MTSU Forrest Hall

#51
#51
I like to make sure revisionist historians like yourself don't get any relief for bigots like Forrest and his ilk, that's why.
Click to expand...

Let's talk about Lincoln's bigoted tendencies. There's some good revisionist history.
 
#55
#55
I guess that because he started the KKK, and failed (though he tried) to disband it...then the full legacy of the KKK falls on his shoulders? Look, I understand that the Ku Klux Klan is an awful organization, but they weren't into that organization-wide.

Forrest was an influential military commander. His tactics are still studied today. THAT is why he is on buildings, not because of his alleged racism.
 
#56
#56
German military tactics in WWII were innovative.

From Wikipedia regarding Blitzkrieg:
While operations in Poland were rather conventional, subsequent battles — particularly the invasions of France, The Netherlands and initial operations in the Soviet Union — were effective owing to surprise penetrations, general enemy unpreparedness and an inability to react swiftly enough to German offensive operations. That the German Army quickly defeated numerically and technically superior enemies in France led many analysts to believe that a new system of warfare had been invented.
Click to expand...

The football term "Blitz" even comes from the term Blitzkrieg.

So does that mean that there should be a "Hitler Hall" at the University of Berlin?
 
#57
#57
Umm, well, Blitzkrieg was developed Heinz Guderian and later employed with great success by Erwin Rommel, not Hitler...sooo
 
#58
#58
jwells said:
Umm, well, Blitzkrieg was developed Heinz Guderian and later employed with great success by Erwin Rommel, not Hitler...sooo
Click to expand...

If you want to get technical Blitzkrieg was not developed by Heinz Guderian, Blitzkrieg was developed by Carl Von Clausewitz, Alfred Von Schlieffen and Von Molkte the Elder.

Their concepts were modified after World War I by the Reichswehr and its chief of staff Hans Von Seekt.

It was employed so that a smaller force could be mobilized and move quickly to a particular front. This was brought about because of the Treaty of Versailles and the limitations given to the German military.

If you want to take it one step further British theorists J.F.C Fuller and Captain B. H. Liddell Hart have also been noted with the expansion of Blitzkrieg.

Many argue that Guderian drew inspiration from Liddell Hart.

Guderian's contribution to Blitzkrieg is the mechanized component.
 
#59
#59
jwells said:
Umm, well, Blitzkrieg was developed Heinz Guderian and later employed with great success by Erwin Rommel, not Hitler...sooo
Click to expand...

Since Hitler was in charge, I thought he would deserve having the building named after him. His successful use of Blitzkrieg made him an influential military commander.

So, you are saying that they should name buildings after Rommel instead...

:eek:k:

Again, from Wikipedia (I defer to your superior historical knowledge)

The founding principles of these types of operations were developed in the 19th Century by various nations, and adapted in the years after World War I, largely by the German Wehrmacht, to incorporate modern weapons and vehicles as a method to help prevent trench warfare and linear warfare in future conflicts. The first practical implementations of these concepts coupled with modern technology were instituted by the Wehrmacht in the opening battles of World War II.
Click to expand...
 
#60
#60
OrangeEmpire said:
If you want to get technical Blitzkrieg was not developed by Heinz Guderian, Blitzkrieg was developed by Carl Von Clausewitz, Alfred Von Schlieffen and Von Molkte the Elder.

Their concepts were modified after World War I by the Reichswehr and its chief of staff Hans Von Seekt.

It was employed so that a smaller force could be mobilized and move quickly to a particular front. This was brought about because of the Treaty of Versailles and the limitations given to the German military.

If you want to take it one step further British theorists J.F.C Fuller and Captain B. H. Liddell Hart have also been noted with the expansion of Blitzkrieg.

Many argue that Guderian drew inspiration from Liddell Hart.

Guderian's contribution to Blitzkrieg is the mechanized component.
Click to expand...

I probably should have said innovated, rather than developed. I was referring to the mechanized charge across western Europe.

But to the other post; if Hitler is responsible for Blitzkrieg, is Lee responsible for Forrest's tactics...or Lincoln responsible for the North's Anaconda Plan?

I just don't see the issue with naming a building after a person for his military prowess. Rommel was a hell of a military commander. Unfortunately for him, he commanded the wrong side.
 
#61
#61
German military tactics in WWII were innovative.

From Wikipedia regarding Blitzkrieg:
Quote:
While operations in Poland were rather conventional, subsequent battles — particularly the invasions of France, The Netherlands and initial operations in the Soviet Union — were effective owing to surprise penetrations, general enemy unpreparedness and an inability to react swiftly enough to German offensive operations. That the German Army quickly defeated numerically and technically superior enemies in France led many analysts to believe that a new system of warfare had been invented.

The football term "Blitz" even comes from the term Blitzkrieg.

So does that mean that there should be a "Hitler Hall" at the University of Berlin?
Click to expand...

Comparing Confederates and Nazis is completely insane. The Nazis are responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. Almost every time a debate or issue arises about Confederate symbols, I always see opponents compare Confederates with Nazis, which shows a complete ignorance of history.
 
#62
#62
Vol_4_Life said:
Comparing Confederates and Nazis is completely insane. The Nazis are responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. Almost every time a debate or issue arises about Confederate symbols, I always see opponents compare Confederates with Nazis, which shows a complete ignorance of history.
Click to expand...

The reason people compare is the "supposed" belief in racial superiority.

Not to mention most hate groups align themselves with Nazis and the confederate flag.
 
#63
#63
The reason people compare is the "supposed" belief in racial superiority.

Not to mention most hate groups align themselves with Nazis and the confederate flag.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, it shows a blatant ignorance of history to compare the two. Keep in mind that in the mid-1800s most white Americans were what today would be called white supremacists or racists. It was a commonly held belief - North, South, East, and West - that whites were superior to all other races. That includes many of the Union soldiers supposedly fighting to free the slaves.
 
#64
#64
Vol_4_Life said:
Nonetheless, it shows a blatant ignorance of history to compare the two. Keep in mind that in the mid-1800s most white Americans were what today would be called white supremacists or racists. It was a commonly held belief - North, South, East, and West - that whites were superior to all other races. That includes many of the Union soldiers supposedly fighting to free the slaves.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that most Christian males in the 1930's and 40's were very anti-Semetic. This includes many of the American soldiers fighting the Nazi's.

Having feelings and acting on those feelings are two completely different things. Southerners were actively enslaving innocent blacks, Northerners were not. Nazi's were actively kiling innocent Jews, the rest of the world (aside from the Russians) were not.

You can defend the Confederate Flag all you want, and you can cite numerous reasons to glorify it. However, you cannot take the racism away from it.
 
#65
#65
Keep in mind that most Christian males in the 1930's and 40's were very anti-Semetic. This includes many of the American soldiers fighting the Nazi's.

Having feelings and acting on those feelings are two completely different things. Southerners were actively enslaving innocent blacks, Northerners were not. Nazi's were actively kiling innocent Jews, the rest of the world (aside from the Russians) were not.

You can defend the Confederate Flag all you want, and you can cite numerous reasons to glorify it. However, you cannot take the racism away from it.
Click to expand...

I think it would be hard to find a flag in the world today that doesn't have racism in it. Africans were enslaved under the U.S., British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish flags. Should all those flags be looked down upon also?
 
#66
#66
Vol_4_Life said:
I think it would be hard to find a flag in the world today that doesn't have racism in it. Africans were enslaved under the U.S., British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish flags. Should all those flags be looked down upon also?
Click to expand...
Were those countries founded mainly for the continued enslavement of a certain race of peoples?
 
#69
#69
Vol_4_Life said:
So now this is an issue of which country was the most racist?
Click to expand...
No. However, if you want to raise a question of it, undoubtedly you would have to look first to the governments of Nazi Germany and the CSA.

As cruel as some actions were by the Dutch, Portugese, and Spanish in Africa (the British were by all accounts very gentle colonial lords), the life spans of these nations and their governments comprised more than these cruel acts of colonialism. The CSA however was stood up in order to defend the enslavement of peoples, spent its whole existence fighting a war to protect that 'right', and upon losing that war, vanquished. There are very few other, if any, nations that can stake that claim.
 
#70
#70
No. However, if you want to raise a question of it, undoubtedly you would have to look first to the governments of Nazi Germany and the CSA.

As cruel as some actions were by the Dutch, Portugese, and Spanish in Africa (the British were by all accounts very gentle colonial lords), the life spans of these nations and their governments comprised more than these cruel acts of colonialism. The CSA however was stood up in order to defend the enslavement of peoples, spent its whole existence fighting a war to protect that 'right', and upon losing that war, vanquished. There are very few other, if any, nations that can stake that claim.
Click to expand...

I still don't see much similarity between the CSA and Nazi Germany. The CSA never sent millions of people to their deaths in internment camps and never tried to conquer an entire continent. The South was fighting for its existence, not to conquer territory.

You're right that the CSA was born and died under unusual circumstances. About the British: they did enslave Indians on tea plantations and used laws similar to slave codes in the South to keep their Indian slaves "in line."
 
#71
#71
Conscription was hard on the south's general population.

Just one of the many faults of the CSA government.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top