Comments on: War Nerd: Battle Paintings: I May Not Know Much about Art, But I’ve Got A Gun

By: Phoenix Woman

Phoenix Woman — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 20:48:27 +0000

By the way, to all the Neo-Confederates saying that the South would have freed its slaves eventually: Um, no. Slavery was embedded in the very Constitution of the Confederate States of America. As Nathan Bedford Forrest himself told a Southern lady talking about States' Rights and all the other alleged hoo-ha for firing on Fort Sumter, "Madam, if this war isn't being fought to preserve slavery then I don't know what it's about." One of the funnier examples of conservatives trying to rewrite history to eliminate racial guilt is the “Black Confederates” nonsense of the past two decades. There are many different debunking links to choose from — some of which cite actual Confederate congressional records, presidential proclamations (in this proclamation, ironically dated as of Christmas Eve of 1862, Jefferson Davis authorizes the summary execution of any Union white officers found leading black troops, along with the execution or enslavement of said troops) and editorials from Southern newspapers showing the extreme and heated resistance of Southerners to the very idea of blacks fighting alongside rebel soldiers. But in fairness I thought I would focus on that very rare thing, an honest conservative over at Free Republic, who has worked to debunk the myth. This honest Freeper, citing both Confederate congressional records and the June 1915 issue of the original Confederate Veteran (which was published from 1893 to 1932), in which several veterans wrote in to debunk the first embryonic stirrings of this myth, which had appeared in previous issues of the magazine. (These are the issues which the myth promoters cite whilst ignoring the June 1915 one.)

By: Charlie

Charlie — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:40:50 +0000

Um, Sherman WAS at Shiloh. His division was driven back in the initial assault but regrouped and held their ground.

By: Phoenix Woman

Phoenix Woman — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:05:40 +0000

Gettysburg is my favorite for the simple reason that the First Minnesota Regiment of Volunteers showed everyone how it was done — and took Russian-style casualty figures doing it, whilst facing an enemy five times their size.

Take the First Minnesota, along with the Iron Brigade of Wisconsin and later Indiana and Michigan regiments, on a tour of 1860s Europe: Now that’d be an interesting book. Or video game.

By: Robert Sneddon

Robert Sneddon — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:19:15 +0000

I liked Pratchett’s comment about war artists… (paraphrasing) “Technically very inspiring but they never seemed to be able to paint intestines”.

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:39:08 +0000

I can’t find the painting he talks about but I’d like to see it. Can anybody? Thanks!

By: jerome

jerome — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:29:05 +0000

America invading Europe with some success is plausible. The Brits watched the way the Americans fought in the 1860s and just kind of went “awww that’s cute, but you’re doing it wrong”, even though the US Civil War was the first warning light for World War One. Trenches outside Virginia’s capitol should have been a wake up call to what the future held for long range weaponry and mass infantry on open terrain, but did the arrogant Europeans listen? Nope.
If the Americans got to the White cliffs of Dover and dug in, the Brits wouldn’t have a single military age male alive between the beaches and london by the end of the first month.
Well that’s a bit of hyperbole but my point is, the Europeans would have gotten a rude awakening.

By: rob adams

rob adams — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:42:19 +0000

Being a 50′s kid from the deep South i am beneath all the layers of academically applied conscience, still unreconstructed in some ways. We have my great great grandfather’s diary – he was with the Texas Brigade, Capt John Selman Company E; wounded at the Peach Orchard. Took my kids there. Goddamn what a place. they of course had no idea what was going on, but they proved useful as props. At Devils Den i made them play dead and got a pretty cute shot of them beyond the original Brady photograph on the display plaque at the site. We stood where Capt Selman stood before the Texas Brigade jumped off to push the Yankees back up to Little Round Top. I’ll never forget it, nor will i ever forgive Lee for being so braindead just because it seems he crossed the Mason Dixon Line. Goddammit it we should’a won!

By: dogbane

dogbane — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:18:46 +0000

I sure would like to see your take on Nigeria at the moment, Mr. Brecher. I look forward to your next blog.

By: JS

JS — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:05:25 +0000

Nice article. For the next one Gary, how about wading into that classic debate over who was a better general, Grant or Lee?

By: kumiho

kumiho — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:56:41 +0000

some great epic paintings are in Hungarian and polish museums

By: Azr@el

Azr@el — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:35:05 +0000

The south’s only hope of seceding from the union lay in a protracted morale draining guerrilla war a la the revolutionary war. Tecumseh’s march to the sea convinced Southern leaders and citizens alike that whilst they’d play a game of bushwhack the bluecoats in the swamps and glens, the Union army would transform the South into the largest brothel the world had ever known…and use their homes as kindling to toss the largest BBQ to boot. Something about ex-slaves getting to have sloppy seconds with their wives and daughters after the Union boys had their fill may also have figured into the Southern calculus for capitulation. If anyone is interested there are some lovely letters from the civil war describing in the most beatiful prose how it feels to have a train run on you by those “Yankee Devils”.

By: Epicman

Epicman — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:37:55 +0000

Lee could always have retreated back into Virginia. It was the Union that was preventing the Confederacy from seceding, not the other way around.

Also, I don’t know how much truth there is to this, but I heard that if Gray Davis stuck with Johnson, instead of replacing Johnson with Hood, who rashly attacked, that Johnson might have worn out the Union Army, and Union morale, prior to Lincoln’s re-election, and then McChicken, err McClellan would have won, and McDonald’s would launch the McChicken hamburger line. Is there truth to this?

By: RedBastardGod

RedBastardGod — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:32:23 +0000

Meade’s plan was to set up a defensive front along Pipe Creek in north central Maryland, placing the AOTP between the ANV and Baltimore and Washington. In fact, he had given orders to that effect as the lead elements of Heth’s Division came strolling down Cashtown Pike. But one thing leads to another and you end up with the greatest battle in the Western Hemisphere.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/pcl.htm (scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the picture tour link to get an idea of the selected ground)

It’s very plausable that Lee with his extended and vulnerable supply line would eventually have to confront Meade on Meade’s terms, not the other way around as so many neo-confederates prattle on about.

By: Technomad

Technomad — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:48:53 +0000

Try alibris.com or abebooks.com if you can remember the books’ titles, and you should be able to find who painted those paintings. Then Google the artist’s name and “Gettysburg painting.”

By: grigori

grigori — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:41:49 +0000

I wonder what our ancestors would have made of the art I saw recently at the Art Institute in San Francisco. A young man, 18 going on 14 or 15, took pictures of himself naked with a clear tube from his mouth to his anus. He called it “Ourobouros”. Real statement, that.

Liked the article.

By: jack

jack — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:07:13 +0000

Good to see the real war nerd back in action and not that whingey cunter from the last few articles.

ALL hail the war nerd!

By: Jack the Texan

Jack the Texan — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:27:38 +0000

Love your stuff – don’t always agree (esp about Realism in Art), but I do love it. I also wanna mention the other fine fine battle of July 4th 1863, the seige of Vicksburg, where my fine namesake and great great grandfather, Major John McNally lost his brother, Capt Francis McNally, defending the fine port of VIcksburg from the scurrilous yankees.

My dad used to laugh every forth of July, saying as a small child in Mississippi in the late 40s they STILL didn’t celebrate the 4th of July. Well would you wanna celebrate the day your incipient nation went a-crumbling into dust?

By: Ihatefatsohistorians

Ihatefatsohistorians — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:44:18 +0000

“-Europeans still don’t understand that either of those armies could have marched unstoppable from Liverpool to Moscow, a red-white-n-blue knife through moldy Euro-butter.”

mmmm I don’t know doc. The French Old Guard, Prussian Grenadiers, Janissary Corps, etc.?? When did US ever win a war anywhere outside of North America unless it went with someone else??

By: Epicman

Epicman — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:56:41 +0000

Wow, this thread has devolved into how evil the Soviets were. Kinda sad. Soviet military losses were 7 to 12 million. Soviet civilian losses were twice that number. Hitler killed more civilians then Stalin. As for using civilians as tools of warfare, the British did that in the Boer War quite well. When their army couldn’t do jack shit to the Boers, the British used thier battleships capture a coastal city, and subjected the population to what would today be called devastating war crimes, until the Boers surrendered.

How about the millions of Indians that the British famine slaughtered? How about giving Smallpox Blankets to Native Americans? How about re-introducing the caste system in India? And for what? To make a lot of money.

How about the British handing over Czeckoslovakia to Nazi Germany? How about Chamberlain’s comment that “we hope that Communism and Nazism shall annihilate each other”? Annihilate! That means kill hundreds of millions of people! The British didn’t give a shit.

And here they are, talking about collectivisation. Seriously, what the fuck? Stalin came nowhere near Hitler in terms of civillians killed. Hitler killed at least 14 million Soviet Civilians. And did it willingly.

Yes, Stalin erred in purging the army, the gulags, the collectivisation, but all those combined don’t come anywhere close to Nazi or British crimes. And to all those yelling “why aren’t KGB archives opened!” Well British archives haven’t been opened after the year 1800. That’s 208 years ago. What could be so devastating that the British still cannot admit their actions?

Not to mention that Stalin allied with Hitler after he was rejected by Britain. So spare me the bullshit. And if the British had their war, Hitler would be facing the Tsarist Army. If that’s the case, then Nazis would have rolled past Moscow. Soviet Casualties would be triple what they are now.

As for the casualties fairy tale, here’s the answer: 80% of Nazi casualties = 4.4 million. Soviet military casualties = 9.5 million (average of 7 mil to 12 mil) That’s roughly a 2:1 casualty rate. So it appears that every time a Nazi shot two Soviet peasants plowing the field, he also shot his one of his buddies. Or it could be that the Red Army actually fought back.

A casualty rate of 2:1 against Nazis, was rather difficult to achieve in Europe, at least until Nazi offensive power was destroyed in the Battle of Kursk. Shall I mention the Miracle of Dunkirk, aka British running pants, or exuse me, trousers down, like madmen? Save it for the more ignorant people who don’t read this side, and prefer Anne Coulter instead.

By: kgbproud

kgbproud — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:06:05 +0000

@60 The casualty figure I cite is a military and civilian. Can you present some evidence of “cold-blooded murder of innocents” on the type of scale I believe you are thinking about? It’s also time to stop labeling Stalin a criminal, least of all, stupid. He had keen grasp of European politics esp. visavis the Soviet Union post Civil War, and it was he who saw through the rising facist threat enough to offer an alliance to the Entente. We know what happened next. He likewise foresaw the military capabilities of Germany and that the USSR was woefully unprepared for these new tactics despite its numeric superiority. The Red Army under Tukhachevsky had front row seats during the surreptitious German rearming during the early 30s since the German conducted the training of their first armored and air-borne divisions on the territory of the USSR to avoid detection by the Entente. But instead of heading this clarion call, Tukhachevsky maintained his faith in horse cavalry and gigantic tank-battleships. It was this unwieldy technology that cost the SU so dearly in 1941.
By the time the CPSU wrenched the Red Army out of its ossified doctrines the Soviet Union lost too much time and no amount of diplomatic floundering about would make up for it. Hence, all that intelligence of the upcoming invasion was of little value. I’d say this guy and his lieutenants got what they deserved. None the less the Red Army would put up the most effective resistance that the Germans had yet seen and by the next year would already solve these tactical problems while British were still being kicked around all over Africa by a couple of light divisions. As far as appalling losses go, well that’s the level of war that the Americans and Brits avoided, sitting behind the Channel drinking warm beer until Germany was already finished; 80% of her 14 million casualties where on the Eastern Front.

Some of my sources for this are;
Great Patriotic War, Book of Losses without secrets (RU)
Memoirs of a Jewish Red Army Soldier – Gabriel Temkin (EN)
Memoirs, Khurshchev, Zhukov and other russian commanders (EN)