2007-09-30 11:07:46 · 10 answers · asked by P!NK 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
There were a couple of generals who did so. Why is easy- if you want to win you must fight a war totally and not pussyfoot around. The rest you're going to have to read up on and DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
2007-09-30 11:12:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sherman employed the concept of total war. War was by now a function of the entire economy. Plus if men weer worried about thier homes being burnt, they werent so ready to fight a long way from home. Read up about Shermans March to the Sea
2007-09-30 18:27:15 · answer #2 · answered by Bob D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sherman's march to the sea has always been the epitome of total war...destruction of the enemies ability to make war, obliterating the enemy's infrastructure, terrorizing the civilians, etc. Grant employed total war in his sledgehammer military tactics...attacking without regard to loss of his men...using the war of attrition to his advantage.
2007-09-30 18:18:21 · answer #3 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well the states divided due to the north not believing in the slave trade and the south treating slavery as a way of life.
And to unite the states again there seemed only one way, war until one side had defeated the other completely. This meaning cutting off supply lines, killing at least 75% of all citizens in combat, raiding cities and towns, freeing the slaves.
2007-09-30 18:17:23 · answer #4 · answered by Olivia C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes he had to work in this country during the war time
2007-09-30 18:13:30 · answer #5 · answered by egyank 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was used at different levels very effectively by both Commanding General Ulysses S. Grant and his subordinate, William T. Sherman.
Sherman destryoyed the enemy's will to fight by destroying all that sustained the enemy, and their supporting population.
Grant was merciless in pursuing his enemy, even at the large cost of lives of his men. He eventually wore down his enemy, surrounded him, and forced an "Unconditional Surrender".
2007-09-30 18:22:03 · answer #6 · answered by BlueDart 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pickett's Charge
2007-09-30 18:15:12 · answer #7 · answered by Soda Popinski 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This war was about the freeing of slaves.
The rich continue to get richer.
The rest of us are no longer slaves.
WE is ALL Sharecroppers now!
(The rich have got us brainwashed into thinking we are no longer slaves to them)
2007-09-30 18:17:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have you heard of the Roman empire?Total war was neccessary to maintain status...
2007-09-30 18:15:28 · answer #9 · answered by timmihendrix 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think sherman, total war is destroying anything that mayu be of use or help the enemy like crops and buildings. that is why they did it nothing is left for the enemys.
2007-09-30 18:13:13 · answer #10 · answered by pyrom4ni4k 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋