Comments by "chaosXpert" (@chaosXP3RT) on "" video.

  1. 4:46 That night, after Gordon had turned Sedgewick's right flank, there was much confusion at Grant's camp and many Union officers were in a near panic. There was a genuine fear that General Lee had cut off their supplies and nearly surrounded them. It was when one young officer began to increasingly urge that the whole Army needed to withdraw north that General Grant finally scolded the man. “Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do.” - General Grant, May 6th, 1864.
    255
  2. You're wrong because numerous times Grant and Sherman had just as much (or fewer) supplies than the Confederates, but still whipped them. After crossing the Mississippi River at Bruinsburg, Grant had to rush to seize Raymond and the supplies there or he risked running out. Both Grant and Sherman disconnected their armies from supply lines and lived off the countryside in their Western Campaigns. And superiority in numbers can hardly be argued when General Lee crushed Union forces outnumbering him several times. In my opinion, Robert E. Lee was a tactical genius, but short-sighted and unappreciative of his strategic situation. He reminds me of Napoleon or Erwin Rommel. Both were great tacticians that especially shined when maneuvering smaller units. But both also lost sight of the larger picture. Napoleon invaded Russia with logistics in tatters. Robert E. Lee, Napoleon and Rommel were all the nightmare of any quartermaster in charge of supplying their armies. And like Robert E. Lee, Napoleon sought a decisive battle with the Russians that would win the war. He never got it. Neither did Robert E. Lee. And Robert E. Lee led thousands of crucial soldiers (and spent valuable ammo and material) to their death at Gettysburg in pursuit of a decisive victory that had already vaporized by the 2nd day. Ulysses S. Grant was a man that recognized the weaknesses of his enemies on the theater map rather than the battlefield. He exploited those weaknesses (even if risky) while also knowing the limits of his own army. All this came about from his time as a Quartermaster in the Mexican-American War. While I would say Robert E. Lee was the better tactician, both him and Grant made numerous tactical mistakes several times (often in those cases, both were acting on bad intel or the advice of officers). Grant reminds me of General Eisenhower, but Grant was shot at more often, worked alongside his soldiers and wasn't afraid to sleep on the cold ground without a blanket. Grant is seriously underrated and it's a shame his reputation has been so stained by half-truths, rumors and propaganda.
    7
  3. Different populations, different cultures and different time periods. 1 million dead was nothing for the Russians in both World Wars. 1 million dead French men in World War I completely shrunk the population so that it would take decades to recover. The US did not have nearly enough soldiers (or equipment) for either army to field 1 million men, let alone lose that many. Additionally, Americans complained about the Sherman tank as a "Death Trap" in WWII, despite being statically the safest tank in the war. More and more deaths have political consequences in the USA and weigh more on the American public's consciousness when compared to Europeans. It took how many Russian and French deaths before the armies mutinied? Americans rioted at the mere prospect of being drafted. Without the victories of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, Abraham Lincoln faced a real chance of losing the Presidential election for "wasting lives".
    5
  4. How are they losses if Lee retreats every time?
    3
  5. It's considered revolutionary for the ACW. Grant and Lee (and many other generals) studied some strategy books and learned from other generals like Winfield Scott (The Duke of Wellington was supposedly deeply annoyed that Scott pulled off maneuvers that should not have worked in the Mexican-American War). But West Point back then did not focus on teaching officers tactics. West Point taught math, engineering, logistics, defenses, camping, drills, maneuvers and marching. Studying strategy and tactics often fell to individuals to do themselves. Some studied Napoleon, some did not. The best general the US had after Winfield Scott retired was McClellan. McClellan had observed the Crimean War and had numerous accolades. Perhaps more adept American generals would've learned more from the Crimean War or maybe McClellan did learn a lot, but his ego got in the way. Either way McClellan was humiliated by Lee and his career ended when he decided to 1) mistreat President Lincoln and 2) politically attack Grant. This notion that this documentary is talking about the Americans inventing this tactic for the first time in all of history is silly. The context here is clearly talking about the USA. This comment is just another Anti-American hit piece.
    2
  6. It was also part of his downfall, especially during his presidency. But I think Grant's pokerface under stress, his dedication to egalitarianism, his raw determination, and his understanding of logistics that really set him apart from other commanders.
    2
  7. A general's job is to end the war by winning it
    2
  8. No sane President or Congress would've accepted Southern Independence. The loss of resources and manpower would weaken the Union. It was also against the Constitution and betrayal. Besides, the South would not have seceded if slavery didn't exist. Because the South would not give up slavery, they seceded and by 1863, the Union could no longer accept slavery as an institution. There absolutely no way that you wouldn't be executed or imprisoned if you freed the slaves as Confederate president or allowed the South to secede if you were the Union president. You would be killed by an angry mob at worst and run out of office as a traitor at best.
    1
  9. There were numerous compromises, but the North could not accept owning human beings in the Fugitive Slave Law and the South could not tolerate being unable to expand the institution of slavery.
    1