Tweet
George Washington engaged in genocide against the Native Americans in what is now Ohio from 1791-94. He is still a great man (please note I did not say good), and the founder of our nation. He also engaged in a war of extermination. These actions neither excuse nor minimize each other, but like most great men, in pursuit of the goal he saw as primary (founding the US) he did some terrible things. None of which bears on his competency as a general 
.
Sherman hated causing extra casualties to his troops, and was one of the originators of the modern version of total war (ancient warface was at times total war but not always for the same reasons). To save his troops casualties he guaranteed the starvation of thousands. Great man, and utterly ruthless (though his own letters indicate he regretted it, but saw it as producing less death in the long run - see the thread on the A-bomb and Japan from several weeks ago).
David Ben-Gurion fought for a government that deliberately displaced tens of thousands (as a minimum) native muslims from the land that became Israel. It is documented that in numerous cases these people were ethnically cleansed, in the meaning of the term now, to ensure a Zionist state with a Jewish majority. In those cases the native muslims were not kicked out and simply fled, why did they feel a need to flee (note - there were terrible people on the Arab side to, but none are going done in history as great generals). The regular everyday muslim villager couldn't care less about the arab fanatics, he just wanted to be left in peace. Ben-Gurion was a brilliant general. He also was complicit in one of the more extensive cases of ethnic cleansing (genocide lite - sick humor).
Did all three do evil things? Yes. Does it change the validity of the fact that they were great generals, or historically important men. No. Guderian and Rommel (as well as Patton, Sherman, Ben-Gurion, ad naseum) were all great generals. I let someone upstairs decide if they were evil men (not my job, in fact most religions specify that
).
.Sherman hated causing extra casualties to his troops, and was one of the originators of the modern version of total war (ancient warface was at times total war but not always for the same reasons). To save his troops casualties he guaranteed the starvation of thousands. Great man, and utterly ruthless (though his own letters indicate he regretted it, but saw it as producing less death in the long run - see the thread on the A-bomb and Japan from several weeks ago).
David Ben-Gurion fought for a government that deliberately displaced tens of thousands (as a minimum) native muslims from the land that became Israel. It is documented that in numerous cases these people were ethnically cleansed, in the meaning of the term now, to ensure a Zionist state with a Jewish majority. In those cases the native muslims were not kicked out and simply fled, why did they feel a need to flee (note - there were terrible people on the Arab side to, but none are going done in history as great generals). The regular everyday muslim villager couldn't care less about the arab fanatics, he just wanted to be left in peace. Ben-Gurion was a brilliant general. He also was complicit in one of the more extensive cases of ethnic cleansing (genocide lite - sick humor).
Did all three do evil things? Yes. Does it change the validity of the fact that they were great generals, or historically important men. No. Guderian and Rommel (as well as Patton, Sherman, Ben-Gurion, ad naseum) were all great generals. I let someone upstairs decide if they were evil men (not my job, in fact most religions specify that
).
Comment