87
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
87 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15918 readers
3 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Is this what people mean when they say the south had "better generals"?
Yeah and its mostly bullshit. I think part of why some of the northern generals appear worse is because many of them were ideologically against following up victories and capturing the confederate capital. MacClellan the first Commander of the Army of the Potomac was very against it and if I'm remembering correctly ran for election against Lincoln because of their disagreements over the war. But, there were also these supposedly "better" Southern generals who just charged soldiers into meetgrinders overcamd over for no reason, so it doesn't hold up anyway