Revised casualty figures?

[Petrus58]

Saw this on the BBC website and thought it might be of some interest: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17604991

[cliometrician]

Yes, I saw the original article about a month ago in "Civil War News." A pretty good argument was made for increasing the number to at least 700,000+. And I don't agree with historian Eric Foner's statement that the number doesn't really make any difference. He implied that 620,000....820,000....so what? IMHO that's a slippery slope to dismissing any new facts that might come to light about the war, as well as being poor scholarship.

[KG_Soldier]

Whatever the number. . . one thing is for sure. . . Lincoln didn't care how many men had to die in order to win. I've always equated Lincoln with Stalin in that regard.

[NY Cavalry]

After the first shot you fight to win. Period.

Marshall told Truman that he had to shape up and realize the reality when Truman was getting squeemish about the expected casualties in an invasion of Japan.

You must always fight to win once the war has begun. That is why I so much dislike McClellan. He was in the wrong business and probably caused excessive casualties by not fervently seeing the war to its conclusion.

[KG_Soldier]

If Lincoln, a novice, had left Little Mac, a siege expert, alone. . . .

[KG_Soldier]

He was in the wrong business and probably caused excessive casualties by not fervently seeing the war to its conclusion.

Is that you, Joffre? That sounds so plan 17ish. So French. Do you also think Lanrezac lost his nerve when he ordered the 5th Army to withdraw after Charleroi?

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/charleroi.htm

[Blaugrana]

Saw this on the BBC website and thought it might be of some interest: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17604991

The caption to the photo of Arlington is, IMO, absurd. I e-mailed the BBC yesterday and they've since changed the wording but I think it's still a very bizarre take on statistics.

[Saddletank]

"Proportionate to the US's 2012 population, 7.5m US soldiers died in the War; above, Arlington Cemetery."

What was the original caption, Blaugrana?

I've always equated Lincoln with Stalin in that regard.

I would take that as a compliment since Stalin was a master at winning wars and doing the job properly.

That remark isn't meant to be in bad taste, but when you go to war, you go to war, not pussyfoot around. You have to, or else more people could die and suffer.

Davis, in contrast, was a relatively ineffectual war leader, with shoulders too narow to bear the burden he was obliged to carry. Lincoln did the task he had to do, gruesome though it was, a sure sign of a strong personality.

[13thnct]

"Proportionate to the US's 2012 population, 7.5m US soldiers died in the War; above, Arlington Cemetery."

What was the original caption, Blaugrana?

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed that bizarre quote, and yes, its still a weird turn of phrase as its currently written. I don't remember the original quote exactly, but it included a similar comparison to the "proportionate" number to the UK population. Why not just say 1 in X Americans were killed instead multiplying the percent by an arbitrary population number BBC? With that said, its cool to see this on a major news outlet.

[NY Cavalry]

In war a slug-fest must be avoided unless you can field more troops like the Chinese and Russians can. Western armies and armies that are numerically inferior must gain an advantage another way. Advanced tactics, better strategy, better training, better equipment are all ways to help even the odds. The best way to improve your odds is with maneuver. We saw Jackson use maneuver to great effect. A straight up stand up fight should be avoided at all cost. That is why Lee knew that once he was bottled up in Richmond that it was just a matter of time 1864. During the seven days in 1862 Lee was not constrained by lack of an effective army. He did field a lot of troops during the seven days. Not so in 1865.

McClellan was so narrow minded that he tried to direct the war into what he thought it should be and he was not able realize that war tactics and weapons had vastly changed.

If you switch McClellan with Lee at the Seven Days it is a vastly different fight and the South probably would have lost then and there. If you switch Hooker and Lee at Chancellorsville the Southern ANV is crushed and Richmond falls.

WWI is a perfect example of the need for tactics and maneuver. McClellan, to me, represents WWI siege warfare. McClellan would not have fit in WW2, he wouldn't have understood the new tactics and weapons and would instead be dragging huge artillery pieces around. He would therefore have been thoroughly thrashed by planes and tanks.

Digby, I am surprised that you regard Stalin as an effective warrior. He continually hampered military operations and ordered front long assaults that were doomed to failure. He was singularly responsible for the state of the Soviet army in 1941. He had shot most of his officers and decided to defend forward when it was cautioned to him that he should set up a defensive line many miles from the border. It was the vastness of Russia, the 1941 blizzard, the United States, and his vast manpower pool that saved him. If you take away just one of the above items then it would have been war over for him.