Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Jul 2017, 7:31 am

Please re-read the first sentence of my post you referenced....carefully.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Jul 2017, 9:38 am

freeman3
Please re-read the first sentence of my post you referenced....carefully

I did. However I didn't think that any of the points about China's Downside that were brought up by Ray or others evidenced anything substantial compared to the negatives for China if they completely cooperated...
I thought, maybe you thought there was some downside beyond what had been noted...

As for your this
. There is a story that General Ulysses Grant relates about early in the war he was fretting over attacking a Confederate position and when he finally did so he found that the Confederates had panicked and abandoned their position. And he realized that the Confederate general was just as scared about his intentions as he had been of the Confederates. And that changed his fundamental outlook on how to conduct war
.

Perhaps that is why he was so over confident at Cold Harbor.
The Battle of Cold Harbor was fought from May 31 to June 12, 1864, with the most significant fighting occurring on June 3. It was one of the final battles of Union Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant's Overland Campaign during the American Civil War, and is remembered as one of American history's bloodiest, most lopsided battles. Thousands of Union soldiers were killed or wounded in a hopeless frontal assault against the fortified positions of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee's army
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cold_Harbor
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Jul 2017, 10:55 am

The Union,lead by Grant, won the Civil War...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Jul 2017, 11:17 am

As compared to the Union, commanded by McClellan, McDowell and Burnside... (all losers, btw)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Jul 2017, 5:17 am

freeman3 wrote:The Union,lead by Grant, won the Civil War...

And, his well-regarded autobiography is free/cheap on amazon kindle.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Jul 2017, 10:30 am

Yeah, well, it kind of annoyed me about Ricky's criticism of Grant at Cold Harbor. In 1864 Grant was going up against the military genius of the war, Robert E. Lee. Lincoln's thought from an early period in the war was the Union had the advantage of men and resources while the South had the advantage of interior lines of communication so they could more easily men around than the Union could. So if the Union attacked piecemeal then the South could off-set their numerical inferiority by shifting their armies to deal with threats as they became apparent. So to Lincoln the way to deal with that was by simultaneously attacking the South at different points so that there would be some areas that were weak and the South could not shift men and resources to cover them. But he had a hard time getting his commanders to being aggressive enough to do that.

But in 1864 that was the plan--attack everywhere. At the very least wear the South down in a war of attrition. But up to now Robert E. Lee had been undefeated on his home turf. When he invaded the North it was a different story--he was lucky to escape from Antietam and Gettysburg, and Antietam was perhaps a tactical draw while Gettysburg was a defeat.

So Grant had to take it to Lee...but at the same time avoid a major defeat. Grant kept trying to slide to the left around Lee, but Lee was like a mind-reader as to Grant's intentions. Lee's defense was brilliant but in the end Lee could not replace the losses he was taking and was pinned down in a long-drawn out siege at Petersburg.

So Grant...did succeed in his military mission against a very skilled opponent. And thus I find a swipe for a tactical mistake to be unfair without placing it in a larger context. (Actually, a danger of Google research where you take a slice of knowledge to emphasize a point without having the overall knowledge to understand that the point is not valid given the overall context. Google is great...but it has its limitations.)

Politically, Union casualties could have lost the war for the Union. Lincoln was up for reelection and the huge losses that Grant sustained made it possible a peace candidate (McClellan) could have beaten him. Unfortunately, the loss of Atlanta doomed the South. Joseph E. Johnston was a passive defensive tactician and Sherman kept maneuvering him out of his defensive positions and the Union army kept getting closer to Atlanta. This resulted in the South turning to Hood--personally brave but not up to the challenge of commanding an army--and he did what was expected of him, attack the Union army. He lost, Atlanta was abandoned, Lincoln's reelection was assured, and Union victory was inevitable at that point.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 Jul 2017, 2:19 pm

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, well, it kind of annoyed me about Ricky's criticism of Grant at Cold Harbor. In 1864 Grant was going up against the military genius of the war, Robert E. Lee. Lincoln's thought from an early period in the war was the Union had the advantage of men and resources while the South had the advantage of interior lines of communication so they could more easily men around than the Union could. So if the Union attacked piecemeal then the South could off-set their numerical inferiority by shifting their armies to deal with threats as they became apparent. So to Lincoln the way to deal with that was by simultaneously attacking the South at different points so that there would be some areas that were weak and the South could not shift men and resources to cover them. But he had a hard time getting his commanders to being aggressive enough to do that.

But in 1864 that was the plan--attack everywhere. At the very least wear the South down in a war of attrition. But up to now Robert E. Lee had been undefeated on his home turf. When he invaded the North it was a different story--he was lucky to escape from Antietam and Gettysburg, and Antietam was perhaps a tactical draw while Gettysburg was a defeat.

So Grant had to take it to Lee...but at the same time avoid a major defeat. Grant kept trying to slide to the left around Lee, but Lee was like a mind-reader as to Grant's intentions. Lee's defense was brilliant but in the end Lee could not replace the losses he was taking and was pinned down in a long-drawn out siege at Petersburg.

So Grant...did succeed in his military mission against a very skilled opponent. And thus I find a swipe for a tactical mistake to be unfair without placing it in a larger context. (Actually, a danger of Google research where you take a slice of knowledge to emphasize a point without having the overall knowledge to understand that the point is not valid given the overall context. Google is great...but it has its limitations.)

Politically, Union casualties could have lost the war for the Union. Lincoln was up for reelection and the huge losses that Grant sustained made it possible a peace candidate (McClellan) could have beaten him. Unfortunately, the loss of Atlanta doomed the South. Joseph E. Johnston was a passive defensive tactician and Sherman kept maneuvering him out of his defensive positions and the Union army kept getting closer to Atlanta. This resulted in the South turning to Hood--personally brave but not up to the challenge of commanding an army--and he did what was expected of him, attack the Union army. He lost, Atlanta was abandoned, Lincoln's reelection was assured, and Union victory was inevitable at that point.

I've got this on my shelf at home. When I get home, I need to make time to finally read it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-man-wh ... eral-grant
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 15 Jul 2017, 2:54 pm

"I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made … No advantage whatever was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained."


U.S. Grant.


Freeman3
Yeah, well, it kind of annoyed me about Ricky's criticism of Grant at Cold Harbor.

Well, your the guy who used Grants supposedly fundamental outlook on how to conduct war as an axiom on how to conduct the Korean problem.
Grant sacrificed thousands of lives in an unwinnable battle that he could have been avoided. Maybe that has more of a lesson for how to act in Korea than his earlier insight?

freeman3
Joseph E. Johnston was a passive defensive tactician and Sherman kept maneuvering him out of his defensive positions and the Union army kept getting closer to Atlanta.

And what happened when Johnston was relieved by Hood?
Johnston played the cards dealt him well.... Here's a guy who's opinion you may value...

I have had nearly all the Southern Generals in high command in front of me and Joe Johnson gave me more anxiety than any of the others. I was never half so anxious about Lee.
Take it all in all, the South, in my opinion had no greater soldier than Joe Johnston – none at least that gave me more trouble.

U.S.Grant.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Jul 2017, 6:14 pm

I laughed out loud at the quote by Grant with regard to Johnston. Lee said about the same thing about McClellan...

Johnston was also involved in losing Vicksburg. McClellan and Johnston were good defensively but not aggressive enough. That was their Achilles heel and made them terrible generals even though they were skillful tactically and strategically. But they lacked the will I suppose to roll the dice at an opportune time for fear that something would go wrong. McClellan kept thinking that the Confederate army was way bigger than his own to justify his caution.Johnston was dilatory in coming to Vickburg's aid and kept retreating from Sherman. Note that Lee did not retreat against Grant but challenged him at every turn. He realized that the South with its numerical inferiority could not sit passively on defense but had to take the initiative.

But you're not giving me the sense that you read much about the Civil War. When you've read, I don't know, 20-30 books on it...get back to me. Doing Google searches and finding links to support a POV is not very convincing when you don't have a wide basis of knowledge on a subject to begin with. If I wanted to debate Wikipedia..I would send submissions to them. You keep citing things in isolation which are kind of funny, really.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 16 Jul 2017, 5:06 am

The other angle of the Civil War example is fighting for what is right. NK is a large slave labor camp.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Jul 2017, 8:19 am

Ray Jay wrote:The other angle of the Civil War example is fighting for what is right. NK is a large slave labor camp.


Truth.

Slight diversion: I do wonder if the horrors of the concentration camps were widely known as soon as they started, would that have affected public opinion about getting into the war?

I certainly hope so.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Jul 2017, 8:46 am

freeman3
You keep citing things in isolation which are kind of funny, really.


that's what i thought when you wrote this..
There is a story that General Ulysses Grant relates about early in the war he was fretting over attacking a Confederate position and when he finally did so he found that the Confederates had panicked and abandoned their position. And he realized that the Confederate general was just as scared about his intentions as he had been of the Confederates. And that changed his fundamental outlook on how to conduct war.


freeman3
Note that Lee did not retreat against Grant but challenged him at every turn. He realized that the South with its numerical inferiority could not sit passively on defense but had to take the initiative.

Sure. And its at Gettysburg where he engaged at the wrong time in the wrong place because of this attitude...Picketts charge?
And the historical record for your claim ? Longstreet and Lee discussed the invasion of the North, but Longstreet claims that Lee agreed to always act defensively.
‘All that I could ask was that the policy of the campaign should be one of defensive tactics,’ Longstreet stated in his memoirs, ‘that we would work so as to force the enemy to attack us, in such a good position as we might find in his own country, so well adapted to that purpose — which might assure us of a grand triumph.’


You'll note Freeman, that I am quoting people specifically when I make my claims...
Because I know the quotations exist, having read and retained the knowledge, I can find them again.
Lee failed often. Most spectacularly at Gettysburg.
Grant failed upon occasion. Even at the beginning, narrowly avoiding calamity at Shiloh which would have ended his career.... (The greatest calamity for the South was losing Sydney Johnson at Shiloh. Had he lived, Shiloh might have transpired differently. And the war in the west, at least in the short run, also) Grant understood that he could endure a war of attrition though, and was prepared to lose occasionally while bleeding the enemy. Nuff said.

Using the American civil war as a template for the situation in Korea is really odd. Grant never faced a circumstance remotely as destructive as a Korean war would be. There are no good options in Korea. Only bad, worse. way worse and disastrous. Civil war generals did not need to take into account the possibility of the destruction of a 28 million person city, or the use of nuclear weapons with their potential.
It may be romantic to look back at the myths that have built up around your civil war generals and try to apply what you see as their wisdom. But they really have nothing to tell us about the mess that is Korea today.

rayjay
The other angle of the Civil War example is fighting for what is right. NK is a large slave labor camp.

It would be wise to view Lee and other Confederate Generals in this light too.... No? Or maybe not? I'd ask you to consider that North Koreans might well not understand the circumstances in which they live, nor how their lot is so different than much of the rest of the world.
They are completely isolated and view almost nothing of the outside world. Its more than likely that if called to fight they would be a ferocious and highly motivated armed nation.
Being right, doesn't mean you assume that the other side understands they are the "bad guys", fighting for something that is evil and bad. They are just as likely to think we are the evil ones... And the history of the conflict in 1950 to 54 is one of incredible destruction and devastation in North Korea.... by the west. So they have some historical justification for believing that they face annihilation by an evil force.
To do whats right in Korea, is to have the patience and wisdom to avoid massive destruction, to avoid a world wide financial calamity and to avoid rewarding North Korea for acting aggressively.
I really don't know what that is ..... but nothing anyone here has offered here could guarantee avoiding all of that. So talk. And let the South Koreans lead. They have the most to lose and gain . And they are more likely to understand North Korea.
If South Korea makes progress, maybe China will take more interest.Right now, there's not much for China to gain from a major change to the status quo. Unless they think Kim would actually risk nuclear war, and I don't think they consider him irrational to that extent. Homicidal. Not suicidal.
All he's about is regime survival.... And nuclear war would certainly not lead to that.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 16 Jul 2017, 10:38 am

Ricky, please. Is that what the p is for? You cite Civil War generals who praise their opponents...but not really. You don't know this because you are hunting for links on a subject...without knowing the subject. You pick this Longstreet quote without realizing how immensely controversial his actions at Gettysburg were. Yeah, Longstreet's idea was to maneuver the North into attacking the Confederate Army like happened at Marye's Heights when Burnside kept charging up a hill and Union troops were slaughtered. That was Longstreet's idea to force the Union to attack Confederate positions in strong defensive positions and he didn't like the strong defensive positions that the Union had at Gettysburg. And Longstreet thought that Lee had agreed to his vision...but he had not. And Longstreet threw a bit of a tantrum about it and was not 100% in to the battle at Gettysburg. He has not beeen very popular (I think) due to his actions at Gettysburg.

Pickett's Charge was on Day 3 at Gettysburg. Day 1 was won by the Confederate, Day 2 they came very close to winning...and Lee thought that since they had been hitting the flanks the center was weak. It was not weak. Moreover, Union artillery was devastating that day. So he made a mistake. No one is perfect. Lee was better than anyone else in that war though.Not to romanticize the Civil War because the South had a bad cause and that is why they lost. But we're just talking about generalship here

Anyway, I did not bring up the Civil War as a template for anything.You did. You brought up Cold Harbor as indicative of overconfidence by General Grant and I said hold on there--that's not really fair to bring up one bad battle and conclude something about a general. You decided you would try and hunt for more quotes to defend your initial mistake. This is not a subject you can debate by doing Google searches. There should be a phrase for that...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Jul 2017, 1:44 pm

freeman3 wrote:Ricky, please. Is that what the p is for? You cite Civil War generals who praise their opponents...but not really. You don't know this because you are hunting for links on a subject...without knowing the subject. You pick this Longstreet quote without realizing how immensely controversial his actions at Gettysburg were. Yeah, Longstreet's idea was to maneuver the North into attacking the Confederate Army like happened at Marye's Heights when Burnside kept charging up a hill and Union troops were slaughtered. That was Longstreet's idea to force the Union to attack Confederate positions in strong defensive positions and he didn't like the strong defensive positions that the Union had at Gettysburg. And Longstreet thought that Lee had agreed to his vision...but he had not. And Longstreet threw a bit of a tantrum about it and was not 100% in to the battle at Gettysburg. He has not beeen very popular (I think) due to his actions at Gettysburg.

Pickett's Charge was on Day 3 at Gettysburg. Day 1 was won by the Confederate, Day 2 they came very close to winning...and Lee thought that since they had been hitting the flanks the center was weak. It was not weak. Moreover, Union artillery was devastating that day. So he made a mistake. No one is perfect. Lee was better than anyone else in that war though.Not to romanticize the Civil War because the South had a bad cause and that is why they lost. But we're just talking about generalship here

Anyway, I did not bring up the Civil War as a template for anything.You did. You brought up Cold Harbor as indicative of overconfidence by General Grant and I said hold on there--that's not really fair to bring up one bad battle and conclude something about a general. You decided you would try and hunt for more quotes to defend your initial mistake. This is not a subject you can debate by doing Google searches. There should be a phrase for that...


It's good to warn one's opponent to not get all googly-woogly.

I believe that is the term you're looking for.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Jul 2017, 1:56 pm

rickyp wrote:To do whats right in Korea, is to have the patience and wisdom to avoid massive destruction, to avoid a world wide financial calamity and to avoid rewarding North Korea for acting aggressively.


How do you know having "patience and wisdom" is the "right" thing? Have we not been patient with North Korea? Haven't we bargained with them? Haven't they violated those agreements? Why should we believe a new agreement means more to them?

What if there is a military solution? I don't mean launching an invasion, but what if a key strike could render them helpless? What if there is some other possibility?

I really don't know what that is ..... but nothing anyone here has offered here could guarantee avoiding all of that. So talk. And let the South Koreans lead. They have the most to lose and gain . And they are more likely to understand North Korea.


Does the US prevent the South from talking to the North?

Has the North ever offered anything of substance and then followed through?

If South Korea makes progress, maybe China will take more interest.Right now, there's not much for China to gain from a major change to the status quo. Unless they think Kim would actually risk nuclear war, and I don't think they consider him irrational to that extent. Homicidal. Not suicidal.
All he's about is regime survival.... And nuclear war would certainly not lead to that.


"Homicidal?"

Hmm, ya think? How many does he kill annually?

Could he get an EMP to the continental US? If so tens of millions would likely die.

How long should the US wait? Will history look kindly upon the American President who dithered while Kim launched missile after missile?

Why yes! If his name is "Obama."

Trump? Probably not.

You don't have an answer, but suggest something that I believe has been tried for 60+ years without success.

Not sure you should be bashing anyone's ideas here.