Comments Elsewhere

Raznor:

General Sherman also authored the Navajo treaty …

I think that having personally commanded several genocidal wars is enough to get you on the “worst Americans” list even if you also worked out a good treaty along the way.

RonF:

Don’t take this as a defense of Sherman’s march to Atlanta. I just want to know what was new about it.

All kinds of atrocities and raids have been practiced in warfare since recorded history, but Sherman’s march inaugurated a couple of new tendencies for the modern age. It was one of the first times in recorded history that scorched-earth warfare was (1) systematically used (2) as a weapon of offense (3) on such a large scale. There are a few examples of scorched-earth tactics being used for defensive purposes (e.g. in Spain and Russia during the Napoleonic wars), plenty of examples of arbitrary pillage, raiding, and destruction in the countryside, and some examples of the destruction of entire cities (such as the Romans’ destruction of Carthage, or the Mongols sack of Baghdad). But Sherman pioneered the systematic use of deliberate devastation as a strategic weapon to break the enemy (through both concrete damage and terror), and he practiced it on a regional scale uncontemplated even in Timurlane’s darkest dreams.

Now, I’m no expert in military history; there may very well be examples of this kind of devastation elsewhere prior to Sherman, and maybe even on a comparable scale. But my understanding is that it’s Sherman whose legacy our contemporary historians and generals study as the origin of modern total warfare. (And if I’m mistaken, of course, he’s still an asshole, for other reasons.)

Well Seasoned:

Emperor remains emperor is ok? Have you studied what was done to US captives by the Japanese? Have you looked at the statistics on how many Americans were still dying during the latter phase of the war? Do you not remember how the war with Japan began? … Sorry that you don’t like it that people are held accountable for their government …

Deliberately killing civilians in retaliation for the crimes of their governments, in order to achieve some political end, is terrorism. In this case, terrorism that resulted in the deaths of over half a million civilians.

Question 1: In what respect is this morally better than the massacre of 2,000 or so innocent civilians in retaliation for the crimes of their government on September 11?

Question 2: Given whatever justification provides your answer to Question 1, is there any moral limit on the number of civilians killed in the terror-bombing of Japan as far as you’re concerned? How many innocent lives would you have considered acceptable losses for an unconditional surrender?