|
Post by scottbono on Jan 26, 2014 13:35:24 GMT -6
Glad I could contribute something creating heartfelt (and literate) comments.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 26, 2014 19:35:11 GMT -6
Well, I finished it. If I were grading the thing, I would have failed him.
All he has done is re-hash one of the theories of the defeat as though it were fact and he presents a short synopsis leading up to the decision. He gets a number of events wrong and makes assumptions where he should not. There is no discussion of Terry's orders, just an acceptance that Custer could do whatever he wanted. He then re-hashes the rules outlined in a couple of military manuals, but I see no effort to fit Custer's actions into such a structure and I see no comparisons of alternatives. He stated his objective, but he never met it because he presented no alternatives, assuming an officer today would do exactly the same... but he never proved his case.
Quite frankly, I thought the paper was terrible. Simply put, a re-hash of the what-to-dos and the how-to-dos of the manuals and a re-hash of the event. I saw no application, no choice, no comparisons of alternatives.
I'll tell you, if this passed muster for a master's, there are a number of people on these boards who could assemble some of their posts and submit them for a Ph. D.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 26, 2014 19:42:13 GMT -6
Fred: I made similar remarks to one of our members here today. Both of these papers were ticket punches and any similarity to a serious study of the subject matter or lessons to be learned from it are purely coincidental. Both are in my view rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by scottbono on Jan 26, 2014 20:03:02 GMT -6
Well, I finished it. If I were grading the thing, I would have failed him. All he has done is re-hash one of the theories of the defeat as though it were fact and he presents a short synopsis leading up to the decision. He gets a number of events wrong and makes assumptions where he should not. There is no discussion of Terry's orders, just an acceptance that Custer could do whatever he wanted. He then re-hashes the rules outlined in a couple of military manuals, but I see no effort to fit Custer's actions into such a structure and I see no comparisons of alternatives. He stated his objective, but he never met it because he presented no alternatives, assuming an officer today would do exactly the same... but he never proved his case. Quite frankly, I thought the paper was terrible. Simply put, a re-hash of the what-to-dos and the how-to-dos of the manuals and a re-hash of the event. I saw no application, no choice, no comparisons of alternatives. I'll tell you, if this passed muster for a master's, there are a number of people on these boards who could assemble some of their posts and submit them for a Ph. D. Best wishes, Fred. That is why I wanted to bring the thing for review. The average reader would have little inkling about the paper's real content.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 26, 2014 21:16:07 GMT -6
Another thing I meant to add. There were at least four-- maybe more-- instances where he used the word, "lead," meaning "led." Plus, he used some photos of the battlefield with snow on the ground. I would think, since, the fight occurred in June at 100 degrees, you might think about using different photos. In another, he took a photo of the distant Crow's Nest from Reno Hill. And the relevance of that is...?
The worst part, however, remained a complete failure to prove his point.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 27, 2014 5:34:25 GMT -6
I have been a second reader on numerous theses, and this one is a train wreck. I would give it an F. It fails a s a thesis. It fails in its facts. It fails in its understanding of basic military strategy and doctrine.
His theory is that GAC followed correct military decision making process. This is not only unproved, but not even addressed. He discusses vaguely the principles of war from FM 100-5. This thesis fails the null test. The theory is that GAC made tactically sound decisions, the same as any other officer would make then or now. The problem is that Custer lost. So by definition the theory fails.
As far as history, this board is full of folks who can see the dozens of errors. Given that he relies heavily on Ambrose, what a surprise.
As far as MDMP, he is like a blind man describing the sun. He has no idea what he is talking about.
He was just chasing a check in the block diploma to advance his career. There are many schools with no standards that cater to the military. You pay money and get a quickie diploma. You should not expect much.
By the way, Baker is an infantry officer with 3 bronze stars and an ARCOM for valor. Decent soldier, just notso hotso as a student.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 27, 2014 7:20:20 GMT -6
Montrose, I was a mediocre student, at best. I am not as knowledgeable as many on these boards. I was not so much looking at content, as at the fact that the MC seemed to require much more structure than a state university. I would venture to say, that the average tenured U.S. History professor, at the average university has not as much knowledge about their subject matter as many on these boards. They are too busy teaching politically correct history, from new texts.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 27, 2014 9:28:39 GMT -6
... this one is a train wreck. I would give it an F. It fails a s a thesis. It fails in its facts. It fails in its understanding of basic military strategy and doctrine.... He was just chasing a check in the block diploma to advance his career. There are many schools with no standards that cater to the military. You pay money and get a quickie diploma. You should not expect much. By the way, Baker is an infantry officer with 3 bronze stars and an ARCOM for valor. Decent soldier, just notso hotso as a student. Will, Are we talking about the same paper? If so, I completely agree with your assessment... which is a lot better than mine. The reason I ask, however, is you mention someone named Baker. The author here was a Major Jonathan T. Neumann, with someone named Dr Donald F. Bittner, Professor of History, as his "mentor." There is also a mentor named LTC Michael M. Weber, USMA. This thing was done for the USMA Staff College of the Marine Corps University. Is this a legitimate MA, similar to what you would get from a Yale or University of Michigan or schools such as that? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 27, 2014 9:37:17 GMT -6
I would venture to say, that the average tenured U.S. History professor, at the average university has not as much knowledge about their subject matter as many on these boards. They are too busy teaching politically correct history, from new texts. I think I would agree with this. I would like to believe political correctness plays less of a part in a good, private university and regardless of whether or not the school is liberal or conservative, facts would be presented as such-- along with the attendant caveats-- and the discussions ensue from there. I would also hope history classes would concentrate on the important areas and less so on chronological silliness. I know at my school, I loved history because the professors did exactly that: they skimmed, then concentrated. We had one course in diplomatic history-- two solid years of it-- taught by a prof named Jules Davids. Phenomenal course, phenomenal professor. On the other hand, there was such a hue and cry when the school decided Shakespeare was no longer required of English majors-- they could elect it, but it was no longer required-- that the New York Times ran an editorial decrying the university's decision. I agree with the Times... need to check that out, to see if it is still a policy. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 27, 2014 9:52:01 GMT -6
Fred: Baker wrote the first paper which started the thread. Neumann the second which Scott posted. The first, Baker's, was done at LSU. These institutions such as Marine Corps University, USCG&S College, and the Army War College usually have some university they are associated with in the case of the Army War College, it is a college in the Carlisle Area, Shippensburg I think that offers master programs in conjunction with the war college work
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 27, 2014 9:59:56 GMT -6
Fred: Baker wrote the first paper which started the thread. Neumann the second which Scott posted. The first, Baker's, was done at LSU. These institutions such as Marine Corps University, USCG&S College, and the Army War College usually have some university they are associated with in the case of the Army War College, it is a college in the Carlyle Area, Shippensburg I think that offers master programs in conjunction with the war college work Gotcha! Well, for what my two cents are worth, neither Baker nor Neumann deserved anything close to a MA based on that work. I would have given both an F, even for high school. Neumann's wasn't even formatted properly; the pictures were silly; the spelling, i.e., "lead" for "led," horrible, and the capitalization bad. To me, extremely unprofessional and not something I would have accepted from a field grade officer. Sorry, but my standards are a bit higher than what I saw with those two fellows. And they are both West Pointers. Now, if you want a good, military paper, check out this guy: a marvelous work on World War I: Captain Timothy T. Lupfer, “The Dynamics of Doctrine: The Changes in German Tactical Doctrine During the First World War.” Leavenworth Papers, No. 4. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, U. S. Army Command and General Staff College, July 1981. One of the best I have ever read. This was a guy with an understanding of his subject. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 27, 2014 10:08:24 GMT -6
Fred: I have read it and have a copy here somewhere. The Leavenworth Papers and the articles contained in Leavenworth's Military Review are on the whole outstanding. The book I recommended to Ian a week or so ago House's Combined Arms Warfare in the Twentieth Century started out as a text written by House when he was an instructor at Leavenworth. Ian posted the textbook (not the commercial ) version here as a PDF, but I can't recall which thread it's on.
|
|