Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A sensitive question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    No one said that 'offense always wins.' What was stated is that you cannot win sitting on the defense. There is a difference.

    And Germany defeated Russia on the Eastern Front. That fact is generally overlooked.

    Airpower did change warfare, and some of the air commanders realized that. However, that 'change' did not take place until War II. The same applies to armor. Artillery had become a battle winner in the Napoleonic period and continued to improve.
    Suffice it to say, WWI was the end of static war,. Where to start? Out of that experience came the birth of mobile war. It was a senseless waste of life. Most wars are, but WWI was death on an industrial level.
    The only winners were the flies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    Of course one side is on offense and the other on defense. But the assumption that offense always wins is false.

    Air power changed warfare, as did improvements in artillery and armor but more importantly the death of a generation that finally convinced citizens their leadership where incompetent butchers.
    Germany did run out of gas, after millions died in the trenches, but the war was also fought on frozen eastern fronts where the defenders held the advantage, in the Carpathians where the Austrians proved how not to conduct offensive war, and in the Italian Alps. 600,000 dead Italians and 400,000 dead Austrians in what was a sideshow to the western front...imagine
    No one said that 'offense always wins.' What was stated is that you cannot win sitting on the defense. There is a difference.

    And Germany defeated Russia on the Eastern Front. That fact is generally overlooked.

    Airpower did change warfare, and some of the air commanders realized that. However, that 'change' did not take place until War II. The same applies to armor. Artillery had become a battle winner in the Napoleonic period and continued to improve.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Battles are 'usually' defensive on one side and offensive on the other. Gettysburg was a defensive battle for the Union, but not for the Confederacy.

    Gallipoli was a British offensive action that degenerated into a meat grinder. The Turks were defending.

    In War I, airpower had little if any influence on the land fighting. Armor was in its infancy and it was the infantry and artillery that made any offensive gains. The Germans had few tanks, and developed tactics, commonly known as 'Hutier tactics' for infantry and artillery breakthroughs which worked well in 1918 until the Germans ran out of gas.
    Of course one side is on offense and the other on defense. But the assumption that offense always wins is false.

    Air power changed warfare, as did improvements in artillery and armor but more importantly the death of a generation that finally convinced citizens their leadership where incompetent butchers.
    Germany did run out of gas, after millions died in the trenches, but the war was also fought on frozen eastern fronts where the defenders held the advantage, in the Carpathians where the Austrians proved how not to conduct offensive war, and in the Italian Alps. 600,000 dead Italians and 400,000 dead Austrians in what was a sideshow to the western front...imagine

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    The south could not match the Union in any offensive operations in Union states, That leaves them one option and that was defense, and they ultimately failed at that too. But is that not the rule for most revolutions and rebellions? Offense may be tactical in a rebellion and a revolution, but seldom do those forces have the men and material to mount an strategic offense.
    As it pertains to WWI, the defensive nature of trench warfare made that conflict a meat grinder on an unimaginable scale.
    Gettysburg was a defensive battle. Gallipoli was a defensive campaign that lasted months and gained the allies with nothing but a lot of dead young lades, for what?
    In the Great War, without the development of airpower and armor, God only knows how it would have concluded.
    Battles are 'usually' defensive on one side and offensive on the other. Gettysburg was a defensive battle for the Union, but not for the Confederacy.

    Gallipoli was a British offensive action that degenerated into a meat grinder. The Turks were defending.

    In War I, airpower had little if any influence on the land fighting. Armor was in its infancy and it was the infantry and artillery that made any offensive gains. The Germans had few tanks, and developed tactics, commonly known as 'Hutier tactics' for infantry and artillery breakthroughs which worked well in 1918 until the Germans ran out of gas.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    The allies won by finally going on the offensive on the Western Front.

    And those offensives, which included the American offensive operations at St Mihiel and the Argonne, broke the German army. The only great mistake made at the end of the war was to require the German Army to surrender. Because of that, Pershing believed that it would all have to be done again. And he was correct.

    Allenby won in the Middle East by going on the offensive.

    Questions?
    The south could not match the Union in any offensive operations in Union states, That leaves them one option and that was defense, and they ultimately failed at that too. But is that not the rule for most revolutions and rebellions? Offense may be tactical in a rebellion and a revolution, but seldom do those forces have the men and material to mount an strategic offense.
    As it pertains to WWI, the defensive nature of trench warfare made that conflict a meat grinder on an unimaginable scale.
    Gettysburg was a defensive battle. Gallipoli was a defensive campaign that lasted months and gained the allies with nothing but a lot of dead young lades, for what?
    In the Great War, without the development of airpower and armor, God only knows how it would have concluded.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    Generally, tell that to the millions of soldiers who died in WWI.
    The allies won by finally going on the offensive on the Western Front.

    And those offensives, which included the American offensive operations at St Mihiel and the Argonne, broke the German army. The only great mistake made at the end of the war was to require the German Army to surrender. Because of that, Pershing believed that it would all have to be done again. And he was correct.

    Allenby won in the Middle East by going on the offensive.

    Questions?

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    Generally speaking, fighting a 'defensive war' and overall staying on the defensive is not a winning strategy.
    Generally, tell that to the millions of soldiers who died in WWI.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Generally speaking, fighting a 'defensive war' and overall staying on the defensive is not a winning strategy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by AL1947 View Post
    New to this forum. I was amazed to see that a conversation has generated conversation for seven years. The comments are quite interesting. So here's my take.

    Since starting my research of the Civil War I have somewhat ignored the constitution and what part of our constitution covers secession. So I pulled up my digital copy and somewhat to my surprise the words secede or secession are not to be found in the constitution however Treason is covered.

    So to the original question:

    From a legal viewpoint, the answer must be Yes for Treason. When Governor Pickens seized the U.S Arsenal in Charleston by armed militia, that was an act of Treason which led to war. So technically speaking, the governor's and legislator's of the seceding states should have been prosecuted for Treason. Likewise the military commander's for waging war for the seceded states. After the war they could have been pardoned. Maryland's legislator's were in fact arrested and imprisoned early in the war by the U.S. Army but I'm not sure if they were charged and brought to trial, my research is based solely on military records and nothing is reported following the arrests.

    By the time Lee surrendered to Grant the war had been hard fought by the south but it no longer made sense to drag it out longer, the south was in bad shape and Lee knew it. If you look at the census of 1860, it is a wealth of information concerning the two sides prior to the war. Build a spreadsheet and compare the numbers, south vs north. The south clearly did not have the wherewithal to be waging a war, even with foreign aide.
    Welcome to the forum, I agree with your take on the charge of treason, by the time of Lee's surrender the Lincoln administration just wanted to reunite the country and put the war behind us.
    The south did however put up one hell of a fight all things considered, putting everything into perspective, the Union went from a small frontier army of 16,760 enlisted men and 1,108 officers., by 1865 over 2 million men were in uniform. The CSA went from zero to a little over 1 million.
    Who knows what the outcome would have been if the south had been better capitalized. They were fighting a defensive war which should be an advantage. but they could not last long trading space and man power for time...Time is what they didn't have, The longer the war went on the weaker they became.

    Leave a comment:


  • AL1947
    replied
    New to this forum. I was amazed to see that a conversation has generated conversation for seven years. The comments are quite interesting. So here's my take.

    Since starting my research of the Civil War I have somewhat ignored the constitution and what part of our constitution covers secession. So I pulled up my digital copy and somewhat to my surprise the words secede or secession are not to be found in the constitution however Treason is covered.

    So to the original question:
    Should the Confederate leadership been arrested and tried as traitors?
    From a legal viewpoint, the answer must be Yes for Treason. When Governor Pickens seized the U.S Arsenal in Charleston by armed militia, that was an act of Treason which led to war. So technically speaking, the governor's and legislator's of the seceding states should have been prosecuted for Treason. Likewise the military commander's for waging war for the seceded states. After the war they could have been pardoned. Maryland's legislator's were in fact arrested and imprisoned early in the war by the U.S. Army but I'm not sure if they were charged and brought to trial, my research is based solely on military records and nothing is reported following the arrests.

    By the time Lee surrendered to Grant the war had been hard fought by the south but it no longer made sense to drag it out longer, the south was in bad shape and Lee knew it. If you look at the census of 1860, it is a wealth of information concerning the two sides prior to the war. Build a spreadsheet and compare the numbers, south vs north. The south clearly did not have the wherewithal to be waging a war, even with foreign aide.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by daddut roger View Post

    And finally, as they say in my house "There is no worse deaf person than one who does not want to hear", so I stop this sterile discussion there...
    An astute and accurate assessment-right on the money.

    Leave a comment:


  • daddut roger
    replied
    Originally posted by American87 View Post

    So you're arguing secession was illegal—good, that's the point.

    The X Ammendment is clear. It gives states the right to secede, along with all other powers that are not given to the federal government.

    The onus is on you to show that the Union was/is perpetual. Do you really think its perpeutal? Is it impossible for the states to leave, no matter how cruel and unnecessary the federal government is? Why couldn't a state or states just leave? What's stopping them?
    Or if you mean it's against the law to secede, then what are you basing your opinion on?
    I never said that secession was illegal, you interpret the words of others to your advantage ...
    I only said that a "Confederation" was illegal .... because prohibited by the Constitution

    .......... That a State chooses legal means (political and juridical) to separate, it is one thing (like West Virginia)... and unless it is accepted by a vote of Congress ... and that the said State then declares itself to be an independent Republic should be acceptable (the Republic of South Carolina had existed __ but illegally__ from December 20, 1860 to February 8, 1861)
    .......... But that States leave the Union to constitute a "Confederation", that was considered as "association of criminals" (I'm joking)

    The concept of "perpetual" is indicated in the preamble to "Articles of Confederation"
    When drafting the Constitution, the Founding Fathers did not see fit to take up this notion, because I think that for them this idea was obvious.

    And finally, as they say in my house "There is no worse deaf person than one who does not want to hear", so I stop this sterile discussion there...

    Leave a comment:


  • 82redleg
    replied
    Originally posted by American87 View Post

    So you're arguing secession was illegal—good, that's the point.

    The X Ammendment is clear. It gives states the right to secede, along with all other powers that are not given to the federal government.

    The onus is on you to show that the Union was/is perpetual. Do you really think its perpeutal? Is it impossible for the states to leave, no matter how cruel and unnecessary the federal government is? Why couldn't a state or states just leave? What's stopping them?
    Or if you mean it's against the law to secede, then what are you basing your opinion on?
    I don't think we're going to get through to him- he is convinced, and cannot accept that others could have good faith disagreements.

    Leave a comment:


  • American87
    replied
    Originally posted by daddut roger View Post

    To imitate you with your metaphor on the contract:
    when you open your refrigerator, and you see that one of the foods has expired, you throw it away and buy a new product ...

    But now, the Constitution of the United States has no expiration date !!!!! It means "perpetual"

    I have shown you, with proof, that Confederation is illegal ...
    Your turn to show us where in the Constitution, it is clearly noted that secession is legal, no longer quote the 10th Amendment, nothing like it is written, in it ...
    So you're arguing secession was illegal—good, that's the point.

    The X Ammendment is clear. It gives states the right to secede, along with all other powers that are not given to the federal government.

    The onus is on you to show that the Union was/is perpetual. Do you really think its perpeutal? Is it impossible for the states to leave, no matter how cruel and unnecessary the federal government is? Why couldn't a state or states just leave? What's stopping them?
    Or if you mean it's against the law to secede, then what are you basing your opinion on?

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by 82redleg View Post

    You've got it backwards- if the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit secession, then it is allowed. It is not a case of a requirement for the power to be specified to the states- those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are retained to the states. Your conception that the union is perpetual is not agreed to before 1861- otherwise, we wouldn't have had the Hartford Convention or had to fight a war to resolve the issue.
    Please explain the logic of 'if the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit secession, then it is allowed.' And where can that idea be found in the Federalist Papers or any other supporting document?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X