posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by rufusdrak
To imply the Indians had only bows does not match with the archeological investigations of the battlefield and Indian eye witness testimony.
The Indians had many rifles taken from the Federman massacre plus they traded hides for more. As the battle against Custer continued, the Indians
also aquired more increasing the tempo and the one-sidedness of the battle.
Custer was doomed from the moment he first split his command. Even then, he was vastly outnumbered and fighting on unknown terrain. Custers only
hope would have been with the Indians seeing his entire command and making the decision to head for the hills.
Regarding Patton, you most likely are correct. Patton was all for going after the Russians while we had our forces already in place in Europe. What
most people do not know are the acts of Stalin against his own people, which had to be covered up, since Russia was supposedly our ally.
Stalin killed 20-35 million of his own citizens, during the war, which would have made Hitler's slaughter of as many as 9 million Jews look like a
picnic on a Sunday afternoon. The Allies (and their bankers) could not allow Stalin's slaughter be brought to light, and Patton may have been
silenced for the cover-up to succeed.
In hindsight, General George S, Patton was right on and always spoke what was on his mind. But I believe the international bankers were more concerned
with the profits to be made funding both sides of the pre-planned "Cold War" to follow. Of course, it could have merely been an automobile
accident, as reported.
I'm hoping DonWhite or The ProfessorEmeritas may have more to add as I "know" only the basics on General Patton.