William Tecumseh Sherman By Neo

A response to Neo’s post on the man and the war we are in right now.

War as a remedy for war–it seems paradoxical.

So does the human race, Neo, so is the human race.

To save Palestinian children, we must kill Palestinian children and refuse to stay our hand at killing human shields. To save Japanese cities and lives, we must obliterate and annihilate Japanese cities and lives. It works, it is, it is quantum mechanics made real by human nature and behavior.

The reasons the Germans were able to come back so quickly to start another war, despite their defeat in WWI, are complex. But one of them was probably the fact that although they felt humiliated by the terms of the Treaty, they somehow managed to feel that they had not really been conquered. In fact, in his rise to power, Hitler played on that perception: German defeat was not a “real” defeat, but the result of a betrayal by domestic forces of a varied nature (including, of course, the Jews)–the “stab in the back” theory.

Neo, the German leader, the Kaiser and the aristocrats surrendered. It was a surrender based upon political machinations and needs, instead of military expediency. The German people and the German military never believed that they were defeaten because they WERE NOT. As with most wars in the 20th century, the leaders and politicians lost will, the grunts and foot soldiers never did.

After all, you have to remember that Germany sought Britain as an ally, not as an enemy, when Germany built up their naval armadas. A miscalculation of course, but then again, not every one can be a Blood and Iron Bismarck.

The basic reason for Germany’s military superiority is because of Bismarck, Von Clausewitz, and the Prussian military aristocracy. They were the hardcore tradition and discipline, that molded the German military machine into a disciplined and mighty army. After getting their arse kicked by Napoleon, of course, but still. One learns more in defeat than in victory. It wasn’t so much the Jews, but the Junkers. When they saw the American military come on the scene, they believed that a just and fair peace could be negotiated. After all, Germany never wanted this war to begin with. They didn’t want to fight Britain or America. In point of fact, a good statesmen would have wanted to ally with America and Britain. That would have created an Axis of Power that could have dominated half the world. Crowding out the Russians for sure, before they even got off the chair.

The armistice was signed, when Germany still had fleets of naval warships. In point of fact, one Admiral ordered his ships (held by the British in parole with the German crews on board) scuttled before the terms of the cease fire was heard. He did not want the British to benefit from German warships, to use on German cities.

The line of advance, wasn’t near the German capital. yet they still surrendered, because. Because they believed that a fair and just peace treaty could be settled. Of course, France and Britain made sure that wasn’t so. Vindictive little mofos.

In fact, it seems that the experience of the total war of WWII decisively ended even the idea of warfare for Western Europe.

That and Uncle Sam’s military protection umbrella, Neo.

Europe feels itself to have been “cured” of war.

We cured them of that, they had a small part in healing themselves. Churchill got sacked for his help in curing them of war. Nice reward for loyal patriots.

We must not forget that for Britain, the war was a success, and that is why they went to Socialism. They believed that the Unity of War could be sustained in Peace time by a powerful government. They wanted perpetual Unity without the war. You can’t get something for nothing, people, and Churchill knew this. Capitalism was his thing, and capitalism was why he got fired. Churchill wouldn’t want to sustain the “unity” that was in war for post-war peace times, because he understood that “unity” existed for a reason and when that purpose goes away, “unity” simply becomes “tyranny”.

However, contradicting Sherman’s statement that such wars end in defeat, it was won by the US and its allies.

That’s not what Sherman said, and you know it ; ) Leading up to something?

On reflection, though

I think why most trolls dislike you is because of that very same quality at reflection.

I am most decidedly not advocating using the civilian bombardment techniques of World War II in Iraq.

What about demonstration nuclear bombardment with little to no civilian casualties, neo, would you be in favor of that? Evacuating a city and then destroying it and whoever was dumb enough to stay?

For a post about Sherman, Neo, you really need this link as background and study material. Primary sources, better than Wiki.

Link

Just reading Sherman’s letter to Atlanta, gave me an insight into his quote and his philosophy. A lot of people, I have seen, have said that “War is hell” in response to people’s criticisms of war. But they have never truly understood what it meant. War is hell because war “should be” hell. A lot of people have actually started believing that war is bad because war is hell, while using Sherman’s quote. An example of sheer ignorance at work. I do not claim that all it takes is a google search to dispell ignorance, because in such cases as military history and military expedience, it takes quite a large amount of background knowledge to understand what Sherman was doing in his letter to Atlanta.

Here are the good quotes that explain in detail, his positions.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country.

You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.

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 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 of thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet.

Update: The question of the impulses that lead Germany to surrender is an interesting question, so I looked it up and found this brief summarization.

After the Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917, Russia and Germany began peace negotiations. In March 1918, the two countries signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The defeat of Russia enabled Germany to transfer troops from the eastern to the western front. Two large offensives in the west were met by an Allied counteroffensive that began in July. German troops were pressed back, and it became evident to many officers that Germany could not win the war. In September Ludendorff recommended that Germany sue for peace. In October extensive reforms democratized the Reichstag and gave Germany a constitutional monarchy. A coalition of progressive forces was formed, headed by SPD politician Friedrich Ebert. The military allowed the birth of a democratic parliament because it did not want to be held responsible for the inevitable armistice that would end the war on terms highly unfavorable to Germany. Instead, the civilian government that signed the truce was to take the blame for the nation’s defeat.

The political reforms of October were overshadowed by a popular uprising that began on November 3 when sailors in Kiel mutinied. They refused to go out on what they considered a suicide mission against British naval forces. The revolt grew quickly and within a week appeared to be burgeoning into a revolution that could well overthrow the established social order. On November 9, the kaiser was forced to abdicate, and the SPD proclaimed a republic. A provisional government headed by Ebert promised elections for a national assembly to draft a new constitution. In an attempt to control the popular uprising, Ebert agreed to back the army if it would suppress the revolt. On November 11, the government signed the armistice that ended the war. Germany’s loses included about 1.6 million dead and more than 4 million wounded.

Blame game time.

Military leaders refused a moderate peace because they were convinced until very late in the war that victory ultimately would be theirs. Another reason for their insistence on a settlement that fulfilled expansionist aims was that the government had not financed the war with higher taxes but with bonds. Taxes had been seen as unnecessary because it was expected that the government would redeem these bonds after the war with payments from Germany’s vanquished enemies. Thus, only an expansionist victory would keep the state solvent and save millions of German bondholders from financial ruin.

The interesting portion as I see it, is that the Kaiser, who engineered this whole pocked up situation (not renewing alliances, and not following Bismarck’s strategy for negating France and Russia), had the freaking gall to try to run the hell out on his own war and people. When the leadership has all but collapsed, obviously the people are going to be pissed. And of course, I’m pretty sure the SPD engineered their own shenanigans and revolts and internal sabotages, for political power. Remind you of someone?

Update: Found this on the wiki site for WT Sherman.

Four days later, Sherman issued his Special Field Orders, No. 15. The orders provided for the settlement of 40,000 freed slaves and black refugees on land expropriated from white landowners in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Sherman appointed Brig. Gen. Rufus Saxton, an abolitionist from Massachusetts who had previously directed the recruitment of black soldiers, to implement that plan.[39] Those orders, which became the basis of the claim that the Union government had promised freed slaves “40 acres and a mule,” were revoked later that year by President Andrew Johnson.

Andrew Johnson was the man who should have been assassinated, not Lincoln. Johnson’s Presidency set back much of the gains made in the war against the South, destroyed much of the solutions that the Civil War had solved, and perpetuated racism and bigotry for more than a century.

Such are the consequences of winning a war, only for the victory to be stolen by those who opposed and obstructed that war in the first place. (Democrats taking credit for Reagan)

This is simply an example of how “peace makers” like Johnson are slime and foul, while “war mongers” like Sherman are just and proud. One of many. De Oppreso Liber. Not the motto of the Democrats and the Left, if I recall. But the Motto of some other agency, some other agency of dread war.

Explore posts in the same categories: Humanity, Truth, War