|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 7, 2009 8:47:00 GMT -5
Chamberlain really had small choice in what he did. The Great War was too awful and too near and the thought of starting again was terrifying. Americans do not appreciate this.
England was not prepared, not mentally, nor was that nation's freedom then at stake. All very well for Churchill and history to lambast him, and we now know that Germany was much weaker than thought, but when Chamberlain said this affected a part of the world of which the English knew and cared little, hard to argue because they did not. And what military action was then possible? Europe was a mess, broke, and scared.
It's not entirely unlike Sudan and Darfur today. Yes, a great crime. Yes, there are clear innocents at present. But, no, it's in the middle of Africa where we have almost zippo military ability sans massive bombing to effect much damage that wouldn't rebound against us without troops on the ground, currently unavailable.
And, frankly, not enough Americans give a damn even if we were not in Iraq and Afghanistan. Until popular opinion hardens or changes, no leader would take us in at great risk and small return without a surety not now present.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 7, 2009 9:32:08 GMT -5
I don't believe England was threatened at the time of Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler/Germany.
We know the Indians were threatened by the US government. Conz feels it's better to give in when your way of life is threatened rather than fighting and/or dying for your freedom.
Conz, being an American and with a military connection surprises me by his believing it's better to be an appeaser rather than making a stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 7, 2009 10:02:55 GMT -5
That's why I said "...nor was that nation's freedom then at stake." You had previously framed it as 'giving in' rather than 'fighting for his freedom.' His freedom wasn't at stake.
Whether the Indians were fighting for their way of life, having considered other options, isn't entirely convincing. They were fighting for the warriors' way of life, and the perpetual male adoration - based not on reality - that continues today, not exclusive to one culture. As with all warrior cultures up against modern ones, they failed as protectors and providers against cultures more varied and with more potential than their own. Are cultures, totally unaware of the benefits/problems of other cultures fighting for their own out of choice or complete ignorance?
It's not a coincidence that successive coups around the world provide men hankering to wear uniforms with medals (and for what?) and a return to the idiot and unproductive cultures of the past.
Really, would most Islamic women in the more idiot Muslim nations really be suicide bombers if offered the chance for dishwashers, education, time to read in the sun, with actual friends and obtain a real future for the kids? Who contends they really have been offered and considered the opportunities of other lives and preferred to fight to the death (theirs) to preserve clitorectomy, forced marriage, virtual slavery, and devotion to pudgy and entirely ignorant male mullahs (oddly unwounded while the women's children and the women themselves are used to pointlessly blow up stuff)?
I fully understand that being an Indian under the white heel was unappealing, but the clear threat was to the status of third rate majority men, not the women, in the long run. You see the same things today, and it's often awful in the short run, but in the gaze of history, it often is better to adapt than fight to the death for something that's failed and by definition is inferior. It's not unrelated to how some guys here try to append themselves to an ancient warrior status they have not earned, nor could in reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 7, 2009 10:58:55 GMT -5
<These tribes are a stubborn bunch, aren't they?> Stop trying to goad people! If my freedom was threatened I would do everything in my power to ensure that I stayed free. If you want to roll over and stick your backside up that's up to you. You would rather have your family killed, than to submit to a hostile force that had taken all of you prisoner? Might as well just committ suicide first, and kill your mother, wife, and kids, too, before they get to you. This is not a morally sound position, I think. If you can't win your fight, and there is no positive reason for fighting and sacrificing your people except out of pride or arrogance, don't fight. Submit. THAT is a moral position. And it is what we train our military. If you decide to fight and die, you had better have a better reason than for your pride. Moreso if you kill your family doing it. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 7, 2009 11:02:16 GMT -5
I don't think the Wolf Mt. battle was a defeat for CH. The Indians instigated the battle and after the village got away the Sioux fell back. If a village can get away with its possessions and little casualties I would not consider it a "defeat" in a military meaning. So how can you say the 7th Cavalry was defeated at LBH? After all, they weren't wiped out, and they held the ground with Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull retreating afterwards. Quite a standard if we say the Natives win in any battle where some of them survive. <g> I don't think it can often be called a military "victory" when the standard is "some got away." Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 7, 2009 11:03:01 GMT -5
<He was just afraid to surrender> I don't believe SB was afraid of anything . . . if so he would have come in way before the LBH and been an "appeaser" a la Chamberlain (England, WWII) By the way would you consider Chamberlain a hero for giving in to Hitler rather than fighting for his freedom? Was there no hope for Chamberlain to win and preserve his people's freedom, you think? Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 7, 2009 11:45:02 GMT -5
<Was there no hope for Chamberlain to win and preserve his people's freedom, you think?
Hoping for peace is a poor policy to ensure peace, especially with Hitler's history since coming into power.
Soon after Chamberlain's "peace in our time" Hitler took over the parts of Europe he said he wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 7, 2009 11:48:39 GMT -5
<So how can you say the 7th Cavalry was defeated at LBH?>
Their commanding officer was dead along with all his junior officers and all 210+/- of his command, while the rest of the 7th was holed up on a hill with no where to go after suffering heavy casualties.
I'm not sure what you call a defeat a defeat . . . but that certainly sounds like one. It was the Indians who decided to leave, not the military.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 7, 2009 11:55:20 GMT -5
Being held "prisoner" was not the same as Red Cloud "appeasing" the White Man when he held the upper hand.
Big Foot's band may be considered POWs, under arrest, escorted, or whatever term you choose and from the Indians' point of view, any time the US military was close to a village there was the possibility of attack and/or violence.
The council between officers and Indian Head Men was botched by the military who goaded them into a rash act of defiance.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 7, 2009 13:59:09 GMT -5
A few more "tidbits" regarding who was responsible for Wounded Knee: General Miles : While this was being done a detachment of soldiers was sent into the camp to search for any arms remaining there, and it was reported that their rudeness frightened the women and children. It is also reported that a remark was made by some one of the soldiers that "when we get the arms away from them we can do as we please with them," indicating that they were to be destroyed. Some of the Indians could understand English. This and other things alarmed the Indians and scuffle occurred between one warrior who had rifle in his hand and two soldiers. The rifle was discharged and a massacre occurred, not only the warriors but the sick Chief Big Foot, and a large number of women and children who tried to escape by running and scattering over the prairie were hunted down and killed."
South Dakota Governor Sigurd Anderson explained his understanding of the situation in a 1956 speech:
"General Miles had campaigned against the Sioux in 1876 and 1877. He knew something of their camps, their actions, their fears. He had issued orders that white soldiers "were not" to go into Indian camps. He had understood the possibility of some bad incident setting off a fight if the Indians and the soldiers, neither able to understand the other, came into too close contact."
Governor Sigurd Anderson :
"Colonel Forsythe violated that order. During the night he deployed his troops about that camp as the map here indicates and the markers where various elements were located plainly shows. In the morning he sent some of the troops INTO the camp. There they were searching the Indians in groups of ten for the unsurrendered weapons."
Governor Sigurd Anderson :
"It should be clearly understood that at that time, in 1890, the Indian thought more of his rifle and his knife as implements of the chase than as weapons of war. But with the shortening of the beef ration the ability to take game became of even greater importance and he did not want to give up his rifle..."
General Colby
"These remnants of the followers of Sitting Bull had relied upon the words of Captain Whiteside [Whitside] in yielding to the military authority, but they were naturally suspicious
and uneasy. They had witnessed the tragic fate of their old chief and medicine man. Many of them believed that they were to be put to death, and naturally supposed that their disarming was simply to render them defenseless; others believed they were to be disarmed, then imprisoned and held for years in Florida, North Carolina, or Alabama as their brothers, the warlike Apaches, had been treated years before. The whole proceedings of this morning intensified their feelings, and confirmed them in their belief in regard to the terrible fate which awaited them."
And an not so flattering account by a soldier there:
"...Well finally the gallant 7th boys pulled themselves together, straightened out, got out of one another's way, out of the way of the battery. There was a cry of 'Remember Custer' and at it they went. Men, women and children fell like hickory nuts after heavy frost. Men, women and children were piled up on that little flat in one confused mass. Blood ran like water...Big Foot's band was converted into good Indians."
Seems from some of the above accounts the blame for the Massacre goes to Forsythe's handling of the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 7, 2009 14:19:35 GMT -5
<So how can you say the 7th Cavalry was defeated at LBH?> Their commanding officer was dead along with all his junior officers and all 210+/- of his command, while the rest of the 7th was holed up on a hill with no where to go after suffering heavy casualties. I'm not sure what you call a defeat a defeat . . . but that certainly sounds like one. It was the Indians who decided to leave, not the military. No...they RAN from Terry. And then they kept running all the rest of the summer and fall, until they finally surrendered in the winter. Not much of a victory. I won't say that the 7th Cav won that battle, but it certainly looks like they enabled Terry to win the campaign. At any rate, Sitting Bull certainly did not win the battle...he ran. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 7, 2009 14:29:16 GMT -5
Seems from some of the above accounts the blame for the Massacre goes to Forsythe's handling of the situation. I agree that Forsythe and some men of the 7th Cav made tactical mistakes...not sure if Forsythe himself voilated his commander's order, though...I thought he was ordered to disarm the village, so he was doing the only thing that he could to ensure that. The way they went about it was technically faulty, as evidenced as much by the Soldier casualties as by the Native ones. Miles is criticizing that Forsythe: 1) violated Miles' order for all Army units to stay out of villages, and 2) Fosythe mishandled the situation and brought about unnecesssary violence, resulting in deaths to his command and unnecessary deaths among the Natives. Tactical mistakes, however, do not in themselves amount to war crimes or any charge of immoral acts. The deaths of the 7th Cav Troopers is all the punishment, and much more, than the unit deserved here, I think. These Soldiers paid for their mistakes. But sins? I don't see it... Clair |
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 7, 2009 14:30:59 GMT -5
A smart soldier knows when to fight and when not to, especially if your family is fighting alongside you, unlike professional soldiers who did not have to worry about their families, which again, you fail to understand when we discuss how Indians fought and having to fall back, even after victory to ensure the families were safe.
The Indians left the LBH on their own terms . . . in fact many warriors wanted to stay and fight.
A number of soldier accounts stated they saw what appeared to be mounted soldiers in formation which turned out to be warriors trying to lure Terry into a trap.
Your failure to give credit to Indians is what resulted in a number of defeats by soldiers, including Gratton, Fetterman, Crook, & Custer.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 7, 2009 14:50:47 GMT -5
I don't believe Forsythe's intended to start a fight . . . neither did the Indians.
However, Forsythe's failure to obey Miles' order to stay out of the village was the catalyst to the entire Massacre. The Indians' experience with soldiers coming into a village was not good. The death of SB was also a factor. The Indians may have felt once they were disarmed they would all be killed.
Were there even interpreters along with the soldiers?
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 8, 2009 5:52:01 GMT -5
Were there even interpreters along with the soldiers? Yeah...there was a priest translating and trying to keep the Natives calm. They stabbed him to death. Clair |
|
