New Testingstan

Questor wrote:

Civil War Man wrote:

Oxymoron wrote:or that it's so insecure about its own achievements that it has to belittle those of others to feel good about its owns, I guess ?

Well, the most devastating war in US history was a pretty small brush war by European or Asian standards. Make of that what you will.

Depends entirely on the scale. It was only small compared to what came later.

Well, the most devastating war in American history is King Philip's War, which was literally a brush war. But even the American Civil War is fairly small compared to Napoleon or the Seven Year's War in terms of mobilization and resources consumed.

phongn wrote:FDR was chomping at the bit and it was pretty much a matter of time until we got in one way or another (probably via escalating Battle of the Atlantic)

Yeah, much like WWI, we had clearly picked sides and it was basically only a matter of when Hitler got desperate/frustrated enough to give FDR a provocation to use.

adr wrote:but all the cool kids are doing it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR_qa3Ohwls

Maybe i need some rehab
or maybe just need some sleep
I got a sick obsession
I'm seeing it in my dreams
I'm looking down at reality
i'm makin those desperate calls
i'm stayin up all night hopin hiting my head against the wall

what you got 'net, is hard to find
i think about it all the time
im all strung out my heart is fried
i just cant get you off my mind!

your spam your spam your spam
is my drug
your spam your spam your spam
is my drug

"i like your beard" god this song is so bad it is the tits

Addict

speaking of trashy pop music

http://youtu.be/R6kXsSJlOio

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:But even the American Civil War is fairly small compared to Napoleon or the Seven Year's War in terms of mobilization and resources consumed.

This is the point I was making. I do find it interesting because after firearms were invented, war between western countries was couched in this air of false civility and often treated like a gentleman's duel. The American Civil War happened right when the veneer started to peel off. You started out with masses of men marching in tight formations, which over time evolved into trenches and protracted sieges, along with early precursors to hand grenades, land mines, and machine guns.

But yeah, the often-cited figure for battlefield dead during that war is around 650,000. It dwarfs the number of Americans killed in any other war we participated in, but the number is inflated because, being a civil war, it counts the KIA for both sides.

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:Well, the most devastating war in US history was a pretty small brush war by European or Asian standards. Make of that what you will.

What? How was that the most devastating war in US history? Or are you thinking in terms of % population killed?

'Cause the casualties in that war were not even 10000 on both sides.

adr wrote:"i like your beard" god this song is so bad it is the tits

funny

i was at the cemetery cause we were transfering the bones of some distant lone gone relative

and the priest officiating it, when i greeted him, the first thing he said to me was

"i like your beard"

The Spartan wrote:

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:Well, the most devastating war in US history was a pretty small brush war by European or Asian standards. Make of that what you will.

What? How was that the most devastating war in US history? Or are you thinking in terms of % population killed?

'Cause the casualties in that war were not even 10000 on both sides.

He's talking proportionately. New England wasn't heavily populated at the time, and so even though the raw casualties aren't as high, it pretty much destroyed the local economy, decimated the settler population, and wiped entire cities off the map. All in less than a year.

When most people talk about how devastating a war was they usually refer to casualties.

I find it interesting that the Yankees suffered so much more losses than the Confederate, and still won in the end. This seems a bit counter-intuitive at first glance.

Oxymoron wrote:I find it interesting that the Yankees suffered so much more losses than the Confederate, and still won in the end. This seems a bit counter-intuitive at first glance.

The North had more people to throw into the meat grinder, probably.

I suppose it's something like that... Still, how fucked up must have been the North's Officer Corp, for the winner of the conflict to suffer almost 50% more casualties than the loser ?

Edit : or is it that the South didn't take any prisoner or some shit like that ?

It makes sense when you consider how the South was on the defensive most of the time.

Zod wrote:When most people talk about how devastating a war was they usually refer to casualties.

They'll usually refer to casualties as a short-hand, since it's easily quantifiable, but even that's not the entirety. Non-combat dead as a direct result of the war (through stuff like starvation and disease) and destruction of agricultural and industrial capacity are taken into account by most people.

So, while the numbers you posted have more American casualties during WWII than the civil war, few people would argue that WWII was more devastating for America (though it was obviously the more devastating war overall), because the US came out of WWII relatively unscathed.

Oxymoron wrote:I find it interesting that the Yankees suffered so much more losses than the Confederate, and still won in the end. This seems a bit counter-intuitive at first glance.

It's why most people take more than just casualties into account. Once you account for the fact that a) the Yankees had more people due to more immigration, b) the north was more industrialized so it was easier for them to replace lost equipment, and c) a vast majority of the battles were fought in Confederate states, which completely demolished their agricultural base and what little industry they had, it makes a lot more sense. The American revolution is the more counter-intuitive war, since they pretty much just won that through war fatigue and French intervention.

The winners of both world wars suffered significantly heavier losses than the losers, too. It doesn't seem all that strange to me.

The USA also had nearly three times the total population and nearly five times the free population of the CSA.

Civil War Man wrote:So, while the numbers you posted have more American casualties during WWII than the civil war, few people would argue that WWII was more devastating for America (though it was obviously the more devastating war overall), because the US came out of WWII relatively unscathed.

Zod's numbers give only those killed in action; the Union army alone lost over 350 thousand soldiers when you include disease and other factors (and the south lost over 250k).

Infinity Biscuit wrote:The winners of both world wars suffered significantly heavier losses than the losers, too. It doesn't seem all that strange to me.

The USA also had nearly three times the total population and nearly five times the free population of the CSA.

Civil War Man wrote:So, while the numbers you posted have more American casualties during WWII than the civil war, few people would argue that WWII was more devastating for America (though it was obviously the more devastating war overall), because the US came out of WWII relatively unscathed.

Zod's numbers give only those killed in action; the Union army alone lost over 350 thousand soldiers when you include disease and other factors (and the south lost over 250k).

I didn't feel like listing all the stats for it.

That's pretty childish; the 'winners' spent years losing and being amazingly defeated with massive losses

It's not just about being the 'winner' of a six year conflict

And that's how you lie by omission.

Oxymoron wrote:I suppose it's something like that... Still, how fucked up must have been the North's Officer Corp, for the winner of the conflict to suffer almost 50% more casualties than the loser ?

Edit : or is it that the South didn't take any prisoner or some shit like that ?

The ultra-condensed version that I remember from public school was basically that after two or three years of being outgeneraled, the north figured out that they could just bludgeon the south into submission via attrition. It's been years since I read anything about American Civil War strategy or tactics, though.


Although, that does make me wonder - do public schools east of the Mississippi get more into that kind of trivia? Because I've heard that people in the eastern US - especially the South - treat the Civil War as a big deal, whereas there's not nearly so much emotional investment in it on the west coast.

(Not that Oregon has anything to be proud of in that regard. Our "solution" to the controversy of slavery was to ban black people from the state. )

uraniun235 wrote:

Oxymoron wrote:I suppose it's something like that... Still, how fucked up must have been the North's Officer Corp, for the winner of the conflict to suffer almost 50% more casualties than the loser ?

Edit : or is it that the South didn't take any prisoner or some shit like that ?

The ultra-condensed version that I remember from public school was basically that after two or three years of being outgeneraled, the north figured out that they could just bludgeon the south into submission via attrition. It's been years since I read anything about American Civil War strategy or tactics, though.


Although, that does make me wonder - do public schools east of the Mississippi get more into that kind of trivia? Because I've heard that people in the eastern US - especially the South - treat the Civil War as a big deal, whereas there's not nearly so much emotional investment in it on the west coast.

(Not that Oregon has anything to be proud of in that regard. Our "solution" to the controversy of slavery was to ban black people from the state. )

I always hear people that should know better talk about the civil war as being about "states rights" and not "slavery". It just happens that they're from the South.

Zod wrote:I always hear people that should know better talk about the civil war as being about "states rights" and not "slavery". It just happens that they're from the South.

It was about states rights.

Specifically, the right of states to have legalized slavery.

uraniun235 wrote:Although, that does make me wonder - do public schools east of the Mississippi get more into that kind of trivia? Because I've heard that people in the eastern US - especially the South - treat the Civil War as a big deal, whereas there's not nearly so much emotional investment in it on the west coast.

It's more a south thing. The mid atlantic and New England don't obsess over it.

Zod wrote:I always hear people that should know better talk about the civil war as being about "states rights" and not "slavery". It just happens that they're from the South.

abraham lincoln himself said if he could preserve the union without freeing the slaves, he'd do it

ending slavery was just a means to an end for him. granted it is a means he wanted anyway - he was against slavery for a long time, but yeah the line i got in school over and over again was "preserve the union", not state's rights nor slavery

Politicians can a,ways be taken t their word