PDA

View Full Version : OT..Just seen 'Gods & Generals' about US Civil War.



MB_Avro_UK
12-30-2006, 05:42 PM
hi all,

Viewed 'Gods & Generals' DVD about the US Civil War.

It was lent to me by a fellow Brit who has a far greater knowledge than me of this period of history.

The movie was IMHO a masterpiece as it explained clearly the motives and beliefs of those involved.

The battle scenes were clearly explained but did not diminish the horrific effects on both sides.

The Southern side remarked twice that the war was 'The second war of Independence'.

The scene where two Irish regiments fought against each other was memorable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

I did not realise that General Lee was asked by the US Government to lead the North but turned it down as he was a Virginian.

How could the smaller South have expected to win against the Northern States who outnumbered them in size and industrial resources?

Maybe I should research more.

We Brits had our own Civil War in 1642 and it divided the nation.


Best Regards and a Happy New Year to All,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
12-30-2006, 05:42 PM
hi all,

Viewed 'Gods & Generals' DVD about the US Civil War.

It was lent to me by a fellow Brit who has a far greater knowledge than me of this period of history.

The movie was IMHO a masterpiece as it explained clearly the motives and beliefs of those involved.

The battle scenes were clearly explained but did not diminish the horrific effects on both sides.

The Southern side remarked twice that the war was 'The second war of Independence'.

The scene where two Irish regiments fought against each other was memorable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

I did not realise that General Lee was asked by the US Government to lead the North but turned it down as he was a Virginian.

How could the smaller South have expected to win against the Northern States who outnumbered them in size and industrial resources?

Maybe I should research more.

We Brits had our own Civil War in 1642 and it divided the nation.


Best Regards and a Happy New Year to All,
MB_Avro.

p-11.cAce
12-30-2006, 06:06 PM
Be sure to see "Gettysburg" - it was actually filmed first and its popularity led to Gods and Generals being made. Much of the same cast and writing team participated in both movies. I agree that G&G is a masterpiece, as is Gettysburg, both giving a great deal of background and humanizing information to this horrific conflict. Unfortunatly just about any American on the street believes the war was about slavery, as all the propaganda since the 1870's has dictated. Fortunatly these movies make clear that slavery was only a part of a greater struggle between two economic and social structures that were on a collision course - namely a stratified class structure based on land ownership and agrarian production versus a stratified class structure based on capital ownership and industrial production. The republic survives in name only - and the federal tyrany which the south feared and fought against has long since become reality.

Zeus-cat
12-30-2006, 06:25 PM
Gettysburg is great. I picked up Gods and Generals but haven't watched it yet.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Zeus-cat

My Campaigns:
Straight Shot (9 missions in the Japanese Seaplane - A6M2-N "Rufe")
Straight Into an Icy Hell (14 missions for the Rufe in the Aleutians)
Straight Down (26 dive-bombing missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight Down Some More (19 more missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight and True (30 torpedo bomber missions in an IL-2T)

My campaign page at Miision4Today
http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&c=22

SeaFireLIV
12-30-2006, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
How could the smaller South have expected to win against the Northern States who outnumbered them in size and industrial resources?

Maybe I should research more.



Best Regards and a Happy New Year to All,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the americans took on the British empire and won, perhaps after that, anything seemed possible. Of course, i know very little about the civil war so I could be wrong. It is an interestingly bloody and bitter period similar to the English civil war...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LIVeyes.jpg
"If it burns, it is confirmed."

Ivan Lukich Zvyagin

Akronnick
12-30-2006, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
How could the smaller South have expected to win against the Northern States who outnumbered them in size and industrial resources?

MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The South knew that it could not defeat the North through military action, Their hope was that the North would not have the political will to sustain a large military campaign. Both sides thought the other would fold after the first battle, when that didn't happen, the South was able to hold off the North (At least in the East) for the first two years. After a series of failure on the part of the Union, public opinion in the North in late spring 1863 was overwhelmingly against the War. The war was about the bitter political differences between North and South, and if Col. Joshua L. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine Vols. hadn't held Little Round Top on July 2, 1863, I don't like to think how history would have turned out...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

NAFP_supah
12-30-2006, 08:07 PM
With music by my great hero, bob dylan! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://supah.chaotic.nl/profiles/profile-sig.jpg (http://supah.chaotic.nl)

georgeo76
12-30-2006, 08:41 PM
Bob Dyan? maybe this movie is worth watching after all. His music sure was the best thing in "lady in the Water".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
With music by my great hero, bob dylan! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys keep speaking about the War of Northern Aggression as if it's over. I live in S. Carolina, so I know better. And sooner or later some of the usual suspects will show up w/ their bitter denunciations and diatribes to illustrate my point. IBTL<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/georgeo76/buck2.gif
Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.

BfHeFwMe
12-30-2006, 09:30 PM
The South bloody well did believe it could win, or they would never have launched the Gettysburg drive into the Yank heartland. Up until that moment they were winning nearly all the battles, but that move cost the war.

You never strike at a half hearted opponent who has the potential to destroy you if you miss. The South learned this lesson, as well as Germany at Stalingrad and Japan in Pearl, your enemy becomes whole hearted real fast when attacked directly.

The South ran an absolutly brilliant offensive series of battles on it's own border territory. Entering deep Northern territory was a mistake, they no longer had any moral impetuous as regular people defending their own lands, they were now the invader.

They also tasted what the Union was saddled with in the logistics required to carry a fight into enemy land and lose, the cost couldn't be absorbed or made up.

Lee was out of his element as a commander by late war, he never did adapt well to the developing tactics of modern logistical support and seige warfare, which probably explains his constant use of the offensive battle as a defensive strategy means.

When it came time to mount a real defense, they failed miserably.

Yup, you have to get Gettysberg, very well done movie. IIRC there's a third movie in the series yet to be done. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Valencia, returning in his shot-up but airworthy Hellcat after his harrowing February 1944 mission over Truk, summed up the thoughts of many pilots about Hellcats: ?If they could cook, I?d marry one.?

bun-bun195333
12-30-2006, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

Maybe I should research more.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're interested get Shelby Foote's three-part history of the Civil War.

Civil War:A Narrative (http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Narrative-Set/dp/0307290468/sr=1-1/qid=1167539799/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2055461-3216103?ie=UTF8&s=books)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.comcast.net/~argylestransom/Pics/A10Bun.jpg (http://www.sluggy.com/)

LEBillfish
12-30-2006, 09:52 PM
It was "not" North against South persay, in that no matter where you lived the issues instigating the war would find both supporters and detractors. Discussions as to leaving the Union had been held by probably most states at one time or another as the country was relatively new, and peoples of states would question the value of remaining within it vs. breaking off and starting their own little country.

Slavery as well was a point of heated debate no matter where you would go, and was NOT exclussive to the south.......The nation, states, towns and even families were often divided, and would indeed fraction up to fight for what they thought was right. It truly was a brother against brother conflict more often then you think, and you'd find people from New York fighting for the South and those from Georgia the North.

So naturally, to say "the South could not win", as said above it was most likely never intended to go as far as it did and naturally the "excitement & glory" of war temds to inspire many to rush in. Yet once it started, it would snow ball....They're invading our land, they're oppressing us, they're tearing apart the country, they're abusing human beings, etc. etc.....and once the first person is killed naturally 10 more from his side want revenge.

There were "good" reasons to fight for both sides, and a lot of bad ones....In the end simply growing pains of a new nation, that would help "begin" to stop a number of injustices, yet the ramifications of the war still linger to this day though are fading.

Like all wars stupid.....Like all wars for good reason, the reasons only varied by the side you're on, and in the end, those not fighting it often suffering the most.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">"Does this make my Hien look big?"
"I love my Ha-40's"
"She loves teh Swallow"
"Don't call me cho-cho san"
</span>

Treetop64
12-30-2006, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Well the americans took on the British empire and won, perhaps after that, anything seemed possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, we had a little outside help from the French in that endeavour, who were no doubt more than willing to help any cause that hurts the British. Especially after Nelson recently handed theirs, and the Spaniard's, asses to them off Trafalgar.

Nevertheless, one could still argue that some colonial rabble took on the mightiest empire in the history of the world at that point, and won. Perhaps that's how the Southerners saw themselvles during the Cival War - as a fiesty group of fighters taking on the big boss.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
"It breaks my heart, but I am almost certain that raaaid will get the Nobel Prize in physics before we get the Avenger in PF."
-- Zeus-cat
------------------------------

Akronnick
12-30-2006, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:

Especially after Nelson recently handed theirs, and the Spaniard's, asses to them off Trafalgar.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trafalgar happened in 1805, 22 years after the American Revolution ended.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

leitmotiv
12-30-2006, 10:47 PM
GODS AND GENERALS is a brilliant film, but it is not everybody's cup of tea. Some contemporary viewers cannot believe that once people could be as profoundly devout and sentimental as the Cromwellian General Jackson or the other people depicted in the film. The film is that rarest item for the present day, a paen to old Virginia, and would never have been made without Ted Turner, a Southerner, bankrolling it. One of the film's paradoxes is Jackson's avowed displeasure with "the peculiar institution" of slavery. Both he and Lee were anti-slavery, but they believed they had to defend their homeland, Virginia, against Lincoln's army. I think it is a magnificent film, and, curiously, the only one about Jackson. Note that Jackson, ever the realist, was all for slaughtering Union prisoners ("raise the black flag"). He was Old Testament right down the line.

huggy87
12-30-2006, 10:49 PM
Not to poo poo anyone's opinion. The subject matter is fascinating, but the movie was a bloated bore. The critics really slammed the movie, but I had to see for myself. They were right.

Akronnick
12-30-2006, 10:57 PM
Thomas J. Jackson is to the 19th century as George S. Patton is to the 20th century.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

leitmotiv
12-30-2006, 11:26 PM
Interestingly, for decades the standard study of Jackson's campaigns was written by a famous English military historian (G.F.R. Henderson, 1898) who was exceedingly impressed by Jackson's mobile operations with his "foot cavalry" in the Shenandoah Valley. Jackson is highly regarded by the British Army tacticians to this day, as well he should be. He "wrote the book" on speed and surprise as the most essential elements of tactical success. If he had been at Gettysburg---hooooo boy.

Unfortunately, for contemporary audiences accustomed to constant action, quick cuts, zero character development, and mind-numbing cacophony, a film like GODS AND GENERALS, with its leisurely development, is completely toxic. It is not cinema of the first rank, but it is one of the most interesting interpretations of Civil War history on film, and it remains the only film about Jackson and Lee worth a hang.

Treetop64
12-30-2006, 11:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Akronnick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Treetop64:

Especially after Nelson recently handed theirs, and the Spaniard's, asses to them off Trafalgar.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trafalgar happened in 1805, 22 years after the American Revolution ended. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Pie in face...

I knew that, BTW. Not that it helps now, though.

How embarrasing... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
"It breaks my heart, but I am almost certain that raaaid will get the Nobel Prize in physics before we get the Avenger in PF."
-- Zeus-cat
------------------------------

Akronnick
12-31-2006, 12:06 AM
That's OK. Issues arrising from the Napoleanic Wars did lead to the War of 1812, but AFAIK, The US and the French were not allies then.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

RCAF_Irish_403
12-31-2006, 05:50 AM
Read the novel Gettysburg by Michael Sahra. This was the original source for the film. Fantastic stuff.....the novel even won a Pulitzer Prize.

The American Civil War was really the precurser to the 20th century.....industrialized slaughter fueled by ideology.

Isn't it ironic that America's top two military leaders (Lee and Jackson) got their reputations trying to destroy the Union<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

SeaFireLIV
12-31-2006, 06:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:


You guys keep speaking about the War of Northern Aggression as if it's over. I live in S. Carolina, so I know better. And sooner or later some of the usual suspects will show up w/ their bitter denunciations and diatribes to illustrate my point. IBTL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`m curious by this. What do you mean? "the War of Northern Aggression"? I suppose you`re saying that attitudes are still very polarised to this day?

Or perhaps this is one of those questions that a foreigner shouldn`t ask Americans over the dinner table...

moq1
12-31-2006, 06:23 AM
________________________________________________
Read the novel Gettysburg by Michael Sahra. This was the original source for the film. Fantastic stuff.....the novel even won a Pulitzer Prize.
________________________________________________
Its Micheal Shaara and the novel is called The Killer Angels. After his passing his son began writing novels in the same style. I have read all the civel war books, the american revolution books, the ww1 book, (exellent flying chapters) and have just finished tje ww2 book. I highly recomend all. Here is a link to his web sight. http://www.jeffshaara.com/books.html

Check them out they realy are great.

Moq

RCAF_Irish_403
12-31-2006, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by moq1:
________________________________________________
Read the novel Gettysburg by Michael Sahra. This was the original source for the film. Fantastic stuff.....the novel even won a Pulitzer Prize.
________________________________________________
Its Micheal Shaara and the novel is called The Killer Angels. After his passing his son began writing novels in the same style. I have read all the civel war books, the american revolution books, the ww1 book, (exellent flying chapters) and have just finished tje ww2 book. I highly recomend all. Here is a link to his web sight. http://www.jeffshaara.com/books.html

Check them out they realy are great.

Moq </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thx for correcting that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

georgeo76
12-31-2006, 09:39 AM
Opinions are polarized. And people get very emotional about it to this day. Maybe this is true up North, I can only speak for where I live. Really touchy subjects are Gen. Sherman, Andersonville, and the Lincoln's hero status (essp. as far as emancipation is concerned).

As far as the "War of Northern Aggression" I just use that term a little tong-in-cheek. That's what it was called @ the time by some, an illustration of the propaganda value in names that persists to this day. It wasn't called "The Civil War" until later.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

I`m curious by this. What do you mean? "the War of Northern Aggression"? I suppose you`re saying that attitudes are still very polarised to this day?

Or perhaps this is one of those questions that a foreigner shouldn`t ask Americans over the dinner table... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/georgeo76/buck2.gif
Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.

zoinks_
12-31-2006, 10:34 AM
interesting topic here. georgeo76 is correct about opinions and emotions. i have lived both north and south, born/raised in illinois and moving to mississippi.

i saw a couple episodes of G and G. but not enough to pass judgement. all of my southern friends were disappointed with the movie when it came out.


unfortunately, most Americans are clueless about our own civil war. when asked, the popular response is slavery. and the confederate flag is directly related to slavery.



some fun crazy American facts most don't know:

- republican party was formed in 1854. oddly, republicans = liberal and democrats = conservative. opposite of today.

- Abe Lincoln did not appear on the ballot in every southern state.

- Abe Lincoln imprisoned people without trial.

- congress then was not getting along too well link (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm)

- after the battle of Gettysburg, all men were declared equal, about 2 years after the war started. some say Lincoln believed it was the right thing to do while others think it was a political move to get Great Britian to stop aiding the south as they had abolished slavery just 35 years prior and would be aiding the only pro-slave nation, the CSA. (women could not vote for about another 55 years)

- Ulysses Grant's wife was a slave owner before, during, and after the war ended. she would visit her husband on military bases with them.

- most confederate soldiers did not own slaves.


slavery was a big issue, but not THE issue. its sad we americans are ignorant of our own history. reading the politics leading up to the civil war gives a better understanding of why it happened. some believe the war was more about state rights - state laws that the federal government wanted to override. but what do i know. i'm an ignorant American, lol...just wanting the truth then and now.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
learning curve: about 2 hours (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html)

LEBillfish
12-31-2006, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by georgeo76:
Opinions are polarized. And people get very emotional about it to this day. Maybe this is true up North, I can only speak for where I live. Really touchy subjects are Gen. Sherman, Andersonville, and the Lincoln's hero status (essp. as far as emancipation is concerned).

As far as the "War of Northern Aggression" I just use that term a little tong-in-cheek. That's what it was called @ the time by some, an illustration of the propaganda value in names that persists to this day. It wasn't called "The Civil War" until later.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

I`m curious by this. What do you mean? "the War of Northern Aggression"? I suppose you`re saying that attitudes are still very polarised to this day?

Or perhaps this is one of those questions that a foreigner shouldn`t ask Americans over the dinner table... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Originally from E.Tennessee, and from up in the mountains where few (used to) dare to go due to the clannish nature of many there, and originally of the "white trash" end of the hollow.....I can tell you this SeaFire...

It's just like when you hear of any other peoples hatred of another, due to something long past that never affected them in any way. That's now....However even up until the early 80's much of the South was still economically depressed compared to much of the North. The reasons for that varied, yet basically the high paying industries that were about the rust belt, and financial powerhouse of the N.E. had not flooded south.

Yet in truth as well, a LOT of that had to do with folks wanting to hang on to nostalgic idea's and ways of being, whether they were working or not.

Things have changed however, for the most part though any bit of the south lacking in relation to the north still due to the latter issue of above........Plus like I stated even further up that long held "now" unjustified anger over something even few southerners could tell you little about.

It's natural to want to hang onto traditions, culture & things one grew up with which binds us to our past.....The trick is however to not fight against the very thing you want for yourself, and worse still hold onto those bits that are pointless bias due to the lesser parts of that culture.

For some however the way will be hard till they pass however. It much like saying "I insist on plowing my field with a mule refusing to use a tractor....Yet find it unfair I can't produce as much because of it".....

Lastly, there is still a LOT of old prejudices held simply because it "IS" PC for the region...Few having little to no reason to act that way, just simply the culture they grew up in....

Finally, before you ask "Well why don't Southerners change then?"...Let me say this, "What makes you think I was talking just about the South?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Really much of it pointless, the old south gone just like the old north even that from my time there....It's NOT coming back, and wouldn't of slipped away if a different way had not been chosen by the very people embracing the old.

Yet still persists......Think of your nation and it's prejudices and hates of old long past....Same same.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">"Does this make my Hien look big?"
"I love my Ha-40's"
"She loves teh Swallow"
"Don't call me cho-cho san"
</span>

Zeus-cat
12-31-2006, 11:26 AM
"Not to poo poo anyone's opinion. The subject matter is fascinating, but the movie was a bloated bore. The critics really slammed the movie, but I had to see for myself. They were right."

This is one of the reasons I haven't watched the movie yet. I bought it for $5 or do at Wallymart. I did read both Gettysburg and Gods and Generals. Gettysburg was a better book IMO. Gettysburg was written by the father and Gods and Generals and the third book were written by his son after the father died.

My wife and I disagree about the battle of Gettysburg. She thinks Lee made a big mistake in attacking on the third day. I think Lee knew his only chance of ending the war favorably (notice I didn't say the Confederacy would win) was for Lee to drive through the Union forces and send them off in defeat.

The threat of a massed Confederate force so close to the Union capitol would hopefully cause Lincoln to sue for peace. At this point in the war Lee could see that he had men and materials for one last push. After Gettysburg, regardless of loss or victory, the Confederates couldn't maintain their military at a level needed to hold off the Union forces. It was do or die for Lee around the time of Gettysburg and he knew it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Zeus-cat

My Campaigns:
Straight Shot (9 missions in the Japanese Seaplane - A6M2-N "Rufe")
Straight Into an Icy Hell (14 missions for the Rufe in the Aleutians)
Straight Down (26 dive-bombing missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight Down Some More (19 more missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight and True (30 torpedo bomber missions in an IL-2T)

My campaign page at Miision4Today
http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&c=22

DuxCorvan
12-31-2006, 11:27 AM
Well, I have no idea what it means for an US citizen, but for most foreigners, Ol' Dixie stuff is mostly a collection of Hollywood cliches.

You know, Scarlett O'Hara, Mardi Gras, cotton fields, runaway slaves, ladies in cute dresses, Buster Keaton riding the General, cool grey and blue uniforms, Gettysburg and Bull Run re-enactings, and the like.

As a historian, it's hard for me to have a closer and realistic look at that period of USA history, since most literature and media that you produce -even scholarly stuff- is very 'dyed' with romantic and emotional tones that forces me to 'swim' thru a sea of often antagonic distorted views.

I guess it's rather similar to what happens with our own -more recent- Spanish Civil War, or some events of Spanish history which are likely to be looked from a local nationalistic bias. It is curious that I often have to resource on foreign sources to have a fairly objective, not passionate view on my own country's history.

SeaFireLIV
12-31-2006, 11:45 AM
Thanks for the responses. To be honest, they`re pretty much what I thought. I also understand how it is hard to lose a way of being (even if you know it is correct) and sometimes change for change`s sake is not always good either.

Still, I did learn a long time ago not to expect a nation to be in reality the way it likes to portray itself to outsiders.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/LIVeyes.jpg
"If it burns, it is confirmed."

Ivan Lukich Zvyagin

ploughman
12-31-2006, 11:57 AM
"The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there."
L. P. Hartley

I thought Gods and Generals was a bad film about a fascinating subject. The bit where Jackson executes southern deserters resonates through the ages though. War consumes people.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Dum spiro, spero

zoinks_
12-31-2006, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:

My wife and I disagree about the battle of Gettysburg. She thinks Lee made a big mistake in attacking on the third day. I think Lee knew his only chance of ending the war favorably (notice I didn't say the Confederacy would win) was for Lee to drive through the Union forces and send them off in defeat.

The threat of a massed Confederate force so close to the Union capitol would hopefully cause Lincoln to sue for peace. At this point in the war Lee could see that he had men and materials for one last push. After Gettysburg, regardless of loss or victory, the Confederates couldn't maintain their military at a level needed to hold off the Union forces. It was do or die for Lee around the time of Gettysburg and he knew it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

one of those hindsight deals for sure.

especially for a war that was originally thought to last a few weeks, it could've been over after the first major battle - Manassas/Bull Run.

after the rebs routed the yanks in what was thought to be a glorious battle to decide everything, the rebs could've marched straight into washington unopposed. except the rebs thought it was over and alot of soldiers just went home.

no one thought it would last more than a few weeks and it lasted over 4 years.

pretty bizzare.


read about the first battle. the people who went to watch it and have a picnic. the different uniforms - the confusion of who was on which side - rebs wearing blue and yanks wearing gray, along with all other assorted colors. the mindset of that first battle really shows how unaware what was about to happen in America.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
learning curve: about 2 hours (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html)

Zeus-cat
12-31-2006, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">read about the first battle. the people who went to watch it and have a picnic. the different uniforms - the confusion of who was on which side - rebs wearing blue and yanks wearing gray, along with all other assorted colors. the mindset of that first battle really shows how unaware what was about to happen in America. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

zoinks,

I have never read a full account of the battle of Manassas/Bull Run, but I was aware that many people went to view the battle and that there was mass confusion over the lack of standards in uniforms and flags.

However, the comment you made "no one thought it would last more than a few weeks and it lasted over 4 years" applies to almost all wars in the sense that they never go the way people think they will. However, would the leaders of either side avoided this war if they had been told it would take 4 years and hundreds of thousands of lives - I doubt it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Zeus-cat

My Campaigns:
Straight Shot (9 missions in the Japanese Seaplane - A6M2-N "Rufe")
Straight Into an Icy Hell (14 missions for the Rufe in the Aleutians)
Straight Down (26 dive-bombing missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight Down Some More (19 more missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight and True (30 torpedo bomber missions in an IL-2T)

My campaign page at Miision4Today
http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&c=22

zoinks_
12-31-2006, 12:23 PM
yep, i doubt it too.

edit: and that's why we still war. humans are pretty stupid.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ ____________________________
learning curve: about 2 hours (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/pacificfighters/review.html)

MB_Avro_UK
12-31-2006, 01:12 PM
hi all,

As the OP I must say thanks for your responses and links http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I now have the movie 'Gettysburg' from my colleague but have yet to view it. I now also have 'Rough Riders' about the US / Spanish war 1898.

The English Civil War was fought between 1642 and 1651.It was between the King and a reformist Parliament.The King (Royalists) lost and the King was executed.

I don't want to go OT here but the result a few years later was that another King was reinstated on the throne and a semblance of democracy was created.

Were there any positive political/social benefits as a result of the US Civil War?

Happy New Year to all,
MB_Avro.

WWSensei
12-31-2006, 01:36 PM
Grew up in Louisiana and now live in Virginia so you can say that the Civil War was often talked about. If there is any lingering resentment over the war left in the South it has more to do with events AFTER the war rather than during it (Sherman's campaign aside).

Most of the animosity comes from the Reconstruction era and the subsequent "punishing" of the South by the North--something similar repeated in Versailles just a few years later at the end of WWI.

Oddly enough, had Lincoln not been assasinated he most likely would have prevented much of the northern retribution and the nation would have healed much sooner.

There is still a lot--and I mean a lot--of sterotypical prejudice from Northerns against Southerns. I can't count the number of times I've seen eyes roll or heard "Oh, you're from the south, I'm sorry" when I mention my background. Especially from Ivy League school MBA competitors in business.

That's usually right before they find out I've outdone them on a job and taken their clients. No bigger advantage than to be underestimated. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Positive benefits from the war? Well, obviously ending slavery was a good thing. It did preserve the Union as a whole allowing the US to grow. Had it split into two seperate nations there is good reason to believe they would never have become as economically successful as it has.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------
"A lady came up to me on the street, pointed to my leather flight jacket and said, "Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I replied menacingly, "I didn't know I left witnesses. Now, I'll have to kill you too."

mandrill7
12-31-2006, 03:06 PM
Ok, my 0.02 as well, I guess. I couldn't sit through the movie. I'd read a lot of ACW history as I've been figure wargaming that and other periods since the late 70's. The movie was a straight adaptation of the book which in turn was a straight adaptation of history (with a CSA slant). So the movie was a little like sitting thru a history class for the fourteenth time (with nice uniforms). Gettysburg was a little more watchable as it dealt with a single, focussed event. The movies are not as personalized, as fast-moving or as intense as modern action movies are wont to be and that likely disappointed the critics.

Did the CSA think it could win?? Sure it did. The South is always driven by its own mythology - even to this day. Much of the popular writing in the South in the 1850's was quite racist and portrayed the Southerners as superior to the Northern whites. This superiority complex was reinforced by the early victories and "almost-victories", such as Bull Run #1 and #2 and Shiloh. The South also believed its cause was just and that God was on its side. Most of the Southen leaders were extremely devout and believed that the Divine Will would manifest itself in some way to the benefit of their cause.

Would Lee attacking/ not attacking on the third day at Gettysburg have made a difference? Not unless Lee was a far better general than he was. Great at pre-battle maneuvre. Totally incompetent once he hit the battlefield. We're talking basic mistakes like not working out his artillery plan competently before sending in attacks. Napoleon would have laughed his *** off watching the pathetic screw-ups that Lee pulled off.

And by the third day the Union army was in too strong a position to be worth attacking anyway. Pickett's Charge would never have worked, even if a decent general had sent it in. You'd n