Смотреть онлайн документальный фильм Robert E. Lee Won Every Battle. So Why Did He Lose the War в хорошем качестве HD бесплатно
Похожие записи:
What Ulysses S. Grant Really Thought of Robert E. Lee | The Private Letters History Buried
“Why the Battle of Stalingrad Became Adolf Hitler’s Greatest Defeat | The Battle That Changed WWII.”
How Detroit Won World War II | The Arsenal of Democracy
The Forgotten Battle That Saved Moscow from Total Destruction | Battle of Molodi 1572
The Battle Hitler Was Too Afraid To Ever Repeat | The Battle Of Crete 1941
The Real Battle for Jerusalem | Secrets, Strategy & War
World War II – The Hill That Refused to Fall: Battle of Hill 112 (1944) | Normandy’s Bloodiest Ridge
World War II – Hitler’s Last Gamble: Battle of Mortain (1944) | The Counterattack That Failed
WILD SAVANNA | When Predators Lose Control | Nature Animal Documentary
Snapped: Killer Couples — Laura Martin and Robert Quinn | True Crime Documentary Podcast
The confederates were already defeated in the west and cut off. It was a desperate move by the desperate army, time wasn't on their side.
Lee went up against inferior opponents at first. That changed
Lee lost the war because he was never able to convert his tactical victories into an overall strategy which brought the US capital under attack and capture. If Lee had driven Meade and his army into a rout at Gettysburg, he may well have had a clear road to DC, with no army between him and the capital. However, even that might not have ensured a Confederate victory, unless public opinion at the fall of DC into enemy hands demanded that Lincoln offer terms for peace. I've always thought such a campaign might still have resulted in a resounding Confederate defeat, as the Union could well have continued to prosecute the war with government reconvening in Baltimore, Philadelphia, or New York. With Lee's Army of Northern Virginia bottled up in Washington, trying to defend and hold it, Union forces could have come at him from several directions, crossing the Potomac west of the city and flanking him, attacking from the south, while the other half of Grant's army (always assuming he would still have been given command of the army after Meade) could have attacked from the northern approaches to the city.
Conclusion: Lee was incompetent and an overrated romantic.
I have to disagree with many of the commenters. Lee was not a traitor. He was a citizen of his nation of Virginia not the United States. The war was fought to answer the question of who is sovereign the states or the federal government. Lee lost the war because he was an incompetent romantic southern gentleman. He was not pragmatic and he didn’t fight dirty like general Sherman. As a result, he lost the war. So now you can enjoy the federal reserve and inflation. You can’t afford a starter home or rent or groceries. Yes I recognize that slavery was immoral but also irrelevant to the conflict.
BECAUSE he DIDN'T WIN EVERY BATTLE? Your premise is STUPID.
LEE lose 2 battles…Gettysburg and for fun the other one starts with A and was before Gettysburg. Bonus hint it was up north.
Lee lost at Antietam, Lee lost at Gettysburg, he lost at the Siege of Petersburg. Other battles were draws.
As for why the south lost the war. Numbers were never in their favor nor was time.
They needed a quick decisive victory but could not get it. Once the Union shut down all Southern harbors it was over it was just a matter of how long and how lives would be spent before the south admitted it.
It took promoting Grant a general who was willing to do what had to be done, who was willing to accepts the needed casualties to force the Confederacy to the point. In short Grant used his superior numbers in troops and supply to strangle Lee's army and break the back of the confederacy.
Lee won against Union generals who were too timid or too worried about their public standing to actually fight him. Hell McClellan had lees plans and orders and barely managed a win as he was not willing to risk the army he had built.
Stonewall Jackson and JEB Stuart won every battle. Lee wasn't fit to be a General. In the end, he wasn't even good enough to fight Custer.
He did not win every Battle. In a war that favored the defense, the two time he went on the offense, he was beat, and withdrew south. You can call them tactical draws if you want, but he failed in his objectives and withdrew south. He frankly does not deserve the reputation he has.
This is just wrong. Gen Lee lost at Antietam, and had to retreat. Even if you say he won there tactically, he lost strategically, because he had to retreat, and the Army of the Potomac invaded again, even if they failed to rout Lee. Before Gettysburg, Lee met with his President Jefferson Davis. They were both worried that MG Grant, who had never lost a battle, would soon take Vicksburg, and thereby control the entire Mississippi River and cutting the Confederacy in two. Lee proposed invading Pennsylvania to “scare those people”—Yankees—to first draw Grant and then some of his troops away from Vicksburg. At the very least Lee’s foray into the Pennsylvania farmland could bring back considerable foodstuffs running short in the south. As often happened with Lee, his tactics were excellent, but his strategy was Napoleonic and thusly obsolete. MG Meade kept the army between Washington, D.C. and Lee who was too far away to resupply Virginia. Grant took Vicksburg the day after Lee lost at Gettysburg. Meade did not pursue, but President Lincoln and the Congress, on March 09, 1864, promoted Grant to LTG—the first since LTG George Washington. Grant went south with Meade and engaged Lee, and did not disengage until Lee surrendered in April 1865. Grant never lost a battle, and he could adapt to post-Napoleonic conditions. Lee, and McClellan, trapped themselves in Napoleonic thinking. Lee was better at it, but Grant pinned him into trench/attrition warfare because Lee couldn’t see that his army and the government were not necessarily tied to one place.
He didn’t win at Gettysburg.
So Lee won Cheats Mountain and Malvern Hill ?
This is inaccurate garbage. Lee lost lots of battles that is why he lost the war. He was the inferior General.
Fair assessment. Shows Lee as a brilliant tactician and a poor strategist, which is what he was. Great generals have to have strengths in strategy, tactics, and operations. Lee was not a great general.
Viva APPOMATTOX!
I live here in Richmond, and the thing you find out rather quickly, is it Lee wasn't even the best general in the south. And he did not win every battle he fought. You can even make the case that the wilderness and Cold harbor were still defeats, especially as they were part of a longer campaign. And he utterly misunderstood that, and was beaten decisively
He certainly didn't win at Antietam or Gettysburg.
By crossing the Potomac and he didn't have a unlimited amount of Irish immigrants to continue pumping up his numbers of available bodies. Like Grant, throwing enough bodies at the enemy until they ran out of ammo was a big "play" back then. Both sides were led by aristocrats that cared little for the "rabble" they sent to die. Not much different than now or ever, really, shame!!!!
No he did not. He lost quite a few battles. You don't have to use outrageous titles for views. Be better. Don't give lost causers any more nonsense to get off to. Give them the surrender p-rn they deserve.