Command Responsibility and War Crimes: general discussion

[Ken White]

Congrats on the well deserved retirement, Mike. Enjoy it...

Ken

To return to the thread with an answer from this dedicated Southerner; No, he wasn't. Nor were Nathan Bedford, John Hunt Morgan, Ben Grierson and dozens of less well known folks...

War is war.

[jmm99]

"warfare" is "warfare"; but as to the latter, the rules they do change - as to strategy (probably the least), tactics and "war crimes".

For example, one of our favorite generals (Subotai) employed the "wagon wheel test" to separate the "goats" from the "sheep" - too tall and your head was removed to put you in the eternal "sheep class". His problem (in occupying adverse territory) was that he had too few troops to "clear and hold" (much less "build"). So, all potential insurgents had to be removed.

What was "acceptable" to that non-Mongol would scarcely be "acceptable" today; but what is "acceptable" today has many variants (compare EU vs US and have fun). "Old Law" is not necessarily bad - especially where it had clarity.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

Moved from law Enforcement to Historians and title amended, so subject is far clearer.

[Ken White]

"Old Law" is not necessarily bad - especially where it had clarity.

who have clarity...

All true. Nor is all change necessarily good, yet, it is. Onward and upward we go.

[Bob's World]

In a conversation the other day a person made the observation that "corruption" is taxation where formal taxation structures don't exist.

In that context, In the newly developing "war between nations" (as opposed to war between Kingdoms), where the will/morale and ability of the populace to support a war is so critical to achieving true defeat, deep raids targeting that aspect of the populace were "strategic bombing" before bombers existed.

Grant sent Sheridan into the Shenandoah on the same mission, though the history books seem to focus on Sherman; and all seem to miss that it was on Grant's orders to execute Grant's strategy that both these trusted lieutenants acted.

Grant had a comprehensive grasp on the realities of modern warfighting as it was developing around him, that great tactical leaders like Lee did not appear to grasp. I suspect that if Grant had focused solely on the defeat of Lee's army or the capture of Richmond that the war would have been much more likely to have devolved into a decades long insurgency.

[ganulv]

Grant sent Sheridan into the Shenandoah on the same mission, though the history books seem to focus on Sherman; and all seem to miss that it was on Grant's orders to execute Grant's strategy that both these trusted lieutenants acted.

Even as a good Southerner, the infrastructure and crop destruction during the March to the Sea make perfect sense militarily to me. I suppose one could color the pillaging of individual homes with a military brush by calling the actions punitive, but that would seem to butt up against the Union’s stated purpose of reintegrating the Confederate states (the behavior might well have been hard to police, but throwing up your hands and saying “Boys will be boys!” is still throwing up your hand) and is the part of the expedition which really sticks in my and many other Southerners’ craw (including the young lady I know who dropped her drawers and squatted down to piss on the Sherman Monument in Central Park during her senior class trip). Interesting that in historical memory of the Valley Campaigns that sort of behavior is not highlighted. That series of events seem to be remembered more as merciless than as rapacious.

I suspect that if Grant had focused solely on the defeat of Lee's army or the capture of Richmond that the war would have been much more likely to have devolved into a decades long insurgency.

Of a different type and scale than the decades long insurgency that did take place, you mean?