>>18404346
Those were not provocations, the goal was to get Japan to stop the war voluntarily and withdraw to its 1937 borders.

>>18404354
Which was naive to the Japanese mindset at the time, but then again it’s not like Americans in that time period had any knowledge about that sort of thing.

Japan invaded China, a US ally, and occupied Manchuria, committing mass war crimes and started taking over Southeast Asia, threatening American interests and getting extremely aggressive against American allies and Western powers in Asia while America was their main source of oil. Japan felt like they 'deserved' to be an empire and started chimping out with massive aggression and violence cutting people's heads off and committing mass rapes like complete animals. The embargo was well deserved. WW2 revisionists are retards as usual.

>>18404404
The KMT was a Soviet/German ally

>>18404346
>They don't you about the oil embargo and how the US deliberately moved the fleet to the Pacific to provoke Japan
They do tell you this in American high school. What shithole flyover state do you live in where this isn't taught in high school history? I hear this same rhetoric about the Holodomor. "Why do we learn about the Holocaust but not the Holodomor?" If you lived in New Jersey you would have but you were unfortunate enough to be born in Mississippi or whatever, no shit they never taught you anything

>>18404404
>China, a US ally
Are mutts this retarded?
A united China didn't exist in the 1930s or 40s, it was founded in 1949
The KMT government wasn't an American ally either, it was backed by Stalin and Hitler ironically (until Hitler switched sides)

>>18404404
Americans didn't give two fucks about Manchuria which is why they begged Stalin in the Yalta conference to invade Manchuria as it was in the "rightful Soviet sphere of influence."
The Japanese were on the same side as the Qing dynasty which had ruled Manchuria for 300 years.
So how is Stalin the rightful ruler of Manchuria but the Qing aren't? Also why is it America's business to make that decision?

>>18404346
>US deliberately moved the fleet to the Pacific to provoke Japan
How is America moving their ships to their own territory a provocation? Hawaii is still over 4000 miles away. I could see if they moved the fleet to the Philippines even though it would still be legal since it was a colony. But moving ships to Hawaii can hardly be a provocation since it was a response to Japanese aggression in their hostile takeover of French Indochina (Which caused the embargo btw.) America didn't just embargo Japan out of the blue. America even gave Japan warnings about not seizing French Indochina or else the oil will stop. Why did Japan willingly invade knowing it would cause the embargo?

>>18404435
Why is it Japan's business to be hyper aggressive to east asia at the time?

File: 1758841852297292.jpg (54 KB, 640x636)

54 KB JPG

In Contrarian Chud history classes, they make it seem like Americans started the war. They don't [want you to know] about the oil embargo being a direct response to the Japanese invasion of French Indochina, which was one of the US' allies and how the Japanese deliberately moved the fleet to the Pacific to provoke the United States

>>18404346
> stop selling oil to Japan following their attacks/wars on their neighbors
> if you don't willing sell us your oil, we'll attack you
Great logic there

>>18404812
Why is it America's business what happens in Asia?

>>18404796
So how is Stalin the rightful ruler of Manchuria but the Qing aren't?
I want to hear your American expert opinion.

>>18404807
>French Indochina

Europeans taking over Asia... good! Japan taking over Asia... bad!!!

>>18404807
France was an ally of Nazi Germany in September 1940 dumbass

>>18404807
French Indochina was a French colony, and Nazi Germany had already taken over France. Japan was simply trying to expand into that territory. Also, the Attack on Pearl Harbour launched the US into World War II, though Japan were the instigators, the US is what started the battles and boots on the ground conflict.

In Roman history classes, they make it seem like Carthage started the war. They don't you about the slave embargo and how Rome deliberately moved the cute boy slaves to the Sicily to provoke Carthage

>>18404825
Nobody said that. Both are bad, but why does a European doing a bad thing means the Japanese should be able to do the same?

>>18404867
>Rome deliberately moved the cute boy slaves to the Sicily to provoke Carthage
getting between a menajeet and his dancing boy is like murdering a man's mother in front of him

>>18404346
>They don't you about the oil embargo
ESL seethe thread, fucked up right off the bat. You’re not even American so you have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. They absolutely mention the ABCD Embargo. But a fucking embargo is not a legitimate casus belli. That is not provoking it’s saying “no we are not selling to you” if a shop owner refused service you don’t get to trash the place.

>>18404346
True

>>18404354
Hull note demanded Japan withdraw to pre 1931 borders

>>18404391
FDR knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to provoke a Japanese attack so the US would have an excuse to enter WW2.

>>18404404
Found the retard.
>Japan invaded China, a US ally
Both the Empire of Japan and Republic of China were allies of the US when the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out, that's why the US initially stayed neutral.
>occupied Manchuria
Japan established Manchukuo, a prosperous nation with a higher standard of living than what Manchurians had previously. They also restored the former Qing Emperor.
>committing mass war crimes
Anti-Japanese propaganda. Reminder that it was the US that firebombed and ultimately dropped atomic bombs on Japanese civilians.
>started taking over Southeast Asia
Prior to the Greater East Asia War Japan the only SEA country Japan sent troops into was French Indochina, with the permission of the French government.
>threatening American interests
How was America threatened by Japanese troops in French Indochina?
>getting extremely aggressive against American allies and Western powers in Asia
It was the western powers (America, Britain, Netherlands) that were extremely aggressive against Japan. They cut off Japan's essential resources, froze Japanese assets, militarized their colonies in SEA, sent the Flying Tigers to China, issued JB355 and issued the Hull Note Ultimatum. Japan made no aggressive moves against the US, Britain or the Netherlands leading up to the Greater East Asia War, the aggression came from the western side, mainly from the FDR administration.
>Japan felt like they 'deserved' to be an empire
Japan already was an Empire and had been since 1895 when they gained their first colony (Taiwan). The US, UK, Italy, Germany, USSR, Netherlands, France etc were also all Empires.
>started chimping out with massive aggression
Such as?
>cutting people's heads off and committing mass rapes like complete animals.
It was the Chinese that did this. These crimes have been blamed on Japan by the CCP.
>The embargo was well deserved
No it wasn't. It lead to a war that ended with millions dead and half of Asia under communism.

>>18405816
hakujin wa ningen de wa nai

>>18404354
>those were not provocations
>they were provocations

>>18404346
CRASH OUT
CRASH OUT
crazy how they changed the language so much afterwards

>>18404346
The US embargoed Japan because they were invading China, a country the US had friendly relations with, and were threatening invasion of US territories in the Pacific.

Why weebs always use the embargo to paint Japan as a victim is beyond me.

>>18405816
>It was the Chinese that did this. These crimes have been blamed on Japan by the CCP

Imagine being unironically this retarded. Aiko ain't gonna bounce on it buddy.

>>18404404
The city I live in is gang city of course its littered with crime lords in wheelchairs.

>>18405840
The age of aggresive wars were over. Why did Japan start an aggressive war of conquest?

>>18406011
Not an argument, wumao.

>>18406073
>The age of aggresive wars were over
No they weren't. Aggressive wars are still happening today (Russian invasion of Ukraine for example).
>Why did Japan start an aggressive war of conquest?
Chinese started it with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and Tongzhou Massacre. Japan was helping Chinese people by liberating them from KMT dictatorship and CCP bandits.
Why did FDR decide to provoke a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans because of a war between two Asian countries (China and Japan)? Seems kind of unnecessary, doesn't it?

>>18404792
The US was doing naval exercises by the Japanese coast.
>At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh, no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate our 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.
>Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.
>The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.
>The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern, through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.
How General Butler described it back in the 30s.

>>18405802
How specifically is moving American ships to American land a provocation? Is Japan invading French Indochina not a provocation to the Phillipines? Why is an embargo or moving ships to Hawaii (land still thousands of kilometers away) not an appropriate response to Japanese aggression?

>>18406934
>Aggressive wars are still happening
And they are still frowned upon no matter how justified they are.

>>18404404
>Japan invaded China, a US ally
China was not a US ally in any meaningful sense of that term.

>>18407319
Depends who you ask.

>>18407310
>How specifically is moving American ships to American land a provocation?
It happened at a time when America was acting aggressively towards Japan by cutting off Japan's resources and aiding Japan's enemies in China.
>Is Japan invading French Indochina not a provocation to the Phillipines?
No. Japan sending troops into French Indochina has nothing to do with the Philippines.
>Why is an embargo or moving ships to Hawaii (land still thousands of kilometers away) not an appropriate response to Japanese aggression?
What Japanese aggression? Japan made no aggressive moves against the US prior to the Greater East Asia War.

>>18408001
The US warned Japan that it would not recognize any territory forcefully taken from China since 1932 and had been slowly applying more economic pressure since then to dissuade Japanese aggression, before the oil embargo almost a decade later, which itself was in response to further Japanese aggression by them invading Indochina without justification.

The US was under no obligation to fuel Japan's war of aggression against their allies and interests. Play victim all you want, weeb, but Japan was the clear aggressor against both China and the US and paid the price for it.

>>18406934
To liberate the Japanese people from imperial dictatorship of course

>>18404346
They do, it's just that those were legitimate actions the Americans could take.

Japan was not entitled to American oil.

America had a right to move its fleet to one of its own ports.

Japan chimping out was their own decision, and they paid for it.

>>18408034
What dictatorship? Japan wasn't a dictatorship during the war.

>>18408033
>The US warned Japan that it would not recognize any territory forcefully taken from China since 1932
Manchuria wasn't taken from China. Manchuria wasn't a part of the ROC and the Chiang Kai Shek regime had no control over it. Furthermore, Japan created a new state in Manchuria (Manchukuo).
>before the oil embargo almost a decade later, which itself was in response to further Japanese aggression by them invading Indochina without justification.
Japan sent troops into French Indochina (with the permission of the French government) to gain an advantage in the Second Sino-Japanese War. US cut off oil as part of FDR's plan to force Japan into war (the deployment of Japanese troops into French Indochina was used as an excuse to justify the embargo).
>The US was under no obligation to fuel Japan's war of aggression
I never claimed they were. However cutting off the resources a country relies upon is an act of war.
>against their allies and interests
How exactly was Japan threatening US interests by being at war with the KMT and CCP?
>Japan was the clear aggressor against both China and the US
No they weren't. China started the Second Sino-Japanese War with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and Tongzhou Massace. US started the Greater East Asia War with the oil embargo and Hull note ultimatum. Learn real history.

>>18408101
America deliberately forced Japan into war by cutting off the resources they relied on (oil embargo), surrounding them with military forces (ABCD encirclement) and demanding they abolish their Empire (Hull Note). The war between the US and Japan was entirely unnecessary and caused by FDR who was pro-Chiang and pro-Stalin and who wanted to drag America into the Second World War (despite most Americans at the time being isolationist).

>>18408434
False. Machuria was directly ruled by a KMT warlord and was internationally recognized as China prior to Japanese invasion.

False. Vichy France gave Japan limited approval to station a small number of troops in the north alone which Japan immediately violated, invading Indochina and attacking French forces before the negotiations were complete. Also, it was a justification for embargo as Japan was now directly threatening Western territories within Asia beyond just China. Literally fueling the war machine of a state threatening your interests in nonsensical.

It is not. Japan was welcome to negotiate and cease their hostilities, they had almost a decade to do so before the embargo. They did not.

Violation of the Open Door policy, the Nine Powers treaty, and becoming a threat to Western territories in Asia. All Japan had to do as expressed by the US, was cease their war in China and Indochina, restore borders, and normalize relations to continue trade relations, not dismantle their empire. They refused, surprise attacked the US, and lost their empire entirely.

False. All evidence points to out of control IJA officers initiating confrontation. They made night time maneuvers aside Chinese positions, claimed to have lost a man (who was apparently found on the Japanese side shortly after, perfectly fine), demanded entry past Chinese borders, and shot at Chinese troops when denied entry. Instead of apologizing for their out of control junior officer corps, Japan doubled down with full invasion. Also, Tongzhou happened after Japan had already invaded, which makes the claim that it provoked invasion nonsensical.

Yes, the Hull Note that simply required Japan to cease warmongering and restore borders in exchange for continued trade with the US, which was also drafted after the US received strong intel of the IJN positioning itself for naval invasion of Southeast Asia.

Being an uyoku dantai gaijin is pathetic.

>>18408442
They did not demand that Japan abolish their empire. They demanded Japan withdraw from China and Indochina and promised to not only continue trade with Japan, but to draw up a new trade agreement that is fair to both Japan and the US, as well as to stabilize the dollar-yen rate and unfreeze Japan funds in the US. It was by no means harsh nor unfair.

>>18408442
>cutting off the resources they relied on
Maybe don't have an inflated military that needs that much oil? What right does Japan have to American oil?

File: images.jpg (46 KB, 514x389)

46 KB JPG

>>18404346
Since you're so smart, surely you read about the Japanese imperialism for an entire decade, that lead up to pearl Harbor then? You know, when they invaded 1/3 of the world, including Alaska?

>>18404826
>>18404864
French Indochina was more or less operating as a French rump state during the war, they weren't "allied" with the Nazis. If they were, Japan wouldn't have needed to invade them. Retards

>>18409239
The colonial administration sided with Vichy France. They even fought against a Thai invasion while being completely cut off and on their own. They fell when Japan invaded Tonkin, then the rest of Indochina, then dismantled the French administration in 1945.

>>18404407
>>18404409
I mean Nazi Germany did support China and Ethiopia before the pact of steel (Berlin-Rome axis)

>>18408726
Japan relied on imports of oil. Cutting off oil was a deliberate act of war.
>What right does Japan have to American oil?
Irrelevant and disingenuous question.

>>18408691
US also demanded Japan withdraw from Manchuria. If Japan gave into these demands they would be surrendering their foreign policy to an aggressor that was actively harming them.

>>18410036
Why couldn't Japan just produce their own oil or import it from elsewhere? Are they stupid?

>>18404346
>You won't sell me oil!?! I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU!!!!!!

>>18408688
>False. Machuria was directly ruled by a KMT warlord and was internationally recognized as China prior to Japanese invasion.
Manchuria was not a part of the ROC. Republic of China claimed it as part of their territory but did not control it.
>Vichy France gave Japan limited approval to station a small number of troops in the north alone which Japan immediately violated, invading Indochina and attacking French forces before the negotiations were complete
So you admit France allowed Japan to station troops in Indochina?
>Japan was now directly threatening Western territories within Asia beyond just China
Which territories was Japan threatening?
>Japan was welcome to negotiate and cease their hostilities
Japan did try to negotiate with the US, it was the US side that refused to negotiate in good faith and instead issued the Hull Note ultimatum that caused the war. Also what hostilities are you referring to? Japan was not being hostile towards the US before the war. In fact, it was the US that was being hostile by sending the Flying Tigers to attack the Japanese military in China.
>All Japan had to do as expressed by the US, was cease their war in China and Indochina
Why would Japan give in to the demands of a hostile nation that was actively harming them? Why is a war between China and Japan the concern of the US?
>surprise attacked the US
Pearl Harbor was not a surprise attack. Japan tried to send a declaration of war before the attack. Futhermore, the US government, which had intercepted Japanese communications, knew the attack was coming (this is why the aircraft carries were moved before the attack).
>and shot at Chinese troops when denied entry.
It was the Chinese side that opened fire first during the Marco Polo Bridge Incident.

>>18408688
>Tongzhou happened after Japan had already invaded
Marco Polo Bridge Incident and Tongzhou Massace is what caused the Japanese government to approve of a military expedition into North East China. Chiang Kai Shek escalated the situation by sending soldiers to Shanghai, threatening the Japanese settlement in the city. Japan, wanting to prevent another Tongzhou Massacre, was forced to send troops into Shanghai to confront the Chinese. This is what caused the Battle of Shanghai, a major escalation in the Second Sino-Japanese War. All the factors that caused the Second Sino-Japanese War (Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Tongzhou Massace, Shanghai Battle) were caused by the Chinese side.
>the Hull Note that simply required Japan to cease warmongering
What warmongering? Japan was doing nothing to harm the US. The Hull Note was designed to put Japan into an impossible position where they would be forced to go to war with the US, giving FDR and excuse to drag America into WW2.
>Being an uyoku dantai gaijin is pathetic.
Not an argument.

>>18410043
Cutting off necessary resources is an act of war.

>>18410040
Another disingenuous question.

>>18409049
Japanese imperialism was a good thing for Asia. Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria were all transformed into modern, prosperous industrialised states because of Japanese imperialism. Futhermore, Japan liberated the countries of SEA from western occupation.
>when they invaded 1/3 of the world, including Alaska?
Japan never invaded 1/3 of the world and they only invaded part of Alaska during the war, not before it.

>>18410082
Another disingenuous answer
They pooled a massive amount of resources into a war effort instead of Oil survey and infrastructure because at the end of the day it was never really about the oil, the oil embargo was just a casus belli. The Japanese wanted to go to war with the Americans at the very beginning.

>>18410086
>The Japanese wanted to go to war with the Americans at the very beginning.
No they didn't. Japan tried earnestly to avoid war with the US. It was the US that was aggressive leading up to the outbreak of the Greater East Asia War. US cut off Japan's oil, froze Japanese assets, imposed the ABCD encirclement, sent the Flying Tigers to China, issued JB355 and issued the Hull Note Ultimatum. This is despite the fact Japan made no aggressive moves against the US prior to the war. This is all historic fact. What did Japan do that was aggressive/warmongering/threatening to the US before the war? Nothing. Japan was fighting a war in China against the KMT dictatorship and CCP bandits. They had no intention of fighting the western powers and only did so when they were forced by American aggression.

>>18405816
ITADAKIMAAAAASSSSSSSUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>18410111
Not an argument.

>>18410108
>US cut off Japan's oil, froze Japanese assets, imposed the ABCD encirclement, sent the Flying Tigers to China, issued JB355 and issued the Hull Note Ultimatum
And America did this out of the blue? Or maybe Japan did something to cause all these things to happen? What was Japan doing that would cause these calamities? Perhaps war all across Asia?
>>18410082
>>18410036
You are being disingenuous. Japan could of easily solved the situation in China diplomatically but used dubious excuses to go to war with China because they wanted war with China. Also their invasion of French Indochina was illegal and another blatant land grab they took advantage of.
>>18410075
Proof? Relying on a foreigner for resources and then not having access to it isn't an act of war. It can be considered as an act of control, but saying "you aren't allowed to buy from me" isn't an act of war.

>>18404346
>In American history classes
In history classes in general because it's true.
>they make it seem like Japan started the war
Because they did
>no you see, not selling me oil to attack you with is an act of war
Go jerk off to your Japanese tranny cartoons.

>>18404825
You're not even Japanese though.

>>18410423
lmao what an autist.

>>18409049
>decolonization, japan le bad
Funny how commies work. You just hate japan because they are white.

>>18410437
>bugs are white
Found the jew.

>>18410058
False. Manchuria was ruled by Zhang Xueliang prior to Japanese invasion, who was part of the KMT, therefore it was ruled by the KMT. Xueliang was in fact, among the most influential members of the KMT. It was also internationally recognized as China.

Learn how to read, I just explained this.

Thailand, Philippines, Guam, Hong Kong, British Malaya, Dutch East Indies, etc. You cannot deny that they in fact were as they had positioned their navy and army for invasion and had documented their invasion plans prior to Pearl Harbor and were already threatened Thailand directly.

State the compromises that Japan negotiated. The Hull notes were explained three times and how Japan's aggression affected the US. Learn to read.

Because Japan was the hostile nation. Chiang was a Japanophile were had zero desire to fight Japan and had to be forced to by his own men because the Japanese aggrression would not cease and continued to ramp up. If Japan had not continuously attacked and instead offered Chiang an alliance against communism, he would have readily accepted.

False. Japan send a message announcing their intentions to continue their ongoing wars, a message that was broken up in two parts and coded. They neither declared war in it nor declared a severance of relations with the US.

There is no evidence for this. There is however evidence that Japan initiated a confrontation over a missing person pretex that was followed by a full assault of readied Japanese forces against unready Chinese forces.

Congrats, you failed to rebuttal a single point and have sucessfully made zero arguments based in fact.

>>18410072
You unironically just said that China esclated war by sending troops to defend their largest city? Wow. And yet you claim that Japan positioning their navy for invasion of US territories shouldn't be seen as a threat justifying the Hull notes? Hypocrisy is not a virtue.

Again, Japan had already invaded prior to Tangzhou. Japanese forces were in Tangzhou to begin with because they had already invaded.

Invading every single nation in East Asia, Southeast Asia, as well as most nations in the Pacific, would be warmongering. I've already explained the Hull notes three time. Japan had almost a decade to negotiate different terms beyond continuing all of their wars, they did not receive the Hull notes until they conquered Indochina, positioned IJA troops for invasion of Malaya and Thailand, and positioned IJN troops for invasion of the rest of Southeast Asia. The Hull notes were also once again, completely fair to Japan.

Because it's obviously a statement. I can't say that I'm surprised you don't know what that is.

>>18410058
Manchuria was part of the ROC, that a warlord rather than a civilian governor controlled it does not change international law. You need to avoid making clueless statements.

>>18404354
>Those were not provocations, the goal was to get Japan to stop the war voluntarily and withdraw to its 1937 borders.
Which is a provocation, by making an offer they can't accept, because it would be a complete humiliation.
And the US knew it well.

Hideyoshi should have won imjin war.

>>18410238
>And America did this out of the blue?
America did this because FDR wanted to force Japan into attacking the US so America would have an excuse to enter WW2.
>Perhaps war all across Asia?
Japan wasn't waging war all across Asia. They were fighting a war in China.
>Japan could of easily solved the situation in China diplomatically but used dubious excuses to go to war with China
How is the Chinese massacring Japanese in China a "dubious excuse" to go to war?
>Also their invasion of French Indochina was illegal
The stationing of Japanese troops into French Indochina was approved by the French government.
>Proof?
What else is a country supposed to do when their resources are cut off and the other side is refusing to negotiate in good faith? Under such circumstances war becomes inevitable.

>>18410038
What about the foreign policy of the country they were invading?

>>18410421
>Because they did
FDR started the war with the oil embargo and Hull Note ultimatum.
>Go jerk off to your Japanese tranny cartoons
Anime website, newfag. Don't like it then leave.

>>18408442
Disingenuous post. Japan was not entitled to American resources and was actively invading a US trade partner.

Explain why it would be reasonable to American foreign policy to side with the aggressor against one of their trade partners.

>>18410775
>What else is a country supposed to do
Stop waging a war of aggression on their neighbor?

>>18410664
>Manchuria was ruled by Zhang Xueliang prior to Japanese invasion, who was part of the KMT
Manchuria was not a part of the ROC.
>Thailand, Philippines, Guam, Hong Kong, British Malaya, Dutch East Indies, etc
Japan didn't invade any of these places prior to the war, only during the war (which FDR started).
>State the compromises that Japan negotiated
Japan was willing to partially withdraw from China if the US ended it's embargo and recognised Manchukuo. The US demanded Japan withdraw from the entirety of Indochina, China and Manchukuo with was impossible for Japan to accept.
>Because Japan was the hostile nation
How so?
>Chiang was a Japanophile were had zero desire to fight Japan
And yet he escalated the Second Sino-Japanese War by starting the Battle of Shanghai. He also sided with the communists he supposedly hated, not only the CCP but also the USSR (which China received military support from).
>If Japan had not continuously attacked and instead offered Chiang an alliance against communism, he would have readily accepted.
An alliance against communism is exactly what Japan wanted with China, that's why they established the Reorganized National government of the Republic of China under Wang Jingwei.
>They neither declared war in it nor declared a severance of relations with the US
Japan tried to send a declaration of war to the US before the Pearl Harbor attack.
>There is however evidence that Japan initiated a confrontation over a missing person pretex
Japan didn't "initiate a confrontation over a missing person pretext." A Japanese soldier went missing during a military exercise, the Japanese asked permission to search for the missing soldier, the Chinese refused, and after a standoff between the two sides the Chinese opened fire. This is the Marco Polo Bridge Incident.

>>18410664
>Congrats, you failed to rebuttal a single point and have sucessfully made zero arguments based in fact.
Everything I've stated is based in historical fact. You're the uneducated idiot who keeps pushing GHQ propaganda.

>>18410671
>You unironically just said that China esclated war by sending troops to defend their largest city?
When did I say that?
>And yet you claim that Japan positioning their navy for invasion of US territories shouldn't be seen as a threat justifying the Hull notes?
It was the US, Britain and the Netherlands that were threatening Japan by sending military re-enforcements to their colonies in SEA (ABCD encirclement) whilst the US was being actively aggressive towards Japan by cutting off their resources and aiding Japan's enemies in China.
>Again, Japan had already invaded prior to Tangzhou.
Again, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and Tongzhou Massace were the two events that caused the Japanese government to approve of a military expedition into North East China. And why do you refuse to call it a massacre? Are you denying the massacre of 260 Japanese and Korean civilians by the Chinese in Tongzhou?
>Invading every single nation in East Asia, Southeast Asia, as well as most nations in the Pacific, would be warmongering.
Japan didn't do this, they were only invading China (the country they were at war with). You anti-Japanese idiots really are dense.
>Japan had almost a decade to negotiate different terms beyond continuing all of their wars
The US oil embargo and following negotiations to try and end the embargo began in 1940, not a decade before the war. Do you really not know this?
>until they conquered Indochina
Which was approved by the French government.
>positioned IJA troops for invasion of Malaya and Thailand
Prove Japan wanted to invade Malaya and Thailand before the war.
>positioned IJN troops for invasion of the rest of Southeast Asia
What about the positioning of American, British and Dutch troops in their colonies near Japan?
>The Hull notes were also once again, completely fair to Japan.
"Destroy yourself or be starved of resources" isn't fair.

>>18410671
>Because it's obviously a statement.
What is? Learn to greentext so I know what you're referring to, newfag.

>>18410683
>Manchuria was part of the ROC
No it wasn't. ROC claimed it but it wasn't a part of their territory.

>>18410776
Why is a war between China and Japan the concern of the US?

>>18410789
Not an argument. The ruler of Manchuria was ROC, the international community recognized Manchuria as ROC, therefore Manchuria was ROC.

The question was threatened, not actively invading, and yes, they were threatening them and planning to invade as evidence by their positioning and documented invasion plans.

You cannot escalate a war by reinforcing and defending your largest city. The war is already past escalated and ongoing by then. This is like saying that even though the US had already conquered Okinawa, Japan had escalated the war by reinforcing Kyushu afterwards. No, the war is far beyond ongoing by this point.

Already explained.

You cannot escalate a war by reinforcing and defending your largest city. The war is already ongoing by then. He was forced, quite literally, to side with the communists due to Japanese invasion. No invasion = no KMT-CPC alliance.

If it was what they wanted, they would have established an alliance with the Chiang who was on the verge of destroying the communists prior to invasion and not ally with the socialist Jingwei who opposed Chiang's purge of communists. This is a nonsensical statement.

The 14 Part Message was not a declaration of war as already stated. They had sent nothing but that.

As already stated, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. Of course the Japanese claim that but without proof, there is no validity for the claim. The only proof is that Japan crossed Chinese lines and were rapidly mobilized to do so.

Try learning history from something other than Senso ron. Nobody believes this BS, not even the Japanese.

>>18410791
I say what most historians worldwide believe and what is widely accepted as factual, including in Japan. You believe in Senso Ron gibberish, not history.

>>18410801
Why shouldn't it be? The 20th century was an interconnected world, there were no more isolated wars

>>18410798
I reply to all of your points in order, retard. Try to remember you own BS, you forgetting is not my problem.

>>18410778
>Japan was not entitled to American resources and was actively invading a US trade partner.
I never claimed they were. However cutting off necessary resources is an act of war. Also Japan was a trade partner of the US as well, this is why the US remained neutral for the first three years of the Second Sino-Japanese War.
>Explain why it would be reasonable to American foreign policy to side with the aggressor against one of their trade partners.
America should've remained neutral and not sided with either China or Japan, which is exactly what they were doing before FDR decided he wanted to drag the US into WW2.

>>18410780
Why is that the concern of the US? How was the US being threatened by Japan invading China? Additionally, if Japan did accept the Hull Note, they would be surrendering their foreign policy to an aggressor that was harming them.

>>18410796
In the beginning of your post.

Reenforcements due to Japanese expansion and positioning towards their territory. Already explained why the US cut oil.

Already explained and debunked.

They did after Pearl Harbor, retard. The question was what is warmongering, that is warmongering.

US expressed disapproval with Japan following Manchuria and had been withdrawal economic support slowly since then which culminated with the oil embargo, as already explained in my first reply. Your dementia is seriously bad.

Which was not, as already explained and which you still haven't refuted.

Japan wanted to invade Malaya and Thailand before Pearl Harbor, which is why they moved their troops to the borders and positioned their navy for invasion along with diplomatically demanding access into Thailand a year prior to Pearl Harbor and having invaded Thailand hours before Pearl Harbor. The idea of the Co-Prosperity Sphere including these nations was already drawn out a year prior.

They did not expand their positions near Japan, they were already within borders and only moved troops prior to expected invasion.

Not pillaging China would not have led to the destruction of Japan. Attacking the US however did.

>>18410777
Neither an anime website nor an anime board.

>>18410803
>The ruler of Manchuria was ROC
No it wasn't, Manchuria was only claimed by China, not a part of China proper.
>they were threatening them and planning to invade as evidence by their positioning and documented invasion plans.
Japan had no intention of going to war with the western powers prior to US aggression towards Japan.
>You cannot escalate a war by reinforcing and defending your largest city.
What city? What are you referring to? Learn to greentext.
>they would have established an alliance with the Chiang
Chiang started a war against Japan. How can Japan form an alliance with someone who is waging war against them? Idiot.
>They had sent nothing but that
Japan tried to send a declaration of war before the Pearl Harbor attack. What part of that don't you understand?
>As already stated, there is no evidence for this whatsoever
There's no evidence for anything you're saying. All you're doing is repeating allied propaganda.
>Nobody believes this BS, not even the Japanese
Also not an argument, try harder next time.

>>18410805
Which historians? Btw repeating a lie many times does not make it true. History is written by the victors after all.

>>18410807
>Why shouldn't it be?
Japan wasn't threatening the US by being at war with China. The US could have continued to remain neutral and trade/have relations with both sides. Instead they chose to side with the Chinese side and force Japan into an entirely unnecessary war.

>>18410808
Learn to greentext, newfag.

>>18410823
Xueliang ruled Manchuria, Xueliang was ROC, therefore Manchuria was ROC. Who ruled Manchuria before Japanese if not Xueliang?

Try and guess what city was the largest in China and you yourself keep mentioning. Fix your dementia, retard.

Japan had already invaded China prior, retard. This is like saying the USSR started a war with Nazi Germany after Nazi Germany had already pushed into Ukraine.

For the millionth time, the 14 Part Message said nothing about war and no other message was send. Post what the message was called.

All historical evidence sided with my statements.

Obviously because it's a statement, dumbass. You seriously lack critical thinking skills.

>>18410831
Learn to remember your own statements, senile retard. All replies are in order.

>it's another "japan is entitled to american oil" thread

>>18410826
Roland Toland, Saburo Ienaga, Max Hastings, Akira Fujiwara, etc. Not even Japanese history books teach your revisionist view.

>>18410819
>Reenforcements due to Japanese expansion and positioning towards their territory.
Japan sending troops to Indochina was not a threat to US/British/Dutch colonies in SEA. Forcing Japan into war with the oil embargo and Hull note did however threaten western colonies in the region. Congratulations, you protected western colonies by starting an unnecessary war that lead to those colonies being liberated. Great foreign policy by the US.
>Japan wanted to invade Malaya and Thailand before Pearl Harbor
Source?
>The idea of the Co-Prosperity Sphere including these nations was already drawn out a year prior.
Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere was initially only meant to be Japan, Manchukuo, Mengjiang and China. It was during the war that Japan expanded GEACPS so it would include the countries of SEA.
>only moved troops prior to expected invasion.
They moved troops to threaten Japan, as part of the US strategy to force Japan into war.
>Not pillaging China would not have led to the destruction of Japan.
Japan was liberating China from KMT dictatorship and CCP bandits.

>>18410820
It is an anime website. Don't like it then go back to r*ddit.

>>18410834
>All historical evidence sided with my statements.
Maybe provide some actual historical evidence instead of repeating allied propaganda.
>Obviously because it's a statement, dumbass. You seriously lack critical thinking skills.
Ad hominem isn't an argument. Cry.

>>18410837
Learn to greentext

>>18410840
Provide sources for your claims.
>Not even Japanese history books teach your revisionist view.
Irrelevant.

>>18410843
If Japan didn't invade the colonies, and massacre civilians once there, there wouldn't have been a war nor cadualties in the colonies.

南方作戦 was already completely formulated by 1940.

Initially is the keyword. It had expanded to include the rest by 1940.

False.

And the US was only liberating Japan from militarist bandits.

>>18410849
I did. Name the exact claim you want a specific historical documentation on. You asked which historian, I provided historians. Brushing them off as allied propaganda is just a genetic fallacy. Also, an ad-hominem is making an insult or personal attack the argument. I had given my argument, and then insulted you, which is not an ad-hominem. Learn how fallacies work, retard

>>18410851
Don't feel like it using it, so learn how to remember your own statements or fuck off.

File: IMG_4477.jpg (231 KB, 598x572)

231 KB JPG

>>18404346
>>18405799
>>18405840
>>18406934
>>18410777
America didn't owe Japan oil. It was American oil (90% of Japanese supply btw kek). Just like how the French didn't owe Haitians access to the economy.
>>18404825
Yes. Because Europeans are White Japs are not.
>>18405816
>Same copy-pasta copes
*yawn*

>>18410843
>Japan sending troops to Indochina was not a threat to US/British/Dutch colonies in SEA.
It 100% was a threat. How is Japan sending troops that close to other European colonies not a threat but somehow America sending their own navy to their own Hawaiian islands still thousands of kilometers away from Japan somehow a threat to Japan?

>>18410829
America using China as a proxy to counter an expansionist Japan isn't a reason to declare war on America. USA was neutral, they sold goods to both sides. Trade only stopped when Japan willingly and illegally invaded French Indochina. They all knew America told them not to or else the embargo would happen, yet they still went through with the land grab. Why did they take land they were told NOT to take?

>>18410843
>Japan sending troops to Indochina was not a threat to US/British/Dutch colonies in SEA.
You have literally stated Japan was trying to liberate all of Asia from Europeans. Thus Japan taking out a colony from France is just another step to that goal and is in fact a threat to the other colonies of Europe.

>>18410935
You're brown mutts

>>18411453
Not an argument, Japan didn't deserve to be an aggressive, expansionist, and brutal Empire.

>>18404346
The US said to Japan “we are in charge”
Japan responds “fuck you I do what I want”

Japan started it, US was provocateur

>>18410815
>Why is a nation waging an aggressive war of expansion an issue at the time when the entire world agreed not to do that?
Because like it or not Japan originally agreed to doing that before their military pressured the government to walk out of the League of Nations. Why did the Japanese military want to expand their Empire when they didn't need to?

>>18412127
How does Japan fighting China impact the US?
>Why did the Japanese military want to expand their Empire when they didn't need to?
Why did the western powers have empires around the world when they didn't need to?

>>18411595
US started it with the oil embargo and Hull note ultimatum

>>18411589
>brutal Empire
Japan liberated SEA from western oppression and industrialised/improved the standard of living in their colonies. How is that brutal?

>>18411162
>You have literally stated Japan was trying to liberate all of Asia from Europeans
This was their goal during the war, not before it.

>>18411151
>America using China as a proxy to counter an expansionist Japan isn't a reason to declare war on America.
Japan declared war on America because of the oil embargo and Hull note which caused the war.
>Trade only stopped when Japan willingly and illegally invaded French Indochina
French government allowed the stationing of Japanese troops into Indochina. How does Japanese troops in Indochina affect the US? Isn't starting a war over Indochina an overreaction by the FDR administration?
>Why did they take land they were told NOT to take?
America doesn't dictate Japan's foreign policy. Would the US allow Japan (or any other nation) to dictate their foreign policy?

>>18411147
Prove Japan wanted a war with US/UK prior to the embargo.

>>18410935
Not an argument, idiot.

>>18410859
Learn to greentext

>>18410858
>I did
No you didn't
>Learn how fallacies work, retard
That's literally ad hominem lol.

>>18410853
>If Japan didn't invade the colonies, and massacre civilians once there, there wouldn't have been a war nor cadualties in the colonies.
Japan only liberated the colonies once the war began, not before. Also what massacre are you referring to? Japan, unlike the US, didn't massacre civilians.
>US was only liberating Japan from militarist bandits.
Objectively false (and not an argument).

File: MacarthurHirohito.jpg (135 KB, 2000x1447)

135 KB JPG

Manlet rage, not even once

>>18412240
Not an argument

>>18412227
Militaristic buildup and border clashes from a military the government had no will or want of controlling. Why did they intentionally seize French Indochina? They didn't need to knowing it would bring conflict with other great powers. Them seizing French Indochina was indication they wanted conflict with the other European colonies.

>>18412225
>allowed
That is like saying a store owner allowed a robber to take the money because he was being held at gunpoint. Japan was morally in the wrong for making a blatant land grab

>>18412225
>starting a war over Indochina
An embargo isn't an act of war. It is a response to imperialistic aggression. Japan should of backed down and not have invaded Indochina

>>18412233
Just ignore the countless massacres they committed. Manilla massacre is an easy one. Why didn't Japan declare Manilla an open city unlike how MacArthur did declare it so the civilians won't get harmed? They held the city fighting and when they began to lose they angrily murdered civilians in response before fleeing

>>18412225
>America doesn't dictate Japan's foreign policy
In the modern world, forign policy that conflicts with other nations forign policies cause conflict between nations. Knowing Japan was the weaker nation, why did they knowingly cause a war leading to thousands of people's death knowing they couldn't win?

>>18412267
>why did they knowingly cause a war
They didn't, FDR caused the war because he wanted to drag America into WW2.

>>18412264
>Just ignore the countless massacres they committed
Such as? Japanese army didn't massacre civilians.
>Manilla massacre is an easy one
That was committed by the Americans.
>when they began to lose they angrily murdered civilians
Proof?

>>18412259
>An embargo isn't an act of war.
Yes it is. Would America accept another country cutting off their resources?
>It is a response to imperialistic aggression.
What acts of aggression did Japan make against the US prior to the war?

>>18412258
False equivalency. Make a real argument

>>18404346
Can you explain why Japan was entitled to US oil? They did things we found offensive. So we refused to sell them oil. What made them entitled to our oil?
>>18404823
Why is japan entitled to American resources?

>>18412256
>Them seizing French Indochina was indication they wanted conflict with the other European colonies.
Source: you made it up. Meanwhile the US actively made aggressive moves towards Japan (oil embargo, freezing of Japanese assets, ABCD encirclement, Flying Tigers, JB355, Hull note ultimatum) that made war inevitable.

>>18412303
>Can you explain why Japan was entitled to US oil?
Irrelevant and disingenuous question. Cutting off essential resources is an act of war. This is a fact.
>They did things we found offensive.
I guarantee the average American in 1940 didn't care less about whether Indochina was controlled by France or Japan.
>Why is japan entitled to American resources?
Why did the FDR administration start a completely unnecessary war that killed millions of people and lead to half of Asia falling to communism?

>>18412307
Why was japan entitled to US oil? Did they magically somehow own the wells in the United States? Just because you want something doesn’t give you the right to it.

>>18412295
Letting another nation be responsible for resources you need is your own nations fault not the nation selling you the resources.
>>18412298
How is it a false equivalence when that is exactly what happened? France was busy fighting Germany at the time and couldn't spare resources to protect its colonies so Japan took advantage of the situation and demanded the land or threatened war. How is that anything but an armed robbery?
>>18412291
>they didn't
They did. They knew the actions of invading French Indochina would have consequences but went with it anyway, how is that anything but taking an aggresive stance?

>>18412307
>This is a fact
Which treaty states this?

>>18412305
Or Japan could have backed down and saved all the death and destruction

>>18412294
>That was committed by the Americans.
Show me proof

>>18412349
Look it up yourself

>>18412342
"Backing down" would mean the end of their Empire so they didn't have a choice. It was either fight or be a slave to the US which was actively harming them.

>>18412340
Irrelevant

>>18412339
>Letting another nation be responsible for resources you need is your own nations fault not the nation selling you the resources.
It was the US that made Japan reliant on importing resources when they sent over the black ships.
>How is that anything but an armed robbery?
France could've said no, but instead they agreed to allow Japanese troops enter Indochina. The stationing of Japanese troops in French Indochina was an agreement between two countries, this is not a robbery.
>They did
It was America that caused the war with the oil embargo and Hull note ultimatum. US didn't have to do this but they did because FDR wanted to drag America into WW2. The stationing of Japanese troops into French Indochina didn't harm the US in any way. America could've ignored it and there would've been no Pacific War.

>>18412319
Disingenuous question.

>>18412307
>Cutting off essential resources is an act of war. This is a fact.
Says who/what?
>>18412449
It's not irrelevant. Your entire argument relies on it.

>>18412447
Why did Japan *need* to be an empire?

>>18412457
Because America opened Japan up to trade that means America forced Japan to buy American goods and resources? That is entirely a fabrication of your mind. Sure America forced Japan to open up but that didn't force them to buy American goods. That is a stretch at best and you being disingenuous.
>France could have said no
And then Japan wouldn't invade? Or would they?

>>18412445
I did, and all contemporary sources show Japan commited horrible atrocities.
https://battleofmanila.org/Whitney/cw_01.htm
https://globalnation.inquirer.net/99054/february-1945-the-rape-of-manila
Strange you have no proof it was Americans who did it.
>>18412449
Seems pretty relevant. If Japan didn't want to be reliant on foreign oil they shouldn't have made their military industry dependant on it.

>>18412457
>It was America that caused the war with the oil embargo and Hull note ultimatum.
None of these things are an act of war. Provocations? Sure you can argue it can be, but Japan started the war with a sneak attack on a military base literally 1000s of kilometers away with a simultaneous strikes on the Phillipines and Alaskan towns. Japan was the one to fire the first shots and elevate the situation into war. America offered diplomatic solutions which the Japanese outright rejected.

File: FukyuNiggah.png (308 KB, 1900x510)

308 KB PNG

And what was his part in all of this?

>>18412467
>>18412447
Isn't ironic all three Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are US vassal?

>>18412577
>thirdie can only comprehend master/slave relationships
You retards always spout this claim that they are vassals but can never show proof. Too much critical thinking effort to comprehend alliances with mutual benefits.

Answer me this. If Japan is a vassal why have they never followed Americas order to rearm their military literally under a decade after WWII ended?

>>18412577
Should Korea and Taiwan be Japanese vassals instead?
Why?

>>18404346
You radiate pajeet energy

>>18412577
Japan, SK and Taiwan are all sovereign nations. The claim that they're "US vassals" is communist propaganda.

>>18412488
>None of these things are an act of war
Yes they are. Japan didn't attack the US for no reason. It was the aggressive policies of the US towards Japan that caused the war.
>started the war with a sneak attack
Pearl Harbor wasn't a sneak attack, Japan tried to send a declaration of war before the attack. In reality it was the US that had been launching surprise attacks against Japan leading up to the war (Flying Tigers).
>Japan was the one to fire the first shots and elevate the situation into war.
America created the situation that caused the war. Conflicts don't happen for no reason.
>America offered diplomatic solutions which the Japanese outright rejected.
It was the Japanese who wanted to negotiate an end to the oil embargo (something they tried to do for over a year). The American side refused to negotiate in good faith, instead issuing the Hull Note ultimatum which made war inevitable.

>>18412486
Allied propaganda isn't a legitimate source.
> If Japan didn't want to be reliant on foreign oil they shouldn't have made their military industry dependant on it.
The reason Japan is reliant on foreign imports is because they were forced to open up by the US when they sent the black ships.

>>18412731
Tell us what their supposed declaration of war said and what they tried to negotiate

>>18412480
Japan was reliant on the import of resources. What part of that don't you understand?
>And then Japan wouldn't invade? Or would they?
Doesn't matter, France allowed the stationing of Japanese troops in Indochina.

>>18412733
Calling any facts you don't like propaganda is fallacious. The black ships forced exports from Japan more than it did imports. Japan embraced imports in order to modernize and militarize.

>>18412467
Back then it was either be an Empire or be colonised. Emperor Meiji correctly understood that if Japan wasn't strong they'd be colonised by the western powers (as most of Asia had been). This is why Japan needed an Empire.

>>18412465
>Says who/what?
You're obviously not smart enough to understand.
>It's not irrelevant
Yes it is.

>>18412739
So you finally acknowledge that Japan was being imperialistic instead of a victim?

>>18412740
You ignore any facts that you don't like and stick to points that have been disproven without any further evidence for their. You're not one to talk about being "smart" when you debate so dishonestly.

>>18412747
For them*

>>18412743
I never denied Japan was an Imperial power. I think Japanese Imperialism was a good thing for Asia.

>>18412747
You haven't provided any facts, only propaganda talking points.

>>18412820
Case in point

>>18412459
How is it disingenuous? Japan did not have a right to American oil.

>>18412733
You provide 0 sources so they are better than your word of "just trust me bro"

>>18412733
>The reason Japan is reliant on foreign imports is because they were forced to open up by the US when they sent the black ships.
It isn't. Why make up lies?

>>18412731
>America created the situation that caused the war.
Still doesn't mean they started the war. Which Japan did.

>>18412817
>I think Japanese Imperialism was a good thing for Asia.
And I think it wasn't. And all sources show European colonialism was better than Japanese Imperialism. Why are you scared to show sources

>>18412976
Nothing burgers
>>18412743
China and Korea deserve it.

>>18412984
Still no sources shown. Strange.

>>18412820
And you provide no sources

>>18412740
>Yes it is.
No. Your entire argument depends on it. If you can't prove it, your argument is false.

>>18412740
>You're obviously not smart enough to understand.
Actual smart people know how to explain their arguments clearly. You like to dodge and sidestep everything.