 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Grumpy Geezer
| Joined: | Thu Sep 1st, 2005 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 1491 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
Sherman advocates say he started total war as if it was a good thing, so why does he avoid taking credit for total war and provide weak excuses?
BTW, I am an advocate of making war so terrible on the enemy that they will quit as quickly as possible, so I see no problem with his burning of Atlanta assuming he intended it, as I suspect he did.
Bravo David! I've always felt this way, and thought maybe I was the only one. If Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground, that's war. I get a little sick to my stomach every time I hear the term "a gentleman's war". Hogwash. And frankly, if I had been Lee, Gettysburg would have been a pile of ashes before I left. The idea that civilians should be somehow excluded from the horrors of a CIVIL war always seemed a bit absurd to me.