Uechi-Ryu.com

Hello Again:

I wonder, just as an aside, how folk in another 300 years and from a different culture, perhaps after America has unrecogizably changed, would view Abraham Lincoln.

He did not win the popular vote.

I know, a lot of other presidents did not win the popular vote either.

Those that voted for him, nonetheless, knew that it would mean war if he was elected.

Yet here was this self taught lawyer (no law school of Bar exams in those days, you just hung out your shingle) in a country whose constitution did not and does not provide for the use of force to maintain the Union, maintaining the Union by force.

If the constitution does actually provide for the mainteneance of the union by force, do let me know, because I have missed a few (ie; many) things lately.

Now I put this forward along with the presidency of Grant. perhaps, as examples of people who held this country together by force.

If one were to stretch a bit, Hitler (who was a bestial maniac, but not stupid) said upon the signing of the treaty ending the Battle of France in 1940,the Battle of France is now over, 26 years later".


History judges such men in ways that cannot easily be foreseen.

If Hitler had not been evilly inspired on his course of multi racial genocide, and actually did sucessfully unite Europe, by force, as might well have happened if the US stayed on the sidelines, how would he be viewed in 200 years.

The French view Bonaparte as their greatest soldier, yet -----well you can intuit the rest of what's coming.

A contemporary cartoon from "Punch" shows him falling because of one leg in Spain and one leg in Russia. I tink the egos of both men were so large that it was not to be expected that they intended to limit their gains at a point where the other nations of the world might have actually continued to stand by. Of course the US stayed neutral in the Napoleonic wars. At the time, I don't think we would have been a factor.

So. pardon the lack of deep scholarship here and let me know what you think.

john

Wrong thread.

might well have happened if the US stayed on the sidelines

US helped but were not the deciding factor in preventing the unification of Europe by force. Canada was in early and in heavy, I lost an uncle in Deippe ...An other who only walks away when anyone ask of the experience "

"For eight hours, under intense Nazi fire from dawn into a sweltering afternoon, I watched Canadian troops fight the blazing, bloody battle of Dieppe. I saw them go through the biggest of the war's raiding operations in wild scenes that crowded helter skelter one upon another in crazy sequence. There was a furious attack by German E-boats while the Canadians moved in on Dieppe's beaches, landing by dawn's half-light. When the Canadian battalions stormed through the flashing inferno of Nazi defences, belching guns of huge tanks rolling into the fight, I spent the grimmest 20 minutes of my life with one unit when a rain of German machine-gun fire wounded half the men in our boat and only a miracle saved us from annihilation.
"Ross Munro of The Canadian Press went ashore with allied shock troops storming the Dieppe beach on August 19, 1942, to get this first-hand story of the war's biggest commando raid.

England would not have been looked harshly upon for kneeling to Hitlers war machine but thankfully they fought on despite great adversity. The war was won by intestinal fortitude of many including the citizens who sacrificed so much.

The Deippe raids goal appear to have been a. a rehearsal and b. the destruction and/or analyisis for the local radar station.

A lot of Canadians were sacrifiiced for these goals.

Naturally there are plenty would argue the rehearsal was a waste.

I honestly just don't know.

Since the RAF with their Plywood Mosquitoes were able to take out very small tagets, such as the was of a Gestapo holding center in Western France, one wonders why this method was not used.

I just don't know.


John

Not a victory but many believe it set the stage for "D-Day"
Sacrifice is common in war, there is no low cost in any war.
They fought as well as any man could considering the unfortunate circumstances...Like many warriors before them and after. Off topic but the heart of the soldier is same as the man they battle.

You are quite Right, of course


Only Grant of the Union Commanders had enough "sand in his craw" to win at all costs.



John