Morally Acceptable?

With reference to the question in the OP, is this morally acceptable?

  • Total voters
    0
#226
#226
nbakerld said:
So Lincoln didn't authorize total war?

I highly doubt that 50,000 southern civilians would have died had the Civil War gone 20 years, without Sherman targeting them.

I understand that might make sense in WWII with air raids, and such, but in the Civil War when soldiers fought out in the open country, Civilians weren't dying.
Click to expand...


Do you really think Sherman is responsible for 50,000 civilian deaths? Where do you get this figure from, anyway?
 
#227
#227
I guess it would have been better for WWII to have lasted a couple of years longer so more people could be exterminated in Germany's concentration camps. Germany and Japan started the war; America was just doing what was necessary to bring it to a conclusion.
Click to expand...

German concentration camps had little to do with Hiroshima. IMO, the war could have been handled a lot better by the Allies and probably could have been avoided. Once engaged in war, the allies made blunders like demanding unconditional surrender which made total war more necessary.

I would prefer the US stayed home and traded with everyone during WWII, and we never get involved.
 
Last edited:
#228
#228
Vol_4_Life said:
Do you really think Sherman is responsible for 50,000 civilian deaths? Where do you get this figure from, anyway?
Click to expand...

Not all of them but most. 50,000 is an estimate. Ready several books about the Civil War so I'm not sure which one it was:

PIG to Civil War
PIG to American History
Real Lincoln
Robert E Lee
PIG to South
Nullification
Recarving Rushmore
Stealing the General
etc.
 
Last edited:
#231
#231
Volst53 said:
What do you think of the theory?

And if it is true than would it be Immoral to not conduct "total war"?
Click to expand...

I think that war is always immoral and evil; however, there are times when it appears to be the only way to stop greater evils and atrocities. In these times, I believe that the failure to approach war with a total war strategy is irresponsible.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#232
#232
nbakerld said:
Not all of them but most. 50,000 is an estimate. Ready several books about the Civil War so I'm not sure which one it was:

PIG to Civil War
PIG to American History
Real Lincoln
Robert E Lee
PIG to South
Nullification
Recarving Rushmore
Stealing the General
etc.
Click to expand...


How many Southern civilians do you think were killed at the hands of Federal soldiers? My bet would be very few.
 
#233
#233
Vol_4_Life said:
How many Southern civilians do you think were killed at the hands of Federal soldiers? My bet would be very few.
Click to expand...

A imagine more than a handful starved and suffered due to the policy; I imagine it was less than would hae eventually suffered had the war dragged on longer, though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#234
#234
Vol_4_Life said:
How many Southern civilians do you think were killed at the hands of Federal soldiers? My bet would be very few.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Sherman rounded them up and set in front of a firing squad. That's the only way the number could be that high.
 
#235
#235
therealUT said:
A imagine more than a handful starved and suffered due to the policy; I imagine it was less than would hae eventually suffered had the war dragged on longer, though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


I wonder if that 50,000 figure includes those who died of disease. In the mid-19th century many people died of disease even during peacetime.
 
#236
#236
therealUT said:
I think that war is always immoral and evil; however, there are times when it appears to be the only way to stop greater evils and atrocities. In these times, I believe that the failure to approach war with a total war strategy is irresponsible.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Good post. I might differ a bit by saying that there have been and are "just" wars. Maybe the difference between your view and mine are simply semantics.
 
#237
#237
IPorange said:
Spoken like an extreme non-interventionalist nutbag. Just let those Jews burn.
Click to expand...

eff the status quo.

Had America sat on their hands during WWII, we would all have free Volkswagens (assuming you're not a Jew) and we could all freely celebrate the Third Reich.
 
#238
#238
therealUT said:
I think that war is always immoral and evil; however, there are times when it appears to be the only way to stop greater evils and atrocities. In these times, I believe that the failure to approach war with a total war strategy is irresponsible.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

We agree. If you are unwilling to do whatever it takes to win a war, you still have other options than war.
 
#241
#241
justingroves said:
eff the status quo.

Had America sat on their hands during WWII, we would all have free Volkswagens (assuming you're not a Jew) and we could all freely celebrate the Third Reich.
Click to expand...

You think Germany would have conquered the US?
 
#243
#243
Vol_4_Life said:
I guess we should have looked the other way when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, too.
Click to expand...

No. But we could have declared war on Japan and only Japan. Hitler had asked Japan not to attack us and bring us into the war*.

Japan would have never attacked us had we remained neutral. We weren't neutral. We sanctioned Japan and traded with their enemies, thus we made them an enemy**. They were desperate for materials (I think rubber being a major one) to continue their war efforts. It's like Bastiat said, "when goods do not cross borders, soldiers will". Ironically, post-WWI trade sanctions crippled the German economy and Hitler's rise to power was probably impossible without them.

*Before anybody asks, I got that from New Dealer's War

**Let me make it clear that I don't think we deserved to get bombed at Pearl Harbor
 
Last edited:
#245
#245
nbakerld said:
No. But we could have declared war on Japan and only Japan. Hitler had asked Japan not to attack us and bring us into the war*.

Japan would have never attacked us had we remained neutral. We weren't neutral. We sanctioned Japan and traded with their enemies, thus we made them an enemy**. They were desperate for materials (I think rubber being a major one) to continue their war efforts. It's like Bastiat said, "when goods do not cross borders, soldiers will". Ironically, post-WWI trade sanctions crippled the German economy and Hitler's rise to power were probably impossible without them.

*Before anybody asks, I got that from New Dealer's War

**Let me make it clear that I don't think we deserved to get bombed at Pearl Harbor
Click to expand...

We did only declare war on Japan. Germany declared war on us the next day.
 
#247
#247
nbakerld said:
You think Germany would have conquered the US?
Click to expand...

With the Axis basically in control of all things Europe all the way down to N Africa and Japan having it's little thing going in the Pacific what do you think world economics would have looked like?

Then there's that little thing of the Nazis likely getting The Bomb while we sat around on the sidelines thinking about rainbows, puppies and trade agreements.

No, I don't like the idea of how things would have turned out even a little bit.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top