Was Grant's military ideas of attrition really the way to win a war? Could the union had done this for an extended part of time?
I think that the attrition attacks while disgustingly costly, wore the confederates out a lot faster than it wore out the union. As Stalin said "The Germans will run out of bullets before i run out of men". I think this could go for Grant too (hes just not as sinister).
A war of attrition, is proven to be one of the quickest ways to end a war. Although it is very costly, one must remember war is war. War is not pretty, and the Union realized they would have to get their hands dirty, and make some serious sacrifices in order for them to stop the war from continuing any longer than it should. I think the Union had no other option, and would have come to this decision sooner or later.
The numbers alone with their increasing advantage in terms of military size and strength was enough for the Union to focus on a war of attrition. Plus when you factor in the military victories of the Union and the changing morale of the South this sort of decision became extremely beneficial to the end result the Union was fighting for.
As the phrase goes: "Hindsight is 20/20." I think this was obviously the best way to end the war for the Union. But I don't know what other options Grant would have had to end the war in a timely way.
The Union had a definite advantage in terms of numbers so a war of attrition was the best option to win in battle. I think Grant knew that yes, the statistics would be very bothersome or even disgusting but it would ensure victory.
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Celular, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://telefone-celular-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.
6 comments:
i'd like to propose a question:
Was Grant's military ideas of attrition really the way to win a war? Could the union had done this for an extended part of time?
I think that the attrition attacks while disgustingly costly, wore the confederates out a lot faster than it wore out the union. As Stalin said "The Germans will run out of bullets before i run out of men". I think this could go for Grant too (hes just not as sinister).
This is Dan Reusser.
A war of attrition, is proven to be one of the quickest ways to end a war. Although it is very costly, one must remember war is war. War is not pretty, and the Union realized they would have to get their hands dirty, and make some serious sacrifices in order for them to stop the war from continuing any longer than it should. I think the Union had no other option, and would have come to this decision sooner or later.
The numbers alone with their increasing advantage in terms of military size and strength was enough for the Union to focus on a war of attrition. Plus when you factor in the military victories of the Union and the changing morale of the South this sort of decision became extremely beneficial to the end result the Union was fighting for.
As the phrase goes: "Hindsight is 20/20." I think this was obviously the best way to end the war for the Union. But I don't know what other options Grant would have had to end the war in a timely way.
The Union had a definite advantage in terms of numbers so a war of attrition was the best option to win in battle. I think Grant knew that yes, the statistics would be very bothersome or even disgusting but it would ensure victory.
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Celular, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://telefone-celular-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.
Post a Comment