I'm very disappointed...

[Golden_Deliciou]

Uhm, guys, you do know that there are some history forums out there somewhere?

Rafiki

NONSENSE. I demand the right to make off-topic posts.

 

[unmerged(22575)]

Popular perception seems to be your main source, here. Hardly the most credible of references. Broadly, my impression is that casualties were appaling across the board, but that the poor whites (particularly those from Tennessee, which was less dominated by plantations) tended to resent the wealth of the slaveholders. Essentially, the poor whites were in competition with slaves- which left their wages very low.

I didn't really think there was room for argument here. The rich, especially the planters, sat out the war. This is how it works in almost every war. You can make a case for some people of the upper classes being general officers, but I assure you, by percentage of class, it is the poor who do the killing and the dying. I can look it up for you when I have the time.

Not that I'm arguing that the poor resent the rich. That goes without saying. One is poor, while the other lives in wealth, because of the poor mans work. Or, in the case of the South, the slaves work.

That is utter nonsense. Conscription was entirely class-blind in this case. In fact, more likely to conscript the man of leisure than the working-class machinist.

I'm not a British historian, so I'm not really sure. However, in the case of the American Civil War, you can see that conscription was not class blind. Both North and South the rich were allowed to defer their "responsibilities" by either: Paying a substitute, paying a deferment fee, or giving slaves to the government.

I think your best case can be made for the middle-classes. They were the ones who probably in both the Great War, and the American Civil War, made up the bulk of the officers in any army.

The rich, were either at home, general officers (who did not die in great numbers during WWI), or otherwise high enough in rank that they did not have to go "over the top" as it were.

As for the poor staying home to work in the factories. Well, perhaps a very few had that advantage, however I assure you 90% of the enlisted men came from factories. Women who were left behind (in the case of WWI) or Irish lucky enough not to get drafted (in the case of the ACW), etc. made up the workforce in factories.

Some served as officers- others joined the RFC. Another force with a massive casualty rate.

I'm not sure what the RFC is, but as I said above, the rich, the factory owners sons, probably stayed home. Those who didn't most likely served in a non-dangerous capacity. The main-line officer corp was probably mostly university students, and the middle-classes.

Thing is, the aristocrats were needed. No-one else was deemed suitable for officership by a lot of European states.

Thats rich. So you are saying, that the poor couldn't serve as officers either on the front lines, or in the rear (where most of the true aristocrats would be) because why? The rich read, write, command, and think better? Seems like an excuse to me, to justify the poor dying in a rich mans fight. You know, that is their natural position in society, being used to in some way benefit those with capital.

You might be able to make a case for the upper-middle class avoiding the worst of the war- but these too would have gone into the officer ranks in large numbers, and as they largely served as bureaucrats a lot of them were expendable.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. The middle-classes are a cushion class over the poor, they can serve and die just fine with the poor. The rich on the other hand, those in the Upper-middle, and upper-class avoid either service or dangerous service.

Conscription is rarely ever blind. The rich find ways out. Look at Bush in the United States, he served in the National Guard during Vietnam... sons of the wealthy rarely bleed alongside sons of the working man.

-Scott

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

I didn't really think there was room for argument here. The rich, especially the planters, sat out the war.

Men like Lee- and indeed virtually every other Southern general?

This is how it works in almost every war.

Nonsense- especially for pre-Napoleonic periods.

Not that I'm arguing that the poor resent the rich. That goes without saying.

Sometimes. Often, though, the poor accept their position for various reasons.

However, in the case of the American Civil War, you can see that conscription was not class blind. Both North and South the rich were allowed to defer their "responsibilities" by either: Paying a substitute, paying a deferment fee, or giving slaves to the government.

This does make something of a case- and it certainly applies very heavily to the North. However in the south, the landowners weren't necessarily in a position to pay for a substitute- especially in the hard times the South was facing in 1862. Further, many no doubt could ill-afford to hand over five able-bodied slaves.

I think your best case can be made for the middle-classes. They were the ones who probably in both the Great War, and the American Civil War, made up the bulk of the officers in any army.

Middle Classes, I would think, wouldn't be at the sharp end of the fighting. Rather they would be doing logistics work. Using their expertise to its best effect.

The rich, were either at home, general officers (who did not die in great numbers during WWI), or otherwise high enough in rank that they did not have to go "over the top" as it were.

Of the nine million men who served in the British Army in the Second World War, I don't think there were very many who were above the rank of major (ie, high enough to avoid combat).

As for the poor staying home to work in the factories. Well, perhaps a very few had that advantage, however I assure you 90% of the enlisted men came from factories.

Actually, enlistments relied heavily on agricultural workers- especially in Germany. And in Britain until 1916, no-one was conscripted at all. The toffs volunteered along with everyone else.

I'm not sure what the RFC is,

Sorry, Royal Flying Corps. Only the rich had any experience with aircraft- so they ended up making up the vast majority of pilots.

the factory owners sons, probably stayed home.

If they're not in a reserved occupation, it's off to the front with them. I suppose it's conceivable they'll get a staff job. Depends on their qualifications. But you were talking about the aristocracy ("upper class" I believe you said). Not the same as factory-owners sons.

Thats rich. So you are saying, that the poor couldn't serve as officers either on the front lines, or in the rear (where most of the true aristocrats would be) because why? The rich read, write, command, and think better?

That was the opinion at the time. Besides, the poor were used to seeing the aristocracy as their superiors. To take orders from them is natural. And yes, the rich would be better educated, for obvious reasons.

Conscription is rarely ever blind. The rich find ways out. Look at Bush in the United States, he served in the National Guard during Vietnam...

Great. How many other national guardsmen went to Vietnam? Zero?

Broadly, your arguments about class and so on fit with your username, the hammer and sickle graphic next to it, and your location. Did it ever occur to you that landowners and aristocrats sometimes want to fight for their country? I suppose volunteering for war is an idea entirely alien to you.

 

[unmerged(22575)]

Uhm, guys, you do know that there are some history forums out there somewhere?

Rafiki

Bah!

-Scott

 

[unmerged(25013)]

Well, not going to input on the other areas but the idea of a British blockade of the North is tremendously silly at best.

General Lee was a great leader in Battle but not the best strategist and ignored the one region of the war that could have saved, or at the least dragged on, the war for the South.

This was the western area of the United States.

A British blockade was impossible and pointless because they would have had to cover the North, Gulf of Mexico, and the California Coast.

General Lee and President Davis failed to grasp that implications of advancing westward instead of fighting in the North.

The Union had minimal armies under poor leadership and almost lost the western campaign.

If the South had been able to succeed to the west, they could have connected with the West Coast which would have required the Union to guard the Gulf, Atlantic, and Pacific, a task that would have been difficult at best and greatly diminished their ability to gather in force.

A western victory would have also forced the North to string out it's forces along a West-East axis or concede the west, either of which would have been a substantial victory for the South.

Instead, Lee ordered many of his western forces east, gave up the west, and sealed the fate of the CSA.

There are several good books about the much ignored western campaigns and how very close the North came to losing Colorado and beyond.

Ok, I wandered a bit, the sheer size of what the British had to blockade coupled with the distances, the eventual dawn of armored ships, and the vulnerability of Canada to land invasion made any such thought sheer nonsense.

The United Kingdom would have given supplies and aid but not given outright assistance until the War was decidely in the CSA's favor.

Just some thoughts...

 

[killerdude11]

i think playing as CSA during the ACW, in vicky is the same as as playing byzn empire during GC in EUII

correct me if i'm wrong

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

A British blockade was impossible and pointless because they would have had to cover the North, Gulf of Mexico, and the California Coast.

The Gulf of Mexico was mostly under Confederate control. The California coast only had very few ports at this point and was not connected to the East by rail. As such, very little could be brought in from here.

General Lee and President Davis failed to grasp that implications of advancing westward instead of fighting in the North.

There's nothing IN the West. The reason the Union had minimal armies out there was that there was nothing worth having and supporting large armies out there was impossible anyway.

If the South had been able to succeed to the west, they could have connected with the West Coast

That's- what- 2,000 miles from the railhead? 1,000 miles across desert and mountains. Let's say a major expedition is sent. Four Confederate soldiers reach California in Spring 1864 in time to find out that Richmond has fallen in their absence.

Ok, I wandered a bit, the sheer size of what the British had to blockade coupled with the distances, the eventual dawn of armored ships, and the vulnerability of Canada to land invasion made any such thought sheer nonsense.

I disagree. Since the Crimean War Britain had been developed iron ships of her own. Canada could be protected by both the difficulty of the terrain and the high quality of British regulars.

 

[unmerged(22575)]

Men like Lee- and indeed virtually every other Southern general?

It is true, that many of the Confederate general officers, were wealthy. However, this does in no way show, that the same percentage of the the upper-class served and died in the Southern army, as did, by percentage the poor.

I suppose you have an agenda, and so do I, so short of me finding to time to do the research, we can just drop it.

I however, think it is apparent, to those not involved in this discussion, that I am more likely to be right.

Nonsense- especially for pre-Napoleonic periods.

.

Maybe you have something here for the medival period. I don't know a whole lot about it. Somehow, again I doubt it. Usually Kings do not fight.

Going further back, we can quote Socrates "all wars are fought in the interst of the wealthy". Which, you must concede is almost always the case.

And I doubt the bulk of Roman Nobility was busy being in, or leading armies. If that is what you are trying to get at.

Sometimes. Often, though, the poor accept their position for various reasons.

True. Usually, because those who are in a relationship of power over them force them to fight and die for things that aren't in their interest.

This does make something of a case- and it certainly applies very heavily to the North. However in the south, the landowners weren't necessarily in a position to pay for a substitute- especially in the hard times the South was facing in 1862. Further, many no doubt could ill-afford to hand over five able-bodied slaves.

$200 dollars was not something hard to come up with in 1862 in the South, for a planter, hard times they may be. Substitutes were often less than $100. Slaves where harder to give up, and when the government started demanding more, over 500,000 slaves got force marched to Texas, far away from the war. Their owners often as not went with them.

Middle Classes, I would think, wouldn't be at the sharp end of the fighting. Rather they would be doing logistics work. Using their expertise to its best effect.

Let me get this right. You are saying the middle classes did logistics work while the rich, who were perfectly capable of doing the same, and armed with influence, went over the top? This seems like a crock of shit, pardon the phrasing. I will concede that many logistical positions were probably filled by those of the middle-class. I must also insist that most of the officers in the front lines were probably middle-class too.

Of the nine million men who served in the British Army in the Second World War, I don't think there were very many who were above the rank of major (ie, high enough to avoid combat).

The rich were mostly above that rank. Secondly, you want me to believe that "Logistical" officers under the rank of Major, couldn't avoid combat.

Actually, enlistments relied heavily on agricultural workers- especially in Germany. And in Britain until 1916, no-one was conscripted at all. The toffs volunteered along with everyone else.

I'm prepared to believe that to a certain extent. However, the question must be asked, who was growing the food? Not all of came from the United States, and this doesn't even apply to Germany. I think it is fair to say, that both the farmers and the machinists did the dying in the first world war.

And sure, the false sense of nationalism got workers to kill workers. I love how the world works sometimes.

Sorry, Royal Flying Corps. Only the rich had any experience with aircraft- so they ended up making up the vast majority of pilots.

Ah. Yes. Perhaps you are right here. What percentage of the rich and aristocrats served in the RFC?

If they're not in a reserved occupation, it's off to the front with them. I suppose it's conceivable they'll get a staff job. Depends on their qualifications. But you were talking about the aristocracy ("upper class" I believe you said). Not the same as factory-owners sons.

Sorry I did not distinguish the difference between the Capital class and the Aristocratic class. There is a difference, you are right. I'm sure more aristocrats, many of whom were professional soldiers because that is what that position, and that time, dictated. However, I will stand by my claim that less, in perportion to the poor, served and died. I'm sure that the number of Capitalists and ther sons in the war was near zero.

That was the opinion at the time. Besides, the poor were used to seeing the aristocracy as their superiors. To take orders from them is natural. And yes, the rich would be better educated, for obvious reasons.

So, your position is that it is natural for the rich to command the poor? I rest my case as far as that point goes.

Great. How many other national guardsmen went to Vietnam? Zero?

Yes. Near that. The vast majority of Americans in Vietnam were draftees. I can assure you that no-one in the Texas Air-National guard served in a war-zone. This was a popular out. My father among thousands of others tried to join the national-guard to avoid war.

Broadly, your arguments about class and so on fit with your username, the hammer and sickle graphic next to it, and your location. Did it ever occur to you that landowners and aristocrats sometimes want to fight for their country? I suppose volunteering for war is an idea entirely alien to you.

Yup. Got me there, I am a communist. And yes, my statements were not ment as absolutes i.e. not every rich man avoids war. Instead, I stand by what I say. Most do.

And fuck no. I'm an internationalist. I'm a communist. I do not believe in the concept of nation, let alone would I ever volunteer to fight and possibly die in a war that benfits not my class, but the interests of the rich.

That does not mean that I would not be prepared to die, or suffer for what I believe.

-Scott