Political Crossfire Forums

[superskippy]

Quote: You need to recheck your sources.

What a wonderously complete answer and response to the effort I put into my post.

[Demonic Spoon]

CrossEyedMary wrote: Best? You mean who was the most capable at leading people? Hitler. He led an entire people to either murder Jews, Gypsies, JWs, Gays, mentally retarded, and others, or to turn a blind eye. You have to be one hell of a leader to accomplish that.

Yeah, but he was a dumbass in other things (going to war with the Soviet Union anyone)? He thought he was a military leader, and he wasn't, which is why he got his ass kicked. That knocks him down a few notches.

[evil muppet]

superskippy wrote: Quote: You need to recheck your sources.

What a wonderously complete answer and response to the effort I put into my post.

What more can I say? Third grade history is a little wrong on this matter. Recheck your sources.

[superskippy]

I have and it would seem more than you, and insults do you no favor to your argument.

[evil muppet]

Insults are not to further an argument, it is to get under other people's skin.

[Poon]

:rofl:

[superskippy]

evil muppet wrote: Insults are not to further an argument, it is to get under other people's skin.

Do you have anything substantial that you will say to refute my post?

[evil muppet]

Well you can start by going to wikipedia.

Quote: William Tecumseh Sherman (February 8, 1820 – February 14, 1891) was an American soldier, educator, and author. He served as a general in the United States Army during the American Civil War (1861–65), receiving both recognition for his outstanding command of military strategy, and criticism for the harshness of the "scorched earth" policies he implemented in conducting total war against the enemy.

Quote: Sherman's greatest contribution to the war, the strategy of total warfare—endorsed by General Grant and President Lincoln—has been the subject of much controversy. Sherman himself downplayed his role in conducting total war, often saying that he was simply carrying out orders as best he could in order to fulfill his part of Grant's master plan for ending the war.


Further down under the heading of Total Warfare

Quote: Like Grant, Sherman was convinced that the Confederacy's strategic, economic, and psychological ability to wage further war had to be definitively crushed if the fighting were to end. Therefore, he believed that the North had to conduct its campaign as a war of conquest and employ scorched earth tactics to break the backbone of the rebellion.

Sherman's advance through Georgia and South Carolina was characterized by widespread destruction of civilian supplies and infrastructure, and sometimes accompanied by looting; although officially forbidden, historians disagree on how well this regulation was enforced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman

There was this about Sheridan's campaign in the Shenandoah. Note the last sentence. The intent was to drive it home to the population. Their strategy targeted civilians.

Quote: Sheridan ordered total destruction in the Valley to deny the Confederacy its use as an agricultural resource. His troops destroyed crops and livestock, seized stores and equipment, and burned whatever they could not remove. Referring to the possibility of another Confederate army using the Valley to threaten the North, Grant's instructions to him were: "If a crow wants to fly down the Shenandoah, he must carry his provisions with him." The destruction presaged the scorched earth tactics of Sherman's March to the Sea through Georgia—deny an army a base from which to operate and bring the effects of war home to the population supporting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheridan

[superskippy]

Quote: William Tecumseh Sherman (February 8, 1820 – February 14, 1891) was an American soldier, educator, and author. He served as a general in the United States Army during the American Civil War (1861–65), receiving both recognition for his outstanding command of military strategy, and criticism for the harshness of the scorched earth policies he implemented in conducting total war against the enemy.

I didnt write to the contrary, I even mentioned his march to the Sea, but his march to the sea entailed the destruction of southern towns, looting, and destruction of railroads. Exactly as I had said, or do you find a different meaning for 'scorched earth' policy? I would find that to be highly improbable.

Quote: Sherman's greatest contribution to the war, the strategy of total warfare—endorsed by General Grant and President Lincoln—has been the subject of much controversy. Sherman himself downplayed his role in conducting total war, often saying that he was simply carrying out orders as best he could in order to fulfill his part of Grant's master plan for ending the war.

Yes his policy of scorched earth through the south, the looting of towns, conscription of food, and general destruction of infrastructre, was contriversial, but not a warcrime in any regard or against the law.

Quote: Sherman's advance through Georgia and South Carolina was characterized by widespread destruction of civilian supplies and infrastructure, and sometimes accompanied by looting; although officially forbidden, historians disagree on how well this regulation was enforced.

Exactly as I had said, looting isnt a warcrime it's a crime in the army and not a heavy one at that and one practiced on both sides of the army as it has been for millenia even to this day.

Quote: There was this about Sheridan's campaign in the Shenandoah. Note the last sentence. The intent was to drive it home to the population. Their strategy targeted civilians

Once again you draw a conclusion that civilians were targetted rather than their property and infrastructre as every thing you have cited has thus far supported in my argument. To drive home psycological damage and economic damage to the southern heartland by the scorched earth policies which burned farms, destroyed roads, and seized cattle.

You have cited nothing that is a warcrime or anything that is horrible or terrible, you have cited a well planned campaign of the destruction of the Southern breadbasked in the Shenendoah which fed Lee's Army, the destruction of the Sotuhern heartlands farms, roads, and towns including Atlanta, a strategim which not only cut the South in another fraction but destroyed their richest area's for them to draw from. It was a perfect campaign and was wildly succesful and is still studied today.

[evil muppet]

Destroying people's homes is not targetting civilians? They didn't actually kill that many. They just let the starvation and disease kill them. How silly of me.

You actually think this kind of warfare is right?

[The Comrade]

evil muppet wrote: Destroying people's homes is not targetting civilians? They didn't actually kill that many. They just let the starvation and disease kill them. How silly of me.

You actually think this kind of warfare is right?

we should give soldiers guns that shoot rainbows and bombs that, when they explode, they blast glitter everywhere.

[evil muppet]

so terrorizing civilians, destroying their property and their homes is a proper military tactic? Can't defeat them on the battlefield so lets just go after their families. I thought civilians were NONCOMBATANTS and off limits.

Or maybe great men are not bound by such things as civilized warfare. They are Übermensch. Laws, morality, right and wrong apply to us common peasantry. Their greatness frees them of such things.

[superskippy]

Quote: Destroying people's homes is not targetting civilians? They didn't actually kill that many. They just let the starvation and disease kill them. How silly of me.

Only in the past 10 years has it become a factor, for 1,000 years it wasnt. And in major wars it is still disregarded as the need to destroy the ability of a nation to fight takes precidence. The destruction of the Southern Heartland curbed their ability to wage war immensly and the destruction of Atlanta finally dealt a crippling blow to the south. The destruction and pillaging of farms and towns is what crippled them.

I have not a single condemnation for it and you will find few who do for the Civil War actions of Shermans march or the Blockade.

[The Comrade]

evil muppet wrote: so terrorizing civilians, destroying their property and their homes is a proper military tactic? Can't defeat them on the battlefield so lets just go after their families. I thought civilians were NONCOMBATANTS and off limits.

Or maybe great men are not bound by such things as civilized warfare. They are Übermensch. Laws, morality, right and wrong apply to us common peasantry. Their greatness frees them of such things.

civilized warfare?


nice oxymoron.

[Saracen]

I hate politicians in general. I really do. I never aspired to a single great leader: as a believer in God, I believe that He is the Ultimate Sovereign. Human sovereignity will mean nothing in the Afterlife. Okay, I know that many of you don't believe in God, but as a believer, I don't suck up or kiss up to any single leader whatsoever, nor am I fan of any of them. To be a fan is akin to worshipping in my opinion. Call my opinions extreme if you wish, but I'm a Non-Partisan when it comes to leaders and politicians.

[thomez]

I can think of none better than George Washington.

After the Revolutionary War, when Washington led this fledgling nation through war to defeat the greatest power in the world, George III asked what Washington was going to do next. When he was told that Washington would most likely retire back to his farm at Mount Vernon, George III said "if he does, he will be the greatest man in the world".

George Washinton turned back his command to Congress and went back to Mount Vernon.

[Kasey aka Kyle]

Of all leaders on this list I would have to go with Julius Ceaser, however I think as far as leaders we've never had a leader with enough perfections to glorify them anymore then me or you. Murder is a funny thing, and is often why and what people are remembered or recognized for.(JFK, I'm not saying he wasn't a good person just that he didn't actually accomplish that much) Also some things about people, especially rich people are exagerated or completely made up to further glorify them so any opinion stated about past leaders is probably biased or mislead in one way or another.

[The Comrade]

Kasey aka Kyle wrote: Of all leaders on this list I would have to go with Julius Ceaser, however I think as far as leaders we've never had a leader with enough perfections to glorify them anymore then me or you. Murder is a funny thing, and is often why and what people are remembered or recognized for.(JFK, I'm not saying he wasn't a good person just that he didn't actually accomplish that much) Also some things about people, especially rich people are exagerated or completely made up to further glorify them so any opinion stated about past leaders is probably biased or mislead in one way or another.

julius caesar was an arrogant, pompous, narcasisitc man who started a civil war.

[superskippy]

You dont have to like the man for him to be great, Caeser started a civil war that he won. He created the Roman Empire that the world still whispers about in awe, his reforms saved Rome from future crisis and forged the beginnings of the territorial Roman Empire, and brought about the beginning of the Pax Romana.

There is a reason that his name is still spoken and studied with awe unto this day.

[The Comrade]

julius caesar was long dead when the pax romana started. during his death till the beginning of the pax romana, rome was in constant civil war.
also, gaius julius caesar octavianus really started out the empire. his social reforms alone outweigh anything caesar did.