@@julianshepherd2038 Romans used it against Gauls and Carthage etc, English against the French during the Hundred Years War, Genghis Khan used it, British used it against the Boers, it's very effective in ending wars. Everyone has to eat, no food you got a starving population who have no choice but to surrender.
Notice that the Geneva convention doesn't say anything about destroying their homes... only crops, livestock, water and such. It's illegal to destroy a farm, but not the farmhouse.
Which is pretty bloody odd if you ask me. Anyway the "scorched earth policy" was meant to be a tactic that a retreating Army should be denied the use of, like water holes or dams, livestock, grains, fruiting trees, anything that might give the "aid and succour" to the invader.
With what? After the dirty bombs the land itself becomes hostile. War itself should be illegal as it involves mass violence on a near global scale. I wish life could be simple and we could unite as a species for once in our miserable existence on this rock. But that will never happen. So we watch as the world burns as the people fueling the fire throw themselves in dragging everyone with them. I won't be dragged kicking and screaming into oblivion. I stare at it with a wide grin. I cackle as its tendrils latch my feet and drag me into the cacophony of screaming shrills beneath the umbral plains.
No offense, but that's kind of nonsense when you realize they can't ban urban warfare. For the defender or attacker. Also the United states(among notable others) didn't sign that protocol at all. So the people actually warring aren't beholden at all.
In my opinion, the best use of Scorched Earth was when Vlad The Impaler retreated into Wallachia and the Ottomans found things getting worse and worse as they marched. Then came the Forest Of The Impaled
He was using guerrilla tactics to slow, demoralize and damage his overwhelming opponent. He even ambushed and destroyed an Ottoman column using early firearms.
@@manuelacosta9463 yeah I remember reading that. And he spoke perfect Turkish to open enemy camps and towns for his army to invade. Man was brutal but ye Gods he was efficient
@@davidanalyst671 in light of the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah are wanting to eradicate Judaism from Israel, coupled with the urban battlefields, it's to be expected. Sadly, civilians get caught in the middle but it's war and one side has to win. Israel's very existence as the last nation of order in the Middle East is a miracle in itself and they're fighting for their right to live in peace and to protect their homeland from terrorist armies. And don't bother with all that leftist crap about "Israel hates Islam" there are 2 million Israeli born Islamic practitioners. Victory for 🇮🇱
With Finland, it would have also been fruitful to mention how the Germans used it against Finland in their retreat in the Lappland War. Finland is a weird case in since the cities there were burned by the Russians (bombed major cities), Finns (in retreat in Karelia) and by the Germans burning down Rovaniemi. It's particularly interesting that since Rovaniemi is a fairly big tourist destination, so some German tourist might be reminded of history of the place upon visiting...
There were arguments a few years ago how the Sami people deserve reparations from the Finns because of the burning down of Lapland. I, a grandchild of two Karelian refugees, remember thinking ”at least you got to keep your land”. My grandparents’ home village is nowadays called Mainila like the town across the river that used to be the border.
@@XXXkazeXXX You mean "because of the burning down of Karelia", right? Finns didn't burn down Lappland so them paying reparations doesnt make much sense. Seem like pretty stupid arguments.
I first came across the term "chevauchée" as a tactic used by Edward III in his invasion of France that culminated in the battle of Crécy and the capture of Calais. I've seen estimates that the devastated area was the size of New Jersey. I can't imagine how much misery that caused, all so he force Philippe VI to come out and fight him. I've hated him ever since, but a lot of commanders I admire somewhat would have done the same. I'm glad you mentioned the Filipino-American War which American history books try to hide under the rug because it's least admirable conflict (outside of the Indian Wars) we were ever involved with. I guess we had to show we could be just as nasty, treasonous, and duplicitous as any European colonial power. But it doesn't show us as being the good guys, so we have to disguise how we betrayed the Filipinos.
And Today American and Filipinos are good allies. Likely because the last Presidents Attempt to move to China as an Allie ended in failure because Couldnt even respect the Philippines enough to even try. US doesnt need to do anything to convince Filipinos China is bad. They simply have to turn on their TVs and watch Local Coverage of China Bullying their own countrymen.
General Sherman literally used scorched earth against the Southern American states during the Civil War. Race/ethnicity/etc didn't stop the Union from destroying everything the poor people of the South needed to survive. Everything that could be used to exist was destroyed. The Union literally did this to Americans. There were parts across the South that voted NOT to join the Confederacy and did not help them fight the Union and those places were destroyed as well. Sherman showed no mercy to anyone.
Hi, Poland here. A battlefield of Europe since at least Napoleonic wars, where almost every old building of the few still standing had to be rebuilt at some point of time. Interesting topic, I'd love to see similar video on the similar (however a bit broader) idea of the Total War (Totaler Krieg).
Spent my first Christmas alone last year, after shedding all the toxic ppl that actually ruin every happy event... it was a very happy peaceful Christmas (finally) I'm so over the pressure society puts on holidays, ntm it's a narcissist's favorite day to target. ❤peace and love❤
It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage video about scorched earth policies committed by armies during war times....thank you for sharing...
Get close to Christ to get peace and to save your soul. Dark days are ahead, but if Christ is your anchor, peace will persist even during tragic and distressing events.
Just go and read it yourself. It's even more informative and you'll find it has never once worked in warfare. The only countries that still employ this tactic are the ones that are so inept at building militaries, the only way they know how to win is to kill everyone.
I don't understand why there isn't a distinction in the Geneva Convention for attackers versus defenders. If someone is attacking your country, destroying your own land to blunt their advance seems like a valid tactic.
Because there are countries and states out there that would happily do this because the government of said states don’t give a toss about their people. Imagine a dictatorship or some banana republic who are assholes and are always attacking the states around them, imposing harsh laws on their citizens and reaping the benefits of being in power. If anyone wanted to invade them, replace whose in power and in general teach them a lesson, the citizens would be paying the price. They could fall victim to a scorched earth policy when their government gets them into that war that they never asked for. I could see your point in Ukraine. A lot of Ukrainian people must have such a seething hatred for the Russians that they would agree to a scorched earth policy if the Ukrainian government proposed it. But not every war/conflict is like that.
I think there is a lot of stuff being glossed over here. One huge 20th Century example you might have cited was Chiang Kai-shek's decision to flood the Yellow River in 1938. The Japanese were ascendant in their invasion of China and there appeared to be no way to stop them. So he destroyed the dams without making any attempt to evacuate civilians. It was possibly the greatest single-incident atrocity of WWII. The exact damage is not known, but the associated floods and famine probably killed half a million people. The military benefits have always been unclear. It's easy to say wow, that was a serious war crime, and I think that's where you have to come down. But would it have been worse to allow the Japanese to run unchecked through the country? They had a pretty well-established record of brutality at that point, and waged their own brutal and devastating scorched earth campaign against Mao (The "Three Alls Policy"). You can make similar arguments about Sherman's burning of Atlanta, or the Allied strategic bombing campaigns of WWII. The difference between the targeting of military infrastructure and targeting civilians is something military theorists wrestled with in the context of 20th-century total war, and I feel like a precise and moral definition of where that line is drawn is super-unclear. When you're fighting a modern total war and facing a fanatic enemy determined to fight to the death and where those entire societies are guilty of heinous crimes against humanity, as was the case for the US, UK, and Commonwealth in WWII and the Union during the American Civil War, you can make a pretty strong argument that the civilians who enabled and support the war have to be made legitimate targets in order to end it. That was the conclusion Sherman came to, and as abhorrent as it sounds, I don't think he was wrong. We have to be able to tell the difference between a flawed but representative government that has its own possibly quite serious problems but is basically legitimate and concerned with human rights (like the US during the Civil War or WWII) and genocidal fanatics like Nazi Germany or Fascist Japan, or slave states like the American South, totally brutal regimes that do have significant consent of the governed. I see those modern, strategic decisions made in the context of total war as pretty different from what is traditionally called scorched earth, the denying of food and shelter and supplies to an enemy in the manner of Spain, Portugal and Russia during the Napoleonic Wars and Russia again during WWII (and where there was at least some attempt made to evacuate civilians).
In a video like this, yes. Much was glossed over. You could technically make a two hour documentary on this tactic alone. But that could be said about almoat any military tactic.
I don't think you can name civilian populations as legitimate targets if they live within regimes that actively curtail disobedience, resistance, and democracy. You said so yourself, although in paraphrase. I think defending liberal values doesn't work if you tolerate illiberal wartime policy such as unrestricted bombing, detainment of foreign ethnicities and unlawful seizures, thus eroding your own basic constitutional rights to do it. Such behavior rarely has measurable strategic import in the modern era, and actively aids in the rise of jingoism, fascism, anarchism and other reactionary movements.
Those cut-ins with Simon’s voice suddenly made tinny, as if from an old TV, I find jarring and irritating. Hope this isn’t a permanent new thing. Though I’ll keep watching anyway; love Simon’s videos. 😂
Japan was left in ruins, its cities reduced to scorched earth, a haunting testament to the destructive power of war. Entire landscapes, once vibrant with life, were transformed into barren wastelands, and what remained was a shadow of the thriving nation it once had been. Buildings crumbled, streets lay deserted, and the air was thick with the smoke of devastation. This period marked a time of immense hardship and suffering for the Japanese people, as they faced the daunting task of rebuilding their lives and their homeland from the scorched earth that stretched before them. The scars of the destruction were not only physical but also deeply emotional, leaving a lasting impact on the collective memory of the nation.
Simon, hi. I love you man. Your YT channels are the best. I am from New Mexico. where the Navajo are 10% of the population. You mispronounced their tribal name sir, but you are still great.
Scorched earth tactic was also used during the Indonesian national revolution, in the form of Bandung Lautan Api (Bandung Sea of Fire). Following the arrival of British forces and the fall of the northern part of Bandung to the Brits, the Indonesians devise a plan to prevent further advances from British (later Dutch) troops: emptying and burning South Bandung so the rival troops cannot use any existing buildings and supplies. Prior to the scorched earth tactic, hundreds and thousands of civilians were evacuated. During the scorched earth tactic, an Indonesian young lad by the name of Mohammad Toha was killed in action after blowing up an Allied armory. To commemorate the event, the Indonesian did the following: 1. Renowned composer Ismail Marzuki wrote "Halo, Halo Bandung", a patriotic song 2. The Bandung municipal government officiated a monument 3. A large stadium complex at the southern part of Bandung is named "Gelora Bandung Lautan Api" (Spirit of Bandung Sea of Fire stadium; the name "Gelora", apart from symbolizing a spirit, is also an acronym of Gelanggang Olahraga (EN: Sports Hall)). 4. Mohammad Toha's name is used as a street name at the southern part of Bandung.
For those who say scortched earth is a brutal tactic, yes, it is. It is also what a nation who doesn’t want to be at war does when their enemy’s deepest held value is its complete destruction. If my country has an enemy, and that enemy say it’s you or us, I sure as hell hope my country will choose us.
Just imagine the whole world had that perspective. Savages. Funny what irrational things people do because of fear. Don't be a coward and sheep to government propaganda most people just want to live their lives
Ohhhh like Kefka in the first half of Final Fantasy 6/3! He poisoned the water supply for the Kingdom of Doma because there were some people there that were part of the resistance. He was doing it to get magic stuff but still same concept and the world ends up in ruin so 🤷
Sun Tzu explains the greatest general is a general who concures a territory completely intact. (IMHO this means a change of Hearts and minds of the "enemy" conformaty to the ways (tao) of the concuer ) The last strategy is complete destruction.
Scorched Earth tactics were common and "normal" in pre modern times, mostly used by the defender. That is because before the advent of the railway and cars most armies had to live of the land to survive, which in effect meant plundering the villages for food. So by using scorched earth tactics the idea was to deny the advancing army food, forcing it to go somewhere else or die of starvation. While not directly a scorched earth tactic the Mamluks triumphed over the Mongols that way by denying them grazing fields and access to water which in the end forced the Mongols to attack from a unfavourable position or otherwise starve which lead to their defeat. Another often use scorched earth tactic was in preparation of a siege. While modern culture often only focused on the plight of the besieged, the sieging army was equally under pressure, having to live from the land and the few supplies that could be provided from their home, and hope they outlast the besieged defenders. So when you knew that a siege was coming it was a common tactic to harvest everything, even when unripe and burn everything else to deny the attacker supplies. And often times the attacker hurt themselves when they burned or plundered the country they invaded, only to later realize that they could not sustain a siege because of that. Examples for that are the 2nd siege of Vienna 1683 or the battle for Malta 1585
The TV effect at 4:26 should go away and never be used again. Sorry but it’s jarring, distracting, and adds nothing to the content Otherwise, I loved the video ☺️
In 1941 the red army employed scorched earth tactics very effectively. The germans were sucked deeper and deeper into the Soviet Union, and occupied a desert. Part of the german plan was the idea that the Wehrmacht should sustain themselves by living off the land. That didn't work out too well. Of course, the ramshackle logistics system of the german army couldn't hope to supply an army of millions.
I recall being at CFB Gagetown and hearing stories of how much work it took to decontaminate areas of the training grounds where Agent Orange had been used in tests and training. There were apparently a few instances where barrels of the stuff had just been buried in huge holes in the 70s or something. Nasty stuff, highly carcinogenic if I recall.
If you can find a historically more effective way to ruin an invaders advance, then sure it should be illegal, but when an army requires to eat and drink it's the easiest way to defend the majority of your land. The idea of making tactics illegal is ridiculous. If you're the defender then you'll do whatever it takes.
or a attacker to win by any means necessary, scorched earth works both ways. It's ridiculous to ban tactics and even worse to prolong the war and add to casualties by preventing the end of a war.
The entire point of these rules is an attempt to preserve the land and protect civilians living on it. Eastern Ukraine has been rendered useless by the Russian Military. It will take a long time for that land to be productive again. Tactics like those used by the Russian military is a crime against humanity.
This is exactly my thought it’s like telling someone that is getting into a fight after they’ve been kicked in the nuts that THEY can’t punch the opponent’s face or below the belt after the person that kicked them already got a cheap shot
Just to play a bit of devil's advocate here, I fully agree with your stance. Once a defender has opted for denial of "static" resources what prevents the attacker from further engaging in those strategies preemptively?
Simon - Fan since 2017. IMHO: No “propaganda” here: current world events make this a timeless topic, particularly salient today. The question posed here is non-partisan: “Is it EVER moral to ‘win at all costs’, whatever the apocalyptic implications may be?” Your video obliquely asserts that the answer - at least whenever an actual, specific case arises - most always lies in the eye of the perpetrator. Is this answer valid from a realist/pragmatic perspective? Yes. However, it immediately begs a further question - one which demands an answer insofar as said answer would necessarily eclipse the first one. This is because while the given answer may be pragmatic, it fails as an informatively guiding answer going forward. The catch lies in how you have taken up a topic that hinges upon an impossible (i.e., an undebatable / inarguable) question. As Cormac McCarthy wrote concerning the nature and limits of rational debate: “Some things just ain’t reasonable… [i.e., subject to reason].” This principle strictly delimits any rational and definitive survey of “scorched earth” tactics. Be it in the courtroom or the court of public opinion, one who goes about tackling a topic by “arguing the inarguable”does so in vain. Such an effort is akin to tilting at windmills - to engaging in an inherently pointless and eternally unavailing metaphysical task, since the task opposes all laws of nature and logic. Some things - such as absolute truth and the supernatural - are beyond reasonable debate. They instead turn upon intangible intuition, irrational faith, and tautological foundations - all of which operate on a plane distinct from the the relative certainty found within the realm of “established facts” (i.e., things systematically proven “true” over time, and built upon the weight of of defined factors that point in a particular direction when tested uniformly using standardized measurements and steadfast methods). To joust for or against a concept from the ethereal plane (supernatural giants) while within a realm of established parameters like that of a knightly tournament (where said “giants” are not supernatural beings but huge, reinforced towers that harness the wind) is a thankless and often self-defeating endeavor. Likewise, “scorched earth” tactics are immune to definitive analysis because any such assessment can only, by nature, proceed in tandem with a set and consistent conceptual framework. This means a framework free of subjective, value-laden, non-empirical, and/or unprovable components and considerations. Inarguable issues such as “scorched earth” tactics, much like the existence of the supernatural, are quintessentially beyond the pail of an analytical framework so rigid and defined. Putting these points aside, this episode possesses a key saving grace that is beyond reproach. Yes, the treatment given the topic likely skirted questions beyond those within our limited power to answer fully; all the same, you were wholly right to draw attention to the dark history, detailed workings, and macabre consequences of that grim aspect of the human condition known as “scorched earth” warfare. Humanity (and all life on this planet) can only be the better for hearing your voice in the wilderness of this world - a wilderness where indifference and resignation so often predominate. Well done, sir.
😢 William the conqueror did this in Northumbria. Generations would pass before the land could be once more settled. This became known as the harrowing of the North, apparently as an old man he wept over his actions. The clearances after Culludon achieved a similar end even if the land wasn't destroyed outright. The Geneva convention is a joke really. Wage war but do it nicely. Those that fight fair do not write the histories, because their dead.
Any national on Earth would participate In scorched earth tactics if their actual existence was in Danger. Certainly not defending the actions of current nations that are at war. But there will never be an end to this type of warfare
My mother’s sides great grandparents were rich merchant in China back before the war with Japan. Chiang Kai-shek ordered the scorched earth against the Japanese army and every goods on ships were burnt down which made my family lost everything.
The concept of scorched-earth defense is sometimes applied figuratively to the business world in which a firm facing a takeover attempts to make itself less valuable by selling off its assets.
They also created Gaza, evacuated from it in return for peace, and built it, while 22 Arab countries, 50 Muslim countries loved to let it rot as useful human shield.
Russia did a version of it when Napoleon invaded. Basically as Russian forces retreated, they burned down their fields and crops along with anything that might be useful to the French army, making it so Napoleon is gaining ground, but he cannot resupply himself. It isn’t long before the French are basically trapped behind enemy lines, facing down a Russian winter, and good and thoroughly separated from their supply lines. FYI to any aspiring invaders: Russia is the type of place that considers any cold not severe enough to summon legions of white walkers to be shorts weather.
There’s not a whole lot in Gaza that could sustain the population. The desalination plants have stopped operating because Hamas refuses to share fuel with them, not because Israel attacked them. There wasn’t much farmland before the war and Hamas literally burned down the greenhouses that were left when Israel pulled out in 2005 and even dug up the pipes used to irrigate fields in order to make more rockets. Hamas functionally rendered Gaza reliant on aid well before the Israeli response to the Hamas initiated war.
@@adamredwine774 they made gaza reliant on aid, then siphon most of the aid for themselves and their fighters. Its really disgusting that its controversial to condemn hamas, regardless of your feelings on Palestine and Gaza.
@@carminegalante4925 yup. It’s only controversial to condemn Hamas due to staggering ignorance in the West and a knee jerk reaction to back the weaker party in a conflict no matter what.
There is a correlation between Russian use of the scorched earth defense & more brutal winters dating back to it's first employment in Russia against Sweden. I speculate it's due to the increased particulates in the atmosphere creating a mini 'nuclear winter' effect.
There is a house in Gettysburg Pennsylvania that hosted a front line urban warfare makeshift field hospital. When they modernized the home in the 90s, they found the wooden beams of the house were soaked with blood.
The first time I ever heard this term was in reference to Sadam Hussein burning the oil wells in Kuwait; I was in middle school at the time and our history teacher insisted on covering "current events" (which in her case meant requiring us to watch the 6 pm news at least three times every week, quizzing us on it the next day). I didn't understand then why it was a useful tactic, and even though I can see where the "logic" arises - as you said, "if we can't have it, no one else can" - it still seems idiotic to me, childish even. Like a toddler destroying his favorite toy because some other kid wants to take it. Of course it's much, much worse than mere selfish destructive nonsense. This is also the first time I've understood why my mother refused to ever explain to me what the hell Agent Orange was. I still don't know what event happened to make her so upset, but I'd ask her about it and she would fall silent, and look almost ashen. Like she was going to throw up. Even after looking it up I was confused (as a kid, I should mention), because I didn't understand how a thing that kills plants could be horrible. The things happening right now that you mention - and the conflict you didn't mention - it all makes me feel sick at heart. Even with such tactics being scorned, no one seems able to step in and really make it STOP. I don't pretend that there's some magic care-bear solution to stop all violence (though sometimes I wish for it), but it feels like all the people scolding Russia or others for these horrors are only doing that - scolding, shaking their fingers in public, while nodding in the board rooms and private spaces, even applauding it. And I think that's why we won't see this kind of nastiness fade away anytime soon. Because there are too many people with the kind of power to make such tactical decisions who DO see it as viable. Reprehensible, sure, but viable nonetheless, and an option that they keep in that "strategist's toolbox" even if they decry it out loud.
I should mention that you forgot to mention the Imperial Japanese in China and Manchuria, as well as China on itself after World War Two both employed scorched earth policies
it will continue to dwindle but it's still an effective tactic against an enemy that can't bring everything they need so it's unlikely to disappear any time soon.
Vlad The Impaler, Scipio Aemilianus, Lucius Licinius Lucullus, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, and Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, we're geniuses at this type of Warfare! 🛡️🗡️
Modern American terms this is called a level 3 clearance operation. There only 3 levels to a clearance, level 1 is akin to delta or surgical operations, level 2 is the way the iraq and Afghanistan wars started off and they developed in more like 1.5, and level 3 is like the fire bombings of the Japanese or air raids on berlin or scorched earth
I guess there's no need to say who are the experts in doing all the in things prohibited by the Geneva conventions against innocent civilians, women, children, etc.
12:54 Bring the good old bugle, boys, and sing another song! Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along! Sing it as we used to, sing it fifty thousand strong! While we were marching through Georgia!
Contrary to popular belief wars are usually won because of = _"logistics."_ It is a lack of resupply which more than anything else can render units unfit for combat. This is why coincidentally why modern armies like say the US have developed a massive logistical supply operation to sustain themselves. It is also why coincidentally the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine petered out = they ran out of supplies and replacement equipment forcing them to seek it from other countries.
imo the topic of mines is completely missing in this video. You mention poisened wells at least 5 times and the only time you mentioned mines was when Russia did xy to prevent mines from being placed. Mines are a huge problem
Cause mines are not primarily used for scorched earth. They may end up unintentionally after the war but their tactical use is area denial/slow down attackers
@@shaunsmusicreviews Scorched earth is to deny enemy resources, food water etc without which a army and a population cannot survive, without which they become desperate and the enemy is forced to surrender. Like what the Romans did they would lay siege burn fields throw bodies in water supply.
@@shaunsmusicreviews that's bs. From a soldiers perspective maybe. But then blowing up a bridge or burning fields is the same. Mines are so important (/detrimental to mankind and thus widely seen as a war crime) that their ambiguity of classification simply can't excuse their absence in this video.
@@shaunsmusicreviewsThat's not true. It's not absurd to use Mines in conjunction with a retreat to deny the enemy access to the positions you just abandoned as well as slow down their pursuit of your retreating forces. They were deemed essential to the NATO War Plans in the Fulda Gap, where West German Troops were to be poised to make a fighting retreat in order to delay Soviet Forces. Minelaying vehicles were stationed with the Engineer companies there, who would also be responsible for detonating bridges and roads and erecting barricades.
Animals also know what water to drink. I seen deer intentionally avoid still water if they can help it. They definetely know what water source is safe to drink or tolerable. I dont know much about african animals but animals in Mongolian Gobi desert also avoid some clear looking water but will frequently drink from apparently muddy pond.
Imagine thinking that things like the Geneva convention matter and that there's rules for how to conduct yourself during war. Hope Santa brought you kids some sweet gifts this year.
Ahhh the old "If I can't have it neither can you" tactic.
An absolute classic.
Nobody cares about the Geneva convention. NATO and the EU are a waste of time and nothing but hypocrites
It defeated Napoleon in Russia
@@julianshepherd2038 Romans used it against Gauls and Carthage etc, English against the French during the Hundred Years War, Genghis Khan used it, British used it against the Boers, it's very effective in ending wars. Everyone has to eat, no food you got a starving population who have no choice but to surrender.
@@julianshepherd2038 Hitler inherited hundreds of square burnt hectares of land as well
The lefts essence.
There is a lesson to learn from it.
Notice that the Geneva convention doesn't say anything about destroying their homes... only crops, livestock, water and such. It's illegal to destroy a farm, but not the farmhouse.
The house can be rebuilt once hostilities have ended.
Which is pretty bloody odd if you ask me.
Anyway the "scorched earth policy" was meant to be a tactic that a retreating Army should be denied the use of, like water holes or dams, livestock, grains, fruiting trees, anything that might give the "aid and succour" to the invader.
With what? After the dirty bombs the land itself becomes hostile. War itself should be illegal as it involves mass violence on a near global scale. I wish life could be simple and we could unite as a species for once in our miserable existence on this rock. But that will never happen. So we watch as the world burns as the people fueling the fire throw themselves in dragging everyone with them. I won't be dragged kicking and screaming into oblivion. I stare at it with a wide grin. I cackle as its tendrils latch my feet and drag me into the cacophony of screaming shrills beneath the umbral plains.
No offense, but that's kind of nonsense when you realize they can't ban urban warfare. For the defender or attacker. Also the United states(among notable others) didn't sign that protocol at all. So the people actually warring aren't beholden at all.
A law is best judged by what it doesn't mention impo
1:25 - Chapter 1 - The method
8:20 - Chapter 2 - The history
16:05 - Chapter 3 - The present day
Hey wargraphics, why didn't you include gaza in modern day examples? Do you fornicate with animals or something?
In my opinion, the best use of Scorched Earth was when Vlad The Impaler retreated into Wallachia and the Ottomans found things getting worse and worse as they marched. Then came the Forest Of The Impaled
He was using guerrilla tactics to slow, demoralize and damage his overwhelming opponent. He even ambushed and destroyed an Ottoman column using early firearms.
@@manuelacosta9463 yeah I remember reading that. And he spoke perfect Turkish to open enemy camps and towns for his army to invade. Man was brutal but ye Gods he was efficient
The real history of Vlad needs to be told. He is demonized by those who don't know their history.
He released the video today because of what Israel is doing to Gaza
@@davidanalyst671 in light of the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah are wanting to eradicate Judaism from Israel, coupled with the urban battlefields, it's to be expected. Sadly, civilians get caught in the middle but it's war and one side has to win. Israel's very existence as the last nation of order in the Middle East is a miracle in itself and they're fighting for their right to live in peace and to protect their homeland from terrorist armies.
And don't bother with all that leftist crap about "Israel hates Islam" there are 2 million Israeli born Islamic practitioners. Victory for 🇮🇱
“To know what war is, one should follow our tracks.”
Maj Gen. William T. Sherman
With Finland, it would have also been fruitful to mention how the Germans used it against Finland in their retreat in the Lappland War. Finland is a weird case in since the cities there were burned by the Russians (bombed major cities), Finns (in retreat in Karelia) and by the Germans burning down Rovaniemi.
It's particularly interesting that since Rovaniemi is a fairly big tourist destination, so some German tourist might be reminded of history of the place upon visiting...
I think Germans got plenty of places to remember as is^^
There were arguments a few years ago how the Sami people deserve reparations from the Finns because of the burning down of Lapland. I, a grandchild of two Karelian refugees, remember thinking ”at least you got to keep your land”. My grandparents’ home village is nowadays called Mainila like the town across the river that used to be the border.
@@XXXkazeXXX You mean "because of the burning down of Karelia", right? Finns didn't burn down Lappland so them paying reparations doesnt make much sense. Seem like pretty stupid arguments.
@@foreverjune8 - With the Brits and Americans 10 times more places.
@@B1gLupu No, the argument back then was that it was Finns’ fault Germans burned down Lapland. Yeaaah, don’t ask the logic 🤷♀️
Every time i see a reference to William Sherman I think to myself "do it again uncle billy"
I first came across the term "chevauchée" as a tactic used by Edward III in his invasion of France that culminated in the battle of Crécy and the capture of Calais. I've seen estimates that the devastated area was the size of New Jersey. I can't imagine how much misery that caused, all so he force Philippe VI to come out and fight him. I've hated him ever since, but a lot of commanders I admire somewhat would have done the same.
I'm glad you mentioned the Filipino-American War which American history books try to hide under the rug because it's least admirable conflict (outside of the Indian Wars) we were ever involved with. I guess we had to show we could be just as nasty, treasonous, and duplicitous as any European colonial power. But it doesn't show us as being the good guys, so we have to disguise how we betrayed the Filipinos.
And Today American and Filipinos are good allies. Likely because the last Presidents Attempt to move to China as an Allie ended in failure because Couldnt even respect the Philippines enough to even try. US doesnt need to do anything to convince Filipinos China is bad. They simply have to turn on their TVs and watch Local Coverage of China Bullying their own countrymen.
The only commanders that haven't done this, just haven't had the opportunity/motive, it was standard, albeit very sad, objective in warfare
General Sherman literally used scorched earth against the Southern American states during the Civil War. Race/ethnicity/etc didn't stop the Union from destroying everything the poor people of the South needed to survive. Everything that could be used to exist was destroyed. The Union literally did this to Americans. There were parts across the South that voted NOT to join the Confederacy and did not help them fight the Union and those places were destroyed as well. Sherman showed no mercy to anyone.
True. But I’m happy we made it up to the people of Philippines, during WW2 💯🙏🙌
It’s also how the Sparta defeated Athens.
Cheers for the video Simon!
Hey, love your content and editing usually but the weird TV cut aways where the sound is terrible is... Odd. It's an odd choice lol
Hi, Poland here. A battlefield of Europe since at least Napoleonic wars, where almost every old building of the few still standing had to be rebuilt at some point of time. Interesting topic, I'd love to see similar video on the similar (however a bit broader) idea of the Total War (Totaler Krieg).
Thank you for saving stuff for the christmas period. I feel so very lonely this time of year and truly need the distraction.
Hang in there, you are not alone
Happy holidays 🫡
You feel lonely all year round, its just the holiday that brings it to mind
Spent my first Christmas alone last year, after shedding all the toxic ppl that actually ruin every happy event... it was a very happy peaceful Christmas (finally) I'm so over the pressure society puts on holidays, ntm it's a narcissist's favorite day to target. ❤peace and love❤
It was an informative and wonderful historical coverage video about scorched earth policies committed by armies during war times....thank you for sharing...
Yet he included no information about the war in Gaza. This was ridiculous.
Burnin' Sherman was the GOAT
19:00 Yessir, Brain Boy. Well said.
Salting the fields is mentioned in the Old Testament.
If the Old Testament was a movie it would be rated NC17.
I watch because content like this is more informative than the news, but I wish it didn't make me so bummed lol
Get close to Christ to get peace and to save your soul. Dark days are ahead, but if Christ is your anchor, peace will persist even during tragic and distressing events.
Just go and read it yourself. It's even more informative and you'll find it has never once worked in warfare. The only countries that still employ this tactic are the ones that are so inept at building militaries, the only way they know how to win is to kill everyone.
i've loved RLL for a while, didn't know you were texan, too! just another reason to keep watching. thanks for great [state of TX] videos.
I think Simon left out one very noticeable example that’s happening right now to avoid demonetization
Funny that he missed that one but was sure to add video clips and images from Gaza
Yeah, you must be that blind writer or something.
Whistler going full anti-semite is just sad though.
Precisely. He gave Putin a shellacking but wimped out on you know who.
@@chrisreeves9764 Jew are you referring to here?
@@PureCode Bad bait
I don't understand why there isn't a distinction in the Geneva Convention for attackers versus defenders. If someone is attacking your country, destroying your own land to blunt their advance seems like a valid tactic.
What’s the point in destroying your own country?
I think it's because the scorched-earth policy affects innocent civilians far more than it would either an attacking or defending.
Because there are countries and states out there that would happily do this because the government of said states don’t give a toss about their people.
Imagine a dictatorship or some banana republic who are assholes and are always attacking the states around them, imposing harsh laws on their citizens and reaping the benefits of being in power. If anyone wanted to invade them, replace whose in power and in general teach them a lesson, the citizens would be paying the price. They could fall victim to a scorched earth policy when their government gets them into that war that they never asked for.
I could see your point in Ukraine. A lot of Ukrainian people must have such a seething hatred for the Russians that they would agree to a scorched earth policy if the Ukrainian government proposed it. But not every war/conflict is like that.
@@MrTWICETHEPRESHA then why don't they just change the name of the offensive form to something else
Civilians still have rights and land.. usually
Another fine addition to the Whistler-verse
Great material! Thank you and more please.
like your videos Philip ,,please do a video about the art of camouflage in war
I think there is a lot of stuff being glossed over here. One huge 20th Century example you might have cited was Chiang Kai-shek's decision to flood the Yellow River in 1938. The Japanese were ascendant in their invasion of China and there appeared to be no way to stop them. So he destroyed the dams without making any attempt to evacuate civilians. It was possibly the greatest single-incident atrocity of WWII. The exact damage is not known, but the associated floods and famine probably killed half a million people. The military benefits have always been unclear. It's easy to say wow, that was a serious war crime, and I think that's where you have to come down. But would it have been worse to allow the Japanese to run unchecked through the country? They had a pretty well-established record of brutality at that point, and waged their own brutal and devastating scorched earth campaign against Mao (The "Three Alls Policy"). You can make similar arguments about Sherman's burning of Atlanta, or the Allied strategic bombing campaigns of WWII. The difference between the targeting of military infrastructure and targeting civilians is something military theorists wrestled with in the context of 20th-century total war, and I feel like a precise and moral definition of where that line is drawn is super-unclear. When you're fighting a modern total war and facing a fanatic enemy determined to fight to the death and where those entire societies are guilty of heinous crimes against humanity, as was the case for the US, UK, and Commonwealth in WWII and the Union during the American Civil War, you can make a pretty strong argument that the civilians who enabled and support the war have to be made legitimate targets in order to end it. That was the conclusion Sherman came to, and as abhorrent as it sounds, I don't think he was wrong. We have to be able to tell the difference between a flawed but representative government that has its own possibly quite serious problems but is basically legitimate and concerned with human rights (like the US during the Civil War or WWII) and genocidal fanatics like Nazi Germany or Fascist Japan, or slave states like the American South, totally brutal regimes that do have significant consent of the governed. I see those modern, strategic decisions made in the context of total war as pretty different from what is traditionally called scorched earth, the denying of food and shelter and supplies to an enemy in the manner of Spain, Portugal and Russia during the Napoleonic Wars and Russia again during WWII (and where there was at least some attempt made to evacuate civilians).
In a video like this, yes. Much was glossed over. You could technically make a two hour documentary on this tactic alone. But that could be said about almoat any military tactic.
I don't think you can name civilian populations as legitimate targets if they live within regimes that actively curtail disobedience, resistance, and democracy. You said so yourself, although in paraphrase.
I think defending liberal values doesn't work if you tolerate illiberal wartime policy such as unrestricted bombing, detainment of foreign ethnicities and unlawful seizures, thus eroding your own basic constitutional rights to do it. Such behavior rarely has measurable strategic import in the modern era, and actively aids in the rise of jingoism, fascism, anarchism and other reactionary movements.
Summaries do exist you know......
I read it all but 99% of most UA-cam views will not have the attention span
“Glossed over” dude you realize they can’t include every single example right
You are wrong. It wasn't justified in those examples.
The Art of War series should cover next:
Urban warfare
Naval warfare
Modern sieges
Those cut-ins with Simon’s voice suddenly made tinny, as if from an old TV, I find jarring and irritating. Hope this isn’t a permanent new thing. Though I’ll keep watching anyway; love Simon’s videos. 😂
"no need to destroy the bear just slit its throat"-ulysses fallout new vegas
This would cure my FOMO anxiety. Finally, a cure is found!!!
Dude, please get rid of the TV sound clip. Was funny the first time, annoying as hell that it's in every video now.
Japan was left in ruins, its cities reduced to scorched earth, a haunting testament to the destructive power of war. Entire landscapes, once vibrant with life, were transformed into barren wastelands, and what remained was a shadow of the thriving nation it once had been. Buildings crumbled, streets lay deserted, and the air was thick with the smoke of devastation. This period marked a time of immense hardship and suffering for the Japanese people, as they faced the daunting task of rebuilding their lives and their homeland from the scorched earth that stretched before them. The scars of the destruction were not only physical but also deeply emotional, leaving a lasting impact on the collective memory of the nation.
Happy Holidays, to both you and your writters my dude
I'll just add the comment, the "TV" audio thing is terrible.
Facts Boi. Facts.
Keep'n it real mate.
Simon, hi. I love you man. Your YT channels are the best. I am from New Mexico. where the Navajo are 10% of the population. You mispronounced their tribal name sir, but you are still great.
Scorched earth tactic was also used during the Indonesian national revolution, in the form of Bandung Lautan Api (Bandung Sea of Fire).
Following the arrival of British forces and the fall of the northern part of Bandung to the Brits, the Indonesians devise a plan to prevent further advances from British (later Dutch) troops: emptying and burning South Bandung so the rival troops cannot use any existing buildings and supplies.
Prior to the scorched earth tactic, hundreds and thousands of civilians were evacuated. During the scorched earth tactic, an Indonesian young lad by the name of Mohammad Toha was killed in action after blowing up an Allied armory.
To commemorate the event, the Indonesian did the following:
1. Renowned composer Ismail Marzuki wrote "Halo, Halo Bandung", a patriotic song
2. The Bandung municipal government officiated a monument
3. A large stadium complex at the southern part of Bandung is named "Gelora Bandung Lautan Api" (Spirit of Bandung Sea of Fire stadium; the name "Gelora", apart from symbolizing a spirit, is also an acronym of Gelanggang Olahraga (EN: Sports Hall)).
4. Mohammad Toha's name is used as a street name at the southern part of Bandung.
For those who say scortched earth is a brutal tactic, yes, it is. It is also what a nation who doesn’t want to be at war does when their enemy’s deepest held value is its complete destruction. If my country has an enemy, and that enemy say it’s you or us, I sure as hell hope my country will choose us.
So you mean to say that youre fine with your government killing innocent people for an advantage in a war?
There are times when it makes sense. But if your enemy is much less armed than you, and cannot comparatively fight back, then it is just a war crime.
Just imagine the whole world had that perspective. Savages. Funny what irrational things people do because of fear. Don't be a coward and sheep to government propaganda most people just want to live their lives
I like how this thread knows what it's talking about without directly saying it. Lol
@@dylang6027the whole world has always had that perspective until recently. Actually, plenty of places on earth still do
This and situation room are such good series
Thanks For this!❤❤❤❤
This series is so interesting. Terrifying, but interesting
War, war never changes.
Even Disney suggests the use of scorched earth tactics. When the string on Woody's back gets pulled: "Someone's poisoned the water hole!"
GOOD SHOW
Ohhhh like Kefka in the first half of Final Fantasy 6/3! He poisoned the water supply for the Kingdom of Doma because there were some people there that were part of the resistance. He was doing it to get magic stuff but still same concept and the world ends up in ruin so 🤷
My first exposure to the concept of scorched earth was this.
@@TheAnboyce me too
Sun Tzu explains the greatest general is a general who concures a territory completely intact. (IMHO this means a change of Hearts and minds of the "enemy" conformaty to the ways (tao) of the concuer ) The last strategy is complete destruction.
Scorched Earth tactics were common and "normal" in pre modern times, mostly used by the defender. That is because before the advent of the railway and cars most armies had to live of the land to survive, which in effect meant plundering the villages for food. So by using scorched earth tactics the idea was to deny the advancing army food, forcing it to go somewhere else or die of starvation. While not directly a scorched earth tactic the Mamluks triumphed over the Mongols that way by denying them grazing fields and access to water which in the end forced the Mongols to attack from a unfavourable position or otherwise starve which lead to their defeat.
Another often use scorched earth tactic was in preparation of a siege. While modern culture often only focused on the plight of the besieged, the sieging army was equally under pressure, having to live from the land and the few supplies that could be provided from their home, and hope they outlast the besieged defenders. So when you knew that a siege was coming it was a common tactic to harvest everything, even when unripe and burn everything else to deny the attacker supplies.
And often times the attacker hurt themselves when they burned or plundered the country they invaded, only to later realize that they could not sustain a siege because of that.
Examples for that are the 2nd siege of Vienna 1683 or the battle for Malta 1585
The TV effect at 4:26 should go away and never be used again. Sorry but it’s jarring, distracting, and adds nothing to the content
Otherwise, I loved the video ☺️
And you can hardly understand what he's saying.
Agreed
I assumed it was done to prevent demonetization
"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."
William Tecumseh Sherman
There's a very interesting scifi short story on UA-cam called why humans avoid war that embraces this very concept.
In 1941 the red army employed scorched earth tactics very effectively. The germans were sucked deeper and deeper into the Soviet Union, and occupied a desert. Part of the german plan was the idea that the Wehrmacht should sustain themselves by living off the land. That didn't work out too well. Of course, the ramshackle logistics system of the german army couldn't hope to supply an army of millions.
Soviets were masters of scorched earth tactics
Who's writing for warographics? Because it's damn good!
6:12 And, it makes it easier for you to attack the supply lines of your enemy, Brain Boy.
I recall being at CFB Gagetown and hearing stories of how much work it took to decontaminate areas of the training grounds where Agent Orange had been used in tests and training. There were apparently a few instances where barrels of the stuff had just been buried in huge holes in the 70s or something. Nasty stuff, highly carcinogenic if I recall.
Can we ever escape that horrible old broadcast editing? It’s absolutely terrible.
If you can find a historically more effective way to ruin an invaders advance, then sure it should be illegal, but when an army requires to eat and drink it's the easiest way to defend the majority of your land.
The idea of making tactics illegal is ridiculous. If you're the defender then you'll do whatever it takes.
or a attacker to win by any means necessary, scorched earth works both ways. It's ridiculous to ban tactics and even worse to prolong the war and add to casualties by preventing the end of a war.
The entire point of these rules is an attempt to preserve the land and protect civilians living on it. Eastern Ukraine has been rendered useless by the Russian Military. It will take a long time for that land to be productive again. Tactics like those used by the Russian military is a crime against humanity.
This is exactly my thought it’s like telling someone that is getting into a fight after they’ve been kicked in the nuts that THEY can’t punch the opponent’s face or below the belt after the person that kicked them already got a cheap shot
Just to play a bit of devil's advocate here, I fully agree with your stance. Once a defender has opted for denial of "static" resources what prevents the attacker from further engaging in those strategies preemptively?
Simon - Fan since 2017.
IMHO: No “propaganda” here: current world events make this a timeless topic, particularly salient today.
The question posed here is non-partisan: “Is it EVER moral to ‘win at all costs’, whatever the apocalyptic implications may be?” Your video obliquely asserts that the answer - at least whenever an actual, specific case arises - most always lies in the eye of the perpetrator.
Is this answer valid from a realist/pragmatic perspective? Yes. However, it immediately begs a further question - one which demands an answer insofar as said answer would necessarily eclipse the first one. This is because while the given answer may be pragmatic, it fails as an informatively guiding answer going forward.
The catch lies in how you have taken up a topic that hinges upon an impossible (i.e., an undebatable / inarguable) question. As Cormac McCarthy wrote concerning the nature and limits of rational debate: “Some things just ain’t reasonable… [i.e., subject to reason].” This principle strictly delimits any rational and definitive survey of “scorched earth” tactics.
Be it in the courtroom or the court of public opinion, one who goes about tackling a topic by “arguing the inarguable”does so in vain. Such an effort is akin to tilting at windmills - to engaging in an inherently pointless and eternally unavailing metaphysical task, since the task opposes all laws of nature and logic.
Some things - such as absolute truth and the supernatural - are beyond reasonable debate. They instead turn upon intangible intuition, irrational faith, and tautological foundations - all of which operate on a plane distinct from the the relative certainty found within the realm of “established facts” (i.e., things systematically proven “true” over time, and built upon the weight of of defined factors that point in a particular direction when tested uniformly using standardized measurements and steadfast methods). To joust for or against a concept from the ethereal plane (supernatural giants) while within a realm of established parameters like that of a knightly tournament (where said “giants” are not supernatural beings but huge, reinforced towers that harness the wind) is a thankless and often self-defeating endeavor.
Likewise, “scorched earth” tactics are immune to definitive analysis because any such assessment can only, by nature, proceed in tandem with a set and consistent conceptual framework. This means a framework free of subjective, value-laden, non-empirical, and/or unprovable components and considerations. Inarguable issues such as “scorched earth” tactics, much like the existence of the supernatural, are quintessentially beyond the pail of an analytical framework so rigid and defined.
Putting these points aside, this episode possesses a key saving grace that is beyond reproach. Yes, the treatment given the topic likely skirted questions beyond those within our limited power to answer fully; all the same, you were wholly right to draw attention to the dark history, detailed workings, and macabre consequences of that grim aspect of the human condition known as “scorched earth” warfare. Humanity (and all life on this planet) can only be the better for hearing your voice in the wilderness of this world - a wilderness where indifference and resignation so often predominate.
Well done, sir.
The pictures from the war on Gaza in this video are so heartbreaking
😢 William the conqueror did this in Northumbria.
Generations would pass before the land could be once more settled.
This became known as the harrowing of the North, apparently as an old man he wept over his actions.
The clearances after Culludon achieved a similar end even if the land wasn't destroyed outright.
The Geneva convention is a joke really.
Wage war but do it nicely.
Those that fight fair do not write the histories, because their dead.
Long Live Absolute World Peace
Any national on Earth would participate In scorched earth tactics if their actual existence was in Danger. Certainly not defending the actions of current nations that are at war. But there will never be an end to this type of warfare
During the second Anglo Boer war, the British used scorched earth on the Boers. Farms and livestock were burnt.
It's how the British won.
Locusts! The ultimate scorched earth warriors!
My mother’s sides great grandparents were rich merchant in China back before the war with Japan. Chiang Kai-shek ordered the scorched earth against the Japanese army and every goods on ships were burnt down which made my family lost everything.
Did a project on kitcheners scorched earth policy during boer war
The concept of scorched-earth defense is sometimes applied figuratively to the business world in which a firm facing a takeover attempts to make itself less valuable by selling off its assets.
Just saw a riverfront package that provides a SOMME [for] 500 as long as river monitors aren’t directly involved (even if only in sight/hearing).
What’s happened to your Audio Simon?
When listing off all the aspects of scorched earth, I can’t help but see how the IDF is doing this stuff to the people of Gaza as we speak..
Which I am very disappointed in Simon for leaving Gaza and Palestine out.
They also created Gaza, evacuated from it in return for peace, and built it, while 22 Arab countries, 50 Muslim countries loved to let it rot as useful human shield.
Thank you Simon. From the river to the sea. Don't make them flee. Don't make them bleed. Let them live free.
Episode idea, Gunboat Diplomacy!
Russia did a version of it when Napoleon invaded. Basically as Russian forces retreated, they burned down their fields and crops along with anything that might be useful to the French army, making it so Napoleon is gaining ground, but he cannot resupply himself. It isn’t long before the French are basically trapped behind enemy lines, facing down a Russian winter, and good and thoroughly separated from their supply lines.
FYI to any aspiring invaders: Russia is the type of place that considers any cold not severe enough to summon legions of white walkers to be shorts weather.
Very informative and well done video, for some reason waited to Israel being mentioned towards the end as they seem to be applying the same tactics
There’s not a whole lot in Gaza that could sustain the population. The desalination plants have stopped operating because Hamas refuses to share fuel with them, not because Israel attacked them. There wasn’t much farmland before the war and Hamas literally burned down the greenhouses that were left when Israel pulled out in 2005 and even dug up the pipes used to irrigate fields in order to make more rockets. Hamas functionally rendered Gaza reliant on aid well before the Israeli response to the Hamas initiated war.
Hamas initiated war?👀
@@adamredwine774 they made gaza reliant on aid, then siphon most of the aid for themselves and their fighters. Its really disgusting that its controversial to condemn hamas, regardless of your feelings on Palestine and Gaza.
@@carminegalante4925 yup. It’s only controversial to condemn Hamas due to staggering ignorance in the West and a knee jerk reaction to back the weaker party in a conflict no matter what.
Wow dude? WTF are you on about?@@adamredwine774
There is a correlation between Russian use of the scorched earth defense & more brutal winters dating back to it's first employment in Russia against Sweden. I speculate it's due to the increased particulates in the atmosphere creating a mini 'nuclear winter' effect.
SAM from HSR brought me here
There is a house in Gettysburg Pennsylvania that hosted a front line urban warfare makeshift field hospital. When they modernized the home in the 90s, they found the wooden beams of the house were soaked with blood.
Stop with the T.V. cuts please.
The first time I ever heard this term was in reference to Sadam Hussein burning the oil wells in Kuwait; I was in middle school at the time and our history teacher insisted on covering "current events" (which in her case meant requiring us to watch the 6 pm news at least three times every week, quizzing us on it the next day). I didn't understand then why it was a useful tactic, and even though I can see where the "logic" arises - as you said, "if we can't have it, no one else can" - it still seems idiotic to me, childish even. Like a toddler destroying his favorite toy because some other kid wants to take it. Of course it's much, much worse than mere selfish destructive nonsense.
This is also the first time I've understood why my mother refused to ever explain to me what the hell Agent Orange was. I still don't know what event happened to make her so upset, but I'd ask her about it and she would fall silent, and look almost ashen. Like she was going to throw up. Even after looking it up I was confused (as a kid, I should mention), because I didn't understand how a thing that kills plants could be horrible.
The things happening right now that you mention - and the conflict you didn't mention - it all makes me feel sick at heart. Even with such tactics being scorned, no one seems able to step in and really make it STOP. I don't pretend that there's some magic care-bear solution to stop all violence (though sometimes I wish for it), but it feels like all the people scolding Russia or others for these horrors are only doing that - scolding, shaking their fingers in public, while nodding in the board rooms and private spaces, even applauding it.
And I think that's why we won't see this kind of nastiness fade away anytime soon. Because there are too many people with the kind of power to make such tactical decisions who DO see it as viable. Reprehensible, sure, but viable nonetheless, and an option that they keep in that "strategist's toolbox" even if they decry it out loud.
I should mention that you forgot to mention the Imperial Japanese in China and Manchuria, as well as China on itself after World War Two both employed scorched earth policies
quit using that stupid voice modifier my ears are still bleeding from last time
So it’s like when you bring a bag of hot Cheetos to the lunch table, and everyone sticks their hands out, then u sneeze in the bag
I’m rooting for Skynet.
16:12 "near exclusively".. haha not very subtle but very accurate..
it will continue to dwindle but it's still an effective tactic against an enemy that can't bring everything they need so it's unlikely to disappear any time soon.
It’s a sign of desperation.
"War. . .what is it good for?! Absolutely nothing"!
Arkists will stop this once and for all!
Scorched earth will never be a thing of the past.
Uncle Billy: Don't make come back down there.
Vlad The Impaler, Scipio Aemilianus, Lucius Licinius Lucullus, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, and Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, we're geniuses at this type of Warfare! 🛡️🗡️
Modern American terms this is called a level 3 clearance operation. There only 3 levels to a clearance, level 1 is akin to delta or surgical operations, level 2 is the way the iraq and Afghanistan wars started off and they developed in more like 1.5, and level 3 is like the fire bombings of the Japanese or air raids on berlin or scorched earth
Scorched earth strategies existed before Rome and were influential during the young city-state's formative tears.
I guess there's no need to say who are the experts in doing all the in things prohibited by the Geneva conventions against innocent civilians, women, children, etc.
Anybody else seeing similarities between scorxhed earth tactics and Israeli occupation practices?
There is only 2 types of war. Scorched Earth, and Attrition; everything else is a version of those 2.
Atomic weapons are the ultimate scorch earth strategy
12:54 Bring the good old bugle, boys, and sing another song! Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along! Sing it as we used to, sing it fifty thousand strong! While we were marching through Georgia!
4:09 It's like we always say, Brain Boy...
It's there because somebody already did it.
Wtf was that cut with the television sets? What was the reason for that? Am I nuts or was that totally superfluous?
Contrary to popular belief wars are usually won because of = _"logistics."_ It is a lack of resupply which more than anything else can render units unfit for combat. This is why coincidentally why modern armies like say the US have developed a massive logistical supply operation to sustain themselves. It is also why coincidentally the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine petered out = they ran out of supplies and replacement equipment forcing them to seek it from other countries.
War does change, for the worse
imo the topic of mines is completely missing in this video.
You mention poisened wells at least 5 times and the only time you mentioned mines was when Russia did xy to prevent mines from being placed.
Mines are a huge problem
Cause mines are not primarily used for scorched earth. They may end up unintentionally after the war but their tactical use is area denial/slow down attackers
@@shaunsmusicreviews Scorched earth is to deny enemy resources, food water etc without which a army and a population cannot survive, without which they become desperate and the enemy is forced to surrender. Like what the Romans did they would lay siege burn fields throw bodies in water supply.
@@shaunsmusicreviews that's bs. From a soldiers perspective maybe. But then blowing up a bridge or burning fields is the same.
Mines are so important (/detrimental to mankind and thus widely seen as a war crime) that their ambiguity of classification simply can't excuse their absence in this video.
@@shaunsmusicreviewsThat's not true. It's not absurd to use Mines in conjunction with a retreat to deny the enemy access to the positions you just abandoned as well as slow down their pursuit of your retreating forces. They were deemed essential to the NATO War Plans in the Fulda Gap, where West German Troops were to be poised to make a fighting retreat in order to delay Soviet Forces. Minelaying vehicles were stationed with the Engineer companies there, who would also be responsible for detonating bridges and roads and erecting barricades.
Animals also know what water to drink. I seen deer intentionally avoid still water if they can help it.
They definetely know what water source is safe to drink or tolerable.
I dont know much about african animals but animals in Mongolian Gobi desert also avoid some clear looking water but will frequently drink from apparently muddy pond.
Imagine thinking that things like the Geneva convention matter and that there's rules for how to conduct yourself during war. Hope Santa brought you kids some sweet gifts this year.
"...give no quarter's..."
Whose gonna surrender? Or buy our products? Or mine those minerals??