是什么原因讓美國內(nèi)戰(zhàn)的勝利偏轉(zhuǎn)向北方？
What turned the American Civil War to victory for North?
譯文簡介
據(jù)我所知，在開戰(zhàn)之初，南方各州的軍事進展很順利。不過從長期來看，北方的物質(zhì)和經(jīng)濟實力更強，讓形勢慢慢偏向北方，最終擊垮了對手。
正文翻譯
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?
首先聲明：我對這方面的了解很少，如果我的問題有什么不對的地方，請諒解。
據(jù)我所知，在開戰(zhàn)之初，南方各州的軍事進展很順利。不過從長期來看，北方的物質(zhì)和經(jīng)濟實力更強，讓形勢慢慢偏向北方，最終擊垮了對手。如果這是對的，那是什么時候，或者是哪場戰(zhàn)役讓優(yōu)勢轉(zhuǎn)移到北方，讓南方勝利無望的？或者說，南方是否曾經(jīng)有機會戰(zhàn)勝工業(yè)實力更強的北方？
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 0 )
收藏
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.
南方根本沒有機會打贏。北方有錢、有人口、有海軍、有全面的運輸系統(tǒng)，重點是錢多。大部分北方人甚至都沒有感受到真正的危險。戰(zhàn)爭對他們來說就像個節(jié)目一樣。而南方那邊，他們挨餓、潰逃、眼睜睜地看著他們的城市被燒毀。
各種情況沒法一一列舉（比如在開戰(zhàn)之初，北方城鎮(zhèn)因為沒人守而被摧毀，還有早期南方的勝利是北方過于傲慢的產(chǎn)物），但總而言之，南方從一開始就注定要輸。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
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.
我明說吧，北方佬的裝備比我們好。他們有工廠、船廠、煤礦，還有一支艦隊封鎖我們的港口，可以把我們餓死。而我們只有棉花、奴隸和……傲慢。
Why did the South attack first though? Did they think they could win, or did they expect the European powers to intervene?
這樣的話南方為什么還要先發(fā)動進攻呢？他們是認為他們能贏，還是指望歐洲強國會干涉？
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
從《飄》里面和白瑞德對南方紳士說的話來看，他們認為一個南方紳士可以頂十個北方佬，幾個星期之內(nèi)就可以把他們搞定。
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.
從南方的角度看，他們是一個獨立的國家。他們接管了他們領(lǐng)地上的所有聯(lián)邦建筑，接管薩姆特堡是在這個過程的最后階段，但他們無法將北方聯(lián)邦驅(qū)逐出薩姆特堡。他們的選擇是：a）讓一支“外國【北方】”軍隊在他們的國家擁有一個堡壘。b）必要時用武力將他們趕走。他們選擇了b，這意味著他們會先發(fā)動進攻。
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
北方失敗的唯一可能，就是他們厭倦了戰(zhàn)爭，或者大英帝國站在南方這邊對北方開戰(zhàn)，然而都是不可能的。
The north also had the industry and infrastructure that the south didn't
北方有著南方?jīng)]有的工業(yè)和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。
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。中央集權(quán)政府有它的缺點，但是在戰(zhàn)爭時期，你需要中央政府來發(fā)號司令。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
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.
“戰(zhàn)爭對他們來說就像個節(jié)目一樣”？你是認真的？北方近4%的人口在戰(zhàn)爭中傷亡，這是個相當龐大的數(shù)字。這和美國如今【一個月前】的新冠病例差不多，我們認識的人里基本都有患病的。南方?jīng)]有北方那么多的資源，但也不是那么簡單，因為北方的將軍們沒有使用這些資源，直到林肯撤掉很多將軍任命格蘭特為止。要是格蘭特沒有得到指揮權(quán)，南方還是有可能長期守住陣地，直到北方失去公眾的支持而退出的可能性的。格蘭特是唯一一個愿意打消耗戰(zhàn)的人。
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.
南方的優(yōu)勢是打防御戰(zhàn)，擁有訓練有素的士兵和優(yōu)秀的將軍。南方早期的一些勝利，如公牛河戰(zhàn)役和夏洛茨維爾戰(zhàn)役，都是在將軍們的才能下取得的絕妙勝利。
然而，北方有很多優(yōu)勢。北方的人口更多，加上歐洲移民的穩(wěn)定輸入，這意味著他們可以派更多的士兵上戰(zhàn)場。北方的工業(yè)和經(jīng)濟實力也更強。南方也許可以勉強打出個僵局，特別是如果葛底斯堡戰(zhàn)役結(jié)局不同的話更是如此，但他們不可能獲得決定性的勝利。
一位歷史專業(yè)人士曾經(jīng)指出，南方最大的指望是說服北方，說勝利的代價太高了，打仗不值得。
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.
別忘了，南方無法使用的最大兵源——黑人部隊。戰(zhàn)爭結(jié)束時，北方10%的軍隊是黑人。
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.
我看到有人說南方從一開始就注定完蛋，情況沒那么簡單。很重要的一點是要了解南北雙方勝利條件的不同。北方必須征服并占領(lǐng)南方才能宣布勝利，因為他們的角色是要鎮(zhèn)壓叛亂的。如果南方必須入侵然后征服北方才能宣布勝利，那么是的，他們永遠沒有機會。但其實南方不必如此，他們守著就行了。如果北方由于損失太大而失去戰(zhàn)爭的意愿，然后要求和平，那么南方仍有可能贏得某種形式的和平。在1864年，這尤其是一個大問題，因為民主黨人越來越反對戰(zhàn)爭。因此，雖然維克斯堡戰(zhàn)役和葛底斯堡戰(zhàn)役仍然可能是最重要的軍事轉(zhuǎn)折點，但亞特蘭大陷落能增加林肯連任的機會，讓聯(lián)邦仍然可以發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭。
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
正如許多人所指出的那樣，北方在人力和物力方面有著巨大的優(yōu)勢。但坦率地說，我們應(yīng)該謹慎，不應(yīng)因為這點就假設(shè)戰(zhàn)爭已成定局。失敗者往往熱衷于把他們的失敗歸咎于無法力敵，但許多國家曾面臨過比南方更險峻的情況，最終還贏了。其中有很多偶然的因素，政治上的，行政上的，等等，而北方之所以贏了，是因為它們做得更好。舉幾個例子：
1、更好的管理——北方在管理資源方面做得更好，一個軍需官就能讓系統(tǒng)高效的運行。相比之下，南方很難獲得足夠的軍官來做基本的征用工作，由于管理不善，他們的鐵路網(wǎng)也不堪重負。
2、更好的軍官培訓——雖然南方軍官經(jīng)常被描繪得比北方的軍官強，但其實不然。事實上，82%的西點畢業(yè)生選擇北方。也許南方軍官在開戰(zhàn)之初有一點經(jīng)驗優(yōu)勢，但在消耗率極高的戰(zhàn)爭中，這種優(yōu)勢逐漸被削弱。北方有一套替換軍官的制度，而南方則沒有。
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、更強的凝聚力——南方總是有各種各樣的沖突撕裂他們內(nèi)部，削弱他們的實力。奴隸是間諜和叛亂分子的溫床，而貧窮的白人常常被疏遠，因為他們是在為富有的奴隸主而戰(zhàn)。當然，聯(lián)邦政府和各州的權(quán)利讓協(xié)調(diào)變得很難。不過，北方能夠通過良好的政治活動、贊助等手段將形形色色的人口整合成強大的戰(zhàn)斗力量，聯(lián)邦政府和專業(yè)機構(gòu)也起了相當大的作用。
4、更好的指揮體系——當北方的資源被用于協(xié)同進攻時，他們的資源變得非常有決定性，用內(nèi)部通訊線路戰(zhàn)勝了南方的優(yōu)勢。這是在格蘭特領(lǐng)導下的、中央集權(quán)的和相對精英化的指揮下實現(xiàn)的。相比之下，在南方，指揮權(quán)集中在杰斐遜·戴維斯手中，他沒有連貫的戰(zhàn)略，而且傾向于提拔布拉克斯頓·布拉格這樣的個人親信。
5、更好的外交——蘇厄德的外交戰(zhàn)略最終有效地孤立了南方，嚇退了外部干涉，同時也付出足夠的代價來避免沖突。相比之下，南方過度依賴他們作為棉花王國的地位，手段用過頭而拉攏不到朋友。
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.
說得有對有錯。南方從一開始就有眾多的問題無法克服，他們不可能獲得勝利。
二戰(zhàn)也是如此，德國沒有任何機會獲得最終的勝利，但盟軍要贏仍然花了幾年時間來聚集資源，讓它們就位，仍然有無數(shù)人死亡。
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.
你在用一個有問題的假設(shè)來證明另一個有問題的假設(shè)。德國有很多種可能贏得二戰(zhàn)勝利。如果你把美國、英國和蘇聯(lián)的聯(lián)合和完全動員作為一個既定條件，那么是的，他們在人員和物資方面的優(yōu)勢肯定是相當大的，但這不是注定的。大英帝國可能會動蕩，蘇聯(lián)政府可能會垮臺，蘇聯(lián)可能無法重建紅軍，或者沒能把他們的工業(yè)基地和后勤網(wǎng)絡(luò)撤離到德國人夠不到的地方?；蛘呶鞣矫塑姾吞K聯(lián)之間的聯(lián)盟可能會因為他們的眾多利益沖突而破裂。如果這些事情發(fā)生了，它們在后人回顧時，看起來就像是不可避免的似的。
我的觀點是：你不能把歷史簡化成磁帶故事，因為你不知道哪些因素被證明是具有決定性作用的。
像這樣把事情看成是不可避免的，會貶低勝利者的智慧和努力，淡化失敗者的錯誤。北方和盟軍最終都取得了勝利，他們更好地為戰(zhàn)爭做計劃，更好地管理資源，更有效地消除內(nèi)部分歧。
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.
在我看來，轉(zhuǎn)折點是1863年7月3 -4日北方在葛底斯堡和維克斯堡的勝利。南方在葛底斯堡孤注一擲，認為此戰(zhàn)勝利能夠打破林肯和北方民眾的信心。很明顯，這并沒有發(fā)生，而且南方還損失了太多的人員和物資——他們已經(jīng)沒有資源從新發(fā)展力量了。維克斯堡戰(zhàn)役讓北方幾乎完全控制了密西西比河，這條河將南方一分為二。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。
南方本來是可以通過打破北方的信心獲勝的，他們幾乎做到了。但是北方贏得葛底斯堡和維克斯堡戰(zhàn)役無疑鼓舞了軍隊的士氣，更重要的是鼓舞了市民的士氣。能說的還有很多，但在我看來這些都是基本的東西。
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.
勝利必然是北方的。他們有足夠數(shù)量的醫(yī)院，有大量的物資可以無限期地供應(yīng)。
最大的風險是，如果戰(zhàn)爭持續(xù)時間過長，南方將獲得英國的國際承認。
我在肯·伯納的紀錄片中聽到說，北方打仗的時候束手束腳的。
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，這是一個更容易實現(xiàn)的目標。有很多對羅伯特李將軍的馬后炮批評，就認為他是為了尋求勝利而不是平局，尤其是入侵賓夕法尼亞。
在政治上，林肯應(yīng)對得很勉強。北方的領(lǐng)導層存在問題，比如格蘭特直到1863年底才被提拔。
話雖如此，當維克斯堡和新奧爾良落進北方手里時，南方的失敗就只是時間問題了。但時間正式林肯急缺的東西。
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.
簡單回答：北方有更多的錢、更多的制造業(yè)、更多的士兵，時間在他們這邊。
詳細的回答就比較有趣和復雜。南方確實擁有大多數(shù)的軍事將領(lǐng)，這是他們在戰(zhàn)爭初期取得這么多勝利的主要原因，他們利用“州權(quán)之爭”慢慢地獲得其他國家支持。同時，這是對他們士兵相當不錯的戰(zhàn)斗口號，能讓士兵更奮力的戰(zhàn)斗。但不幸的是，他們的優(yōu)勢也就只有這些了。
南方大多奴隸主都非常富有，但這并不是南方經(jīng)濟的全部情況。事實上，他們的全部經(jīng)濟都是以棉花為中心的。在戰(zhàn)爭期間，他們的主要經(jīng)濟作物幾乎無法出售，因為北方就是他們最賺錢的市場，由于北方的封鎖，南方也無法進入其他賺錢的市場，因此，他們贏得戰(zhàn)爭的唯一方法就是盡快結(jié)束戰(zhàn)爭。
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，他們永遠也做不到這一點，因為他們的人口和軍隊規(guī)模與北方相差太大（或更確切地說，是自由人口相差太大），在戰(zhàn)爭中，這可不是好事。他們不可能比北方軍堅持得更久，也不可能快速擊敗他們。他們甚至無法快速攻占首都，因為當他們試著去的時候，他們被擊退了！北方與南方不同，看看格蘭特和他的全部作戰(zhàn)策略，他有足夠的人力和資源來實施。
另一方面，北方軍的數(shù)量至少是同時期南方軍的兩倍，他們經(jīng)濟實力強大，以制造業(yè)為中心，這在供應(yīng)軍隊方面擁有巨大的好處。在林肯發(fā)表葛底斯堡演說后，沒有其他國家會幫助南方了，因為他們的“特殊機構(gòu)”在多數(shù)國家被視為野蠻，讓北方戰(zhàn)爭道德制高點，讓貧窮、挨打、疲憊不堪的南方士兵難以繼續(xù)奮力戰(zhàn)斗，因為他們無法再說服自己是在為各州權(quán)利而戰(zhàn)斗，也不能以為了讓精英集團變得更富而戰(zhàn)來說服自己。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.mintwatchbillionaireclub.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處