To Hell With Honor By Larry Skelnar

[Deleted]

BLUF:  Not Recommended, but one does well to read widely to see what other people are up  to and thinking...even if you disagree with them violently throughout the whole book.

The author was an analyst in CIA, DIA, NSA or something.  He is not a historian.  Since this is America, he can still write about whatever he wants to and if he gets it published good for him.  He spent six years researching the book.  I have read 18 of the books in his bibliography.  The book was written in 2000.

In my view, the author believes almost every single officer lied at the Reno Inquiry and believes Custer was let down by his officers and perhaps believes, along with some others, that the map used at the RCOI was delibeartly misdrawn.

He thinks repeating things makes them true.  (I guess there is some validlty to such an opinion.)

He invents thoughts and dialog.

Thinks Custer conducted a feint at Ford B

Does not appear to mention Ford D.

I thought about illustrating with some quotes, but decided not to bother.

[yanmacca]

I remember being told to read the full RCOI book, as it shows how the officers covered each others backs.

[deadwoodgultch]

There are many opinions on the RCOI. What is interesting and fact is that the new President, Congress, and military wanted to to put the whole affair to rest, they wanted to shut Whitaker and his ilk down. Also fact is that neither French or 1st Sgt. Ryan were not included in the witnesses called, was there a reason for this. I could probably do a page on that alone, no need as the facts are out there.

Regards,
Tom

[Beth]

To me I have to consider what every person's motive was when it comes to testifying, some are easy and others are not. I don't believe that there was rampant lying involved but I think there was a lot of tunnel vision with each person's narrative. The tunnel vision is understandable though since it would be impossible for someone to know what was going on everywhere in a battle. The fact that the inquiry was 3 years after of the battle means that everyone's memories aren't as crisp and there is a high chance that they have discussed the battle with each other that there is a chance that memories become confused between what they heard and what they actually personally experienced.

[yanmacca]

I wonder if any of them held back, for example, they saw things which they withheld until asked.
If the court never asked them they simply never mentioned it.

Not being asked gives them the option to keep to the oath, they spoke truthfully on any mundane things asked, but never mentioned any juicy stuff, which could have gone down.

Even Martini followed suite, he could have told Benteen a lot more if the captain had asked, but he only answered the basic questions given.

[azranger]

I don't how much freedom they have at a court of inquiry. I do know in court you can only answer a question and not throw in something that you would like to share unless asked. I also see a lot of hearsay and questions asked. I guess they could be offering expert opinion and in that case it is acceptable even in a criminal court.