Posted on 05/02/2017 5:06:54 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Fought the same way on both sides.
Do you think that might have been why it was prosecuted that way? Taking Atlanta was a foregone conclusion, the Confederacy couldn't stop it.
Perhaps. He had to do a lot of flanking in order to make progress which slowed him down. I have no doubt there was time pressure, especially after Grant failed to get to Richmond quickly.
There was obviously pressure, but there was very little chance of McClellan ever winning. He openly repudiated his party’s platform - primarily because the idea of the man who created the Army of the Potomac essentially surrendering that Army when it was near victory was just a disgraceful thought. McClellan was a complicated man, but he did have honor, and he did love his Army - even if he never quite seemed to know what to do with it.
To me, the fascinating part of the Election of 1864 is that the Army voted for Lincoln in numbers that vastly exceeded the rest of the population.
ping
No. Unfortunately however, he was on the wrong side.
Go read about the terror bombing of Dresden, for example, and get back to me. Do the same for the British naval blockade at the end of WWI.
True enough. Operating pretty much at the level of the Comanches, but without the torture for sport.
So answer the question. Were they war criminals?
You obviously know nothing of those incidents or lack a conscience. Dresden, for example, was a deliberate terror bombing of civilians and had no military target. They weren’t “collateral damage”. You ought to be able to figure it out for yourself. Now go wave a flag.
Third time, was it a war crime? Should the U.S. and British commanders have been charged as war criminals?
You are either a sociopath or unable to grasp the obvious.
And you can't answer the question. I guess that's the end of it then?
My answer is obvious. You apparently think that “our side” can do no wrong, even if it means murdering men, women, and children who had nothing to do with the war effort living in places that had nothing to do with the war effort. To continue the example, children in Dresden who had taken refuge in cellars with their families were baked alive. Civilians were horribly murdered in the 10s of thousands. We rightly condemn atrocities such as Lidice, Nanking, Bergen-Belsen, etc., but if we or our allies do something that we would condemn in others, it’s evidently fine with you.
How hard is it to give a straight answer? Harris, Spaatz, LeMay were war criminals and should have been tried for their crimes, win or lose. Yes or no?
Winning or losing is the issue? You know what my answer is, and I see no reason to indulge you any further. You are obviously a Red, White, and Blue hypocrite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.