• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee [W: 473]

Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

How do you figure that? :lamo

It's not really hard to see. Despite facing a far inferior force to what the Soviets faced on the Eastern Front (OB West was composed largely of reserve and second rate Wehrmacht forces, and most of the Waffen SS forces were understrength), the Western Allies frequently found themselves bogged down by ad hoc German formations composed of rag tag collection of German forces. In some cases entire American divisions were held but by mere handfuls of German troops.

After Third Army's long advance (made possible by the German decision to abandon France and withdraw OB West to the Sigfreid Line), the Western Allies spent tge next six months barely making any headway. In some cases in Holland and Belgium it took Allied forces several days just to advance three miles.

American division and regimental commanders especially complained of the tendency for American troops to dig in and call in fire support instead of closing in and destroying the enemy, even when it was just two or three German soldiers. Repeatedly American and British forces proved very slow to seize the initiative.

Amd above all, American forces in particular were incredibly reliant on their overwhelming fire support and plentiful armor to defeat German forces. A perfect example of this is the Metz, where Third Army, lacking the firepower deemed necessary, struggled to seize control of the high ground from the Germans. It wasn't any help that Patton ordered futile frontal assaults, but it goes to show how reliant American forces were on superior firepower, something they were only allowed thanks to their massive war economy.

You just don't see the vast encirlements and major sweeping strategic offensives in the West that by comparison were commonplace on the Eastern Front. The Ruhr and the Falaise Pocket were the only major ones, and even in Falaise significant numbers of German troops managed yo escape to form the skeletons of later kampfegrouppes.

Part of this is no ones fault, most W. Allied commanders didn't have the experience of manuerving large formations of hundreds of thousands of men and material. But a lot of it came down to fundamental flaws in training and doctrine.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

I thought had said you have been in the service for 10 years.

Neg. I enlisted in 2014, shortly after I got out of high school.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

It's not really hard to see. Despite facing a far inferior force to what the Soviets faced on the Eastern Front (OB West was composed largely of reserve and second rate Wehrmacht forces, and most of the Waffen SS forces were understrength), the Western Allies frequently found themselves bogged down by ad hoc German formations composed of rag tag collection of German forces. In some cases entire American divisions were held but by mere handfuls of German troops.

After Third Army's long advance (made possible by the German decision to abandon France and withdraw OB West to the Sigfreid Line), the Western Allies spent tge next six months barely making any headway. In some cases in Holland and Belgium it took Allied forces several days just to advance three miles.

American division and regimental commanders especially complained of the tendency for American troops to dig in and call in fire support instead of closing in and destroying the enemy, even when it was just two or three German soldiers. Repeatedly American and British forces proved very slow to seize the initiative.

Amd above all, American forces in particular were incredibly reliant on their overwhelming fire support and plentiful armor to defeat German forces. A perfect example of this is the Metz, where Third Army, lacking the firepower deemed necessary, struggled to seize control of the high ground from the Germans. It wasn't any help that Patton ordered futile frontal assaults, but it goes to show how reliant American forces were on superior firepower, something they were only allowed thanks to their massive war economy.

You just don't see the vast encirlements and major sweeping strategic offensives in the West that by comparison were commonplace on the Eastern Front. The Ruhr and the Falaise Pocket were the only major ones, and even in Falaise significant numbers of German troops managed yo escape to form the skeletons of later kampfegrouppes.

Part of this is no ones fault, most W. Allied commanders didn't have the experience of manuerving large formations of hundreds of thousands of men and material. But a lot of it came down to fundamental flaws in training and doctrine.

Oh, that's right; you're a Liberal and the Soviets rock. I forgot...sorry.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

So, a broke down General kicked Johnston, Hood and other Confederate generals collective asses.

That doesn't have anything to do with the quality of tje soldiers involved.

Confederate desertion peaked at 15%. Federal desertion peaked at 12%. That isn't a big gap and the Federals were winning.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

That doesn't have anything to do with the quality of tje soldiers involved.

Confederate desertion peaked at 15%. Federal desertion peaked at 12%. That isn't a big gap and the Federals were winning.

The battles between grant and Lee were essentially battles designed to grind the army of Virginia into powder through attrition
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The battles between grant and Lee were essentially battles designed to grind the army of Virginia into powder through attrition

And Grant lost a little more than half of them. Hence the reason that I said earlier that in terms of combat power, the South didn't have a chance at a toe-to-toe slugfest.

However, the South possessed superior leaders and superior soldiers.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

And Grant lost a little more than half of them. Hence the reason that I said earlier that in terms of combat power, the South didn't have a chance at a toe-to-toe slugfest.

However, the South possessed superior leaders and superior soldiers.

Grant may have lost battles, but he was able to win the strategic victory over Lee. Grant could replace his losses, Lee could not.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Grant may have lost battles, but he was able to win the strategic victory over Lee. Grant could replace his losses, Lee could not.

Right.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Any group of soldiers that is deserting in such massive numbers as the south did is automatically removed from consideration as greatest soldiers in history. To pretend otherwise is simply ridiculous
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Oh, that's right; you're a Liberal and the Soviets rock. I forgot...sorry.

What the **** kind of cowardly cop out is that? Are you seriously just going to assume that because I recognize the Soviets had superior operational capability that you can just ignore everything else?

Pathetic. Come back next time you decide to stop being a coward.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

What the **** kind of cowardly cop out is that? Are you seriously just going to assume that because I recognize the Soviets had superior operational capability that you can just ignore everything else?

Pathetic. Come back next time you decide to stop being a coward.

More vitriol. Nooooooo surprise.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

And Grant lost a little more than half of them. Hence the reason that I said earlier that in terms of combat power, the South didn't have a chance at a toe-to-toe slugfest.

However, the South possessed superior leaders and superior soldiers.

Superior like Hood? Or was it Johnston who abandoned Atlanta? Braxton Bragg?

And the superior soldiers who were whipped time and again by the Union?
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

More vitriol. Nooooooo surprise.


Do you actually have a rebuttal to what I posted or are going to keep playing the Artful dodger?
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

Superior like Hood? Or was it Johnston who abandoned Atlanta? Braxton Bragg?

And the superior soldiers who were whipped time and again by the Union?

You're totally missing (ignoring?) the point.

You're certainly dodging the reality that the Confederates won most of the battles.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

You're certainly dodging the reality that the Confederates won most of the battles.

Irrelevant. You can win lots of battles and still lose wars. Hannibal slaughtered 150,000 Romans between Lake Trasimene, River Trebia and Cannae. His Italian campaign was still a complete failure.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

It depends. In an organized surrender, yes. If half the unit is fighting and the other half is surrendering, the opposing force is under no obligation to honor the surrender. Soldiers aren't required to risk their own lives to take prisoners. The scenario I just described is considered perfidy. Perfidy is an actual war crime.

At Fort Pillow, some of the Federals were surrendering and some were fighting. Even during that period, soldiers were under no obligation to honor a surrender under those circumstances.

There was a lot of chaos, maybe more than is normal in most cases. Add to that the fact that there was heavy drinking inside the fort the night before. Also, a number of federal troops had stashed weapons and ammo on the descending hill toward the river. As some retreated or looked to have retreated they retrieved hidden weapons and ammo and continued the fight. Who was surrendering and who wasn't?

The River Was Dyed With Blood is the definitive book on Ft. Pillow, written by Brian Steel Wills (2014). Wills convincingly concludes that Ft. Pillow was not a massacre. Forrest did not intend to systematically execute federal troops. Due to many factors, many beyond his control, Forrest lost control of his troops.

If you are interested in Ft. Pillow I highly recommend the book. It is objective and well written.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

You're totally missing (ignoring?) the point.

You're certainly dodging the reality that the Confederates won most of the battles.

Umm. They were on the defensive with short lines of supply facing incompetent generals for the first years.

And they DID NOT win the battles that mattered most.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

In terms of combat power, I agree.

As far as leadership and field craft, the Confederate army was far superior the the Federals. The Southern soldier is the most superior soldier in human history.

I don't know about being the best in the world history of warfare, but:

If we were to create a mt. Rushmore of the great tactical generals born on American soil all 4 memorialized would be from the south:

1) MacArthur at Inchon
2) Lee at Chancellorsville
3) Jackson in his Shenandoah Valley Campaign
4) Forrest at Brices Crossroads (Tishamingo Creek)

Plus the most heralded soldiers of WWI & WWII Alvin York & Audie Murphy were both southern boys
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

I don't know about being the best in the world history of warfare, but:

If we were to create a mt. Rushmore of the great tactical generals born on American soil all 4 memorialized would be from the south:

1) MacArthur at Inchon
2) Lee at Chancellorsville
3) Jackson in his Shenandoah Valley Campaign
4) Forrest at Brices Crossroads (Tishamingo Creek)

Plus the most heralded soldiers of WWI & WWII Alvin York & Audie Murphy were both southern boys

Eisenhower - D-Day
Sherman - The Atlanta Campaign and the destruction that followed.
Grant - Just cuz he won all the marbles.
 
Re: The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

You're totally missing (ignoring?) the point.

You're certainly dodging the reality that the Confederates won most of the battles.

Honestly that's irrelevant. The Germans won plenty of battles. They lost the war, and that's what matters.
 
Back
Top Bottom