| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - December 05 2004 : 5:07:12 PM
Just to move it to a thread where it stands alone. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - July 05 2005 : 12:57:45 AM
Paulie, I am skipping your last ill-advised post and concentrating on the prior one from you:
quote:
I really hate to say this! But it appears you are headed in the direction of actually doing some analysis! Try to rise above your adolescent tendencies and attempt to apply it to a section of the LBH battle, say the point Reno stopped his charge and formed a skermish line to the time his first sargent said their vollys had emptied many indian saddles before they fell back to the treeline. Or pick another time sequance you like. Give it a shot! You might surprise me and yourself too!!!
Honestly, all of our utterly disliking the very air that the other breaths aside, I conceptually agree with you regarding the alleged casualty figures as presented by the Indians. However there are certain impediments, beyond your presentation, that keep me from believing that the Indian dead and wounded amounted to much more than a hundred.
1st-to please you-the troopers' weapons. Mostly accurate at ranges beyond what the troops of the 7th would have experienced that day. Not fast to reload, not slow to reload unless you have enemy combatants within twenty to twenty-five yards.
2nd-Terrain-Broken, hilly, cut by ravines, coulees and covered by high grass....not a sharpshooter's paradise.
3rd-Again the troopers' weapons-If there were technical difficulties with the cartridges or the reloading mechanism of the Army Colt, they would have slowed down the rate of fire by the troops. As it is, the weapons were not repeating arms-whose need I whole-heartedly agree with you on.
4th-Training/Target-Practice-Many, at least half of the troops from what I remember, had been in the service for at least a full year. However, with the constraints placed upon the Army by Congressional budgetary cut-backs, target practice in the best of conditions, i.e., with a motivated commanding officer; was cut-back. Custer who likely would have done something to improve the shooting (and incidentally might discover the wide-spread ammunition malfunctions) was stuck in Washington and Chicago during that winter. Of course, the previous begs the question, if the ammunition had been so faulty, why was it not descovered during target-practice 1873-1875?
5th-To me, this is one of the most critical elements that is rarely addressed. LACK OF LEADERSHIP...please take a look at the Regimental Officer's Return image I have at this URL (take the URL, then select 7th Cav. and then the May Officer's Returns):
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/#custer
You will notice that they were moving temporary officers back and forth, no continuity; somewhat like a substitute teacher.
6th-Tactics...Well, all of the armchair warriors say GAC screwed up by dividing his troops too many times. I go with the Staff Ride by one of either the Army War College or Command & General Staff College were the participants, trained Army officers, given the same information that GAC was given as far as enemy's location, strength and probable movements; did practically the same thing that GAC did.
OK enough now, or I will have to start thinking, and after the fireworks extravaganza we went to with the smell of burnt powder in my nose, who knows what I would come up with.
Billy |
| Benteen |
Posted - July 04 2005 : 10:58:31 AM
Or like deep ravine, where the troopers were reported to fire their weapons into the air. :)
|
| BJMarkland |
Posted - July 03 2005 : 08:37:24 AM
Yep, "Warlord", "Brass" is my psuedo-name on the History Channel. So what? And if you look, I am sure you can find my true name in the Indian Wars forum also.
Paul, despite all the "huffing and puffing", you really are an idiot. An example is your insistence of stating your opinon as fact that the Springfield and its extraction problems caused GAC's demise: "After 4 or 5 shots fired cases broke off in the chamber of the rifle. Extraction was very doubtful." You have been beating that drum and the casualty figures greater than 30 known Indian dead since you joined this board on 9/30/2004.
Help me here try to understand your quantum physics.
Spoof Alert!
Custer had about 210 men in his battalion. According to my handy-dandy calculator, that equates to 840-1050 potential rounds before every man's carbine froze up tighter than the mass between your ears. Giving you the benefit of a doubt (I always did like science fiction, especially alternative history) that every one of GAC's men were the equivalent of Alvin York in rifle shooting skills, we will take your extrapolation of hard cold facts that 3,000 Indians were killed (actually you said 2,140 solid hits but what are facts when dealing with your extrapolations?) and subtract the rounds fired, assuming a 100% hit rate. That leaves us 1,950-2,160 Indians for whom we have to figure out how they died. Ahhh, the notoriously slow reloading Army Colt. Well, since you have said every man loaded his sixth chamber, we should then multiply 6 by 210 which gives us 1,260, again, since the troops were the equivalents to Wild Bill Hickock and could not possibly hit less than 100% of their targets.
Paulie, we are getting there. So now we have 690-900 Indians for whom we don't have a way to kill. Remember, in your world, the Springfield could not be fired after 4-5 shots while the Colt was notoriously slow in reloading. Whoa! I think I have it. You did mention that many of the troops carried second pistols. Let's just say that half did. OK, we have 105 troops with second revolvers using 6 rounds. Again, these guys are regular "Dead-Eye Dicks" and hit 100% so we now only have 60-270 dead Indians unaccounted for.
Hmmmm....60-270...got it. Let us suppose for general purposes that you were wrong, inconceivable as that is, and each of the troopers got off one additional round from their Springfield with corresponding "kill" before having to resort to revolver. That accounts for 210. The remainder we can attribute to the modern firearms all the officers carried as well as their second pistols.
So, in actuality, you possibly understated the number of Indian dead on Custer's field by 150. And that doesn't even take into account those troops over on Reno Hill who had to have taken out at least 800-1000 before their Springfields became hopelessly out of commission. Since they were likely not as qualified as the men in Custer's battalion (the General would have taken only the cream of his troops with him) nor in as target-rich an environment as GAC's men, we will go for the low side to be safe.
So, following your logic and information, the Indians must have lost 3,800-3,950 on the banks of the Little Big Horn that day.
Wow, you are a swell researcher.
Billy |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - July 02 2005 : 12:49:58 AM
Let us talk about this a bit. Of course, opinion expressed as "fact" is common practice for you. But in an effort to educate any neophytes who may browse through this board, let us talk about your conception of the "facts".
quote:
The defective issued ammunition issue has been well substantiated and is not arguable. It is believed it contributed greatly to Custer's defeat and Crook's rebuff at the Rosebud.
Show your source besides Phil, who is, in your opinion, simply an enthusiast. Personally I have read Bourke's original diary entries dealing with the Rosebud and there is no mention of faulty ammunition with the Springfield. Your accusation that an unnamed rancher said that Vaughn and some associates discovered more defective cartridges than reported and your inference that Vaughn suppressed that evidence is par for the course-assertions without backing.
quote:
Once one has studied the 1873 Springfield and it's defective .45-55 ammunition, one begins to notice the great differences between this defective issued ammunition and it's real contemporaries the Spencer, Henry and Winchester all of which worked excellently most of the time.
Perhaps you need to do more "study" to understand the meaning of the word "contemporary."
The Spencer was invented and rolled to market in the early 1860's as was the Henry-from which the Winchester was a direct descendent. Since the Springfield rifle and carbine, .45-70 and .45-55 calibers respectively, was not approved for military use until 1872 or thereabouts, they are not contemporaries.
quote:
The Hayfield fight where one civilian with a Henry rifle is reported to have killed 300 indians by himself! The military reported AT LEAST 19 indians killed!
The Wagon Box Fight. The military said that NOT LESS THAN 60 indians had been killed and 120 wounded! Most civilian observers stated 700 to 800 killed. One chief reported later that 1137 were killed in this fight. I have no reason to disbelieve him!
Well, as I said on another thread, Capt. Powell, who commanded the troops, made the estimate of Indian casualties at the WBF. While it does not fit into your dream world, remember that he was there and not yourself! I don't think there was a report on the Hayfield fight as the commanding officer was killed early in the battle and the senior sergeant, if memory correctly serves me, wounded early also.
I think the 13 scalps you harp on at Rosebud were of Indians whose bodies fell too close to the lines of the U.S. troops to be recovered or scalps taken by our Indian allies, who did likely save Crook's bacon. I am, unlike yourself, willing to be corrected if I make a mistake.
quote:
The LBH of course has it's famous 30 some indians killed! Some sources even have their names! For the amount of ammunition expended and the close proximity most of it was fired at, a closer figure would be 1-2,000 dead! Maybe, even more!
Paulie, the only advantage the Springfield had over bows and arrows and other weapons was it's longer range. Once the Indians got within that envelope, the soldiers using the Springfield carbine were toast. You have been harping ad nauseum regarding the slow reloading speed of the Colt Army issue revolver. Do you honestly suppose any trooper got off more than the five or six rounds it was initially loaded with before an Indian had either moved into hand-to-hand distance or had filled the poor S.O.B. with arrows? I doubt it, you are merely screaming the loudest hoping to be taken seriously.
quote:
These fights alone probably account for around 5,000 dead!
That, without a doubt, has to be the most ludicrous statement ever uttered about the LBH or the entire war with the Sioux, 1865-1890. Without any supporting evidence, you construct a straw house of thousands of Indian dead. Simply freaking amazing!
quote:
If a hard look is taken at these casualties in pitched battles, then examine the settlers, miners, ranchers and law enforcement agencies are operating on a shoot on sight, and shoot to kill policy the real casualties start to appear. It is highly likely the civilians and law enforcement are exterminating more indians then the army is in this period! What actually is happening is an extermination policy on any indian caught outside a reservation!
The real figures if they were available would likely be shocking even today!!! Thousands upon thousands were likely killed!
Well, since the Northern Plains were not well settled until after the Sioux were finally defeated, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are speaking of the Southwest or central Plains. And yes, some of the whites shot at anything which resembled an Indian. In the Southwest specifically, that kept the pot on the boil. However, as the Army was the largest purchaser of supplies in the Southwest, most psuedo-historians (as well as contemporary Army officers) have come to the conclusion that Anglo economic interests played a greater part in stirring up those wars than racial hatred. I would suggest that the results of those "pot-shooting" escapades ended up killing more whites than Indians. But, who cared as the business interests made money by keeping the Army posts active.
As usual, you have been as fun to kick around as a possum.
*smooch*
Billy
|
| Brother Tom |
Posted - June 07 2005 : 08:31:02 AM
Is it your belief that Custer's battalion would have survived if they had been supplied with a different rifle and/or ammunition? |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 15 2005 : 10:33:09 AM
I'm starting a new thread and leaving the poor shell casings alone. |
| wILD I |
Posted - May 15 2005 : 05:45:53 AM
BJ
Always glad of a quick aside.
My exchanges with DC are to a great extent based on individual morality.In my first post on this issue I stated that you cannot argue international politics from this stance.Betrayal,honour,loyalty are just so much meaningless sentiment.You can't run a country on emotion.
When the big three sat down at Yalta they were playing the roles of three chief executives of three corporate bodies presiding over the dissolution of Germany incorporated and dividing the spoils.Each acted in it's own interests.They gave as much thought to the Poles as MCI gives to the thousands it makes unemployed.As in business so in politics there is no sentiment.
So your question regarding Ireland's role is based on morality.We acted as all countries did,in our own interests.
So why do I castigate the Allies ?Because they use morality and spin and fluffing and patting to paint themselves as liberators and to con yet another generation of poor buggers. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - May 14 2005 : 10:24:23 PM
Wild, just a quick aside.
While you are castigating the US and Britain for creating the post-war horror that many Eastern Europeans endured during the "Cold War", may I ask what part Ireland played?
Remember the old saying? "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."
Billy |
| wILD I |
Posted - May 14 2005 : 7:38:36 PM
. I stand corrected. In my life, I've never seen that spelling. Apologies.
Most gracious of you.There is a Sister Columba long since departed this life doing cartwheels out there somewhere.
Something of a gargantuan post there DC,touching on distant horizons both in time and space.However I'm sure you will understand if I just reply to the more substantive issue
"Their rule here was an embarrassment." To who?
You cannot attend peace conferences and proclaim peace and justice and at the same time indulge in a war of terror on a people who by a vast majority had sought freedom and independence.
The Irish, who coudn't defeat them and stabbed each other repeatedly in the back.
We did not have to defeat them.We just made the country ungovernable.We had elected a government,set up various departments including our own courts and justice system.Militarily we wiped out their secret service,shot their police in the back and destroyed their administrative center.
The IRA threatened the bloodbath, and the Orangemen in turn. Ireland was an expense that returned nothing but trouble after awhile.
You may be a little mixed up here.It was Churchill who threatened what you described as immolation if a treaty was not accepted.It was the British army who threatened to mutiny if the North was included in any settlement.
You state that Britian just wanted to be rid of us.Well Britian is a composite containing various groups and interests.The military for example did not want to be rid of us.We commanded the Western approaches and our ports were of strategic significance to the navy.
The aristocracy who owned us lock stock and barrel did not want to be rid of us.The planted loyalists did not want to break with the motherland and face life under a papist government and we were a source of cheap food and manpower for the empire.
Besides all that the World saw Ireland as part of the UK.If Ireland achieved independance was it the break up of the UK?And as your exchanges with Hunkpapa would indicate perhaps it was the beginning of the end of the UK.
Promise to who?
To yourselves as an nation.The leader of the free world.Could never face up to the betrayal at Yalta.Thus the fluffing and patting.
. "Murdered ,slaughter,worked and to death.Is there a certain number required before it becomes recognised as a war crime?" Actually, I think there is, but I'm agreeing with you. But regarding this, so what?
It was an indication of the capitulation mindset of Roosevelt and Churchill.Hundreds of thousands could have been saved from Stalin's death camps but not even this did our heros deny him.
"Japan had no Navy,no airforce and a million miles of coast line." Yeah? So the point being......
Me granny could have taken it before her breakfast.
This invasion of Japan is another great myth.Japan was dead in the water.There was never any need to have nuked it.
Heavens, yes.
Heavens, yes.
Then, "it" was already there. In Tsarist lands for which it had a reasonable claim.
The Tsar was an emperior who was butchered by Stalin's mates, so the lands conquered by the Tsars pass to....no I haven't time for this.
I'm just saying, it worked out for the best
Well for 50 years and two gererations it worked out for the worst.
You wish it was meaningless, because it highlights what a bad job Ireland is. You are correct in that those nations are in the toilet, but that's Ireland without England's conquest.
I can only ask you to back that up with some facts or a few examples or something because it is just too stupid to reply to in its present form.
Not so much conquest as Scotland's failure and inability
to adapt.
To suggest that the Sasanachs are better men than the Scots.Have you no spirit man?
|
| prolar |
Posted - May 14 2005 : 3:32:14 PM
DC: Well at least you admit mistakes,sometimes. Something we should all work at. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 14 2005 : 10:48:23 AM
Napoleon sold us the Louisianna Purchase that gave us the Mississippi basin. He so exhausted the British forces that even when they could burn our capital and whip us every which way with few of their lesser troops in the War of 1812, we still could claim victory. Without Napoleon, Britain would have reclaimed the United States easily. Um...... !!!!!!!!!!! So THERE!
Fall for that? No? Well, you're right. I meant to say just France. Without France, there was no way in hell the US would have won the Revolution or kept its independence later from the British. We're stingy about admitting that. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 14 2005 : 10:42:56 AM
"Dc wrong again,We do have our own currency,we have our own paper money which the English dont like." No, you don't. Your currency is Pound Sterling, British and you're tied to it. And while you're allowed to have the three, I think, national Scottish banks print up notes it's with Royal permission. And you're forbidden to mint coin, aren't you.
"If we have no military,god help the English!!! Tell that to the Scottish forces in Iraq." You have no military; those are Scottish soldiers in the British military as they have for years.
"Never mind Canada,they were involved in every movement in the US." So what? So was everyone else, like British descendents.
"Didn't the confederate flag include the saltire." Which flag of Grand Treason do you refer to? "What about the ships from Glasgow that supplied the Confederency during the CW that had to run the gauntlet of the Union fire to get to port." What about them?
As far as the Scottish parliament goes, it deals with Scotland only at present,maybe just maybe in the future that might change." And might not. When the North Sea oil runs out, Scotland will be panting at the British door again. You know: maybe, just maybe.
"Nothing changed then ! out of the frying pan into the fire" Who said anything changed? Although it did for the Scots. They joined the British Empire Team and ran the show in the military and in the government for years out of all proportion to their population. The British Empire was won by and ruled with Heroic Celtic Mercenary Types from Scotland and the Irish North. Huh. |
| prolar |
Posted - May 14 2005 : 12:13:03 AM
Granted that I have missed much of this fasinating conversation, but DC what part did Napoleon play in making us a nation? |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - May 13 2005 : 8:04:04 PM
Dc wrong again,We do have our own currency,we have our own paper money which the English dont like.
If we have no military,god help the English !!!
Tell that to the Scottish forces in Iraq
As for Sean Connery,the Hollywood so called Scot,he is made up of the stuff you eat in Haggas.
Never mind Canada,they were involved in every movement in the US.
Didn't the confederate flag include the saltire.
What about the ships from Glasgow that supplied the Confederency during the CW that had to run the gauntlet of the Union fire to get to port.
As far as the Scottish parliament goes,it deals with Scotland only at present,maybe just maybe in the future that might change.
_____________________________________________________________
They knew what it was like to have a huge, all powerful nation as a neighbor that either hated you or ignored you and didn't view you as important enough to keep its word. So, they had common ground with the Sioux.
_____________________________________________________________________
Nothing changed then ! out of the frying pan into the fire
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 13 2005 : 6:53:54 PM
1. I stand corrected. In my life, I've never seen that spelling. Apologies.
2. I don't, you do. You're quoting the "sun never sets on the....." routine as if that indicated such strength.
3. "Their rule here was an embarrassment." To who? The Irish, who coudn't defeat them and stabbed each other repeatedly in the back. The IRA threatened the bloodbath, and the Orangemen in turn. Ireland was an expense that returned nothing but trouble after awhile.
4. "If they wanted civil war or if they wished to change their status...." They had civil war. Enough IRA lads get zippered and blow up a department store, then enough Orange zipheads get drunk and at odds of 45 to 1 lynch a cousin of the wife of a suspected IRA neighbor. Romantic, elevating Ireland!
5. England just said screw it because it had wanted to leave for years. If there had been any huge support for keeping Ireland - or ability, having just won a World War for which it is still in debt - it wouldn't have let her go. What percentage of the forces available to England were in Ireland in the 20th century? Hardly any. If they'd brought their full military strength against you, that would have been it. It's claptrap to pretend otherwise. Same with us. No Napoleon, no US. But we pretend that those Heroic Deadeye Minutemen Who Somehow Only Hit Four Brits at Lexington won the war that somehow took seven years. Ah, yes, the heroic Irish American community: good and damned if they'll go back to Ireland under any conditions, they love it so much, but here's a dollar for the lads to blow up a bus.
6. "And the Vietnamese and the Cypriots and the Iraqis and the Minute Men." Correct. But, see, being a failure as a nation doesn't elevate you ethically. You're just slease like us, only you lost a lot.
7. "It is a charter for cowardice." Garbage. Promise to who?
8. "Murdered ,slaughter,worked and to death.Is there a certain number required before it becomes recognised as a war crime?" Actually, I think there is, but I'm agreeing with you. But regarding this, so what?
9. "I recall large numbers of German children being sent to live with families here. Profits what profits? We were an isolated agrarian economy.We had neither a penny in our pockets or an arse in our trousers unlike the US whose economy went from depression into hyperdrive growing by more than 50%.It is interesting to note that the economy of the Soviets fell by 13%.All that was needed at Yalta was a little push." Do you now? What numbers and why only Germans? The profits the gunrunners and rumrunners made trading with both sides. That it didn't filter down to many of the people is hardly surprising, it never does, does it. And what coldly objective source did you get the Soviet figures from? The US did very well; it always does, having a huge labor force, natural resources, industrial base, and the world's best educational systems. What's the point?
10. "Japan had no Navy,no airforce and a million miles of coast line." Yeah? So the point being......
11. Heavens, yes.
12. Then, "it" was already there. In Tsarist lands for which it had a reasonable claim.
13. "The US was blockading Japan and was engaged in an undeclared war with Germany." No it wasn't. There was no blockade of Japan before the war whatsover and no ability to do so. It assisted England a great deal and a case can be made it wasn't neutral against Germany, but then Germany kept torpedoing our ships.....
14. "It was the government recognised by the British and US. What mandate had De Gaulle?" It WAS the government so recognized. Then, when it fled, it was just a puppet regime with no land. "Why should the form of government have any influence on the issue. I mean Hitler had more legitimacy than DeGaulle." That's true. But then Hitler was dead and DeGaulle had France and was willing to stand for election and the Poles in London had squat and there was a new government in Warsaw. So they recognized the government on the ground. What else could they do?
15. "Conviently passing over Cuba?" Huh? I'm just saying, it worked out for the best. An extended war would have had incredibly awful consequences. In the long run, it's hard to see it working out better than it did in the real world.
16. "Unlike the US we are an nation.Conquered many times but still here and going strong." The Babylonians are still here, as well. Romantic twaddle. And the US is most certainly a nation, Wild.
17. "Empires were created because the more powerful counties reckoned it was far more profitable than tradeing.Why trade when you can conquer a country and strip it of it human and natural resources?The British Empire was founded on drugs and slaves. A country is now,it does not exist tomorrow.The arrival of the British was a disaster for nations,races,countries at particular moment in time.You can't use hindsight to suggest that the British Empire was some sort of benign Mother Theresa outfit." And I did not. Although Teresa only encouraged death and conversion and not health and improvement, so perhaps you should have stayed with that image. When she got sick, she went to the world's best hospitals. None of that damp cloth crap for her. And no, given the likely alternatives, England's arrival and rule was pretty good for everyone in the long run. Would the Zulu rather live under England or the Xosa, or vice versa?
18. You wish it was meaningless, because it highlights what a bad job Ireland is. You are correct in that those nations are in the toilet, but that's Ireland without England's conquest.
"Yes 1745 in Scotland no need to mention the justice handed out to our fellow Celts.Lets stay with Ireland and the supression of the 1798 rebellion.About 100000 peasant farmers shown great mercy and quickly dispatched." Yes, we can all find examples of horror as I've said, even without your believing mind and huge round figures. Overall, Scotland - or the Highlands, anyway - was as Somalia till England enforced government on it, something the Scottish monarchies generally could not do.
"Well then it seems that their conquest of the Scots was absolute." Not so much conquest as Scotland's failure and inability to adapt.
Hunkpapa:
Not even Sean Connery gets that hallucinatory. I'm aware of Scotland and its government. Scotland has no military and no currency, it's Parliament conducts pretend foreign affairs in the nature of Denver's trade connections to Japan. The Scots, generally Highlanders and on the run from law or debt, were always on the cutting edge of the frontier, and it is their presence with the western Canadian Indians that kept them quiet. They knew what it was like to have a huge, all powerful nation as a neighbor that either hated you or ignored you and didn't view you as important enough to keep its word. So, they had common ground with the Sioux. |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - May 13 2005 : 5:18:45 PM
Dc the British government and people are ruled by Scots !!!
The Scots have there own parliament,the English dont !!!
The Scots vote in English affairs,the English cannot vote in Scottish affairs.!!!
The Scots have always been forerunners in the frontier of any Continent !!! |
| wILD I |
Posted - May 13 2005 : 3:41:59 PM
Yes, well learn to spell naiveté.
You should know by now that I can't spell.However in this particular case I suggest you check your dictionary.I expect an apology.
I’m the most cynical person here,
Which makes your stance on this issue all the more strange.The greatest fluffing and patting into shape in history and you buy it lock stock and barrel.
No, it wasn’t. Ireland was an embarrassment to Britain, which it wanted to jettison but could not because of the threatened bloodbaths.
Their rule here was an embarrassment.And who threatened the bloodbaths?The landed aristocracy and military elite with there vast estates and privilaged lifestyles who presided over a designer famine in which 2 million perished and 2 million fled most to the US.
If the British wanted, they could have immolated Ireland,
If they wanted civil war or if they wished to change their status from "champion of freedom for small nations "to a periah state.
Your puffy inflation of the Empire to demonstrate how terrific/heroic/militarily effective Ireland was
What a joke.The army of the republic had enough ammo for about another week's fighting when a truce was declared.But once again you show your naviety in thinking that it is military strenght that decides the issue.Ireland had an elected government supported by the vast majority of the people.There was huge support among Irish Americans for the cause .Embarrassment or militarism or a combination of both but it succeeded.
The Palestinians sure did, and aren’t the Irish and the Palestinians the Last Word on military competence and farsighted wisdom? Everybody looks to those two nations for leads.
And the Vietnamese and the Cypriots and the Iraqis and the Minute Men.
The lack of will may be a reason for the capitulation but it is not a justification.” Yes, it is. It’s called Realpolitic.
It is a charter for cowardice.It is the spinless pathetic philosophy of a loser.Everybody wanted to go home.But there was miles to go and promises to keep.................
You exaggerate numbers, per usual, but there is no denying that many were killed.
Murdered ,slaughter,worked and to death.Is there a certain number required before it becomes recognised as a war crime?
Ireland again failed to offer refugee help while counting its wartime profits.I recall large numbers of German children being sent to live with families here. Profits what profits? We were an isolated agrarian economy.We had neither a penny in our pockets or an arse in our trousers unlike the US whose economy went from depression into hyperdrive growing by more than 50%.It is interesting to note that the economy of the Soviets fell by 13%.All that was needed at Yalta was a little push.
6. How could Stalin get into Japan with no Navy? Airborne? Through the US Navy? They barely were able to take the few raw rocks they did, and that through us.
Japan had no Navy,no airforce and a million miles of coast line.
7. It’s justification for the war profiteering Irish, though, isn’t it?
No idea what you are talking about but profiteering from war?Heavens no ,what a thought?
What’s “it”,
USSR
Wild: the US fought the war because Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us.
The US was blockading Japan and was engaged in an undeclared war with Germany.
The treaty government of Poland you hype (unelected, and which came to power by military coup after decades of turmoil and assassinations) was gone,
It was the government recognised by the British and US.What mandate had De Gaulle?Why should the form of government have any influence on the issue.I mean Hitler had more legitimacy than DeGaulle.
fifty years later it worked out without further trauma of the gargantuan size your war/nuke wish would have guaranteed
Conviently passing over Cuba?
In your fantasy world of perpetual British perfidy (there was enough of that), and Irish innocence and bravery, you have to exaggerate anything that bears metaphor to Ireland. Nothing does, really. Ireland failed as a nation and got conquered by a superior one. Eh. Happens.
Unlike the US we are an nation.Conquered many times but still here and going strong.
Britain conquest has proven to have been about the best thing to happen to a country.
Empires were created because the more powerful counties reckoned it was far more profitable than tradeing.Why trade when you can conquer a country and strip it of it human and natural resources?The British Empire was founded on drugs and slaves.
A country is now,it does not exist tomorrow.The arrival of the British was a disaster for nations,races,countries at particular moment in time.You can't use hindsight to suggest that the British Empire was some sort of benign Mother Theresa outfit.
Which are the most successful nations on every continent,
Meaningless.Check out the Derelicts.I'll just give you a start Iraq,Afganistan,Palastine,Zimbabwe,
but in judicial systems and progressive politics? Those once British colonies. Them’s the facts, jack.
Those same systems were in existance when the Brits were running around naked with their faces and arses painted blue.
Try asking your fellow professional victims whether they’d get a fairer trial if their tribal enemies had won in their endless wars?
Yes 1745 in Scotland no need to mention the justice handed out to our fellow Celts.Lets stay with Ireland and the supression of the 1798 rebellion.About 100000 peasant farmers shown great mercy and quickly dispatched.
Even with all the horrors they did inflict – and no argument - in the cold light of history England looks pretty good. Far better, I might add, than Ireland. Or Scotland. I say this with no hesitation despite a last name of MacLeod.
Well then it seems that their conquest of the Scots was absolute.What a pity? |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 13 2005 : 12:01:03 PM
Wild,
By paragraph.
1. "Your musings on international politics display a naivety and innocence matched only by your sense of humour." Yes, well learn to spell naiveté. Actually, I’m the most cynical person here, not given to bursts of tears as, well, some are.
2. “But Ireland was to Britian what the Berlin Wall was to Europe.” No, it wasn’t. Ireland was an embarrassment to Britain, which it wanted to jettison but could not because of the threatened bloodbaths. How is that syllogistic to The Wall? If the British wanted, they could have immolated Ireland, but nobody wanted. Your puffy inflation of the Empire to demonstrate how terrific/heroic/militarily effective Ireland was (all facts to the contrary….) doesn’t wash. It’s like saying the US can’t get rid of the Indian problem. It could, by declaring war, conquering in an afternoon, and giving the losing parties what they’d normally receive in the Darwinian world. Having been raised by England common law and French Enlightenment, we don’t. Left to, say, Irish standards, we’d have bombed Red Cloud in his old age during a canoe trip. Extra points if toddler grandchildren also killed. No remote point, but to demonstrate our manly manhood, don’t you know? The Palestinians sure did, and aren’t the Irish and the Palestinians the Last Word on military competence and farsighted wisdom? Everybody looks to those two nations for leads.
3. “The military situation for tha allies was superb.The lack of will may be a reason for the capitulation but it is not a justification.” Yes, it is. It’s called Realpolitic. And it was not as superb as you imagine. We couldn’t fight the Soviets in anticipation of animosities to come. Everybody wanted to go home. Roosevelt was rather clear and accurate on both Churchill and Stalin, and all stood firm on their own interests. No, Stalin could not take anything he wanted. He kept what he already had, and in fact let us into Berlin. Since we couldn’t feed Europe as it was till the Marshall Plan (recall: England was on rationing deep into the 1950’s even so), it seemed convenient and realistic to send everyone home. You exaggerate numbers, per usual, but there is no denying that many were killed. Ireland again failed to offer refugee help while counting its wartime profits.
4. You were suggesting it because you said it. And I understood your point. It was a stupid point.
5. It must be my naiveté, because I and the world would flense the distinction between bombing the enemy who attacked you first and attacking an ally. And then when the Soviets continued into Europe to destroy our airbases, nobody would blame them and might perhaps join them.
6. How could Stalin get into Japan with no Navy? Airborne? Through the US Navy? They barely were able to take the few raw rocks they did, and that through us.
7. It’s justification for the war profiteering Irish, though, isn’t it?
8. Again, sampling bad fiction.
9. “It was in posession of territory of allied states.Or why was the war fought?” Yet again, Wild: the US fought the war because Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us. What’s “it”, by the way? The treaty government of Poland you hype (unelected, and which came to power by military coup after decades of turmoil and assassinations) was gone, and in any case the Soviets were already there and in possession of Czarist territory for which they could make ‘legal’ claim. Endless war to no purpose? Again: fifty years later it worked out without further trauma of the gargantuan size your war/nuke wish would have guaranteed.
In your fantasy world of perpetual British perfidy (there was enough of that), and Irish innocence and bravery, you have to exaggerate anything that bears metaphor to Ireland. Nothing does, really. Ireland failed as a nation and got conquered by a superior one. Eh. Happens.
10. Yes, there certainly was an empire. They just didn’t call it an Empire. The Soviets didn’t call theirs an Empire, but it was. And we have one as well.
11. “What a contorded smug superior view of history you have. Try asking the Hodenosaunee,the Australian Aboriginals,the Zulu, the Iraqis even the people of Crossmaglenn what they think of British occupation.” Not contorted at all. Taking the good - which was very good - with the bad - which was of a generic if brutal sort - Britain conquest has proven to have been about the best thing to happen to a country. Which are the most successful nations on every continent, not just in cash but in judicial systems and progressive politics? Those once British colonies. Them’s the facts, jack. Try asking your fellow professional victims whether they’d get a fairer trial if their tribal enemies had won in their endless wars? Oh, right. There were no remotely fair courts without England…..
Even with all the horrors they did inflict – and no argument - in the cold light of history England looks pretty good. Far better, I might add, than Ireland. Or Scotland. I say this with no hesitation despite a last name of MacLeod.
|
| wILD I |
Posted - May 12 2005 : 11:02:09 AM
DC
Your musings on international politics display a naivety and innocence matched only by your sense of humour.
Nobody cared outside of Ireland,
Care? Care is a commodity found in great quantities in the US.It is an outward expression of emotion by the Yanks for their 4x4s,kingsized burgers and apple pie.Care is not a factor in international politics.
But Ireland was to Britian what the Berlin Wall was to Europe.
The British Empire contained within its borders a landmass as great as the USSR.It streached from the Artic to the Antartic and was represented on every continent.The sun never set on it.
And yet they could not hold down their other island.As with the Berlin wall it was the begining of the end of a super power.
1. The USSR could be blockaded. So what? Not like much arrived by boat to a nation with no warm water ports, depending how you view or invade the Black Sea.
The military situation for tha allies was superb.The lack of will may be a reason for the capitulation but it is not a justification.
Roosevelt was dying.God only knows what medication he was on.He had no time for Churchill and rather liked Stalin.The only thing he stood firm on was the US's interests.If Joe had demanded Paris he would have got it.They even gave into his demands that the hundreds of thousands [maybe millions]of Cossacks,former prisoners and refugees who had fled West be returned to their certain death.
And this lust to nuke the Soviets is just stupid beyond ken. A nuclear attack to sever lines of communication? Are you insane?
Come back BJ all is forgiven.No DC [must I spoonfeed this man]I was not suggesting that the phone lines be cut by a nuke attack but rather understating the potential of the bomb to destroy troop concentrations such as an army group.
The reaction of the world would be?
About the same as after N and H.They would have "cared"a lot.
Further, Wild, the one clear reason the US nuked Japan is that the military wasn't thrilled about invading,
No, they nuked it so that Uncle Joe would not get his hands on it.
That's not the reality. America wanted it over, over, over. Big time. There is no surety America would fight its recent Ally if ordered.
Like I say that's a reason not a justification.
Oh, for God's sake.
"Frankly Skarlet I don't give a damn."
Why should Stalin concede anything? His Army was in possession of land they'd fought for. Getting rather tired of being invaded from the West, buffer states will do.
It was in posession of territory of allied states.Or why was the war fought?
7. No, William of Orange, the Boyne, etc.
There was no empire in 1690
Hard to say. History does show that colonization by England, in the cold light of History, generally proves a good deal in the long run. Proof in the pudding.
What a contorded smug superior view of history you have.
Try asking the Hodenosaunee,the Australian Aboriginals,the Zulu, the Iraqis even the people of Crossmaglenn what they think of British occupation.
|
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - May 11 2005 : 12:58:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
http://slate.msn.com/id/2118394/
......regarding Yalta et al.
Aww, hell, DC. We shoulda nuked 'em when we had the chance. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 11 2005 : 12:31:48 AM
http://slate.msn.com/id/2118394/
......regarding Yalta et al. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 10 2005 : 2:23:52 PM
Wild, by paragraph:
1. The USSR could be blockaded. So what? Not like much arrived by boat to a nation with no warm water ports, depending how you view or invade the Black Sea. And this lust to nuke the Soviets is just stupid beyond ken. A nuclear attack to sever lines of communication? Are you insane? Communication between what and who to what end? The reaction of the world would be? The blowback would be? You destroy Moscow. Um......then what? The people would rise and greet us as liberators? This is just moronic. We'd have provided the unifying action for the Soviets forever. Russia, white or red, was not forgiving about us invading at the end of WWI, either, and still is not. Most Americans don't even know we did.
Further, Wild, the one clear reason the US nuked Japan is that the military wasn't thrilled about invading, the citizen army wasn't thrilled about drawing out the war, you're victim to this false image of determined America good for another few years. That's not the reality. America wanted it over, over, over. Big time. There is no surety America would fight its recent Ally if ordered.
2. See above. It wasn't race that dropped the bombs, it was Home Before Christmas. It was a race war, but the decision was made at remove from those very real concerns.
3. Oh, for God's sake.
4. Someone did, and that was that. England couldn't afford underwriting the occupation of these entities to no further point. The US Navy protected shipping lanes these days.
5. They could build LIberty Ships in 24 hours. Now, they had to junk 90% of their fleet or sell it. There was no will whatsoever to fight another war, Wild. Anywhere. The Soviets were welcomed by significant segments - hardly majorities - of Eastern Europe. What is apparant now and two years later was not in 1945.
6. This from a guy advocating a nuke strike to knock out communications. What four aces? Their armies simply were not going to fight another war to take out the Soviets. Why should Stalin concede anything? His Army was in possession of land they'd fought for. Getting rather tired of being invaded from the West, buffer states will do.
7. No, William of Orange, the Boyne, etc.
8. Not even template category. Nobody cared outside of Ireland, and not even all of Ireland. That makes my point. You're trying to cast Ireland in this role as the first of the Oppressed Nations Fighting Tyranny, a shining object lesson, all-purpose, whether to native Americans or Vietnamese. It's not, Wild. It's just Ireland. It's an open question whether the average Irish farmer had a better deal under the Brits than under the perpetual war and thuggery that preceded the Brits, now draped in fictional gossamer. Hard to say. History does show that colonization by England, in the cold light of History, generally proves a good deal in the long run. Proof in the pudding.
|
| wILD I |
Posted - May 10 2005 : 1:26:02 PM
To be fair, what was the alternative
Dave
Well let's just look at the military situation in 1945.
The US,Britain and the commonwelth countries were beyond striking range of any arm of the USSR's forces.The USSR could be blockaded.It could be attacked from either East or West.The US was a nuclear power.A couple of hits just behind enemies lines might just sever the lines of communication.One bomber might not have much of a chance of getting through but if you send up 1000 decoys well then?
And USSR was not sure how many bombs the US had.Also many of USSR's own republics were not reliable not to mention the East European countries it had over run.And last but not least Stalin was a coward.
They also estimated that they would suffer between 250,000 - 1,000,000 casualties.
How long could a defenceless bombarded and blockaded Japan have lasted?No as DC says this was a race war.The boys had got themselves two big crackers and they were determined to use them.
even the role of the Australian pilots in the dam busting raids
"P for Popsey you can begin your run now"."Rodger leader.Here we go"."Good Luck"
Wild, you avoid the obvious issue.
Churchill had already kissed goodbye to Empire,
Someone should have told the Kenians,the Cypriots,The Arabs and the Indians.
The US and Britain were in no shape to take on the Soviets.
The US was never nor has it been since in better shape.They could build ocean going ships in 24 hours.
What was the point to declaring a war
A war was not necessary.At Yalta they threw in a hand of 4 aces.Just what did they get with the hand the held?Did Stalin concede one inch?
King Billy's Empire.
Maybe you mean John Bull's empire?
You keep trying to interpret these events in terms and ways that reflect upon how Ireland was treated in reality and convenient myth. It warps your perceptions to continually try to show Britain as compatable with this Irish Republican image of King Billy's Empire. There's certainly truth to it, but Ireland just wasn't the big deal to London or the world stage Ireland always pretends it was to its citizens. It was till very recently just a hemmorhoid to Parliament.
All a bit deep DC but suffice to say that that hemmorhoid became the template for other hemmorhoids like the one Uncle Sam picked up in Vietnam. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 09 2005 : 3:02:24 PM
Barbara Tuchman on England:
No nation has ever produced a military history of such verbal nobility as the British. Retreat or advance, win or lose, blunder or bravery, murderous folly or unyielding resolution, all emerge alike clothed in dignity and touched with glory.... Everyone is splendid: soldiers are staunch, commanders cool, the fighting magnificent. Whatever the fiasco, aplomb is unbroken. Mistakes, failures, stupidities, or other causes of disaster mysteriously vanish. Disasters are recorded with care and pride and become transmuted into things of beauty.... Other nations attempt but never quite achieve the same self-esteem.
We gave it a go at LBH.
She goes on to point out that exactly why Singapore fell is never exactly addressed in British histories to her time. This is from "Stilwell and the American Experience in China." |
| dave |
Posted - May 09 2005 : 11:23:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
In this regard, you'll note this forum's conceit on the "forging of the American character" is rather strained. The US has a dangerous myth when its citizens believe that it was heroic battlefield actions of daring individuals (and, of course, our natty firearms) and not its gargantuan industrial might that mostly won its wars.
The US isn't any loner in this particular conceit. In Australia we have the myth of how the Australian character was forged by the heroic bronzed ANZAC's on the machine gun raked shores of Gallipoli. And how if it wasn't for the incompetence of the British officers, the victorious Australian forces would have quickly driven the Turks from the peninsula.
Australian memories of WWII are similarly selective, we remember the heroic resistance of the militia units on the Kokoda trail or the stubborn defence of Tobruk or even the role of the Australian pilots in the dam busting raids on the Ruhr, but few remember how Australian units ran like rabbits at Singapore or how one unit earned itself the unfortunate sobriquet of the greyhounds (and no it wasn't from the dash and enthusiasm they displayed when going into battle).
Having said that, generally Australian troops fought well and courageously, just like their British, German, American, Chinese, Japanese etc counterparts.
So I wouldn't worry too much, its an attitude shared by most nations (or at least by those nations with martial histories). |
|
|
