|
Post by Mike Powell on Oct 24, 2016 17:03:09 GMT -6
I don't think this has much for legs but here goes.
What if at LBH instead of fighting Native Americans Custer was fighting say....Canadians? All the questionable tactical choices, all the outmaneuverings, all the losses to his immediate command shaping up the same, would GAC have surrendered? Or to take his personality off the table, when do you feel it would have been appropriate in the course of the day to surrender?
Also, tangentially related, when during the fight do you think his grasp that surrender was simply impossible may have begun to influence his decisions? I guess this assumes he may at some point have fought differently if he knew surrender would bring reasonable treatment for his command.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Oct 25, 2016 5:42:18 GMT -6
Of course it is a waste of time; what man has ever made a truly decent living off the events north of the divide? And if it weren't discussed in the hypothetical all that would be left is ensuring the names were spelled properly. There's nothing but hypotheses in them thar hills!
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Oct 25, 2016 6:27:38 GMT -6
I would like to think that, had the opponents been Canadian/British in the same numbers as the Indians, Custer would not have dismissed them so lightly and think that his small force could handle them. However, the question would have likely run deeper than that, and the entire campaign plan and resources would have been different had it been directed at regular forces, and Custer would not have found himself in the position that he did at all.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Oct 25, 2016 7:40:29 GMT -6
Jodak,
I wouldn't disagree with a single thing you've said. But I'll strike out in a different direction. I don't know if Custer had the makeup of character to allow surrender? I believe he was indeed a fighting man and were he alone, ridden down and faced with overwhelming odds, he might well have chosen to fight to his own death or at least incapacitation. But with his command in the straits they were, and if surrender was available, I think his concept of professionalism would have had some play. What that play would have amounted to is beyond me? But others know more of the mind of Custer than I.
This leads me to a larger question, does the availability of surrender lead to different decisions at the onset of engagement, as in "...and if that doesn't work out we can always surrender." It seems logical to me that the converse, the impossibility of surrender that Custer faced, might impel one to more desperate maneuvers, greater risks than would be taken otherwise, but this might only arise as things deteriorate not in the planning phase.
The most recent case of surrender that comes to mind is that of the US Navy's small boat detachment in the Persian Gulf, January 2016. From what I've read the decision to surrender must have been made almost immediately the situation developed. I know the on-site commander was disciplined but I don't believe it was for his choice to concede, rather for shortcomings in mission planning, disregard of certain standard procedures and for some failures under the UCMJ post-surrender. A sad but interesting affair. I hope someday it is thoroughly explained.
Regards,
Mike
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Oct 25, 2016 8:15:00 GMT -6
Mike,
It is impossible to say what Custer would have done, but there are many parallels to your question in history. For example, during he Napoleonic wars the French and British generally treated other's prisoners fairly decently, took care of each other's wounded the best that they could, etc. The French and Prussians, not so much. I don't know what the relationship was between the French and their other opponents, such as the Austrians and Russians, but suspect that it was more like the one between the French and British and that it was only the French and Prussians that fought with great animosity. In any event, the battles between the French and British or the French and Prussians were conducted somewhat differently as a result of the different expectations of "quarter" being given or received. The same was true in World War II in regard to how the Germans fought and conducted themselves in the East vs. the West and the Americans in Europe and the Pacific. The Germans fought the Russians and the American's the Japanese with much greater ferocity than did the Germans and Americans against each other, and that was largely due to the differences in expectations of their prospects as prisoners. So, to circle back to your question, I suspect that, had Custer been faced by a "civilized" opponent, he would not have fought his command to its destruction but would at some point have surrendered it.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Oct 25, 2016 9:32:53 GMT -6
Jodak,
I generally agree with your comments. I had not given much consideration in the past to this subject but your mention of American attitudes toward the Japanese brings to mind the question, just what were the expectations were of treatment in captivity held by those in command at Wake Island and Bataan? We view those surrenders with considerable hindsight of the outcomes for the captured. The expectations in 1942 may not have been as grim.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Oct 25, 2016 10:54:15 GMT -6
I think that the expectations early on were that the Japanese would treat our prisoners in accordance to what we considered to be acceptable norms. Although the Japanese were not signatories to the Geneva Accords we still expected, as it turned out naively, that they would be more or less governed by them. I have seen a number of accounts from survivors of Bataan who said that they were still more or less combat capable when they were ordered to lay down their arms and, if they had known then what they later learned, they would have disobeyed orders and continued to fight or attempted to escape into the hills. For that mater I suspect that General King would not have surrendered his force when he did in the first place had he known what was to come. The same was largely true on Wake, where the Naval and Marine commanders were in disagreement as to whether surrender was necessary at the time, and if they had known what would happen to the prisoners they would have undoubtedly fought on, as there would have been no reason not to and, at the very least, they would have forced the Japanese to pay a heavier price. I think that is largely true on the flip side as well. We hear so much about how the Japanese rarely surrendered, but, truthfully, part of the low numbers of Japanese prisoners was due to the fact that the Americans were not particularly inclined to take Japanese prisoners. Part of that was the fault of the Japanese themselves, as their atrocities became well known and incurred American wrath, as well as the fact that the Japanese employed tactics like secreting grenades on their bodies that they would then detonate when surrounded by their captors. The Americans solved that problem by just not taking prisoners. A large part of it can be attributed to logistics as well. Picture an American squad/platoon/company commander in the jungle somewhere that comes into possession of some Japanese prisoners. He is probably already short of men due to combat losses and to escort prisoners to the rear, even if he knows where the rear is, will necessitate detailing some of his remaining men to escort them. Much easier and practical to shoot them while they are "trying to escape".
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 25, 2016 19:33:39 GMT -6
A little known fact that the Japanese treated POWs very humanely during the 1904-1905 Russian war. Also during WW I Japan treated all POWs humanely as well. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 26, 2016 10:06:01 GMT -6
Mike Powell, Engaging in hypotheticals where the LBH is concerned, is probably a waste of time, but you're free to let the imagination gallop over terrain and speculate on what may be over the next hill...! Pequod Depends on why you're here Robb. If it is only about what happened you still have to have several hypothetical to assist in figuring out what happened. A final location for Custer on LSH does not explain how he ended up there. A more important hypothetical if you are engaged in a decision making career is look at what happened and how you could do it better. I have seen numerous officer cadets going over the battlefield for that particular reason. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Oct 27, 2016 13:40:30 GMT -6
Ugh!
|
|