http://www.historynet.com/book-review-to-hell-with-honor-larry-sklenar-ww.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=book-review-to-hell-with-honor-larry-sklenar-ww From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:15:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 http://www.historynet.com/book-review-to-hell-with-honor-larry-sklenar-ww.htm#comment-781766 Terry Justice Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:44:48 +0000 #comment-781766 Sklenars book presents an interesting perspective which expanded areas of thought for me. I have always wondered just what was Custer's plan at the Little Big Horn. Sklenar gives a most probable and likely concept of operation which would gain a body of prisoners which they could use as leverage over the tribes. It was a tactic that worked at the Washita despite the fact it was very dangerous. However, this work is filled with 'might have's, could haves, should haves and maybes.' Despite his declaration that he was attempting to use a balanced analysis of the known facts, Sklenar still inserts his prejudices toward officers such as Benteen. I note that Sklenar did not use Mills' 'Harvest of Barren Regrets.' which gives a bigger perspective on Benteen. Granted, Benteen was a man of strong dislike of Custer, typical behavior of CW officers who served in the western theatre of operations and those who served in the east. These were professional and seasoned soldiers. Custer did NOT feel it necessary to inform his officers what his real plan was. One can go on and on about the 'What if's, could haves, and should haves.' and then judge their failures. Combat at the individual level never follows a plan, constant change is a fact. Men do not sit still in a fight unless they have no other choice. The simple truth in the end is that Custer interpreted the facts he had wrongly. He went into a fight, even if the tribes knew he was present,without having a true knowledge of the hostiles. Sklenars book presents an interesting perspective which expanded areas of thought for me. I have always wondered just what was Custer's plan at the Little Big Horn. Sklenar gives a most probable and likely concept of operation which would gain a body of prisoners which they could use as leverage over the tribes. It was a tactic that worked at the Washita despite the fact it was very dangerous. However, this work is filled with 'might have's, could haves, should haves and maybes.' Despite his declaration that he was attempting to use a balanced analysis of the known facts, Sklenar still inserts his prejudices toward officers such as Benteen. I note that Sklenar did not use Mills' 'Harvest of Barren Regrets.' which gives a bigger perspective on Benteen. Granted, Benteen was a man of strong dislike of Custer, typical behavior of CW officers who served in the western theatre of operations and those who served in the east. These were professional and seasoned soldiers. Custer did NOT feel it necessary to inform his officers what his real plan was. One can go on and on about the 'What if's, could haves, and should haves.' and then judge their failures. Combat at the individual level never follows a plan, constant change is a fact. Men do not sit still in a fight unless they have no other choice. The simple truth in the end is that Custer interpreted the facts he had wrongly. He went into a fight, even if the tribes knew he was present,without having a true knowledge of the hostiles.

]]>