Posted on 05/02/2017 5:06:54 PM PDT by BenLurkin
...Civil War historians argue opposite sides of the debate.
...
After World War II, the Nuremberg Charter defined war crimes as violations of the laws or customs of war. It lists several categories of offenses....
Murder or ill-treatment of civilians: Union artillery had barely gotten into range of Atlanta when, on July 19, 1864, Sherman ordered a bombardment of the city’s buildings: “No consideration must be paid to the fact they are occupied by families, but the place must be cannonaded.” The Yankee guns fired their first shells on July 20, and within a few days, Confederate newspapers began reporting casualties. One shell wounded a woman and killed the child she was carrying in her arms. In my book, I have concluded that the victims were the wife and child of John M. Weaver, an engineer who lived on Walton Street.
Sherman maintained a perverse determination to shell Atlanta, denying that innocent civilians still lived there. “You may fire from 10 to 15 shots from every gun you have in position into Atlanta that will reach any of its houses,” he ordered his artillery on Aug. 1. “Fire slowly and with deliberation between 4 p.m. and dark.”
...
On Sept. 4, just days after his troops entered Atlanta, Sherman dictated his Special Field Orders 67: “The City of Atlanta being exclusively required for warlike purposes, will at once be vacated by all except the Armies of the United States.” Civilians wishing to go south would be taken to Confederate lines under truce flags; the Rebels would then have to transport them on to Macon. The displaced could take some possessions, but most of their property, not to mention their homes, would be left behind.
(Excerpt) Read more at atlantaforward.blog.ajc.com ...
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.