What’s the biggest mistake your country has made in its history?

Not providing sanctuary for tsar Nicky and his qt daughters

China destroying the Treasure Fleet led by the 15th-century Ming Dynasty Admiral Zheng He

I agree. Japan started the war with a dishonorable surprise attack so the Japanese don't really have a say in this. Especially because Japan killed more civilians than America did several times over.

This has always been a dumb argument. The people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki where civilians, not soldiers. They didn't do any of the bad stuff that Japan became infamous for during the war. They took part in no massacres, and they had no voice in Japanese foreign policy. They were completely innocent.

The whole idea of there being 'innocent' civilians (aside from children) in a state of total war is questionable in the first place. Every working age citizen in some way contributes to the war effort. When an entire nation is mobilized for war, the entire nation becomes a legitimate target for attack. That includes the human resource that allows the war economy to function

>People die died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki where civilians
The people who died in the Phillipines from the Japanese invasion were civilians too. Also:
Hiroshima
>During World War II, the Second General Army and Chūgoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping
>SECOND GENERAL ARMY AND REGIONAL ARMY WERE HEADQUARTERED IN HIROSHIMA
>ARMY MARINE HEADQUARTERS WS LOCATED AT UJINA PORT
>THE CITY ALSO HAD LARGE DEPOTS OF MILITARY SUPPLIES AND KEY CENTER FOR SHIPPING SAID SUPPLIES

Nagasaki:
>During the Meiji period, Nagasaki became a center of heavy industry. Its main industry was ship-building, with the dockyards under control of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries becoming one of the prime contractors for the Imperial Japanese Navy, and with Nagasaki harbor used as an anchorage under the control of nearby Sasebo Naval District.
>DOCKYARDS UNDER CONTROL OF MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES BECOMING ONE OF THE PRIME CONTRACTORS FOR IMPERIAL JAPANESE NAY
>NAGASAKI HARBOR UASED AS AN ANCHORAGE UNDER THE CONTROL OF NEARBY SASEBO NAVAL DISTRICT.

They were viable military targets with military personnel around/in them. You're full of bullshit and don't know anything about history. Get the fuck off this board with your feefees.

Also what about the innocent Philippine (Were Americans at the time) civilians who didn't do shit, but got massacred?

>The people who died in the Phillipines from the Japanese invasion were civilians too.

So? Did murdering more innocent people do anything to bring them back? No. Many people in the Japanese military did extremely gruesome things during the war. But most of the people in those cities weren't Japanese military, they were civilians. America had no right to kill them. It was murder.

>Also what about the innocent Philippine (Were Americans at the time) civilians who didn't do shit, but got massacred?
>"That's what happens in war bro XD"
You're better of not comparing SEA lives to Nips on a weaboo website.

>So? Did murdering more innocent people do anything to bring them back?
Right back at the Japanese then. What the Japanese military did was murder too. All is fair in love and war then.

Again, you're blaming Japanese civilians for actions that they had no part in. The Japanese military did the bad things in the Phillipines. If America had chosen to bomb a military base, that would have been fine. But instead they chose to bomb densely populated cities filled with civilians. There is no way to justify that.

Those SEA livers were American. I'm mainly pissed off because this fag is claiming the Japanese were innocent and didn't deserve shit, but its completely okay for innocent lives of non-Japs civilians to get butchered when they didn't do shit.

Not too mention the fag is claiming the areas were civilians only when it clearly wasn't and were helping continue the Japanese war-effort.

America's biggest mistake is the Immigration Act of 1965.

>its completely okay for innocent lives of non-Japs civilians to get butchered
Nobody has said this. You're arguing with a phantom.

The Japanese military did bad things to innocent civilians as well. A crime which the appropriate punishment is an equal one.

Also: Japan was in a state of total war (economic) to its literal sense (civilians training for combat against Allied invasion)

>War ends quicker so less people die
That sounds pretty reasonable

No, those nips deserved it.

FUCK OFF WEEB ABOMINATION

>Nobody said this
You what mate: >The people who died in the Phillipines from the Japanese invasion were civilians too.
>So?
He fucking said so? Literally not giving a shit about the other civilians and being okay with them being butchered, but not okay with the Japs getting butchered right back.

Except it was justified.
The japs 'sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind'.

If you accept the premise that deliberately killing civilians is okay, then you're implicitly saying that the massacres that the Japanese army committed in other countries were actually okay. If you think that war crimes are okay, then you have no moral standing to pretend indignation about Japanese war crimes.

>The Japanese military did bad things to innocent civilians as well
Correct.

>A crime which the appropriate punishment is an equal one.
That would mean that the US would have tracked down the specific officers who were involved in committing war crimes and have them executed. But the US didn't do that. They even granted immunity to Unit 731, easily the most vile criminals of the entire war. Hell, the US even allowed Hirohito to keep his throne after all he had done. So the evidence shows that the US wasn't concerned with punishing war criminals, they just bombed defenseless civilians and pretended that it was justified.

When did I say that it was okay for the Japanese military to massacre civilians? I never said anything like that. You are a liar.

>implying slavery was bad
I want r*ddit to go

I love how Japan accuses Chinese and Korean people of being whiners and crybabies about the past but when the atomic bombs comes up they act like they were poor victims that should be sympathized with.

Deliberately killing civilians is never justified.

>Bombings was unjustified
>Hiroshima was the headquarters for two armies and the japanese marines
>Nagasaki was where the Japanese Navy built their ships and had a navy district there.
Bombing military targets is bombing military targets.

You know the United States literally told Nagasaki and Hiroshima that they were going to be bombed with translated leaflets they dropped. If you didn't clear out, you deserved it.

>Bitch and whine about the atomic bombing being mmoral.
>The fire bombings killed more people, but nobody wants to bring that up.

1. Planners believed more people would die in a total invasion anyways
2. The Japanese people are not passive and innocent in a total war

Not making a competitor to THE most successful sports car in the history of the world (part 2), the Mazda MX5 “Miata”

Oh, so if some guy tells you that you if you don't leave your house, he's going to break in and shot you, then he's justified because he gave you are warning?

Except many buildings were destroyed other the ones you listed. If they only destroyed the military buildings and left everything else untouched, then that would be fine. But that's not what happened.

Yeah man, civilians have tons of influence over military policy. Oh wait, that's not true at all!

Yes, I accept that premise. What I don't accept is people bitching and moaning about it, from any side, about how it was horribly immoral or 'the worst mistake' or shit like that because they fail to recognise the unique conditions in which a global, total war came to be. Completely ignoring the context leads to grey areas and contradictions.

The firebombings were just as bad, if not worse. LeMay even admitted that it was a war crime. In a just world, he would have been hanged for what he did.

>willfully importing millions upon millions of niggers
>not a mistake

>caused the civil war
>stain on americas image
>leading cause of white guilt
>probably delayed the industrial revolution
>brought blacks to the US

it's ok when we do it

>Yeah man, civilians have tons of influence over military policy. Oh wait, that's not true at all!

It has nothing to do with who makes the military policy. The civilian is the arm, the enabler, of the military policies. They must be chopped whether we like it or not to make the military surrender.

True. Should've never brought Africans to the mainland.

You have no moral authority if you believe it is okay to deliberately murder civilians. Your opinion will be ignored by any person with the slightest morsel of conscious.

>Oh, so if some guy tells you that you if you don't leave your house, he's going to break in and shot you, then he's justified because he gave you are warning?
when you're actively enabling a massive genocide, warning you is better than you deserve

>If they only destroyed the military buildings and left everything else untouched, then that would be fine. But that's not what happened.
>In a time where strategic bombing accuracy is 'are we in the right city?'
>In a country where work is subcontracted to the point civilians help produce war material in their own home
>We'll just let them continue making weapons and munitions to kill us with

America
Mass migration from 1970 on

Okay then. If you accept the premise that civilians are legitimate targets, then that means that all the massacres that the IJA committed were a legitimate part of war. I don't believe that, but apparently you do.

Technical limitations are not a valid excuse for committing mass murder.

Poland here

To be honest we made plenty of mistakes, but mainly because of good naive heart.

>Allying Germans in 11th century to help them defeat Polabian Slavs and let them conquer Slavic lands in modern eastern Germany
>Bringing German immigrants to Silesia and Pomerania
>Bringing Teutonic Order to Prussia, unaware of their backstabbing kraut nature
>Allying Lithuania, which was a weak and poor pseudostate baiting Russia
>Signing a shitty marriage deal with Habsburgs, which made them seize thrones of Bohemia and Hungary
>Forgiving Teutonics their sins and letting them live as Prussians
>Declare tolerance articles, causing immigration of thousands of Jews, Germans, Tatars, Ruthenians etc. into Poland
>Letting a crazy Swede on the throne who would wage war against his homeland with Poland's cost
>Refusing to sit on throne of Russia because of their Orthodoxy
>Letting a Saxon king on our throne, who was Russian puppet all along
>Veto law which completely halted economic, military and ideological progress in PLC
>Fanatical support of Napoleon, for whom we were only pawns
>Meme uprisings in 19th century, after each we were getting more oppressed
>Not dragging Bolsheviks down after they asked for peace in 1921
>Not genociding ukrainian filth on our lands in interwar period
>Not focusing our economy on military spending, which caused fast fall of Poland in 1939
>Organising Warsaw uprising for a showoff
Aaand so on. When someone says that Poland is redpilled, he must understand we just learn from our mistakes.

>Civilians are helping the war effort to kill more civilians
Its self-defense to kill them before they produce the arms that kill you.

Stop trying to strawman. The IJA and their civilians started the war, not the other way around.

No civilians were involved in the decision to go to war. It was a decision made purely by the military.

"All is fair in love and war" is cliched but it's repeated throughout the ages because it's true.

I just don't want Japanese people pretending that they are victims that were unfairly treated when they did worse themselves.

>A tragedy
>A comedy

I don't know which one better suits Poland

Look m8, my authority isn't moral, it comes from reality. Where do you draw the line between civilian and soldier? Is it as simple as a uniform? Are those conscripted forced to become legitimate targets? What about the people who fund the militaries that kill? That produce the guns and the ammunition? What about the politicians who start the war in the first place? Are they somehow 'innocent' because they're not in uniform?

America's biggest Mistake was either

a) making an alliance with Saudi Arabia, and

b) Refusing Churchill's plea to send a large invasion force to Russia in 1919 to stop the Bolsheviks.

Is the military to you a hermetically-sealed institution that does things completely separately and independently from the people? The Japanese people were very much involved in the war, and the war was popular-until they started losing of course.

That's how it is for almost all wars.

Murder is when you kill someone illegally, and i dont see Germany pulled up for the Blitz in Nuremburg. Technical limitations do also count for collateral damage. Or are you saying that the US should have deliberately let them carry on making weapons to use again them. Probably shouldn't have blockaded them either, civilians might starve. I mean half the soldiers conscripted probably didn't have a choice any way, better leave them alone too

The people in Hiroshima and Nagaski were definitely victims. They were just ordinary people. They never had in say in whether or not Japan was going to war. It wasn't their decision, and nobody in the Japanese military ever asked for their opinion on anything. And here you are, acting as if the war was somehow their fault. Disgusting.

>The Japanese people were very much involved in the war
When? Was there some sort of national vote? Did the military have a referendum on whether or not to bomb Pearl Harbor? No. The military made those decisions on their own. The Japanese civilian population had no power to influence military policy.

Nuremburg was simply victor's justice. Allied war criminals like LeMay weren't punished.

>The Japanese civilian population had no power to influence military policy.
If this was true. Why did the military surrender instead of fighting to the death like they told the U.S before?

And which Nazi's were specifically punished for the uboats or blitz you illiterate

If they didn't like it, they were free to mass protest. Instead they enthusiastically waved Kyokujitsu-ki, shouted banzai and volunteered their sons to partake in kamikaze rounds.

Meanwhile in America, whether the Japanese people were forced into the war or not in unimportant; they are part of Japan's war effort so they were viable targets.

*is unimportant

The military surrendered because Hirohito ordered them to surrender. Simple as that.

Most kamikazes weren't volunteers. They were drafted into the service.

The allies actually did charge Donitz for using u-boats. They only dropped it because Nimitz apparently spilled the beans that America was doing the same thing. But even then, they just reduced the sentence, they didn't proclaim him innocent.

>Hirohito ordered them to surrender.
Is that why the military also performed a coup on Hirohito after hearing about the surrender and he was forced to hide in a secret room and had to sneak the fucking surrender recording out?

>Thus, although Dönitz was found guilty of waging unrestricted submarine warfare against unarmed neutral shipping by ordering all ships in designated areas in international waters to be sunk without warning, no additional prison time was added to his sentence for this crime

Most of the military accepted the order to surrender. There was a small group that did not, and they tried to have a coup. The coup failed because most of the military didn't support the coup.

But they still charged him. Why didn't they charge Nimitz, especially after he admitted he did the same shit? Because victor's justice, that is why. Allied war criminals like LeMay and Truman weren't punished, despite the fact that they had murdered thousands of civilians with their bombs.

>The Japanese civilian population had no power to influence military policy.
Wrong again, kiddo. The coup failed because the coupers couldn't find Hirohito and the recordin gof surrender was already snuck out. The leader of the coup then killed himself and everyone else went home.

You don't know shit about history on a history board.

Indeed

But accepting conditional surrender like civilized countries do would've been better tho

>victor's justice
And yet Donitz was not punished for targeting neutral ships because the US did as well. Victors justice would be him being punished, and the US not, which didnt happen. Still waiting for the blitz war criminals as well.

>The recording of the surrender already got out

Okay. So that means the majority of the Japanese order must have obeyed otherwise that wouldn't have mattered.

>And yet Donitz was not punished for targeting neutral ships because the US did as well.

Only because Nimitz was nice enough to spill the beans. What if he hadn't? What then, partner?

Probably the revolution.
Porfirio Díaz made the country a global power, but Emiliano Zapata and Fransisco I. Madero screwed up things because muh poor class (who was so useless and retarded that Porfirio had to import chinks to do their job, only for them to be massacred along with the few scientists and scholars that remained) and ended up shitting the country beyond salvation. The worst part is that they are labeled "heroes" up to this day.

Our recently deceased King arresting Marshall Antonescu and letting literally whos negotiate an armistice with the USSR

Trusting the americans and not ousting those dishonorable pigs.

That means they couldn't continue the war since they couldn't find the recording and stop its broadcast. Which then resulted in the surrender, but there was still some garrisons active-post war.

Mexico?

I know that some units thought the message was a trick and kept fighting. But most of military did surrender upon receiving the message. This is a fact.

>Nimtz just hides the fact he ordered unrestricted submarine warfare from everyone else until 1945 when he spills out of the goodness of his heart
Sure m8
>Not just a case of lawyers realising that it would be a bad argument to prosecute some for something they also did
Its almost like 'victors justice' would have ignored that completely and slap another 10 years on Donitz

So explain why all those Germans were executed for killing Jews and burning their bodies in ovens, but firebombing Japanese cities and burning people alive is apparently okay.

Peenoise.

see, after finally winning independence from spain, flips back then thought it was a good idea to trust uncle sam and accept their """help""". We could've ousted the intital US forces present in the phils. thus giving us flips more time to make preparations for guerilla warfare, which in turn, will exhaust the military capabilities of the us making her reconsider its imperialist aims considering the economic strain of protracted war.

That wouldn't have been a good idea, because the U.S would've purged you back then and not give a fuck. They fucked up the Spanish for literally no reason and prior to that raped Mexico to death.

Don't bother telling them they aren't moral, edgelords like these love it when you tell them that, they can pretend they're 'realistic' and 'smart'.

Ah yes, those evil Jews preparing weapons to strike and murder Germany while living in it. Those same jews that bombed Berlin and refused to surrender. It was an awful that Germany had to execute children metres away from them because they couldn't discriminate between them and the Jewish soldiers and bomb makers

Why is burning people who are dead considered bad, but somehow it is okay to burn people who are still alive? American troops in the Pacific also used flamethrowers. How is that okay?

>We'll just let the enemy keep making bombs and guns to kill us with, killing civilians is never done for a good reason
>Why does the enemy keep killing us?
>Don't they know we really care about their people?

Pretty sure the killing part was the sticking part of the holocaust, cremation ovens are just to make it easier.

Mexico was their neigbor, the phils is an ocean away (logistics bruh). plus the environment would have made it extremely difficult for the us army to operate effectively. thick ass jungles an mountains an shiet, sure they may capture certain locations such as manila, cebu and the open lowands etc. but that will be as far as they make it.
there are places in the phils that have never been effectively colonized by spain, even during the american colonial period americans have had difficulty accessing many parts of the country because of the terrain and environment, the same goes during the japanese occupation, and even in the present day there are insurgent groups that still lurk in the more remote areas of the phils.

>Phils is an ocean away
Hawaii, Guam, and other islands were an ocean away as well.

>Hawaii, Guam

tiny rocks with extremely small populations.

>women and children shouldn't have to suffer like that
the japanese had it coming to them, they committed many warcrimes against the Chinese. read up on the Japanese occupation before you claim that the US was in the wrong. the islands would have been split between USSR and USA if we didn't use the atomic weapons like West/East Germany but worse

The Japanese military committed war crimes against the Chinese. But the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, weren't military, they were civilians. They had nothing to do with the things that happened in Manchuria during the war.

bro the bomb was dropped because the only other option was invasion WHEN IT WAS CLEAR THERE WOULD BE NO SURRENDER

Japan was not a reasonable nation at the time. They lived under a God Emperor and believed in his ability to win any war.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think that the reason why the US "dropped the bombs" was merely for power projection, intimidating the ussr and other nations.

>Between the USSR
No it wouldn't. The Soviets had no ships to perform maritime operations on Japan, the U.S had Japan encircled and wouldn't had let the Soviet in on the Invasion.