| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 27 2004 : 9:50:25 PM
|
| Dark Cloud, is it possible? Can we be actually agreeing on something after all this time? Pardon me while the blood rushes to my cranium and, I collapse upon the floor. It's true, politics( irrational statements) make strange bedfellows. |
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 27 2004 : 10:09:50 PM
|
| Bhist, I'm really curious what all that is about. Couldn't find anything about on the web except those who have never forgiven him for the contention that only 15% of troops in combat actually fired their weapons, although the Army and Marines seem to have believed it. I can't imagine that something like that would have stood so long without massive counter evidence that it was wrong if it were. Is there some? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 03:04:35 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Dear Bob, I don't mean to be argumentive with you. Have you produced a publish work? If not, why not? Is it possible that your conclusion that Fox needs to rewrite some of his book is based upon the same gaseous mixture as your earlier statement.
Just not sure how to take your argumentative comments -- you describe my posts as gaseous (if that's generous, I'd hate to read your comments when you are being argumentative). What does being published or not being published have anything to do with it? Are you one of those folks that think if one has published works, then they must be wise, and then you’ll listen to him? |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on May 28 2004 03:54:51 AM |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 03:51:41 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Yikes, Brig. General Marshall was a fraud????? When, how, etc.? Someone wrote a lot of books under his name, then. Wasn't he hired to write the Army's history of WWII???? Help....
Samuel Lynn Marshall was his given name. He made-up and added, Atwood so his initials would be S.L.A.M. – catchy name for a former sports and baseball writer.
Marshall was a private during WW I with the 315th Engineers which built things – behind enemy lines. Yet, Marshall claims to have fought in combat, in many battles of W.W.I. Marshall never saw a minute of combat and most importantly, he never, ever led men in combat as he claimed. Now, how can he claim to know first hand how soldiers react during combat when he never saw it? He can't!
How did Marshall gain his commission if he never saw combat? After the first war the army was demobilized from 4.25 million men down to 225,000. We still needed officers commanding the remaining soldiers in Europe. So, some volunteers were given the chance to gain their commission by attending a brief in-country commissioning program. It was after the war that Marshall attended the American Expeditionary Forces’ Officer Candidate School in France.
So far, two examples of fraud and one easy way to obtain “authority” by becoming an officer.
As Marshall published each successive book of military history, those in the military just took it at face value that Marshall was truthful – truthful and honest about his combat experience, truthful and honest in his knowledge of how soldiers deal with combat. He was published. Because he was published, he was all wise.
Then, Marshall went too far. He inserted himself in events he wrote about. He claimed to be the source for the one-word “nuts” from the commander of the 101st in Bastogne in response to the German offer to surrender. Well, he wasn’t the source…he had nothing to do with that most famous moment in American history. But, he so wanted others to believe so.
Marshall wrote that he was witness to the last bayonet charge in U.S. history in Korea. He was never there, not even close by.
Marshall in his book, “Battles in the Monsoon”, claims he was with David Hackworth when the Viet Cong made their assault. According to Hackworth, Marshall showed up AFTER the assault was long over.
Now, we’ve added three more examples of fraud – and, these are not minor occurrences. Here was an “historian” that made himself to be more than he was, with each additional book. And, the officers in the Army and Marines believed him. They believed him because no one bothered to verify his accounts. If they had, then maybe the madness would’ve stopped much sooner.
Because the data that Marshall produced was based on fraud no one should use it as a reference to draw conclusions. Richard Fox did add Marshall to his recipe, although in small amounts, to produce soldiers bunching up, and panicking thereby creating a catastrophe in the Custer Battalion. Since Marshall is the main source used for most, if not all, major works about men in combat we must ask ourselves if soldiers actually do act that way in combat? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know the answer.
D-Day is a perfect example to prove Marshall wrong. By the time the soldiers hit the beach, before they took the first bunker, they lost most of their officers and non-coms. But, the privates didn’t bunch up, they didn’t cower – they moved forward and won the day – hell, they won the whole war. And, the vast majority of these men that landed at Normandy had never seen combat a day in their lives.
So, these are five reasons why Marshall is not reliable. He was a pompous egotistical maniac, a liar, a fabricator of evidence and he never came clean.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on May 28 2004 04:14:53 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 04:17:08 AM
|
hell, they won the whole war.
Well maybe Ivan helped a little. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 04:48:22 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
hell, they won the whole war.
Well maybe Ivan helped a little.
Ivan who? Ivanhoe? Ivan the Terrible? Ivan Calderon, a former Chicago White Sox outfielder? |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 11:10:01 AM
|
Wow. That is amazing fraud. I'm not too impressed with the middle names issue, given the Grant and Truman tales, but lying about combat heroics and all is criminal. I guess my hesitation about all this is based on my inability to see how decades of lies escaped the Army and the people who actually were there. I know it could happen, but this is the worst case I've ever heard of. Given his importance, I'm rather stultified that nobody has lept on this.
I found one website that rather rants about Marshall, but nothing about the controversy, giving both sides. Has the Army taken a position on any of this? Is there a more or less objective site?
At D-Day, though (rest assured: me not there), all the Longest Day tales seem to fit Marshall's theory. Huddled in groups, T. Roosevelt leading them out, inertia. At Gettysburg, all those rifles found with 450 loads in each (note: Wild, this is hyperbole), and stories fifty years after the war ended that at least do not conflict with Marshall. I'm thinking of Fussell and 'War,' Manchester, Mailer, others.
You seem to have a visceral reaction against the guy. Were you or somebody you know at Omaha? I can't really address any of it, being a world class coward of the first rank myself, but this is important if true and there seems to be little if anything on it. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 3:15:54 PM
|
You raise good points, D.C.
First of all, I have no personal vendetta against Marshall – I just despise men who claim they’ve been in combat and won medals when they didn’t. Marshall happens to be the worst of the many because of his reputation. His reputation was built from a fabrication.
It’s sad, but there are countless examples of men who lied about their service during war. The situation at No Gun Ri is a prime example. Ed Daily, a guy I knew because of his involvement with the 7th Cavalry in Montana, broke the story to the press about the “massacre” at No Gun Ri. A.P. won a Pulitzer Prize for this story that relied on Daily and several other lying veterans. Sadly, Daily was proven to be a made-up combat soldier and war hero (all in one, which is the usual mode of operation for liars of this sorts).
The general public does not attempt to challenge a military veteran of combat experience and, most of all, a medal winner. Can you blame them?
A lot of my info on Marshall came from Robert Bateman who wrote the bible about No Gun Ri. Bateman exposed Ed Daily for who he was (and Bateman and Daily were very close friends for many years). News of these impostors is being exposed, slowly. B.G. Burkett in his book, “Stolen Valor” sets the record straight about fraudulent Vietnam Vets who have given the real Vietnam Vets a bad name.
So, why hasn’t the military done anything about Marshall? Well, if they do they have to admit to a lie all these years. That’s not easy, but I believe it would be done. Information such as I shared here about Marshall is not accepted overnight.
What of Marshall’s studies? Well, there are questions that he may have falsified much of his evidence. But, we must ask ourselves this important question and it’s one I’ve already answered myself. How can we trust any “scientific” data from a man who was an imposter, a liar, and an egotistical maniac who fed off “authority”? The answer is simple, we can’t. That’s why I believe Fox needs to set the record straight in future prints of his book. At least he should take out any references to Marshall. But, if he does, what’s that leave him with? That is the central theme of his thesis.
Men did bunch up at D-Day, but they bunched up against the wall. That’s a natural place to do it. If those soldiers had reacted the way Marshall claims they would react, the way Fox says Custer’s soldiers reacted at the LBH, then we should’ve never taken the beaches of Normandy and won the war.
BTW – I did check out the link you provided (a good find by the way) and it addresses some of the things I posted earlier.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on May 28 2004 3:23:53 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 4:18:53 PM
|
Yeah, I can't say that makes me happy, either. Never heard about it in such detail till here. Thank you.
I've run across the usual frauds who pretend to have been in the Viet War and I have acquaintances of whom I'm suspicious, but I never served and I won't make any accusations without evidence, which absent confession, is denied me. And: who the hell am I anyway?
There is a real pseudo-macho thing here that fascinates me and actually is one of my primary interests on this board. Custer has always attracted, along with flawless, perfect people like myself and others, a significant number of wannabes and Soldier of Fortune readers whose ease at casting shadows across the reputations of LBH participants seems almost a way of exorcision or deflection of memory or method to inflate themselves. What reading and research I've done pretty much always casts people into a grey area of performance in this as anywhere.
What is it, for example, that explains the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (I think) killing himself because he granted himself a medal he hadn't actually received? It's not like he looked unaccomplished without it. Worse, how is it that veterans themselves are so often fooled by frauds? There was a fake Marine who lectured at vet halls and appeared in parades and he wasn't anything. Nobody caught him till quite late. And now, Marshall......
I've developed a thesis - somewhat less solid than gravel - that people of median military accomplishment will accept anyone who genuflects to them and their purported records. All the vets who say they hate Clinton because of draft evasion yet voted against McCain in South Carolina for Bush. All the hatred towards Fonda but hardly any against Westmoreland, McNamara, others who lied and sent them to fight and not likely to take attacks as quietly as seventy year old women. The reluctance to support a more or less real hero in Kerry vs. a questionable participant in Bush. But of the options, one thing stands out: the vets support the candidate or issue that's more likely to praise and reward them in bulk, something learned by the GAR, who voted en masse for people with questionable CW records but who praised them to the skies.
I remember the reaction when a Pennsylvanian National Guard unit was revealed to have been the target of the Waffen SS at the start of the Battle of the Bulge. Came out in the 70's, I think. It was a TERRIBLE unit, and it fell apart as the Germans knew it would. The vets went ballistic and made a big stink. Ugly.
Which is to say, like the eyewitnesses who missed the Titanic splitting in two, vets merely by the status of being vets don't necessarily know the truth or tell the truth or want anyone to tell it because in combat everyone has some horror to which they have trouble admitting. Some battle reports read like exercises in mutual blackmail.
I see no shame in any of it, and think that's why combat vets need to be honored and supported: because we send them to face unimaginable ethical choices demanding rapid decision and expect them to come back not only unaffected but elevated and grateful for the candy ass bonus they get when they can never see themselves entirely as a good person again. Or, perhaps worse, force them into rigid mental confines so they don't have to think about it again, and harsh Machievellian justification on which they will not suffer a review. I think that's a hell of thing to take away from young men, and now women, without acknowledgement. And support.
And that's also why I get really angry with the charges of cowardice or betrayal or presidency hopes for the three top officers at LBH. They all, even Reno, had records that demand better treatment. Not whitewash, not even forgiveness. Civil treatment and benefit of the doubt. When it comes down to it, I don't believe those who say they just want the 'truth' about LBH because, upon examination, that goal seems absent in other, more pertinent areas of their lives and history. They want an excuse to vent, often against that officer with whom they think they share some failings. It's all about them, not the 7th in 1876.
No military career would survive the attention this unimportant battle has drawn. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 5:04:06 PM
|
My first, and only attendance to a LBHA event was in 1983. There, some older man sat me down and asked me why I was there. I told him I was interested in the battle. He asked me who was my favorite officer in the battle. I told him I didn’t have one. He was shocked! He said I should be interested in the “personalities” of the battle – that’s where it is at. Then, he started in a conversation with another person about how Reno was a big coward.
I very much love the story of this fight along with its causes and aftermath. I don’t dwell on one person, I judge no one in the fight. I think everyone did all they could that day to see it through. No officer wanted to see another one dead and no officer made decisions with the sole purpose of seeing another officer defeated. It almost seems that some folks who “study” this battle are looking for something like that. When that happens all the fun is taken from the study.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 8:30:27 PM
|
| Bob, I agree with you in that no officer desired the death of another. No soldier would willingly stand by and allow his comrade to fall. Despite my position, I truly do not judge Benteen. Sometimes in our charges and counter charges we forget the real reason we are here; to have fun. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 29 2004 : 11:34:53 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bhist
My first, and only attendance to a LBHA event was in 1983. There, some older man sat me down and asked me why I was there. I told him I was interested in the battle. He asked me who was my favorite officer in the battle. I told him I didn’t have one. He was shocked! He said I should be interested in the “personalities” of the battle – that’s where it is at. Then, he started in a conversation with another person about how Reno was a big coward.
I've had those encounters. A lot of the people interested in the battle remind me of ... well, myself at 8. It's not hard to imagine some of them, if such things existed, gathering in a corner all cross-legged, and saying to the one near him, "Hey, I'll trade you my Major Reno comic book for your Lieutenant Hare......."
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on May 29 2004 11:39:36 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 05:27:59 AM
|
And that's also why I get really angry with the charges of cowardice or betrayal or presidency hopes for the three top officers at LBH. They all, even Reno, had records that demand better treatment. Not whitewash, not even forgiveness. Civil treatment and benefit of the doubt.
I would agree with much of that Dark Cloud,but what I have some difficulty with is giving the benefit of the doubt to Custer.What doubt? Strategically,tactically and logistcally he was at fault.The training and armament of the regiment left a lot to be desired not to mention his method of command and communication.Perhaps a case can be made if we were discussing one mistake,but a whole series of fatal errors any one of which doomed the regiment.
Many of our friends here have said that they have been to the battle field.Well perhaps they have been to the field but not to the battle field.If they had been to the battlefield they would have seen the result of Custers errors.
And if we give the benefit of the doubt to Custer what word of comfort have we got for the troopers who followed him to their doom?
What took these men to the LBH? At least 50 of them were Irish so I have some idea of the conditions they left to seek a better life in the new world.They left behind poverty, oppression and famine when they set sail from these shores in what were called coffin ships.Desese ridden hulks hardly fit for the breakers yard.Like so many others they were looking for no more than a fighting chance.
Did Custer's leadership give them a fighting chance at the LBH? And if people feel angry at the charges leveled against Custer then take yourself back to the real "battlefield" at about 5.30 on the afternoon of June 25th 1876.Put yourself in the place of a wounded trooper hearing the agonised screams of his dying comrades and seeing enraged Indians scalping,gutting and mutilating the wounded and see if it dispells any remaining doubts about the criminal incompetence of Custer.
Regards |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 08:00:18 AM
|
You can make a case for that, and I, among others, have. He lost, proof in the pudding.
Yet, it's not like he sent people to die and survived himself, watching through high powered glasses. He took the risk and LED, so I think a case can be made that he, at least, believed his own blarney and thought the 7th could do it. Also, I still think that after the repulsed whatever at MTC, those five companies devolved into disorganized and reactive entities that suggest many things but not one of them the Custer known, and well-known, to history.
I think he was wounded, and all the nepotism and clique issues combined to provide no commander at the moment of need, and they were slaughtered in confusion, fighting as separate companies. If true, this would still be Custer's fault, because training was weak and family issues shouldn't have been present but his attitude was common and this could have happened many times to many others but only Custer got caught. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 1:42:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
And that's also why I get really angry with the charges of cowardice or betrayal or presidency hopes for the three top officers at LBH. They all, even Reno, had records that demand better treatment. Not whitewash, not even forgiveness. Civil treatment and benefit of the doubt.
I would agree with much of that Dark Cloud,but what I have some difficulty with is giving the benefit of the doubt to Custer.What doubt? Strategically,tactically and logistcally he was at fault.The training and armament of the regiment left a lot to be desired not to mention his method of command and communication.Perhaps a case can be made if we were discussing one mistake,but a whole series of fatal errors any one of which doomed the regiment.
Many of our friends here have said that they have been to the battle field.Well perhaps they have been to the field but not to the battle field.If they had been to the battlefield they would have seen the result of Custers errors.
And if we give the benefit of the doubt to Custer what word of comfort have we got for the troopers who followed him to their doom?
What took these men to the LBH? At least 50 of them were Irish so I have some idea of the conditions they left to seek a better life in the new world.They left behind poverty, oppression and famine when they set sail from these shores in what were called coffin ships.Desese ridden hulks hardly fit for the breakers yard.Like so many others they were looking for no more than a fighting chance.
Did Custer's leadership give them a fighting chance at the LBH? And if people feel angry at the charges leveled against Custer then take yourself back to the real "battlefield" at about 5.30 on the afternoon of June 25th 1876.Put yourself in the place of a wounded trooper hearing the agonised screams of his dying comrades and seeing enraged Indians scalping,gutting and mutilating the wounded and see if it dispells any remaining doubts about the criminal incompetence of Custer.
Regards
I understand your thoughts WildI and especially find them valuable considering you understand why some of Custer’s soldiers left your country. D.C. had a very good point about Custer -- Custer did lead these me, even to their defeat. He believed in himself and he believed in his soldiers to meet and defeat their enemy.
Today is the day in America where we celebrate Memorial Day to remember the men and women who died fighting for America's freedom -- this is a good day to recognize that Custer and 268 of his men died confident they and their leader would see them through the day.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on May 31 2004 1:43:19 PM |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2004 : 5:50:49 PM
|
Custer's regiment was about par for the course as far as the entire Army was concerned. Training of tactics and weaponry was poor all around. This wasn't just Custer's fault, it was the fault of the higher-ups and the government.
Reno may not have been cut out for Indian fighting, but he had a very good point at the end of his LBH battle report:
"The harrowing sight of the dead bodies crowning the height on which Custer fell, and which will remain vividly in my memory until death, is too recent for me not to ask the good people of this country whether a policy that sets opposing parties in the field, armed, clothed, and equipped by one and the same Government should not be abolished."
It doesn't quite cover the lack of training or funds for the Army, but it does bring up a valid point (and leads into another). The US government did not provide its soldiers with an advantage over its enemy, and it actually created all the problems and required their undertrained and poorly equipped soldiers to fix the problems. Plus, it provided the means for warriors to get weapons and ammo, food, clothing and shelter during the winter before heading back out again for the summer. And rounding up the hostiles in the spring/summer of 1876 was needed because of years and years of lies and broken treaties. Not to mention the timing of the congressional hearing, which meant Custer was away from his regiment and the entire column he was to lead before one of the largest (if not largest) campaign of the Sioux Wars. And Grant removing Custer from command of the column and the regiment because he was pissed over allegations Custer made? Allegations that had no bearing on the hearing's result. That should tell you enough about the government's commitment to its military in 1876.
Custer started the campaign with around 750 persons total in his command, but the band and all those who didn't have a horse were left at Powder River Depot. There were supposed to be horses at that point, but there weren't. Not to mention several of his officers were not available (including several majors) and several of his companies were led by lieutenants, namely E, L, G?, etc. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 07:09:33 AM
|
Today is the day in America where we celebrate Memorial Day to remember the men and women who died fighting for America's freedom -- this is a good day to recognize that Custer and 268 of his men died confident they and their leader would see them through the day.
I'm a regular visitor to the States and I'm always impressed by the oldfashioned [I use that word in the best possible way]patriotism to be seen everywhere and not only on special days.Here because of the political situation we have to be very careful that our displays of patriotism does not give offence to our neighbours in the North.
I was looking at Pres.Bush paying tribute to the fallen on memorial day. He was reading out last letters home from lads who had been killed.Very moving but I feel that care should be taken on occasions such as these not to use the ritual to beguile young men and women into thinking that war is a good and glorious thing.
Slan |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 01 2004 : 08:37:43 AM
|
Custer's regiment was about par for the course as far as the entire Army was concerned. Training of tactics and weaponry was poor all around. This wasn't just Custer's fault, it was the fault of the higher-ups and the government.
I have to confess El Crab that in heaping the blame onto Custer I did not consider the points you made.
However Custer must have known the limitations of his force and the points you make although relevant cannot be used in mitigation.
Did his actions that day indicate that he had any worries about the fighting qualities of his regiment?.Was he cautious or defensive?On the contrary,he threw caution to the wind,gambled with the lives of his men and lost.
Regards
|
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2004 : 03:33:49 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Today is the day in America where we celebrate Memorial Day to remember the men and women who died fighting for America's freedom -- this is a good day to recognize that Custer and 268 of his men died confident they and their leader would see them through the day.
I'm a regular visitor to the States and I'm always impressed by the oldfashioned [I use that word in the best possible way]patriotism to be seen everywhere and not only on special days.Here because of the political situation we have to be very careful that our displays of patriotism does not give offence to our neighbours in the North.
I was looking at Pres.Bush paying tribute to the fallen on memorial day. He was reading out last letters home from lads who had been killed.Very moving but I feel that care should be taken on occasions such as these not to use the ritual to beguile young men and women into thinking that war is a good and glorious thing.
Slan
That definitely is not the case in our country. Our president, and past presidents, does not use Memorial Day to "sell" war. It is always a somber day -- one of reflection and not of glory. |
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2004 : 06:33:10 AM
|
I see no shame in any of it, and think that's why combat vets need to be honored and supported: because we send them to face unimaginable ethical choices demanding rapid decision and expect them to come back not only unaffected but elevated and grateful for the candy ass bonus they get when they can never see themselves entirely as a good person again
Sometimes,once in a blue moon, you read something and it strikes a cord.Just a simple line that is original, that contains a little wisdom and insight into human nature.
Nice one Dark Cloud.
Hi Bhist
That definitely is not the case in our country. Our president, and past presidents, does not use Memorial Day to "sell" war. It is always a somber day -- one of reflection and not of glory.
I have no experience of Memorial Day in the States so I cannot comment other than to say I would agree that remberance days should be a time of reflection and not glory.
Unfortunately there is no other organisation which is more impressive than the military when it comes to paying homage to the fallen.Muffled drums,slow march,resting on arms reversed,last post and revelle,general salute ,lone piper playing a the flowers of the forest.All part of an attractive ritual and all for a purpose.
Regards
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 02 2004 : 11:51:00 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Custer's regiment was about par for the course as far as the entire Army was concerned. Training of tactics and weaponry was poor all around. This wasn't just Custer's fault, it was the fault of the higher-ups and the government.
I have to confess El Crab that in heaping the blame onto Custer I did not consider the points you made.
However Custer must have known the limitations of his force and the points you make although relevant cannot be used in mitigation.
Did his actions that day indicate that he had any worries about the fighting qualities of his regiment?.Was he cautious or defensive?On the contrary,he threw caution to the wind,gambled with the lives of his men and lost.
Regards
All things that a cavalry commander shouldn't be: cautious and defensive. Especially when fighting a guerilla, irregular force. A cavalry officer should be a quick-thinker, able to adapt and flexible. And I think you have to believe you'll win everytime if you're to be successful. I don't think it translates to leading combat soldiers, but when I play basketball or golf, I believe I will win EVERYTIME. And I get pissed when I don't, because I believe I should win everytime. If Custer didn't believe in his regiment, he should have been removed from command. He didn't have the elite/crack unit the 7th has been presented as in paintings and in books/movies, but Custer sure seemed to believe in their fighting ability. He certainly believed he could lead them to victory at LBH, otherwise he would not have attacked.
I get what you're saying, but a field commander sometimes throws caution to the wind, they always put their soldiers' lives on the line, etc. Crook was cautious against the Sioux, and he fought to a draw or loss. I lean towards a loss, since despite retaining the field he started with, his command burned their ammunition and was done for the campaign. Every battle in history was undecided when it began. You have to risk lives to win a fight. And sometimes you lose. And Custer lost this time, after a career of winning doing the same thing. Taking risks. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - June 04 2004 : 04:39:44 AM
|
Hi El Crab
All things that a cavalry commander shouldn't be: cautious and defensive
Got to admit I think you have a point there.One has to be on one's guard when posting not to avail of hindsight.However having said that let's not dismiss "cautious and defensive" just yet.
Custer was a product of the Civil War.He learned his trade in set piece battles like Antietam and Bull Run.In this environment the cavalry were the glamour boys,the cut and run brigade.In these engagements Custer could afford to be the dashing cavalier.He was never far from support and sure if he was having a really bad day he could always surrender.In other words Custer performed with a safety net.
There was no safety net at the LBH.He knew that a bad day ment annilation[and this is not hindsight.He knew what had happened to Feyyerman]Perhaps operating under such circumstances a little more caution and not so much dash might have been called for. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 04 2004 : 10:13:00 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by wILD I
Hi El Crab
All things that a cavalry commander shouldn't be: cautious and defensive
Got to admit I think you have a point there.One has to be on one's guard when posting not to avail of hindsight.However having said that let's not dismiss "cautious and defensive" just yet.
Custer was a product of the Civil War.He learned his trade in set piece battles like Antietam and Bull Run.In this environment the cavalry were the glamour boys,the cut and run brigade.In these engagements Custer could afford to be the dashing cavalier.He was never far from support and sure if he was having a really bad day he could always surrender.In other words Custer performed with a safety net.
There was no safety net at the LBH.He knew that a bad day ment annilation[and this is not hindsight.He knew what had happened to Feyyerman]Perhaps operating under such circumstances a little more caution and not so much dash might have been called for.
Custer also "knew" that a village would scatter if it discovered the presence of soldiers. Not everything we know is absolute, and things change. If Custer knew of Crook's stalemate at the Rosebud, maybe cautious and defensive maneuvering would have taken place.
I'm pretty sure Custer was aware of the dangers of combat with the Sioux, 400 miles from home. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Aftermath Question
