Skip to comments.Sherman in Gaza [VDH]
Posted on 08/20/2014 5:31:44 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
His march through Georgia has been gravely misunderstood ― as has Israels strategy in Gaza.
William Tecumseh Sherman 150 years ago took Atlanta before heading out on his infamous March to the Sea to make Georgia howl. He remains one of the most controversial and misunderstood figures in American military history. Sherman was an attritionist, not an annihilationist a strategist who believed in attacking the sources that fuel and field an army rather than butting heads against the army itself. To review his career is to shed light on why the Israeli Defense Forces were both effective in Gaza and hated even more for being so effective.
Much of the South has hated William Tecumseh Sherman for over a century and a half, but not because his huge army killed thousands of young Confederate soldiers (it did not). Grant did that well enough in the horrific summer of 1864 outside Richmond. Rather, Sherman humiliated the plantationist class by staging three long marches during the last twelve months of the Civil War from Tennessee to Atlanta, from Atlanta to Savannah, and from Savannah up through the Carolinas. In each of these brilliantly conducted invasions, Sherman, with a few notable exceptions, sought to avoid direct fighting with Confederate forces, either outflanking opposing armies that popped up in his way, or entrenching and letting aggressors wear themselves out against his fortified lines. He did enormous material damage, as he boasted that his enemies could do nothing to impede his progress humiliation being central to his mission.
Instead of fighting pitched battles, Sherman was interested in three larger strategic agendas. War in his mind was not a struggle between militaries so much as between the willpower of entire peoples ....
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
There are a lot of Southerners on Free Republic. You’re not likelly to win much support for a thread celebrating Sherman’s genius.
War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.
A some point, after all of the history, intellectualizing and analysis, you simply fight for your own tribe. I am a Southerner. I do not care much for Sherman.
At some point...
not just southerners...ex-yankees, thinkers, etc!!!
aka: Gunny G
I am a native Southerner (waiting for the accusations to fly).
I admire Sherman only in that he determined what needed to be done and then did it—with brutal efficiency—likely ending the war sooner than otherwise.
Patton was cut from the same cloth.
War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.
Oh, for leadership like that today. Please, God, bring us leaders like Sherman. In Jesus’ Name. Amen.
This VDH article is about successful tactics in a war and that the IDF is waging its war against Hamas with true genius.
And yes, it is still possible that this turns into a re-litigating the civil war thread ....
They say Adolph Hitler was very intelligent too. Attributing the IDF tactics to W.T. Sherman is a joke. Sherman’s ethos was the opposite of Israel’s.
Ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tsu said that the real target of the general is not the enemy’s army. The real target is to destroy the enemy’s willingness to fight you.
“They” who? Give Nazi weapons of the time to someone even of average intelligence and WWII becomes orders of magnitude tougher for the Allies to win. Certainly no unconditional surrender in ‘45. Hitler was a military moron, thank God.
Since we have unionized the American school system, there are no more 'teachers,' only 'educators.' The average student nowadays know less and less history with each passing year and what they are actually taught in the classroom from Kindergarten to Grad School is not actual history but rather different shades of leftest opinion squeezed more and more by the changing political correctness of the unions' patron, the Democrat Party.
As we see happening in Ferguson, it ain't what actually happened that matters... it is how much loot there is and how it can fill the coffers of the race baiting Democrat Party.
Sherman isn’t hated in the South for “humiliating” the plantation class. He’s hated for deeds such as burning down Columbia, SC.
As usual, Victor Davis Hanson provides keen insights and a thorough understanding of the subject matter.
Sherman was obviously a military genius. It is true that he destroyed the Southern economy and institutions so violently that it took over a century to recover. However, he did not slaughter the people; for this he is to be commended.
The greatest mistake of the Confederacy is that it did not free the slaves and appeal to the British Empire for deliverance. Secession was legal.
VDH stuns me with his insight - Sherman was hated because he humiliated the south by driving thru their territory with impunity - not only cutting off their 'bullets and beans ' but showing the folly of continuing .
It is sad that Patton (our second Greatest General behind Washington) would never make it past corporal in Obama’s PC military.
I agree. God Bless the South.
Sherman was a traitor. He was from Louisiana. In fact, he founded LSU. This is why he left the plantations in Louisiana alone.
History shows that Sherman's march through Georgia and the Carolinas brought that war to an end far sooner than it would have otherwise. And he did it with far fewer deaths than others would have.
Traitor?! There’s more crying in baseball than traitors in The Civil War. Sherman simply chose to succeed from the Confederacy, as was his God-given right.
Sherman was born and raised in Ohio. Shortly before the war he was appointed president of a school that would much later become LSU. When states began seceding, military men had to choose weather to stay loyal to their oaths to the Union and the Constitution or to side with the rebellion. Sherman chose the Constitution.
As for burning plantations in Louisiana, I don’t think he ever set foot there during the war. In fact, Louisiana was pretty much out of the war after the fall of Vicksburg and union control of the Mississippi in the summer of 1863. It would make no sense to burn anything there since none of their goods went to the Confederate side.
Study W.T. Sherman the man sometime. You might change your mind about his “ethics”.
Sherman was Jewish????
Who knew LOL!
This one is a keeper.
Hey Bender I know what you mean
My teenage cousin had teacher who believe Alaska was part of Russia STILL
When I hear that I march down the school rip F-bomb on her a***
That very true story
After that teacher kept her mouth shut about anything about Alaska so Sarah Palin my time in Alaska and Deadliest catch series mention of it
It ban at this school SERIOUSLY LOL!
Real funny. Compare Robert E. Lee’s admiration and support in the North after the war, versus W.T. Sherman’s denigration in the South. Sherman was a creep who in his own memoirs admitted to a certain satisfaction in “making war” his way.
Saint Robert is mostly a post war myth created by the losers, as is the evil Sherman myth created by the same losers. Both men were good soldiers who served their causes loyally.
It would be better if you read real history instead of buying into the myths.
History? LOL. By your own admition, “history” is a myth created by the “winner.” How’s Lincoln’s America working out for you Yankee?
He didn’t found LSU; he was its first superintendent. And he was never deployed in Louisiana.
He was actually born in Ohio.
Lincolns America would work just fine if we still had it. We’re living in LBJ’s and FDR’s America and the solid south voted for both of them.
Tyrants borrow from each other. Lincoln was not the first, he just made it much easier for men like Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and Obama. Of course history-challenged folks like you pick and choose between “good” tyrants like Lincoln, and “bad” tyrants like FDR and LBJ.
First because of all the animosity that get stirred up.
Second, because the comparison is sketchy and not very clear or very close.
William Tecumseh Sherman 150 years ago took Atlanta..
He borrowed just long enough for the Confederates to destroy it.
Talk about Federal overreach, what the hell was the Fugitive Slave Act? The first time Congress interfered with state laws and the first time Federal law could force citizens to bow to their will.
You have selective history comprehension.
In 1860, most people knew secession would bring war. Your claims that “Secession is legal” were not the majority opinion even then. The only question then was if the loyal states would stand up to it or not. The arrogant Slave Power guessed wrong just as smart Southern leaders like Sam Houston warned them.
When the idiot Jeff Davis ordered the firing on Sumter, he drove the loyal states into supporting war. The other thing that amazes me about you guys is that you think that the US has sucked for the last 150 years. Why the hell are you still here if it sucks so bad?
Why am I here? I’m living in the South. Your ignorance about Sumter is typical. Public school?
What is my “ignorance” about Sumter? Please tell all wise guru.
NOTHING is over until WE say it is ............
I’m still waiting for you to detail my ignorance about the events at Sumter.
Um, nope. That would be Tzfat, not I.
“Hitler was a military moron, thank God.”
I on one of the NYT daily WWII threads that by mid 1944 the allies had no intention of trying to kill Hitler as he was too valuable for our side to lose.
“The purpose of an army is to kill people and break things. “
That’s a clever quip by a talk show host, it’s not military science. The purpose of an army is to impose your will, it’s an extension of politics. This can be accomplished by blockades and sieges. The first strategic move by the Union was Scott’s Anaconda, the blockade of southern ports.
Fans of Sherman and the Union in general should keep in mind that American citizens were the targets of their violence. Lincoln denied that the Confederacy existed. In his view there were no “Confederate citizens”, there were only rebellious citizens of the United States. And Congress didn’t declare war. It funded Lincoln’s use of the army to suppress an insurrection by American citizens in rebellious American states.
Someday a President like an Obama might declare that Americans who refuse to follow his executive orders are in rebellion. And in need of the sort of correction that was used in the past. Lincoln raised the army and blockaded ports and suspended habeus corpus all on his own, while Congress was not in session. If a President were to do this again I wonder if he would get his own Temple built in Washington DC and be hailed as the best President ever?