# Mass murder before 1967



## billc (Jul 25, 2012)

Here is just a short list of mass murder that ocurred before 1967,

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/mass_murder_a_modern_curse_hardly.html



> ...July  26, 1764 -- near what is now Greencastle, PA.  Four Lenape Indians killed a  schoolmaster and nine or 10 children.
> December  22, 1868 -- Chattanooga, TN.  Three dead following a shooting by a  disgruntled student.
> April  13, 1873 -- Colefax, LA.  Following a disputed election, white Democrats  killed an estimated 60 to 100 mainly black citizens in a disputed  Democratic/Republican gubernatorial race.
> December  11, 1875 -- Bremerhaven, Germany.  Alexander Keith, Jr., in a plot to bomb  ships and collect insurance money, had his bomb, sitting on the dock,  accidentally go off, killing 80 and injuring about 200 more.  He committed  suicide shortly afterwards.
> ...


----------



## granfire (Jul 25, 2012)

> May  25, 1893  -- Osaka, Japan.  Kumataro Kido and Yagoro Tani killed 11  including an  infant. Kido had lost his common law wife to another man, so they   killed him, his former wife and other family members.  The two committed   suicide afterwards.



Who killed whom? 

And besides that, what's your point?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 25, 2012)

granfire said:


> And besides that, what's your point?



I dunno what you got out of this, but I'm taking it to mean that these types of killings have been occurring for a long time, it's not some newfangled thing that's "Suddenly" happening because " 'Mericans! " have access to "assault rifles" now...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 25, 2012)

Since I am currently in Austin and walked past this tower yesterday, this incident came to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman



> The first shots from the tower's outer deck came at approximately 11:48 a.m. A history professor was the first to phone the Austin Police Department,  after seeing several students shot in the South Mall gathering center;  many others had dismissed the rifle reports, not realizing there was  gunfire. Eventually, the shootings caused panic as news spread and,  after the situation was understood, all active police officers in Austin  were ordered to the campus. Other off-duty officers, Travis County  Sheriff's deputies, and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers also converged on the area to assist.
> 
> 
> Around 20 minutes later, once Whitman began facing return fire from  the authorities *and armed civilians who had brought out their personal  firearms to assist police*, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing  him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but  also greatly limiting his range of targets.



That's gun control I can get behind...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 25, 2012)

Don't forget the 20,000,000 that Stalin killed...actually there are more than a few historians that think the number is likely closer to 60,000,000.... all before 1967


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 25, 2012)

is there something significant about 1967?


----------



## SnyderD (Jul 25, 2012)

Weren't there some laws passed in the late 1960s about gun control? I'm drawing a blank with my history...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 25, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> is there something significant about 1967?



The Tonight Show was shortened from 105 to 90 minutes... and there were a few other things too

1967 in history


1967


----------



## elder999 (Jul 25, 2012)

SnyderD said:


> Weren't there some laws passed in the late 1960s about gun control? I'm drawing a blank with my history...




That's fairly precise. The Gun Control Act of 1968  broadly changed the way commerce and ownership of firearms takes place in the U.S.

Some say it's modeled on Hitler's gun control act of 1938-fact is, we had our own gun control act in 1938, that effectively took away machine guns and sawed-off shotguns from the general populace...


----------



## granfire (Jul 25, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> The Tonight Show was shortened from 105 to 90 minutes... and there were a few other things too



:lol:


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 25, 2012)

What I took away from the article is there have always been loons willing to kill innocents, but it is happening more often in today's world.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 25, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> What I took away from the article is there have always been loons willing to kill innocents, but it is happening more often in today's world.



More people=more loons.


----------



## oaktree (Jul 25, 2012)

Wasn't 67' the beginning of hippies and the summer of love?
Murders hard when your barrel is stuck with flowers.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 25, 2012)

elder999 said:


> More people=more loons.



I've been saying this for a long time!  More people = more people who have major issues!


----------



## billc (Jul 25, 2012)

Don't forget media coverage.  There have always been killings like this, but hearing about them has become easier and more widespread and more "intimate," in that you get all the color images, actual witnesses and victims and it is on 24 hours a day after an event like this.  Compare that to a small notice on the second page of your local paper weeks after the event happened.  The same applies to serial killers.  They have always been murdering people, it just seems like there are more of them because we catch them more often, they can't kill someone in one town, move to another county and be completely unkown, and again the media coverage.


----------



## Scott T (Jul 26, 2012)

1890- US Army at Wounded Knee estimated 150-300 Lakota men, women and children murdered.


----------



## Instructor (Jul 26, 2012)

Let's not forgot colonization...40 million killed!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Indians_did_the_conquistadors_kill


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 26, 2012)

yup, one thing that we as a species have always loved to do: kill each other.  Nothing beats it for a good time.


----------



## Instructor (Jul 26, 2012)

This is what happens to a species with no natural predators, we become our own worst enemy.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 26, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> yup, one thing that we as a species have always loved to do: kill each other.  Nothing beats it for a good time.



And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill.  I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill.  Kill.  I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth.  Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL."  And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
yelling, "KILL, KILL."  And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."


----------



## Instructor (Jul 26, 2012)

elder999 said:


> That's fairly precise. The Gun Control Act of 1968  broadly changed the way commerce and ownership of firearms takes place in the U.S.
> 
> Some say it's modeled on Hitler's gun control act of 1938-fact is, we had our own gun control act in 1938, that effectively took away machine guns and sawed-off shotguns from the general populace...




If they ever figure out a way to take the guns away (God forbid!) we (humanity) would just go back to killing each other with swords and spears again.  You can't stop the violence only prepare.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 26, 2012)

Instructor said:


> If they ever figure out a way to take the guns away (God forbid!) we (humanity) would just go back to killing each other with swords and spears again. You can't stop the violence only prepare.



yeah, but it takes a lot more effort to be as thorough about it.

I'd welcome it.  Maybe that's just because I've got a head-start in the swords and spears department.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 26, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
> wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
> guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
> KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
> ...



I can't watch the video clip here at work, but that quote is priceless!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 26, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I can't watch the video clip here at work, but that quote is priceless!



You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
_Excepting Alice

_all 23 minutes of it


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 26, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant
> _Excepting Alice
> 
> _all 23 minutes of it




I'll check it out at home.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 26, 2012)

Scott T said:


> 1890- US Army at Wounded Knee estimated 150-300 Lakota men, women and children murdered.



ANd let's not forget  the particularly gruesome and reprehensible Sand Creek Massacre of 1864.

Of course, there's a difference between what billi was posting about originally, and genocide.




But it does bring up an interesting point-The American Indians were considered by many to not even be human, and part of the process of making an effective soldier is dehumanizing the enemy, as I've said before. Likewise, those who perepetrate these solo mass killings are incapable of seeing the humanity of their targets-they have dehumanized them-whether through a sociopathic lack of empathy, or real delusion.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 26, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> yeah, but it takes a lot more effort to be as thorough about it.
> 
> I'd welcome it.  Maybe that's just because I've got a head-start in the swords and spears department.



I believe yhis is untrue.  The deadliest School Rampage on record was perpetrated with Explosives... and that was _*before*_ any idiot could run to Home Depot for all the supplies needed to make them, and 20 minutes on the Internet to make sure you are doing it right.


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2012)

Reading the article would help to put the short excerpt into perspective, which is why I always link to the article first...



> However, one doesn't have to look very hard to find many historical examples.  It took only about a half hour to find the following.  And, to keep things on a relative apples-to-apples basis, this shows civilian on civilian cases only.  It excludes examples perpetrated by soldiers, police or other government authorized actions or civil wars.


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2012)

A little more background on the American soldiers photo would be nice.  Is this a battle, and which one.  Remember, early Americans were killing each other long before the Europeans showed up on these shores and they were just as if not more cruel than the Europeans.   I always enjoy when people try to compare U.S. Soldiers to the nazis, it shows their devotion to the American fighting man of today.

Besides, most native american deaths were from the spread of diseases from contact with new strains they had no resistance to, because of contact with Europeans, not murder, unlike the nazis who specifically murdered close to 15 million people all together.   Before anyone talks about contaminated blankets, didn't happen, there was one case where a blanket that may have been infected was taken from stores from an infirmary, and given to an Indian ally by mistake, and there was already disease in the area because the people at the fort were already suffering from the disease, and had prior contact with the early Americans. There was a letter written from one British officer to another, not even American soldiers, who wished they could spread disease that way but it wasn't acted on nor did it become policy.  In fact a great deal of effort was made at times to help Indians dealing with diseases, something you never hear about.  It wasn't a tactic used to murder early Americans, unlike the nazis who specifically created ways to mass murder people, as well as the communists, let's not forget them.  The communists murdered more people in more countries and they still show their faces in public.

On the sandcreek massacre...



> Some bands of Cheyenne, including theDog Soldiers, a militaristic band of Cheyenne and Lakota that had evolved beginning in the 1830s, were angry at the chiefs who had signed the treaty. They disavowed the treaty and refused to abide by its constraints.[SUP][10][/SUP] They continued to live and hunt in the bison-rich lands of eastern Colorado and western Kansas, becoming increasingly belligerent over the tide of white migration across their lands. Tensions were high particularly in the Smoky Hill River country of Kansas, along which whites had opened a new trail to the gold fields.[SUP][11][/SUP] Cheyenne who opposed the treaty said that it had been signed by a small minority of the chiefs without the consent or approval of the rest of the tribe; that the signatories had not understood what they signed; and that they had been bribed to sign by a large distribution of gifts. The whites, however, claimed that the treaty was a "solemn obligation". Officials took the position that Indians who refused to abide by it were hostile and planning a war.[SUP][12][/SUP]


----------



## granfire (Jul 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> A little more background on the American soldiers photo would be nice.  I always enjoy when people try to compare U.S. Soldiers to the nazis, it shows their devotion to the American fighting man of today.



A little more background?

Read Dan Brown, not the one with the code, but the other guy, 'Bury my heart at Wounded Knee' is a good start, covering several transgressions perpetrated by the army on the natives. 
They usually involve something like shooting women and children down with Gatling guns while the warriors are out hunting....probably more natives were scalped than white folks....
Seriously, there is no real difference: the target is not human, you can abuse and murder them, they have no legal recourse. 
So what do you think makes a difference? That the army was US and not German?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Reading the article would help to put the short excerpt into perspective, which is why I always link to the article first...



Uh, I'd submit that the Leni Lenape school killing, while reprehensible, would consitute and action perpetrated by military personnel.


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2012)

Here is a more fleshed out account of Sand Creek...

http://www.historynet.com/sand-creek-massacre.htm



> Like most Denver citizens, Chivington was appalled when, on June 11, 1864, the mutilated bodies of Nathan Hungate, a rancher, and his wife and two children were brought into town and put on public display. The people were horrified, outraged and near panic. Trade on the supply trails was disrupted by raids. Food and various necessities were running short in Denver and other Colorado mining towns. More horror stories spread rapidly through the area.Governor John Evans and most settlers believed there was a general Indian uprising. Hoping to break up what he thought was a united Indian front, the governor sent messages to the tribes to report to certain forts where they would be provided with food and protected from troops looking for hostile Indians.





> The stage was set for tragedy. The Cheyennes were becoming more destitute and restive. They continued their time-honored avocation of war against the Utes and the Pawnees. They frightened the white settlers as they passed by on their way to raid the Utes. But they frightened them even more on their return as they yelled and whooped and brandished Ute scalps. Small bands of Cheyenne and Arapaho warriors robbed homes and stole cattle, provisions and horses.Winter brought a lull in Indian activity. The Cheyenne and Arapaho war ponies were winter-lean, and besides, it was no fun to play war games in the cold weather. Old-time settlers said the peace during the winter was typical. The Indians always made peace in the winter&#8211;to get government blankets and food.Winter and peace did leave together. The Cheyennes were hungry, and they stole cattle on several occasions. Troops were dispatched to punish the guilty. Still, the attacks on white settlers and travelers increased in 1863, and the situation in eastern Colorado continued to worsen in the spring of 1864.





> When Chivington and the now 'Bloody Third' returned to Denver in late December, they were greeted as heroes&#8211;glorious heroes. The 3rd Colorado was soon mustered out; Colonel Chivington's commission ended on January 6, 1865. By then, however, there were also some people who wanted an investigation of Chivington's actions on November 29, 1864. The 'heroes' of Sand Creek were being charged with not only having perpetrated a massacre of women and children but also having horribly mutilated the bodies of their victims.Actually, there were three official investigations. The Army conducted one and decided a court-martial was not called for. General Curtis said that the Army was so full of 'personal and political strife&#8230;it is almost impossible to get an honest, impartial determination of facts.'Congress held two hearings. A great deal of testimony was recorded by people who were actually there. The House Committee on the Conduct of the War concluded that Chivington had 'deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the varied & savage among those who were the victims of his cruelty.' But the problem is that so much of the testimony is contradictory. Some witnesses stated absolutely that Black Kettle was flying a U.S. flag on a flagpole in front of his lodge and that he had a white flag right below it. Lieutenant Joseph Cramer, who had no love for Chivington, testified that he saw no such flag. Others also denied the flag story, and, in truth, it would have been very unusual for an Indian to have had a flagpole with a U.S. flag flying from it.There is not even approximate agreement on how many Indians were killed at Sand Creek. In his second report to General Curtis (sent December 16, 1864), Colonel Chivington said,'Between 500 and 600 Indians were left dead upon the field.' A Captain Booth 'counted' 69 dead, and Corporal Amos Miksch noted 123 dead. Others offered such figures as 148, 150, 200, 300, 400 and 450. The Cheyennes carried off their wounded and many of their dead, so no one was really able to say how many were killed that day.Nor was anyone ever able to positively say how many of the dead were women and children. The eyewitness accounts, again, vary amazingly. John Simpson Smith&#8211;a trader and an interpreter who hated the colonel, but whose testimony is frequently quoted as though he were unbiased&#8211;said half the dead were men. Ed Guerrier, a half-Cheyenne, said two-thirds were women and children. Corporal Miksch said only about 'twenty-five were full-grown men.' Major Jacob Downing testified, 'I counted about twelve or fifteen women and a few children.' Lieutenant Cramer said two-thirds were women and children, but Stephen Decatur, acting battalion adjutant at Sand Creek, claimed only a few were. Colonel Chivington testified, 'I saw but one woman who had been killed; I saw no dead children.'


----------



## elder999 (Jul 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> A little more background on the American soldiers photo would be nice. Is this a battle, and which one. Remember, early Americans were killing each other long before the Europeans showed up on these shores and they were just as if not more cruel than the Europeans.



This is the aftermath of the Massacre at Wounded Knee, in 1890-though, like Sand Creek, it was called a "battle" by some at the time. In the photo, U.S. soldiers pose over a mass grave trench with some of the 300 bodies of innocent Native American Lakota Sioux, two-thirds women and children, massacred at Wounded Knee, Pine Ridge Reservation. One of the few survivors of the massacre was a baby girl, found 4 days after the massacre, lying beneath her mothers dead frozen body, her mother having protected her in death as she had in life. The baby girl, having survived the massacre and the blizzard with temperatures at 40 below zero, was then abducted by Brigadier General Colby as a trophy of the massacre, in his own words "a most interesting Indian relic."


Of course, these events occurred more than 100 years ago, and comparing them to Nazi atrocities has nothing whatsoever to do with the "American fighting man *of today,*" or one's respect for them-asking "devotion," might just be asking to much, though, in the case of one of my oldest friends, Major General Kenneth Dahl (who is *still* just "Kenny" to me), it wouldn't be. Nor would it be in the case of the many close friends I have who are actively serving, or retired career military. Nor would it be in the case of some of my son's and daughter's friends and classmates-some of whom are no longer among the living.

Of course, I worked in a fairly close relationship with members of all of our branches of the military-with the exception of the Coast Guard, which doesn't have any nuclear weapons. I've even had short collaborations with members of the British military. 

Impugning my respect for the U.S. military is not only completely insulting and fallacious, it's downright moronic.:angry:

As is, btw, your trying to color the Sand Creek Massacre as anything but what it was: the action of drunken soldiers, under orders from a meglomaniacal Methodist minister, perpetrated under mostly old men, women and children, who were camped under what they thought was the protection of the *American flag*. All of this is well documented, both in congressional testimony and the newspapers of the time. Soldiers paraded through Denver afterward with the removed,genitals of women displayed on their hats, and the skins of children stretched across their saddles.

WHen asked why he ordered the killing of children, Chivington had this to say:



> Nits grow to be lice.



Which was only one of the worst things he said, but amply proves my point about dehumanization of targeted individuals and groups.



:angry:


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2012)

The images you showed matched nazis murders with American Soldiers, the time period in between wasn't highlighted, the fact that the killings were done by "American Soldiers," was.   The inflated number for early Americans murdered  by Europeans and Americans, as opposed to deaths by communicable diseases,  were highlighted by "American Soldiers,"  in the photogragh.  If you don't want your intentions questioned, be more careful in how you show them.


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2012)

Not trying to color anything, but there is more to the story than one photograph will show.  Tensions and primitive conditions lead to people treating each other horribly, especially over 100 years ago when both sides committed atrocities against the other.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The images you showed matched nazis murders with American Soldiers, the time period in between wasn't highlighted, the fact that the killings were done by "American Soldiers," was. The inflated number for early Americans murdered by Europeans and Americans, as opposed to deaths by communicable diseases, were highlighted by "American Soldiers," in the photogragh. If you don't want your intentions questioned, be more careful in how you show them.



In my opinion, only an outright moron would question my intentions, or not see the relevance of the comparison.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 26, 2012)

elder999 said:


> ANd let's not forget  the particularly gruesome and reprehensible Sand Creek Massacre of 1864.
> 
> Of course, there's a difference between what billi was posting about originally, and genocide.
> 
> ...



So, what you are really saying is that the government locks up solo mass murderers because it doesn't like competition?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 26, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> I believe yhis is untrue. The deadliest School Rampage on record was perpetrated with Explosives... and that was _*before*_ any idiot could run to Home Depot for all the supplies needed to make them, and 20 minutes on the Internet to make sure you are doing it right.



Did you quote me by mistake in this one?  This doesn't have anything I can see to do with what I said...


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2012)

Here is another article on how both sides treated each other...

http://www.ohs.org/education/oregon...fm?doc_ID=5A99EACC-C709-746C-92D5469398A0502D

For emphasis...



> The first major massacre of emigrants by Indians occurred along the Snake River in 1854 when nineteen overlanders were slaughtered by Shoshone Indians in what came to be known as the Ward Massacre. Six years later, the Snake River country would witness another attack, the Utter-Van Ornum Massacre.
> The Utter-Van Ornum party left Wisconsin in May 1860, most heading for Oregon&#8217;s Willamette Valley. The wagon train&#8212;which consisted of eighteen men, five women, twenty-one children,





> Contrary to cinematic depictions of Indian-white relations along the Oregon Trail, sustained attacks by Indians on emigrant wagon trains were rare. Although conflict did occur, historian John Unruh notes that &#8220;thievery and not murderous attack constituted the major threat posed by Indians.&#8221; In fact, mutual aid between Indians and overlanders was much more common than violent hostility.
> However, as the number of emigrants crossing the Oregon Trail increased over the course of the 1850s, Indian-white relations deteriorated. Unruh estimates that just over 360 emigrants were killed by Indians from 1840 to 1860, most of them during the 1850s. In comparison, he estimates that more than 425 Indians were killed by emigrants during the same period. The great majority of these violent conflicts occurred west of the Rockies, which was by far the most dangerous portion of the overland journey.
> The first major massacre of emigrants by Indians occurred along the Snake River in 1854 when nineteen overlanders were slaughtered by Shoshone Indians in what came to be known as the Ward Massacre. Six years later, the Snake River country would witness another attack, the Utter-Van Ornum Massacre.
> The Utter-Van Ornum party left Wisconsin in May 1860, most heading for Oregon&#8217;s Willamette Valley. The wagon train&#8212;which consisted of eighteen men, five women, twenty-one children, twelve wagons, and one hundred head of livestock&#8212;arrived at the abandoned Fort Hall on August 21, 1860, encountering no major difficulties along the way. A company of U.S. Army dragoons had been stationed near the fort earlier that year to escort wagon trains through the Snake River country, but they escorted the Utter-Van Ornum party for only six days, purportedly because the commanding officer was upset with members of the train.
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Jul 26, 2012)




----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 26, 2012)

I normally hate Disney, but sometimes there are certain scenes in movies that have something important to teach.  Regarding the subject of mass murder and extending the subject to the topic of war is entirely appropriately, IMO.  It's a moral contradiction for us to decry the massacre of innocent people by one person and laud the same massacre by another who is wearing an official costume.

The key, as has been pointed out, is the dehumanization that has to occur for something like this to occur.  Perhaps, if we can learn any lesson from this tragedy, the real evil that leads to massacres is the dehumanization process that makes them possible.  There are lots of ways that this can happen.  Individuals can do it to themselves and groups can do it collectively.  

IMO, I think it's fair to say that both are evil and both lead to evil.


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2012)

Remember, the nazis were stopped by American Soldiers (and the allies the British, Canadians, Australians and others)...

http://www.quora.com/U-S-History/Wh...ualties-during-World-War-II-Europe-or-Pacific

Number of Amercian soldiers killed in the European Theater...



> Europe: 213407



http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Army_Casualties_in_Europe_Area_during_World_War_2

Wow, 1757, that wasn't a long time ago was it? and those were Europeans back then anyway...British subjects at that point...

Do I have to post the atrocities committed against prisoners by the various early American tribes, in particular the Iroquois?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Do I have to post the atrocities committed against prisoners by the various early American tribes, in particular the Iroquois?



No-right now it would only make me long for the good old days, billi-your posts often make me want to commit a couple of days worth of "atrocities".....:lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Remember, the nazis were stopped by American Soldiers (and the allies the British, Canadians, Australians and others)...



...like the Russians. In fact, it's fair to say that the Russians stopped the Nazi war machine and all others wiped up the mess.

Stalingrad.


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2012)

Here you go Makalakumu...

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Indian:Massacres.htm



> f we loosen our definition further and decide to count all people who died violently in the ongoing warfare between whites and Native Americans -- battle deaths as well as murders -- we can turn to the 1894 estimate by the US Census Bureau (cited in Russel Thornton, _American Indian Holocaust and Survival_). There it was calculated that some 30,000 to 45,000 Native American men, women, and children died at the hands of whites in formal wars, 1775-1890, while some 14,000 white men, women, and children died at the hands of Native Americans. In addition to these, some 5,000 whites and 8,500 Native Americans were killed in smaller, unofficial fights between individuals up and down the frontier.
> Neither side stands out as being more merciful or humane than the other. Both sides collected scalps and scrota as trophies. Both sides raped. Both sides would promise safe conduct to defeated enemies or non-combatants, and then massacre them as soon as they let their guard down. Both sides attacked easy targets (such as peaceful -- even friendly -- villages and settlements) as retaliation for hostile acts by totally unrelated war bands and militia units.
> Here is a list of the larger or more widely known massacres of the North American conflict:
> 
> ...



Also...


> 1778 - Wyoming Valley Massacre - Iroquois kill 360 settlers.
> 1778 - Cherry Valley Massacre[COLOR=#009900 !important][/COLOR], New York - over 30 settlers killed.
> January, 1813 - River Raisin[COLOR=#009900 !important][COLOR=#009900 !important][/COLOR][/COLOR] Massacre - 30-60 Kentucky militia killed after surrendering.
> 1862 - As many as 800 settlers killed in uprising of Santee Sioux.



Here is another one...

http://www.wvculture.org/history/settlement/fortseybert03.html



> It was known as Fort Sybert - sometimes spelled Seybert. It was built as a place of security and protection from the Indians. Yet it became the scene of one of the most brutal and bloody massacres of which the Indians in all this part of the whole country were ever guilty. The fort, filled with refugees from all the country around, was attacked by Indians in 1758, although a newspaper printed about 100 years afterward, and quoted below, gave the date as "about 1760."
> Those behind its protecting walls defended it vigorously. But they were outnumbered and overpowered by the Indians who set fire to the fort and burned it completely after every person who had taken refuge in it had been either killed or carried away captive. The destruction of Sybert's fort, with the slaughter of all its inmates who were not carried into captivity, was one of the most atrocious and bloody Indian crimes ever committed in what today is West Virginia.





> The prisoners were then arranged in two rows, about ten feet apart. Two selected from the warriors each took a tomahawk and, passing along both lines, killed all the old people and such as they thought could not travel. The lad Nicholas, as soon as this work began, went to Kill Buck and reminded him of the terms of the treaty. Kill Buck, with an air of imprecation, said that he, Nicholas, ought to be thankful, as his life would be spared. The parents of this youth were among the slain. For the sake of Nicholas, to say nothing of themselves, they deserved a better fate.
> Soon after the work of death was complete, they set fire to the fort and all the buildings and departed for home. A small party remained for some purpose the prisoners could not understand.
> Indians Barbariously Slay Baby Because it Wails
> The first occurrence on the journey worthy of notice was an act of great barbarity. One of the prisoners was the mother of a young infant. This child, after several days of exposure became ill and very fretful. The mother, of course, did what she could to keep it quiet, but could not always succeed. During a fit of crying, an Indian appeared with his tomahawk raised, evidently intending its death. The mother, on seeing this, made more than usual efforts, and the crying was stopped. The fatal blow was not then inflicted. The next day the baby began crying again, the Indian returned, began wrestling after the child and the mother, cut it on the head with his tomahawk, dashed out its brains against a tree, threw it down and passed on.


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2012)

It wouldn't be fair to say that about the Soviets Makalakumu.  Remember, they also invaded Poland...


> The *1939 Soviet invasion of Poland* was a Soviet military operation that started without a formal declaration of war on 17 September 1939, during the early stages of World War II. Sixteen days afterNazi Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Union did so from the east. The invasion ended on 6 October 1939 with the division and annexing of the whole of the Second Polish Republicby Germany and the Soviet Union.[SUP][6][/SUP]



Also...

http://englishrussia.com/2008/01/15/american-weapons-in-russian-army/



> During World War 2 America helped Soviet Russia a lot with different weapons. Trucks, jeeps, military and cargo planes &#8211; all sorts of technical equipment was sent to Russia.
> In this post we&#8217;ll have some unique photos from WW2 by Russian soldier who participated in such missions to America for this help. He was a pilot and their squad was taking American planes to Russia during the war. According to his son&#8217;s stories this visits to USA left a big impression upon minds of Russian soldiers, but they were desperate to help their country to win the war and none of the decided to seek a refuge in States.
> They usually were taking B-25 heavy bomber planes and P-53 &#8220;King Cobras&#8221; lighter fighters. It&#8217;s interesting that the Red Stars, the emblems of Soviet Russian Army were printed on the planes right in the US and they were flying those Red Star marked planes above USA freely on their way to Russia. Those were the only times I guess when Russian military planes were above the States. Though those Red Star logos were afterwards wiped out in Russia because they were paintedon a white circle, according USAAF standards and were not exactly what Stalin and other Russian chief commanders wanted to see on Russian planes.


----------



## rickster (Jul 26, 2012)

Mass murder by shootings?

There had been a number of other shootings before the 70's-80's...and these are not only "mass"


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 26, 2012)

You're going to have to research what happened at the Eastern Front, Bill. Stalingrad was the biggest battle of WWII and the German Army was basically destroyed by the Russians.

Anyway, the mass murder at Stalingrad and in Aurora have something in common. The process of dehumanization makes it all possible. What exactly is this? How does it occur? How do we stop it? It seems obviously evil to me...


----------



## elder999 (Jul 26, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> . The process of dehumanization makes it all possible. What exactly is this? How does it occur? How do we stop it? It seems obviously evil to me...



It's fundamentally human, what I call "the Big Lie."

_Us_, and *them*.


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2012)

The soviets were incompetent and still needed to be supplied by the Allies to fight their side of the war they helped start.  The decisions made by Stalin were ruinous to the Soviet army and if it wasn't for bad weather, and the pressure of the allies on the other side of Germany, bombing German industry into little pieces then the Soviets would have fallen as well.


----------



## granfire (Jul 26, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The soviets were incompetent and still needed to be supplied by the Allies to fight their side of the war they helped start.  The decisions made by Stalin were ruinous to the Soviet army and if it wasn't for bad weather, and the pressure of the allies on the other side of Germany, bombing German industry into little pieces then the Soviets would have fallen as well.



LOL

:lfao:
If the dog hadn't shat he'd caught the rabbit...
The Russian psyche is alien to Europeans, I don't hold my breath waiting for you to get it....


----------



## billc (Jul 26, 2012)

This article looks at the Soviets during world war 2, their intention to invade the west, which was beaten by Germany invading two weeks early and why they lost so quickly at first...

http://www.2worldwar2.com/russia.htm



> But what Russian historiography censored for decades, is the large scale of total morale collapse of Soviet armed forces and Communist party establishments which escaped, 'disappeared', or surrendered *before* they even were engaged in battle. Millions, from privates to Generals, individually or as entire units, abandoned their tanks, guns, air bases, without battle, and escaped on vehicles or on foot, or simply disappeared into the nearby villages and forests.
> Fighting and then losing is one thing. Massive and rapid escape without a fight and massive voluntary surrender, are another, and Soviet censorship tried to hide that, by further intensifying the myth of the destructiveness of the German attack, and by further intensifying the belief that the entire red army was right on the border. There are reports of entire unit staffs which escaped without battle and were found again hundreds of kilometers to the East. There were tens of Generals who disappeared and were never located again. There are reports of tank divisions which, although they were not right on the border and were not engaged in fighting in the first day, miraculously 'lost' 100% of their tanks and other fighting equipment in the second day of fighting, without actually being engaged in battle, and then escaped hundreds of kilometers eastwards almost without losing a single truck even to technical malfunction. There are reports of entire Air Force regiments which reported that they suffered negligible or no losses in the air or on the ground at the first day, and then simply abandoned their air bases and escaped by trucks and on foot. In 1941 Russia lost millions of soldiers. Only 32% of the reported losses were the dead and wounded. Millions surrendered, many of them as fast as they could, and so many others escaped from the front, either disappeared or remained in service, but only after a distant escape and after abandoning every weapon or equipment, even rifles and light mortars, that could force them to stay and fight.
> The apparent reasons for this mass unwillingness to fight were:
> 
> ...



Also...http://www.2worldwar2.com/mistakes.htm



> In 1941, Stalin received a stream of information from military intelligence and spies, that Germany is going to invade Russia, as Hitler promised since the 1920s. After discussions, Stalin decided that the information was inconclusive and perhaps deliberate disinformation, and decided that there will be no invasion. As the invasion came nearer, the stream of information indicating invasion intensified, but then Stalin forbid his advisors from further disturbing him with it. Anyone who still suggested that there might be a German invasion, risked execution. Fear was such that when the invasion started, no one dared to awake Stalin and tell him about it, until Zhukov, the deputy supreme commander, told Stalin's bodyguards that he takes responsibility for awakening the dictator and telling him the bad news.





> Both Hitler and Stalin refused to allow retreats, as a matter of principle and regardless of the military situation. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers in each side died in vain because they were not allowed to retreat when was necessary. Russia almost lost the war because of that in 1941, and Hitler's army suffered horrible losses because of that, mainly in the winter of 1942 and in Stalingrad a year later.





> Until April 1941, Russia was at war with Japan in the far East, and in 1941-1942 it fought desperately against the German invasion. But since the end of the battle of Stalingrad in Feb. 1943, Russia knew that it was going to win the war, and that Germany and Japan were losing it. It was convenient for Russia to focus entirely on defeating Germany and leave the war against Japan entirely to the US, which also provided Russia with enormous material support. During the war, Russia provided air bases for British heavy bombers which bombed Germany, but refused to provide such bases for American bombers in the Russian far East, apparently in return for a quiet Japanese agreement not to attack American supply convoys sailing to Russia's far East ports.



And from wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_World_War_II



> In the initial hours after the German attack commenced, Stalin hesitated, wanting to ensure that the German attack was sanctioned by Hitler, rather than the unauthorized action of a rogue general.[SUP][53][/SUP] Accounts by Nikita Khrushchev and Anastas Mikoyan claim that, after the invasion, Stalin retreated to his dacha in despair for several days and did not participate in leadership decisions.[SUP][54][/SUP] However, some documentary evidence of orders given by Stalin contradicts these accounts, leading some historians to speculate that Khrushchev's account is inaccurate.[SUP][55][/SUP]
> In the first three weeks of the invasion, attempting to defend against large German advances, the Soviet Union suffered 750,000 casualties, and lost 10,000 tanks and 4,000 aircraft.[SUP][56][/SUP] In July 1940, Stalin completely reorganized the Soviet military, placing himself directly in charge of several military organizations, which gave him complete control of his country's entire war effort; more control than any other leader in World War II.[SUP][57][/SUP]
> A pattern soon emerged where Stalin embraced the Red Army's strategy of conducting multiple offensives, while the Germans soon overran each of the resulting small newly gained grounds, dealing the Soviets severe casualties.[SUP][58][/SUP] The most notable example of this was the Battle of Kiev, where over 600,000 Soviet troops were quickly killed, captured or had gone missing.[SUP][58][/SUP]
> By the end of 1941, the Soviet military had suffered 4.3 million casualties[SUP][59][/SUP] and the Germans had captured 3.0 million Soviet prisoners, 2.0 million of which would die in German captivity by February 1942.[SUP][56][/SUP] German forces had advanced c. 1,700 kilometers, and maintained a linearly-measured front of 3,000 kilometers.[SUP][60][/SUP] The Red Army put up fierce resistance during the war's early stages. Even so, according to Glantz, they were plagued by an ineffective defense doctrine against well-trained and experienced German forces, despite possessing some modern Soviet equipment such as theKV-1 and T-34 tanks.





> At the same time, worried by the possibility of American support after their entry into the war following the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and a potential Anglo-American invasion on the Western Front in 1942 (which would not actually happen until 1944), Hitler shifted his primary goal from an immediate victory in the East, to the more long-term goal of securing the southern Soviet Union to protect oil fields vital to the long-term German war effort.[SUP][69[/SUP]





> The Germans did attempt an encirclement attack at Kursk, which was successfully repulsed by the Soviets[SUP][78][/SUP] after Hitler canceled the offensive, in part, because of the Allied invasion of Sicily,[SUP][79][/SUP] though the Soviets suffered over 800,000 casualties.[SUP][80][/SUP]



Yeah, it is hard to understand the Soviets...


----------



## billc (Jul 27, 2012)

also from wikipedia on the Red Army...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army#The_Great_Patriotic_War


> The unprepared Soviet forces suffered much damage in the field because of mediocre officers, partial mobilization, an incomplete reorganization and mainly because they were arranged to attack Central Europe, and not to defend Soviet territory.[SUP][39][/SUP] The hasty pre-war forces expansion and the over-promotion of inexperienced officers (owing to the purging of experienced officers) favored the Wehrmacht in combat.[SUP][39][/SUP]



And another great mistake by Stalin that almost lost the war for the Soviets...



> *Purges*
> 
> _Further information: Case of Trotskyist Anti-Soviet Military Organization_
> The late 1930s saw the so-called _Purges of the Red Army Cadres_, which occurred concurrently with Stalin's Great Purge of Soviet society. In 1936 and 1937, at the orders of Stalin, thousands of Red Army officers were dismissed from their commands. The purges had the objective of cleansing the Red Army of the "politically unreliable elements", mainly among higher-ranking officers. This inevitably provided a convenient pretext for the settling of personal vendettas or to eliminate competition by officers seeking the same command. Many army, corps, and divisional commanders were sacked, most were imprisoned or sent to labor camps; others were executed. Among the victims was the Red Army's primary military theorist, Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky, perceived by Stalin as a potential political rival. Officers who remained soon found all of their decisions being closely examined by political officers, even in mundane matters such as record-keeping and field training exercises.[SUP][72][/SUP] An atmosphere of fear and unwillingness to take the initiative soon pervaded the Red Army; suicide rates among junior officers rose to record levels.[SUP][72][/SUP] Most historians believe that the purges significantly impaired the combat capabilities of the Red Army. However, the extent of the consequential damage attributable to them is still debated.
> ...




So the Soviets finally defeated the Germans because of bad weather, bad German decisions, the other front on Germany's western side, including the destruction of German industry, and  the material support from the Capitalists...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 27, 2012)

Well, I think this would a good thread of it's own.  In the meantime, here is a German movie on Stalingrad that presents an interesting perspective.






Yeah, it's a full movie, but watch it and see what the Germans think of Stalingrad.


----------



## Instructor (Jul 27, 2012)

The book Enemy at the Gates was researched very thoroughly.  The author took pains to find survivors of the battle of Stalingrad on both the Russian and German side.  If you would like an entertaining and highly accurate read, I recommend it.


Us - them.....  I never could do it.  If somebody shoots at me I shoot back but it doesn't make my enemy any less human than me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 27, 2012)

Instructor said:


> The book Enemy at the Gates was researched very thoroughly.  The author took pains to find survivors of the battle of Stalingrad on both the Russian and German side.  If you would like an entertaining and highly accurate read, I recommend it.
> 
> 
> Us - them.....  I never could do it.  If somebody shoots at me I shoot back but it doesn't make my enemy any less human than me.



I forgot about that book, good suggestion.

I'm not very good at the us/them thing as well...or maybe I choose not to be good at it.  Lots of men and women choose a different path and they feel that this decision gives this society great benefit.  The people on the other end of the guns speak a different story...so perhaps shootings like the one that happened in Aurora can teach us a collective lesson on what it's like to be on the other end of the gun where the shooter has dehumanized US?  

I imagine a world where less and less humans choose to dehumanize each other.  I would sure like to bring that world into existence if I can...


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 27, 2012)

What do you think caused the me vs everyone else attitude?


----------



## granfire (Jul 27, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> What do you think caused the me vs everyone else attitude?



Barney.


----------



## granfire (Jul 27, 2012)

billcihak said:


> This article looks at the Soviets during world war 2, their intention to invade the west, which was beaten by Germany invading two weeks early and why they lost so quickly at first...
> 
> http://www.2worldwar2.com/russia.htm
> 
> ...


billi....billi.....billi.....

The Russians wanted to move closer into Europe for many reasons (and good old Stalin had paid attention to Adolf, thus he made the pack with him to buy time), not the least being that the eastern part of Russia is friggin cold and stuff grows better in the west.

next, Stalin did not WIN Stalingrad, Hitler LOST it. You think  Stalin did the bone head moves, Hitler had him beat by far...I mean, on the way to the oilfields to the south we take a detour north to capture a town that has no significance other than the name....and then we don't turn back when things go bad. Good one, Adolf....

Ah, and the weather, and the country side....
That is part of the strategy that has been employed by Russian rulers for centuries before that. Most Notable by Peter the Great against the Swedes, then by Tzar Alexander I. 
Mother Russia was always part of the defense system: retreat and burn....and if you are stupid and get caught with your trousers down you freeze your butt off.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 27, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> What do you think caused the me vs everyone else attitude?



It probably started as a defense mechanism that hearkens back to the ice ages. Now, I think it does more harm than good, considering how closely all of us live together. I doubt something like this is genetic, because people regularly refuse or unlearn this behavior. 

Which brings us around to what I think causes it...we learn it from each other, it gets passed on when it benefits society, and, IMO, we can unlearn it when it ceases to benefit us any more. Perhaps we are at that point?






I think this video gives us evidence that we might be moving beyond that point.  People need to realize, IMO, that this behavior could very well lead to our extinction.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 27, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> Did you quote me by mistake in this one?  This doesn't have anything I can see to do with what I said...



Kinda... not you by mistake, but It didn't retain the other quote in your post where Instructor said that if you take away guns will will just go back to killing each other with swords.  I was kinda trying to address his comment, and your reply that it would make it take a lot more effort to be thorough.   But yeah... I needed both quotes for the whole context and one got lost.


----------

