| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Biggest mistakes in military history
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Biggest mistakes in military history

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Poll Question: What is the biggest make in military history?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
1 [4.00%]
1 [4.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [12.00%]
4 [16.00%]
1 [4.00%]
0 [0.00%]
15 [60.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Buckskins View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 792
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckskins Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2012 at 01:41
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Do you know the difference between direct and indirect speech? Look it up.

pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or ( Obsolete or Dialect ) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun
pronoun
1.
(used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can't tell a book by its cover.
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jul 2012 at 06:27
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Do you know the difference between direct and indirect speech? Look it up.

pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or ( Obsolete or Dialect ) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun
pronoun
1.
(used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can't tell a book by its cover.

You can tell meaningless babbling however. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jul 2012 at 03:21
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Do you know the difference between direct and indirect speech? Look it up.

pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or ( Obsolete or Dialect ) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun
pronoun
1.
(used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can't tell a book by its cover.

You can tell meaningless babbling however. 

Hmm.. You and bucky getting down to details what a common sight...


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Dec 2012 at 10:48
I hate seeing Custer on lists like this. 
 
He rode in there split up w/ light weapons b/c he expected the Indians would "evaporate", b/c that's what they'd always done before.  He reckoned fast and light to maybe catch some of im.  But when 5,000 ppl decide to 'turn to' and fight ur few hundred guys.....  Nobody expected that.  It shocked the entire Army. 
 
Anyway.  Custer made a mistake obviously.  There are reasons he did what he did that make sense.  It's debatable.  But his personal bravery cannot be questioned.  He died fighting shouldered up w/ his men.  His remains were taken to West Point and buried w/ full honor.  While he's a laughingstock today; the ppl who were there, and knew im, respected im.  His wife absolutely adored him.  I think an argument can be made that he was prolly a fairly good man. 
 
I dunno.  I don't like seeing im on a slander list of 'the worst commander ever'. 
Back to Top
Ramesh V.Naivaruni View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 22 Jul 2011
Location: BANGALORE
Status: Offline
Points: 246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ramesh V.Naivaruni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Dec 2012 at 23:01
The biggest military mistake was to pull the United States into the WW 2, otherwise the equation would have changed and British would have been no where in the power centre of the current world politics.
RAMESH.V.NAIVARUN
BANGALORE
INDIA
rameshnaivaruni@yahoo.com
email rameshnaivaruni@yahoo.com
blog:Http.Indiandemocracy in mousetrap
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 01:17
For America, possibly Iraq and Afghanistan.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 02:01
Originally posted by Ramesh V.Naivaruni Ramesh V.Naivaruni wrote:

The biggest military mistake was to pull the United States into the WW 2, otherwise the equation would have changed and British would have been no where in the power centre of the current world politics.
 
Last time I checked Britain lost everything anyway after WWII. It was bankrupt, it began to shed its colonies (a process many forget that it began well before the war started) and in any case it was Japan that brough the US into the war not Germany or Britain. Germany simply declared war on the US.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 02:06
Originally posted by SixthArmy SixthArmy wrote:

I hate seeing Custer on lists like this. 
 
He rode in there split up w/ light weapons b/c he expected the Indians would "evaporate", b/c that's what they'd always done before.  He reckoned fast and light to maybe catch some of im.  But when 5,000 ppl decide to 'turn to' and fight ur few hundred guys.....  Nobody expected that.  It shocked the entire Army. 
 
Anyway.  Custer made a mistake obviously.  There are reasons he did what he did that make sense.  It's debatable.  But his personal bravery cannot be questioned.  He died fighting shouldered up w/ his men.  His remains were taken to West Point and buried w/ full honor.  While he's a laughingstock today; the ppl who were there, and knew im, respected im.  His wife absolutely adored him.  I think an argument can be made that he was prolly a fairly good man. 
 
I dunno.  I don't like seeing im on a slander list of 'the worst commander ever'. 
 
Hell and welcome to the forum.
 
It is very funny to see that as time passes the number of Indians at little big horn get bigger and bigger. 2000 was the original figure (which is an estimate) and now the number is 5000.
 
Anyway The Indians rarely fled from battle especially when there is no place to flee. Custer knew that but from what we know from his Civil war performance Little big Horn was classic Custer. The guy was demoted in rank because of his bravado and Little Big Horn was the ultimate sacrifice. Had he survived he would have definitely been court marshalled and he knew it so he chose to die instead of being humiliated.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 04:20
Originally posted by Ramesh V.Naivaruni Ramesh V.Naivaruni wrote:

The biggest military mistake was to pull the United States into the WW 2, otherwise the equation would have changed and British would have been no where in the power centre of the current world politics.
 
No US in the war would have given Japan a much freer hand in dominating Asia, including India. If you found British colonialism distastful, how do you think the Japanese version would have been in comparison?
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 04:30
For the most severe consequences down the line, the invasion of Belguim and France by Germany in 1914 has got to rank near the top. It was of course a disaster for Germany in the end, and it also was one of the largest and most pointless bloodlettings in history, one that led to cynicism and extremism in later years.
 
For shear stupidity and short sightedness, Iraq 2 must also be a frontrunner. It was completely unnecessary, launched with skewed information by ill-informed and mal-intentioned people, terminally damaged US credibility in the world, and produced perhaps as many as 100,000 dead, to no discernable purpose other than the current dictatorship is better than the last dictatorship (a happy but unintended byproduct in any case).
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 06:05
Originally posted by SixthArmy SixthArmy wrote:

I hate seeing Custer on lists like this. 
 
He rode in there split up w/ light weapons b/c he expected the Indians would "evaporate", b/c that's what they'd always done before.  He reckoned fast and light to maybe catch some of im.  But when 5,000 ppl decide to 'turn to' and fight ur few hundred guys.....  Nobody expected that.  It shocked the entire Army. 
 
Anyway.  Custer made a mistake obviously.  There are reasons he did what he did that make sense.  It's debatable.  But his personal bravery cannot be questioned.  He died fighting shouldered up w/ his men.  His remains were taken to West Point and buried w/ full honor.  While he's a laughingstock today; the ppl who were there, and knew im, respected im.  His wife absolutely adored him.  I think an argument can be made that he was prolly a fairly good man. 
 
I dunno.  I don't like seeing im on a slander list of 'the worst commander ever'. 
 
Bravery? Try stupidity among cruelty! Custer divided his men too many times, and he made the Native Americans infuriated by killing their civilians with such cruelty that is beyond any described or able to be described amount. He didn't die out of bravery, but being a total moron. His strategies had defied The Art of War in all aspects. His goal was to eliminate the Native Americans, that is why he failed.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 10:42
It was never United States policy to eliminate the indians.  As evidence I provide that every American indian tribe known - still exist to this day.  A post war US Army could indeed have wiped them out to the last woman and child, easily, - except that was never national policy.  Compare to the Incas/Mayans/Aztecs - dealt with by the kind and gentle spanish; those entire civilizations simply no longer exist.  Talk about true genocide.
 
It was US national policy to displace them.  When a industrial age civilization butts heads w/ a stoneage civilization - The guys w/ steam locomotives are going to win.  It's not fair and it sucks, but so it goes.  I don't know how else to put it.
 
Quote Anyway The Indians rarely fled from battle
 
That is not correct.  They never fled from sacking a wagon train or pilfering a neighboring tribe of course - but they always fled when facing trained soldiers.  Big Horn was the first time they'd stood and fought.  As I said, it was a real shock when they did that. 
 
Regarding the numbers of 5,000 warriors or 2,000.  Who knows.  There's not any accurate numbers only estimates.  Custer rode in there chin out w/ divided forces b/c, in his experience, that's what might work.  It could have been 600 indians who decided to fight this time and Custer's few hundred men would have been in serious trouble. 
 
He was going w/ information and experience he had to hand - not 20/20 hindsight. 
 
I didn't know he'd been demoted.  I know he was promoted temporarily (brevet) during the war.  Losing such a rank is not a demotion.   
 
I'm not a Custer fanboi, although I'm coming across as that...    I just don't think he was as bad as ppl say he was.  I think he made reasonable decisions w/ what he had to hand.  I also said it's obvious the ppl who were alive at the time, and knew him personally, respected him.  That matters I think.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 10:47
Quote
Bravery? ...... He didn't die out of bravery......
 
He was mounted and could have fled.  Instead, he dismounted and fought to the death shouldered w/ his men.
 
I repeat, his personal bravery cannot be called into question.  The man, despite whatever flaws, was brave. 
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 16:57
Originally posted by SixthArmy SixthArmy wrote:

It was never United States policy to eliminate the indians.  As evidence I provide that every American indian tribe known - still exist to this day.  A post war US Army could indeed have wiped them out to the last woman and child, easily, - except that was never national policy.  Compare to the Incas/Mayans/Aztecs - dealt with by the kind and gentle spanish; those entire civilizations simply no longer exist.  Talk about true genocide.
 
While it migh have not been a government policy it was definitely a settler/army one. Bison was hunted to near extinction for no reason other than starving the natives. Not to mention all the policies of driving them to deserts and high mountain plains where there is no real agriculture to be done.
 
As for annihilating Indians, no one can doubt that but at what price? tens of thousands of settlers would lose their lives because of it and no one was prepared to do that in a democracy like the US.
 
And there are far more Mayans/Aztecs currently living than Natives in the US so what is your point.
 
 
Originally posted by SixthArmy SixthArmy wrote:

Quote Anyway The Indians rarely fled from battle
 
That is not correct.  They never fled from sacking a wagon train or pilfering a neighboring tribe of course - but they always fled when facing trained soldiers.  Big Horn was the first time they'd stood and fought.  As I said, it was a real shock when they did that. 
 
Regarding the numbers of 5,000 warriors or 2,000.  Who knows.  There's not any accurate numbers only estimates.  Custer rode in there chin out w/ divided forces b/c, in his experience, that's what might work.  It could have been 600 indians who decided to fight this time and Custer's few hundred men would have been in serious trouble. 
 
He was going w/ information and experience he had to hand - not 20/20 hindsight. 
 
I didn't know he'd been demoted.  I know he was promoted temporarily (brevet) during the war.  Losing such a rank is not a demotion.   
 
I'm not a Custer fanboi, although I'm coming across as that...    I just don't think he was as bad as ppl say he was.  I think he made reasonable decisions w/ what he had to hand.  I also said it's obvious the ppl who were alive at the time, and knew him personally, respected him.  That matters I think.
 
I could mention at least 10 battles where the Americans either matched Indians or outnumbered them and lost including the battle that triggered the events that lead to Custer's demise, Rosebud. In none of these battles the Indians flee. Nor did they flee in the dozen or so Indian wars after Independence.
 
As for Indian/settler struggle. It was a cruel world. Settlers, especailly those who were financed by the railroads, were not angels and to be honest nor were the Indians.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Dec 2012 at 18:13
Originally posted by SixthArmy SixthArmy wrote:

It was never United States policy to eliminate the indians.  As evidence I provide that every American indian tribe known - still exist to this day.  A post war US Army could indeed have wiped them out to the last woman and child, easily, - except that was never national policy.  Compare to the Incas/Mayans/Aztecs - dealt with by the kind and gentle spanish; those entire civilizations simply no longer exist.  Talk about true genocide.
 
It was US national policy to displace them.  When a industrial age civilization butts heads w/ a stoneage civilization - The guys w/ steam locomotives are going to win.  It's not fair and it sucks, but so it goes.  I don't know how else to put it.
 
I suppose it depends on the definition of the term "eliminate". From even before the time of the American Revolution, many prominent people (including ,for example George Washington,) wanted aboriginals either dead, or out of the range of their societies, mostly for reasons of personal profit. This policy was carried out with serious intent, or over a century.
 
Originally posted by SixthArmy SixthArmy wrote:

 
Quote Anyway The Indians rarely fled from battle
 
That is not correct.  They never fled from sacking a wagon train or pilfering a neighboring tribe of course - but they always fled when facing trained soldiers.  Big Horn was the first time they'd stood and fought.  As I said, it was a real shock when they did that. 
 
Balony. The history of European/aboriginal confict goes all the way back to Jamestown. Natives fought various battles against "trained soldiers", with varying amounts of fleeing, on both sides, from that point until Wounded Knee in 1890. The key factors here were not the amount of fleeing from opponents, but the fact that European civilization was industrializing quite rapidly at this time, whereas aboriginal society was not.
 
Originally posted by SixthArmy SixthArmy wrote:

 
Regarding the numbers of 5,000 warriors or 2,000.  Who knows.  There's not any accurate numbers only estimates.  Custer rode in there chin out w/ divided forces b/c, in his experience, that's what might work.  It could have been 600 indians who decided to fight this time and Custer's few hundred men would have been in serious trouble. 
 
He was going w/ information and experience he had to hand - not 20/20 hindsight. 
 
I didn't know he'd been demoted.  I know he was promoted temporarily (brevet) during the war.  Losing such a rank is not a demotion.   
 
I'm not a Custer fanboi, although I'm coming across as that...    I just don't think he was as bad as ppl say he was.  I think he made reasonable decisions w/ what he had to hand.  I also said it's obvious the ppl who were alive at the time, and knew him personally, respected him.  That matters I think.
 
Custer was a megalomanic,  but also a man of his times. He was racist, xenophobic, inmature, and, some may judge incompetent as a military officer. Supporting him here is about as informed as cheering for Sir Francis Drake, another egoist and neo-criminal.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2012 at 03:09
On Sir Francis, what notable military or naval commander was not an egoist?  And by whose definition criminal? He, like all the French, Dutch, Swedish, Scottish seamen who were doing much the same things as Drake, was a criminal under Spanish law, but why should he care about Spanish law? I don't remember Spain caring much about English law, under which he was not a criminal.

Otherwise you'd have to stigmatize women anywhere who have abortions as criminals.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2012 at 06:25
Originally posted by SixthArmy SixthArmy wrote:

Quote
Bravery? ...... He didn't die out of bravery......
 
He was mounted and could have fled.  Instead, he dismounted and fought to the death shouldered w/ his men.
 
I repeat, his personal bravery cannot be called into question.  The man, despite whatever flaws, was brave. 
 
Mounted and could have fled? then he was more foolish. He failed to realize how the Native Americans felt when they got home and their families' bodies were skinned, hung, and/or mutalated. He added a cause to his enemy, and failed to realize how weakening his attitude of his own mind and importance would be in the battlefield. Custer failed for a reason, his own fame went to his head, aka, the "Golden Boy" Syndrome, quite common in weak-minded generals. It's happened before, and it happened to Custer. He never had bravery.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2012 at 06:38
Originally posted by SixthArmy SixthArmy wrote:

It was never United States policy to eliminate the indians.  As evidence I provide that every American indian tribe known - still exist to this day.  A post war US Army could indeed have wiped them out to the last woman and child, easily, - except that was never national policy.  Compare to the Incas/Mayans/Aztecs - dealt with by the kind and gentle spanish; those entire civilizations simply no longer exist.  Talk about true genocide.
 
It was US national policy to displace them.  When a industrial age civilization butts heads w/ a stoneage civilization - The guys w/ steam locomotives are going to win.  It's not fair and it sucks, but so it goes.  I don't know how else to put it.
 
Quote Anyway The Indians rarely fled from battle
 
That is not correct.  They never fled from sacking a wagon train or pilfering a neighboring tribe of course - but they always fled when facing trained soldiers.  Big Horn was the first time they'd stood and fought.  As I said, it was a real shock when they did that. 
 
Regarding the numbers of 5,000 warriors or 2,000.  Who knows.  There's not any accurate numbers only estimates.  Custer rode in there chin out w/ divided forces b/c, in his experience, that's what might work.  It could have been 600 indians who decided to fight this time and Custer's few hundred men would have been in serious trouble. 
 
He was going w/ information and experience he had to hand - not 20/20 hindsight. 
 
I didn't know he'd been demoted.  I know he was promoted temporarily (brevet) during the war.  Losing such a rank is not a demotion.   
 
I'm not a Custer fanboi, although I'm coming across as that...    I just don't think he was as bad as ppl say he was.  I think he made reasonable decisions w/ what he had to hand.  I also said it's obvious the ppl who were alive at the time, and knew him personally, respected him.  That matters I think.
 
I didn't say it was the US policy, I said it was CUSTER'S. His believe has been popular for 130 years: the only good indian is a dead one. That was his idea. Plus, Stone Age Civilization vs. Industrial???? They weren't Stone Age. Native Americans weren't Stone Age. Stone-Age is Prehistoric, meaning that they weren't civilized. They all had SOME way of communicating verbally, and all had SOME way of writing, whether its pictographs, or a different type.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2012 at 10:16
Quote That was his idea. Plus, Stone Age Civilization vs. Industrial???? They weren't Stone Age. Native Americans weren't Stone Age. Stone-Age is Prehistoric, meaning that they weren't civilized. They all had SOME way of communicating verbally, and all had SOME way of writing, whether its pictographs, or a different type.
 
And they were also 'at one' w/ nature and loved the birds and the trees. 
 
Give me a break.  
 
Nomads are nomads b/c they kill everything in range of their camp - then when their water holes are filled w/ their own 'waste' - they move on.  Being nomads and all.  The indians were never 'keepers' of mother nature.
 
If I'm told one more time how kind, peaceful the indians were; and how evil the white man was.  I swear my eyes are going to roll right out of my head.
 
The indians weren't angels and the US Army weren't the devil incarnate.  The main problem, as I see it, was signing treaties w/ a stone aged ppl who didn't even know what a treaty was.  Also, the indians had no means to keep their own ppl in order.  To put it simply, it was a clash of civilizations that inevitably resulted in constant misunderstanding and argument.
 
The guys w/ steam locomotives, modern medicine, and industry - won.  The stone aged guys got shoved.  I already said it wasn't fair but so it goes.
 
Realistically - there's no bloody way the entire midwest was/is going to be marked off as free range for nomads.  Those cards were never going to be in the deck, let alone dealt.
 
And I'm going to say one more time that I'm not a fan of Custer.  He made a lot of stupid decisions.  He also made a lot of good ones.  I agree he was a man of his time.
 
I completely reject that he was an idiot.  He was tasked to his job b/c it required an aggressive commander.  He was pompous and arrogant.  I'd go so far as to say he was a "alpha-male".  But these days a 'alpha-male' is considered an asshole.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2012 at 10:22
I've walked the battleground of Little Big Horn.  They've marked where the men fell in battle (the men are buried elsewhere).  Custer wasn't in the middle.  He fell shouldered up w/ his men.
 
The only thing that can't be doubted - he fell in the service of his country.  His grave doesn't deserve to be pissed on.   
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2012 at 11:07

Quote the only good indian is a dead one.

General MacArthur waded ashore ( Holandia IIRC ) and saw a dead Japanese soldier.  He said:  "Thats how I like to see im." 
 
An insensitive jerk.  He should be cloned and placed back in charge of asian policy.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2012 at 11:33
Originally posted by SixthArmy SixthArmy wrote:

I've walked the battleground of Little Big Horn.  They've marked where the men fell in battle (the men are buried elsewhere).  Custer wasn't in the middle.  He fell shouldered up w/ his men.
 
The only thing that can't be doubted - he fell in the service of his country.  His grave doesn't deserve to be pissed on.   
 
We are on shakey ground indeed when the term "in the service of his country" is issued with unquestioning reverence. Many in history have done horrible things that were described as service to their country. It is a term that has cache in Hollywood, but little real value otherwise without an honest analysis of the actual events.
 
The service in this case was the pushing of aboriginals ever westward, away from advancing civilization, herding them onto reservations, or killing them in a wholesale fashion. These were not admirable pages in the history of North America. By Custer's time the cycle of violence had been going on for so long that savage attitudes prevailed, and were acted upon. The policy of the US was to take what natives had, and get them out of the way, one way or another. If massive bloodletting could be avoided, fine, but if not, well, then there was General Custer, or others of a similar mind.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2012 at 11:38
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

On Sir Francis, what notable military or naval commander was not an egoist?  And by whose definition criminal? He, like all the French, Dutch, Swedish, Scottish seamen who were doing much the same things as Drake, was a criminal under Spanish law, but why should he care about Spanish law? I don't remember Spain caring much about English law, under which he was not a criminal.

Otherwise you'd have to stigmatize women anywhere who have abortions as criminals.
 
I suppose your right- he was simply a man of his time, and a wild time it was.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Dec 2012 at 12:25

I'm in the wrong bbs.

Sorry for spouting nonsense here in the land of 'know'.
 
The service in this case was the pushing of aboriginals ever westward
 
Oh my gods.
 
 
 
Carry on, gentlemen. 
 
Good luck w/ whatever the f**k... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Dec 2012 at 00:19
Originally posted by SixthArmy SixthArmy wrote:

I'm in the wrong bbs.

Sorry for spouting nonsense here in the land of 'know'.
 
The service in this case was the pushing of aboriginals ever westward
 
Oh my gods.

You mean sometimes it was eastward? I suppose that's right if you start with the California settlers. It was more a pincer movement but the biggest drive was westward, hence Hollywood doesn't make 'Easterns' or 'Centrals'.

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Dec 2012 at 06:44
Originally posted by SixthArmy SixthArmy wrote:

Quote the only good indian is a dead one.

General MacArthur waded ashore ( Holandia IIRC ) and saw a dead Japanese soldier.  He said:  "Thats how I like to see im." 
 
An insensitive jerk.  He should be cloned and placed back in charge of asian policy.
 
I have to say, it's not like I haven't thaught a similar way he did. But I have a reason. My sister, brother-in-law, best friends from the village, and cousin were all either killed brutally and mutalated or tortured by the Nippon koku Army. But, then again, I ended up working for them after I went to Changchun. MacArther was referring mostly to the soldiers because they were his enemy. Custer was referring to more of a genocidal approach
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Dec 2012 at 08:27
Today the grand children of those Japanese soldiers are building their aircraft carriers once more, and the LDP is now vowing to do away with the pacifist consitution, Japanese Fascism will as long as the industrial world lives, will never die...
 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Dec 2012 at 12:28
Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:

Today the grand children of those Japanese soldiers are building their aircraft carriers once more, and the LDP is now vowing to do away with the pacifist consitution, Japanese Fascism will as long as the industrial world lives, will never die...
 
 
That's a little strong isn't it fusong? Sure, Japan went over the top in the '30s and '40s, setting a disgraceful record. But if we were honest, I think we could admit that  the sort of militarism, nationalism, violence, and racism acted out by Japan could be replicated in a number of places, some uncomfortably close to home. There are people in all countries that, if given enough sway, can carry out the most abhorrent aspects of the human psychy. We have seen this in a number of countries.
 
Germany- we don't need to mention. But with Germany supreme in Europe in the early '40s, many, many others went along with their violent rampage, including those that could have opted out. Vichy France- even those far outside German reach- Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, militas in Ukraine, the Baltic states, Spanish facists, Arab anti-semites.
 
In more recent times we have had the Khmer Rouge, Mao and his forced industrialization, the Shining Path in Peru, the Argentine generals....
 
Closer to home yet, the US fought a near genocical war against aboriginals for almost three centuries- a record Japan would find hard to beat. And even today, the uber-right in the US is talking openly about bombing the hell out of anyone who is "against us".
 
PS- Aircraft carriers?
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1053
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Dec 2012 at 14:57
Battle of watling street. Around 80,000 celtic brits, were defeated by 400 romans.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Dec 2012 at 19:09
Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:

Today the grand children of those Japanese soldiers are building their aircraft carriers once more, and the LDP is now vowing to do away with the pacifist consitution, Japanese Fascism will as long as the industrial world lives, will never die...
 


From what i understand, these are not the conventional types of carriers, but helicopter carriers. Which is a big difference.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.