Was Sherman March to the Sea Justified

[OSR stands with Israel]

I say yes

[OSR stands with Israel]

Uh... how was it not justified, LOL?

People say the bombing of Germany and Japan were not justified and this was essentially the same thing , burning sown Atlanta.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Uh... how was it not justified, LOL?

People say the bombing of Germany and Japan were not justified and this was essentially the same thing , burning sown Atlanta.

Did your textbook tell you that?

Mainly

[SWE]

polls, you do realize you're arguing with someone with the same position here that you have, right?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Uh... how was it not justified, LOL?

People say the bombing of Germany and Japan were not justified and this was essentially the same thing , burning sown Atlanta.

Did your textbook tell you that?

Mainly

Well, your textbook also probably had something in it called the Bombing of Fort Sumter, and the Fort Pillow Massacre. And after those two things, the Union had the responsibility to eradicate the CSA. Sorry if that offends you.

Offends me lol, I think the Civil War was one of the most Justified wars in American History. I am just seeing if people who say those bombing werent justified say the same about the Burning down the south . If you read my first anwser I do think the March to the Sea were justified just like i think the bombing of Japan and Germany were Justifed. The CSA, Nazis, Imperial Japanese had to be eradicated at all costs.

To me when I rank the most justified wars

1. American Revoultion
2. WW2
3. Civil War

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The Revolution was more justified than the Civil War and World War II? Really? I mean, it's not that I've never heard that position before--certain types of libertarians seem very fond of it--but it's always rubbed me the wrong way.

[TDAS04]

Yes, of course. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd support burning down Sprawlanta again (after everyone was safely evacuated to temporary lodgings first) simply so it could be rebuilt into a functioning city rather than a loose cluster of segregated, low density suburbs that it currently is.

As for what Sherman did...

My heart says NO.  my gut says "oh hell yes" and my head has to go with my heart so I voted no.

[H. Ross Peron]

Yes, of course. 

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The Revolution was more justified than the Civil War and World War II? Really? I mean, it's not that I've never heard that position before--certain types of libertarians seem very fond of it--but it's always rubbed me the wrong way.

I mean, it's justified unless you think not being able to be represented in your own system of government is a good thing. All things considered, WW2 was still a foreign war where the US had some role in butting into Japan, and the Civil War was partly the fault of the North as well, for ignoring the slavery issue for too long.

I find it strange that people think WW2 was justified but the American Revolution wasn't.

I'm considerably less interested in the legal mechanics of what business a country has in becoming involved in a war than I am in the moral standing of what the respective sides are actually doing or would do if allowed. Also I never said the Revolution was unjustified.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Without the March to the Sea, it's likely that the Surrender at Appomattox would have been spun as a stab in the back by Southern apologists as a betrayal not unlike how German apologists spun the Armistice.  It needed to be obvious to all that the South had been defeated.(There's also the possibility that without the March, Lee might have listened to those on his staff who had argued that rather than a formal surrender, he should disperse the Army of Northern Virginia and let those who could, escape to either join Johnson or become guerrillas.)

[OSR stands with Israel]

Without the March to the Sea, it's likely that the Surrender at Appomattox would have been spun as a stab in the back by Southern apologists as a betrayal not unlike how German apologists spun the Armistice.  It needed to be obvious to all that the South had been defeated.(There's also the possibility that without the March, Lee might have listened to those on his staff who had argued that rather than a formal surrender, he should disperse the Army of Northern Virginia and let those who could, escape to either join Johnson or become guerrillas.)

Exactly why I say I think the nukes on Japan and firebombing of Germany were justified because without those the stab in the back would be used to militarize their armies. Without the march of the Sea we would have Civil War 2 , bloodier version of first with US likely winning again though.