True American Hero

[Fledermaus]

Because of your reading comprehension failure



I said "Sherman's actions were entirely comparable with a lot of what the Nazis did in WWII."

ie: a lot of what German troops did in WWII, was done by Sherman's troops.

Well, they marched... They shot rifles.... They wore uniforms. The ate government food...

Yeah....

That's where the similarities end.

 

[Rich2018]

And I pointed out that your claims are laughable....which they are.

Your denial is laughable.

 

[Fledermaus]

Your denial is laughable.

Feel free to show the mountains of bodies in Sherman's wake....

 

[Rich2018]

Post deleted.

 

[Fledermaus]

Why lie?

So... The wake of dead civilians in the aftermath of the march to the sea.....

 

[beerftw]

He’s only a “monster” by the laughable standard Americans have, where property damage is considered the worst thing one can possibly do— far worse, in the minds of some folks, than kidnapping people and selling them into slavery.....which, by the way, is what that “gentleman” Robert E Lee allowed when his armies invaded the north.

Sherman didn’t let the fact that the people shooting at his men claimed to be “Americans” get in the way of defeating enemies of his country, or give the Confederate civilian populace the sort of special treatment they expected (despite them often being active combatants)......which is the real reason why people hate him.

Oh, and if you were imprisoning folks for war crimes you’d have to toss a hell of a lot of the various Confederate Army commanders in prison.

Sherman was in defiance of laws even then, specifically the lieber code. Sherman was different from every other general in the civil war in that acts against civilians were not done against his orders, but rather by his orders. Both union and confederate generals ordered certain rules that prevented such, but often those rules never worked out, sherman actually made it a policy what every other general deemed a crime.

Sherman went after civilians, many times their food supply, their industrial base, etc, and many times just burning things down. In modern times it would be like carpet bombing all the farms in afghanistan to get back at the taliban, knowing full well civilians with no say in the matter of war are the ones who are getting punished.

 

[beerftw]

I agree, his infamous march through Georgia was an act of pure terrorism.

His actions were not terrorism by definition, they were more scorched earth policies that intended to try and stave out the civilian populace to also stave out the confederate military. Such actions used to be commonplace throughout the middle ages in europe but had mostly been deem cruel and unusual by much of europe even before the founding of america.

 

[Fledermaus]

His actions were not terrorism by definition, they were more scorched earth policies that intended to try and stave out the civilian populace to also stave out the confederate military. Such actions used to be commonplace throughout the middle ages in europe but had mostly been deem cruel and unusual by much of europe even before the founding of america.

That is a statement I get agree with.

 

[Tigerace117]

Because of your reading comprehension failure



I said "Sherman's actions were entirely comparable with a lot of what the Nazis did in WWII."

ie: a lot of what German troops did in WWII, was done by Sherman's troops.

And then I pointed out the fact that your claims are laughable......which they are, especially since you can’t back them up.

 

[Tigerace117]

Your denial is laughable.

You still can‘t back up your laughable claims I see.

 

[Tigerace117]

Sherman was in defiance of laws even then, specifically the lieber code. Sherman was different from every other general in the civil war in that acts against civilians were not done against his orders, but rather by his orders. Both union and confederate generals ordered certain rules that prevented such, but often those rules never worked out, sherman actually made it a policy what every other general deemed a crime.

Sherman went after civilians, many times their food supply, their industrial base, etc, and many times just burning things down. In modern times it would be like carpet bombing all the farms in afghanistan to get back at the taliban, knowing full well civilians with no say in the matter of war are the ones who are getting punished.

Actually.....

“However, the code envisioned a reciprocal relationship between the population and the Army. As long as the population did not resist military authority, it was to be treated well. Should the inhabitants violate this compact by taking up arms and supporting guerrilla movements, then they were open to sterner measures. Among these were the imposition of fines, the confiscation and/or destruction of property, the imprisonment and/or expulsion of civilians who aided guerrillas, the relocation of populations, the taking of hostages, and the possible execution of guerrillas who failed to abide by the laws of war.[11] It authorized the shooting on sight of all persons not in uniform acting as soldiers and those committing, or seeking to commit, sabotage.[12]

Lieber Code - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The populace of the Deep South, filled with delusions of grandeur about the nature of warfare, routinely attempted (ineffectual) resistance to Sherman’s forces, and therefore were not protected by the Lieber Code.

Yes, Sherman was different in that he did not allow sentimentality to get in the way of crushing the Confederacy. If more Union commanders had been like him the slavers would have lost years earlier.

 

[Closer]

It’s not my job to provide your sources.

The sources are named after the quotes. I'm sorry that makes it too hard for you, but the fact is you probably can't handle doing simple searches or you're just trolling, both cases of which are boring. You want to play 'Gotcha!' on the innernetz here's your big chance, hero.

 

[Closer]

Nebulous quotes and "Go look it up".

So Lincoln is 'nebulous' as a source? In other words, you know you can't refute the argument. Thanks for playing; better luck next time.

 

[Fledermaus]

So Lincoln is 'nebulous' as a source? In other words, you know you can't refute the argument. Thanks for playing; better luck next time.

In other words when you asked for citation you fail at it.

 

[Closer]

In other words when you asked for citation you fail at it.


View attachment 67313389

Like I said, better luck next time; playing 'I Touched You Last!!!' is just petty and juvenile. It should be easy enough to verify those cites with the sources listed; maybe you already checked and know you can't refute them is all.

It's also rather stupid and contradictory to make a crack about what to believe on the internet while demanding 'links' from people, just saying ...

 

[Fledermaus]

Like I said, better luck next time; playing 'I Touched You Last!!!' is just petty and juvenile. It should be easy enough to verify those cites with the sources listed; maybe you already checked and know you can't refute them is all.

It's also rather stupid and contradictory to make a crack about what to believe on the internet while demanding 'links' from people, just saying ...

Tsk, tsk...

Asking for citation isn't "petty and juvenile".

Telling someone else to look it up is.

If you posted a quote you should be the one providing the citation and context. It isn't anyone else's duty to look it up.

How can one refute that what hasn't been presented....

Evidence that Lincoln wanted a war.

In your quote fest only two quotes were actually Lincoln's and neither showed a desire for war.

 

[Rich2018]

His actions were not terrorism by definition, they were more scorched earth policies that intended to try and stave out the civilian populace to also stave out the confederate military. Such actions used to be commonplace throughout the middle ages in europe but had mostly been deem cruel and unusual by much of europe even before the founding of america.

What is your definition of "terrorism" ?

IMO, Sherman's march through Georgia fulfills the criteria of terrorism.

 

[Rich2018]

And then I pointed out the fact that your claims are laughable......which they are, especially since you can’t back them up.

No, you resorted to slander as your argument such that it was, didn't hold water in the slightest, as practiced by losers for thousands of years:


"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - quote attributed to Socrates

 

[Tigerace117]

No, you resorted to slander as your argument such that it was, didn't hold water in the slightest, as practiced by losers for thousands of years:


"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - quote attributed to Socrates

You still can’t defend your argument I see. Typical.

I’ll give you a hint. Screeching that “Sherman acted like the Nazis“ without providing the slightest shred of evidence is not “proof”......and people pointing out that you haven’t provided any is not “slander”.

 

[Closer]

Tsk, tsk...

Asking for citation isn't "petty and juvenile".

Telling someone else to look it up is.

If you posted a quote you should be the one providing the citation and context. It isn't anyone else's duty to look it up.

How can one refute that what hasn't been presented....

Evidence that Lincoln wanted a war.

In your quote fest only two quotes were actually Lincoln's and neither showed a desire for war.

Oh noes, Touched Me Last Again, with more dissimulating and falsehoods to boot.

 

[Rich2018]

You still can’t defend your argument I see. Typical.

Coming from someone who doesn't have one

I’ll give you a hint. Screeching that “Sherman acted like the Nazis“ without providing the slightest shred of evidence is not “proof”......and people pointing out that you haven’t provided any is not “slander”.

"Slightest shred of evidence" ? (someone is regurgitating a well worn phrase he knows nothing about)
Sherman's march through Georgia is both well known and well documented

I suggest you research it to gather your "shreds".

 

[Tigerace117]

Coming from someone who doesn't have one



"Slightest shred of evidence" ? (someone is regurgitating a well worn phrase he knows nothing about)
Sherman's march through Georgia is both well known and well documented

I suggest you research it to gather your "shreds".

And isn’t even remotely close to being “Nazi-esque“. Sherman was far more lenient than he had to be on the Confederates and the local wannabe guerrillas.

In short, you’ve got nothing......and still can’t defend your claims.

 

[Fledermaus]

Oh noes, Touched Me Last Again, with more dissimulating and falsehoods to boot.

Feel free to post any "falsehood" you IMAGINE I have posted....

 

[Fledermaus]

Coming from someone who doesn't have one

"Slightest shred of evidence" ? (someone is regurgitating a well worn phrase he knows nothing about)
Sherman's march through Georgia is both well known and well documented

I suggest you research it to gather your "shreds".

Then it should be simple to provide the parralels to NAZI activities in the occupied territories....

 

[Luce]

Not so popular if you live in Georgia during the war of Northern Aggression.

As we say here, "Red sky at night, means Atlanta's on fire".

Well, there's bound to be some bitterness when someone gets their ass kicked up between their shoulders.