There's an early
scene set during that time in the dying days of the czars where you see some Cossacks attacking women begging for bread. Tthis eventually degenerated
into an outright revolution, which is known as the February Revolution.
It happened in March of 1917: a bit confusing. The reason being that the
Russians are not yet embraced the new Gregorian calendar of the Popes and
were using an older Julian calendar that's about 10 days off. So the February Revolution
is in March of our calendar. This one is not involving communists. If you were
to put all the parties in Russia on a spectrum, to the far right would be the
ultra-conservative, the supporters of the czars, the monarchists,
to the left would be the Communists, the Bolsheviks, Lenin and so forth, those who
favored revolution. In between were moderates who dreamed of having a constitutional monarchy or some kind of democratic government with
elected officials in the Western mold. The person that grew to power during
that time, his name was Kerensky and he became prime minister of Russia. He would
be the most appealing in Western eyes, but he made some severe mistakes,
actually one mistake: he felt that Russia had made a commitment, was allied to
France and Britain and had to proceed all the way to victory, no matter
what the cost would be. As a result the war continued and all the evils that came with a war continued. Casualties were
still as long, the bread shortages continued, discipline in the army was still as strict, and the mutinies continued. So after just six months in
power Kerensky had become as unpopular as the czar
had been. That's when Lenin finally saw his opening: we finally see him
jumping into the revolution. Remember that he had lived in Switzerland in exile
and the Germans very cleverly thought: let's send him back to Russia (in a
sealed wagon because we're afraid that he might escape and create a mess in
Germany), let's send him straight to Russia, and then let him create a mess in
Russia in our enemy. Lenin did just that. He organized the second revolution
usually known as the October Revolution, which happened in November by our
calendar, also confusing, and this one is the famous communist revolution that we
know of, the one that gets commemorated every year during the time when Russia
was communist with all these endless military parades in Moscow . The second revolution was not really a popular riot, it was organized by a small highly militarized
party but clever at seizing all the powers of government in Saint-Petersburg,
overthrowing the Kerensky government, setting up Soviets which are like party
committees, and then seizing power. That ended the rule of the Czars in
Russia for good. What do we have left from their period? Well in
Saint-Petersburg we have plenty of beautiful palaces from the period and
you have those eggs that I showed you earlier, the so-called Faberge
eggs. These were gifts around Easter time not actual eggs but gifts from the Czar to the Czarina,
beautifully made by a person called Faberge There always was a little
something hidden inside of it, a bit like the Kinder Surprise
if you ever lived in Germany. After the family of the czar fled, eventually in
the later Civil War they were caught, captured in a city called Yekaterinburg, and
apparently captured by the Russians (the communists by that point) and lined up and
shot. There was some controversy as to whether all the members of the family of
the czar were killed, specifically one of the daughters
you saw in that earlier picture (Anastasia was her name, the one that
Disney actually made a movie about) supposedly, and so was the story, she had
survived and then resurfaced in the 1920s and 30s in Europe where a woman, a
young woman, claimed to be the long-lost descendant. And people were not sure
whether she told the truth or not, or maybe she was just pursuing a con and
trying to inherit some of the wealth of the family. That wealth was considerable. As it turned out Anastasia, the lady in the 1920s, was not
the real one. Quite recently there have been some discoveries made in Russia in
that forest in Yekaterinenburg, where they did uncover the tomb where
all the bodies of the family of the czar had been dumped. And they counted all the bones and sure enough all the daughters are there. Anastasia died at that point. Well
those were not the only victims of the revolution. After the October / November
1917 revolution happened, a big civil war broke out between the so called Reds
and the Whites. The Reds were the people that preferred to enjoy a nice Merlot. The
whites were in favor of Chardonnays, and they would fight for years over that… or
maybe not.The Reds, the color of my shirt, would be the color of the
Communists. So these are the supporters of Lenin and so forth. White is usually
associated with monarchy, the supporters of the czar or some relative of the czar that might come back as emperor of Russia. This civil war was a lengthy one lasting from
1917 to 1920, adding yet another layer of misery to Russia. The Communists
eventually prevailed quite well organized, and putting together the Red
Army under Leon Trotsky. Even though they only controlled the central part
of Russia (St. Petersburg, Moscow where they later moved the capital), they
managed to prevail. The whites had the support of the church
and conservative forces and nobility, but also foreign powers. The British, French, Americans was very unhappy that the Russians had dropped out of
the war and sent some interventions, some military expeditions to Murmansk
in the north and Arkangelsk and to the Black Sea to the
south or even Vladivostok all the way to the far east, without success.
Very few in the US today know that America actually invaded Russia
during that time of the Civil War. It is not forgotten in Russia.
They tend to see themselves as victimized by the US rather than the other way
around. So what did Lenin do to win that Civil War? The key was to get support of the population because the Communists
initially were just a tiny tiny fraction of the political spectrum. So they
figured: what is it that the people want? They don't really care about communism, what they
want is peace and they want bread and they want land. So let's give it to them. So Lenin made a unilateral peace with the Germans called the Peace of Brest-Litovsk
named after the city where it was signed. That peace was ruinous for Russia. They
had to give away huge amounts of land to Germany, but all that mattered for
Lenin at that point was, we cannot continue fighting the Germans, we have to
focus on a civil war, so much for losing all that money, we'll get it back
later, and they did in WWII. The other thing that Lenin did was to allow
the peasants to get whatever land they wanted, meaning, go out if you are a serf
(and serfdom in Russia had just ended recently in the 1860s), if you are
landless peasants just go out and take the land from the nobility. And they did
when they came back from the war in great numbers.
That's not exactly communist. Communism is about owning land in common not
having your own field as part of private property, but this was a very
popular move by Lenin and that allowed him to secure the support of the population.
Peace, land, and bread: that's what the people wanted and that's what they got
from Lenin, at least in the short run. So that's our story for today: we now know
the connection between the Faberge egg, those military parades in early November
to commemorate the October Revolution, and also that princess Anastasia, and how
they tie together. More importantly we know how the powerful autocrat, the czar,
was eventually toppled in the aftermath of WWI and then gave rise to the
communist regime after the Revolution of 1917. What did Lenin and later Stalin do in
power once they got power? That's a story for another lecture. In the meantime this
was Professor Girard. You've been schooled! .
What if America Had Invaded Japan? (Operation Downfall) – The Following Is An Exercise of Alternate History (Insert sound here) It Is Simply One of the Countless Scenarios That Could Have Happened Had History Gone Down a Different Path (Roll Film) (Cue cheesy World War II-era propaganda music stuff) (Insert weird SFX again) ALTERNATE HISORY HUB "THE FINAL PUSH" (Narrator)
"Quite fitting to the time of Halloween" "The invasion of the Japanese homeland officially began this week." "Bringing a whole new scare on the enemy on their own turf" "And the tropical beaches of Kyushu wherein an army force storm to the defenses of the enemy" "Fighting in conditions absolutely never seen in the Pacific theater." "After days of intense combat, the enemy was on the run and the beachhead was secure" "Military commanders have assured the public that the invasion will be swift" "And one final push to bring the Japanese to unconditional surrender." (Narration ends) (Honestly, they should have done this instead.
Epic points for Murica) (Cue Cody) War… is messy. (Cue slideshow of World War II pictures) Even if a conflict end decisively, there's always destruction left behind. In Europe, Hitler's inability to surrender only prolonged the inevitable. This determination to hold on to power backfired When the the Easter front broke, and Germany retreated There wasn't mercy on the Russian side. The Russians raped, murdered, and deported millions of people As they moved on to Berlin. This is what happens in modern war. Everything is affected because the scale of the conflict isn't limited to just fields. It's entire cities, economic zones, population centers. Because the Nazi's didn't surrender, the outcome of the war came through bloodshed. Millions more died, the Soviets claimed land for themselves, and Europe was divided. We didn't see this after the surrender of Japan. As we're taught in school the Pacific War Strategy was pretty simplistic: America retook each island occupied by Japan, destroying most of the Japanese fleet in the process, then, just in time, drop the atomic bomb to end the war; two, for good measure :3 And, somewhere, the Soviets invaded Manchuria. No matter your opinion on the end of the war we're left with the ramifications of the short end to the conflict. The rebuilding of Japan was quick and the country has become one of America's closest allies. The formerly isolationist empire is now one of the largest economies in the world, and a first world, democratic nation. But there was a chance that it might not have ended up this way. Even though two bombs were dropped, and the Soviets invaded Manchuria, the only event that truly mattered was the single decision to surrender by the Japanese emperor. Japan had attempted to surrender earlier, but their conditions were deemed unacceptable by American standards. To the Japanese, they feared complete surrender was a threat to the Emperor's life. (Those special effects though. So much money poured out, Cody!) In our timeline, after the shock of two nuclear blasts and a Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Japan bent the knee But in an alternate timeline? If the nukes were never dropped and the Soviet threat wasn't really fully realized by Japan? The Emperor could simply.. never surrender. If this was the case, the US was ready to use all force necessary to bring them down. Even if that meant American boots in Japan. This was Operation Downfall; A very real, very possible, worst case scenario, crafted by the US military in case the Japanese refuse to surrender. A complete invasion of the Japanese homeland. Requiring a fleet and force larger than that of D-Day. So what if, in an alternate timeline, the Japanese didn't surrender? Say, the Manhattan Project was behind, and didn't produce a workable bomb by August. This opens the door for a darker strain of events that would bring World War II to a longer, grinding, and more tragic conclusion. Now, when discussing Downfall, it's important to note this was a worst case scenario. If action was needed to torch the foxhole on a nationwide level, this was the plan that was needed to do it. This scenario is only if every action taken by both sides brings each other closer to an inevitable conflict on Japan. (Incoming context warning!) But! Before discussing any of that, we need to catch up on some history. (Flashback!) In 1943, FDR deemed that the only way to truly win the war was a policy of "Unconditional Surrender" against the Axis Powers. This was used as a way to stamp out the militaristic elements from the governments of the nations who lost. To the Japanese, this concept was terrifying. Many imagined what scenarios would happen if they were at the whim of an American victory. Would the Emperor be executed? Would the Imperial code be thrown out? In Japanese Military code, surrender was, literally, not an option. By this time, the Japanese homeland had been obliterated from years of war. Air domination by the US had allowed for constant firebombing of cities, leaving millions homeless, and hundreds of thousands dead. After fighting in Europe, and island hopping, the US was tired of war. Another stage of the conflict was the last thing the Americans wanted. The outcome of the following months rested entirely on the shoulders of a few powerful figures in Japan. Yes, there were attempts to get a conditional surrender by a few in the government. However, what was explicitly wished for was that the Emperor was to stay in power. Other than that, the scale of these negotiations varied. From wishing for the government to remain untouched. For Japanese war trials You know, like the rape of Nanking, to be done by Japan. And, for there to be a limited occupation of the Japanese homeland, including very small American presence in Tokyo. This was, of course, completely unacceptable to the Americans. Unconditional surrender was the only way. But, with heavy casualties on both Iwo Jima and Okinawa, It became clear to the US that more were going to die to achieve this goal. So, there were two options to break the Japanese. One: surround Japan and blockade the entire island. This would create famines which would leave millions of civilians dead, and perhaps, after months of starvation, Japan would surrender. The second was Operation Downfall. It would be, at least, a six-month endeavor to clear out resistance in Japan, even though Japan's cities were destroyed, its navy obliterated, and air force obsolete, Japan still could be capable of one thing: Guerrilla war. Oh wait, wait wait! Before we get to invasion or starvations, certainly, the Emperor would have intervened by now and surrendered. Right? Well, that's true. But we have to think about why did the Emperor surrender. There were two factors: Nuclear bombs and Russia. And Russia FAR outweighed the nuclear bombs. As much as most Americans hate to say. For the entire war, Japan and the Soviets never fought each other. Japan even had an embassy in Moscow and repeatedly tried to call for surrender, under their own terms, of course, by negotiating through Russia. In August, 1945, this relationship broke down. The Soviets felt confident and invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria on August 9th. The same day Nagasaki was bombed. This wasn't a small border skirmish, this was a full invasion. A million and a half Soviets versus the dwindling Japanese occupation force. The Japanese lost the entire force of 700,000 men in the period of two weeks. Either killed, deserted, or captured. This sudden loss scared the Japanese to think that prolonging the war would just put them in the hands of communists. And if there was one thing the Communists didn't like, it was a religiously divine autocratic leader. The Americans, by comparison, the Japanese hoped were a better shot to maintaining the emperor in some form. And that gamble paid off as the Americans allowed Hirohito to rule, fearing rebellion. So, in this alternate timeline, for Operaton Downfall to go through, the Japanese emperor would need to not surrender in the face of both a Soviet and American invasion. This is practically suicide by this point. But if he doesn't surrender, then he simply allows his military to continue their plans and Japan would be an industrialized guerrilla force. What exactly did Operation Downfall consist of? The manpower comprised mostly of American troops but also supported by British and Australians. Japan is mountainous, with pockets of civilization in the valleys below. Taking these cities means the military still has to out Japanese defenses in the rural mountains. Scaling high terrain to destroy zealous troops inside the mountain bunkers. On November 1st, 1945, or X-Day, Downfall begins. It was split into two operations; the first was Operation Olympic: the invasion of Kyushu, the southernmost island. If the Allies took this, even a small portion, then they could have a foothold to invade the rest of Japan. The problem was: Geography x.x And there are only a few points the Americans can actually invade. This invasion is more of a slug fest. A bombing campaign further weakens defenses, but the Japanese are still held up in underground bunkers. The Allies invade from three points at the southernmost tip of Kyushu. The Allied forces would sail from Hawaii, the Philippines, the Marianas, and the Ryukus, respectively. After capturing the small portion of the island, the Allies, then, prepare for Operation Coronet: the invasion of Honshu; or the main island of Japan. The US would hold Kyushu for a few months. During this period of time, the Soviets would have enveloped the entire Korean peninsula, and invaded the island of Hokkaido. Just like in Germany, the Americans and Soviets would be invading the same country from opposite ends. In this alternate timeline, it's a practical race to Tokyo. It's very unlikely, by this point, the Japanese emperor wouldn't surrender. But if he didn't, then that means Operation Coronet would, then, take place in the next March. A straight-up amphibious assault on the Kanto plain that the Allies, would then, fight north, and seize Tokyo. The entire specifics of the assault weren't entirely finalized because the war ended. But, what we do know is that it consisted of a million men. Standard aircraft carrier bombardment of Kanto, would be followed by a full invasion of nearly every unit available in the Pacific theater. All coming down onto Tokyo. After this attack, it's likely the Japanese would be fractured and broken down. The emperor, perhaps, would be arrested, or killed. If he surrenders, then, perhaps, all fighting would cease. If he's killed, then the Allies have a far greater threat on their hands. The entire aftermath of occupying Japan depends on the fate of the Emperor. He was still the political center of Japan, and removing him would cause a practical rebellion from all sides of the Island, which the US would, then, have to put down. This was the only reason why we kept 'em in our timeline. The US takes Japan. Great! … Now what? I can't predict how vengeful the US would be after having to lose countless lives to take the islands. Perhaps the military would bite its tongue and allow many of the leaders to stay for… bureaucracy's sake. Or, the US would purge the Japanese government, suppress the culture, and punish the people of Japan for the war. Either way, tensions between the two countries are FAR greater than in our timeline. And more energy is used to rebuild a more destroyed Japan. In the time it took the US to invade Japan, the Soviets have already invaded Manchuria, all of Korea, and the Japanese island of Hokkaido. Placing all of them under a communist puppet regime. So this Cold War stand off is now transferred to a divided Japan. The borders drawn simply wherever each army invaded farthest. In our timeline, Japan completely dismantled its military. That wasn't because of the US. We actually wanted to rebuild the Japanese military as a powerful ally against the communists. It was Japan, who suffered so much shame from the loss, that it dismantled its own military to never be an aggressor again. Well, because Japan was an island, this wasn't too much of an issue. And the US focused on Korea instead. But in this alternate timeline, The US isn't going to be so easy on Japan's peace effort. The northern Japanese are Soviet puppets. And the US would rebuild Southern Japan's military to be a buffer against any further communist movement. So would this play out like the Korean War, with a conflict between North and South Japan? Hard to say. Northern Japan has a much smaller population than the South. Being cold and all. And it's hard to say what politics would drive a war between the two. For a sizeable amount of the Cold War, It's likely that Japan would just be divided between North and South. As for the legacy of the Pacific war? The invasion of Japan would be remembered in the minds of the American public. It would be seen as the most ruthless fighting it its short, half year of combat. Casualty estimates are… …tricky To say the least. As many people who did the estimates had motives for the numbers they've used. Death toll estimates range from 100,000 to 800,000 For comparison, the US suffered 400,000 deaths in the entire war. These numbers would be transformative to the US public. If hundreds of thousands died simply because Japan didn't surrender, then that creates scars for generations. It's likely the US isn't so forgiving against Japan after the war. Operation Downfall would have been the most complex land invasion ever achieved. It would have extended the war for at least another year. And continued the battle between the two countries far after Tokyo surrendered. Millions of Japanese probably would have died in the bombing attacks, militia movements, famines, and disease that would have came from the war. Hundreds of thousands of Americans probably would have lost their lives and never raised families. Thankfully, for, whatever reason, be it the bombs, the Soviet invasion, or both, the Emperor surrendered when he did and spared everyone that phase of the war. Of course, we'll never know, a hundred percent, what could have happened, but it's fun to theorize. This is simply just one, possible scenario. What do you think could have happened if America invaded Japan? Say in the comments. (Warning: Highly paid special visual effects in the next scene) This is Cody of Alternate History Hub. (Soooooo much money poured out into these special effects. Don't judge!) "Fin" (Cody's post-credit words) Thanks for watching. If you're still interested in the effects of war, the "Why not Nuclear War," Check out my friends at Life Noggin who made a video about nuclear winter, and if you could survive it. In fact, just go check out their entire channel. I know this is a collaboration for one video, but, their content's great. (Like and subscribe for more awesome content from Alternate History Hub!) (Disclaimer: English subtitles created voluntarily.) .
Alexander's Failed India Invasion – Alexander Vs Porus At The Battle Of Hydapses – Alexander’s invasion of India is regarded
as a huge Western victory against the disorganised East.
But according to Marshal Georgy Zhukov,
the largely Macedonian army suffered a fate worse than Napoleon in Russia.
In 326 BC a formidable European army invaded India. Led by Alexander it comprised battle
hardened Macedonian soldiers, Greek cavalry, Balkan fighters and Persians allies. The total
number of fighting men numbered more than 41,000.
Their most memorable clash was at the Battle of Hydaspes or The Battle at the River Jhelum
against the army of Porus, the ruler of the Paurava kingdom of western Punjab. For more
than 25 centuries it was believed that Alexander’s forces defeated the Indians. Greek and Roman
accounts say the Indians were bested by the superior courage and stature of the Macedonians.
Two millennia later, British historians latched on to the Alexander legend and described the
campaign as the triumph of the organised West against the chaotic East. Although Alexander
defeated only a few minor kingdoms in India’s northwest, in the view of many gleeful colonial
writers the conquest of India was complete. In reality much of the country was not even
known to the Greeks. So handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the
conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad.
In 1957, while addressing the cadets of the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun, Zhukov
said Alexander’s actions after the Battle of Hydaspes suggest he had suffered an outright
defeat. In Zhukov’s view, Alexander had suffered a greater setback in India than Napoleon
in Russia. Napoleon had invaded Russia with 600,000 troops; of these only 30,000 survived,
and of that number fewer than 1,000 were ever able to return to duty.
So if Zhukov was comparing Alexander’s campaign in India to Napoleon’s disaster, the Macedonians
and Greeks must have retreated in an equally ignominious fashion. Zhukov would know a fleeing
force if he saw one; he had chased the German Army over 2000 km from Stalingrad to Berlin.
Alexander’s troubles began as soon as he crossed the Indian border. He first faced
resistance in the Kunar, Swat, Buner and Peshawar valleys where the Aspasioi and Assakenoi,
known in Hindu texts as Ashvayana and Ashvakayana, stopped his advance. Although small by Indian
standards, they were very tiny kingdoms, they did not submit before Alexander’s killing
machine. The Assakenoi offered stubborn resistance
from their mountain strongholds of Massaga, Bazira and Ora. The bloody fighting at Massaga
was a prelude to what awaited Alexander in India. On the first day after bitter fighting
the Macedonians and Greeks were forced to retreat with heavy losses. Alexander himself
was seriously wounded in the ankle. On the fourth day the king of Massaga was killed
but the city refused to surrender. The command of the army went to his old mother, which
brought the entire women of the area into the fighting.
Realising that his plans to storm India were going down at its very gates, Alexander called
for a truce. The Assakenoi agreed because the old queen was too trusting. That night
when the citizens of Massaga had gone off to sleep after their celebrations, Alexander’s
troops entered the city and massacred the entire citizenry. A similar slaughter then
followed at Ora. However, the fierce resistance put up by the
Indian defenders had reduced the strength – and perhaps the confidence – of the
until then all-conquering Macedonian army. In his entire conquering career Alexander’s
hardest encounter was the Battle of Hydaspes, in which he faced king Porus of Paurava, a
small but prosperous Indian kingdom on the river Jhelum. Porus is described in Greek
accounts as standing seven feet tall. In May 326 BCE, the European and Paurava armies
faced each other across the banks of the Jhelum. By all accounts it was an awe-inspiring spectacle.
The 34,000 Macedonian infantry and 7000 Greek cavalry were bolstered by the Indian king
Ambhi, who was a rival of Porus. Ambhi was the ruler of the neighbouring kingdom of Taxila
and had offered to help Alexander on condition that he would be given the kingdom of Porus.
Facing this tumultuous force led by the genius of Alexander was the Paurava army of 20,000
infantry, 2000 cavalry and 200 war elephants. Being a comparatively small kingdom by Indian
standards, Paurava couldn’t have maintained such a large standing army, so it’s likely
many of its defenders were hastily armed civilians. Also, the Greeks habitually exaggerated enemy
strength. According to Greek sources, for several days
the armies eyeballed each other across the river. The Greek-Macedonian force after having
lost several thousand soldiers fighting the Indian mountain cities, were terrified at
the prospect of fighting the fierce Paurava army. They had heard about the havoc Indian
war elephants created among enemy ranks. The modern equivalent of battle tanks, the elephants
also scared the wits out of the horses in the Greek cavalry.
Another terrible weapon in the Indians' armoury was the two-meter bow. As tall as a man it
could launch massive arrows able to transfix more than one enemy soldier. The battle was savagely fought. As the volleys
of heavy arrows from the long Indian bows scythed into the enemy’s formations, the
first wave of war elephants waded into the Macedonian phalanx that was bristling with
17-feet long sarissas. Some of the animals got impaled in the process. Then a second
wave of these mighty beasts rushed into the gap created by the first, either trampling
the Macedonian soldiers or grabbing them by their trunks and presenting them up for the
mounted Indian soldiers to cut or spear them. It was a nightmarish scenario for the invaders.
As the terrified Macedonians pushed back, the Indian infantry charged into the gap. In the first charge, by the Indians, Porus’s
brother Amar killed Alexander’s favourite horse Bucephalus, forcing Alexander to dismount.
This was a big deal. In battles outside India the elite Macedonian bodyguards had not allowed
a single enemy soldier to deliver so much as a scratch on their king's body, let alone
slay his mount. Yet in this battle Indian troops not only broke into Alexander’s inner
cordon, they also killed Nicaea, one of his leading commanders. According to the Roman historian Marcus Justinus,
Porus challenged Alexander, who charged him on horseback. In the ensuing duel, Alexander
fell off his horse and was at the mercy of the Indian king’s spear. But Porus dithered
for a second and Alexander’s bodyguards rushed in to save their king. Plutarch, the Greek historian and biographer,
says there seems to have been nothing wrong with Indian morale. Despite initial setbacks,
when their vaunted chariots got stuck in the mud, Porus’s army “rallied and kept resisting
the Macedonians with unsurpassable bravery”. Although the Greeks claim victory, the fanatical
resistance put up by the Indian soldiers and ordinary people everywhere had shaken the
nerves of Alexander's army to the core. They refused to move further east. Nothing Alexander
could say or do would spur his men to continue eastward. The army was close to mutiny. Says Plutarch: “The combat with Porus took
the edge off the Macedonians’ courage, and stayed their further progress into India.
For having found it hard enough to defeat an enemy who brought but 20,000 foot and 2000
horse into the field, they thought they had reason to oppose Alexander's design of leading
them on to pass the Ganges, on the further side of which was covered with multitudes
of enemies.” The Greek historian says after the battle
with the Pauravas, the badly bruised and rattled Macedonians panicked when they received information
that further from Punjab lay places “where the inhabitants were skilled in agriculture,
where there were elephants in yet greater abundance and men were superior in stature
and courage”. Indeed, on the other side of the Ganges was
the mighty kingdom of Magadh, ruled by the wily Nandas, who commanded one of the most
powerful and largest standing armies in the world. According to Plutarch, the courage
of the Macedonians evaporated when they came to know the Nandas “were awaiting them with
200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8000 war chariots and 6000 fighting elephants”. Undoubtedly,
Alexander’s army would have walked into a slaughterhouse. Hundreds of kilometres from the Indian heartland,
Alexander ordered a retreat to great jubilation among his soldiers. The celebrations were premature. On its way
south towards the sea, Alexander's army was constantly harried by Indian partisans, republics
and kingdoms. In a campaign at Sangala in Punjab, the Indian
attack was so ferocious it completely destroyed the Greek cavalry, forcing Alexander to attack
on foot. In the next battle, against the Malavs of Multan, he was felled by an Indian warrior
whose arrow pierced the Macedonian’s breastplate and ribs. Military History magazine says, “Although
there was more fighting, Alexander’s wound put an end to any more personal exploits.
Lung tissue never fully recovers, and the thick scarring in its place made every breath
cut like a knife.” Alexander never recovered and died in Babylon,
the present day Iraq, at the age of 33. .