The US did not win the war against Japan in WW II.

The biggest mistake the North made was ending the occupation of the South. It should have not only remained occupied, they should have broken the former state borders and renamed them.

 

My father and five of his brothers killed a lot of Japs. They were content with their body count and all of them supported the papers that came off veranda deck of the USS Missouri. They all hated Japs the rest of their lives but they were content to win.

 

But but if the North would have done that, America would have lost the Spanish-American War, Germany would have won the First World War and there would have been no WW ll.

Where do you think the majority of America's warriors come from ?

The Crittenden-Johnson Resolutions on the Objects of the War, 1861

(from Richardson (ed.), Messages and Addresses of Congress, Vol. 6:430)




The Crittenden Resolutions

[Passed by the House of Representatives]


Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged on our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.




The Johnson Resolutions

[Passed by the Senate]


Resolved, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and righs of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

 

Where did I say they should have depopulated the South?

They should have maintained military occupation until they had totally broken Southern white supremacist plantation culture.

 

Well you basically got what you wanted.

Under the Clinton administration the majority of the large military bases are in the South today.

I think it has more to do with Democrats don't want the American ,military in their home states.

 

There are plenty of military bases in Democratic states.

And no, the white supremacist plantation culture was not broken after the Civil War. It wasn’t broken for almost a century.

 

Being a Southerner, I agree that the South should have been occupied, and Grant should have done this as soon as he replaced the democrat Johnson, who had done all he could to undo the results of the war, and which democrats continued to resist with every fiber in them.

But everybody was really weary of war and death and maiming and troop movements and battles and skirmishes, and even the northern abolitionists didn't care much at that point. So Grant primarily relied on his AG instead of the Army, and while he had over 1100 legal victories in an attempt to enforce the terms of the war against the South, it was not close to being enough. imo Grant as Commander-in-Chief should have taken control of the US Army on his own and marched them south to put down all the resistance.

Considering the difficulties and duels that had accompanied thousands and thousands of disputes of ownership of land, and the sorting out the prior land grants of the Spanish, the French, and the territories of the USA prior to statehood which took thirty years in determining who owned what, the further complications of new states and borders replacing the old states of the South would have been a fiasco that benefitted nobody, however.

 

Yes, I understand. I went to Japan twice on R & R from Vietnam, a couple more times as a civilian years later, and several I have met here at home. I have difficulty "liking" them myself.

 

Does 2 + 1 ¾ = 4?

 

And once again, I am asking for your referencing that this was ever done. I have asked you over and over to provide proof that the US or any of the Allied powers made such a demand of Japan.

In fact, nowhere in President Truman's statement did he demand a surrender at all. Do not believe me, here is the section of his statement verbatim:

Notice, he makes no demand of surrender, he refers back directly to the Potsdam Declaration. Which also never demanded the "unconditional Surrender" of Japan, only of their armed forces.

But like before, I expect you to ignore this again. You have absolutely no interest in the truth, you only spin around and around on your fantasy (or lie), and could not care less what reality is.

 

The problem is that the entire nation at that time period was basically "White Supremacist". It was not just the South, and it was also a vastly different time.

Heck, the Race Riots of the Northern States during the Civil War (especially New York in 1863) were like nothing seen in the South. Even during the worst of the Civil Rights Era, you did not have race riots that killed over 100 people. Yet you pretend it is a "Southern Thing".

Then there is the Detroit Race Riots of 1863. 2 left dead, hundreds injured, the black community was largely burned to the ground.

Heck, my mom's side of the family was not even allowed to vote until 1924. That is decades after blacks were given that same right, but you do not hear me screaming about "White Supremacy". I simply recognize it was a different time and place and continue on with my life knowing things are better now.

Oh, and this had been an issue for decades even prior to the Civil War. Cincinnati saw race riots in 1829, 1836, and 1841. Looking at the history of race riots in this country, you have a large number that happen in Northern and Western states, which never were part of (and most fought against) the Confederacy. Ohio, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, all these states and more had riots by whites against blacks.

Interesting political diatribe, to bad it is lacking in historical reality.

 

This is so very true.

Heck, one of the reasons I object to the removal of statues of Confederates is because of General Joseph "Fighting Joe" Wheeler.

A graduate of West Point, he resigned from the US Army and joined the Georgia Militia in 1861. Where he served with distinction, rising to the rank of Lieutenant General.

At the end of the war, he moved to Alabama, became a planter and lawyer, and even became a member of Congress. During his time in Congress, he was a champion for healing wounds left by the war.

At the age of 61, he volunteered to serve in the Spanish-American War. Appointed to serve as a Major General, he then served with distinction as commander of Cavalry Forces (including the Rough Riders) during that war, and serving another 2 years until retiring in 1900.

In the following 6 years he attended many Civil War reunions. And interestingly enough, he never wore his Confederate Lieutenant General uniform to any of them. He always wore hi US Army Major General uniform.

Specifically, he attended the Centenary Anniversary of USMA West Point in 1902. Confederate Generals Longstreet and Alexander saw him walking towards them in his blue Army uniform, and Longstreet said "Joe, I hope that Almighty God takes me before he does you, for I want to be within the gates of hell to hear Jubal Early cuss you in the blue uniform."

If the South had remained under occupation, we likely would have lost the Spanish American War. And would have had little to no involvement in the Eight-Nation Alliance in 1900, which helped put down the Boxer Rebellion.

The history of the US after 1900 would largely be unrecognizable. There would have been no need for the navy we built up in the early 20th century. US interest would have ended at Hawaii and Alaska.

And without the Boxer Rebellion, the US would have likely remained antagonistic with the UK. Which means no involvement in WWI (or even possibly joining the Austria-Hungarian German Alliance).

And I doubt if 2 brothers from Ohio would have dared to travel into "Occupied Territory" in 1900 to fly their kites and gliders.

No, a continued occupation would have made all of history after 1877 unrecognizable.

 

I like them okay. But I never fought them.

 

One of my grandfathers did fight them. He served on the USS Suwannee (CVE-27), and lost many friends in kamikaze attacks off the Philippines as part of the Taffy convoys (and was wounded himself). But he never had any kind of animosity for the Japanese people after the war ended. No more than my other grandfather who fought the Germans held any lasting animosity for them.

And since we have an individual who makes statements like he has, I can only imagine that there are a great many people he does not "like".

Myself, I reserve hatred for governments and those who follow them blindly as individuals. Not for an entire group because of the actions of some.

 

Simple proof we won the war, we forced them to surrender the Emperor accepting the Potsdam Declaration full terms as they were including the Unconditional Surrender and occupied them making the nation our bitch until we decided to leave. The fact we allowed the Emperor to stay as a figurehead and kept the institution kind of intact to a minimal level was of value to move the Japanese to an ally status faster and ease the transition it was at our discretion.

 

So Truman changed his mind for political reason, how does that mean we lost? That's what's wrong with this world today, nobody knows what compromise is.

 

August 9. Emperor Hirohito offered peace ”on the condition that he as head of state was maintained”

August 10. The U.S. rejected Hirohito proposal, stating, “only unconditional surrender would do.”

Four days later on August 14. President Truman gives up the idea of demanding unconditional surrender and gives in to Hirohito’s condition.

It doesn’t take a whole lot of advanced comprehension to understand what that means if you make an earnest effort.

It was the U.S. itself that created the definition of an acceptable surrender. This they termed an unconditional surrender. The details of that so-called unconditional surrender were further defined by the refusal of the U.S. to accept Japan's condition put forth on the 10th. of August. It doesn't make a fiddler's fart of a difference what you or I consider reasonable terms because it was the U.S. who set the parameters for ending the war with Japan, not you, not me. Japan, in turn, gave the U.S. "the finger" and so Washington ate crow and backed down. I remind you - whatever you or I might have done is irrelevant. The U.S. flatly refused to accept Japan's proposal, referring to it as a conditional surrender which was against America's own definition of victory. The fact that the U.S. relented 4 days later tells the true story of Washington's bluff being challenged and abandoned.

What's wrong with this world, people understand neither the importance of a definition nor how to avoid making absurd conclusions.

 

Nope. They signed an unconditional surrender and that is what we got

 

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

Can we get over this silly stuff? The surrender was conditional on the Japs being allowed to keep the Emporer in place......for token ceremonial traditional purposes. That's the fact and the pedantics can be ignored. The War ended, and so, my Old Man, as did his then live Mates, lived to spawn the Baby Boomers. /End.

 

I was a boy the day they surrendered. Are you telling me all those steam locomotive whistles were blowing for nothing at all? You had to hear them all blowing at the same time that day to know they were happy. The surrender took place on the deck and i personally stood on that very spot when the ship was docked at San Francisco. Go to Pearl Harbor today and you too can stand on the same spot.

 

The huge American Civil war has been spun to suit the north and you want to spin this war to favor the Japanese. Do you truly imagine their admirals and generals would board the ship USS missouri to surrender if it was not a true surrender?

Kennedy got in over his head and plain was lucky he got the Russians to remove the missiles. I was scared out of my mind he got us into a full blown nuclear war at the time.

 

No. The fact is the Japanese signed an unconditional surrender. THAT is a fact

 

It really is that simple, isn't it. Why there are those who dispute the fact is one of the mysteries of ego.

 

I think that Trump should drop another atomic bomb on 'em and ask again for an unconditional surrender.