Ozymandias

END GAME IN THE PACIFIC IV Late on the night of August 12, 1945, Major Hatanaka, along with Lieutenant Colonels Ida, Take####a (Anami's brother-in-law), and Masao, and Colonel Arao, the Chief of the Military Affairs Section, spoke to War Minister General Anami (the army minister and "most powerful figure in Japan besides the Emperor himself"),hoping for his support, and asking him to do whatever he could to prevent acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. General Anami refused to say whether he would help the young officers in treason. As much as they needed his support, Hatanaka and the other

Not quite.

THE END GAME IN THE PACIFIC III During the month of July, Japanese radio communications had been monitoring the extensive Soviet buildup of forces in Manchuria, as Stalin transferred hundreds of thousands of troops which had been involved in the German front. Unknown to the Japanese, Stalin had agreed at the conference in Teheran that he would declare war on Japan within three months of the surrender of Germany. However, although the Japanese expected that the Soviets would eventually move against them in Manchuria, they did not think that the Russians would be in a position to do that until

THE END GAME IN THE PACIFIC II With the rejection of the Potsdam Declaration by the Japanese, and the accompanying Japanese Government statement that "We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.", the Allies were left with three main options: 1,Starving Japan through a naval blockade and incessant air attacks; 2, Invading Japan; and 3, Dropping atomic bombs to bring about a surrender. Option 1 had already been discarded some time before as taking too long, being somewhat uncertain as to its outcome, and bringing about steady level of ca

THE END GAME IN THE PACIFIC On May 8, 1945, Germany surrendered. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US had decided that the first strategic priority was to defeat Germany. Now they turned to the second; obtain an unconditional surrender of Japan, as they had from Germany. Whether this was absolutely necessary or not has been much argued about. However, if anything less than unconditional surrender had been obtained, there is no doubt the Japanese would have propagandized it as a victory, and a triumph of the Bushido code. (It is instructing to note that the signing of the Korean Cease Fire

It's funny that you make that quote, because I thought of making it myself. Great minds think alike! However, it doesn't solve the question from a legal standpoint. In your opinion, does the Constitution of the United States make the act of secession illegal? Yes. The only thing that ends up justifying it, is to be successful.But so is civil disobedience illegal. In the latter case, those who commit it are seeking to overturn, through illegal action, something that they consider to be unjust.

The concept of the nation state is a relatively new one. Prior to that, you had kingdoms and empires, and they were established by force of conquest. The nation state is essentially a geopolitical entity, usually united by culture, language. ethnic background or history. In the Declaration of Independence, Tomas Jefferson uses the phrase, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This explicit statement was a new concept, but of course civilization's history was that of rebellion and subjugation. When oppression became too overhwelming, it led to rebellion.Virtually all n

What's important to understand is that they (the Southerners) believed it to be true. Remember that they were used to being the dominant part of the United States (7 of the first 8 POTUS were from Virginia). Eliminate slavery, and they believed that it would turn the South into a political backwater. The fact that this might have happened anyhow simply based on population figures was something they could never concede.BZZZZZTTT! Hans... Care to go for Double Jeopardy where the points can really mount up? John Adams (2) and John Quincy Adams (6) were from Massachussets. Andrew Jackson (7) was f

What's important to understand is that they (the Southerners) believed it to be true. Remember that they were used to being the dominant part of the United States (7 of the first 8 POTUS were from Virginia). Eliminate slavery, and they believed that it would turn the South into a political backwater. The fact that this might have happened anyhow simply based on population figures was something they could never concede.BZZZZZTTT! Hans... Care to go for Double Jeopardy where the points can really mount up? John Adams (2) and John Quincy Adams (6) were from Massachussets. Andrew Jackson (7) was f

I'm not immediately getting the bolded parts- how does the acquisition of land/states affect the country's mindset on slavery?It didn't affect the mindset; it affected the political calculation. The expansion westward would bring in many more free states, and they would eventually have enough votes to impose their will, and free the slaves. The handwriting was on the wall.

Bruce Catton is also excellent. The Coming Fury, Terrible Swift Sword, and Never Call Retreat are his three volumes on the Civil War. He also wrote about Grant, the Army of the Potomac, and the windup of the war in A Stillness at Appomattox.

Well, you certainly picked and chose what you would quote from what I said. But if you had quoted the full post, you will see that it was not the reason the average soldier believed he was going to war.

As has happened in virtually all wars, each side believed that they had right on their side. The underlying issue was slavery, and it was the root cause of the war. However, the proximate cause of the war was that the southern states believed that they had a right to secede from the union, much like the colonies believed they had a right to secede from the British Empire. The northern states believed that the compact to create the American Union was binding, forever. If it had not been for slavery, the southern states would not have wanted to secede. However, most of those who went to war i