Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
“After he got hit the second time, (Foster) should’ve thrown him out of the ballgame,” Johnson said of Avilan. “But it’s their choice.”
“You know, that’s one of those things we take care of in-house,” Werth said.
And when he almost took it in the neck on the second one, the tomahawk-chopping animals in Ratlanta were going wild like it was the greatest thing they ever saw. But what can you expect from a bunch of illiterate rednecks who throw beer bottles out onto the field?
And when he almost took it in the neck on the second one
General Sherman should have wiped out every person in that antebellum hellhole.
William Tecumseh Sherman, father of #natitude.
Sherman was pretty clearly the best general of the Civil War.
You think it makes you a great general to throw away tens of thousands of lives in frontal assaults, like Grant did repeatedly?
Sherman realized the defensive power of the rifled musket, and decided to march his enemies into submission.
A few days later Sherman mournfully wrote to his wife, "I begin to regard the death and mangling of couple thousand men as a small affair, a kind of morning dash."
In the early summer of 1864, Grant sustained 60,000 casualties out of an initial strength of 100,000, and achieved nothing, and almost costing Lincoln the election.
Absent Sherman taking Atlanta, it is quite likely McLellan beats Lincoln, and accepts the South back into the Union with slavery still legal.
He then sustained another 42,000 casualties around Petersburg, again, achieving zero.
Yes, and after that, he never did it again.
I said Grant was brilliant through 1863, then he failed, repeatedly.
Just like Haig and Foch failed in WWI, even if their side eventually won. Haig should have been
hung for his incompetence.
To get back ON TOPIC, Strasburg drilled Upton in the hip, probably in retaliation for the Braves previously throwing at Harper. Warnings issued.
It apparently looked /bad/.
I'm saying he knew, and ignored it. That's a failure. His whole Virginia campaign was ill conceived.
Lee surrendered b/c Sherman was tearing through the Carolinas and was going to cut him off from all supplies.
Which is a horrendous strategy. Targeting a well led army, in good defensive positions, through frontal assaults is madness, or butchery, take your pick. Great generals maneuver.
I can read casualty rolls.
I was watching. It looked very bad. The first was s breaking pitch that bit way too much and hit the dirt about 2 feet outside of the plate. The second was a fastball that sailed so far behind Simmons that the ump assumed it wasn't close enough to be a message pitch. The third was also way behind Simmons (the catcher was barely able to get a bit of leather on it after lunging) but not so far as the previous pitch, and Strasburg was tossed
Grant is the greatest general in not just the Civil War but in all U.S. military history.
Grant was also opposed by a much more pugnacious opponent than Sherman was. Duh.
It's worth nothing that when Lee finally broke out it was with fewer than 30,000 effectives.
Great generals defeat the enemy by maneuvering him into a position where he must make the costly assaults, or he is cut off from his base and must withdraw.
I also find attrition to be immoral as a theory of war.
Steve, do you think Grant's presidency was similarly unfairly tarred by revisionists like his war record was? It seems to me he had an enlightened race policy but was undone by political realities, and they used the scandals in his administration to condemn the entire presidency. Does Grant's presidency merit a reevaluation? Yes or no?
Just like at the end of WW2 the US obsession with "beating the Germans" caused us to squander much of the fruits of victory by letting the Soviets waltz into to the Balkans, Austria, Czechoslovakia and far too much of Germany, while Eisenhower insisted on the unnecessary Anvil landings, rather than movement into the Blakans, and foolishly worried about the "Alpine Redoubt", rather than taking Prague and Vienna.
This is about as wrong as it can be. Read the 3rd part of the Manchester biography of Churchill.
The agreement at Tehran and Yalta were incredibly vague, set up no set "zones", and Stalin was already violating those agreement well before Berlin fell. There was zero reason not to race to the Elbe (and to keep all of Germany west of it), Prague and Vienna, and the British were urging us to do just that.
An obsession with ending the war quickly to fight Japan was idiocy. Where was Japan going? They were starving on their island due to the sub campaign. There was no particular reason to rush an invasion of Japan.
As for manpower shortages, that was all completely of our own making, given our decision to over-expand the Navy and Air Force, and the excessively padded supply "tail" we always insist on.
The fact is the US was being led in 1945 by a dying man who was incapable of dealing with the issues at hand; thinking he could charm Stalin into playing nice.
No one was looking after Grand Strategy and shaping the post war world except Churchill; and he was rapidly losing influence.
In fact American Grand Strategy was flawed since at least 1942. The Unconditional Surrender demands (sprung on Churchill w/o consultation) was a disaster, seriously handicapping the anti-Hitler elements in Germany, and making the Japanese even more resolute. Then there was the US obsession with dismantling colonial empires. Our Gov't acted like Britain and France were a bigger post-war threat than the USSR.
This is whitewashed by "diplomatic historians" b/c they cover up for the sainted FDR and Truman, who screwed the pooch repeatedly in dealing with Stalin, Mao etc.
How can you type that and defend Grant's performance in 1864?
We sold out Poland and Czechoslovakia
I'm assuming Snapper is unaware that the Soviets had 10 million armed and battle-hardened personnel at their disposal, most in eastern or central Europe, in 1945. Otherwise, this statement is completely insane.
It's insane on a number of levels, but Snapper is consistent here. He genuinely believes that taking on the Soviets would have been a good idea.
And if they had attacked us, the US and UK Armies of 1945 would have chopped them up like the Germans did in 1941.
They didn't need to fight the Soviets, just grab as much land as you can in 1945 before the Soviets got there, as Churchill and Allenby wanted to.
Go F*** yourself. Engaging in ad hominem slurs is a clear sign of a total inability to engage in real debate.
Send large forces down the Shenandoah Valley earlier.
Send more forces into the Virginia Peninsula
Land an army below Richmond.
In fact, the agreed up dividing line was the Elbe, and we gave the Soviets more than that.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.8520 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed