Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryzorian
Tenchu: When the US is determined and motivated in a war, it goes all out, General Sherman called it Total War. You may find that barbaric, and that's your right to think thus. However, winning is more important than trying to die nobly. The Victor's can dictate how the peace will be, the dead can't do anything.
Before you lamblast me about how the US did this and that to some country, remember that America practiced Total War against itself durring the Civil War, essentially the US was the first test case for it's new style. We certainly won't be worrid about bringing such destruction to some other country, if we were so willing to do it to ourselves.
|
Except in the more racists and backwater areas of the U.S., Sherman's March to the Sea with his policy of total destruction is condemned in most American History texts. This tactic is taught as having been effective, but morally wrong. And the "Scorched Earth" strategy predates even the founding of America by centuries, so it was no test case for anyone other than Grant's planning.
And if you think it doesn't raise concern whenever this method of destruction is considered, you must be severely editing your political history and current events.
For example, the bombing of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is rarely regarded as "winning" WWII or a victorious act. In fact, such a reference would be considered deplorable even within the ranks of the U.S. Armed Forces. Instead it is acknowledged only as the acts which stopped the Japanese aggression.
This may seem like merely semantics, but there is a vast difference between a nation being defeated in battle, and standing down to spare loss of life. They were not defeated. The Germans and Italians were defeated. But the Japanese
chose to end the war to spare their people. That takes far more courage and intelligence to than to wage war.