Just a thought (1 Viewer)

eborris

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
1,372
Unless one side is completly wiped out in a battle, there are two sides to the story told. Generally speaking we often only hear one side of the story the winning side and the losers version may never be heard or at least recorded for the history books. Does anybody ever wonder how much of the true history of an event was lost due who did the recording?
 
That's why I prefer contemporaneous first hand reports like letters or diary entries by actual participants in the event, rather than second and third hand texts written later. I think those first hand accounts, written in the heat of the momment, when the witness has not had time to put a spin on what was happening, and before the rumours and "official accounts" can color later testimony about an event, are apt to be far more accurate.
 
the winners always write the history. Napoleon said "What is history but a lie agreed upon?" truer words... -lancer
 
This is an interesting thought.

I agree with Louis that on a tactical level the best information comes from the participants as close as possible, timewise, to the event. This includes such things as unit war diaries, status/situation reports, personal diaries and letters etc.

Propaganda has a way of severly distorting facts. The practice of inflating enemies destroyed and deflating friendly losses is almost universal.

For instance, everyone knows about the Soviet victory at Stalingrad in "Operation Uranus". Far fewer people know about "Operation Mars" at Rzhev even though it received approximately the same weighting from a Soviet persepctive in terms of forces commited. Why? Because this was a defeat and a failure for Zhukov.

Kursk is another example. According to Soviet reports hundreds of Tigers were destroyed (more than actually existed). When you examine the real number from German situation reports there were remarkably few Tigers lost.

I think the best approach is to begin with a skeptical default position and slowly increase the probability of truth through the study of numerous sources.
 
One need only examine the word it's self "His Story", History:rolleyes:
Ray
 
the winners always write the history. Napoleon said "What is history but a lie agreed upon?" truer words... -lancer

This is not always the case, Lancer, look at the Custer fight at Little Big Horn where the Indian accounts were ignored unless they matched what the army wanted to hear. It is only comparatively recently that they have been taken into account. From these we gather that the Indian casualties were negligible, only about 30 killed which would not sit well with the army, and that many of the troops shot themselves, which would not sit well with the public. In consequence a totaly biased version of the fight has been created which is still the cause of argument to this day.
 
One need only examine the word it's self "His Story", History:rolleyes:
Ray

How true! It seems the victors get free reign to over demonize their vanquished foes while down playing their own sins as it were. I don't wish to offend anyone but there have been a few post containing somewhat disparaging remarks about collectors of certain lines of TS. I think one should be careful about making these types of generalizations regarding a group of people. I don't see any such comments regarding the possible manufacture of Gen Custer and 7th Cav figures, one of my old units BTY. Not to put to fine a point on it but we basically succeeded where old Adolph failed, that is we demonized an entire race of people as less than human(savages), destroyed their way of life, took their land(AN ENTIRE CONTINENT), and herded the few survivors onto reservations to scratch out a living. Our completion of this process was separated from the Nazi rise to power by around a mere 50 or so years (1883-1933). One nations evil power hungry grab for land and domination, Hitlers "living Space", is another nations "Manifest Destiny". Funny how different the two are viewed by history. I wonder what "History" would read like if Germany had won WWII. Let's just be glad they didn't and try to be objective and learn not just from our enemies wrongs and failures but our own as well.

Cheers, Saber
 
Trooper- good point, my statement is too broad. there are always exceptions to every "rule". Sabre- excellent. we humans are really something. best regards- lancer
 
How true! It seems the victors get free reign to over demonize their vanquished foes while down playing their own sins as it were. I don't wish to offend anyone but there have been a few post containing somewhat disparaging remarks about collectors of certain lines of TS. I think one should be careful about making these types of generalizations regarding a group of people. I don't see any such comments regarding the possible manufacture of Gen Custer and 7th Cav figures, one of my old units BTY. Not to put to fine a point on it but we basically succeeded where old Adolph failed, that is we demonized an entire race of people as less than human(savages), destroyed their way of life, took their land(AN ENTIRE CONTINENT), and herded the few survivors onto reservations to scratch out a living. Our completion of this process was separated from the Nazi rise to power by around a mere 50 or so years (1883-1933). One nations evil power hungry grab for land and domination, Hitlers "living Space", is another nations "Manifest Destiny". Funny how different the two are viewed by history. I wonder what "History" would read like if Germany had won WWII. Let's just be glad they didn't and try to be objective and learn not just from our enemies wrongs and failures but our own as well.

Cheers, Saber
Well put Saber.
20583285_beer.gif

I also like the Napoleon view of history; Certainly that covers the popular versions.
 
How true! It seems the victors get free reign to over demonize their vanquished foes while down playing their own sins as it were. I don't wish to offend anyone but there have been a few post containing somewhat disparaging remarks about collectors of certain lines of TS. I think one should be careful about making these types of generalizations regarding a group of people. I don't see any such comments regarding the possible manufacture of Gen Custer and 7th Cav figures, one of my old units BTY. Not to put to fine a point on it but we basically succeeded where old Adolph failed, that is we demonized an entire race of people as less than human(savages), destroyed their way of life, took their land(AN ENTIRE CONTINENT), and herded the few survivors onto reservations to scratch out a living. Our completion of this process was separated from the Nazi rise to power by around a mere 50 or so years (1883-1933). One nations evil power hungry grab for land and domination, Hitlers "living Space", is another nations "Manifest Destiny". Funny how different the two are viewed by history. I wonder what "History" would read like if Germany had won WWII. Let's just be glad they didn't and try to be objective and learn not just from our enemies wrongs and failures but our own as well.

Cheers, Saber

Well put indeed Saber. To the Victor the Spoils, which includes the 'right' to spoil the facts.

I like to read first hand accounts of battles myself and they do provide terrific personal insights. However I keep in mind they were written by someone with a very narrow viewpoint of the battles they were in and they were as influenced by propaganda as anyone else. And of course they wanted their books to sell well where they were printed. Therefore you can understand if they exaggerate some 'facts' and leave the less positive 'facts' out.

And of course it's not uncommon, and indeed it's human nature to have a heavier slant on the 'facts' shortly after a battle as the victor always wants to say he won because he was the good guy, rather than just the guy with more or better weapons.

Whereas historians can examine a number of first hand accounts from both sides together with official documentation etc. The fact that this can occur years after a battle doesn't make the findings less accurate than accounts that were promoted at an earlier stage.

I have noted a number of members here have touted the 'Revisionist' label when something has challenged their viewpoint, keep an open mind guys.
 
This is not always the case, Lancer, look at the Custer fight at Little Big Horn where the Indian accounts were ignored unless they matched what the army wanted to hear. It is only comparatively recently that they have been taken into account. From these we gather that the Indian casualties were negligible, only about 30 killed which would not sit well with the army, and that many of the troops shot themselves, which would not sit well with the public. In consequence a totaly biased version of the fight has been created which is still the cause of argument to this day.

Woah, are you sure about that? There has been a lot of forensic work done on those bodies. This is the first I have heard of it.
 
This is not always the case, Lancer, look at the Custer fight at Little Big Horn where the Indian accounts were ignored unless they matched what the army wanted to hear. It is only comparatively recently that they have been taken into account. From these we gather that the Indian casualties were negligible, only about 30 killed which would not sit well with the army, and that many of the troops shot themselves, which would not sit well with the public. In consequence a totaly biased version of the fight has been created which is still the cause of argument to this day.
Well I agree with your premise that the Indian view was ignored but I am not familiar with those specific facts. I also believe Lancer's Napoleonic quote is correct. In context, I believe he meant "What is history but a lie agreed [commonly] upon". This would be consistent with another Napoleonic quote: “History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.” Indians, at that time, were not considered people whose agreement was needed by those writing history (with the exception of tribal histories). Afterall, it wasn't until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, that Native Americans were first granted U.S. citizenship and the corollary right to vote.;)
 
... Afterall, it wasn't until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, that Native Americans were first granted U.S. citizenship and the corollary right to vote.;)

Right, prior to that time, wasn't it the federal government's position that Indians were members of sovereign tribes, a sort of quasi-resident alien status, given that they were located on territory surrounded by or claimed by that federal government? Hence the fact that treaties were made.

Do tribes still hold that quasi-sovereign status, or do they have a legal existence as something more akin to corporations?
 
Right, prior to that time, wasn't it the federal government's position that Indians were members of sovereign tribes, a sort of quasi-resident alien status, given that they were located on territory surrounded by or claimed by that federal government? Hence the fact that treaties were made.

Do tribes still hold that quasi-sovereign status, or do they have a legal existence as something more akin to corporations?

Brad,
I'm fairly sure that each has sovereignty over reservation to govern and make laws. Of course we still have the BIA to interact/liasion with each federall recognized national tribe. Mike
 
Brad,
I'm fairly sure that each has sovereignty over reservation to govern and make laws. Of course we still have the BIA to interact/liasion with each federall recognized national tribe. Mike
Oh I am afraid it is much more complicated than that; afterall you know what our federal laws and treaties are like.:rolleyes: Basically it depends on the treaty and the corresponding federal laws passed concerning the various tribes, most of which apply uniformily. As a general matter, the Tribes maintain all the sovereignty that they did not convey by treaty. In most cases this means they have exclusive jurisdiction of domestic matters, akin the the laws left to the states but the federal government retains jurisdiction with respect to certain matters and has granted more specific jurisdiction to certain states. For example, federal law provides for five states, including Minnesota (with the exception of the Red Lake reservation), to assume general criminal and some civil jurisdiction over Indian reservations within those states. Tribes retain limited criminal and general civil jursdiction, but because of a lack of resources have generally not fully assumed these responsibilities. States and Tribes have been given dual jurisdiction as to Indian child custody matters with a required deference to the Tribes. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires the states to negotiate in good faith with an affected Tribe to form a compact setting forth games, limits and other terms respecting gaming on reservations. Otherwise, the Tribes do have an independent body of laws, are exempt from state law and some, the Navajo for instance, have and exercise broad authority over all but defined "major crimes" and crimes committed by non-Indians. The Tribes have concurrent jurisdiction (over Indian defendents) even with respect to those crimes subject to federal or state jurisdiction and a conviction by both as to the same crime is not double jeapordy. Confused yet; this just brushes the surface.;)
 
Woah, are you sure about that? There has been a lot of forensic work done on those bodies. This is the first I have heard of it.

I presume you are referring to the suicides, KV. They are referred to in"The Custer Myth" by Graham pages 105-107, "Killing Custer" by Welch pages 171-172, "Custer's Fall" by Miller pages108-109 and page114, "Lakota Recollections of the Custer Fight" by Hardoff pages 66-67,75-76 and 162. I believe there are further references in other books relating to the fight but I haven't the time to rummage through them all yet. Accounts of Indian casualties vary slightly but average out to about 30 dead, which if we add on the accepted rate of wounded to killed, i.e. 4/1, gives total Indian casuaties of about 150.
 
I presume you are referring to the suicides, KV. They are referred to in"The Custer Myth" by Graham pages 105-107, "Killing Custer" by Welch pages 171-172, "Custer's Fall" by Miller pages108-109 and page114, "Lakota Recollections of the Custer Fight" by Hardoff pages 66-67,75-76 and 162. I believe there are further references in other books relating to the fight but I haven't the time to rummage through them all yet. Accounts of Indian casualties vary slightly but average out to about 30 dead, which if we add on the accepted rate of wounded to killed, i.e. 4/1, gives total Indian casuaties of about 150.

Like you appear to have trooper I also have studied the Custer fight from the Errol Flynn version right up to the new archeological studies carried out after the Plains fire in 1983. The facts of the suicides of some of the cavalrymen have primarily been based on the Indian oral versions and may well be true.

But history is fixed and only interpretations differ except in this case we only have the one interpretation

The new archeological research only shows-shot pattern-trooper grouping and a fair indication that "Custer's Last Stand" was more of a running battle from Medicine Coulee to last stand hill and the last 40 troopers were more likely to have been picked off one by one as they ran firing over their shoulders until the last dozen at the hill were rushed by several hundred Lakota.
Many of Custer's troops were raw recruits- not all the battle hardened 7th Cavalry troopers of legend- however, amongst Companies C, E, F, I & L there were some seasoned Indian fighters and battle experienced soldiers (as an aside 20 of Custer's dead were ex-Confederate soldiers, all just with trooper rank even though one of them held the rank of Colonel in the Confederate Army)
Part of their basic training was the demonising of the enemy and the old adage of "save the last bullet for yourself" held some merit as the Sioux were notorious for inflicting mutilating torture on their enemies. One only has to read the Surgeon Commander's report on the US bodies after the Fetterman Massacre in 1866 which still makes gory reading today. Scenes like this related to new recruits by veterans were permanently etched on the pysche of soldiers, instilling fear as well as loathing of the "barbaric" Indian.

The basic courage of the ordinary frontier soldier, I believe in the main, depended on his training and belief in the unit cohesion for it's overwhelming superiority against a native foe, but when that breaks down-it's everyman for himself-stand and fight or run- we know now that they ran the same as they ran at Isandlwhana that was discussed just recently on another thread until we got told off for using the comparator with the Big Horn battle.

Now is it beyond the realm of one's imagination that as you are running one of your pals drops with a bullet in the leg and is unable to move- for you to put a bullet in his head to save him from a fate worse than death. I dont know sitting here in front of a computer but three skeletons of troopers were found with smashed leg bones and a bullet hole in the skull. Sure he could have shot himself for the same reason above and the mutulation of all 200 plus bodies of Custer's men found by General Terry tells us that if they did shoot themselves they had just cause to.
All pure speculation of course because we will never really know but food for thought.

Re:- Indian casualties the 30 dead Indians came I believe from White Buffalo a Sioux veteran of the Custer fight and a tribal historian who compiled a list of 29 warriors who were killed in the battle. But interestingly eight days before when Crazy Horse and 1500 Sioux caught Crook at the Rosebud and fought him for six hours which effectively put him and his column out of the campaign-the Sioux casualties according to the tribal compiler was 29 warriors. Makes one think that the counting capacity of a Sioux historian may have only been up to 29- then he ran out of sticks:D

Reb.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top