No, it's logistics that makes cannon fodder. That's something that Yankees and Russians have in common.
Cannon fodder can still win wars. But let's not pretend there's any great honor in being cannon fodder.
I'd wager you that Medal of Honor winners are way disproportionately from the South even for the South's already disproportionate military service.
I also strongly suspect - have wanted to actually calculate this and run regressions on it - that it could be demonstrated that Southern Unionist units had a disproportionate effect on winning the Civil War.
Seeing you blow off logistics as unimportant in war helps me understand why you lost. What was the plan when the South ran out of gunpowder, guns, and rails? Banzai charges?
Most Southerners believe that honor is synonymous with power. The more powerful side is the more honorable side, unless one of the sides is theirs, in which case theirs is more honorable. It is not rational, but rationalizing and a sign of in-group loyalty.
Beyond that, Russians are terrible at logistics. During their recent foray into Ukraine, early on they couldn't give troop transports sufficient fuel, food, maps, or functioning vehicles. Even these days they rely on China and Iran (of all places) to supply them with drones.
Utterly bizarre that you equate Yankees with a people who are about as good at logistics as the South is, unless you're talking about the Irish who are obviously cannon fodder.
The Yankee way of war is essentially naval doctrine brought to land. Move mass-produced low-to-moderate quality troops to defensive positions or chokepoints, and have them sit and shoot at anything which comes at them while taking little risk - these are equivalent to port fortresses and coastal batteries. Then send your high quality troops to pin the enemy down between themselves and the defensive positions, while others destroy logistics networks.
Managing all these men and material requires a force larger than the actual fighting force, though to be fair smaller than the modern 1 to 100+ ratio of tooth to tail.
There's a vast world out there besides that particular corner of the Plains. Which is still mostly empty to this day...
Random gunmen feuding with injuns did not permanently end the threat they posed; cutting off their food supply and harrying them with vastly better equipped regiments did. That was only possible with rail networks to move men and materials west, and then expanding those networks to strangle them to death.
They weren't originally in those parts of the plains, they were hundreds of miles back east. They would up there because we pushed them there, one rail line, canal, and military fort in a chokepoint at a time.
That said, the Texas Rangers did perform superhuman feats of endurance and skill in counter-raiding them deep into their home territory. Southerners are superb mounted light infantry, and it's a shame that none of their leaders made effective use of those skills during the war.
That's an interesting way to say you can't be fucked to read. You don't want a comprehensive answer because you're Yankeetude can't stand up to it.
The issue is that your base assumptions - to the degree that you have a rational basis for your beliefs - are not just wrong or unconsidered, but bizarre and non-sensical. Untangling why you believe multiple things that all contradict one another is not something I am equipped to do, and even if I was I don't have the lifetimes necessary to study or explain it.
It's more sensible to simply say that you are not agreement capable, and that you understand only force. You are either at your neighbors throat or at his feet, and there is no rational basis for the beliefs (which inform your thoughts, which inform your actions). This makes it easier for me to deal with you in a language which you understand.
Yet here you are responding to my posts with neckbeard memes rather than an unemotional reply.
My culture's anti-intellectualism. Not mine personally, I read quite a bit and have been pretty successful (so far) in what I do. But that it is indeed a weakness.
Most of those high-agency types are pussies, though. Intellectuals as a group tend to be bad even if self-education is good.
Not really, being disagreeable and stating your argument when you are too physically weak to defend yourself is incredibly brave. You conflate an inability to deal violence in the personal with an unwillingness to speak the truth. Though to be fair most intellectuals aren't brave so much as they are oblivious to social pressures.
Most of the people who are employed in academia are not intellectuals, rather than are intelligentsia - regime loyalists whose job is to develop new rationalizations for the Current Thing. Most of them are jews or catholics, and a lot of jannisaries/jannies are hicklibs who think that loyalty will bring them stability, when in fact their loyalty ensures they will never get more than scraps. Coincidentally, their method of argumentation is exactly the same as that of their Southern kin, only twisted and perverted in service to an out-group who hates them.
These people hate and fear me because I'm an actual Yankee, I'm a moderately skilled intellectual, and my politics (ultra-nationalism with localism) is diametrically opposed to theirs. I say I'm moderately skilled because I've met other people - physicists and foreign language scholars mostly - who are as superior to me as I am superior to the average hicklib.
No shit, that's one of my points about building a new kind of Southern identity on class consciousness.
In what way?
The marxist sense won't work except to import Yankee labor unionism to the South, which will lead to deindustrialization of the South as it did in the North.
What you need is something which is moderate and multi-faceted without relying on irrationality as an in-group loyalty signal. Something similar to Francoist Corporatism IMO, as the Spanish character is very close to that of the Southern. Bring every faction to the table, and have them negotiate and periodically renegotiate, with the understanding that as members of the same ethnie you may be rivals but you will never be enemies. This should moderate the exploitiveness of Southern class conflicts, and by letting people have their voices heard assuage bad feelings (most people just want others to really listen to them).
My ideal scenario is one which redirects Southern hostility and aggression south, towards Mexico and other nations bordering the Caribbean which have exploited our goodwill. If I could I would revive the Knights of the Golden Circle, have them colonize that area, and then give up certain northerly states as these areas are depopulated while people move south to establish family estates in the tropics.
I want to do the same in Baja California and Western Mexico with Mormons, and in Brazil with German-Americans. I think that this mutually beneficial agreement (and Total Libtard Enslavement) would prevent another Civil War, protect all four of our nations, and ensure that we are all ideally placed for national security, access to resources, and access to water.
Us Yankees get Canada, of course. Except for Quebec, they can fuck right off and be their own nation.
What's your point? Rural folk everywhere hunt.
Northern Winter isn't exactly Russian Winter.
The point is that everyone north of the Mason Dixie line isn't a pushover, we aren't eager to lick Boss Hogg's boot, and we can simply stop plowing the roads to cockblock you.
The Great Lakes routinely dump feet of snow in a single night. That's nothing to sneeze at, especially given how unprepared the average Southerner is to deal with it.
That's an interesting point. I'm not sure how much of an actual threat that is because in most Civil War II scenarios much of the Rust Belt is assumed to be in the Rightist faction, but even so let's just say you could fuck up the Mississippi River Valley and Tennessee River Valley in horrific fashion by firing some missiles at its dams.
Just because someone is a Rightist for their side doesn't mean they support Rightists not on their side. And we don't need missiles, there are levees on the Ohio River's tributaries well within Yankee territory. We can just bulldoze some earthworks and that will have a cascading effect downstream, taking out more levees as it goes.
It's similar to the asymmetry of the North being able to float men and materials down rivers basically for free, while the South had to laboriously haul them upstream. It's an advantage of geography that requires you to invade to hold it, and the invasion is hostile both in the armed population and in terms of weather. It is better to avoid war and refocus your efforts further south, for our mutual benefit (and for which we'd offer logistical and Sherman-style beaner pacification assistance).
Once you have multiple nations and an entire sea to yourself, plus a navy, you shouldn't be much threatened by our control of the headwaters.
Consider this an amicable divorce offer, I guess.
Okay, like, theoretically I'd back a foreign power intervening in a civil war on my side (who wouldn't?), but who is going to that on Right America's side? Nobody. Putin used to claim he'd support Texan independence, but aside from the stupidity of trusting a Russian's word, they're clearly not capable of offensive warfare and the Chinese even more so.
Okay then, I'll chalk it up to poorly developed sentences on your part.
I'm asking if that's a real trend among other people you've seen or if that was just needling me.
I'm incredibly racist, I'm not bothered by the allegation that "Yankees are the real racists," in the slightest. Proof of Yankee superiority. Anyways, let's move on.
They weren't under a White command structure. They can be trained.
On the contrary, mine IS the real America. Yankees showed up later, couldn't be bothered to fight in 1812 despite it mainly being them that were being preyed on, couldn't be bothered to fight Mexico. Fucking useless.
Have you ever overseen a Mexican work crew?
We had a much smaller population prior to industrialization as the land up north is less fertile and the weather is colder. Beating the earth for it's energy is a full time job.
Also we tended to expel or outright kill the poor, because many of them are terminal fuck-ups which is the reason why they're poor. Being charitable in a place with such a short growing season is a death sentence, so it's better for them to leave than to kill everyone.
We were also busy going on what were essentially homicidal rampages against injuns before and just after the Revolutionary War, and later on beating the shit out of the Irish whom our overlords imported to undercut labor costs.
Regardless, all of that is in the past. Anyone who showed up before the 1800s is an American, and you wanting to kill them for shit that happened 160 years ago is by definition anti-American. My earliest European ancestor from my dad's side of the family came over in the late 1600s. On my mother's side of the family, the earliest ancestor was a Spanish nobleman that showed up in the 1700s. He ran a farm and captured indios from the islands of the coast of California to enslave them, one of whom he took as a wife (who was technically here for thousands of years, though were obviously not American). And a few generations later one of his descendants married a Union officer who was stationed in California for the war, to catch Confederate pirates.
Okay? Your point? Like, the vast majority of people I know are not dopers. I should throw out my own experience of reality on your say-so?
Let's just say that I don't appreciate you sending your biotrash to my state, and I salivate at the chance to enslave and castrate them once the federal government isn't around to stop me. The entitlement and imperious attitude combined with the complete dependence on my taxes for survival does not make me think kindly of Southerners, especially when other Southerners come to the defense of fentanyl zombies solely because they are co-ethnics.
Where the fuck do you live that you're around Mormons? Out West?
Incidentally, Mormons ARE Yankees by ancestry, but considerably less shitty thanks to the White Man's Islam and the rigors of frontier life. Them and that Scottish-influenced Northern New Englanders (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine) are the only decent Yankees.
Well I do have an entire thread about homeless people, draw your own conclusions.
I don't hate Mormons, I just don't want to live by them and I want to use them as a weapon against mexicans. I wish them well in founding Zion down south on the Pacific.
It really seems like you're retreating from hating Yankees in themselves to hating people from Boston and Massachusetts, to which I say: have you met anyone from Connecticut?
Also it's amusing that you equate being likable and hard-working with being of the same ethnic stock as yourself or influenced by them. Everyone in New England is hard-working, it's bred into them, though I'm more of a Great Lakes Yankee by descent. More relaxed.
And I don't buy into scientific racism.
I think it's more that you don't buy into science. Your loss.
What is this shit? Some porno thing you watch?
When I beat off to Blacks it's the women getting the big White cock. I call it "conquistador mentality." Fucking brown women to spread Western civilization (which achieved its pinnacle in the South).
I'm saying that a sizable minority of Southern writers are buggery enthusiasts, and that you should not trust what they say solely because they have the same accent and mannerisms as you.
Will it also enlighten me by own intelligence?
No, I'm saying that you get better at something by playing against someone who is better than you. It works the same whether it's basketball or constructing arguments from pieces of logic. Again, your loss if you decline.
You must not be familiar with my poasting career here because I bitch about Papists constantly. In fact, one of the most loathsome aspects of the North is its high tolerance for non-Christian religions. English Puritanism at least had SOME good aspects to it. Modern North is dominated by Catholics and Jews and to its severe detriment.
Agreed, which is why I advocate for stealing catholic and jewish women.
Also, have you ever not been in a street fight?
