Jump to content

US Politics/Elections Thread


Recommended Posts

 

Quote

 

The National Socialist Party was full of militant atheists, not to mention neo-pagans and weirdo occultists like Himmler. I'm currently reading about some of these individuals now as it happens in a nice little book on the Schutzstaffel. The SS was basically anti-Christian, even going so far as to banning Christian marriage ceremonies, replacing them with their own Runic-Arthurian nuptials.

 

 

 

The standard line regarding the church and the holocaust doesn't require there to be a roman catholic nazi party though.
EDIT: what the fucks Georgys name doin there?!?
EDIT: It's happened again :lol: 
Edited by Len Cnut
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 27.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • downzy

    4198

  • Dazey

    1556

  • soon

    1548

  • Georgy Zhukov

    1531

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Donald Trump just grabbed America by the pussy

Posted Images

Grant and Sherman did not have it all their own way in the west. They got caught napping at Shiloh and were almost rolled up into the Tennessee by A.S Johnson and Beauregard - rumours of ''Grant being drunk'' proliferated in the Union press.

1 minute ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

 

Lee did show superior generalship in comparison to his Northern counter-parts but those risks he took up North may have ultimately cost him the war. Even if he defeated the Union forces on their own ground, dragging Great Britain into war was a tall order because of their opposition to slavery. Plus they were more involved with their own imperial affairs. France was more interested in Mexico. A US Civil War was a convenience for them. Who's left? Russia? Austria? Prussia? I don't see how they would benefit from a war in North America. 

I do not mean so much as Great Britain entering the war as Britain awarding diplomatic recognition. Firstly it would have altered maritime law allowing Britain to trade openly with the Confederacy and to perceive the Union blockade as ''illegal''. Secondly, it would have given the Confederacy diplomatic clout. Despite the fact that slavery was banned in the British Empire, the South believed Britain would finally recognise her sovereignty, even going so far as to implement a self-imposed embargo on cotton exports to force her to this stage and sending forth Mason to London (and John Slidell to Paris). Britain probably never came close, although there were some dicey diplomatic moments between the United States and United Kingdom such as the Trent Affair which seemed to push Britain to the brink, and Britain did mobilise along her Canadian border.

Napoleon III wouldn't act without Britain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Lee's offensiveness was simply because the South needed to win the war fast until the massive manpower and industrial reserves of the Union were fully mobalised. Lee also hoped that military victories would convince Britain and France into recognising the Confederacy. You should also not overlook the strategic requirements of the western theatre (e.g. Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania was to relieve pressure on besieged Vicksburg). You are incorrect about Lee's enemy, McClelland (do you not mean McClellan?). Lee actually fought a plethora of Union generals, what were deemed the best generals Lincoln could throw at him: the aforementioned McClellan (Seven Days and Antietam), Pope (2nd Manassas), Burnside (Fredericksburg), Joe Hooker (Chancellorsville), Gettysburg (Meade) and Grant (Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbour, Petersberg).

I've often thought - and this is just my personal opinion - the best example of Lee's genius occurred in the final two years of the war when, against unbelievable odds and with a ragamuffin army of impoverished butternuts, Lee kept denying Grant his left-flank, halted the Union advance before expertly retreating (by his right-flank) to a prepared rear position. Union casualties were horrendous in those closing years of the eastern theatre; war-weariness in the north escalated while Grant's sluggish advance was compared (unfavorably) with Sherman's dramatic advance through Georgia and the Carolinas.

 

The offensives made sense perhaps at the beginning of the war, but his disastrous march into Maryland proved to be not only a military error but also eliminated any chance of foreign assistance/recognition.  His initial forays as a field commander at Cheat Mountain was a miserable failure.  I'm not sure why you assume Lee thought the Confederacy needed to win quickly to avoid the North's industrial advantage since the war had already been underway for almost a year before Lee took over as a major field commander in May of 1862.  Apologies for the typo, I was referring to McClellan.  You seem well studied in the actual battles of the Civil War, so perhaps I'm off here as I don't recall the details of all the battles you listed, but the sources I've read suggest that most of Lee's victories in 1862 were largely at the expense of McClellan and Pope (who was often undermined by McClellan).  Most accounts I've read don't speak too highly of McClellan as a military commander.  I remember one analysis (it's been awhile since I studied the Civil War) that suggested that if it weren't for McClellan's incompetence Lee would have lost his army at Antietam.  

Again, I don't discount that Lee was proficient at drawing losses from the Union side, but they almost always came at the expense of dramatic losses within his own command, something the Confederate army couldn't afford if the war was about blocking a Northern invasion.  Lee seemed to have no problem calling for reinforcements from defensive positions to advance his own positions even though such moves often resulted in dramatic Confederate losses.  It just seemed like a foolish effort on Lee's part to receive pressure off of Vicksburg by mounting an offensive charge in Pennsylvania when his subordinates like Longfoot wanted to fight from a more defensive posture and oppose Grant in Tennessee.  

I get that this is all Monday-morning quarterbacking, but I just don't understand the reverence for Lee in terms of war tactician.  I'm not arguing that he was a dunce, but his accomplishments (when balanced with his failures) hardly justifies the kind of reverence he later received in the 1890s through 1920s.  I recall reading somewhere that Lee was against memorializing his efforts and spoke against such monuments.  I just go back to my previous point that the efforts to publicly memorialize Lee and other Confederates (though, not much reverence seems is extended to Longfoot largely, I assume, because he later became a Republican worked to integrate the New Orleans Metropolitan police force) is to white-wash the root causes of the Civil War (i.e. the Lost Cause movement).  This is why I have no issue with the removal of Lee and Confederate symbols in public places from southern states.  If most people were like you and understood the many layers that was Lee and his fellow Confederates I would say maybe they would serve a worthwhile purpose.  But for the reasons of their current support, I say get rid of them and/or move them to museums, foundations, or education centres.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Kim decided to hold off on sending his missiles to Guam or the South China sea. I wonder why he decided to do that? Could it be that both the US and Japan were ready to blow his missiles out of the sky and possibly blow him up next?

Not that I want a war, I just want this little bastard to be put his mother fucking place!

I'm so sick of all these crazy dictators mouthing off and hurting so many innocent people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can sombody please tell Trump not to mess with George Washington now? :facepalm: And he admited he didn't mean what he said yesterday. And he went back to his first statement about both sides are to blame

:crazy:

Edited by Padme
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Well, Trump went back to his original statement.  Probably should have just let it be the first go around....it's going to be a rough 3 days for his administration.  :lol:

 

He has to keep his Alt-Right base happy. Apparently there's an Alt-Left now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

 

He has to keep his Alt-Right base happy. Apparently there's an Alt-Left now. 

Or is the term "Alt right" a failing attempt to rebrand white supremacy?

White supremacists already had a variety of differing opinions.  An addition of possibly (and possibly not) new opinions on how to carry out the white supremacist agendas doesnt mean we need to accept a more digestible name for white supremacy.  

I completely agree with you that he knows his base is filled with white supremacists and is looking to keep them happy.  And he has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A sitting President conflating the figures from the Civil and Revolutionary wars :facepalm:

And oh, btw, the CEOs quitting his economic committee only did so because they won't bring jobs back to America.  Nothing to do with Trump's deference to white nationals.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Silent Jay said:

 

 

1789 and 1865 were two different periods. Different mind sets. Clearly the Founding Fathers had little intention to free the slaves, but the work they did to form this country, actually set the groundwork to make it possible for our leaders decades later to actually do it. Attitudes for slavery changed over time. Ideas evolve. New methods of production developed. What kept slavery alive for so long since the War of Independence was the Cotton Gin. There didn't seem to be a way about slavery that wasn't as economically beneficial.

 

Anyway, Lee and the Confederates that fought for the Confederacy picked the wrong side. The side that supports slavery. It is that simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, downzy said:

 

And oh, btw, the CEOs quitting his economic committee only did so because they won't bring jobs back to America.  Nothing to do with Trump's deference to white nationals.  

I will take that as your opinion and wonder why you'd hope to dilute the message they made by quitting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, soon said:

I will take that as your opinion and wonder why you'd hope to dilute the message they made by quitting.

CEO's don't care about the plight of the plebians. They are oblivious to it all. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Matin Niemöller

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, soon said:

I will take that as your opinion and wonder why you'd hope to dilute the message they made by quitting.

I thought it was pretty obvious that my post was made with a heavy amount of sarcasm.  I was essentially paraphrasing Trump in his conference today. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Padme said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Matin Niemöller

I wish they'd come for the cliches first and thereby save the commies and jews from objectification. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, downzy said:

I thought it was pretty obvious that my post was made with a heavy amount of sarcasm.  I was essentially paraphrasing Trump in his conference today. 

 

I didn't think Canadians were sarcastic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, downzy said:

The offensives made sense perhaps at the beginning of the war, but his disastrous march into Maryland proved to be not only a military error but also eliminated any chance of foreign assistance/recognition.  His initial forays as a field commander at Cheat Mountain was a miserable failure.  I'm not sure why you assume Lee thought the Confederacy needed to win quickly to avoid the North's industrial advantage since the war had already been underway for almost a year before Lee took over as a major field commander in May of 1862.

The Civil War was fought between citizen armies, as the United States Regulars was minuscule (16,000) and dispersed in Indian country. The war therefore would be between newly assembled, armed and trained citizen volunteers and (later) conscripts. Consider the following statistic which demonstrate the urgency of the South: at the war's instigation the Confederacy had a draftable population of 600,000 whereas the Union had a draftable population of 1 million; the Confederacy mobilised 90% of her manpower by the war's conclusion; the Union mobalised 45% of hers! 90% manufacturing output of the United States lay in the Union as did 71% railway tracks - this would be increasingly an industrial war.

5 hours ago, downzy said:

most of Lee's victories in 1862 were largely at the expense of McClellan and Pope (who was often undermined by McClellan).  Most accounts I've read don't speak too highly of McClellan as a military commander.  I remember one analysis (it's been awhile since I studied the Civil War) that suggested that if it weren't for McClellan's incompetence Lee would have lost his army at Antietam.  

Lee fought McClellan and the Army of the Potomac during the Peninsular campaign; he replaced Joseph Johnson when the latter was wounded in June 1862. He then turned north and faced Pope and the Army of Virginia during 2nd Manassas. He then fought McClellan and the Army of the Potomac again during his invasion of Maryland, at Antietam Creek.

Aggressiveness was not exclusive to Lee, who anyhow was Jefferson Davis's de facto chief of staff in the war's opening year. First Manassas (Beauregard) and Stonewall Jackson's Shenandoah Valley campaigns were two such offensive operations which threatened Washington DC. Lee did not take over command of the Army of Northern Virginia (as it would become) until 1st June 1862, towards the end of Jackson in the Shenandoah. Cheat Mountain was an earlier debacle, 5,000 Confederates in Western Virginia, although you are correct in pointing that out (as it is frequently done) when assessing Lee's capabilities. Lee was compared unfavorable with Jackson by the Southern press following that campaign; he was nicknamed - a nickname which didn't last long it has to be said - ''Granny Lee''.   

McClellan is one of the most intriguing figures of the civil war and continues to divide historic opinion. A ''soldier's general'', no Union general - neither Grant nor Sherman, least of all your Hookers and Burnsides - was more loved by his men. George B. McClellan was the architect of the Union army, establishing its camps outside Washington, training it and procuring it with supplies, installing it with an esprit de corps. He did however have a Napoleonic complex, and a penchant for political intrigue and waspishness (his letters to his wife are fascinating - he hated Lincoln). His problem was he would not fight; he had this massive army along the Potomac and faced inferior Confederates, yet he was always conjuring up fictitious Southern reinforcements. while hectoring Lincoln for more soldiers. He did beat Lee at Antietam (Sharpsburg), but again followed that victory up with a sluggish advance. Later he was affiliated with Northern Democrats/Copperheadism and ran against Lincoln on a 'peace' ticket. His soldiers still loved him after his dismissal as he was (unlike Grant) not laissez-faire with their lives.

4 hours ago, downzy said:

Again, I don't discount that Lee was proficient at drawing losses from the Union side, but they almost always came at the expense of dramatic losses within his own command, something the Confederate army couldn't afford if the war was about blocking a Northern invasion.  Lee seemed to have no problem calling for reinforcements from defensive positions to advance his own positions even though such moves often resulted in dramatic Confederate losses.  It just seemed like a foolish effort on Lee's part to receive pressure off of Vicksburg by mounting an offensive charge in Pennsylvania when his subordinates like Longfoot wanted to fight from a more defensive posture and oppose Grant in Tennessee.  

Longstreet.

Longstreet wanted to, from Lee's army, reinforce Bragg in Tennessee.

The Gettysburg campaign has to be taken into consideration when assessing Lee's military capabilities, yet other factors play a role such as the absence of Jeb Stuart's cavalry which rendered Lee blind. There is no doubt that Lee blundered at Gettysburg, a series of frontal attacks (e.g. Pickett's Charge) on Union interior positions with little nuance or tactical planning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know why the statues were put up? They were put up generations after the war ended to perpetuate the Lost Cause myth. It doesn't honor Lee or those who fought. It only serves to perpetuate the myth.

 

The US suffered through the war and we became a better nation for it. The Lose Cause seeks to divide us again. I say tear those statues down. If you want to honor the memory of the fallen, go to a museum. Read their memoirs. No need to put up fucking statues.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

 

1789 and 1865 were two different periods. Different mind sets. Clearly the Founding Fathers had little intention to free the slaves, but the work they did to form this country, actually set the groundwork to make it possible for our leaders decades later to actually do it. Attitudes for slavery changed over time. Ideas evolve. New methods of production developed. What kept slavery alive for so long since the War of Independence was the Cotton Gin. There didn't seem to be a way about slavery that wasn't as economically beneficial.

 

Anyway, Lee and the Confederates that fought for the Confederacy picked the wrong side. The side that supports slavery. It is that simple.

Yet Great Britain passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833, thirty-two years before the United States passed the 13th Amendment!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

Do you know why the statues were put up? They were put up generations after the war ended to perpetuate the Lost Cause myth. It doesn't honor Lee or those who fought. It only serves to perpetuate the myth.

 

The US suffered through the war and we became a better nation for it. The Lose Cause seeks to divide us again. I say tear those statues down. If you want to honor the memory of the fallen, go to a museum. Read their memoirs. No need to put up fucking statues.  

Long live Marse Bobby and the South yeeyeeyeeyee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Yet Great Britain passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833, thirty-two years before the United States passed the 13th Amendment!

 

But slavery wasn't abolished during the time of British rule. At the time slavery was too well implemented to abandon the practice without disastrous economic results.  Had the British abolish it before the Revolution, it be a different story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • downzy locked this topic
  • downzy unlocked this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...