|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 17, 2010 6:47:45 GMT -6
Quite a few years ago ( I won't reveal how many) in psychology 101, we were taught that there exist a direct correlation between the sub-conscious and the conscious. If this premise remains true then General Kuster has a valid point. Further support from Joe
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 17, 2010 7:05:41 GMT -6
My point is that Benteen's long held contempt for Gen Custer did have an affect on his decision making and his ability to full carry out Custer's orders with the corect sense of urgency. Thus, Benteen's contribution to Custer's death that day was not necessarily a direct one, but an indirect one. If you don't believe in your leader, you will not carry out orders with a sense of urgency and with enthusiasm, and this could be the difference between life and death. HOGWASH Each person makes his own decisions and you can not speak for what some officer thought. If the Army at that timed shared your opinion they had a remedy. Since Benteen showed the note to everyone then we could conclude he must not have been concerned that it contained some urgency that he was not following. Even Weir leaving the watering area was caught by Benteen in a short distance and in a relatively safe area. I do not accept that you can determine "his ability to full carry out Custer's orders with the corect sense of urgency." That is only a relevant determination in the context of everything going on that day. There is no urgency in the Martin note and Martin's statements to Benteen. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 17, 2010 12:01:51 GMT -6
AZ you must be a news reporter, take an entire statement ,pull a sentence from it that suits your purpose, and conveniently leave out the rest. But that's OK at least I know someone is reading what I have to say. In reply to your request,I can safely assume you want me to reply to the part of my post that you have in the little box on top,about my respecting Gen Ks knowledge and opinion (although I disagree with it most of the time)Since the debate in this message room deals mostly with what a combat officer should and shouldn't do,or what he did or didn't do,I find it strange that you would find it foolish, or wrong, or whatever that I would respect the opinion of someone that actually was a combat officer .AZ if this room was about pro football quarterbacks would you fine it foolish for me to respect the opinion of Joe Montana,or Peyton Manning. But that's fine with me, just chalk it up to a misunderstanding .No blood no foul. At least I understood your point and could reply to it There is something else though, now that I got you on the phone, I would like to ask you about that has me a little confused .I saw in a reply to you by gen k something about being related, talking from the dead,different post from long ago etc.This flew over my head like an f-4 Phantom.I normally don't stick my nose into statements between two other people,but this seemed to involve me in some way. Would either of you be kind enough to take it down a notch,and tell me what the meaning or point of it is, and Ill be glad to give you the courtesy of a reply
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 17, 2010 15:11:41 GMT -6
OK. Let’s let cooler heads prevail here. If I led Benteen astray during one of my previous posts, I assume blame. I retired after 20 years as a US Navy Lieutenant Commander, graduate of the Navy War College, MBA, blah, blah, blah..and spent over three years in the Middle East in direct support of the US Army. I have taken numerous convoys through the streets of Baghdad, but that does not qualify me as a combat officer. I had a mortar once enter our camp and land about 100 feet away from me. Does that count? No, probably not. I drove up and down the infamous "Route Irish" back in 2005 in Baghdad, but luckily I was never hit by an IED. I was lucky. Then I spent over a year in Kuwait driving throughout the entire country because my mission required it; thus, I know the land and roads in Kuwait better than most Kuwaiti's do and probably better than almost anyone in the military today. Luckily, I never had an incident in Kuwait although others did. In between missions, I managed to find the local, secret watering holes to engage in much needed R&R and to drink and blow off steam. I was also assigned to a Cruiser in the Persian Gulf back in 1993 where my ship shot some Tomahawk Missiles at some of Saddam's palaces. Then, I served on a submarine for three years. Thus, I do have some experience in war zones, but not anything that would give me special insight into LBH nor should I be called a Combat Officer.
So what qualifies me to talk about Gen. Custer at LBH? Well for one, I can relate to his experiences as an officer. I know all the ups and downs that one has to go through, and although my experiences were not exactly the same as his, I believe they were similar. I know what it is like to be a little different and get accolades while some of my peers watched me with contempt. I know what it is like to make certain decisions that were later criticized by my superior officers. I have been to some dark places like Gen. Custer had in his career, but like Custer, I was also a recognized expert and received letters and phone calls from Admirals too. I have also led hundreds of men and women in my career, so I know a thing or two about leadership. In a nutshell, I am an expert on what it is like to be an officer in the US military because I was one for 20 years. Over the years, tactics, terminology, and equipment may change, but people don't really change all that much.
Because I am an officer and a gentleman, I only ask that we try to keep it fun, and if we learn something in the process, that's even better.
Oh, and don't think I have lost my edge. I have a lot of contempt for Reno and Benteen. They should have supported Gen. Custer more.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 17, 2010 15:58:05 GMT -6
There is something else though, now that I got you on the phone, I would like to ask you about that has me a little confused .I saw in a reply to you by gen k something about being related, talking from the dead,different post from long ago etc.This flew over my head like an f-4 Phantom.I normally don't stick my nose into statements between two other people,but this seemed to involve me in some way. Would either of you be kind enough to take it down a notch,and tell me what the meaning or point of it is, and Ill be glad to give you the courtesy of a reply Don't sweat it. He must think we are someone named Wiggs or possibly pohanka and we (you or I or possibly both of us) have subsequently changed our screen names (to Benteen or Gen Kuster) to help promote an agenda (e.g., Benteen was derelect) Imagine one guy who would get on here and create 20 different screen names in order to push an agenda. It's all like KGB paranoia IMHO. If you can never prove it (unless you know the IP addresses), it should not even be brought up.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 17, 2010 21:44:19 GMT -6
There is something else though, now that I got you on the phone, I would like to ask you about that has me a little confused .I saw in a reply to you by gen k something about being related, talking from the dead,different post from long ago etc.This flew over my head like an f-4 Phantom.I normally don't stick my nose into statements between two other people,but this seemed to involve me in some way. Would either of you be kind enough to take it down a notch,and tell me what the meaning or point of it is, and Ill be glad to give you the courtesy of a reply Don't sweat it. He must think we are someone named Wiggs or possibly pohanka and we (you or I or possibly both of us) have subsequently changed our screen names (to Benteen or Gen Kuster) to help promote an agenda (e.g., Benteen was derelect) Imagine one guy who would get on here and create 20 different screen names in order to push an agenda. It's all like KGB paranoia IMHO. If you can never prove it (unless you know the IP addresses), it should not even be brought up. So when was the last time pohanka and Wiggs were brought up within the month you have been on the board. What would make you think that IP addresses are hard to get? Since Joe Wiggs admits that he has multiple persons at the same time why would conclude that it does not happen? He even posts as a female sometimes such as pohanka.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 18, 2010 0:36:32 GMT -6
For the record, gentlemen, I don't give a flying you-know-what how long it took Benteen to water the horses. I suspect it was somewhere between 15 minutes and half and hour, give or take a minute or two. That's not the point. What finally occurred to me (after how many years!) was that both the note and Martini's cheery comment that the Indians were skedaddling would not really give Benteen the idea that urgency was required. I had been thinking of the note as sort of the opposite of what Martini said, but I am now thinking that that really isn't the case. "Be quick" certainly means "hurry up," but it doesn't necessarily mean "Help! Things are desperate!" And things weren't yet totally desperate when the note was written. I don't think Benteen took any more time to water the horses than was necessary to get the job done, and if that was too long for Weir, I have often commented that in my opinion, after years of heavy drinking, Weir may not have been the sharpest thinker in the regiment. It's also possible that he had that undefinable creepy feeling that something was not right. Benteen certainly disliked and resented Custer, but I don't think he "dawdled" in a purposeful way--he just didn't go as fast as he might have had he known what was really happening. There is no way anybody will get me to believe that he purposely left Custer and 212 others to die just because he didn't like the guy.
Without going to the trouble to look it up, I believe that the officers at the RCOI said categorically that Reno was NOT drunk--I think it was packers and maybe an enlisted man or two who made that accusation. (Somebody correct me if I'm mistaken--I'm sure you will!) Benteen said something about if Reno had had any whiskey, Benteen would have wanted some. If you choose not to believe that, there is certainly room for speculation--the honor of the regiment, brother officers, and all that. I personally don't believe that Reno was drunk while in the valley, but it is possible that he MAY have been on the hilltop. Or maybe not.
Translated interviews are certainly chancy. I think that all we can do is to find out as much as possible about the people involved in any interview of that nature, and then form an opinion based on the best info we have. And we may all form different opinions based on the same info.
I don't believe a volley can be fired by one person. I have always understood that a volley is more than one person firing in unison.
Godfrey apparently didn't hang out with the Custer Clan, but I don't think he hated Custer, either. I don't think I've ever seen a picture of Hale, Mathey, DeRudio, Gibson, McDougall, Hare, Porter or French at a Custer Clan gathering either. That doesn't necessarily mean they hated Custer--just that either they weren't on congenial enough terms to get invited to parties, or that they were elsewhere when the parties happened, or that the pictures haven't survived. For that matter, there are several pictures of Keogh at such parties, but he wasn't really that close to Custer. Reno had plenty of reason at the RCOI to say that he didn't trust Custer's judgment--and maybe it was true.
I don't believe that being a combat vet conveys sainthood on anyone, or absolves them from criticism. Anybody can be a jerk, a screw-up, or a weasel, and I don't think it has much to do with whether or not they have been in combat.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 18, 2010 5:07:30 GMT -6
Don't sweat it. He must think we are someone named Wiggs or possibly pohanka and we (you or I or possibly both of us) have subsequently changed our screen names (to Benteen or Gen Kuster) to help promote an agenda (e.g., Benteen was derelect) Imagine one guy who would get on here and create 20 different screen names in order to push an agenda. It's all like KGB paranoia IMHO. If you can never prove it (unless you know the IP addresses), it should not even be brought up. So when was the last time pohanka and Wiggs were brought up within the month you have been on the board. What would make you think that IP addresses are hard to get? Since Joe Wiggs admits that he has multiple persons at the same time why would conclude that it does not happen? He even posts as a female sometimes such as pohanka. Maybe it was not clear that I said a person's identity cannot be proven, UNLESS you know their IP address. There could be other ways too, but that is the first method that came to mind. It was not an indication one way or another that I thought an IP address was hard to get. It's not hard to figure out even though I have only been here a month; remember I am not limited to only posts that have been posted in the last month. I read other LBH message boards, and in one I came across the name Wiggs and a discussion about his identity. Then in some other threads I saw a reference to someone thinking pohanka was wiggs. That's all it took for me to come to my conclusion. THe name pohanka only caught my eye because I recall their was a prominent LBH researcher named pohanka. Actually, this topic is very inappropriate. Why should someone have to verify who they are on a message board? That's ridiculous (and a waste of their time). I explained who I am, so that should suffice. If it comes up again, then I will surely call it paranoia.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 18, 2010 11:55:39 GMT -6
Gen K Thank you for your honesty commander.I also appreciate your taking the high road and blaming yourself for my misunderstanding. Understand however, that I didn't think then, and don't think now, that you were in any way attempting to misrepresent, or deceive me or anyone else as to your military background. It is far more likely that I misread and misunderstood some of your posts. In any event, water under the bridge, and I still give you a salute and a thank you for your 20 years of service to our country. As to that other matter with the different names and all, I couldn't care less. I Also have not lost my edge and still detest Custer and support Reno and Benteen. So as they say in the Royal Navy lets get the ships of the line in order,batten down the hatches,and do battle. (well actually I don't know if they say that but it sounded good so I threw it in)
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 18, 2010 12:01:39 GMT -6
Melani Well said, nice post, couldn't agree with you more. You saved me a lot of typing (which I'm not very good at).
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on May 18, 2010 14:52:09 GMT -6
Melani, I agree with Benteen about your post. Well done and well said!
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 18, 2010 15:52:22 GMT -6
Benteen - they do battle in the Royal Navy? I actually served for three days on the HMS Cornwall (for training purposes) in the Persian Gulf. Mighty fine cruise ship...er, I mean warship. Teak wood decks, carpeting, officers in Bermuda shorts and sandals, and a full bar in the officer's wardroom. Those Brits know how to live.
|
|
|
Post by bc on May 19, 2010 22:52:17 GMT -6
Gentlemen and ladies. Just thought I throw in my (1943 steel) 2 cents worth as adjusted for inflation/deflation.
I don't really care if someone is a reincarnation or not. And I'm not going to take the time to compare english style and characteristics to see if any are the same. For a while I thought the first person creations of Gen. Kuster and Libbie was quite creative and a welcome change of pace. However that has kind of worn off. I'm fairly new to the LBHA and having been to a couple of conferences, I've met a number of people. I have no identity to hide and I'm still learning so I don't claim to be an expert or have a model etched in stone. I have only read maybe 3 books and the rest learned from the boards and a few trips to lbh. To show my naivite, I was a long time believer in John Lockwood's book, Custer fell first. Analysis has dispelled his writings but there were some unaccounted packers along and I hold a glimmer of hope his name shows up on the rolls somewhere. You can see the Lockwood thread I started.
What confuses some of us is all the new experts that show up on the boards who are very well read. Just seems like you guys and gals with such knowledge and interest would be members of and well known to the 3 major battle organizations. I understand trying to maintain a little privacy, but I have met many lbh experts in the last few years. I follow 2 custer boards. This one and the lbha one. Don't have time for the AAO board and it seemed kinda lame the one visit I did make. The LBHA split off from this board which used to be the official board and formed their own. I'm just interested in learning and don't care about orgainzation politics. My dues are basically a magazine subscription.
I also believe in creating a certain amount of fun and comedy to interject where I can. I was never on the scale of Brokensword or Gordie but I tried. For a board to survive, it takes battle experts who are ready to share on a regular basis to drive the boards. (I am not one.) Many experts left to the LBHA board. Gordie stayed and was the primary driving force here until he died. The board has kind of wandered ever sense. Maybe you guys are the experts who can drive the board. After Gordie died, and Tricia earlier, the mix of peope here just has, like me, have tended to have broken their hearts an the comedy died as well. I try to follow when I can. After about a year of the LBHA board talking about Reno creek from the divide, Benteen's route, and the Reno fight, it has now shifted hot and heavy to the Custer wing battle.
Finally I was the one who called out the poster claiming the name of Pohanka. Brian was a well known and well written historical expert and I've seen him on countless history channel shows. Then he died. It just struck me as very bad taste and really tacky to adopt the name of a recently dead historian. I was afraid that visitors to the board would see those Pohanka posts and attribute some extra expertise to those opinions that may not be warranted. A form of plaigerism. I don't care if people adopt the name of lbh veterans as we know they are all dead. I just hope they know enough to do the name justice. I personally couldn't do anyone justice, even my ancestory, Pvt. James Troy of Co. I.
Too things that added spice to the board are no longer here. There were a number of Europeans who frequented here that were well read and added some expertise and a fresh look at things. There were also many NAs who added information from the NA side of things. I really enjoyed reading their posts and learned a lot. Apparently a decision was made to give them their own board. Unfortunatly my time is limited on the net and I can go chasing all over for boards to read. I miss those posts as well.
Guess I gave you about 4 canandian cents worth of how I feel. Keep up the good work and if someone makes heads or tails out of what Heroesrest is saying, then clue me in. Thanks.
bc
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 20, 2010 8:03:29 GMT -6
Actually, this topic is very inappropriate. Why should someone have to verify who they are on a message board? That's ridiculous (and a waste of their time). I explained who I am, so that should suffice. If it comes up again, then I will surely call it paranoia.
I am glad that we live in a country where you can't determine what is inappropriate. Does an amendment come to mind?
As far as identifying oneself that is a personal choice. I have no issue with that. What I have issues with is someone making making a point and using their multiple personalities to support it. So if you have only one log on name regardless of identity then I have no issue. I reserve the right to comment on issues that interest me.
As far a reincarnations of someone who leaves because they make ridiculous statements and then come back and immediately attack as a new poster I feel free to comment to them as I see it.
As far as paranoia one could argue that not identifying oneself is paranoia. I am sure some have good reasons to be concerned about their identities for safety and/or identity theft reasons.
After 31 years in law enforcement worrying about persons on a board coming to get me is not a very high on my concerns. There has been sufficient contact with real persons to keep me aware of the potential.
Unless you are using multiples names and/or a reincarnate for a specific person that embarrassed himself and left than you don't need to be paranoid.
Since this is the In Defense of Benteen thread and some of you are also on the other board then the poll for Benteen Dawdling should be familiar to you. One person uses the poll results to support his position yet when individuals are asked their positions after 100 pages of discussion the actual persons posting their positions are opposite of the poll in a highly significant number.
I like that we have different backgrounds and viewpoints it helps to see others viewpoints that don't have the same bias filters that we as individuals have when looking at something.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 20, 2010 8:05:29 GMT -6
What bc said.
|
|