In a message dated
9/8/2001 11:34:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
evanhoe@korean-war.com writes:
The Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee were used by the author/PR
team to set
up an emotional appeal to a certain group of potential
readers but had
nothing to do with No Gun RI.
I think the historical background info on the 7th Reg. provided by YS
is very
useful
and relevant in understanding what the 7th Reg. did in
the past and
what it did in Korea. It provides a good historical
perspective. Good job, ys!
John2
At the risk of incurring the moderator's wrath and getting
an off-topic slap on the wrist, I would like to take a look at this review and
see if we can determine if the Custer comparison holds water and whether
we should believe this reviewer. And if the reviewer takes the Custer
information from the book rather than other sources, what inferences we can
make about the credibility of the author of The Bridge at No
Gun-Ri.
(1) Lt. Col. Custer was not the commander of the
7th when it was formed. The commander was Col. Andrew Smith. Custer
was the lieutenant colonel of the regiment and did not take command until
later.
(2) "Buffalo soldiers" are black troops. The use
of the term indicates that the author has no idea what a buffalo soldier
was.
(3) Custer was not at Sand Creek. Chivington was in
command. The author has confused the event with the Battle of
Washita.
Ed has a point. The only real comparison here is with
alleged results and I suspect he may also be correct that the reviewer's
intent was a rhetorical appeal to pathos. The reviewer has presented no
operational similarities at all.
I see no problem in comparing a well know operation
from another point in history with a lesser known one. It
often helps to further our understanding. In fact, this sort of
connection is what teachers look for all the time. However, making
the comparison means nothing if you can't justify why the comparison is
valid. So John2, I would have to ask you "why" it is useful and
precisely what historical perspectives it might reveal. To simply say it
is useful, doesn't advance the ball at all.
After reading this review, I have big reservations about
either the book's or the reviewer's credibility, depending on where he
got the erroneous information. Unfortunately those reservations are
going to have to extend to the original book, unless somebody can show me
specific political, operational or tactical similarities.
Trish