>invade china to plunder their resources
>quickly capture and their 2 most important cities including the capital
>"surely chiang is going to sue for peace now"
>chiang doesn't sue for peace
>the war effort ends up cannibalizing the resources you intended to plunder
>your budget balloons to figures you never expected to reach
>your economy which was supposed to be enriched by the war is now even more dependent on imports than before
>your army's only suggestions are more and more offensives, each one will surely bring chiang to negotiate this time
>your ever-increasing desperation causes you to invade another colonial power's territory
>this leads to economic sanctions, which lead to even more desperation
>you conclude your only course of action must be another attack, this time a shock-and-awe display of raids and invasions on multiple locations at once which will surely cause the other countries to negotiate an agreement with you if you just manage to cause enough damage
>they don't want to negotiate
>you end up getting nuked twice

>>18420620
dang its too bad the nippers stopped after nanking

>>18420640
This literal exact thing happened to me in Civ IV custom scenario.

>>18420620
Nanking Massacre didn't happen. It's impossible to kill 300,000 people in a city of 250,000. The Nanking Massacre narrative is a lie created by the KMT government to lobby the support of the US during the Second Sino-Japanese War.

>>18420640
>>invade china to plunder their resources
Japan invaded China in response to the Marco Polo Bridge Incident and Tongzhou Massacre.
>the resources you intended to plunder
Japan was helping China, not plundering.
>>your ever-increasing desperation causes you to invade another colonial power's territory
The stationing of Japanese troops into French Indochina was approved by the French government.
>>this leads to economic sanctions, which lead to even more desperation
The economic sanctions by the FDR administration were part of a deliberate strategy to force Japan into war so the US would have an excuse to enter WW2.
>>you conclude your only course of action must be another attack
Japan tried throughout 1940 and 1941 to negotiate an end to the oil embargo. It was the US that refused to negotiate in good faith, instead issuing the Hull Note ultimatum which caused the war.
>invasions on multiple locations
Japan liberated Asian countries that had previously been invaded and occupied by western powers.

>>18421335
Based Pro-Imperialist Japanese glowie

>>18421335
Why didn't Japan just agree to the ultimatum? Japan gave France an ultimatum about French Indochina so ultimatum's weren't a wrong thing to do.
>liberated other nations
And then immediately put them in lesser positions of power under their rule. Not exactly liberation more like fulfilling their own imperial ambitions. Indonesia is a perfect example of how the Japanese forces snubbed Sukarno and forcibly conscripted Indonesians to fight the Americans.

>>18421670
>Why didn't Japan just agree to the ultimatum?
They would be surrendering their foreign policy to an aggressor (the US) and significantly weakening their Empire. The Hull Note ultimatum was (rightfully) seen as a threat to the continuation of the Empire.
>And then immediately put them in lesser positions of power under their rule.
Incorrect, Japan gave Asian countries independence as members of the Greater East Asia Conference. Asian nationalists thanked Japan for liberating them from two centuries of western colonial rule.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A7%E6%9D%B1%E4%BA%9C%E4%BC%9A%E8%AD%B0

>>18421810
But why was it okay for Japan to give the ultimatum to France but not okay for America to give Japan an ultimatum. Japan's ultimatum to France was that they take over the colony of French Indochina.
>independence
I notice Indonesia isn't part of the Sphere. Curious since you claim they were an equal

>>18421897
Japan wasn't threatening the survival of France like America was threatening the survival of Japan. You're making a false equivalency.
>Indonesia
They were freed by Japan from Dutch rule.

>>18422289
>japan's PR for their empire was liberation from le imperialist west
>even germany counter-signalled the KKK and accused them of jewry
The Axis were just proto third-worldists weren't they? They really prepped the Communists' Cold War propaganda for them. I guess there's something about being aligned against America/western colonials that makes people simp for brownoids

>>18421335
gem
>>18420640
coal

>>18422289
>America was threatening the survival of Japan.
America wasn't. Nowhere in the Hull note does the ultimatum say Japan will be dissolved as a nation state.

>>18422317
Japan did liberate Asian countries from western colonialism and promote an end to racial discrimination. This is different to the Soviets during the Cold War who simply wanted to spread the evil ideology of communism.
>>even germany counter-signalled the KKK and accused them of jewry
Irrelevant

>>18422382
If Japan accepted the Hull Note they would've become a slave to the US.

>>18422411
Nowhere in the Hull note does it say that. How does it the Hull note make Japan a slave but the ultimatum to France didn't make France slaves?

>>18422289
it’s funny, because a common indonesian proverb is that they wanted the 300 years of dutch rule to leave, but when japan came for 3 years instead, they wanted the dutch back

>>18422867
Many such cases

>>18422825
>How does it the Hull note make Japan a slave
US could use threat of embargo to control Japan's foreign policy. Surrendering control of foreign policy to an aggressor is a serious threat to national security. This is why Japan had no other choice than to go to war.
>but the ultimatum to France didn't make France slaves?
The stationing of Japanese troops in Indochina didn't threaten France in any way.

>>18422867
>they wanted the 300 years of dutch rule to leave, but when japan came for 3 years instead, they wanted the dutch back
Only the pro-Dutch collaborators said this.

>>18423217
>US could use threat of embargo to control Japan's foreign policy
Why is Japan entitled to other people resources? They could be self sufficient or create their own synthetic oil and synthetic rubber.
>embargo controls Japan
If simply not trading with someone completely ruins your nation you should do everything in your power to not anger said nation amd you already lost control of your forign policy.
>threat to national security
You mean like how Japan stationed troops close to all the other European colonies and used them as a staging area to launch invasions on said colonies? From this perspective it is Japan acting provocativly against the Europeans. Why did they NEED all of French Indochina at all? Their ultimatum only included the Northern half of French Indochina to prevent arms smuggling to China. Why did they seize the entire colony and then treat it as their own colony?

>>18423248
>Why is Japan entitled to other people resources?
Who said this? Whether you believe Japan was "entitled" to US resources or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that in 1941 between 80-94% of Japan's oil supply came from the US. The survival of Japan's industrial economy relied on the import of these resources. When these resources became unavailable and negotiations to end the embargo proved unsuccessful, Japan was left with no other choice than to go to war to acquire necessary resources in South East Asia. If another country cut off the resources America depends upon, I guarantee the US would go to war under such circumstances. Futhermore, the Perry Expedition's black ships is what forced Japan to open up and become reliant on foreign resources, so it was the US that made Japan dependent on imports.
>you should do everything in your power to not anger said nation
Japan did nothing to provoke the US, all the aggression leading up to the Greater East Asia War came from the US side.
>You mean like how Japan stationed troops close to all the other European colonies and used them as a staging area to launch invasions on said colonies?
Japan had no intention of invading American, British and Dutch colonies prior to the war. It was the aggressive actions of the FDR administration that caused the invasions of those territories. Also the national security of America, Britain and the Netherlands was never threatened during the Greater East Asia War. Japan was fighting to liberate Asia, the Allies were fighting to destroy Japan.
>From this perspective it is Japan acting provocativly against the Europeans.
Not at all.
>Why did they NEED all of French Indochina
Why did FDR need to start a war over the political status of Indochina? How does Japan controlling Indochina instead of France threaten the US?

>>18423355
>Japan was left with no other choice than to go to war to acquire necessary resources in South East Asia
Or cut their loses and end the war in China to consolidate resources.
>the Perry Expedition's black ships is what forced Japan to open up and become reliant on foreign resources, so it was the US that made Japan dependent on imports.
Complete fabrication. Perry forced Japan to open up so they can export. Perry never put a gun to the Emperor's head and demanded they buy American resources. They did that Completely voluntarily on their own.
>If another country cut off the resources America depends upon, I guarantee the US would go to war under such circumstances
Irrelevant whataboutism. The correct move was for Japan to not be dependent on another nations resources.
>Whether you believe Japan was "entitled" to US resources or not is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that in 1941 between 80-94% of Japan's oil supply came from the US.
Entirely Japan's fault for making their economy dependant on a forign resource they do not have.
>The survival of Japan's industrial economy relied on the import of these resources
They should have made their own synthetic oil and rubber.
Say America got an offer from a different nation that would buy the oil from America at an inflated price. When the contract with Japan ends is Japan still justified in going to war with America since they stopped selling Japan resources in favor of this other nation?

>>18423680
>Or cut their loses and end the war in China to consolidate resources.
1. Why would Japan end a war they were winning in China?
2. If Japan gave in to US demands what would prevent the US from using further economic pressure to control Japan's foreign policy? Hypothetically, if Japan accepted the Hull Note, the US could've imposed sanctions again in order to force Japan out of Korea, and then Taiwan. By this point Japan would be completely vulnerable to western imperialism. This is why Japan couldn't accept America's demands.
>Perry forced Japan to open up so they can export.
By forcing Japan to open up to the outside world Perry made Japan reliant on importing resources, as Japan is an island archipelago that lacks the quantity of natural resources a modern nation state needs.
>Irrelevant whataboutism
Not at all, it's a completely fair point to make which Americans should consider carefully.
>The correct move was for Japan to not be dependent on another nations resources.
Irrelevant. Japan was reliant of American oil in 1941. Your personal opinion on whether this is right or not is completely irrelevant. That was the situation Japan was in, so when they were deprived of said resources, they had to go to war.
>Entirely Japan's fault for making their economy dependant on a forign resource they do not have
Again, irrelevant. Also again, it was the Perry Expedition that lead to Japan becoming reliant on importing resources.
>They should have made their own synthetic oil and rubber.
You're missing the point, clearly you're not smart enough to understand. Japan didn't have these resources in 1941. You can say "hurr durr Japan shouldn't made their own resources" all you want, this doesn't change the reality of the situation Japan was in leading up to the outbreak of the war.

>>18423680
>When the contract with Japan ends is Japan still justified in going to war with America since they stopped selling Japan resources in favor of this other nation?
If the resources Japan's survival depend upon are cut off then they are justified in going to war.

>>18423850
Source for the photo? It's disingenuous to post photos without context. Who is being beheaded, by whom, and why? Is the photo even real or a fabrication?

>>18423927
https://www.ww2wrecks.com/portfolio/japanese-war-crimes-unit-731-cannibalism-torture-chemical-weapons-murdering-of-pows-and-civilians-and-other-atrocities/

>>18423923
>depend upon
What does this mean specifically?

>>18422411
so they'd have the same outcome but with a lot fewer dead? Should've taken it, fighting a war and losing does no one any good

>>18423918
>US could've
>Could've
Worthless and useless conjecture.
>Japan needed American oil and if America for whatever reason stopped selling Japan oil it would be war
Not how markets work. Japan is not entitled to buy American oil no matter how much they "need" it. Also they didn't need it. If Japan just ended the war their economy wouldn't need as much oil as it did.
>perry
So showered source that Perry forced Japan to buy American oil. No you can't because Japan used their free will as a nation to purposely become dependent on a forign nations resources. Why did they do that instead of making their own synthetic oil?

If Japan started a war knowing it would need resources it is entirely their fault for having a dependency on said resource instead of finding an alternative. With these context clues they should have found a diplomatic solution to the China problem knowing the war in China would turn into a quagmire draining resources.
>Japan was winning
Then why were they complaining about an embargo? Surely if they were winning the embargo would be irrelevant in their war

>>18423918
So you are saying if someone who is selling a product sells it to the highest bidder, the person who got out bid is allowed to use violence to take what they want? Because that is the scenario I used with Japan and another forign nation for America's oil.

With this mindset it is no wonder why Japan was viewed as a warmongering nation

>>18424191
>So you are saying if someone who is selling a product sells it to the highest bidder, the person who got out bid is allowed to use violence to take what they want?
I never said that. Read my post again, or better yet, stop deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying.

>>18424187
>Worthless and useless conjecture.
How so?
>Japan is not entitled to buy American oil
Not the point, as I've already stated.
>Also they didn't need it
Yes they did. The survival of industrial economies relies on oil and other essential resources that the US cut off.
> If Japan just ended the war their economy wouldn't need as much oil as it did.
So Japan should've surrendered to a foreign aggressor? By that same logic the US should've surrendered to Bin Laden post 9/11.
>So showered source that Perry forced Japan to buy American oil.
Perry forced Japan to open up which lead to Japan becoming reliant on foreign imports.
>Why did they do that instead of making their own synthetic oil?
Japan is an island archipelago that relies on importing natural resources.
>If Japan started a war knowing it would need resources
It was the US, not Japan, that started the Greater East Asia War.
>they should have found a diplomatic solution to the China problem
Japan tried to negotiate with the US throughout 1940 and 1941 in order to avoid war. It was the US that refused to negotiate in good faith, instead issuing the Hull Note ultimatum which made war inevitable.
>Then why were they complaining about an embargo?
Because the embargo cut off the resources Japan relied upon.

>>18424132
Japan is a sovereign country today, not a slave of the US.

>>18424123
Reliant upon

>>18424043
Anti-Japanese propaganda. It was the US that dropped atomic bombs on defenceless civilians.

>>18424734
So you are saying because America forced Japan to trade and Japan decided to industrialize it is America's fault for even starting to trade with them? Japan becoming industrialized was their own choice. They should have not been reliant solely on America with trade.
>which lead to Japan becoming reliant on foreign imports.
Still Japan's decision they chose to do.
>forign aggressor
You mean Japan. America moving ships to Hawaii isn't a provocation since Hawaii is literally thousands of kilometers away from Japan. Meanwhile Japan taking a hold over the entirety of French Indochina when their ultimatum only promised to seized the border lands with China is 100% a threat and provocation to the surrounding European colonies.
>By that same logic the US should've surrendered to Bin Laden post 9/11.
False equivalence. How would the logistics of that even work?
>Japan is an island archipelago that relies on importing natural resources.
Being an island doesn't prevent you from making synthetics. Why didn't they fund their scientists instead of their military?

>>18424741
Those cities had military targets and the US even dropped leaflets telling the citizens to abandon the cities. Then the order came out to detain or even kill citizens to pick up the leaflets. What barbarism. Why would Japan do that? Also Japan tried to use biological warfare on ordinary citizens. Why would they do that?

File: images (24).jpg (9 KB, 259x194)

9 KB JPG

>>18420620
I came in this thread looking for grapes but found none.
Anyway here's a picture of some grapes that were grown near nanjing.