Moderator: Community Team
bigtoughralf wrote:Those military units collapsed because the Americans withdrew their logistical support for them basically overnight.
Not saying I care, but the US-backed administration in Kabul never really had its own independent military capable of taking on the Taliban. So when their American backers ghosted them and the Taliban offered them a choice between getting money and amnesty in return for giving up and going home, or having to fight a tooled-up army of fundamentalist zealots with little/no support, itās not much of a surprise that a lot of the US forces chose option A.
Symmetry wrote:The ram wrote:Symmetry wrote:Ok, so some stuff goes over your head?
No not here anyway. He never said they were forced.
Whoosh
DirtyDishSoap wrote:MAH EYEZ!!!
Symmetry wrote:The ram wrote:Symmetry wrote:Ok, so some stuff goes over your head?
No not here anyway. He never said they were forced.
Whoosh
Prior to Gettysburg, Robert E. Lee had established a reputation as an almost invincible general, achieving stunning victories against superior numbersāalthough usually at the cost of high casualties to his armyāduring the Seven Days, the Northern Virginia Campaign (including the Second Battle of Bull Run), Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville. Only the Maryland Campaign, with its tactically inconclusive Battle of Antietam, had been less than successful. Therefore, historians[who?] have attempted to explain how Lee's winning streak was interrupted so dramatically at Gettysburg.[citation needed] Although the issue is tainted by attempts to portray history and Lee's reputation in a manner supporting different partisan goals, the major factors in Lee's loss arguably can be attributed to: (1) his overconfidence in the invincibility of his men; (2) the performance of his subordinates, and his management thereof; (3) his failing health; and, (4) the performance of his opponent, George G. Meade, and the Army of the Potomac.
Throughout the campaign, Lee was influenced by the belief that his men were invincible; most of Lee's experiences with the Army of Northern Virginia had convinced him of this, including the great victory at Chancellorsville in early May and the rout of the Union troops at Gettysburg on July 1. Since morale plays an important role in military victory when other factors are equal, Lee did not want to dampen his army's desire to fight and resisted suggestions, principally by Longstreet, to withdraw from the recently captured Gettysburg to select a ground more favorable to his army. War correspondent Peter W. Alexander wrote that Lee "acted, probably, under the impression that his troops were able to carry any position however formidable. If such was the case, he committed an error, such however as the ablest commanders will sometimes fall into." Lee himself concurred with this judgment, writing to President Davis, "No blame can be attached to the army for its failure to accomplish what was projected by me, nor should it be censured for the unreasonable expectations of the publicāI am alone to blame, in perhaps expecting too much of its prowess and valor."[111]
The most controversial assessments of the battle involve the performance of Lee's subordinates. The dominant theme of the Lost Cause writers and many other historians is that Lee's senior generals failed him in crucial ways, directly causing the loss of the battle; the alternative viewpoint is that Lee did not manage his subordinates adequately, and did not thereby compensate for their shortcomings.[112]
jusplay4fun wrote:in Response to ConfederateSS:
Yes, mistakes by the Military Leader make a battle or military action a HUGE BLUNDER.
I think that most of us agree that Custer blunders led to his defeat and death at Little Bighorn.
I will support my earlier contention that General Robert E. Lee blundered at Gettysburg.
In summary, Gettysburg demonstrated all of Leeās weaknesses. He initiated an unnecessary strategic offensive that, because of his armyās inevitable return to Virginia, would be perceived as a retreat and thus a defeat. He rejected alternative deployments of Longstreetās corps that might have avoided or mitigated critical losses of the Mississippi River (including Vicksburg and then Port Hudson, Louisiana) or middle and southeastern Tennessee (including Chattanooga). His tactics were inexcusably and fatally aggressive on the second and third days at Gettysburg, he failed to take charge of the battlefield on any of the three days, his battle-plans were ineffective, and his orders (especially to Stuart and Ewell) were vague and too discretionary. Gettysburg indeed was Lee at his worst.
https://www.historyonthenet.com/picketts-charge
And ConfSS, before replying, based on the one quote above, please read the entire article I posted above.
I also read that Lee had too much confidence in the ability of his troops to win any and all battles. He was overconfident of his Leadership and his inner circle and of his troops. (General Longstreet did advise AGAINST Pickett's Charge; that is well documented.)
Also, from the SAME source:British Colonel Arthur Fremantle, an observer at Gettysburg and elsewhere, advised Lee concerning the flaws of Leeās aggressiveness: āDonāt you see your system feeds upon itself? You cannot fill the places of these men. Your troops do wonders, but every time at a cost you cannot afford.ā Later, Leeās own General D. H. Hill described the folly of the Army of Northern Virginiaās penchant for the tactical offensive:
We were very lavish of blood in those days, and it was thought to be a very great thing to charge a battery of artillery or an earth-work lined with infantry. . . . The attacks on the Beaver Dam intrenchments, on the heights of Malvern Hill, at Gettysburg, etc., were all grand, but of exactly the kind of grandeur which the South could not afford.
All of the attacks mentioned by Hill had been personally ordered by Lee.
ConfederateSS wrote:----Lee shouldn't of let himself get caught up in Gettysburg...Yes,that was his mistake...He let events carry his thinking,maybe because he was North of the mason Dixon line and tried to prove himself to the North?..But he almost pulled it off ,if not for Custer,is what I am saying and History....
-----------As for a British observer ...I don't care what a Brit has to say....There was another War,Lee was involved in...THE MEXICAN AMERICAN WAR....There was another smart ass Brit...The Duke of Wellington...Laughed at American commanders for trying to invade..Veracruz and march to Mexico City....Guess what..Duke..it work...Where outside the city,a young Lt.Lee would lead a small force by the lava things outside the city..And captured Mex,Gen.Apua's Army ,as Santa Anna,refused to help Apua...
-------------As To Lee you are right he was winning all his battles up until then...He was playing a "GO" style strategy like Giap in Vietnam.....As people in the North were getting sick of all the defeats and loses...much like Vietnam...causulties....Lee at Gettysburg...turn to a "Chess" style strategy ,which Gen. Wes Moreland was using against Giap in Vietnam...You see how well that worked out for Lee at Gettsburg and Moreland in Vietnam...THAT WAS LEE'S MISTAKE ,CHANGING HIS STRATEGY THINKING,ONCE AGAIN,i THINK IT WAS BECAUSE ,HE WASN'T FIGHTING ON SOUTHERN SOIL AND HAD TO PROVE SOMETHING... ... ConfederateSS,out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
Symmetry wrote:The ram wrote:Symmetry wrote:Ok, so some stuff goes over your head?
No not here anyway. He never said they were forced.
Whoosh
Symmetry wrote:The ram wrote:Symmetry wrote:Ok, so some stuff goes over your head?
No not here anyway. He never said they were forced.
Whoosh
saxitoxin wrote:deaths among the unvaccinated are higher.
HitRed wrote:CNN is one country. Fox is another.
saxitoxin wrote:deaths among the unvaccinated are higher.
mookiemcgee wrote:Ponder this idea... Trump met with the Taliban at Camp David and completely undermined the almost 20 years we spent trying to 'build up' and afgan gov't. I've always been of the opinion we occupied another country who's values are antithetical to our own and that this would always end badly regardless of what party or president actually did the pulling out. But this meeting, and subsequent 'agreement' made with the taliban was America admitting the Afgan Gov't was a failure and would collapse as soon as america pulled out, and signaled the point at which America became 100% committed to withdrawl. The pull out was ugly, and could have been done better, but it was always gonna be ugly... but piling on that 'the left' is responsible for 'the worst defeat in 200 years' is a farce. America is one country, and making this into a party specific political issue is bad for America.
Symmetry wrote:The ram wrote:Symmetry wrote:Ok, so some stuff goes over your head?
No not here anyway. He never said they were forced.
Whoosh
mookiemcgee wrote:The pull out was ugly, and could have been done better, but it was always gonna be ugly...
DirtyDishSoap wrote:Most ideas aren't worth reading...But ConfedSS is?
I think you just enjoying debating.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users