Warning: Graphic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Retribution

[Unionist]

A gentle reminder. This thread is about "Retribution," presumably during the Civil War and during Reconstructio. Can we stay on the topic and not go chasing after the Plains Wars, or the Trail of Tears, or the Blackhawk wars, or that Texas has only one tiny Indian Reservation? This adloscent "you did it too" deflection grows wearisome.

A less gentle reminder. Any further posts after this point will be a waste of time.

My bad

 

[Unionist]

This thread is kind of a microcosm on the futility of cyclical retribution...one side does something, the other retaliates, and it gets into a feedback loop where neither side gains any ground but both are unable to disengage. There is potential deterrent in the threat of retribution, but once carried out, it usually spirals out of control and avails neither side anything of value.

The same thing happens in real life.

I can see that this happens, but Sherman seemed to end the cycle with his brand of retribution- at least in the instance of the landmines

 

[Unionist]

My point with my posts which Ole seems to object to....is that retribution and what one group considers crimes against persons can go back just as far as we want to take it. The Pequot War, for instance, which we studied last week. That's just the way the world works. To single out Sherman, Southern armies, etc. is to engage in a pretty unending list of recriminations and....oh yeah....retributions.

Just because one side wins (the Puritans, for example) doesn't make it right. Just because one side loses doesn't either. Unfortunately, this tit-for-tat goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden and it probably won't stop anytime soon. Wish it would...but I'm not that gullible...or hopeful.

I am not purposely singling out southron armies. If there were just cause for them using retribution I would not be against that either. In theory, it seems to be the best way of keeping soldiers from being unfairly and unjustly butchered.

 

[Diana9]

The Campaigns of General Nathan Bedford Forrest and of Forrest's Cavalry
Thomas Jordan and J P Pryor

Nathan Bedford Forrest: In Search of the Enigma
Eddy W Davison, Daniel Foxx

Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography
Jack Hurst

That's three I have to hand. I'll get more if you want them.

Sherman also threatened to burn the towns of Tuscumbia and Florence if Forrest launched raids from their area. The idea was to keep the officials and people from lending the rebels a hand. Sherman had around 8,000 men moving through north Mississippi, the area around Salem. Old Salem was also on the railroad route and a Union depot. Sherman's mission was to keep Forrest from raiding and other operations in his old stamping grounds. These activities were facilitated by a substantial number of the civilians and, well, Sherman did his job! And, Forrest's job was to stop or at least hamper Sherman - which he did very well at this time. This was when Sherman famously said, "There will never be peace in Tennessee until Forrest is dead."

p s
As Shadow points out, the fear of retribution works well - if Sherman had done half the things he threatened to do, he probably would have been a war criminal. But - he was a master psychologist. He carried out enough threats to make one fairly convinced he'd do another!

Key word is "threatened." As you rightly point out at the end, Sherman was a master psychologist. Better to scare the enemy to death than to have to kill him and have many of your own men killed in the process. A good example is what he did about the land mines. I wouldn't call that retribution. It was preventative. And it worked.

 

[Unionist]

I don't want to side track but I'm having trouble finding a Sherman quote. Can anyone help. It is an excellent quote about secession. It was about how the south used the federal government and army when it suited them then cried foul after the fact. I'd be grateful for like 5 minutes if anyone could find it for me. Thanks

 

[ole]

I vaguely remember something like that, Unionist, but I don't take notes and I've relied on memory past the point where I ought to have been filing things away on paper.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."

WT Sherman on secession. Don't anybody yell at me, he said it.

 

[wilber6150]

Pretty darn accuarte wasn't it....

 

[Rebtracker]

It's a shame that no one listened to that. North and South. Our country's leaders failed us big time. What a tragedy.

 

[Unionist]

This isn't the quote I was looking for, but it is a good one. It isn't quite about retribution but Sherman does seem to get at the gall of the south to complain about warfare.
"You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began the war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success."

 

[CustersWolverines]

No offense to anyone here because the war and the death toll and destruction are sad, but I get slightly annoyed because it was not so bad compared to real war crimes. The south didn't know what terror was. I'm not making light of the horrors, it was bad, but light compared to what most people suffer during war.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

One tactic used by the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force was the creation offirestorms. This was achieved by dropping incendiary bombs, filled with highly combustible chemicals such as magnesium, phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), in clusters over a specific target. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area, become extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire.

This was a down payment for what the Nazis did all across Europe. 3.5 million Soviet soldiers starved to death, 27 million Russian deaths overall, 1.5 million Jewish children murdered(6 million in all)..Dresden and Hamburg were just punishment for the horrors the Nazis wrought.

Yes, it was terrible, but do remember that it was the Nazis who instigated the conflict, who decided to wage total war, and who decided to industrialize death. The 60-70,000 consumed by the firestorms of Dresden and Hamburg is a tiny number in comparison to the 40 million consumed by the Nazis.

 

[Unionist]

This was a down payment for what the Nazis did all across Europe. 3.5 million Soviet soldiers starved to death, 27 million Russian deaths overall, 1.5 million Jewish children murdered(6 million in all)..Dresden and Hamburg were just punishment the horrors the Nazis wrought.

Yes, it was terrible, but do remember that it was the Nazis who decided to wage total war, who decided to industrialize death. The people of Dresden and Hamburg reaped what their government sowed. This is a lesson the people of the world should remember.

I am no fan of the Nazis. Can't stand them. But this is civilians we are talking about. You don't do this. We are Westerners, not Communists.

 

[CustersWolverines]

I am no fan of the Nazis. Can't stand them. But this is civilians we are talking about. You don't do this. We are Westerners, not Communists.

Civilians support the war machine. It is where they draw their soldiers, armaments, foodstuffs, and morale. From a military perspective it makes perfect sense to target civilians. Sherman understood this 150 years ago.


I would agree with you if this was a war that had ground rules, but it wasn't. The Nazis and the Japanese decide to wage a ruthless war that heeded no standards of conduct heretofore observed in conflict. That alone justifies the Allied response.

This wasn't like WWI dogfighting where there was honor involved. This was a to-the-bone conflict. I don't think most people don't understand just how vicious WWII was. People have watched too many John Wayne movies. It wasn't a clean war. It was a very dirty war. A war unlike any in modern history.

 

[Unionist]

Civilians support the war machine. It is where they draw their soldiers, armaments, foodstuffs, and morale. From a military perspective it makes perfect sense to target civilians. Sherman understood this 150 years ago.


I would agree with you if this was a war that had ground rules, but it wasn't. The Nazis and the Japanese decide to wage a ruthless war that heeded no standards of conduct heretofore observed in conflict. That alone justifies the Allied response.

This wasn't like WWI dogfighting where there was honor involved. This was a to-the-bone conflict. I don't think most people don't understand just how vicious WWII was. People have watched too many John Wayne movies. It wasn't a clean war. It was a very dirty war. A war unlike any in modern history.

So the 10 million Ukrainians deserved death by starvation? I'm not trying to argue with you, there were crimes on both sides. But this doesn't justify vaporizing people alive. I'm all about the war is hell deal, but there is a line. I don't even like soldiers too abused.

It is punishment enough for the civilians to have the conquering army march through their humiliated towns.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

<snipped for brevity> But this doesn't justify vaporizing people alive. I'm all about the war is hell deal, but there is a line. I don't even like soldiers too abused.

It is punishment enough for the civilians to have the conquering army march through their humiliated towns.

You appararently do not understand what was at stake in WWII. With the Japs and Germans, there was no "line." You better thank your creator that we prevailed by whatever means possible in WWII.

 

[MarylandLine]

To Unionist post #72 Nazi's weren't communists and Germany is not considered Eastern Europe. Also Stalin and the Communists get a free pass, they weren't much better than the Nazi's. I met a 96 year old who came here from Hungary after the war. He fought with the German Army because the Germans treated his people better than the Russians did.

 

[CustersWolverines]

So the 10 million Ukrainians deserved death by starvation? I'm not trying to argue with you, there were crimes on both sides. But this doesn't justify vaporizing people alive. I'm all about the war is hell deal, but there is a line. I don't even like soldiers too abused.

It is punishment enough for the civilians to have the conquering army march through their humiliated towns.

Did the Ukrainians precipitate the war? No. You are missing the key elements of my point--who instigated the conflict and their conduct during said war. If the war was fought like the Civil War you would have a point. But it wasn't. The Axis willingly chose to wage a ruthless war. That alone justifies Dresden and Hamburg. The Allies were simply playing by the rules established by the aggressors.

Anyways, I see little point in fretting about deaths in war. Every death in war is a homicide. To differentiate is, in my opinion, illogical and morally indefensible. Killing is killing. As soon as you have made the decision to kill another human being you have crossed a moral boundary. A crossing that, while in some instances is acceptable, still nonetheless compromises you spiritually. What soldier, even in a "good war", does not feel some level guilt for having killed another human being?

 

[Unionist]

You appararently do not understand what was at stake in WWII. With the Japs and Germans, there was no "line." You better thank your creator that we prevailed by whatever means possible in WWII.

There was no line for the Communists as well. I'd like to consider use better than Communists, nazis and baby rapist

Nazi's weren't communists and Germany is not considered Eastern Europe.

I never said either of these things.

Also Stalin and the Communists get a free pass, they weren't much better than the Nazi's.

They were and are worse than the Nazis.

I met a 96 year old who came here from Hungary after the war. He fought with the German Army because the Germans treated his people better than the Russians did

And? There were Poles and Catholics who were treated like dirt by both. This is a false dichotomy, we don't have to choose either. Western Civilization has nothing to do with either.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

To Unionist post #72 Nazi's weren't communists and Germany is not considered Eastern Europe. Also Stalin and the Communists get a free pass, they weren't much better than the Nazi's. I met a 96 year old who came here from Hungary after the war. He fought with the German Army because the Germans treated his people better than the Russians did.

That had to be at the very tail end or after the war. Remember, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

 

[Unionist]

Did the Ukrainians precipitate the war? No. You are missing the key elements of my point--who instigated the conflict and their conduct during said war. If the war was fought like the Civil War you would have a point. But it wasn't. The Axis willingly chose to wage a ruthless war. That alone justifies Dresden and Hamburg. The Allies were simply playing by the rules established by the aggressors.

Anyways, I see little point in fretting about deaths in war. Every death in war is a homicide. To differentiate is, in my opinion, illogical and morally indefensible. Killing is killing. As soon as you have made the decision to kill another human being you have crossed a moral boundary. A crossing that, while in some instances is acceptable, still nonetheless compromises you spiritually. What soldier, even in a "good war", does not feel some level guilt for having killed another human being?

You tell me what these people had to do with supporting war? I wish they did fight it. It is always better to fight the communists. counter revolutionaries never deserve this treatment.