|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 20, 2010 15:13:03 GMT -6
Since your husband died with all his men we can only assume what his intentions were and we can't assume only the positives. Whatever he was doing and/or thinking didn't work.
One glaring mistake your husband made that no one can explain to me is why wasn't Benteen notified of the separation of command and attack order to Reno? Benteen at the very least should have been contacted.
And I'm sure all survivors, especially senior officers felt guilt for what happened . . . but at the time they were doing as you said . . . they were pretty much on their own and had to make decisions based on what was taking place with them.
PS: I rather like this discussion . . . you are a perfect lady and your husband seems gentlemanly enough . . . to bad how things turned out.
|
|
|
Post by darkmoon on Apr 20, 2010 21:16:16 GMT -6
Crz… Thank you for the compliment, and I rather enjoy our little talk as well.
What was published about the battle, wasn’t always stated in ways we should understand. Even those who were bitter rivals before the battle came together in understanding that it was best not to cast blame. Even on those whom they prior would have - so the truth only came out in confused fragments of information enshrouded in a false glory, where no one was to be blamed, and everyone shared equally in the shame. It is those precious few confused fragments of information that are never seriously considered and often discarded as being untrue in disharmony that share more in faith than what most can appreciate. Many assume way to much because of what they think they know. And what they know is not based upon the truth that was known and lost due to incompetence, misunderstanding and pride, all which to this day flourish in abundance with glaring mistakes set forth as false positives.
Autie was always very self willed and determined when it came to military matters, but he had reassured me before he left that he would not do anything rash or careless. My dearest has forgotten much I fear because of time and the wounds he suffered. But the departure of Reno occurred within minutes of Benteen’s own mission. And most of what my husband told Benteen and Reno lay forever in their troubled hearts and tortured minds now forgotten to time. To say that Benteen “didn’t know” is absolving him of responsibility. When in fact one precious fragment Benteen told us was that he expected my husband, with which companies in tow, to return to him? How much more did Benteen know that he failed to tell?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 21, 2010 6:58:21 GMT -6
That's what happens when there is no plan and you wing it on the fly. At best Reno had to prevent the escape with his three companies and the run away scouts. He did that to well. To many stayed to fight.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on Apr 21, 2010 10:02:56 GMT -6
That's what happens when there is no plan Ranger, I believe that to conclude this is using flawed reasoning. Aren’t you assuming that there was no plan on the basis that there was no evidence of a plan? Lack of evidence of something does not mean that it does not exist. Because no one has seen God, does not mean that God does not exist. Because no one has seen an alien, does not mean that aliens do not exist. Plus, because Major Reno and Colonel Benteen did not confirm the presence of a plan, is not a good reason to conclude that there was no plan. They both certainly had motive to say there was no plan. Not only were their reputations at stake, military career and retirement benefits, but they could have faced disciplinary and/or criminal charges. Thus, I would take anything either of those two said and be VERY skeptical. Their testimony may be used, but corroborated against other testimony. I’m a teacher at heart, so is all this clear?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 21, 2010 12:28:14 GMT -6
<Lack of evidence of something does not mean that it does not exist> That would never stand up in court. Most scientists, researchers, etc. cannot use their "beliefs" . . . they need hard, physical evidence. Was there a plan. I would say there was some "type" of plan . . . but nothing concrete . . . let's wing it and see what happens. That's great, but when "let's see what happens" is more than you bargained for you need a contingency plan . . . and there wasn't any. As an aside: More people have seen aliens than seen God
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 22, 2010 6:58:26 GMT -6
There was not enough information to formulate a plan that would result in success. Benteen was on a recon in force movement. Reno on a advance to contact. Custer was going somewhere between MTC and the upper end of the village, the pack train and rear guard were out of supporting distance.
There may have been some tactics that would place the separate battalions in position to gather enough information that a plan could be formed but they never reached that condition.
The civilians and scouts provided their input on location, numbers and the fighting condition of the Indians. That was mostly ignored.
I believe Custer was still in a gathering intel mode when he died. Sometimes times speed makes up for a plan but not in this case. Reno's retrograde would be an example of speed working.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 22, 2010 14:46:29 GMT -6
"Aren’t you assuming that there was no plan on the basis that there was no evidence of a plan?" Dear God. If he isn't, I certainly am. Lack of evidence for is - how to put this - lack of evidence. For.
Therefore, it's idiotic to assume lack of evidence for is somehow proof of. Not 'flawed reasoning', but actually idiotic, as the utter absence of reason or synapse level above that of a tapeworm in your theory demands that conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on Apr 23, 2010 11:43:15 GMT -6
I will try to say this as simply as I can.
In the field of Logic, there are things called "flaws in reasoning." There are hundreds of different flaws. People study them, especially attorneys, so that they don’t make mistakes with their reasoning.
One type of flawed reasoning is when an individual believes something does not exist because they have never seen proof of its existence.
ANY CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM THIS TYPE OF REASONING IS FAULTY AND INVALID.
Just because Reno and Benteen made it sound as if I had no plan, and just because there is no proof of a plan, and just because the witness testimony and artifacts left on the battlefield point to me not having a plan, does not mean there was no plan.
However, you can still form an opinion based on the evidence, but that's all it will be - - an opinion.
Opinions can be debated until the sun don't shine, but in the end, we will not be any closer to the truth than when we started.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I am happy knowing that I had a detailed plan that could have been successful.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on Apr 23, 2010 12:15:05 GMT -6
There was not enough information to formulate a plan that would result in success. Benteen was on a recon in force movement. Reno on a advance to contact. ...I believe Custer was still in a gathering intel mode when he died. Ranger, this is a good point. We were still in the information gathering mode to a certain extent but not to the extent that most believe. However, just because you are still gathering information does not mean you can't simultaneously have a detailed plan. It simply means that your plan will be more complex with more possible scenarios that could occur. The prudent thing is to plan for as many contingencies as possible and have a viable answer for each. I had at least 10 different scenarios that I knew could occur, and that is precisely why I decided to split my forces a little. But having to deal with many contingencies is a common characteristic of most battles. Simply put, I had a detailed plan that was well thought out, but most would like to believe I was fighting recklessly and "on the fly." They like to think this because it gives them a reason to blame me for the catastrophe that occurred instead of trying to uncover the truth. It’s very convenient. Plus, it's a way to paint me and the US government as the villain. If you are foolish and incompetent, you must be the villain. You must be the party who was wrong. People can think what they want to think, but if you state your theory or opinion, all I ask is that you support it with sound logic and some valid premises. So far, all I have seen here are accusations.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on Apr 23, 2010 12:42:18 GMT -6
Not 'flawed reasoning', but actually idiotic, as the utter absence of reason or synapse level above that of a tapeworm in your theory demands that conclusion. Some insult that is. I'm hurt. You know, I would rather discuss the battle than try to insult people.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 23, 2010 19:08:34 GMT -6
You insult the Custers by this idiocy.
You don't know much about litigation, law, or logic, either.
|
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Apr 23, 2010 19:09:54 GMT -6
General, I appreciate all of your efforts to clarify the many unknowns of your tactics during this battle for the audiences edification. You have done an outstanding job and, Mrs. Custer is an absolute joy to hear.
Please continue to banter with those who enjoy reading your perspectives as your responses are delightful.
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on Apr 23, 2010 20:42:20 GMT -6
You insult the Custers by this idiocy. You don't know much about litigation, law, or logic, either. More accusations huh.... Look, if you have a problem with what I have said, I would appreciate a little more thoughtful analysis on your part. Otherwise, it's you who looks idiotic. Maybe you have been posting here too long to realize that. Please keep it to a debate about strategy and tactics (i.e., battle theories) instead of accusations because that's just a waste of everyone's time. Can you do that?
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on Apr 23, 2010 20:52:29 GMT -6
General, I appreciate all of your efforts to clarify the many unknowns of your tactics during this battle for the audiences edification. You have done an outstanding job and, Mrs. Custer is an absolute joy to hear. Please continue to banter with those who enjoy reading your perspectives as your responses are delightful. Thank you. I have read many of your messages, and they are delightfull as well. Also, thank you for your encouragement. It's people like you who make this site interesting and fun. Houdini is a bore (always talking about magic and contorting his body), so I have been looking for another outlet, and this is it.
|
|
|
Post by darkmoon on Apr 23, 2010 22:40:14 GMT -6
Sweetums - if you want to “discuss this battle”, then please do “discuss the battle” honey, and please provide sources for you fabrications instead of this silliness. There are enough Hoo-rah Little Boys running around boards like this with their toy guns pretending to play show and tell - all for their self inflated ego’s. It’s demeaning and like telling the other little boys and girls that “your going to play General Custer” just because your daddy was in the military. Unlike “some forums,” this forum isn’t about its members being required to be in the military. And, an intense contention could be made that those who claim ‘military status’ warp and refashion historical events. This because, their non-military perceptions cause them to make self contradictory statements, which results in a case of severe cognitive-topic agreement issues when they are playing pretend. It’s nothing new, little boys and girls do this all the time. Think about it this way. How much different is your lame attempt than theirs? They enjoy playing dress up dolly as GI Joe, and they have a self centered excuse to do it - to get those less skilled in military knowledge to applaud and grovel to their biases and prejudices. Like them, don’t feel to bad when someone tells you what you’re doing is disrespectful. You put it out there and are not protected from laughter or public comment, whether either is praiseworthy or not. Pretending under any circumstances, whether it is someone saying they’re in the military or like yourself, pretending to be Gen. Custer isn’t a given Hoo-Rah moment, nor does it alone mean their/your insight is necessarily correct. In reality, you and all those who pretend military status can claim about this battle is a B S degree in History 101. And it’s not that I contend any greater knowledge than you, I don’t! It’s not about me or you dear, nor “them“, nor is it about what we think we are, who we are, or who “they“ are. In the end (examination, study, investigation, scrutiny, breakdown, inquiry, exploration, evaluation, consideration, probe) its about them, the soldiers and warriors who fought and died. And now sweetie, if the - “we” - moments are all put away in their little toy box, “we” can go back to being who “we” really are and “discuss this battle” like the ladies and gentlemen we truly are. [exception noted ]
|
|