Not to mention we put Andrew Jackson on Twenty dollar bill

lol, but those don't involve celebrating war criminals. I wonder why they put their own faces though. I'm pretty sure that Americans didn't have a problem with their faces though.
The people in Japan celebrate them, whether if they are on their coins are not.

Actually, Sherman for certain was guilty of war crimes.

Also, the USA dime celebrates a man who by unconstitutional executive order forced people of a certain ethnicity into concentration camps in the 40's. I think that before we go looking around to telling other people who they can and can't celebrate, we should make sure we're not being hypocrites.

Furball, may I ask where you are from?

" Sherman for certain was guilty of war crimes."

Sherman was responsible for ending the war. What war crimes did he commit? Logistical strategy had been used from time immemorial. Most wars were fought this way.

Putin, I would guess that SacredDigits isn't talking about the Civil War, but the US conduct in the Indian Wars when Grant was in charge of the army.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wars

"We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."
- William T. Sherman, December 1866.

In any conflict, deliberately targeting noncombatants and children is a war crime.

BAM HISTORICAL FACT

This is a quote in response to a massacre of US troops (the sentence preceding this sentence says "I do not yet understand how the massacre of Fetterman's Party could have been so complete"). What actual crimes did Sherman commit against the Sioux? I'm denying he did them, but before I hang him as a war criminal it'd be nice to have evidence.

One should remember that it wasn't as if the Indian tribes never committed atrocities in these wars. Hard to compare a gruesome quote with the poison gas attacks committed by Japanese generals on the Chinese, or the Rape of Nanjing. The sheer scale of Japanese atrocities on Chinese civilians is astronomical, but Japan gets away with forgetting about it.

not* denying.

Right.

Japanese heroism in WW2 - well its an extensive list...pearl harbour, capture of singapore, destruction of the evil-whitey english presence in asia, kamakaze successes, and untold millions of acts of heroism, just like the germans really ;)
Perhaps you would like to rephrase your question?

"Logistical strategy had been used from time immemorial. Most wars were fought this way."

Logistical strategy is a legitimate tactic if you win and a war crime if you lose. Apparently. Or so I gather.

Was Japan really more immoral in WW2 in it's wars of conquest than the America in it's wars that made the USA as we know it today?

@ spyman

Japan is immortalized as the losers. When I think of World War Two, I think of Marines raising the flag over Iwo Jima, not a Japanese pilot ramming himself into an American ship at three hundred knots.

"Logistical strategy had been used from time immemorial"

'Logistical strategy'. Nice euphemism. I wonder if the Japanese would've called the Rape of Nanking a 'Logistical strategy'. Like Sherman's March to the Sea, the devastation and slaughter certainly cowed the surrounding populace and eased supply concerns a bit for the Japanese Army.

The American Civil War saw the introduction of 'Logistical strategy' and is considered the first 'Modern War'. Before it, wars were decided by contests between armies on battlefields. Burning cities, raping women, and eating the local people out of their food stores on the eve of Winter was considered bad form at the very least, if not barbaric. I guess it's all okay, though, if the victims of 'Logistical strategy' are from south of the Mason-Dixon line or some other politically incorrect locale.

"The American Civil War saw the introduction of 'Logistical strategy' and is considered the first 'Modern War'. Before it, wars were decided by contests between armies on battlefields. Burning cities, raping women, and eating the local people out of their food stores on the eve of Winter was considered bad form at the very least, if not barbaric. I guess it's all okay, though, if the victims of 'Logistical strategy' are from south of the Mason-Dixon line or some other politically incorrect locale."

Pleeeeeaaaaase. Total War has existed for centuries, take a look at US treatment of loyalists if you believe Sherman was the first to take the war to civilians

but to answer the question, I think for the majority of US history, and recently, the Japanese have a very good image to Americans. In many ways Americans saw alot in common with the Japanese, Pacific powers breaking into the European game and recently the capitalist/democratic bulwarks in the pacific against the percieved communist threat. Its worth noting that before WWII large numbers of Japanese Samurai and wealthy merchants sent their children to school in the US and there was a great deal of cultural and military exchange. After hostilitys in many ways I think the respect returned.

"Total War has existed for centuries, take a look at US treatment of loyalists"

And things certainly got nasty in Missouri in the 1850s-60s. But these situations are quite a bit different from the American Civil War as a whole, which was (in general) a fairly traditional conflict between two countries with real armies and distinct geographic territories.

Conquerer of my country (Korea), all around historial jerks till after WWII but, hey all and all through "I think there's just one kind of folks. Folks." Pt. 2, ch. 23 Jean Louise (Scout) Finch, To Kill a Mockingbird

"I think for the majority of US history...the Japanese have a very good image to Americans."

I wouldn't argue with this, but I would point out that it was American fear/hostility to Japan (primarily out of economic concerns vis a vis China) that drove Japan out of the "Western" sphere (particularly the Anglo-Japanese alliance) in the 20s and eventually into the Axis.

"Burning cities, raping women, and eating the local people out of their food stores on the eve of Winter was considered bad form at the very least, if not barbaric. "

This has been around for ever. Same thing happened in the Thirty Years War. Look at the sack of Magdeburg. However, total war has not existed for centuries (by this I mean Santa was probably referring to centuries before the Civil War), most historians agree it first started around the French Revolutionary Wars.

Highly idiotic thread. One nation's heroes are always another nation's villains. The US dropped two nukes on cities full with women and children... war is ugly by design.

Raping women? You're just making whatever atrocity you can think of up in order to paint your Confederate heroes in most positive light. It's really sad when people invent atrocities to score cheap points. Confederates engaged in the same tactic - seizing food from civilians and burning cities - when they were in Pennsylvania. Spare me the outrage.

I love how slavery is dismissed as being "politically incorrect" now.

Logistical strategy has been used since time immemorial. Ever heard of the Fabian strategy (Rome vs Carthage)? This was a whole strategy of avoiding battle with the superior Carthaginian armies and focusing on destroying the army's food supplies in Italy. Even earlier than that, the ancient Greek armies were famous were raids destroying crops and supplies. The Greeks used raids because they relied on militia and didn't have standing armies. Wars were typically short and they couldn't keep their forces away from civilian occupations from very long because they were agricultural societies. Armies in the ancient world facing superior forces would destroy crops because it was difficult to feed such a large army for very long. If you starve out the opposing army, you win. Look at the Battle of Platea of the Persians vs the Greeks. The Persians started out with a logistic strategy under Mardonius, and had forced the Greeks to retreat from their strong position because they lost food and water. But instead of continuing this strategy decided to engage Alexander's armies in combat, and they lost.

Also look at the warfare during the Viking age in Northern Europe. That were few pitched battles compared to the raids that took place.

"Was Japan really more immoral in WW2 in it's wars of conquest than the America in it's wars that made the USA as we know it today?"

In terms of conduct? Yes. I don't think you compare the small-scale battles in the Indian wars with the massive scale of atrocities in WWII. You could chalk it up to being a function of industrialization, but still. Japanese newspapers put out advertisements for contests for how many Chinese they could behead. I know we live in a world of moral equivalence, but seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword

I'm waiting for someone to expand beyond the Japanese and include the Germans in their moral equivalence efforts.

"It's really sad when people invent atrocities to score cheap points."

Well it isnt invented, but the confederates did plenty themselves, such as executing African American Prisoners. It is true for sure that Southern sympathizers do alot of hand ringing about Sherman's march but dont seem to care much about the mistreatment of Union Prisoners and atrocities against African Americans (Not to mention the burning they themselves did during the Gettysburg Campaign)

Sorry Alexander wasn't in command of the Greeks during Platea, but you get the point.

I don't know why they whine so much about the March to the Sea. The march through South Carolina was more destructive, and incidentally, broke the back of the Confederacy. When you consider the loss of life at Gettysburg and other pitched battles, the loss of life during these raids by Sherman was very very small. If Sherman had been in command earlier, perhaps far less people would have died.

But then, the Southern types like to simultaneously whine about the total death count but glorify idiots like Lee who launched Pickett's charge and other insane human wave attacks, all while decrying the evil Sherman.