(An interpreter living in the village testified, "They were scalped, Their brains knocked out; The men used their knives, Ripped open women, Clubbed little children, Knocked them in the head with their rifle butts, Beat their brains out, Mutilated their bodies in every sence of the word.")
Where was the justice for this, compensation?
¨...justice was never served on those responsible for the massacre. A Civil War memorial installed at the Colorado Capitol in 1909 listed the Sand Creek massacre as one of the Union's great victories.¨
Yep. And if you really want to learn about it, on reading, you will discover that: 1. Chivington was not acting under Federal orders nor was he implementing Federal policy. One of the differences between the US in the 19thC and the Axis in the 20th C (apart from the small scale of massacres) is that there is overwhelming documentary evidence linking Axis atrocities to Axsi governmental intentions as indicated in orders, communiques, and other evidence germane to policy. In contrast, after the Sand Creek massacre, Chivington was called before the US Congress, forced to account for his assault on Black Kettle's band, and censured. The official statement of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War included the following:
As to Colonel Chivington, your committee can hardly find fitting terms to describe his conduct. Wearing the uniform of the United States, which should be the emblem of justice and humanity; holding the important position of commander of a military district, and therefore having the honor of the government to that extent in his keeping, he deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the verist savage among those who were the victims of his cruelty. Having full knowledge of their friendly character, having himself been instrumental to some extent in placing them in their position of fancied security, he took advantage of their in-apprehension and defenceless condition to gratify the worst passions that ever cursed the heart of man.
Whatever influence this may have had upon Colonel Chivington, the truth is that he surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities, and then returned to Denver and boasted of the brave deed he and the men under his command had performed.
In conclusion, your committee are of the opinion that for the purpose of vindicating the cause of justice and upholding the honor of the nation, prompt and energetic measures should be at once taken to remove from office those who have thus disgraced the government by whom they are employed, and to punish, as their crimes deserve, those who have been guilty of these brutal and cowardly acts.
In short, no one had to drag the US government into condemning atrocities. Chivington, IMO, never got what he deserved in the matter. But unlike his peers, he was busted from the US Army (which was unusual by ANY nation's standards at the time), socially ostracized, driven out of Colorado, went to Ohio and ran for Congress, was again socially ostracized and forced to withdraw when his Sand Creek record came up, and was nationally disgraced in newspaper headlines across the United States. He died a bankrupt penniless ostracized unsuccessful freight hauler.
In contrast, the beheading contest I mentioned, was celebrated in the Osaka Mainichi Shimbun and the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun.
The Indian Wars were wars of genocide by any loose definition of the word.
Actually, they were not, by any standard of the word. Can you name all the US Army engagements, or any of the massacres of European American settlers conducted by Native Americans? There's no question that these wars were at times brutally waged, and there's no question that if you want to find GENUINE specimens of low-life humanity in American conduct, Chivington would be your best example. But neither Chivington (nor Custer in his Black Hills Expedition) were acting in consort with United States Federal Policy and BOTH were soundly knocked down because of their acts. Custer of course paid the ultimate price for his MacArthur-esque ambitions later on.
French Indochina and also the USSR oil sources open for Japan. How?
French Indochina could have supplied resources for synthetic fuels. The USSR was not a participant in the embargo and could have provided oil. More to the point, extant coal reserves in Korea and Manchuria were developed enough to keep the civilian economy in operational shape although, as I noted before, military operations would have to have been curtailed. (Which after all was the goal of the embargo).
Maybe, if the Soviets and Japanese could have stopped shooting at each other long enough across the Manchurian border to make the deal.
Oh, you mean if Japan could have stopped attacking the USSR? Uh, yeah. Again, we're talking about Imperial Japan. If they were unable to get oil from the USSR because their aggression led them to try to steal that for which they might have traded, it's Japan's fault.
French Indo China couldn´t have supplied simple economic and domestic need to Japan.
Which explains so succinctly why they occupied Indochina in the first place. Not.
The Japanese actually offered to leave French Indo China in exchange for the US dropping its oil embargo. That´s how much oil could be supplied by French Indo China.
Have you ever bothered to actually read what Japan offered to do in Indochina? You have a very generous notion of the verb "to leave."
The effects of the embargo was to cripple Japan both economicaly and militarily. Now if that is not an aggressive and a hostile act against a nation I don´t know what is.
Good, it's settled. We agree that you do not know what constitutes an "aggressive and hostile act."
The Persian Gulf is patrolled because oil exporting states in the Persian Gulf have the right to transit the Persian gulf without being attacked by Iran. Anti-piracy patrols have been part and parcel of many maritime powers policies for a long, long time.
< Message edited by mdiehl -- 3/7/2008 11:58:21 PM >
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?