|
Post by welshofficer on Mar 28, 2015 17:37:33 GMT -6
Let's take a look at the "chain of command", with Sturgis, Tilford and Merrill absent/detached:
Grant (Strategy) Sherman (implementing Strategy) Sheridan (Operations) Terry (localised Operations and overall Tactics) GAC (localised Tactics, 22-25 June, as CO 7th Cav) Reno (2IC to GAC, battalion commander) Benteen (3IC, battalion commander) Keogh (4IC, battalion commander) Yates (5IC, battalion commander) TWC - where did he de facto rank in practice as GAC's ADC...?
It is difficult for anybody to exonerate GAC completely, although a few try, given the tactical developments from crossing the divide to LSH.
But it is fascinating, especially from east of the pond, observing where a sizeable minority of Americans try and pin much of the blame. And especially upon Reno and Benteen.
The British mind set would inevitably focus upon how GAC got himself in a position whereby he needed "rescuing" in the first place, or how a regimental commander died as a de facto company commander on LSH. Just as the British Inquiry on the Titanic disaster focussed on the design flaws and navigational errors that triggered the sinking of the "unsinkable" (absurd, anything that floats can sink) ship.
There seem to be many in America that focus on why GAC wasn't "rescued". Just as the US Inquiry on the Titanic focussed on the absence of sufficient lifeboat capacity. So far, so good. That's just a different emphasis between different cultures.
But beyond that, there is an irrational minority west of the pond obsessed with the notion that Benteen should have taken his 3 companies (and a pack train!) and rescued the 5 companies that were butchered pretty quickly without any such rescue. It's not as if there was a hard fought battle on the eastern bluffs, with the outcome in doubt until the end. The GAC wing was overwhelmed, and pretty quickly so. There is no logical explanation for this behaviour.
What is it in the American psyche that causes such irrational behaviour from a minority about GAC, seeking to find subordinates to blame for basically a military fiasco that can only be brought about by the tactical commander on the day...?
WO
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 28, 2015 18:02:44 GMT -6
It's because our heroes can't die in an ordinary way or especially through their own mistake. There has to be something more to help it make sense. Custer couldn't die from his own mistakes, it had to be others, even a conspiracy. Maybe a more modern example might be found with Princess Diana.
Beth
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Mar 28, 2015 18:12:31 GMT -6
Beth,
It is just striking, from this side of the pond. We lost far more soldiers 3 years later, in our own colonial fiasco at Isandlwana, but most don't even remember it let alone divide into Thesiger, Pulleine and Durnford factions. You could point to mistakes that every individual in that chain of command made, but the debacle was the tactical responsibility of GAC. US Cavalry regiments simply didn't ride around losing nearly 300 men in engagements with plains hostiles. That was unique to the 7th Cavalry on 25 June 1876.
WO
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 28, 2015 18:42:44 GMT -6
Beth, It is just striking, from this side of the pond. We lost far more soldiers 3 years later, in our own colonial fiasco at Isandlwana, but most don't even remember it let alone divide into Thesiger, Pulleine and Durnford factions. You could point to mistakes that every individual in that chain of command made, but the debacle was the tactical responsibility of GAC. US Cavalry regiments simply didn't ride around losing nearly 300 men in engagements with plains hostiles. That was unique to the 7th Cavalry on 25 June 1876. WO I agree. But the UK has a long established national idenity, the US is still working on theirs and people like Custer are part of it. People like to view Custer's Last Stand (the legend) is a heroic example at America at its best, brave men fighting to the last man against shoulder to shoulder to the end for a glorious cause--our Manifest Destiny. Now if you take that legend and say that all those people died because Custer cocked things up and they didn't die bravely fighting shoulder to shoulder but were terrified for their lives and being slaughtered by a superior force what does it say about our bravery and our given right to push west and take control of the land for our own use--mining, agriculture and living space? Beth Once you tear away the legend, then you can look at the battle as a military event.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2015 19:03:23 GMT -6
Like most officers, I did a fair number of line of duty and property loss investigations during my career, probably fifty or so over a period of many years.
With an LOD you were usually trying to determine if the accident or injury occurred while in the line of duty, or was the cause due to misconduct on the part of the soldier. They were fairly straightforward and the usual outcome was ---Line of Duty -- Yes.
In property and equipment loss investigations ranging from lost TA 50 gear to destruction of property, you were looking much deeper for proximate cause -- the but for.
If for instance the soldier was on a night training exercise negotiating a dense wooded area, and a piece of his equipment was lost, unbeknown to him, by becoming entangled in some underbrush, the item was normally written off and no pecuniary liability found.
On the other extreme, if a soldier is in need of drinking money for a upcoming weekend and takes his TA50 to the back door of the Army Surplus store on B street and exchanges it for some quick cash, and the investigation discovers this, you hammer the bastard.
In both cases equipment was lost. The difference in liability though is much different. In the first no negligent conduct was involved. In the second negligence and criminal conduct were present.
Looking at battles and who is responsible is similar. You are looking for the --- BUT FOR. The but for at LBH is readily apparent. But for Custer's orders and direction none of what happened would have happened. None of it.
So unless Benteen, Reno, Keogh, Yates, Tom Custer, McDougal, or even Vic and Dandy were secretly whispering in Custer's ear, send Benteen here George, let Reno go into that valley unsupported George, ride miles away and outside any concept of supporting distance George, we must assume that Custer alone made these decisions, and but for those very decisions none of what did take place would have. The man who gives the order is the inevitable but for.
I am not even going to comment on the responsibility that falls upon Mrs. Custer for the perpetuation of this myth here in this country that Benteen and Reno were responsible for what happened. I don't care if it was her grief, her pending meal ticket,or if she was influenced by others. She alone was responsible for the myth that exists today. She was a despicable piece of trash in a satin dress.
There are two people responsible here WO, and both of them are named Custer. George was responsible for the defeat, and Mrs. Custer responsible for diverting attention away from her husband's responsibility and for building a myth of a shifted responsibility onto his subordinates. I think that answers your question, for the school books we here were raised on still contain her myth, and lazy idiots believe it. At least that is my answer.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 28, 2015 19:38:39 GMT -6
I think the blame of battle's failure belongs solely to Custer but the failure of the Campaign belongs to Sheridan, Sherman and Grant. I'm not sure where to put Terry.
Beth
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Mar 28, 2015 19:39:04 GMT -6
Have to agree, QC. Mrs. Custer was hugely responsible for the myths and the continuing BS about who is at fault. If she can read these posts from the great beyond, she surely must be pleased when she reads Scarface's posts, Rini's posts, and all the other fanboys' posts. It was obviously to her benefit to try and hide the truth about whose fault the defeat at LBH lies with. Only GAC can be held responsible for that.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 28, 2015 19:54:15 GMT -6
Have to agree, QC. Mrs. Custer was hugely responsible for the myths and the continuing BS about who is at fault. If she can read these posts from the great beyond, she surely must be pleased when she reads Scarface's posts, Rini's posts, and all the other fanboys' posts. It was obviously to her benefit to try and hide the truth about whose fault the defeat at LBH lies with. Only GAC can be held responsible for that. The funny thing is that if it weren't for the beer ads, perhaps Custer's fame would have faded. Instead it was in almost every bar in America, locking in that Last Stand image. Ironically Budweiser was the first beer introduced nationally-in 1876 so the beer and myth were born in the same year. 1889 beer ad
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 28, 2015 20:17:28 GMT -6
And Congress Beth. Their Constitutional responsibility is to raise and MAINTAIN the Army. I agree about the other four, two for operational failure and two for strategic failure.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Mar 28, 2015 23:44:18 GMT -6
Looking at battles and who is responsible is similar. You are looking for the --- BUT FOR. The but for at LBH is readily apparent. But for Custer's orders and direction none of what happened would have happed. None of it. So unless Benteen, Reno, Keogh, Yates, Tom Custer, McDougal, or even Vic and Dandy were secretly whispering in Custer's ear, send Benteen here George, let Reno go into that valley unsupported George, ride miles away and outside any concept of supporting distance George, we must assume that Custer alone made these decisions, and but for those very decisions none of what did take place would have. The man who gives the order is the inevitable but for. QC,
Not exactly rocket science, is it....?
WO
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Mar 29, 2015 0:17:22 GMT -6
I think the blame of battle's failure belongs solely to Custer but the failure of the Campaign belongs to Sheridan, Sherman and Grant. I'm not sure where to put Terry. Beth Beth,
Us Brits are used to war on the cheap. But for all the strategic and operational failures, that defeat should still not have happened at the tactical level.
What I find bizarre is people trying to spread blame on Reno/Benteen rather than further up the chain of command.
If Reno/Benteen had somehow extricated GAC from his isolation, and the better posters (with or without military training) know that was just not possible, there should still have been one hell of a post-mortem as to how GAC with 5 companies got isolated from the advance guard and needed extraction in the first place. And isolated from each other, in widely dispersed company formations. Reno was given a task beyond his resourcing, and GAC did not hang around long enough to discover this. Or long enough to discover the consequences of moving northwards from Ford B. So GAC runs into more hostiles than he can handle, as the hunted on poor undulating terrain for his primary weapon (the single shot Springfield 1873), and those hostiles can still be massively reinforced once Reno is defeated. The perils of combining a "recon on the hoof" with a battle.
When you are trying to blame other ships for not saving a ship's crew, you are not asking the right questions about the state of and the cause of the distressed ship.....
WO
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 29, 2015 0:56:38 GMT -6
Okay maybe it's because it's the wee hours of a Saturday night but I am drawing a blank but what you mean between strategic, operations and tactical. Who does what?
As for blaming Reno/Benteen. I suspect that most people in the US would ask who Reno and Benteen are and would never connect them to Little Big Horn. I would be willing to bet that if you asked them who survived the Little Bighorn, would answer Commanche the horse. Their knowledge of the event is limited to the image of Custer with his long blonde hair blowing in the wind, standing with a gun in his hand surrounded by his dead and dying men while Indians in loin clothes armed with bows and arrows circle around. And they don't want to know any more. Others want to go no more deeper into the subject that Custer was an American hero and if you disagree you must be part of some conspiracy or uneducated to the truth.
Beth
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Mar 29, 2015 2:33:19 GMT -6
Okay maybe it's because it's the wee hours of a Saturday night but I am drawing a blank but what you mean between strategic, operations and tactical. Who does what? Beth,
Strategy, Operations, Tactical
Broadly think of the strategy as "manifest destiny", the operation as the Centennial Campaign, and the tactics as what happened in the LBH valley.
WO
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 29, 2015 4:08:00 GMT -6
Okay maybe it's because it's the wee hours of a Saturday night but I am drawing a blank but what you mean between strategic, operations and tactical. Who does what? Beth,
Strategy, Operations, Tactical
Broadly think of the strategy as "manifest destiny", the operation as the Centennial Campaign, and the tactics as what happened in the LBH valley.
WO
Thanks, that made it very clear.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 29, 2015 4:49:46 GMT -6
Okay maybe it's because it's the wee hours of a Saturday night but I am drawing a blank but what you mean between strategic, operations and tactical. Who does what? Beth,
Strategy, Operations, Tactical
Broadly think of the strategy as "manifest destiny", the operation as the Centennial Campaign, and the tactics as what happened in the LBH valley.
WO
I don't know how many will take the time to read the above, but for those who do, how many will ignore. It is much like a business plan for any corporation. If management, operations, marketing, and sales are all on the same page, yahoo. Let one part of that chain overstep or underperform, you have Montgomery Wards. Same thing with government, overstep or underperform, you have Greece or Detroit.
Regards, Tom
|
|