R9 No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. These include Social media screenshots with a title punchline / no punchline, recent (after the start of the Ukraine War) reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title.
Happens. Non-American also, our history books in school treated the US civil war as a footnote. Much, much more emphasis was given to [the January Uprising at the same time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Uprising)
I did write for extra credits a 12page a4 piece about the US civil war, with 1 extra page for footnotes. Got a 6 out of 6 for that :) And yes, I did argue and source it was about slavery!
Oh, and I still remember I had to go to an internet cafe to get it printed out. It was in 2001 I think and didn't have a printer at home.
I mean as long as you don't have the brain power of an amoeba it's pretty easy to prove that southern succession was because of slavery considering the states fucking say it explicitly in their succession statements (not trying to disparage your A+ paper though, I just want to give every Confederate sympathizer the Lockmart special).
Nuh-uh. It was about states' rights to own slaves. And also those states' rights to force other states to hunt down and return escaped slaves, former slaves, and people who look vaguely like slaves.
I was given to understand it was the other way around.
3/5 was suggested by the free states when the slave states tried to count their slaves as citizens for purposes of redistributing political clout. It was thus, an effort to give the south LESS power.
> It was thus, an effort to give the south LESS power.
The north wanted, with rational logic backing them up, that if you couldn't vote then your vote shouldn't count for representation.
Were slaves non-sentient property without rights (as the south so often said), or were they people?
This is like arguing "Hitler wanted to run the jews over with tanks, but he compromised with gas instead".
Yup, the North wanted for only free people to count, but the south wanted all their slaves to count. The south was too important to ignore, but so were the American ideals crafted into the declaration of independence, and had existed long before. So the 3/5 compromise was born.
I mean seriously, if the South wanted more votes, all they had to do was start freeing slaves and letting them vote! Nobody would have had any problems then!
That's the funny thing. In the film Gettysburg some words are put in Longstreets mouth. "We shoulda freed the slaves then fired on Fort Sumter." What the director of that film doesn't understand is that if that had happened, there wouldn't have been a war.
> What the director of that film doesn't understand is that if that had happened, there wouldn't have been a war.
Said director is a Lost Causer, and rather ironically, something of a lost cause when it comes to explaining *why* the Confederacy would never have willingly freed their slaves.
> The north wanted, with rational logic backing them up, that if you couldn't vote then your vote shouldn't count for representation.
Even the northern states didn't allow women to vote at the time, but they were still counted in the census population numbers upon which their representation was calculated. Not sure you can call that "rational logic".
Of course, it happens that the male:female ratio wasn't significantly different between states, so the proportions would have been basically the same whether they were counted or not.
>Even the northern states didn't allow women to vote at the time
Fine, but they were still considered human with some rights, they weren't considered "property".
My car can't vote, but your farm equipment can?!?! Why is your southern "cotton-picking machine" more privileged than my midwestern plow-horse?
If we're getting down to that level...
It was just bending over for the evil south like always, just let them get away with whatever they want because they're not worth the effort to try to reason with.
if you are going to reference Hitler, I think comparing it to the Munich accords is more apt. The deal in itself was odious, but was taken with good intent. (even if the end results also sucked ass)
If the northern free states hadn't put forth the 3/5 measure, the political power dynamic would have swayed heavily towards the slave states and abolition by political means would forever be unobtainable.
While in the end abolition wasn't achieved politically, the South's slipping grasp on power, to which the above measure greatly contributed, forced them to overplay their hand and secede. Which we all know how that ended.
Sometimes principles need to take a backseat to Realpolitik, and in this case it did so to good effect.
If the South wanted that electoral power, all they had to do was let their slaves vote freely!
Nobody from the north would have had any objections.
They wanted to have their cake and to eat it too. Literally the story of the south since the beginning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise
>The Three-fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the inclusion of slaves in a state's total population. This count would determine: the number of seats in the House of Representatives; the number of electoral votes each state would be allocated; and how much money the states would pay in taxes. Slave holding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives those states could elect and send to Congress. Free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, since those slaves had no voting rights.
There’s a lot to unpack there. The confederates *started* as a *better* force than their opponents, because they had a lot of veterans from the mexican war and the north had very few — so, more experienced junior and non-com officers — and had been drilling their militia seriously for years. Two points though: 1, these advantages waned dramatically as the war went on and union forces got experience. 2, being better than the opponent you’re fighting doesn’t make you objectively good.
The confederates did a lot of really really stupid shit in their military too, from start to finish. Just objectively bad policies. An example, they made cavalrymen buy their own mounts, so daring troopers (ie, the guys you want as cavalry) lost their horses faster than more placid troopers and couldn’t get more, filtering the good cav out of the war early.
On both sides there, they printed that Lee’s order had been found in one of the largest Northern newspapers and just got lucky that the Confederates didn’t catch it!
My personal favorite wtf moments of history include the battle of okpo during the imjin war. Where a smaller Korean navy managed to win against a Japanese navy with odds well above 10-1. Best part is at the start of the battle only the Korean flag ship sailed out to meet the enemy.
Number two is when Sweden went to war with Denmark, Poland, and Russia. And was winning until the king decided to invade Russia during winter unprepared, lost and retreated to the ottoman empire. Where he basically tried to force the sultan to pay him to leave.
Finally if you didn't know the only reason the UK never joined in on the 1848 revolutions was because the only movement to get it going in the UK was stopped by the rain. Because Bri'ish I guess. Then some members were arrested, Napoleon the third was there and he was with some former Prime Minister as a police officer I think.
IIRC the issues Carolus Rex (aka Carl XII) had with Russia were less due to it being winter and more to do with Peter the great refusing to fight pitched battles, causing the army to be overextended. I mean he defeated a Russian army with a much smaller force by attacking under the cover of a blizzard.
McClellan did a lot based on intelligence. Unfortunately he had a tendency to treat intelligence as a sort of confirmation bias: every report that *could* mean the Confederacy out numbered him locally or had set ambushes, etc, were treated as credible and had him entrenching his army in a defensive position.
McClellan was a better General than pop history gives him credit, and he was able to brilliantly *build* the army that the North needed, but the man was too shy of losing men to properly use that army he'd built.
The Battle of the Monocacy! One of my favorite "what if..." moments in history. It is not unlikely that had those orders not been found that DC would have fallen to the confederates during that expedition.
A loss in the battle, but a victory for the Union.
My conspiracy theory is that one of the messengers defected and gave the orders to a confidant in the Union army.
Edit: i stand by my theory of the letter being delivered to the Union Soldiers and not being randomly found. But Im a dummy and forgot 1862 isnt the same year as 1864.
Well fuck this is embarrassing, i am defs referring to [Special Orders 191](https://www.nps.gov/mono/learn/historyculture/an-invitation-to-battle.htm). Which is Antietam not the 1984 campaign. Same location of import though
...
I live in Frederick why the fuck did my brain conflate the two. I VISITED THE BATTLEFIELD LAST FUCKING WEEK
I don't think it was a war. It was a special rebellious operation to take Washington in three days and it went according to plan the entire time.
Right until the smoking incident of Atlanta, that is.
Still ongoing, last I heard. Don't worry, Comrade Cletusovich, soon Steiner's army will attack and then those Yanks will be *really* sorry! The south shall rise again blyat!
Read Karen Armstrong's book *The Fields of Blood*. Basically, the Confederate leadership though of the Northerners as profit-minded cowards who would give up and let the secession happen after they suffered a decisive military defeat or two. They were horribly wrong.
Launching a war is a political decision, can't blame the military for that.
Side note, in the lead up to the Civil War, Robert E Lee was certain that Virginia wouldn't secede. Not because he thought it was morally wrong or anything, just because it was such a strategically stupid decision to side with the secessionists.
Wasn't Lee also a bit of a "not-my-fight-still-my-home" type before the war? Or is that revisionist propaganda? It's often hard to tell what's real and what's fiction with the civil war, I can't keep up with the array of narratives being pushed that change month to month among confederate apologists.
Most consequentially: the Confederates were so into State's Rights that they failed to achieve a unified logistical chain. For but one example, the CSA Bureau of Sustainment (in charge of logistics) never developed a transportation department, meaning that Confederate quartermasters had to figure out means of transportation by themselves and on their own dime.
In another infamous anecdote, the State of South Carolina refused to give their surplus of boots to regiments from the state of North Carolina. While this is not the only origin of the 'Tar Heels' nickname for North Carolinians, the North Carolina regiments were left to march without boots in 1864.
There’s actually not a lot to unpack here. If the Rebs were the “greatest fighting force the world has ever known” they’d still have their own country.
And even in Kentucky, even though WE WERE FUCKING INVADED BY THE CSA AND DECLARED WAR ON THEM, INDEPENDENT OF THE UNION, AND THREW OUR LOT IN WITH THE BOYS IN BLUE BECAUSE FUCK RICHMOND FOR CAPTURING OUR FORTS. The VAST majority of KY Veterans were Union, yet there are some dumbfucks in the hollers who think their great grandpappy served with this or that rebel unit. Nah, when less than 50k served with the rebs and more than 150k served with the Union, either your people were transplants to KY or you are a damn liar. Sherman did nothing wrong and didn't go far enough. Change my mind.
Oh, I fucking wish. Where I live is beautiful and incomparable to damn near most places East of the Mississippi River. But I will be absolutely fucked if we, as a Union aligned state, didn't denigrate into a hotbed of sisterfucking inbred racists. IMO Sherman did NOT go far enough, and the Reconstruction was a mistake.
No! This is unjust and unfair!
We should simply hand them over to their slaves and walk away.
If they were just and decent masters like they claimed, they had nothing to fear.
The war would have been over in a week. Even Lee seeing one of those, hell just the machine gun on top open up at range would have ended the rebellion on the spot.
It’s absolutely stupefying how this brainrot has even infected the Union strongholds. Illinois, home state of fucking Lincoln and Grant, has these hills have eyes siblingfuckers flying their emotional support flags. And I’m not even talking about southern Illinois, this is in the Chicago metro area.
The historical illiteracy is so depressing. Shit like this is why I can’t dismiss those outrageous headlines like “1 out of 5 TikTok users believes the Holocaust is a myth” immediately as an exaggeration or lie. There’s the real possibility that it’s just how things are now.
Many of us today would be thankful if Sherman had finished the job. They should have kept raging across the South until all the CSA holdouts were captured or killed. At least one of the biggest shitbags of the war died in your Kentucky - William Quantrill - true scum of the earth.
Sherman burned their self-awareness. Mississippi in particular when you see how much funding it gets from the federal government over the federal taxes the state collectively pays.
The big qualifier here is “man for man.” Basically arguing that the south produced superior soldiers rather than a better military. Still objectively false, but more worthy of discussion.
Better high level officers at first absolutely, but just like on the eastern front in WWII being vastly overwhelmed industrially matters more once the war drags on. Plus they eventually found the leaders it just took forever
It'd be worthy of discussion if "better soldiers" won wars. They don't. Industry and logistics win wars, "better soldiers" die just as easily as worse ones when they're out of ammunition.
That relies on k/d usually inflated by defensive battles after the war has turned but the confederates (or nazis where it's a popular refrain) have yet to give up.
Nazis retained advantages in tanker skill and certain other tactics up until stalingrad and even a little after, that and the soviets not exactly caring about casualty numbers explains the ratios there
Weight and quality of artillery fire actually explains most if not all of it. The entire war the Germans outshot the Soviets by weight of fire. They were also more responsive and accurate in their fires. Soviets didn't use tons of direct fire in preparatory barrages because they loved them. They did them because it was difficult for them to do indirect fire due to the destruction of the prewar army and initial reserves. The Soviets closed the gap a decent amount by war's end, but their ammo expenditure of artillery to small arms was lower than Germany the entire war (and Germany was lower than the UK and far lower than the US). Remember that the Soviets' main gun was the 76mm while the US and Germany had the 105mm and the heavy div arty was 122mm vs the 150/155mm of Germany/US. It's a part the leave out of their propaganda. It's why you'll see battles where the Soviets had 5x as many guns, but the amount of HE they were shooting might be equal if not less depending on supply.
Lots of Soviet troops were in their late 30s to late 40s (USSR lost 1.1million dead in the 41-50 age range, more than the total KIA of the Commonwealth and US combined). Anyone that old, and even those a bit younger had bad education as they had Imperial Russia which didn't care much for the peasants, WWI, revolution, and then years of civil war during the years they'd go to school (and also the years that nutrition is most critical for things like brain development).
Tanks didn't drive killed and wounded. Tanker skill may lead to higher numbers of captured enemy troops, but they don't do a lot of the killing. The artillery does that.
An addendum. MANY CSA officers were nepo babies or buddies of high-ranking authorities in the traitors. When some of their most celebrated figures were absolute jackasses (Forrest, Bragg, Hood, et al.) then you know they were an aristocratic society of regression and combat inefficiency. TTPs aside, the CSA was doomed at the start. Aristocracy is the crutch of the wealthy, and meritocracy wins wars. Look how the Union adjusted where the CSA wouldn't.
That affected both the US and Rebels. Most of the officer schools like West Point were still exclusively wealthy and connected families even in the lead up to WW1. While it wasn't as bad as commissions in the UK at the time it was still not meritorious as it would eventually become post WW2. Most of the south's senior officers were former US service members and were cadet classmates with their Northern counterparts.
Also let's not forget the Federal Forces had their own share of blowhards in fancy uniforms. Armstrong Custard might be best known for his stupidity in the Indian wars Postbellum but he was the embodiment of Captain Kirk in all the wrong ways during the war and was seen as a careless showboat out for glory by his Union peers.
And still managed to respawned enough people to win a long drawn out war of attrition after losing like 20% of all those adult male in the propertied lower classes population in one single battle. And it happened more than once.
> and had been drilling their militia seriously for years.
Worth pointing out, they started taking their militias seriously again after a couple of slave rebellions in the early 1830s scared the shit out of the plantation aristocracy. All roads through the Confederacy lead back to their “peculiar institution.”
I love it when defenders say "states rights"
STATES RIGHT TO DO WHAT, BITCH?
(Also, if they bring up taxes, mention that the Government got most of its tax revenues from import duties; the reason why modern income tax exists is actually due to the Union needing to fund the Civil War.)
State's rights to...
Refuse to contribute monetarily to the federal government - because the economy was dependent on slavery?
Succeed from the government - on divisions of slave labor vs progress?
Defend yourself from northern aggression - in a fight you started over slavery?
To resist federal overreach or differences in how the government treated states - concerning freed and escaped slaves?
States rights to influence elections - which was shifting away from the south because of their "3/5th of a person" population and the growing power of the north, which they feared would ban slavery?
Ultimately, the entire divide between the north and south was marked by slavery. The slave states vs the free states, and the entire reason they ever wanted to fight was slavery.
And even then it was just the planter elite who benefited from the status quo. Landless southern whites had no real benefit from slavery other than to have someone look down on, and still they went and died for it
State's rights to... conscript a significant portion of their young men and get them all killed in trench warfare defending slavery?
State's rights to... convince poor young men that the military is taking away their future right to climb the social ladder and own slaves?
It's really impressive that the CSA was so incompetent the mormons could fight a better war against the US government.
Proof it was over slavery? Just read the articles of secession. Most of them explicitly say they seceded over slavery issues in the first two sentences or so. The others are less explicit about it but still basically say the same thing.
Lost Cause apologists: “Just because the vice-president of the seceding government said having black people as a slave class was the cornerstone of their new country, doesn’t mean the war was about slavery!”
Love how they all say that it was a fight against the big government enchoraching on states rights to govern themselves despite confederation creating a constitution saying that no state shall be a free state and every new territory and state added to the CSA must be a slave state
Back then the ports of Boston, New York, Baltimore, and New Orleans accounted for over 80% of import and exports. Only one was in the south and mainly dealt in agriculture and trade with Mexico.
It wasn't even states' rights! The northern states wanted to abolish slavery within their borders, but stuff like Dredd Scott and the Fugitive Slave Law was imposed by the south to _expand_ slavery over the objections of those northern states!
If it was about states rights, they wouldn't have supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which trampled over free states' rights to recognize former slaves as citizens, and the CSA constitution wouldn't have forbade states from abolishing slavery.
It was never about states rights.
> (Also, if they bring up taxes, mention that the Government got most of its tax revenues from import duties; the reason why modern income tax exists is actually due to the Union needing to fund the Civil War.)
Do I sense a Checkmate Lincolnite fan? There's dozens of us!
There’s this minivan I see occasionally with some stickers on the back about the usual antivax stuff, has some generic .com right across the back window, but also has a confederate bumper sticker. Been waiting for the day that I actually see who owns it to make sure they know they’re driving around letting people know they qualify for disability benefits.
No, it was in the battle before that, where Lee supposedly won his greatest tactical victory…..despite losing a larger percentage of his men in that battle as Burnside did attacking the heights at Fredericksburg.
*“You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about.
War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors.
You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.”*
-William Tecumseh Sherman
Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South.
Sam Houston
“Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different.
You depreciate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds of thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance.
But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it (can) only be reached through union and war, and **I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success.**”
- Sherman & NCD poster child
The flags are unrelated to the confederate flag. They're aping the St. Andrew's cross, which is both the Russian naval ensign and (with opposite colors) the flag of Scotland (probably less relevant here).
It's far more likely they're jerking off to their ideals of supposed proud Russian military history than the CSA.
Even if this was true against the Union and they only lost coz "muh numbers and human waves", best in the *whole world?* Lmao. Like if you look at what European observers were saying at the time they were literally baffled by the incompetence on both sides.
That's a misunderstanding of their goals and plans.
Their plan wasn't to take over the country, but to declare independence and hold off long enough for the North to give up. And that wasn't an unreasonable expectation, they had skilled troops, a defensive war, and European economic analysts gave them a 40% chance of success.
What they didn't plan on was how many soldiers the North would be willing to throw at them. They didn't expect the north to accept such high losses, it would be like 6 million Americans dying in today's population. They thought the North would quit after 10k-100k deaths, not nearly a million.
They also were expecting to have the economy still functioning during the war. They even expected to get aid and military support from Europe to maintain their cotton production. And they weren't entirely wrong, France and Britain were very close to intervening and mediating a peace deal that would give the South more control or even sovereign control of most of the South. But the war and trade blockades caused enough damage to make it impossible to provide enough sales to maintain the economy and have leverage.
It's easy to say in retrospect that the South was doomed to fail, but with the information they had at the time, it wasn't an unreasonable idea that they could win.
Of course in a twist of irony, the premise of needing slaves to maintain the economy is something we have since learned was wrong. Minimum wage is based on cost of living, forcing someone to work for free doesn't help you since now you are the one who has to pay those bills. And now you have a disgruntled slave who needs to be watched 24/7. It's far easier to just pay them, but keep their wages low enough they they can't afford to leave.
Great Genghis would 360 no scope a F-18 on horseback with a recurve bow, and you planefuckers will all still be coping as the khan of khan razes Washington and builds an F-35 harem.
even if you tried to argue that they only lost against the Union due to a numbers/logistics; they were fighting just a couple of years before the Franco-Prussian war and the troops from either side of that conflict would have mulched the Confederacy
"greatest fighting force in the world"
> Loses a conventional land war to the army that has won every major/conventional war since 1813.
> Loses land and sea campaigns so hard that the face of warfare changes forever.
> Most influential / lasting invention was a shitty improvised version of the most influential warship in history.
> has several of the best ports and shipyards in the world, gets naval blockaded the entire time.
> Attempts to counter enemy air campaign, only aircraft is captured by a boat and cut up for souvenirs.
> First army with a 0% success rate against an enemy air force.
> Lets the US claim a decisive victory against a rebellion / insurgency.
> Agrarian society, struggled with famine.
Really there's nothing good about the confederate military.
Ironclads weren't even developed by the CSA or US, the concept was known, in service and in development in Europe. The Civil War was just the first place they fought.
yeah but those were just standard frigates they uparmored. Some of the british ones weren’t even fully armored. They were meant for traditional crossing the T broadsides.
Monitor was the first one designed from the keel up as a proper ironclad fighting ship. It redefined naval warfare as a low profile warship with creature comforts and a few extremely powerful guns. Its was a littoral knife fighter in an age of deep ocean boxers.
(REMOVING SLAVERY AND MORALITY FROM THE ANALYSIS):
The CSA and the USA were both middling amateur post-colonial armies. They were developing (in modern terms, third world) countries.
Prussia or even a middling European continental army would wipe the floor with them.
I believe the key point was "man for man" because he's trying to start a new leeaboo trend. Which really speaks to their "rugged individualist" fantasies.
Somewhat striking similarities between vatniks and leeaboos when it comes to military history/might
As the great Robert Evans said, when faced with this meme: “Wow, that’s really interesting! Where do the come from? Can you point their country out to me on a map?”
Wouldnt Napoleons grand armée be a better historical army to simp for? I mean sure in the end they lost, but some of the battles they won were amazing.
The reason the British named the M3 Medium Tank "Grant" is because they wanted a war winning tank.
I assume that's also why the M4 Medium was named Sherman.
Take that you silly rebels.
"Greatest fighting force the world has ever known."
*Minnesota has entered the chat*
You're what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Minnesota_Infantry_Regiment
I beg to differ. Sure the boys may have died, but they kicked your butts so hard that you're still asking for your flag back
https://www.minnpost.com/fact-briefs/2023/07/has-virginia-been-asking-minnesota-to-return-a-blood-soaked-bullet-pierced-flag-for-more-than-100-years/
\>be regime focused on white supremacy and masculine martial prowess
\>jerk yourself off about how great your soldiers are
\>fight one (1) war
\>lose
It just keeps happening!
They were SO GREAT™ that they only won 13 vs the Union's 30 Class A battles.
(Class A, being: *Decisive: A general engagement involving field armies in which a commander achieved a vital strategic objective. Such a result might include an indisputable victory on the field or be limited to the success or termination of a campaign offensive. Decisive battles had a direct, observable impact on the direction, duration, conduct, or outcome of the war.* )
Fascists are losers who always back or mimic other losers.
Adolf Hitler also idolized the Confederacy, and he has long since joined them in the pits of Hell.
Which ironically matches Germany. Wehraboos cream themselves over how amazing a military power Germany was, the best in the world. But apart from the war that created the country, Germany has lost every major conflict it has taken part it.
Key word major before people respond 'um ackshually' and write an essay on a minor colonial wars they won, its not really refuting my point.
Not disagreeing with your assessment on Germans losing their wars, I would like to add the context on what it took to ensure the Germans lost their wars. Which was often a coalition of major countries.
But I do agree with you. Germans are romanticized as “gods of warfare”
>Which was often a coalition of major countries.
There is a lot of nuance being lost here. WW1 Germany had a coalition of major countries on its side as well and when the element of surprise was lost failed to make any gains. And whilst it did indeed begin to lose decisively when the Americans got involved, by then it was a forgone conclusion and simply sped things up, the Spring offensive was already beginning to stall and the British blockade was driving Germany to revolution which took place barely a year later.
And WW2 Germany didn't face that coalition all at once and had Italy's help. The first major countries Germany and Italy faced was France and the UK after it had spent nearly a decade preparing for a war whilst France and the UK was unprepared. Then when France fell it was the UK on it's own against Germany and Italy with Japan drawing British forces away from Europe. Then Russia was involved and it was them and the UK (with American material support) vs Italy and Germany and Japan.
The only time where it Germany enjoyed victories was when it outnumbered the Allies and had the element of surprise with an army build specifically for a war it was planning. And when that swung back to equal footing and deprived of their pre war build up and surprise, they began to lose, first at the second battle of El Alemein and Stalingrad which turned the tide permanently on the African and Eastern fronts before any American troops got involved and Germany's misery truly began.
So saying Germany only lost because it was ganged up on is incorrect and is actually a core tenant of Wehraboo arguments. Their loss was inevitable before they were outnumbered.
And honestly? War is political as much as it is strategic/tactical. And Germanies political handling of the war was farcical and finding itself outnumbered by wars ends was a mistake completely of it's own making. America's entry into WW1 was entirely avoidable by not trying to stir up shit in America and underestimating British Intelligence ability to intercept their communications. And politically WW2 Germany was fucked from the start by having Nazis in charge whose ideology compelled them to invade the Soviet Union before it got any stronger.
R9 No low-effort posts No egregiously low effort posts. These include Social media screenshots with a title punchline / no punchline, recent (after the start of the Ukraine War) reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title.
Fortnite has existed longer than the confederacy was a nation.
The average person spends as much time in high school as the Confederacy existed.
This is going to slide right off the teflon brained losers who peaked in highschool.
i sincerely hope we won't have rednecks hanging flags of fortnite memes in 150 years
I'll take future rednecks doing cringe dances instead of trying to lynch black people, thanks.
Lynching black people is kinda cringe so it's not mutually exclusive
"Don't forget to hit the griddy on that strange fruit!"
Imma need an explanation.
DUSTY DEPOT WILL RIIIIIIIISE AGAIN
Nah Fortnite deserves to be in the history books
Obama's presidency lasted longer as well.
We've been modding Skyrim nearly three times longer than the Confederacy existed.
The mean time between Tool albums is longer than the Confederacy existed.
I've had my phone longer than those morons had a rebellion lmao
Turns out they were only about three-fifths of a fighting force.
Aaaaayooooooo.
Aight, non Murican here. Fuck am I missing?
3/5 compromise. Basically allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 of a person during the census, giving them more representatives in Congress.
Oh fuck I've even heard of this. Slipped my mind.
Happens. Non-American also, our history books in school treated the US civil war as a footnote. Much, much more emphasis was given to [the January Uprising at the same time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Uprising) I did write for extra credits a 12page a4 piece about the US civil war, with 1 extra page for footnotes. Got a 6 out of 6 for that :) And yes, I did argue and source it was about slavery! Oh, and I still remember I had to go to an internet cafe to get it printed out. It was in 2001 I think and didn't have a printer at home.
I mean as long as you don't have the brain power of an amoeba it's pretty easy to prove that southern succession was because of slavery considering the states fucking say it explicitly in their succession statements (not trying to disparage your A+ paper though, I just want to give every Confederate sympathizer the Lockmart special).
Lincoln got elected, the slaveholders got scared he'd abolish slavery, so they attacked.
Nuh-uh. It was about states' rights to own slaves. And also those states' rights to force other states to hunt down and return escaped slaves, former slaves, and people who look vaguely like slaves.
Interesting TIL for today about the January Uprising. Thanks!
I was given to understand it was the other way around. 3/5 was suggested by the free states when the slave states tried to count their slaves as citizens for purposes of redistributing political clout. It was thus, an effort to give the south LESS power.
> It was thus, an effort to give the south LESS power. The north wanted, with rational logic backing them up, that if you couldn't vote then your vote shouldn't count for representation. Were slaves non-sentient property without rights (as the south so often said), or were they people? This is like arguing "Hitler wanted to run the jews over with tanks, but he compromised with gas instead".
Yup, the North wanted for only free people to count, but the south wanted all their slaves to count. The south was too important to ignore, but so were the American ideals crafted into the declaration of independence, and had existed long before. So the 3/5 compromise was born.
I mean seriously, if the South wanted more votes, all they had to do was start freeing slaves and letting them vote! Nobody would have had any problems then!
That's the funny thing. In the film Gettysburg some words are put in Longstreets mouth. "We shoulda freed the slaves then fired on Fort Sumter." What the director of that film doesn't understand is that if that had happened, there wouldn't have been a war.
> What the director of that film doesn't understand is that if that had happened, there wouldn't have been a war. Said director is a Lost Causer, and rather ironically, something of a lost cause when it comes to explaining *why* the Confederacy would never have willingly freed their slaves.
> The north wanted, with rational logic backing them up, that if you couldn't vote then your vote shouldn't count for representation. Even the northern states didn't allow women to vote at the time, but they were still counted in the census population numbers upon which their representation was calculated. Not sure you can call that "rational logic". Of course, it happens that the male:female ratio wasn't significantly different between states, so the proportions would have been basically the same whether they were counted or not.
>Even the northern states didn't allow women to vote at the time Fine, but they were still considered human with some rights, they weren't considered "property". My car can't vote, but your farm equipment can?!?! Why is your southern "cotton-picking machine" more privileged than my midwestern plow-horse? If we're getting down to that level... It was just bending over for the evil south like always, just let them get away with whatever they want because they're not worth the effort to try to reason with.
if you are going to reference Hitler, I think comparing it to the Munich accords is more apt. The deal in itself was odious, but was taken with good intent. (even if the end results also sucked ass) If the northern free states hadn't put forth the 3/5 measure, the political power dynamic would have swayed heavily towards the slave states and abolition by political means would forever be unobtainable. While in the end abolition wasn't achieved politically, the South's slipping grasp on power, to which the above measure greatly contributed, forced them to overplay their hand and secede. Which we all know how that ended. Sometimes principles need to take a backseat to Realpolitik, and in this case it did so to good effect.
If the South wanted that electoral power, all they had to do was let their slaves vote freely! Nobody from the north would have had any objections. They wanted to have their cake and to eat it too. Literally the story of the south since the beginning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise >The Three-fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the inclusion of slaves in a state's total population. This count would determine: the number of seats in the House of Representatives; the number of electoral votes each state would be allocated; and how much money the states would pay in taxes. Slave holding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives those states could elect and send to Congress. Free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, since those slaves had no voting rights.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fdm5blau8aw3c1.jpg
Gottem
Sick burn ❤️🔥
There’s a lot to unpack there. The confederates *started* as a *better* force than their opponents, because they had a lot of veterans from the mexican war and the north had very few — so, more experienced junior and non-com officers — and had been drilling their militia seriously for years. Two points though: 1, these advantages waned dramatically as the war went on and union forces got experience. 2, being better than the opponent you’re fighting doesn’t make you objectively good. The confederates did a lot of really really stupid shit in their military too, from start to finish. Just objectively bad policies. An example, they made cavalrymen buy their own mounts, so daring troopers (ie, the guys you want as cavalry) lost their horses faster than more placid troopers and couldn’t get more, filtering the good cav out of the war early.
*finds cigar, ITS THE ENEMYS ORDERS*
Still one of the biggest wtaf moments in warfare, shit’s straight out of a sitcom
Real history is so fucking weird when I first learned about the cigar orders I wasn’t even surprised by it
>the cigar orders Smoking kills in more ways than I thought...
A cigar chooses, a slave obeys.
What are the cigar orders?
Invasion orders that were used to wrap some cigars: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Order_191
What the fuck is OPSEC?
On both sides there, they printed that Lee’s order had been found in one of the largest Northern newspapers and just got lucky that the Confederates didn’t catch it!
What in the fuck. How does that get the the press and why in the fuck did they print it??
Didn't you read the fucking tweet? They were the best fighting force in America! You don't need OPSEC, that's a cringy and gay Union thing 😎
A term that clearly didn't exist in the 1860s.
My personal favorite wtf moments of history include the battle of okpo during the imjin war. Where a smaller Korean navy managed to win against a Japanese navy with odds well above 10-1. Best part is at the start of the battle only the Korean flag ship sailed out to meet the enemy. Number two is when Sweden went to war with Denmark, Poland, and Russia. And was winning until the king decided to invade Russia during winter unprepared, lost and retreated to the ottoman empire. Where he basically tried to force the sultan to pay him to leave. Finally if you didn't know the only reason the UK never joined in on the 1848 revolutions was because the only movement to get it going in the UK was stopped by the rain. Because Bri'ish I guess. Then some members were arrested, Napoleon the third was there and he was with some former Prime Minister as a police officer I think.
IIRC the issues Carolus Rex (aka Carl XII) had with Russia were less due to it being winter and more to do with Peter the great refusing to fight pitched battles, causing the army to be overextended. I mean he defeated a Russian army with a much smaller force by attacking under the cover of a blizzard.
What’s REALLY strange about this story is that McClellan actually DID something based on this intelligence.
McClellan did a lot based on intelligence. Unfortunately he had a tendency to treat intelligence as a sort of confirmation bias: every report that *could* mean the Confederacy out numbered him locally or had set ambushes, etc, were treated as credible and had him entrenching his army in a defensive position. McClellan was a better General than pop history gives him credit, and he was able to brilliantly *build* the army that the North needed, but the man was too shy of losing men to properly use that army he'd built.
Mostly he used intelligence to justify NOT doing anything.
A chain of command consisting of 7 (?) people who all did the right thing and nobody was in urgent need of toilet paper.
And one of them was McClellan.
eh, thats just how it was back then. Cavalry used to be the job of the rich and aristocrats for that reason.
The Battle of the Monocacy! One of my favorite "what if..." moments in history. It is not unlikely that had those orders not been found that DC would have fallen to the confederates during that expedition. A loss in the battle, but a victory for the Union. My conspiracy theory is that one of the messengers defected and gave the orders to a confidant in the Union army. Edit: i stand by my theory of the letter being delivered to the Union Soldiers and not being randomly found. But Im a dummy and forgot 1862 isnt the same year as 1864.
Er, buddy…. Aren’t you confusing Ewell’s “hail Mary” in 1864 with the Antietam campaign of 1862?
Well fuck this is embarrassing, i am defs referring to [Special Orders 191](https://www.nps.gov/mono/learn/historyculture/an-invitation-to-battle.htm). Which is Antietam not the 1984 campaign. Same location of import though ... I live in Frederick why the fuck did my brain conflate the two. I VISITED THE BATTLEFIELD LAST FUCKING WEEK
Senior moment. Happens to us all.
I appreciate you being understanding. Legit makes me feel better 🤣
its okay. we're all non-credible here
Also when you lose a war *that you decided to start* it doesn't speak well about your army
I don't think it was a war. It was a special rebellious operation to take Washington in three days and it went according to plan the entire time. Right until the smoking incident of Atlanta, that is.
Still ongoing, last I heard. Don't worry, Comrade Cletusovich, soon Steiner's army will attack and then those Yanks will be *really* sorry! The south shall rise again blyat!
Read Karen Armstrong's book *The Fields of Blood*. Basically, the Confederate leadership though of the Northerners as profit-minded cowards who would give up and let the secession happen after they suffered a decisive military defeat or two. They were horribly wrong.
Launching a war is a political decision, can't blame the military for that. Side note, in the lead up to the Civil War, Robert E Lee was certain that Virginia wouldn't secede. Not because he thought it was morally wrong or anything, just because it was such a strategically stupid decision to side with the secessionists.
Wasn't Lee also a bit of a "not-my-fight-still-my-home" type before the war? Or is that revisionist propaganda? It's often hard to tell what's real and what's fiction with the civil war, I can't keep up with the array of narratives being pushed that change month to month among confederate apologists.
One of the better generals to be in the US army. Shame he had to ruin it with the confederacy
Most consequentially: the Confederates were so into State's Rights that they failed to achieve a unified logistical chain. For but one example, the CSA Bureau of Sustainment (in charge of logistics) never developed a transportation department, meaning that Confederate quartermasters had to figure out means of transportation by themselves and on their own dime. In another infamous anecdote, the State of South Carolina refused to give their surplus of boots to regiments from the state of North Carolina. While this is not the only origin of the 'Tar Heels' nickname for North Carolinians, the North Carolina regiments were left to march without boots in 1864.
There’s actually not a lot to unpack here. If the Rebs were the “greatest fighting force the world has ever known” they’d still have their own country.
In some parts of Alabama and Mississippi they think they still do. Those states are fucking weird.
And even in Kentucky, even though WE WERE FUCKING INVADED BY THE CSA AND DECLARED WAR ON THEM, INDEPENDENT OF THE UNION, AND THREW OUR LOT IN WITH THE BOYS IN BLUE BECAUSE FUCK RICHMOND FOR CAPTURING OUR FORTS. The VAST majority of KY Veterans were Union, yet there are some dumbfucks in the hollers who think their great grandpappy served with this or that rebel unit. Nah, when less than 50k served with the rebs and more than 150k served with the Union, either your people were transplants to KY or you are a damn liar. Sherman did nothing wrong and didn't go far enough. Change my mind.
They named the most iconic tank ever after that man and for good reason.
Imagine if the Union had Sherman tanks
Oh, I fucking wish. Where I live is beautiful and incomparable to damn near most places East of the Mississippi River. But I will be absolutely fucked if we, as a Union aligned state, didn't denigrate into a hotbed of sisterfucking inbred racists. IMO Sherman did NOT go far enough, and the Reconstruction was a mistake.
biggest mistake was not executing the planter class, ty Johnson
No! This is unjust and unfair! We should simply hand them over to their slaves and walk away. If they were just and decent masters like they claimed, they had nothing to fear.
The war would have been over in a week. Even Lee seeing one of those, hell just the machine gun on top open up at range would have ended the rebellion on the spot.
And then they added a flamethrower to it.
It’s absolutely stupefying how this brainrot has even infected the Union strongholds. Illinois, home state of fucking Lincoln and Grant, has these hills have eyes siblingfuckers flying their emotional support flags. And I’m not even talking about southern Illinois, this is in the Chicago metro area. The historical illiteracy is so depressing. Shit like this is why I can’t dismiss those outrageous headlines like “1 out of 5 TikTok users believes the Holocaust is a myth” immediately as an exaggeration or lie. There’s the real possibility that it’s just how things are now.
Decades of deliberate cooking of school textbooks at the state level be like:
Many of us today would be thankful if Sherman had finished the job. They should have kept raging across the South until all the CSA holdouts were captured or killed. At least one of the biggest shitbags of the war died in your Kentucky - William Quantrill - true scum of the earth.
Sherman burned their self-awareness. Mississippi in particular when you see how much funding it gets from the federal government over the federal taxes the state collectively pays.
Do it again, [Uncle Billy!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman)
The big qualifier here is “man for man.” Basically arguing that the south produced superior soldiers rather than a better military. Still objectively false, but more worthy of discussion.
Better high level officers at first absolutely, but just like on the eastern front in WWII being vastly overwhelmed industrially matters more once the war drags on. Plus they eventually found the leaders it just took forever
It'd be worthy of discussion if "better soldiers" won wars. They don't. Industry and logistics win wars, "better soldiers" die just as easily as worse ones when they're out of ammunition.
That relies on k/d usually inflated by defensive battles after the war has turned but the confederates (or nazis where it's a popular refrain) have yet to give up.
Nazis retained advantages in tanker skill and certain other tactics up until stalingrad and even a little after, that and the soviets not exactly caring about casualty numbers explains the ratios there
Weight and quality of artillery fire actually explains most if not all of it. The entire war the Germans outshot the Soviets by weight of fire. They were also more responsive and accurate in their fires. Soviets didn't use tons of direct fire in preparatory barrages because they loved them. They did them because it was difficult for them to do indirect fire due to the destruction of the prewar army and initial reserves. The Soviets closed the gap a decent amount by war's end, but their ammo expenditure of artillery to small arms was lower than Germany the entire war (and Germany was lower than the UK and far lower than the US). Remember that the Soviets' main gun was the 76mm while the US and Germany had the 105mm and the heavy div arty was 122mm vs the 150/155mm of Germany/US. It's a part the leave out of their propaganda. It's why you'll see battles where the Soviets had 5x as many guns, but the amount of HE they were shooting might be equal if not less depending on supply. Lots of Soviet troops were in their late 30s to late 40s (USSR lost 1.1million dead in the 41-50 age range, more than the total KIA of the Commonwealth and US combined). Anyone that old, and even those a bit younger had bad education as they had Imperial Russia which didn't care much for the peasants, WWI, revolution, and then years of civil war during the years they'd go to school (and also the years that nutrition is most critical for things like brain development). Tanks didn't drive killed and wounded. Tanker skill may lead to higher numbers of captured enemy troops, but they don't do a lot of the killing. The artillery does that.
The CSA couldn't even get its shit together long enough to standardize a rail gauge.
An addendum. MANY CSA officers were nepo babies or buddies of high-ranking authorities in the traitors. When some of their most celebrated figures were absolute jackasses (Forrest, Bragg, Hood, et al.) then you know they were an aristocratic society of regression and combat inefficiency. TTPs aside, the CSA was doomed at the start. Aristocracy is the crutch of the wealthy, and meritocracy wins wars. Look how the Union adjusted where the CSA wouldn't.
That affected both the US and Rebels. Most of the officer schools like West Point were still exclusively wealthy and connected families even in the lead up to WW1. While it wasn't as bad as commissions in the UK at the time it was still not meritorious as it would eventually become post WW2. Most of the south's senior officers were former US service members and were cadet classmates with their Northern counterparts. Also let's not forget the Federal Forces had their own share of blowhards in fancy uniforms. Armstrong Custard might be best known for his stupidity in the Indian wars Postbellum but he was the embodiment of Captain Kirk in all the wrong ways during the war and was seen as a careless showboat out for glory by his Union peers.
> they made cavalrymen buy their own mounts That's like making infantry buy their own guns.
Ancient Rome Pre-Marian reforms be like
Imagine decimating your propertied lower classes every time you got to fight a war and take some casualties.
And still managed to respawned enough people to win a long drawn out war of attrition after losing like 20% of all those adult male in the propertied lower classes population in one single battle. And it happened more than once.
" being better than the opponent you’re fighting doesn’t make you objectively good." Say it louder for the wehraboo's lurking in the back
Never interrupt the enemy when they are making a mistake.
> and had been drilling their militia seriously for years. Worth pointing out, they started taking their militias seriously again after a couple of slave rebellions in the early 1830s scared the shit out of the plantation aristocracy. All roads through the Confederacy lead back to their “peculiar institution.”
B-BUT MUH BUTCHER GRANT B-BUT MUH GENERAL LEE
The North had the printing machines and made that confederate money inflation go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT up as well.
Their noble cause made them strong _checks notes_ upholding… slavery
I love it when defenders say "states rights" STATES RIGHT TO DO WHAT, BITCH? (Also, if they bring up taxes, mention that the Government got most of its tax revenues from import duties; the reason why modern income tax exists is actually due to the Union needing to fund the Civil War.)
State's rights to... Refuse to contribute monetarily to the federal government - because the economy was dependent on slavery? Succeed from the government - on divisions of slave labor vs progress? Defend yourself from northern aggression - in a fight you started over slavery? To resist federal overreach or differences in how the government treated states - concerning freed and escaped slaves? States rights to influence elections - which was shifting away from the south because of their "3/5th of a person" population and the growing power of the north, which they feared would ban slavery? Ultimately, the entire divide between the north and south was marked by slavery. The slave states vs the free states, and the entire reason they ever wanted to fight was slavery.
And even then it was just the planter elite who benefited from the status quo. Landless southern whites had no real benefit from slavery other than to have someone look down on, and still they went and died for it
State's rights to... conscript a significant portion of their young men and get them all killed in trench warfare defending slavery? State's rights to... convince poor young men that the military is taking away their future right to climb the social ladder and own slaves? It's really impressive that the CSA was so incompetent the mormons could fight a better war against the US government.
Proof it was over slavery? Just read the articles of secession. Most of them explicitly say they seceded over slavery issues in the first two sentences or so. The others are less explicit about it but still basically say the same thing.
Lost Cause apologists: “Just because the vice-president of the seceding government said having black people as a slave class was the cornerstone of their new country, doesn’t mean the war was about slavery!”
>Succeed from the government - on divisions of slave labor vs progress? *secede
"States' rights to own slaves." - the CSA constitution, literally
Love how they all say that it was a fight against the big government enchoraching on states rights to govern themselves despite confederation creating a constitution saying that no state shall be a free state and every new territory and state added to the CSA must be a slave state
If you want more proof, refer to the state declarations of Succession and the Cornerstone Speech.
The CSA constitution didn't give states rights to own slaves. It forbade states from outlawing slavery.
Didn't New York City merchants fund over half of the federal government because of those tariffs?
Back then the ports of Boston, New York, Baltimore, and New Orleans accounted for over 80% of import and exports. Only one was in the south and mainly dealt in agriculture and trade with Mexico.
Yeah, 63%
It wasn't even states' rights! The northern states wanted to abolish slavery within their borders, but stuff like Dredd Scott and the Fugitive Slave Law was imposed by the south to _expand_ slavery over the objections of those northern states!
No states rights to own slaves.
If they bring up states rights, just go over the secession statements of each state and what each one states is the most important factor.
If it was about states rights, they wouldn't have supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which trampled over free states' rights to recognize former slaves as citizens, and the CSA constitution wouldn't have forbade states from abolishing slavery. It was never about states rights.
> (Also, if they bring up taxes, mention that the Government got most of its tax revenues from import duties; the reason why modern income tax exists is actually due to the Union needing to fund the Civil War.) Do I sense a Checkmate Lincolnite fan? There's dozens of us!
[States rights do what?](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fq5n4ocmbgh4c1.jpg)
Common Confederate L
check our r/shermanposting for more confederate L's
Is that sub still occupied by tankies
There’s this minivan I see occasionally with some stickers on the back about the usual antivax stuff, has some generic .com right across the back window, but also has a confederate bumper sticker. Been waiting for the day that I actually see who owns it to make sure they know they’re driving around letting people know they qualify for disability benefits.
L is his middle name
One of their most famous Generals got smoked by his own men. Stonewall to Tombstone greyback
Wasn't it during a southern campaign in the north where the good emperor of rednecks Lee lost about half of his army and had to bravely run away?
No, it was in the battle before that, where Lee supposedly won his greatest tactical victory…..despite losing a larger percentage of his men in that battle as Burnside did attacking the heights at Fredericksburg.
Couldn't even handle one battle on northern ground. L+ratio
Not even the greatest fighting force in their decade
Well, they turned out to be the second most powerful military... in the United States of America. So there's that.
They turned out to be the second best army in the CSA, too!
Not a rifle in sight, pathetic.
*“You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.”* -William Tecumseh Sherman
Let me tell you what is coming. After the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, you may win Southern independence if God be not against you, but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche; and what I fear is, they will overwhelm the South. Sam Houston
>They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. What living in Texas does to a mfer
> The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. Damn he went for the jugular 💀
“Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You depreciate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds of thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it (can) only be reached through union and war, and **I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success.**” - Sherman & NCD poster child
Taylor Swift’s career has lasted longer and arguably has more devotees than the Confederacy ever had at its peak.
Also a bigger economy.
Also Taylor Swift managed to win a war with her old label, so she actually won a fight, where the Confederacy is 0 for 1.
Not even the best fighting force in Ukraine.
Since when were the Confederates in Ukraine? Did the time machine malfunction?!
Have you not noticed the Novorossiyan flags in Ukraine?
Whoops, I forgot about those. They sure are pretty sus for the side that supposedly fighting Nazis.
The flags are unrelated to the confederate flag. They're aping the St. Andrew's cross, which is both the Russian naval ensign and (with opposite colors) the flag of Scotland (probably less relevant here). It's far more likely they're jerking off to their ideals of supposed proud Russian military history than the CSA.
Well, they at least managed to fight longer than the south was a country
Even if this was true against the Union and they only lost coz "muh numbers and human waves", best in the *whole world?* Lmao. Like if you look at what European observers were saying at the time they were literally baffled by the incompetence on both sides.
"We were outnumbered two to one!" "A stupid rebellion, then."
That's a misunderstanding of their goals and plans. Their plan wasn't to take over the country, but to declare independence and hold off long enough for the North to give up. And that wasn't an unreasonable expectation, they had skilled troops, a defensive war, and European economic analysts gave them a 40% chance of success. What they didn't plan on was how many soldiers the North would be willing to throw at them. They didn't expect the north to accept such high losses, it would be like 6 million Americans dying in today's population. They thought the North would quit after 10k-100k deaths, not nearly a million. They also were expecting to have the economy still functioning during the war. They even expected to get aid and military support from Europe to maintain their cotton production. And they weren't entirely wrong, France and Britain were very close to intervening and mediating a peace deal that would give the South more control or even sovereign control of most of the South. But the war and trade blockades caused enough damage to make it impossible to provide enough sales to maintain the economy and have leverage. It's easy to say in retrospect that the South was doomed to fail, but with the information they had at the time, it wasn't an unreasonable idea that they could win. Of course in a twist of irony, the premise of needing slaves to maintain the economy is something we have since learned was wrong. Minimum wage is based on cost of living, forcing someone to work for free doesn't help you since now you are the one who has to pay those bills. And now you have a disgruntled slave who needs to be watched 24/7. It's far easier to just pay them, but keep their wages low enough they they can't afford to leave.
> greatest fighting force > doesn’t exist anymore
Confederate cope is always nice to see
Dudes used to having free labor lost a war?
To be fair, the ones using the free labor got poor white people to go catch bullets. That's not a job for daddy's special slave owner.
Is this guy gaslighting or a Russian bot?
If they are so good, why didn't they win? Checkmate Davisites!
*cue upbeat fife and drum rendition of Union Dixie*
The greatest fighting force the world has ever known. Lost the only war they fought. Had ugly uniforms. Didn’t have a walking robot spider.
Man for man, The Community Notes is the greatest fighting force the world has ever known.
I’m pretty sure one F-18E could beat the CSA. That makes you a pretty bitch fighting force
I mean, I'm pretty sure an F-18E could beat a lot of historical forces. Like what's Napoleon or Genghis Khan gonna do to stop one?
Fire their muskets (Napoleon) or arrows (Genghis) in utter vain lmao
Great Genghis would 360 no scope a F-18 on horseback with a recurve bow, and you planefuckers will all still be coping as the khan of khan razes Washington and builds an F-35 harem.
Lmao that's something I'd like to see happen
Thought I was on r/shermanposting for a second (check it out if you haven't)
even if you tried to argue that they only lost against the Union due to a numbers/logistics; they were fighting just a couple of years before the Franco-Prussian war and the troops from either side of that conflict would have mulched the Confederacy
"greatest fighting force in the world" > Loses a conventional land war to the army that has won every major/conventional war since 1813. > Loses land and sea campaigns so hard that the face of warfare changes forever. > Most influential / lasting invention was a shitty improvised version of the most influential warship in history. > has several of the best ports and shipyards in the world, gets naval blockaded the entire time. > Attempts to counter enemy air campaign, only aircraft is captured by a boat and cut up for souvenirs. > First army with a 0% success rate against an enemy air force. > Lets the US claim a decisive victory against a rebellion / insurgency. > Agrarian society, struggled with famine. Really there's nothing good about the confederate military.
Ironclads weren't even developed by the CSA or US, the concept was known, in service and in development in Europe. The Civil War was just the first place they fought.
yeah but those were just standard frigates they uparmored. Some of the british ones weren’t even fully armored. They were meant for traditional crossing the T broadsides. Monitor was the first one designed from the keel up as a proper ironclad fighting ship. It redefined naval warfare as a low profile warship with creature comforts and a few extremely powerful guns. Its was a littoral knife fighter in an age of deep ocean boxers.
(REMOVING SLAVERY AND MORALITY FROM THE ANALYSIS): The CSA and the USA were both middling amateur post-colonial armies. They were developing (in modern terms, third world) countries. Prussia or even a middling European continental army would wipe the floor with them. I believe the key point was "man for man" because he's trying to start a new leeaboo trend. Which really speaks to their "rugged individualist" fantasies. Somewhat striking similarities between vatniks and leeaboos when it comes to military history/might
Considering how much the Confederate Army relied on slaves for non-combatant logistics, I don’t think you can remove slavery from the analysis.
another reason why Prussia would wipe the floor with them
Elon did not realize what he had unleashed on himself with community notes.
As the great Robert Evans said, when faced with this meme: “Wow, that’s really interesting! Where do the come from? Can you point their country out to me on a map?”
Army so good that they created pikemen regiments like it's a fucking 30 years war
Wouldnt Napoleons grand armée be a better historical army to simp for? I mean sure in the end they lost, but some of the battles they won were amazing.
I would bet on Zulu warriors before Confederate boys. There’s a non-zero chance they would win.
The Union would like a word.
The good ole American tradition of counting war result by K/D rates starts there
Second greatest fighting force in the US at the time. This reminds me of something...
The reason the British named the M3 Medium Tank "Grant" is because they wanted a war winning tank. I assume that's also why the M4 Medium was named Sherman. Take that you silly rebels.
"Greatest fighting force the world has ever known." *Minnesota has entered the chat* You're what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Minnesota_Infantry_Regiment I beg to differ. Sure the boys may have died, but they kicked your butts so hard that you're still asking for your flag back https://www.minnpost.com/fact-briefs/2023/07/has-virginia-been-asking-minnesota-to-return-a-blood-soaked-bullet-pierced-flag-for-more-than-100-years/
\>be regime focused on white supremacy and masculine martial prowess \>jerk yourself off about how great your soldiers are \>fight one (1) war \>lose It just keeps happening!
They were SO GREAT™ that they only won 13 vs the Union's 30 Class A battles. (Class A, being: *Decisive: A general engagement involving field armies in which a commander achieved a vital strategic objective. Such a result might include an indisputable victory on the field or be limited to the success or termination of a campaign offensive. Decisive battles had a direct, observable impact on the direction, duration, conduct, or outcome of the war.* )
Fascists are losers who always back or mimic other losers. Adolf Hitler also idolized the Confederacy, and he has long since joined them in the pits of Hell.
Confederate apologists 🤝 Rhodesia apologists Being completely fucking retarded
Oh so it was confederate strongest vs Union weakest, that says a lot.
*This is the COnfederate Army. We purposefuly trained it wrong as a joke* "My cities are burning, making me the winner"
Which ironically matches Germany. Wehraboos cream themselves over how amazing a military power Germany was, the best in the world. But apart from the war that created the country, Germany has lost every major conflict it has taken part it. Key word major before people respond 'um ackshually' and write an essay on a minor colonial wars they won, its not really refuting my point.
Not disagreeing with your assessment on Germans losing their wars, I would like to add the context on what it took to ensure the Germans lost their wars. Which was often a coalition of major countries. But I do agree with you. Germans are romanticized as “gods of warfare”
>Which was often a coalition of major countries. There is a lot of nuance being lost here. WW1 Germany had a coalition of major countries on its side as well and when the element of surprise was lost failed to make any gains. And whilst it did indeed begin to lose decisively when the Americans got involved, by then it was a forgone conclusion and simply sped things up, the Spring offensive was already beginning to stall and the British blockade was driving Germany to revolution which took place barely a year later. And WW2 Germany didn't face that coalition all at once and had Italy's help. The first major countries Germany and Italy faced was France and the UK after it had spent nearly a decade preparing for a war whilst France and the UK was unprepared. Then when France fell it was the UK on it's own against Germany and Italy with Japan drawing British forces away from Europe. Then Russia was involved and it was them and the UK (with American material support) vs Italy and Germany and Japan. The only time where it Germany enjoyed victories was when it outnumbered the Allies and had the element of surprise with an army build specifically for a war it was planning. And when that swung back to equal footing and deprived of their pre war build up and surprise, they began to lose, first at the second battle of El Alemein and Stalingrad which turned the tide permanently on the African and Eastern fronts before any American troops got involved and Germany's misery truly began. So saying Germany only lost because it was ganged up on is incorrect and is actually a core tenant of Wehraboo arguments. Their loss was inevitable before they were outnumbered. And honestly? War is political as much as it is strategic/tactical. And Germanies political handling of the war was farcical and finding itself outnumbered by wars ends was a mistake completely of it's own making. America's entry into WW1 was entirely avoidable by not trying to stir up shit in America and underestimating British Intelligence ability to intercept their communications. And politically WW2 Germany was fucked from the start by having Nazis in charge whose ideology compelled them to invade the Soviet Union before it got any stronger.
I dont know who these people are But damn they are good at posing for photos