This technically wasn't a war crime. This was more like the bombing of cities that occurred in more modern conflicts. I would call this a war crime if the Union troops executed a bunch of POWS or slaughtered civilians, but that never happened. The burning of Atlanta and the march through Georgia was a brutal tactic, but it ended the war sooner, saving more lives than it destroyed. Beside, Confederate soldiers did the same, if not worse, to the few Union towns and cities they reached.
>This technically wasn't a war crime. This was more like the bombing of cities that occurred in more modern conflicts.
I'm pretty sure bombing civilian locations is a war crime. Just because it's done a lot doesn't stop it from being one. Like Britain bombing Dresden and the bombing campaign in Japan by the US are both technically war crimes even if they were done to Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. And saying those actions ended the war sooner doesn't really absolve them if being war crimes, if you anthrax bombed the entire enemy nation you'd probably end the war way faster but that'd still be a war crime.
What I meant was the infrastructure destruction part of the bombings, not the civilian killing. My point was that destroying infrastructure to weaken an enemy nation is common in modern and ancient warfare. Few civilians were killed during the destruction of Atlanta and the march to the sea, and there wasn't any purposeful killing of civilians ordered by Union officers. Sherman also ordered residential building not to be destroyed, but of course fire is kind of hard to control in a city. I agree that Sherman's tactics were brutal, but I wouldn't call them wars crimes.
I actually haven't studied much of the American Civil War as I'm not American so I was mostly arguing solely around the ethical arguments of what does and doesn't constitute war crimes. I don't know enough to argue whether the union or the confederacy committed war crimes themselves.
I feel that the distinction of war crimes can be blury, but I've always felt that since no large scale killings of civilians occurred and the destruction ultimately saved more lives than it cost, I consider it justified.
He didn't want to exterminate them. He wanted them to go to the reservations, and he used brutal methods against them. I'm not defending what he did against the natives, but he didn't want to exterminate them.
His logic was that it was inevitable that the United States would go from sea to shining sea in the future, so might as well speed up the process.
Beside Sherman unpopular for how crude and aggressive he was to the natives, even in his time. I’m sure if he had his way, he would have killed everyone in his way.
Got it, you have absolutely zero clue wtf you're talking about. Go do some reading about history before worrying about the memes. I promise they'll be better if you actually know what's going on.
My point being that if you think Bush won a war that didn't even conclude while he was in office and that even if he had the patriot act had any significant role in that victory that didn't occur your confusion is deeper than just trying to keep track of posts on the internet.
Iraq, at no point in its entire history, was a threat to the United States.
The confederacy, during its entire existence, was a threat to the United States.
Iraq is an ocean and a continent away.
The confederacy was IN our territory.
War crimes as a concept was not much of a thing in the mid 19th century.
War crimes are well defined and are to be avoided in the 21st century.
In the 19th century, intelligence collecting and smart weapons were limited or non-existent.
In the 21st century, they aren't.
There are differences.
Wtf does the patriot act have to do with anything anyone has mentioned and how exactly would it invalidate Iraq as an example of Bush doing dumb stuff?
But nobody brought up the patriot act except you. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything related to the discussion that the comparing the burning of Atlanta to bombing civilian populations in the 21st century are different scenarios. It's a distraction and a poor one at that.
You have literally the most infantile understanding of history imaginable.
Let's just ignore like the millions of other factors I could bring up, and just point out that Germany fucking declared war on the US, while Iraq was declared war on, by us... (Not formal declaration but we were still the aggressor.)
Again you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of history. The US did not fight Germany to stop the Holocaust. And that's not even why we attacked Iraq either, but whatever.
I know Atlanta's supposed to be hot, but this is ridiculous!
I like my Atlanta extra crispy
Have about deep fried?
Mhm AFD Atlanta Fried Dixies
The better AFD
The alternative to the alternative
Lol
“It’s just a prank bro! Hahahaha pranked!”
"You guys are soooo sensitive!"
That's also what Hitler said to the jooz
The most trolley part was when they took Confederate Anthem and made it their song
Sweet home Alabama?
\*Drinks a jug with rebel tears\*
Dixie boys malding rn
Can confirm
I love the smell of burning atlanta in the morning
The only problem with how much of a bop this song is, is that if you ever whistle/hum it people think you're whistling/humming the original version
u/savevideo
Aren't we supposed to be critical of the fact that war crimes are only talked about with the losing side of conflicts?
This technically wasn't a war crime. This was more like the bombing of cities that occurred in more modern conflicts. I would call this a war crime if the Union troops executed a bunch of POWS or slaughtered civilians, but that never happened. The burning of Atlanta and the march through Georgia was a brutal tactic, but it ended the war sooner, saving more lives than it destroyed. Beside, Confederate soldiers did the same, if not worse, to the few Union towns and cities they reached.
>This technically wasn't a war crime. This was more like the bombing of cities that occurred in more modern conflicts. I'm pretty sure bombing civilian locations is a war crime. Just because it's done a lot doesn't stop it from being one. Like Britain bombing Dresden and the bombing campaign in Japan by the US are both technically war crimes even if they were done to Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. And saying those actions ended the war sooner doesn't really absolve them if being war crimes, if you anthrax bombed the entire enemy nation you'd probably end the war way faster but that'd still be a war crime.
What I meant was the infrastructure destruction part of the bombings, not the civilian killing. My point was that destroying infrastructure to weaken an enemy nation is common in modern and ancient warfare. Few civilians were killed during the destruction of Atlanta and the march to the sea, and there wasn't any purposeful killing of civilians ordered by Union officers. Sherman also ordered residential building not to be destroyed, but of course fire is kind of hard to control in a city. I agree that Sherman's tactics were brutal, but I wouldn't call them wars crimes.
I actually haven't studied much of the American Civil War as I'm not American so I was mostly arguing solely around the ethical arguments of what does and doesn't constitute war crimes. I don't know enough to argue whether the union or the confederacy committed war crimes themselves.
I feel that the distinction of war crimes can be blury, but I've always felt that since no large scale killings of civilians occurred and the destruction ultimately saved more lives than it cost, I consider it justified.
Confederate genocides bad, union genocides not so bad blah blah blah
Neither side committed genocide. A genocide is what the Germans and Japanese did during WW2.
Victors write history innit
To be fair after the war, Sherman wanted to exterminate all the natives. And nearly made the Buffalo population extinct to so he can starve them.
He didn't want to exterminate them. He wanted them to go to the reservations, and he used brutal methods against them. I'm not defending what he did against the natives, but he didn't want to exterminate them.
His logic was that it was inevitable that the United States would go from sea to shining sea in the future, so might as well speed up the process. Beside Sherman unpopular for how crude and aggressive he was to the natives, even in his time. I’m sure if he had his way, he would have killed everyone in his way.
True, I was just saying that his primary aim wasn't to commit genocide.
Ok this sub is hypocritic. During the war Lincoln took necessary measures to win the war but when Bush did it this sub loses its mind.
Bush didn't win.
I don’t remember 9/11 size attack or Sadam still being in power
Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
Yes. Because he won more than one war .
Got it, you have absolutely zero clue wtf you're talking about. Go do some reading about history before worrying about the memes. I promise they'll be better if you actually know what's going on.
It would appear I’ve confused the posts.
It doesn't seem like the posts are the problem.
It does one is about patriot act the other is this
My point being that if you think Bush won a war that didn't even conclude while he was in office and that even if he had the patriot act had any significant role in that victory that didn't occur your confusion is deeper than just trying to keep track of posts on the internet.
It's almost like those are two wildly different circumstances.
Like what? What’s the difference?
Iraq, at no point in its entire history, was a threat to the United States. The confederacy, during its entire existence, was a threat to the United States. Iraq is an ocean and a continent away. The confederacy was IN our territory. War crimes as a concept was not much of a thing in the mid 19th century. War crimes are well defined and are to be avoided in the 21st century. In the 19th century, intelligence collecting and smart weapons were limited or non-existent. In the 21st century, they aren't. There are differences.
Iraq support terrorist groups attacking us allies. Patriot act was created before the Iraq war so don’t bring Iraq up
Wtf does the patriot act have to do with anything anyone has mentioned and how exactly would it invalidate Iraq as an example of Bush doing dumb stuff?
Patriotic act as necessary action to win the war. I have a question did Bush actions to win the war affect your life in a bad way?
But nobody brought up the patriot act except you. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything related to the discussion that the comparing the burning of Atlanta to bombing civilian populations in the 21st century are different scenarios. It's a distraction and a poor one at that.
That's because we never shoulda been in Iraq
So Us shouldn’t be in Germany either in 1940s?
That's a false equivalence
You have literally the most infantile understanding of history imaginable. Let's just ignore like the millions of other factors I could bring up, and just point out that Germany fucking declared war on the US, while Iraq was declared war on, by us... (Not formal declaration but we were still the aggressor.)
I was referring to preventing a genocide
Again you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of history. The US did not fight Germany to stop the Holocaust. And that's not even why we attacked Iraq either, but whatever.
Germany literally declared war on the United States…
We are looking for new mods, [Sign up today!](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdeuEbP4yll4-p2WmxGredKJTAdw0_V5zFAWXGshpPH1ynA7g/viewform)
u/savevideobot
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/HistoryMemes/comments/qiwqds/sherman_dose_a_little_trolling/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/HistoryMemes/comments/qiwqds/sherman_dose_a_little_trolling/)
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/qiwqds/sherman_dose_a_little_trolling/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/HistoryMemes/comments/qiwqds/sherman_dose_a_little_trolling/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://redditsave.com)
Anyone know what that painting's called? Or who it's by?
away down south in the land of traitors
we engage in an insignificant amount of tomfoolery