 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Action by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case lead directly to the formation of the Republican party, which consisted of those opposed slavery and popular sovereignty. In other words, the Court ruled in sympathy to the Southern position and the result was heightened tension that led directly to secession. There is no reason to think that either side would have complied with a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
Of course that war ended in independence for the aggrieved party, whereas in the War of North Aggression the aggrieved party was enslaved and subjugated by force of arms. |
The aggrieved party was the North. The South started the war. They were the ones that thought it was OK to enslave people so they reaped what they sowed.
You sound like a bully that is complaining about losing a fight that he picked. It not his fault it was the other guy that was the bad guy.
The South started it. The South lost it a hundred and thirty years ago. Isn't about time the South got over it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
The South was conquered and occupied in a brutally oppressive, illegal, and cruel war. |
Aren't all wars cruel, oppressive, and in a sense, illegal?
I concur with Ethelred.
Yet, Who really cares who started a war? There is nothing any one can do about that now. Nor can we change the fact the South lost, acceptance is the only option...resistance is futile. hehe
To the matter at hand:
Lame unit? The dogs sound rather lame, but I find any komakazi unit stupid... As for silly or pathetic, how 'bout the the French who launched animals at their enemies when they ran out of ammo. That would be funny to see now, and is rather pathetic. Also, the entire Canadian "army" (just a joke)... The most pathetic would have to combine futility and komakazi stupidity, so I will say suicide bombers...that is just plan pathetic.
Here's a nugget for thought; If the invasion on Normandy was not successful in thurning the tide of WWII would we call the US and Brithish marines pathetic? How bout with any successful battle had it been botched? Even the dogs could have been effective.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giovanni Wine
|
 |
Torino, Italian Wine Capital
May 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
-Just about any Italian unit during WWII |
I wouldn't say that.
What really lacked Italy during WW2 were generals and true military strategist.
The Italian Army of that time had the problem that only a little part of their generals had a career in the military, most of them were just appointed to that position, and had no clue on how to direct an army.
Same thing for most of the officers.
The units were not too bad, the "Maiale" or "human-torpedo" was a very good unit, the Italian Folgore, which pioneerd para attacks were between the best, the Bersaglieri and the Alpini troops were actually WANTED by Hitler to join the Russian campaign, and they performed so well that the Soviet declared that the Italian army was the only one that never lost in Russia.
And some people even say that the Italian army in Russia performed the last succesfull cavalry charge in history (although I think the Russian actually did it a few years later)
Italian units which were really bad were the armored forces (they say that the Italian tanks during the Africa campaign were so weak they couldn't even make an hole in the British tank armor, while the british could easily blow up an Italian tank) and the Italian Air Force units were really crappy ones.
But I would definetly save the infantry units and most of the naval units, they were very good, they just had a bad leadership.
Saluti
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:22
|
|
Whatever unit Custer was in charge of at Little Bighorn.
Last edited by DinoDoc on 05-10-2002 at 00:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
Action by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case lead directly to the formation of the Republican party, which consisted of those opposed slavery and popular sovereignty. In other words, the Court ruled in sympathy to the Southern position and the result was heightened tension that led directly to secession. There is no reason to think that either side would have complied with a Supreme Court ruling on the matter. |
From the South's point of view, the Civil War was a complete catastrophe. Their civilization and way of life were extinguished.
More than 500,000 Americans lost their lives, and tens of thousands more were maimed and crippled. As well, the property damage in the South was tremendous.
This is one of those wars that should have been avoided. There had to be a solution to the problems of states rights and slavery that would have acceptable to all. The referee, of course, was the Supreme Court. I am only surprised that the South chose to the fight on the battlefield rather than in the Supreme Court, where, as you say, they were doing quite well.
We have discussed here in other threads that a just war requires more than a just cause. It requires the party initiating the hostilities have a very good chance of winning. I would think that it was obvious that the South had no realistic chance to win an armed conflict with the North. Thus it seems to me they should have been trying to avoid conflict at all costs. This is why I find it hard to believe that they never even tried resolving this disputes in the Supreme Court.
Last edited by Ned on 05-10-2002 at 03:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giovanni Wine
|
|
Torino, Italian Wine Capital
May 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Giovanni,
I wasn't being totally serious. I'm sure a lot of it was equipment and leadership, but the Italian army didn't fare too well in WWII - starting with Ethiopia, continuing to Albania, and then in N. Africa. I'm glad you don't appear to have taken offense.
Funny that JohnMcLeod beat you to the Cavalry charge thing by 5 minutes. What about the Russian charge you referred to?
-Arrian |
No Offense of course
I just wanted to correct you, but yes, I must agree that the Italian Army in WW2 didn't performed well at all, they lost in every front the fought, so...
About the Russian, I know for sure that they still used cavalry till the mid 50s, and that they even had some cavalry charges in the '44 during WW2 (The cavalry was very used thanks to the vast opeb spaces and to the better manovrability of the tanks)
Although I don't know exactly, when, where and if they were succesfull.
Saluti
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
From the South's point of view, the Civil War was a complete catastrophe. Their civilization and way of life were extinguished.
More than 500,000 Americans lost their lives, and tens of thousands more were maimed and crippled. As well, the property damage in the South was tremendous.
This is one of those wars that should have been avoided. There had to be a solution to the problems of states rights and slavery that would have acceptable to all. The referee, of course, was the Supreme Court. I am only surprised that the South chose to the fight on the battlefield rather than in the Supreme Court, where, as you say, they were doing quite well.
We have discussed here in other threads that it a just war requires more than a just cause. It requires the party initiating the hostilities have a very good chance of winning. I would think that it was obvious that the South had no realistic chance to win an armed conflict with the North. Thus it seems to me they should have been trying to avoid conflict at all costs. This is why I find it hard to believe that they never even tried resolving this disputes in the Supreme Court. |
Very little of what you say here makes any sense to me. Yes, the war was catastrophic. The South lost its freedom and right of self determination.
The best solution to the slavery question would have been for the Federalist north to allow the society in the south to evolve naturally rather than to impose its will on sovereign states. The Northern claim to the moral high ground must be viewed with a grain of salt. The North allowed and even participated in slavery for many years and had little to lose economically by its abolition. Slavery's deep roots stretched world wide and existed for thousands of years before the North determined to use violence to abolish an institution that any sane man knew was dying by stages.
As to the issue as to whether the South had a realistic chance to safeguard its independance against Federal agression, of course there was a realistic chance. The fact that it took five years and the death of one half millon to resolve the conflict is confirming evidence.
A just war is not determined by the chance of victory or defeat. To fight for freedom even in the face of insurmountable odds is not merely just, but an example of the utimate nobility of the human soul.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traianvs
|
 |
Belgium, land of plenty (corruption)
Jan 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
The Persian army who couldn't beat a lousy 300 Spartans. |
Well it was more than that  they also had several allies (of which most fleed before the final battle where the spartans were slaughtered) and let's not forget that every spartan soldier had 8 helot slaves as light armed troops etc... on top of that, the pass was extremely easy to defend, with a wall to block a frontal assault...
and, let's not forget the greek pikes were very long, and outranged the persian spears (or whatever weapon they had) by far, and also the pass was so narrow that the persian force didn't really have enough space to manoeuvre well...
I'd say they had so many casualties due to bad leadership... all the other battles they had lost were only due to bad leadership (though a great deal of luck for the greeks did play a role, such as many persian ships being wrecked in several storms, and other smaller lucky events that eventually did help a lot!!). However again, Darius the fool was one stupid leader
The battle at cannae was not because of worthless roman units, on the contrary, the crushing defeat was only, and ONLY because of the superb leadership of Hannibal (which was, undoubtedly, together with Pyrrhus one of the best ancient generals ever)... Hannibal was never defeated in battle in Italy (he was defeated near Zuma in North Africa later though) however he sometimes sent troops elsewhere or got reinforcements under other generals... the romans knew that of course, and those battles they won, due to their superior army
the most useless troops must have been the Belgian army in WW2, (they surrendered after a long and tough battle of like 8 days or something!!!) i thought the only thing the nazis had to do was capture a stronghold near Namur, LOL 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
You really don't understand war at all. The Germans had an superbly trained military but attacked a major city and exhausted its resources. |
Actually, by summer of 1943 the German Army had showed a remarkable recovery, winning several tactical victories in the Ukraine. The Kursk offensive destroyed this recovery, and the next year, Operation Bagration tore the entire Army Group Centre apart.
As to a "superbly trained military", this was definitely true at the beginning of the war, but the Eastern Front devastated the German military's NCOs and junior officers, and Hitler sacked or misused the best senior commanders.
I'm no fan of the Red Army, mind you - without the Western Allies and Lend Lease it still would have lost - it's just that you're misstating the facts.
quote:
The only redeeming quality the Russians had were the snipers they had in Stalingrad. |
The T-34 and the Iosef Stalin tanks weren't so bad either, nor were the Sturmoviks or the Katyushkas. There was far more to the Eastern Front than Stalingrad - yes, Stalingrad probably precluded anything better than a stalemate for Germany (which was still possible until Kursk and especially Operation Bagration), but it was not the only important battle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
Oh, and as for worst military unit ever, one unit no one has brought up are German "parachute divisions" which were actually made up of Luftwaffe forces which received almost 0 infantry training and were thrown into battle. The 9th Parachute Division, for example, was the first major German unit to crack at the Seelow Heights, and this whole concept of using air force personnel as infantry was bad from the beginning. Volksstrum units were pretty bad too, although they did not have as high of expectations as the Luftwaffe units did.
Russian paratroops without parachutes have already been mentioned.
The IJA wasn't very good either, especially in terms of armor and infantry equipment such as rifles. The Japanese myth of invincibility at jungle fighting was just that - a myth.
The Chinese army as a whole throughout the 20th Century has been pretty terrible, in my opinion.
Let's see...the Russian navy in the Russo-Japanese War and the Spanish fleet in the Spanish-American war didn't perform very well.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2002 21:47
|