British Commonwealth Occupation Force In Japan, 11/08/1945 - 06/04/1946 (full)

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
  • Freely downloadable at the Internet Archive, where I first uploaded it and where there is a detailed shot list. National Archives Identifier: 64529 listed as "Allies In Japan, 11/08/1945 - 06/04/1946"

КОМЕНТАРІ • 19

  • @DavidBrown-cs1tq
    @DavidBrown-cs1tq 2 роки тому +1

    Bet those Japanese civilians didn't know what to think seeing those Scottish Soldiers in their Kilts?

  • @MegalopsykhiaLIN
    @MegalopsykhiaLIN 5 років тому

    White playground

  • @bspilcker
    @bspilcker 6 років тому

    In all truth, It should have been USA and Australia occupation only. Brits just held the line in Burma.

    • @Billybob-j7f
      @Billybob-j7f 6 років тому +12

      Brett Spilcker I think the fighting in Burma had something to do with it, and a group called the RAF.

    • @philipshorter2631
      @philipshorter2631 5 років тому +9

      @@Billybob-j7f also the BPF British Pacific Fleet which considered of mainly Royal Navy Battle Groups along with smaller amount of Commonwealth Auz and Nz ships. Full Battle groups with Aircraft carriers saw action up to Okinawa. Also 1000s of dead troops in Burma and pows meant we had a right to be there

    • @Billybob-j7f
      @Billybob-j7f 5 років тому +8

      Philip Shorter Exactly the British had been fighting for far longer in the West & Far East. My grand uncle left Ireland to enlist in the British Army.

    • @adrianjackson2696
      @adrianjackson2696 4 роки тому +2

      Brett - Remember the British in Burma were fighting the Japanese too. China had the bigger claim to occupy Japan after it was invaded in 1932 as did the USSR to a lesser degree as they drove the Japanese army back in China after VE Day but it was agreed that the occupation force would be what it was.The USSR did occupy some of the small northern Japanese islands and still do I understand.

    • @1236612
      @1236612 4 роки тому +5

      Brett, I think that's the wrong way to look at it. The occupation of Japan was not seen as a reward of victory. No. It was seen more as a burden. The authorities saw all these troops as a welcome manpower addition.

  • @rapier1954
    @rapier1954 7 років тому

    Aussies okay they at least fought hard but the British what a joke in the Pacific why were they there other than for courtesy reasons.

    • @99IronDuke
      @99IronDuke 7 років тому +14

      +rapier1954 Farrell, it might have had something to do with British and Indian troops inflicting the largest defeat the Imperial Japanese Army ever suffered on, land in Burma, plus the British Pacific Fleet (Task Force 57) that included five aircraft carriers, two battleships and many cruisers and destroyers that fought alongside the US Fleet off Japan...

    • @vx9013
      @vx9013 6 років тому +4

      The brits had the British Pacific Fleet and came under kamikaze attack.

    • @andrewmccloud8581
      @andrewmccloud8581 6 років тому +9

      Yeah, I hope you realise the Australians mainly fought in Papua New Guinea just like how you say the British mainly fought in Burma. My great grand dad died in the Burma campaign, 'at least fought hard but the British what a joke'. Fix yourself.

    • @johnlowell5905
      @johnlowell5905 5 років тому +15

      I have visited the Commonwealth Cemetery at Kanchanaburi Thailand. Thousands of Brits died building the death railway. They earned the right to be part of the occupation.

    • @adrianjackson2696
      @adrianjackson2696 4 роки тому +2

      rapier1954 Farrell - You are making a fool of yourself.