Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If he had not invaded Russia, he may have been the Castro of western Europe and held power. The concentration camps may have been his down fall even if he had maintained power.
During the Great War the Germans broke Russia and forced a humiliating peace on it with great territorial gains for Germany. Yet all for naught because they were defeated by the western powers, particularly Britian.
Hitler was not unreasonable in thinking that with France under heel and Britian driven from the continent that Russia would again collapse under concentrated German blows now unhindered by war in western Europe. All the more so given Hitler's contempt for Bolshevism and his notion that Stalin owned a rotten house only needing the door to be kicked in.
He was wrong of course but not totally unreasonable.
Custer was a good soldier, he had faults of course but overall I think he was quite competent, He was good enough to command a division for Phil Sheridan, one of the best and most hard driving soldiers in American history.
Have to agree with you on this. I wrote a more detailed post about Custer for another thread but I will break it down to a few key points:
At the age of 23, promoted from Captain to Brigadier General. To this day, I believe he is still the youngest person to ever receive this rank in the U.S. Army.
Leading the 7th Michigan Cavalry, fought along with Colonel David Gregg against J.E.B Stuart's calvary at Gettysburg. A counterattack launched by Custer and Gregg on July 3rd caused the Confederate assault to falter and collapse.
At Yellow Tavern, Custer again fought against Stuart's cavalry. He scored a decisive victory over Stuart and one of Custer's men fired the shot that mortally wounded Stuart.
Twice fought against Jubal Early's forces and defeated him both times.
Custer was a key element in the Confederate defeat at Five Forks; a loss that caused General Lee to abandon Petersburg and retreat toward Appomattox.
Custer's forces blocked General Lee's last route of retreat from Appomattox and also received the first flag of truce from the Army of Northern Virginia.
I don't think the defeat at Little Bighorn can really be attributed to bad leadership. I believe it was more a case of going to the well one too many times. When attacking at Little Bighorn, Custer employed a tactic, a sort of hammer and anvil maneuver, that he had used many times before with great success against Native American warriors. He had no reason to believe it wouldn't work this time. But rather than scatter as they had so often before, they not only stood and fought, but also attacked. Custer simply had insufficient forces to stave off defeat.
I don't think the defeat at Little Bighorn can really be attributed to bad leadership. I believe it was more a case of going to the well one too many times. When attacking at Little Bighorn, Custer employed a tactic, a sort of hammer and anvil maneuver, that he had used many times before with great success against Native American warriors. He had no reason to believe it wouldn't work this time. But rather than scatter as they had so often before, they not only stood and fought, but also attacked. Custer simply had insufficient forces to stave off defeat.
I dunno Tony, though Custer's tactics were proper I think he was undone by the cliqueishness and factionalism in his command. I don't think the 7th was a very well run outfit, I think it was somewhat rotten at the core.
Reno funked out when he should've driven home and Benteen failed to come up in support at all, I think these faults must be laid at Custer's door.
And going over the ground it's apparent the the 7th didn't put up a very good fight, the indications of command breakdown and panic are obvious when examining the positions of the markers where the dead troopers were found. It was no Isandlwana.
And we can get into the idea that Americans actually made pretty poor cavalry; British or French cavalry in equal numbers as Reno had, and armed and thinking properly as cavalry, would've gone through the Indian town like billy-be-*******.
Oh there is no doubt that the 7th Cavalry at the Little Bighorn was not even close in training and fighting ability to the 7th Michigan that Custer led so successfully during the Civil War. And having the likes of Major Reno and Captain Benteen as part of his main command structure was definitely not to Custer's advantage. Entering into such a critical engagement with two officers that despised him I think would be sort of like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. Whether or not Custer's attack would have prevailed against the Indians is really hard to say, but Reno's and Benteen's actions pretty much doomed it for sure.
Of the many officers at Little Bighorn, I think the one I have the most respect for is Captain Thomas Weir. He was so frustrated by Benteen's reluctance to move out in support of Custer, that he disobeyed orders and went out with Company D of the 7th to try and reach him. He advanced about a mile and witnessed the activity after the battle between Custer and the Indians concluded. Reno and Benteen eventually followed Weir but all ended up having to retreat in the face of Indian advances on their position.
Something to keep in mind about the markers at the battlefield. The markers were placed 14 years after the battle took place, and nine years after the remains were exhumed and removed. I'm not sure that they exactly tell the whole tale. There have actually been six archeological examinations of the battlefield site since 1984, and the evidence uncovered indicates that the battle was likely different then what has been widely accepted all of these years.
There is evidence that Custer divided his command again during the attack on the village, into at least two components. The purpose seems to have been to take pressure off of Reno and once that was accomplished the two recently divided groups would rejoin. The groups were never able to rejoin and thus ended up fighting in organized skirmish lines in some places and a running battle in others. The largest group ended up concentrated on Custer Hill, with another group surrounding Captain Myles Keogh. The group on Custer Hill seems to have been overwhelmed by a single Indian charge, causing most of the cavalry troops to finally panic and scatter, although Indian accounts indicate that at least 40 troopers did make a last stand around Custer.
It think it's interesting that so many were and still are critical of Custer and his command decisions at Little Bighorn, yet Lt. General Nelson Miles (no slouch in military matters) toured the battlefield a year after it took place and stated "The more I study the moves here the more I have admiration for Custer".
No one has ever accused me of being politically correct and defending George Custer is probably one of the most un-PC things one can do. But hey, someone's got to do it, might as well be me.
Yeah Tony, if you want to make a little dough write a good buck on the Litttle Big Horn or one with plausible alternative explanations. I've a couple of shelves full of them.
Note that George MacDonald Fraser had his Flashman character express admiration of Custer's abilities.
Now if you want to talk some really incompetent Indian fighters you go back east to guys like Harmar, Dudley and St. Clair. Their battlefields are lost however and are now towns.
Blue Licks and Oriskany are interesting and preserved as parks. At both places as you go over the ground you scratch your head and wonder what in the Hell were these guys (the Americans who walked into the ambushes) thinking?
Not sure if my fellow history/military history buffs are tired of this thread yet but I will put forward another nominee for worst military leaders because I have nothing better to do at this moment. His name: Major General Arthur Aitken.
General Aitken was placed in charge of an expeditionary force made up mostly of 8,000, third rate reserve troops from India. The mission was to land and capture the port of Tanga as part of an overall strategy by the British to take away Germany's East Africa colony. General Aitken was extremely proud of his Indian troops, despite his own Intelligence Officer describing them as "the worst in India". Aitken felt that the Germans and their native allies would roll over at the mere sight of his mighty army.
It wasn't as if the Germans didn't know what was up. The expeditionary force ships came sailing down the coast in full view of any curious people that might be watching. The Germans had even been intercepting uncoded radio messages from the expeditionary force to the British authorities in Mombasa, leaving little doubt as to British intentions. However, feeling that suitable notice had not been given the Germans of an impending invasion, two days before Aitken and his troops were to land, the HMS Fox sailed into Tanga to politely tell the Germans that a long standing truce that was in place to spare Tanga from naval bombardment was now void.
Captain Caulfield of the Fox, thinking he was very clever, asked the German authorities he was meeting with if the harbor was mined. The reply: Of course, the harbor is loaded with mines. Taking the Germans at their word, Caulfield informed Aitken that the harbor was mined and that Aitken should land a few miles further down the coast, out of sight of the town. And so, on November 3, 1914, General Aitken did, right into a mangrove swamp.
By now the Germans under General Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, had had 48 hours to prepare for the arrival of the "crack" Indian troops. The Germans were numerically outnumbered, having roughly 1,100 native troops to the British 8,000. But it didn't really matter. After slogging through the swamp and advancing toward Tanga, the first encounter the British force had with the Germans left the British with 300 casualties, mostly officers and NCO's.
Furious at his loss, Aitken ordered a full assault using all his remaining troops. Not bothering to do any reconnaissance, Aitken sent his men charging through a cornfield bordered by large trees. The trees contained German snipers who very patiently began picking off Aitken's troops. Also in the trees were some large bee hives that were disturbed by the noise and bullets. The bees swarmed the battlefield, taking a further toll mainly on the British troops. The British troops broke and made a run back to the seeming safety of the sea. To add insult to injury, Aitken finally ordered a naval bombardment of Tanga in support of his force. The only targets hit were the hospital in Tanga that was filled with British wounded, and the lines of retreating British troops.
His defeat complete, General Aitken ordered his men back to their ships, leaving behind brand new rifles, machine guns, and 600,000 rounds of ammunition, all of which General von Lettow-Vorbeck captured and happily used to arm his troops. All told the British casualties numbered 800 dead and 500 wounded to the Germans 69 dead and wounded.
The Battle of Tanga, or Battle of the Bees as it was also known, ended the British dream of capturing German East Africa (at least until 1916 when they finally succeeded) and secured Major General Arthur Aitken's place high atop the list of the world's worst military leaders.
My pleasure, sir. It has always struck me that some of the most interesting stories in history often times deal with war and the individuals that participated in them. To think that an impulsive decision made by a general or the odd act of bravery by a soldier is enough to change the course of a single battle or even turn the tide of a whole war is just amazing to me. And I share these stories in the hope that they will pique other's curiosity and open their minds to just how cool the study of history can be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
