是什么原因让美国内战的胜利偏转向北方？
正文翻译
Firstly the caveat: my knowledge on the subject is still very limited, so please excuse it, if my question is wrong in its assumptions.
To my understanding, the southern states succeeded militarily quite well in the beginning of the war. However, over the longer term the material and economical strengths turned the tide more and more to North, which crushed the opponent militarily in the end. If this is very roughly right, what was the moment or battle, after which the advantage moved to the North and the South could no longer win? Or did the South ever have any chance of winning at all against the more industrial opponent?
首先声明：我对这方面的了解很少，如果我的问题有什么不对的地方，请谅解。
据我所知，在开战之初，南方各州的军事进展很顺利。不过从长期来看，北方的物质和经济实力更强，让形势慢慢偏向北方，最终击垮了对手。如果这是对的，那是什么时候，或者是哪场战役让优势转移到北方，让南方胜利无望的？或者说，南方是否曾经有机会战胜工业实力更强的北方？
Firstly the caveat: my knowledge on the subject is still very limited, so please excuse it, if my question is wrong in its assumptions.
To my understanding, the southern states succeeded militarily quite well in the beginning of the war. However, over the longer term the material and economical strengths turned the tide more and more to North, which crushed the opponent militarily in the end. If this is very roughly right, what was the moment or battle, after which the advantage moved to the North and the South could no longer win? Or did the South ever have any chance of winning at all against the more industrial opponent?
首先声明：我对这方面的了解很少，如果我的问题有什么不对的地方，请谅解。
据我所知，在开战之初，南方各州的军事进展很顺利。不过从长期来看，北方的物质和经济实力更强，让形势慢慢偏向北方，最终击垮了对手。如果这是对的，那是什么时候，或者是哪场战役让优势转移到北方，让南方胜利无望的？或者说，南方是否曾经有机会战胜工业实力更强的北方？
评论翻译
oldcrowmedicine
The South never stood a chance. The North had money, population, a fucking navy, a broader transportation system, and money. Large swaths of the Northern population never even felt real danger. The war was entertainment. The South, on the other hand, starved and fled and watched their cities be torched.
There’s no way to put everything in this response (like the northern towns that were decimated from losing all their men in the beginning of the war, or the early southern victories that were products of northern hubris) but the short answer is the South was doomed from the beginning.
南方根本没有机会打赢。北方有钱、有人口、有海军、有全面的运输系统，重点是钱多。大部分北方人甚至都没有感受到真正的危险。战争对他们来说就像个节目一样。而南方那边，他们挨饿、溃逃、眼睁睁地看着他们的城市被烧毁。
各种情况没法一一列举（比如在开战之初，北方城镇因为没人守而被摧毁，还有早期南方的胜利是北方过于傲慢的产物），但总而言之，南方从一开始就注定要输。
The South never stood a chance. The North had money, population, a fucking navy, a broader transportation system, and money. Large swaths of the Northern population never even felt real danger. The war was entertainment. The South, on the other hand, starved and fled and watched their cities be torched.
There’s no way to put everything in this response (like the northern towns that were decimated from losing all their men in the beginning of the war, or the early southern victories that were products of northern hubris) but the short answer is the South was doomed from the beginning.
南方根本没有机会打赢。北方有钱、有人口、有海军、有全面的运输系统，重点是钱多。大部分北方人甚至都没有感受到真正的危险。战争对他们来说就像个节目一样。而南方那边，他们挨饿、溃逃、眼睁睁地看着他们的城市被烧毁。
各种情况没法一一列举（比如在开战之初，北方城镇因为没人守而被摧毁，还有早期南方的胜利是北方过于傲慢的产物），但总而言之，南方从一开始就注定要输。
UtzTheCrabChip
I'm saying very plainly that the Yankees are better equipped than we. They've got factories, shipyards, coalmines... and a fleet to bottle up our harbors and starve us to death. All we've got is cotton, and slaves and... arrogance.
我明说吧，北方佬的装备比我们好。他们有工厂、船厂、煤矿，还有一支舰队封锁我们的港口，可以把我们饿死。而我们只有棉花、奴隶和……傲慢。
I'm saying very plainly that the Yankees are better equipped than we. They've got factories, shipyards, coalmines... and a fleet to bottle up our harbors and starve us to death. All we've got is cotton, and slaves and... arrogance.
我明说吧，北方佬的装备比我们好。他们有工厂、船厂、煤矿，还有一支舰队封锁我们的港口，可以把我们饿死。而我们只有棉花、奴隶和……傲慢。
H4SK1
Why did the South attack first though? Did they think they could win, or did they expect the European powers to intervene?
这样的话南方为什么还要先发动进攻呢？他们是认为他们能赢，还是指望欧洲强国会干涉？
Why did the South attack first though? Did they think they could win, or did they expect the European powers to intervene?
这样的话南方为什么还要先发动进攻呢？他们是认为他们能赢，还是指望欧洲强国会干涉？
UtzTheCrabChip
That's from Gone With the Wind and it was Rhett Butler speaking truth to all the other southern gentlemen. They thought a southern gentleman was worth 10 Yankees and they'll have this thing wrapped up in a couple of weeks
从《飘》里面和白瑞德对南方绅士说的话来看，他们认为一个南方绅士可以顶十个北方佬，几个星期之内就可以把他们搞定。
That's from Gone With the Wind and it was Rhett Butler speaking truth to all the other southern gentlemen. They thought a southern gentleman was worth 10 Yankees and they'll have this thing wrapped up in a couple of weeks
从《飘》里面和白瑞德对南方绅士说的话来看，他们认为一个南方绅士可以顶十个北方佬，几个星期之内就可以把他们搞定。
no_we_in_bacon
From the southern perspective they were a separate country. They took over all of the federal buildings in their territory. Fort Sumter happened at the end of this takeover process, but they were unable to expel the unx from the fort. Their choice was a) let a “foreign” military have a fort in their country or b) kick them out with force as necessary. They chose b which meant they attacked first.
Yes, they thought they could win by waiting for the north to get tired of the war and give up.
Yes, they thought Europe would intervene, but that was unlikely in reality.
从南方的角度看，他们是一个独立的国家。他们接管了他们领地上的所有联邦建筑，接管萨姆特堡是在这个过程的最后阶段，但他们无法将北方联邦驱逐出萨姆特堡。他们的选择是：a）让一支“外国【北方】”军队在他们的国家拥有一个堡垒。b）必要时用武力将他们赶走。他们选择了b，这意味着他们会先发动进攻。
From the southern perspective they were a separate country. They took over all of the federal buildings in their territory. Fort Sumter happened at the end of this takeover process, but they were unable to expel the unx from the fort. Their choice was a) let a “foreign” military have a fort in their country or b) kick them out with force as necessary. They chose b which meant they attacked first.
Yes, they thought they could win by waiting for the north to get tired of the war and give up.
Yes, they thought Europe would intervene, but that was unlikely in reality.
从南方的角度看，他们是一个独立的国家。他们接管了他们领地上的所有联邦建筑，接管萨姆特堡是在这个过程的最后阶段，但他们无法将北方联邦驱逐出萨姆特堡。他们的选择是：a）让一支“外国【北方】”军队在他们的国家拥有一个堡垒。b）必要时用武力将他们赶走。他们选择了b，这意味着他们会先发动进攻。
jonahvsthewhale
Exactly. The only way the unx would have lost is if they had gotten tired of fighting or maybe if Great Britain had entered the war on the side of the south which was really a pipe dream
北方失败的唯一可能，就是他们厌倦了战争，或者大英帝国站在南方这边对北方开战，然而都是不可能的。
Exactly. The only way the unx would have lost is if they had gotten tired of fighting or maybe if Great Britain had entered the war on the side of the south which was really a pipe dream
北方失败的唯一可能，就是他们厌倦了战争，或者大英帝国站在南方这边对北方开战，然而都是不可能的。
Damien__
The north also had the industry and infrastructure that the south didn't
北方有着南方没有的工业和基础设施。
The north also had the industry and infrastructure that the south didn't
北方有着南方没有的工业和基础设施。
MattJFarrell
The different forms of government, too. A centralized government has its drawbacks, but in wartime, you need a central authority making decisions.
政府的形式也不同。中央集权政府有它的缺点，但是在战争时期，你需要中央政府来发号司令。
The different forms of government, too. A centralized government has its drawbacks, but in wartime, you need a central authority making decisions.
政府的形式也不同。中央集权政府有它的缺点，但是在战争时期，你需要中央政府来发号司令。
Chief1117
The war was entertainment? Are you serious? Nearly 4% of the population of the north was a casualty of the war. That’s a pretty significant number. That’s almost the same amount as who has had COVID in the US today and we all know someone with Covid at this point. The South never had the resources the north did but it wasn’t quite that simple. The North’s generals were not using these resources until Lincoln fired enough generals to get to Grant. Had Grant not eventually been given command there could have still been a small chance the South held their ground long enough for the North to lose public support and quit. Grant was the only one willing to truly fight a war of attrition.
“战争对他们来说就像个节目一样”？你是认真的？北方近4%的人口在战争中伤亡，这是个相当庞大的数字。这和美国如今【一个月前】的新冠病例差不多，我们认识的人里基本都有患病的。南方没有北方那么多的资源，但也不是那么简单，因为北方的将军们没有使用这些资源，直到林肯撤掉很多将军任命格兰特为止。要是格兰特没有得到指挥权，南方还是有可能长期守住阵地，直到北方失去公众的支持而退出的可能性的。格兰特是唯一一个愿意打消耗战的人。
The war was entertainment? Are you serious? Nearly 4% of the population of the north was a casualty of the war. That’s a pretty significant number. That’s almost the same amount as who has had COVID in the US today and we all know someone with Covid at this point. The South never had the resources the north did but it wasn’t quite that simple. The North’s generals were not using these resources until Lincoln fired enough generals to get to Grant. Had Grant not eventually been given command there could have still been a small chance the South held their ground long enough for the North to lose public support and quit. Grant was the only one willing to truly fight a war of attrition.
“战争对他们来说就像个节目一样”？你是认真的？北方近4%的人口在战争中伤亡，这是个相当庞大的数字。这和美国如今【一个月前】的新冠病例差不多，我们认识的人里基本都有患病的。南方没有北方那么多的资源，但也不是那么简单，因为北方的将军们没有使用这些资源，直到林肯撤掉很多将军任命格兰特为止。要是格兰特没有得到指挥权，南方还是有可能长期守住阵地，直到北方失去公众的支持而退出的可能性的。格兰特是唯一一个愿意打消耗战的人。
zackdeblanc
The South had advantages of having to fight a defensive war, having (in some instances) better trained soldiers and having good generals. Some of the early Southern victories, like Bull Run and Charlottesville, were stunning southern victories due to generalmanship.
However, the North had many advantages. The North had a much larger population, plus a steady supply of European immigrants, which meant they could put more soldiers on the battlefield. The North also had more industry and a larger economy. The South may have been able to force a stalemate, especially if Gettysburg had gone differently, but they never could have decisively won the war.
A history professional (I took a class on the Civil War) once made the point that the South's best hope would have been to convince the North that the cost of victory was too high and that it just wasn't worth it.
南方的优势是打防御战，拥有训练有素的士兵和优秀的将军。南方早期的一些胜利，如公牛河战役和夏洛茨维尔战役，都是在将军们的才能下取得的绝妙胜利。
然而，北方有很多优势。北方的人口更多，加上欧洲移民的稳定输入，这意味着他们可以派更多的士兵上战场。北方的工业和经济实力也更强。南方也许可以勉强打出个僵局，特别是如果葛底斯堡战役结局不同的话更是如此，但他们不可能获得决定性的胜利。
一位历史专业人士曾经指出，南方最大的指望是说服北方，说胜利的代价太高了，打仗不值得。
The South had advantages of having to fight a defensive war, having (in some instances) better trained soldiers and having good generals. Some of the early Southern victories, like Bull Run and Charlottesville, were stunning southern victories due to generalmanship.
However, the North had many advantages. The North had a much larger population, plus a steady supply of European immigrants, which meant they could put more soldiers on the battlefield. The North also had more industry and a larger economy. The South may have been able to force a stalemate, especially if Gettysburg had gone differently, but they never could have decisively won the war.
A history professional (I took a class on the Civil War) once made the point that the South's best hope would have been to convince the North that the cost of victory was too high and that it just wasn't worth it.
南方的优势是打防御战，拥有训练有素的士兵和优秀的将军。南方早期的一些胜利，如公牛河战役和夏洛茨维尔战役，都是在将军们的才能下取得的绝妙胜利。
然而，北方有很多优势。北方的人口更多，加上欧洲移民的稳定输入，这意味着他们可以派更多的士兵上战场。北方的工业和经济实力也更强。南方也许可以勉强打出个僵局，特别是如果葛底斯堡战役结局不同的话更是如此，但他们不可能获得决定性的胜利。
一位历史专业人士曾经指出，南方最大的指望是说服北方，说胜利的代价太高了，打仗不值得。
AgoraiosBum
Don't forget the biggest source of troops that the South couldn't use - black troops. 10% of the unx's troops at the end of the war were black.
别忘了，南方无法使用的最大兵源——黑人部队。战争结束时，北方10%的军队是黑人。
Don't forget the biggest source of troops that the South couldn't use - black troops. 10% of the unx's troops at the end of the war were black.
别忘了，南方无法使用的最大兵源——黑人部队。战争结束时，北方10%的军队是黑人。
jakebandersen
I’ve seen a people saying the South were essentially doomed from the beginning. It’s not that simple. It’s important to understand the different victory conditions of the North versus South. The North essentially had to conquer and subdue the South in order to declare victory, as their role was essentially to crush a rebellion. If the South had to invade and conquer the North, then yes, they’d never stand a chance. But they didn’t. They only needed to be left alone. If the North lost the will to fight the war through enough losses and sued for peace, they could still have possible win a certain version of the peace they wanted. This was a particularly big problem in 1864 as the Democrats has grown increasingly opposed to the war. So while Vicksburg and Gettysburg are still probably the most important military turning points, but the the fall of Atlanta helped boost Lincoln’s chances for re-election and ensure that the unx could still wage war.
我看到有人说南方从一开始就注定完蛋，情况没那么简单。很重要的一点是要了解南北双方胜利条件的不同。北方必须征服并占领南方才能宣布胜利，因为他们的角色是要镇压叛乱的。如果南方必须入侵然后征服北方才能宣布胜利，那么是的，他们永远没有机会。但其实南方不必如此，他们守着就行了。如果北方由于损失太大而失去战争的意愿，然后要求和平，那么南方仍有可能赢得某种形式的和平。在1864年，这尤其是一个大问题，因为民主党人越来越反对战争。因此，虽然维克斯堡战役和葛底斯堡战役仍然可能是最重要的军事转折点，但亚特兰大陷落能增加林肯连任的机会，让联邦仍然可以发动战争。
I’ve seen a people saying the South were essentially doomed from the beginning. It’s not that simple. It’s important to understand the different victory conditions of the North versus South. The North essentially had to conquer and subdue the South in order to declare victory, as their role was essentially to crush a rebellion. If the South had to invade and conquer the North, then yes, they’d never stand a chance. But they didn’t. They only needed to be left alone. If the North lost the will to fight the war through enough losses and sued for peace, they could still have possible win a certain version of the peace they wanted. This was a particularly big problem in 1864 as the Democrats has grown increasingly opposed to the war. So while Vicksburg and Gettysburg are still probably the most important military turning points, but the the fall of Atlanta helped boost Lincoln’s chances for re-election and ensure that the unx could still wage war.
我看到有人说南方从一开始就注定完蛋，情况没那么简单。很重要的一点是要了解南北双方胜利条件的不同。北方必须征服并占领南方才能宣布胜利，因为他们的角色是要镇压叛乱的。如果南方必须入侵然后征服北方才能宣布胜利，那么是的，他们永远没有机会。但其实南方不必如此，他们守着就行了。如果北方由于损失太大而失去战争的意愿，然后要求和平，那么南方仍有可能赢得某种形式的和平。在1864年，这尤其是一个大问题，因为民主党人越来越反对战争。因此，虽然维克斯堡战役和葛底斯堡战役仍然可能是最重要的军事转折点，但亚特兰大陷落能增加林肯连任的机会，让联邦仍然可以发动战争。
Mr_Westerfield
As many people have pointed out, the North had a substantial advantage in men and material. But frankly we should be wary of carrying this to the assumption that the war was a foregone conclusion. Losers are often keen to frx their loss as a matter being overwhelmed, but many countries have faced steeper odds than the South and won. There were a lot of contingent factors, political, administrative, etc. where the North won because it did a better job. To name a few:
Better administration - The North was better at managing its resources, with an efficient system operating under a single quartermaster. By contrast, the south struggled with getting officers to do basic requisition work, and gradually wore out their rail networks through poor management
Better officer training - While the Southern officer corps is often portrayed as outclassing their Northern counterparts, the reality is very different. In truth, 82% of West Point graduates stuck with the north. Perhaps the south had a slight advantage with experienced officers at the outset, but in a war with a very high attrition rate this advantage was gradually worn down. The north had a system for replacing its officers, the south really didn’t
正如许多人所指出的那样，北方在人力和物力方面有着巨大的优势。但坦率地说，我们应该谨慎，不应因为这点就假设战争已成定局。失败者往往热衷于把他们的失败归咎于无法力敌，但许多国家曾面临过比南方更险峻的情况，最终还赢了。其中有很多偶然的因素，政治上的，行政上的，等等，而北方之所以赢了，是因为它们做得更好。举几个例子：
1、更好的管理——北方在管理资源方面做得更好，一个军需官就能让系统高效的运行。相比之下，南方很难获得足够的军官来做基本的征用工作，由于管理不善，他们的铁路网也不堪重负。
2、更好的军官培训——虽然南方军官经常被描绘得比北方的军官强，但其实不然。事实上，82%的西点毕业生选择北方。也许南方军官在开战之初有一点经验优势，但在消耗率极高的战争中，这种优势逐渐被削弱。北方有一套替换军官的制度，而南方则没有。
As many people have pointed out, the North had a substantial advantage in men and material. But frankly we should be wary of carrying this to the assumption that the war was a foregone conclusion. Losers are often keen to frx their loss as a matter being overwhelmed, but many countries have faced steeper odds than the South and won. There were a lot of contingent factors, political, administrative, etc. where the North won because it did a better job. To name a few:
Better administration - The North was better at managing its resources, with an efficient system operating under a single quartermaster. By contrast, the south struggled with getting officers to do basic requisition work, and gradually wore out their rail networks through poor management
Better officer training - While the Southern officer corps is often portrayed as outclassing their Northern counterparts, the reality is very different. In truth, 82% of West Point graduates stuck with the north. Perhaps the south had a slight advantage with experienced officers at the outset, but in a war with a very high attrition rate this advantage was gradually worn down. The north had a system for replacing its officers, the south really didn’t
正如许多人所指出的那样，北方在人力和物力方面有着巨大的优势。但坦率地说，我们应该谨慎，不应因为这点就假设战争已成定局。失败者往往热衷于把他们的失败归咎于无法力敌，但许多国家曾面临过比南方更险峻的情况，最终还赢了。其中有很多偶然的因素，政治上的，行政上的，等等，而北方之所以赢了，是因为它们做得更好。举几个例子：
1、更好的管理——北方在管理资源方面做得更好，一个军需官就能让系统高效的运行。相比之下，南方很难获得足够的军官来做基本的征用工作，由于管理不善，他们的铁路网也不堪重负。
2、更好的军官培训——虽然南方军官经常被描绘得比北方的军官强，但其实不然。事实上，82%的西点毕业生选择北方。也许南方军官在开战之初有一点经验优势，但在消耗率极高的战争中，这种优势逐渐被削弱。北方有一套替换军官的制度，而南方则没有。
Better cohesion - The South was always riven by various internal tensions that undermined it. Slaves were a large population of potential spies and rebels, while poor whites were often alienate by the idea they were fighting for rich slave holders. And of course, the Confederated government and state’s rights always made coordination more difficult. Meanwhile, the North was able to work its diverse population into a pretty into an effective fighting force through good politicking, patronage, etc. The federal government and professional institutions also helped quite a lot
Better command structure - The North’s resources became most decisive when they were used in coordinated offensives, overcoming the south’s advantage with internal lines of communication. This was eventually enabled by a centralized, and relatively meritocratic, command under Grant. In the South, by contrast, command was centralized in the hands of Jefferson Davis, who had no coherent strategy and tended to promote personal favorites like Braxton Bragg.
Better diplomacy - Seward’s diplomatic strategy was ultimately effective in isolating the South, scaring off intervention while also giving just enough to avoid conflict. By contrast, the South’s over reliance on king cotton for leverage led them to overplay their hand and fail to make friends
3、更强的凝聚力——南方总是有各种各样的冲突撕裂他们内部，削弱他们的实力。奴隶是间谍和叛乱分子的温床，而贫穷的白人常常被疏远，因为他们是在为富有的奴隶主而战。当然，联邦政府和各州的权利让协调变得很难。不过，北方能够通过良好的政治活动、赞助等手段将形形色色的人口整合成强大的战斗力量，联邦政府和专业机构也起了相当大的作用。
4、更好的指挥体系——当北方的资源被用于协同进攻时，他们的资源变得非常有决定性，用内部通讯线路战胜了南方的优势。这是在格兰特领导下的、中央集权的和相对精英化的指挥下实现的。相比之下，在南方，指挥权集中在杰斐逊·戴维斯手中，他没有连贯的战略，而且倾向于提拔布拉克斯顿·布拉格这样的个人亲信。
5、更好的外交——苏厄德的外交战略最终有效地孤立了南方，吓退了外部干涉，同时也付出足够的代价来避免冲突。相比之下，南方过度依赖他们作为棉花王国的地位，手段用过头而拉拢不到朋友。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Better command structure - The North’s resources became most decisive when they were used in coordinated offensives, overcoming the south’s advantage with internal lines of communication. This was eventually enabled by a centralized, and relatively meritocratic, command under Grant. In the South, by contrast, command was centralized in the hands of Jefferson Davis, who had no coherent strategy and tended to promote personal favorites like Braxton Bragg.
Better diplomacy - Seward’s diplomatic strategy was ultimately effective in isolating the South, scaring off intervention while also giving just enough to avoid conflict. By contrast, the South’s over reliance on king cotton for leverage led them to overplay their hand and fail to make friends
3、更强的凝聚力——南方总是有各种各样的冲突撕裂他们内部，削弱他们的实力。奴隶是间谍和叛乱分子的温床，而贫穷的白人常常被疏远，因为他们是在为富有的奴隶主而战。当然，联邦政府和各州的权利让协调变得很难。不过，北方能够通过良好的政治活动、赞助等手段将形形色色的人口整合成强大的战斗力量，联邦政府和专业机构也起了相当大的作用。
4、更好的指挥体系——当北方的资源被用于协同进攻时，他们的资源变得非常有决定性，用内部通讯线路战胜了南方的优势。这是在格兰特领导下的、中央集权的和相对精英化的指挥下实现的。相比之下，在南方，指挥权集中在杰斐逊·戴维斯手中，他没有连贯的战略，而且倾向于提拔布拉克斯顿·布拉格这样的个人亲信。
5、更好的外交——苏厄德的外交战略最终有效地孤立了南方，吓退了外部干涉，同时也付出足够的代价来避免冲突。相比之下，南方过度依赖他们作为棉花王国的地位，手段用过头而拉拢不到朋友。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Sean951
Yes and no. I think of it as saying, from the outset, the South had a mountain of issues to overcome and it was unlikely to ever succeed.
It's the same narrative in WWII, Germany never had any real chance of final victory, but it still took years to muster the resources and get them in position for the Allies to win, and millions still had to die.
说得有对有错。南方从一开始就有众多的问题无法克服，他们不可能获得胜利。
二战也是如此，德国没有任何机会获得最终的胜利，但盟军要赢仍然花了几年时间来聚集资源，让它们就位，仍然有无数人死亡。
Yes and no. I think of it as saying, from the outset, the South had a mountain of issues to overcome and it was unlikely to ever succeed.
It's the same narrative in WWII, Germany never had any real chance of final victory, but it still took years to muster the resources and get them in position for the Allies to win, and millions still had to die.
说得有对有错。南方从一开始就有众多的问题无法克服，他们不可能获得胜利。
二战也是如此，德国没有任何机会获得最终的胜利，但盟军要赢仍然花了几年时间来聚集资源，让它们就位，仍然有无数人死亡。
Mr_Westerfield
You're justifying one questionable assumption with another. There are lots of ways Germany could have won WWII. Yes, if you're taking the united and fully mobilized front of the US, UK and USSR as a given, then sure their advantage in men and material was quite substantial. But it wasn't a given. The British Empire could have destabilized. The Soviet government could have collapsed. The Soviets could have failed to rebuild the Red Army, or failed to evacuated their industrial base and logistical networks out of German reach. Or the Alliance between the Western Allies and the USSR could have broken down due to their many conflicting interests. And had any of those things happened, they would have seemed just as inevitable in retrospect.
My point here being that:
You can't just reduce history to a tale of tapes, because you never know which measures are going to prove decisive
Treating things as inevitable like this discounts the ingenuity and effort of the victors, while excusing the faults of the losers. Both the North and the Allies won because, ultimately, they planned for the war better, managed their resources better, and smoothed over their internal differences more effectively.
你在用一个有问题的假设来证明另一个有问题的假设。德国有很多种可能赢得二战胜利。如果你把美国、英国和苏联的联合和完全动员作为一个既定条件，那么是的，他们在人员和物资方面的优势肯定是相当大的，但这不是注定的。大英帝国可能会动荡，苏联政府可能会垮台，苏联可能无法重建红军，或者没能把他们的工业基地和后勤网络撤离到德国人够不到的地方。或者西方盟军和苏联之间的联盟可能会因为他们的众多利益冲突而破裂。如果这些事情发生了，它们在后人回顾时，看起来就像是不可避免的似的。
我的观点是：你不能把历史简化成磁带故事，因为你不知道哪些因素被证明是具有决定性作用的。
像这样把事情看成是不可避免的，会贬低胜利者的智慧和努力，淡化失败者的错误。北方和盟军最终都取得了胜利，他们更好地为战争做计划，更好地管理资源，更有效地消除内部分歧。
You're justifying one questionable assumption with another. There are lots of ways Germany could have won WWII. Yes, if you're taking the united and fully mobilized front of the US, UK and USSR as a given, then sure their advantage in men and material was quite substantial. But it wasn't a given. The British Empire could have destabilized. The Soviet government could have collapsed. The Soviets could have failed to rebuild the Red Army, or failed to evacuated their industrial base and logistical networks out of German reach. Or the Alliance between the Western Allies and the USSR could have broken down due to their many conflicting interests. And had any of those things happened, they would have seemed just as inevitable in retrospect.
My point here being that:
You can't just reduce history to a tale of tapes, because you never know which measures are going to prove decisive
Treating things as inevitable like this discounts the ingenuity and effort of the victors, while excusing the faults of the losers. Both the North and the Allies won because, ultimately, they planned for the war better, managed their resources better, and smoothed over their internal differences more effectively.
你在用一个有问题的假设来证明另一个有问题的假设。德国有很多种可能赢得二战胜利。如果你把美国、英国和苏联的联合和完全动员作为一个既定条件，那么是的，他们在人员和物资方面的优势肯定是相当大的，但这不是注定的。大英帝国可能会动荡，苏联政府可能会垮台，苏联可能无法重建红军，或者没能把他们的工业基地和后勤网络撤离到德国人够不到的地方。或者西方盟军和苏联之间的联盟可能会因为他们的众多利益冲突而破裂。如果这些事情发生了，它们在后人回顾时，看起来就像是不可避免的似的。
我的观点是：你不能把历史简化成磁带故事，因为你不知道哪些因素被证明是具有决定性作用的。
像这样把事情看成是不可避免的，会贬低胜利者的智慧和努力，淡化失败者的错误。北方和盟军最终都取得了胜利，他们更好地为战争做计划，更好地管理资源，更有效地消除内部分歧。
fatmanrox67
My humble opinion is that what you said is basically true. The turning point to me was July3/July4, 1863 - victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg by the North. The South (Lee) gambled on a win at Gettysburg in Northern territory being the victory that broke Lincoln's (and the Northern public's) resolve. Obviously that didn't happen, and the South lost too many men and too much materiel - they didn't have the resources to rebuild strength. Vicksburg gave the North virtually total control of the Mississippi River, which cut the Confederacy in half. Added to this, the North controlled most of the waters off the coastal South, so the South was very isolated.
The South could have won by breaking the resolve of the North, which they almost did. But winning Gettysburg/Vicksburg provided a morale boost among the troops for sure, and more importantly, among the citizenry. There's a lot more to the story, but those are the basics IMHO.
在我看来，转折点是1863年7月3 -4日北方在葛底斯堡和维克斯堡的胜利。南方在葛底斯堡孤注一掷，认为此战胜利能够打破林肯和北方民众的信心。很明显，这并没有发生，而且南方还损失了太多的人员和物资——他们已经没有资源从新发展力量了。维克斯堡战役让北方几乎完全控制了密西西比河，这条河将南方一分为二。此外，北方控制了南部沿海的大部分水域，因此南方陷入孤立。
南方本来是可以通过打破北方的信心获胜的，他们几乎做到了。但是北方赢得葛底斯堡和维克斯堡战役无疑鼓舞了军队的士气，更重要的是鼓舞了市民的士气。能说的还有很多，但在我看来这些都是基本的东西。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
My humble opinion is that what you said is basically true. The turning point to me was July3/July4, 1863 - victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg by the North. The South (Lee) gambled on a win at Gettysburg in Northern territory being the victory that broke Lincoln's (and the Northern public's) resolve. Obviously that didn't happen, and the South lost too many men and too much materiel - they didn't have the resources to rebuild strength. Vicksburg gave the North virtually total control of the Mississippi River, which cut the Confederacy in half. Added to this, the North controlled most of the waters off the coastal South, so the South was very isolated.
The South could have won by breaking the resolve of the North, which they almost did. But winning Gettysburg/Vicksburg provided a morale boost among the troops for sure, and more importantly, among the citizenry. There's a lot more to the story, but those are the basics IMHO.
在我看来，转折点是1863年7月3 -4日北方在葛底斯堡和维克斯堡的胜利。南方在葛底斯堡孤注一掷，认为此战胜利能够打破林肯和北方民众的信心。很明显，这并没有发生，而且南方还损失了太多的人员和物资——他们已经没有资源从新发展力量了。维克斯堡战役让北方几乎完全控制了密西西比河，这条河将南方一分为二。此外，北方控制了南部沿海的大部分水域，因此南方陷入孤立。
南方本来是可以通过打破北方的信心获胜的，他们几乎做到了。但是北方赢得葛底斯堡和维克斯堡战役无疑鼓舞了军队的士气，更重要的是鼓舞了市民的士气。能说的还有很多，但在我看来这些都是基本的东西。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Rook_Castle
Victory was always assured for the North. They had the numbers, hospitals, and supplies to keep going indefinitely.
The biggest risk was the South gaining international recognition from England if the war drug on too long.
I heard it said in Ken Burna documentary that the North had fought the war with one arm tied behind its back.
胜利必然是北方的。他们有足够数量的医院，有大量的物资可以无限期地供应。
最大的风险是，如果战争持续时间过长，南方将获得英国的国际承认。
我在肯·伯纳的纪录片中听到说，北方打仗的时候束手束脚的。
Victory was always assured for the North. They had the numbers, hospitals, and supplies to keep going indefinitely.
The biggest risk was the South gaining international recognition from England if the war drug on too long.
I heard it said in Ken Burna documentary that the North had fought the war with one arm tied behind its back.
胜利必然是北方的。他们有足够数量的医院，有大量的物资可以无限期地供应。
最大的风险是，如果战争持续时间过长，南方将获得英国的国际承认。
我在肯·伯纳的纪录片中听到说，北方打仗的时候束手束脚的。
ArkyBeagle
Not necessarily. I'm no "lost causer" but the South just needed a draw, which is a more achievable target. The big monday-morning-quarterbacking criticism of Lee is that he fought for victory rather than a draw, especially by invading Pennsylvania.
Politically, Lincoln just got by on the skin of his teeth. The unx had leadership problems - Grant only got promoted late in 1863.
That being said - once Vicksburg and New Orleans were in unx hands, it was only a matter of time. But time was not something Lincoln really had.
未必。南方只要平局就行了，这是一个更容易实现的目标。有很多对罗伯特李将军的马后炮批评，就认为他是为了寻求胜利而不是平局，尤其是入侵宾夕法尼亚。
在政治上，林肯应对得很勉强。北方的领导层存在问题，比如格兰特直到1863年底才被提拔。
话虽如此，当维克斯堡和新奥尔良落进北方手里时，南方的失败就只是时间问题了。但时间正式林肯急缺的东西。
Not necessarily. I'm no "lost causer" but the South just needed a draw, which is a more achievable target. The big monday-morning-quarterbacking criticism of Lee is that he fought for victory rather than a draw, especially by invading Pennsylvania.
Politically, Lincoln just got by on the skin of his teeth. The unx had leadership problems - Grant only got promoted late in 1863.
That being said - once Vicksburg and New Orleans were in unx hands, it was only a matter of time. But time was not something Lincoln really had.
未必。南方只要平局就行了，这是一个更容易实现的目标。有很多对罗伯特李将军的马后炮批评，就认为他是为了寻求胜利而不是平局，尤其是入侵宾夕法尼亚。
在政治上，林肯应对得很勉强。北方的领导层存在问题，比如格兰特直到1863年底才被提拔。
话虽如此，当维克斯堡和新奥尔良落进北方手里时，南方的失败就只是时间问题了。但时间正式林肯急缺的东西。
EdisonDave
Short answer? The north had more money, more manufacturing, lots of soldiers and time on their side
The longer answer, is the very fun and complicated kind. Well it's true that the South had the majority of military leaders, the main reason they had so many early victories in the war, and using the "argument of states rights" to slowly rally support behind them from other countries. As well this was a pretty good rallying cry for their soldiers, which made them fight all the harder. But unfortunately, that's all they really had.
Well the major slave owners of the South were obscenely wealthy, that wasn't true of the economy of the south as a whole. In fact their whole economy revolved around cotton. And during the war, their main cash crop was almost impossible to sell, As they were at war with their most profitable market, And we're being barred off from any other profitable markets they could hope to make some much needed capital from thanks to the unxs stockade, the only way they could win the war is if they manage to end it quickly.
简单回答：北方有更多的钱、更多的制造业、更多的士兵，时间在他们这边。
详细的回答就比较有趣和复杂。南方确实拥有大多数的军事将领，这是他们在战争初期取得这么多胜利的主要原因，他们利用“州权之争”慢慢地获得其他国家支持。同时，这是对他们士兵相当不错的战斗口号，能让士兵更奋力的战斗。但不幸的是，他们的优势也就只有这些了。
南方大多奴隶主都非常富有，但这并不是南方经济的全部情况。事实上，他们的全部经济都是以棉花为中心的。在战争期间，他们的主要经济作物几乎无法出售，因为北方就是他们最赚钱的市场，由于北方的封锁，南方也无法进入其他赚钱的市场，因此，他们赢得战争的唯一方法就是尽快结束战争。
Short answer? The north had more money, more manufacturing, lots of soldiers and time on their side
The longer answer, is the very fun and complicated kind. Well it's true that the South had the majority of military leaders, the main reason they had so many early victories in the war, and using the "argument of states rights" to slowly rally support behind them from other countries. As well this was a pretty good rallying cry for their soldiers, which made them fight all the harder. But unfortunately, that's all they really had.
Well the major slave owners of the South were obscenely wealthy, that wasn't true of the economy of the south as a whole. In fact their whole economy revolved around cotton. And during the war, their main cash crop was almost impossible to sell, As they were at war with their most profitable market, And we're being barred off from any other profitable markets they could hope to make some much needed capital from thanks to the unxs stockade, the only way they could win the war is if they manage to end it quickly.
简单回答：北方有更多的钱、更多的制造业、更多的士兵，时间在他们这边。
详细的回答就比较有趣和复杂。南方确实拥有大多数的军事将领，这是他们在战争初期取得这么多胜利的主要原因，他们利用“州权之争”慢慢地获得其他国家支持。同时，这是对他们士兵相当不错的战斗口号，能让士兵更奋力的战斗。但不幸的是，他们的优势也就只有这些了。
南方大多奴隶主都非常富有，但这并不是南方经济的全部情况。事实上，他们的全部经济都是以棉花为中心的。在战争期间，他们的主要经济作物几乎无法出售，因为北方就是他们最赚钱的市场，由于北方的封锁，南方也无法进入其他赚钱的市场，因此，他们赢得战争的唯一方法就是尽快结束战争。
However they were never going to be able to do this, thanks to the fact that they were dwarfed by the size of the Norths population/army (or rather, there free population were dwarfed), which is never a good sign when you're trying to invade/hold off against someone. They just couldn't hope to outlast the unx army, and they had no hope of beating them quickly enough. They couldn't even try and steamroll too the capital, as when they tried they were pushed back! Unlike the unx, Just look at Grant, that was his whole battle strategy, and he had the numbers to make it work.
On the other hand the unx army was at least double the confederates at any given time (Don't quote me on that I'm using numbers from my head), They had a good economy revolving around manufacturing, which was doubly good for helping to get supplies to their troops. And after Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address, They insured that no other country would try and help the Confederates thanks to their "particular institution" being seen as barbaric in most other countries, as well as giving themselves the moral high ground, and making it all the harder for the poor, beating, tired Southern soldier to try and keep fighting, as they couldn't argue that they were fighting for states' rights without also arguing that they were fighting for the very elite to be able to become richer.
然而，他们永远也做不到这一点，因为他们的人口和军队规模与北方相差太大（或更确切地说，是自由人口相差太大），在战争中，这可不是好事。他们不可能比北方军坚持得更久，也不可能快速击败他们。他们甚至无法快速攻占首都，因为当他们试着去的时候，他们被击退了！北方与南方不同，看看格兰特和他的全部作战策略，他有足够的人力和资源来实施。
另一方面，北方军的数量至少是同时期南方军的两倍，他们经济实力强大，以制造业为中心，这在供应军队方面拥有巨大的好处。在林肯发表葛底斯堡演说后，没有其他国家会帮助南方了，因为他们的“特殊机构”在多数国家被视为野蛮，让北方战争道德制高点，让贫穷、挨打、疲惫不堪的南方士兵难以继续奋力战斗，因为他们无法再说服自己是在为各州权利而战斗，也不能以为了让精英集团变得更富而战来说服自己。
On the other hand the unx army was at least double the confederates at any given time (Don't quote me on that I'm using numbers from my head), They had a good economy revolving around manufacturing, which was doubly good for helping to get supplies to their troops. And after Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address, They insured that no other country would try and help the Confederates thanks to their "particular institution" being seen as barbaric in most other countries, as well as giving themselves the moral high ground, and making it all the harder for the poor, beating, tired Southern soldier to try and keep fighting, as they couldn't argue that they were fighting for states' rights without also arguing that they were fighting for the very elite to be able to become richer.
然而，他们永远也做不到这一点，因为他们的人口和军队规模与北方相差太大（或更确切地说，是自由人口相差太大），在战争中，这可不是好事。他们不可能比北方军坚持得更久，也不可能快速击败他们。他们甚至无法快速攻占首都，因为当他们试着去的时候，他们被击退了！北方与南方不同，看看格兰特和他的全部作战策略，他有足够的人力和资源来实施。
另一方面，北方军的数量至少是同时期南方军的两倍，他们经济实力强大，以制造业为中心，这在供应军队方面拥有巨大的好处。在林肯发表葛底斯堡演说后，没有其他国家会帮助南方了，因为他们的“特殊机构”在多数国家被视为野蛮，让北方战争道德制高点，让贫穷、挨打、疲惫不堪的南方士兵难以继续奋力战斗，因为他们无法再说服自己是在为各州权利而战斗，也不能以为了让精英集团变得更富而战来说服自己。
很赞 0
收藏