Sunday, February 12, 2017
Siege and Total War. Are they Justified?
Siege is when you cut off all supplies from entering an area; forcing surrender. Total War is to destroy all civilian and military resources. So, are these tactics justified? I think they are not justified. I think this because both siege and total war made is so that the civilians were greatly punished, even though they were not involved in the war. Their houses got burned down, and they had to eat rats and other gross things. They did not deserve to be punished like this because they were not part of the war and they did nothing wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I respectfully disagree because the pint of the war was to keep the union together,
ReplyDeleteI like how you had a question in your blog post. I totally agree with you
ReplyDeleteI agree with you fish. I think that it was wrong to destroy the houses. It was bad for the people because they had to eat rats and other things. They weren't even involved in the war and had to suffer. Great writing and keep writing like a fish.
ReplyDeleteThe civilians would be on the opposite sides of war as people using the tactics. The strategies may not be the best way to go about war, but it's war. The battles were bloody and ruthless. The civilians on the other side were the enemy so it's justified.
ReplyDeleteI respect your opinion fish(Ariel)!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete