Why did Custer die?

reply to post by donwhite


Good Post.

reply to post by NGC2736

. . if he had succeeded at even partially ending the conflicts by squashing most of the Native American resistance, there would have been widespread support . . the further opening to safely claim western lands could have had great appeal to the expansionists of the late 1800s. Whether these things would have been enough to carry him to the White House is problematic.

Americans - to be such a peaceful people - do love war heroes as president. Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Taylor, then Grant, Hayes, Garfield, and McKinley to end the 19th century. TR won the vP nomination for his ride up San Juan Hill. Truman was a captain in the First World War but not heroic as I recall.

Then came Eisenhower, the Liberator of Europe. Johnson and Nixon held behind the scenes roles. Ford I forget, Carter “flew” a submarine. Reagan made movies which were useful in the War. Bush41 was a pilot who was shot down, which makes him a hero by our standards. Clinton went to Oxford and Bush43 went to Alabama.

reply to post by NGC2736


George Armstrong Custer had a strong ego. Why do you think alot of those people die? They do what they want to do, they say what they want to say, they usaually get what they want. Even though he did what he thought was right, it dosen't mean that it was right. Would you kill a bunch of indians? Would you just bolt out and do things without thinking what the risks might be?
And to put the cherry on top, would you want to be scalped by savages? ...I wouldn't!
think about it

Originally posted by Ranger23
reply to post by Wildbob77

 

There were no more than 1500 Indians against him, and his troops had rifles and they had bows...

No surprise there...Patton was similarly killed off when he started talking too much after the war and pissing off the wrong people in government. Look into it.

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.

reply to post by Oldnslo

You are correct about General Patton. He often did speak his own mind, which got him in trouble with his superiors. History has, however, proved General Patton right in most, if not all, of what he had spoken about right after the conclusion of WWII in Europe. And as far as his death in Germany in late 1945, there is enough evidence to at least suggest the possibility that the accident itself may have been 'arranged,' either by his superiors or the Russians, who hated Patton for speaking his mind on what he thought of them and the system of Government that they had and that it was just as, if not more evil, than the Nazi regime which we had just helped defeat. Which is the possible subject of another thread to be placed in the general conspiracies section by someone who can research that subject when they have more time.

reply to post by Ranger23


He thought he was ambushing a tiny sioux settlement which happened to be a gigantic sioux settlement, he was headstrong and went on without further investigation and he found out the hard way that he was outnumbered from the start.

Atleast he faught to the death, after his handgun ran out of ammo he used it as a hammer.

Indians?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!