Happy Thanksgiving!  

MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:    Password:

 
General History
Page 53 of 53 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52    53  )
Author
Message
scoucer
Berlin
 Germany
Posts: 2778
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/2/2019 5:56:21 PM

Quote:
Quote:
And any thoughts on the one million germans murdered by the Nazis ?

Trevor


Does that one million include the German Jews , Trevor ? About one third of all the Jews in Germany in 1933 died in the Shoah....better odds of survival than most occupied countries(?). Perhaps their residence in Germany gave them an advantage, because they knew what was going to happen and a higher proportion got away in time.

Regards, Phil


No Phil. Political opponents , pacifists, Quakers, Jehovahs Witnesses, the so-called "asocials" - homosexuals, lesbians, vagrants, criminals, Roma and Sinti. The "so-called " unworthy of life" - physically handicapped, mentally handicapped, mentally ill, alcoholic and drug dependant.

Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5893
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/2/2019 6:52:15 PM

Also on 9/2/1666 the great fire of London! Comments on great fires in history, Chicago, & Rome come to mind, any others??

[Read More]

Also on 9/2 these historical events occurred! any posts??

[Read More]

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/2/2019 7:44:55 PM

MD, I've been putting this too long post on the Fire of London together over the past couple of hours.

On this day in 1666, which began about 2 a.m. in a bakery in Pudding Lane, near the north end of London Bridge (at that time a bridge with civilian housing on it). There remains to this day a Tube stop (Monument) and a structure near the point where the fire began.

I offer one of the more succinct recent descriptions of the fire, taken from a footnote in The Diary of Samuel Pepys. VII: 1666, R.C.Latham and W. Matthews, eds., Bell (1972), p. 267:

This [comment by Pepys in his diary for 3 a.m., Sunday September 2, of being awakened by his maid Jane, “to tell us of a great fire they saw in the City.”] was the Fire of London, which had begun about an hour before in Pudding Lane, near Fish Street Hill, not far from London bridge… . It was to rage for four days and nights. Caused by an accidental fire in a bakery which spread quickly because of the dry season, it was widely believed to have been started deliberately by foreign enemies or Papists, or both. The worst was over after the east wind abated during the night of the 4th-5th. By then is is said to have destroyed x. 13,200 houses and levelled an area of c. 436 acres, leaving only about one-fifth of the city standing. Some 100,000 people were madaul’s (which was gutted, along with 84 parish churches, three others being badly damaged), Guildhall, and the Royal Exchange. Four stone bridges (including London Bridge) suffered damage, and 52 Company Halls were destroyed. …”

Pepys wrote pages of entries in his diary during these four days. He also played a part in the tragedy. Please indulge me if I let that wonderful civil servant speak for his own actions between 7 a.m. and noon on the first day of the fire:

About 7 rose again to dress myself, and there looked out at the window and saw the fire not so much as it was, and further off. … By and by Jane comes and tells me that she hears that above 300 houses have been burned down tonight by the fire we saw, and that was not burning down all Fishstreet by London Bridge. So I made myself ready presently, and walked to the Tower [of London] and there got up upon one of the high places Sir J Robinsons little son going up with me; and there I did see the houses at that end fo the bridge all on fire, and an infinite great fire on this and the other side the end of the bridge… . So I down to the water-side and there got a boat and through bridge, and there saw a lamentable fire … .
Having stayed, and an hour’s time seen the fire rage every way, and nobody to my sight endeavouring to quench it, but to remove their goods and leave all to the first; and having seen it get as far as the Steeleyard, and the wind mighty high and driving it into the city, and everything, after so long a drought, proving combustible, even the very stones of churches, and among other things, the poor steeple by which pretty Mrs._________ lives, and whereof my old school-fellow Elborough is parson, taken fire in the very top and there burned till it fall down – I to White-hall … in my boat – to White-hall, and there up to the King’s closet in the chapel, where people came about me and I did give them an account dismayed them all; and word was carried in to the King, so I was called for and did tell his Majesty and Duke of York what I saw, and that unless his Majesty did command houses to be pulled down, noting could stop the fire. They seemed much troubled, and the King commanded me to go to my Lord Mayor from him and command him to spare no houses but to pull down before the fire every way. The Duke of York bid me tell him that if he would have any more soldiers, he shall; and so did my Lord Arlington afterward, as a great secret. …


To me, Pepys’ diary excerpts bring that fire to life, though the full entries for the four days of the fire are even richer, touching mutual aid offered to and taken from friends, on his real concern for friends and servants from when he was “lower”, and to his lust for “pretty Mrs. _______” in the midst of chaos.

Pepys lived in Seething Lane, which was near the Tower, but also in the enclave of the Navy Office. Neither burned down in the conflagration, though Pepys buried much that was valuable in his yard, just as he worked with folks like Sir W Penn to protect the records of naval accounts.

To help put his excerpts in some historical framework, his Majesty is Charles II, only six years back “from his travels”, as he once called his exile after his father’s (James I) execution and the period of the Commonwealth. The Duke of York is James, brother of Charles and destined to reign for only a short while as James II.

There is reference in the quoted footnote to belief that the fire was set deliberately by enemies or Papists. England was, at the time, at war with the Dutch, who were staunch Protestants but rivals in sea trade. Official English hatred of Papism had been strong since the reign of Bloody Mary, which ended only 111 years previously, and the time of the Armada, only 78 years earlier.

Though there was great latitude of worship offered in England with the re-instatement of Charles II – in fact the most powerful clergy were called Latitudinarians – there were particular restrictions against Catholics. According to some, Charles died a secret but confessed Catholic; his brother James was open about his Catholicism, and this ultimately led to his flight to the Continent and the placement on the throne of Mary (daughter of Charles II) and her radically Protestant husband, William of Orange.

Long, long, long. I think I’m being driven by something to write too-lengthy posts. The Fire of London happened at a turbulent, exciting time. I would equate it in many ways to 9/11 in its impact and in the kind of rebuilding that took place. It demonstrated that Charles II both reigned and ruled, which I think was vital at that particular time.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/2/2019 7:45:49 PM

MD, I've been putting this too long post on the Fire of London together over the past couple of hours.

On this day in 1666 arose the Fire of London, which began about 2 a.m. in a bakery in Pudding Lane, near the north end of London Bridge (at that time a bridge with civilian housing on it). There remains to this day a Tube stop (Monument) and a structure near the point where the fire began.

I offer one of the more succinct recent descriptions of the fire, taken from a footnote in The Diary of Samuel Pepys. VII: 1666, R.C.Latham and W. Matthews, eds., Bell (1972), p. 267:

This [comment by Pepys in his diary for 3 a.m., Sunday September 2, of being awakened by his maid Jane, “to tell us of a great fire they saw in the City.”] was the Fire of London, which had begun about an hour before in Pudding Lane, near Fish Street Hill, not far from London bridge… . It was to rage for four days and nights. Caused by an accidental fire in a bakery which spread quickly because of the dry season, it was widely believed to have been started deliberately by foreign enemies or Papists, or both. The worst was over after the east wind abated during the night of the 4th-5th. By then is is said to have destroyed x. 13,200 houses and levelled an area of c. 436 acres, leaving only about one-fifth of the city standing. Some 100,000 people were madaul’s (which was gutted, along with 84 parish churches, three others being badly damaged), Guildhall, and the Royal Exchange. Four stone bridges (including London Bridge) suffered damage, and 52 Company Halls were destroyed. …”

Pepys wrote pages of entries in his diary during these four days. He also played a part in the tragedy. Please indulge me if I let that wonderful civil servant speak for his own actions between 7 a.m. and noon on the first day of the fire:

About 7 rose again to dress myself, and there looked out at the window and saw the fire not so much as it was, and further off. … By and by Jane comes and tells me that she hears that above 300 houses have been burned down tonight by the fire we saw, and that was not burning down all Fishstreet by London Bridge. So I made myself ready presently, and walked to the Tower [of London] and there got up upon one of the high places Sir J Robinsons little son going up with me; and there I did see the houses at that end fo the bridge all on fire, and an infinite great fire on this and the other side the end of the bridge… . So I down to the water-side and there got a boat and through bridge, and there saw a lamentable fire … .
Having stayed, and an hour’s time seen the fire rage every way, and nobody to my sight endeavouring to quench it, but to remove their goods and leave all to the first; and having seen it get as far as the Steeleyard, and the wind mighty high and driving it into the city, and everything, after so long a drought, proving combustible, even the very stones of churches, and among other things, the poor steeple by which pretty Mrs._________ lives, and whereof my old school-fellow Elborough is parson, taken fire in the very top and there burned till it fall down – I to White-hall … in my boat – to White-hall, and there up to the King’s closet in the chapel, where people came about me and I did give them an account dismayed them all; and word was carried in to the King, so I was called for and did tell his Majesty and Duke of York what I saw, and that unless his Majesty did command houses to be pulled down, noting could stop the fire. They seemed much troubled, and the King commanded me to go to my Lord Mayor from him and command him to spare no houses but to pull down before the fire every way. The Duke of York bid me tell him that if he would have any more soldiers, he shall; and so did my Lord Arlington afterward, as a great secret. …


To me, Pepys’ diary excerpts bring that fire to life, though the full entries for the four days of the fire are even richer, touching mutual aid offered to and taken from friends, on his real concern for friends and servants from when he was “lower”, and to his lust for “pretty Mrs. _______” in the midst of chaos.

Pepys lived in Seething Lane, which was near the Tower, but also in the enclave of the Navy Office. Neither burned down in the conflagration, though Pepys buried much that was valuable in his yard, just as he worked with folks like Sir W Penn to protect the records of naval accounts.

To help put his excerpts in some historical framework, his Majesty is Charles II, only six years back “from his travels”, as he once called his exile after his father’s (James I) execution and the period of the Commonwealth. The Duke of York is James, brother of Charles and destined to reign for only a short while as James II.

There is reference in the quoted footnote to belief that the fire was set deliberately by enemies or Papists. England was, at the time, at war with the Dutch, who were staunch Protestants but rivals in sea trade. Official English hatred of Papism had been strong since the reign of Bloody Mary, which ended only 111 years previously, and the time of the Armada, only 78 years earlier.

Though there was great latitude of worship offered in England with the re-instatement of Charles II – in fact the most powerful clergy were called Latitudinarians – there were particular restrictions against Catholics. According to some, Charles died a secret but confessed Catholic; his brother James was open about his Catholicism, and this ultimately led to his flight to the Continent and the placement on the throne of Mary (daughter of Charles II) and her radically Protestant husband, William of Orange.

Long, long, long. I think I’m being driven by something to write too-lengthy posts. The Fire of London happened at a turbulent, exciting time. I would equate it in many ways to 9/11 in its impact and in the kind of rebuilding that took place. It demonstrated that Charles II both reigned and ruled, which I think was vital at that particular time.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5893
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/3/2019 8:39:29 AM

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your very informative post, on the Great London Fire of 1666! You have to think at that time period they had very little technology in fighting fires! Do you happen to know how many fatalities there were?? As far as your post last week on William Penn & the Quakers, I think Penn is actually on the Quaker Cereal Boxes, as their logo!? The passive religious tolerance of the Quakers led them to help escaped slaves, (Underground RR} also being very anti-slavery, they led the way for abolitionists!?

[Read More]

Now oats are good for old guys,
so eat your oatmeal!?
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5893
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/3/2019 8:47:20 AM

On this day September 3rd, 1783, the Treaty of Paris is signed, a treaty that went a long way in shaping the US as a new nation! Here, here! for the Treaty of Paris! Comments??

[Read More]

1943 the British 8th Army invades Italy, were the Canadians involved? Also Italy was already considering surrender, why??

[Read More]

Check out all the events of 9/3, comment on anything historical!?

[Read More]

Also 1939, England, & France declare war on Germany! Why did it take the militaries of so many countries to finally defeat Germany! Anyone??

[Read More]

[Read More]

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
MikeMeech

 UK
Posts: 470
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/3/2019 9:01:05 AM

Quote:
George, I hope I said problems with the Halifax were largely resolved. From what I've been led to believe, the Hally was never a forgiving a/c. At least part of the problem was with the initial engining. Halifax was designed to the same Air Specification as the twin-engined Avro Manchester, and even after the Halifax entry became a four-engine configuration things were not perfect. When she first entered service in November 1940 she still had many problems.

At least one problem was written into the Air Specification, and it plagued all the "heavies" of the time. There was a limit on the wingspan. It seems that the widest-opening hangar on RAF bases was 100'. Both the Avro Manchester and the Short Stirling met this requirement; I haven't had any luck finding if the original Halifax did. Stirling never increased it's wingspan; it remained at 99'1". But even a brief reading of the Stirling's development implies that wingspan should be determined by issues other than hangar size. Wingspan provides inadequate lift which brings engine reallocation to radials which adds drag and requires a greater propeller arc which means longer landing struts which need to be strengthened and adds weight which requires thicker wing roots which reduce lift ... . And that's for the Stirling!

IIUC, the main issues with the Halifax were connected with stability and recoverability. Let me offer two anecdotes, both from my late father-in-law. The first comes, I believe, from 1943. At that time, ten of the 13 squadrons in 6 Group (RCAF) flew various Marks of Hallys (II, III, and V):
"A Halifax Problem
It was a lovely English day, mild, sunny and all seemed right with the world, except there was a war on. I was cycling from the flying field to the local village when there appeared in the sky ahead of me a Halifax bomber doing a training exercise. Fighter evasion. The fighter would make an attack from a rear quarter and the air gunner at the appropriate time would give the order – he was in charge if under attack – and tell the pilot to dive starboard or port in the direction the attack was coming from.

This was effective at night as the bomber dove down into the darkness which was very difficult for the fighter to follow. This exercise seemed to be going well until I noticed the Halifax going into a very steep dive and he was a bit too low. The Halifax was a wonderful bomber, strong, easy to fly and carried a good load of bombs. But it had a fault. It if went into a spin, you were lucky to get out of it. This is what happened. It went into a spin and was too close to the ground and, I thought, he may not get out of this. Down he went, then the inevitable loud whoosh and a ball of fire and pall of black smoke.

They had had it. An elderly gentleman beside me was appalled at what he had seen.

I told him flying was dangerous.
"

The second anecdote is based on Geoff's last op, a major Bomber Command day assault on Heligoland. Here is Martin Middlebrook's entry for this attack:
Quote:
18 April 1945
HELIGOLAND

969 aircraft – 617 Lancasters, 332 Halifaxes, 20 Mosquitoes – of all groups attacked the naval base, the airfield and the town on this small island. The bombing was accurate and the target areas were turned almost into crater-pitted moonscapes. The psresent-day Bürgermeister was unable to supply any local details; it is probable that the civilian population had been evacuated long before this raid. 3 Halifaxes were lost.

Geoff was by now a Squadron Gunnery Leader, and needn't have flown. He was there by choice, to fly a day raid to end his second complete tour. By this time, 6 Group (RCAF) was 14 squadrons strong, four flying Lancaster Xs, six with Halifax IIIs and four in Halifax VIIs. Geoff was in a Hally, but does not mention the Mark. He says, in part:
… About half way to the target at about 15,000 ft. we overtook another Halifax on the port side and slightly below us. As I turned the rear turret to have a look at it, the plane slowly dipped its starboard wing and went into a slow spin for no apparent reason. The Halifax was a fine airplane, but had a bad reputation for spins. If you went into a spin it was very difficult if not impossible to get out of it. I watched amazed as it spun down and down, and no parachutes emerged as we flew on out of sight. I reported this to the rest of the crew. …
This was a daylight raid and I could see … [our attack unfold] … as we passed over the town, our target. In the midst of all this, floating down was a parachute. A bomber had obviously been hit by anti-aircraft fire and at last one of the crew had bailed out. I couldn’t see where he landed as we were soon out of sight. Not in the target area or in the sea, I hoped. …

So I knew of three crews who made Heligoland their last operation. The Halifax that had seen spinning down to sits destruction in the North Sea. The plane hit over the target from which I saw only one parachute. My own safe last trip to finish my second tour.

So, there’s one air crew’s comment about the Halifax. A general reputation as a fine aircraft with some flaws.

What do I know of in the way of alterations, and were they directly related to the Hally’s tendency to enter fatal spins?
• They re-engined her from RR V-12 Merlins to Hercules radials. Note, however, that some Lancs were also re-engined, but it was found that the altitude gained was off-set by negative impact on drag, bomb load and range. The decision to switch to Bristols may have been simply a question of supply and demand.
• They removed the nose turret, replacing it with a perspex bomb aimer’s viewpoint.
• They altered the size and shape of the tail fins with the Mark III. The original fins are sometimes referred to as “darts”, while from the Mark III they are called “paddles” or “rectangular”.
• They rounded the tips of the wings, which may have added more grip and control or simply a longer span.

One area they could not correct, and which caused the Hally to be downrated against the Lanc was that the Hally could not carry the 4,000 lb bomb. On the other hand, the crew survival ratio was slightly better from a stricken Hally than from a Lanc.

Cheers
Brian G


Hi

Although the hanger width is constantly quoted to have limited the wingspan of the Stirling, Halifax etc. there is a minor problem with that. The bombers were designed in the two 1936 bomber specifications while the hangars they were to be housed in, the 'C' Types, was from 1934 and they had a width of around 150 ft. The doors of which opened almost completely to give that width (IIRC from when I worked in one), so there was no need to limit wingspans for their use to 100 ft! It is also interesting to note that the Short Sunderland flying boat which preceded the Stirling into service had a wingspan of around 112 ft. and was to use the same hangers at some of their bases. Maybe someone at the Air Ministry had not read the hangar 'memo' or maybe there was some other reason (better for catapult assisted take-off, as is also in the spec. may be?).

Mike
----------------------------------
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5893
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/3/2019 9:13:54 AM

Quote:
On this day September 3rd, 1783, the Treaty of Paris is signed, a treaty that went a long way in shaping the US as a new nation! Here, here! for the Treaty of Paris! Comments??

[Read More]

1943 the British 8th Army invades Italy, were the Canadians involved? Also Italy was already considering surrender, why??

[Read More]

Check out all the events of 9/3, comment on anything historical!?

[Read More]

Also 1939, England, & France declare war on Germany! Why did it take the militaries of so many countries to finally defeat Germany! Anyone??

[Read More]

[Read More]

Regards,
MD


Also from a Patriotic stand point, on this day 9/3/1777, the US flies the stars in stripes in battle for the 1st time in Delaware, against those pesky Red Coats! Comments??

[Read More]
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
MikeMeech

 UK
Posts: 470
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/3/2019 9:19:12 AM

Quote:
Thanks, George, for the comments, questions and pix.

IIUC, 644 Squadron was part of 38 Group RAF Bomber Command. 38 Group was a late-formed group (Feb, 1944) and was never (as far as I know) part of the Main Force under Harris. 38 Group was created specifically for support roles rather than aggression. They trained to tow gliders (Horsas) and to drop supplies, and as the war neared its end that Group played an increasing role in repatriating PoWs and either flying in or dropping supplies to those in need. A lot of folks in the Low Countries were probably glad to hear a/c of 38 Group overhead.

I don't know if this will work, because I'm stupid when it comes to posting images, but let's see what happens. I'm trying to send the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax#/media/File:Royal_Air_Force_Bomber_Command,_1939-1941._CH3393.jpg

Okay, didn't work for me. But if someone can link to that image, it shows an early Mark I Hally. Note it has Merlin engines, that rather cluttered nose assembly, and the square-tipped wings. Note too the distinctive leading edge of the tail fin. On the Mark IIIs and subsequently, that leading edge would have been straight.

Cheers
Brian G

Hi

No. 38 Group was not in Bomber Command, it was formed from 38 Wing of Army Co-operation Command and by D-Day was under the 'direct' control of HQ AEAF and on the RAF Orbats for June 1944 its sub-command level is Air Defence of Great Britain. As it was No. 38 Airborne Forces Group it also became part of the Allied Troop Carrier Command Post to ensure co-ordination for the Allied Airborne Forces. No.46 Group RAF Transport Command also became part of this organisation.
No.38 Group's ORBAT at March 1944 was: 296, 297, 295 and 570 Sqns. with 22 + 4 Albemarles and 50 x Horsa Gliders each. 196, 299, 190 and 620 Sqns. with 22 + 4 Stirlings and 50 Horsas each. 298 and 644 Sqns. with 18 + 2 Halifax aircraft, 298 had 70 Hamilcar Gliders and 644 had 50 Horsa Gliders.

I served in both 46 Group and 38 Group in their later 1970s Transport and Air Support roles.

Mike
----------------------------------
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/3/2019 1:56:00 PM

Mike, thanks as always for you corrections and additional information. I wish we could see more posts from you, because you seem to have such a grasp on military issues.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/3/2019 2:41:12 PM

Mike,
From your time in the service, or even from any other sources, have you ever heard an explanation for the persistence of the story about the hangar door widt? I have certainly read it in what I considered to be reputable sources, and certainly in more than one source. Otherwise I wouldn't have said what I did.

Do you think it's just because it makes such a great story? Silly staff-wallahs never been on a base? Free enterprisers at Avro damning the torpedoes by adding some 12' to the Manchester's span to give the Air Ministry what they needed rather than what they specified?

Again, thank you for the correction. I'm going to have to go hunting to see where I read the hangar door-width story.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
MikeMeech

 UK
Posts: 470
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/3/2019 3:19:31 PM

Quote:
Mike,
From your time in the service, or even from any other sources, have you ever heard an explanation for the persistence of the story about the hangar door widt? I have certainly read it in what I considered to be reputable sources, and certainly in more than one source. Otherwise I wouldn't have said what I did.

Do you think it's just because it makes such a great story? Silly staff-wallahs never been on a base? Free enterprisers at Avro damning the torpedoes by adding some 12' to the Manchester's span to give the Air Ministry what they needed rather than what they specified?

Again, thank you for the correction. I'm going to have to go hunting to see where I read the hangar door-width story.

Cheers
Brian G


Hi Brian

The 'Hangar Width' story is in numerous publications so a quite understandable statement on your part. The specification for B.12/36 Heavy Bomber dated 15.7.36, which became the Short Stirling, does state: "An aircraft fulfilling these requirements will probably be large but it should not exceed a span of 100 ft." It does not state 'due to hangar size', this may just be assumed by many. But the reason why it was limited is not stated, it may have been to keep the size down to keep costs down, or it may have been down to the fact that all these new aircraft had to be able to come apart and fit standard RAF packing cases and vehicles so they could be transported around the British roads and railways of the time.

Thanks for your comment, I do try to put comments on the forum if they can be of some possible use and I am not too busy on my own research and writing.

Mike
----------------------------------
scoucer
Berlin
 Germany
Posts: 2778
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/3/2019 6:17:00 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Mike,
From your time in the service, or even from any other sources, have you ever heard an explanation for the persistence of the story about the hangar door widt? I have certainly read it in what I considered to be reputable sources, and certainly in more than one source. Otherwise I wouldn't have said what I did.

Do you think it's just because it makes such a great story? Silly staff-wallahs never been on a base? Free enterprisers at Avro damning the torpedoes by adding some 12' to the Manchester's span to give the Air Ministry what they needed rather than what they specified?

Again, thank you for the correction. I'm going to have to go hunting to see where I read the hangar door-width story.

Cheers
Brian G


Hi Brian

The 'Hangar Width' story is in numerous publications so a quite understandable statement on your part. The specification for B.12/36 Heavy Bomber dated 15.7.36, which became the Short Stirling, does state: "An aircraft fulfilling these requirements will probably be large but it should not exceed a span of 100 ft." It does not state 'due to hangar size', this may just be assumed by many. But the reason why it was limited is not stated, it may have been to keep the size down to keep costs down, or it may have been down to the fact that all these new aircraft had to be able to come apart and fit standard RAF packing cases and vehicles so they could be transported around the British roads and railways of the time.

Thanks for your comment, I do try to put comments on the forum if they can be of some possible use and I am not too busy on my own research and writing.

Mike


They are always welcome Mike. Always very informative.

Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
Posts: 10971
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/4/2019 7:01:58 AM

Quote:
1943 the British 8th Army invades Italy, were the Canadians involved? Also Italy was already considering surrender, why??


The invasion of Italy was an allied invasion and included the US and yes the Canadians were heavily involved. I think that the two Canadian divisions, 1st and 5th Armoured were outstanding. There was some friction between British leaders and Canadian Corps leaders. The British 8th Army did not fully trust or respect the commanders of the Corps but those men had the support of the Canadian government. Remember the Canadians were part of the British 8th Army and relied upon their support.

Any Canadian will tell you to look at the breaches of the Hitler Line, the fighting at the Moro River and Ortona and the Gothic Line (Coriano Ridge, San Fortunato) to determine just how effective they were. In fact, the Gothic Line battles were going on just about now in 1944 and the Canadians played a major role.

As to the Italians, some fought well but many wanted no part of this war. There was internal division within the country and in the end they deposed their leader, Mussolini. Even at the end of the war there was civil discontent and violence between warring factions within the country.
----------------------------------
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5893
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/4/2019 8:51:23 AM

Hi George,

Interesting take on the 8th Army in Italy, What percentage of the British 8th Army was Canadian? It would seem they would resent being called the "British" 8th ? At least the "8th British Commonwealth Army" name would be inclusive! A misnomer? Also even today Italy is divided politically? Comments??

Also on September 8th, 1918 American Troops invade Archangel Russia! Why would Allied Forces invade Russia? Was it a fiasco? Anyone??

[Read More]

Also way back in 476 the Western Roman Empire falls to Barbarians! Do you consider the Romans at this time, as also Barbarians??

[Read More]

In 1886 1st Nations leader Geronimo surrenders to US Forces! What's your take on this Apache Chief? Why do people yell "Geronimo" when they jump off a cliff"? anyone?

[Read More]

Also these things happened on 9/4, in history! Any posts??

[Read More]

[Read More]

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
Posts: 10971
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/4/2019 10:18:15 AM

Quote:
Interesting take on the 8th Army in Italy, What percentage of the British 8th Army was Canadian? It would seem they would resent being called the "British" 8th ? At least the "8th British Commonwealth Army" name would be inclusive! A misnomer? Also even today Italy is divided politically? Comments??


The Canadians would resent any reference to being British.

They would not however, resent being part of the British 8th Army. It was a choice that the Canadians made.
Their troops had been training in Britain for a couple of years with the 1st division arriving in GB in early 1940. Even the US had been involved in the North Africa campaign while the Canadian infantry continued to train in Britain. The RCAF and the RCN had been active from the beginning of the war.
The Dieppe raid, a monumental failure and the Battle of Hong Kong, another defeat were the major exceptions to relative inactivity by the Canadians.

And so the decision was made to split the Canadian forces and send one and later two divisions to Italy.
The full Canadian army would not be reunited in NW Europe until Feb./Mar of 1945.

In retrospect, the decision to allow part of the Canadian forces to go to Italy to gain combat experience may have been a mistake. Certainly those men were not available in Normandy to provide guidance and a sure hand to the inexperienced soldiers who landed there.
----------------------------------
MikeMeech

 UK
Posts: 470
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/4/2019 11:13:20 AM

Quote:
MD, I've been putting this too long post on the Fire of London together over the past couple of hours.

On this day in 1666 arose the Fire of London, which began about 2 a.m. in a bakery in Pudding Lane, near the north end of London Bridge (at that time a bridge with civilian housing on it). There remains to this day a Tube stop (Monument) and a structure near the point where the fire began.

I offer one of the more succinct recent descriptions of the fire, taken from a footnote in The Diary of Samuel Pepys. VII: 1666, R.C.Latham and W. Matthews, eds., Bell (1972), p. 267:

This [comment by Pepys in his diary for 3 a.m., Sunday September 2, of being awakened by his maid Jane, “to tell us of a great fire they saw in the City.”] was the Fire of London, which had begun about an hour before in Pudding Lane, near Fish Street Hill, not far from London bridge… . It was to rage for four days and nights. Caused by an accidental fire in a bakery which spread quickly because of the dry season, it was widely believed to have been started deliberately by foreign enemies or Papists, or both. The worst was over after the east wind abated during the night of the 4th-5th. By then is is said to have destroyed x. 13,200 houses and levelled an area of c. 436 acres, leaving only about one-fifth of the city standing. Some 100,000 people were madaul’s (which was gutted, along with 84 parish churches, three others being badly damaged), Guildhall, and the Royal Exchange. Four stone bridges (including London Bridge) suffered damage, and 52 Company Halls were destroyed. …”

Pepys wrote pages of entries in his diary during these four days. He also played a part in the tragedy. Please indulge me if I let that wonderful civil servant speak for his own actions between 7 a.m. and noon on the first day of the fire:

About 7 rose again to dress myself, and there looked out at the window and saw the fire not so much as it was, and further off. … By and by Jane comes and tells me that she hears that above 300 houses have been burned down tonight by the fire we saw, and that was not burning down all Fishstreet by London Bridge. So I made myself ready presently, and walked to the Tower [of London] and there got up upon one of the high places Sir J Robinsons little son going up with me; and there I did see the houses at that end fo the bridge all on fire, and an infinite great fire on this and the other side the end of the bridge… . So I down to the water-side and there got a boat and through bridge, and there saw a lamentable fire … .
Having stayed, and an hour’s time seen the fire rage every way, and nobody to my sight endeavouring to quench it, but to remove their goods and leave all to the first; and having seen it get as far as the Steeleyard, and the wind mighty high and driving it into the city, and everything, after so long a drought, proving combustible, even the very stones of churches, and among other things, the poor steeple by which pretty Mrs._________ lives, and whereof my old school-fellow Elborough is parson, taken fire in the very top and there burned till it fall down – I to White-hall … in my boat – to White-hall, and there up to the King’s closet in the chapel, where people came about me and I did give them an account dismayed them all; and word was carried in to the King, so I was called for and did tell his Majesty and Duke of York what I saw, and that unless his Majesty did command houses to be pulled down, noting could stop the fire. They seemed much troubled, and the King commanded me to go to my Lord Mayor from him and command him to spare no houses but to pull down before the fire every way. The Duke of York bid me tell him that if he would have any more soldiers, he shall; and so did my Lord Arlington afterward, as a great secret. …


To me, Pepys’ diary excerpts bring that fire to life, though the full entries for the four days of the fire are even richer, touching mutual aid offered to and taken from friends, on his real concern for friends and servants from when he was “lower”, and to his lust for “pretty Mrs. _______” in the midst of chaos.

Pepys lived in Seething Lane, which was near the Tower, but also in the enclave of the Navy Office. Neither burned down in the conflagration, though Pepys buried much that was valuable in his yard, just as he worked with folks like Sir W Penn to protect the records of naval accounts.

To help put his excerpts in some historical framework, his Majesty is Charles II, only six years back “from his travels”, as he once called his exile after his father’s (James I) execution and the period of the Commonwealth. The Duke of York is James, brother of Charles and destined to reign for only a short while as James II.

There is reference in the quoted footnote to belief that the fire was set deliberately by enemies or Papists. England was, at the time, at war with the Dutch, who were staunch Protestants but rivals in sea trade. Official English hatred of Papism had been strong since the reign of Bloody Mary, which ended only 111 years previously, and the time of the Armada, only 78 years earlier.

Though there was great latitude of worship offered in England with the re-instatement of Charles II – in fact the most powerful clergy were called Latitudinarians – there were particular restrictions against Catholics. According to some, Charles died a secret but confessed Catholic; his brother James was open about his Catholicism, and this ultimately led to his flight to the Continent and the placement on the throne of Mary (daughter of Charles II) and her radically Protestant husband, William of Orange.

Long, long, long. I think I’m being driven by something to write too-lengthy posts. The Fire of London happened at a turbulent, exciting time. I would equate it in many ways to 9/11 in its impact and in the kind of rebuilding that took place. It demonstrated that Charles II both reigned and ruled, which I think was vital at that particular time.

Cheers
Brian G


Hi Brian

I am sure it is a 'typo' but Mary was the daughter of James II and his first wife.

Mike
----------------------------------
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/4/2019 1:52:47 PM

Mike, "typo" is too kind. Bad proofing and sheer carelessness is more accurate.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5893
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/5/2019 8:38:59 AM

Hey guys with this post I complete a full year of "THIS DAY IN HISTORY" I'd like to thank all those who participate in this fun learning endeavor!!

So on this day in history, September 5th, 1914 WWI, the Battle of Marne begins! Comments on this important battle! Anyone??

[Read More]

1877, Sioux military chief Crazy Horse is killed! What say you about the bravery of 1st Nations Chiefs against the Paleface!?

[Read More]

1836 Sam Houston elected President of Texas, Sam a great leader, pleaded with Texas to stay in the Union, but alas they wouldn't listen, comments!?

[Read More]

1972, the terrible massacre at the Munich Olympics! Has security at the games improved much since then??

[Read More]

Also on 9/5 these events happened, actually you can comment on anything that ever occurred in history, because now we've completed a full year! So have at it!? BTW If I was a student what kind of grade would you give me for my history thread??

[Read More]

[Read More]

Happy 1 year anniversary!?
Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
Posts: 2810
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/5/2019 9:57:56 AM

I will comment on the 1972 Olympic massacre.

In my opinion, Germany should never again be awarded the host responsibilities of the Olympic games. What happened in Munich was bad enough, but the actions of Germany in the aftermath were disgraceful and contemptible. Six months later, when Operation Spring of Youth was carried out in Beirut by Israeli commandos( one of whom would serve as PM of Israel in the future) and two high ranking members of the PLO were 'taken care of", the German Ambassador to Lebanon protested loudly...but no one knew that the German government was in constant, secret talks with the PLO, including those killed in the commando raid, in order to further appease the PLO despite the involvement of Black September in the Munich massacre.

On Oct. 29, 1972, when PLO terrorists hijacked a Lufthansa flight, ( a plane with a passenger capacity of 150, that had only 18, all men, on board) en route to Frankfurt, Germany was almost giddy at the prospect of releasing the three Black September survivors of the slaughter of the Israeli athletes in exchange for the hijacked plane, and sending them to Libya. The German Foreign Minister, Paul Frank, telling the Libyan Ambassador that, from Germany`s standpoint,"the Munich chapter was closed."
Chancellor Brandt had made a public pledge to the Israeli`s that, " we would not capitulate to terrorists"...utter BS...especially considering the actions his government had taken to do just that!

Disgraceful considering what went on there just three decades before. Operation Wrath Of God was in response, not just to the Munich massacre itself, but the despicable charade the German government had carried out in the aftermath. If justice was to be done for those Israeli athletes who died in Munich..it would have to be done by the Israeli`s themselves.

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
Posts: 10971
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/5/2019 1:01:28 PM

Why did the PLO, whose relationship and control of Black September has been debated, announce in 1973 that the Black September was disbanded?

Morris, are you suggesting that West Germany should have been the country to seek vengeance against Black September? If so then why not an allied response? The attack in Munich was against Israelis but also against the world and the Olympic movement.

You will recall that brave German police attacked the terrorists in Munich and killed five of them. One German police officer died in the attempt. The attempted rescue is often described as "botched" but we know that many rescue attempts of this nature do not always go as planned.

I am a bit confused by your post. At one point you said that the : "German government was in constant, secret talks with the PLO, including those killed in the commando raid."

Is your suggestion that West Germany was somehow complicit in the raid? I am not pointing fingers at you but the phrase is suggestive of complicity.

Also, I wonder how West Germany should have handled the second airplane hostage incident, in your view.

BTW, I am aware that a German magazine did an exposé on the mismanagement and cover-up of the Munich terrorist attack. I think that that is to what you made reference. Have the accusations by the magazine (Der Spiegel, I think) ever been corroborated?
----------------------------------
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/5/2019 6:52:01 PM

Dave, you've been a good steward of your post, and have every right to be pleased that the thread continues to function. Thanks for putting the effort in! Though it has been a tad narrower than I had hoped for when you introduced your thread, it has provided a great deal of insight into a number of topics which may never have been touched upon otherwise.

Well done, MD
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
Posts: 2810
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/5/2019 11:47:22 PM

George, no.. I am not suggesting that West Germany should have sought vengeance against Black September. But they did have a responsibility to prosecute and place on trial the three surviving murderers, not hand them over for what amounted to deportation back to be treated as heroes.

Also, the German police, who were not trained for the purpose of making what amounted to SWAT team assaults, did the best they could. But the rank ineptitude of those in charge was almost criminal negligence. There was virtually no security for that village. Those coming and going sometimes just climbed over the fence, without being challenged or checked out. In fact, the terrorists gained access in the early morning hours by climbing over the fence...along with several American athletes who were returning from a night out on the town. They even helped each other climb over.

When the police dressed volunteers up as athletes, and staged them into position to assault the apartments from the rooftops...they had neglected to remove the television crews and cameramen from a rooftop position across the way..who were televising everything they were doing. It was not until some genius reminded the planners that the athletes quarters had tv in all the rooms...and the terrorists were possibly watching their staging take place live, that , thankfully it was called off.

When they planned the ambush at the airport, they had intended five snipers to take out what they thought was only four terrorists..it was eight...and they had armored vehicles ready to call in , but they forgot to order them forward when they should have, and they had neglected to secure the route to the airport they would have to travel to get there. The international media followed the choppers towards the airport...and clogged the roads and effectively blocked any access for the armored vehicles. The helicopters failed to be landed in the proper place, which put one of the snipers in the direct line of cross fire from the others. It was, to say the least...a tragic comedy of errors. And the police snipers turned out to be lousy shots anyway.

But the real failing, and what should never be forgotten, is that West Germany worked out some deal to get the captured terrorists out of Germany in order to placate PLO terrorists who were prepared to make West Germany pay repeatedly for daring to prosecute and imprison them. I recall that Golda Meir was not very supportive of the assassination teams operations, thinking that it would not be ideal for teams of Israeli killers to kill targets in other countries. But, it was the shameful inn-actions of the West German`s that changed her mind..and she green-lit "Wrath Of God."

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
Posts: 10971
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/6/2019 7:57:01 AM

Thanks Morris. I was aware of the charge of ineptitude on the part of German security but that was 1972 and I doubt that any city's Olympic committee would have anticipated anything of that sort of terrorist attack.

If the Germans had well trained special forces available, they chose not to use them. Regular police officers are not normally trained to deal with hostage taking. The Germans created GSG-9 in the aftermath of the failed attempt to rescue the Israelis and it is a well trained anti-terrorist unit that was not available during the Munich Olympics. I am not sure how many countries had dedicated anti-terrorist units within police forces or armies in 1972. I am not talking about special combat forces but anti-terrorist units who know how to end a hostage taking incident.

We should check the record of GSG-9 in the aftermath of the Munich Olympics. It may be unfair to criticize the German efforts at the Olympics. There are some reports that the West Germans already knew that this raid was coming but I do not know whether there is any truth to that. Which country would accept this stain on its record?

Given that this was a police action and that West Germany, possibly for political reasons and fall-out from the Nazi era, could not allow trained soldiers to engage. Wasn't that the case? Weren't the TV people later wondering where the army was?

Morris, you say that the West Germans should have prosecuted the three terrorists who were not killed in the operation. That is fine to say but one month later, the Germans were facing a hostage situation with many passengers on board a plane. There were accusations that the German government was keen to off load the three remaining terrorists from the Munich Olympics and were complicit in setting up the plane highjacking as a cover.

I don't know but that doesn't seen reasonable to me. Would any democratic government take a chance that nothing could go wrong and allow a plane full of passengers to be used as bargaining chips or as actors in an elaborate scheme? So is this just another conspiracy theory?

And if not and if the highjacking was a real attempt by Black September to free the three terrorists then I say again, what options did West Germany and Lufthansa have? Morris, you said that Germany should have prosecuted them. Indeed but they also had a potential disaster brewing and determined to release the terrorists in order to free the hostages. Morris, I asked you what should have been done but you only said that W. Germany should have prosecuted. Shall I presume that an attempt to free the hostages through force, should have been attempted, in your view?

You see, I really don't know whether the conspiracy theory that the Germans set up this highjacking as a cover, is legitimate. If someone does know, then, please weigh in.

Re: Israel. I recall that the general consensus toward Israel's assassination of the terrorists wherever they found them was met with general approval when the story came out. When was that movie by Spielberg? A book called "Vengeance" by a Canadian author, George Jonas, came out in 1984 and so we all knew before that, that the Israelis had been picking off Black September terrorists.
But I now wonder how the US or Canada would have reacted to the murder of anyone on their soil by a foreign hit squad? How would the US react if agents of a foreign power were using its passports to allow them to enter another country?

In one or two operations, Mossad used forged Canadian passports to allow their agents to gain entry to foreign countries. Not that it hasn't happened before. Canadian passports have been highly prized by bad guys.

And in our praise of Israel, let us remember that Mossad screwed up on a number of occasions, mistaking innocent people for their target and taking the wrong person out; they also killed innocent civilians during operations.
----------------------------------
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
Posts: 2810
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/6/2019 8:22:02 AM

A couple of things( this thread is a daily topic change and I don`t want to waylay it on this subject)

If I am not mistaken, West Germany had strict laws that forbade the military from participating in internal security matters such as this situation. Thus, it was all thrown in the lap of the police, who did the best they could, but had not been trained for this sort of thing.

Israel, who is constantly prepared for such things, wanted to send commandos and security specialists to aid the West Germans in rescuing their athletes...the West Germans refused to allow it.

A document was uncovered years back, written from a police official to a Bavarian official that stated that all preparations were in place for the deportation of the Black September terrorist prisoners. Not the prosecution of, or the trial of, but the deportation of.......

The Lufthansa flight that was hijacked would normally hold up to 150 passengers. It took off from Syria with only 18 people, all young men of military age, no women, no children... highly unusual and not what would be considered the optimum hostage value...no women...no children at all. And when the German FM says to the Libyan Ambassador, ( the terrorists were taken to Libya after the exchange) that "as far as we are concerned, the Munich chapter is closed".......there was no more eager washing of hands since Pontius Pilate.

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
Posts: 10971
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/6/2019 8:32:16 AM

Quote:
A document was uncovered years back, written from a police official to a Bavarian official that stated that all preparations were in place for the deportation of the Black September terrorist prisoners. Not the prosecution of, or the trial of, but the deportation of.......


Interesting statement but there is no time period reference. When did the police official make the statement? I want to know whether this was after the hostage taking had taken place or weeks before?

Morris, it's fine to extend discussion on any single topic on this thread. In fact, Dave has been suggesting that we do so, so that the thread is more than a chronological report of events in history. So go ahead.

Any comments on Israel's pursuit of targets in foreign countries? They weren't shy about entering non-Arabic countries to carry out the missions. Italy, France, Norway. And Norway caught the Mossad agents. We may empathize with the Israelis and their desire to seek retribution but they were violating international norms and the domestic laws of other nations. To a certain extent, they still behave in a rogue manner.
----------------------------------
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5893
This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/6/2019 8:41:06 AM

Quote:
Hey History Buffs,

To get some topics out of the blue, I thought we would try "The History Channel's", "This day in history", & open it for comments, or discussions!?

[Read More]

Feel free to consult the website, or even news from today's past, post it or make comments, on any given day you can begin the post if you have anything!?

Like today, Sept 6, 1972, was terrible terrorist attack in Munich, where Palestine Terrorists attacked Israel's athletes killing 2, & taking 9 hostages!

[Read More]

This may have started the heightening of security we see at today's sporting events? I can't go to any public event without a close examination of my camera bag or any carry on's? Comments anyone??

What say you?
Is this another stupid idea from MD, or what??
MD




Hey Guys,

Here is the 1st post from the "This day in History thread! One year ago today, 9/6, Michigan Dave started this whole thing! Not sure if the thread will continue? Perhaps off and on when members have something interesting that happened that day? Also the read more, being a year old may not always be accurate??

[Read More]

[Read More]

Regards,
MD

BTW, Thanks Brian for the nice compliments
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
morris crumley
Dunwoody
GA USA
Posts: 2810
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/6/2019 9:32:58 AM

George, it was a letter discovered by a German News investigative team. It was from the Munich police chief to the foreign minister of Bavaria( where the terrorists were jailed) and was sent some 11 days prior to the hijacking of Lufthansa Flight 615, where he says that all preparations for the "deportation" of the terrorist killers were in place.

Ulrich Wegener, a West German counter-terrorism expert, and the man who was the founding commander of GSG-9, the group you made mention of in a previous post, has said that allegations of an arranged hostage swap to free the three surviving terrorist killers, " was probably true."

And Abu Daoud, the mastermind of the terrorist operation in Munich stated that he was offered $ 9 million dollars by the West German`s for faking the prisoner`s release.

As for getting into the actions of the Israeli`s...that perhaps gets us into political type stuff, not historical matters. I will say this, and comment no more upon it, Israel survives because it does not allow itself to be victimized by the actions of other countries and governments who have shown, throughout history, that they will not protect the lives of Jewish people in the same manner as they would their own. The actions of West Germany, in the aftermath of this Olympic massacre made that point very clear. As I said, Mrs Meir was not supportive of the Mossad operations to find and kill those who had complicity in the Munich massacre, until the West German`s totally capitulated and allowed the murderers of Israel`s athletes to return home as heroes. That was the reason she approved the acts of vengeance to take place.

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
Posts: 10971
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/6/2019 12:24:46 PM

It would be interesting to hear the rationale for the decisions made by the West German government in the wake of the Olympic disaster.

How many other nations were under threat of terrorist attacks from external groups at the time? The 70's were a period of unrest in many countries and acts of domestic terrorism aren't hard to find.

Are my recollections correct when I say that West Germany was targeted many times throughout the '70's by all sorts of foreign terrorist elements and domestic factions as well.

I had to look this up but an El Al airplane was attacked in Munich in 1970 by the PLO. US military installations were attacked a couple of times in the '70's in Germany but not by the PLO but by the Baader-Meinhoff gang.

West Germany, in 1972, had already had one high jacking before the Olympics and had paid a large ransom. This was a PLO action.

NYC had a couple of bombings by Cubans.

I guess that my point is that West Germany may, and I am speculating here, felt that they were a favoured PLO/Black September target. And they had already elected the ransom route in January or February of 1972.

Germany was attacked verbally after the Olympics for its handling of the affair, and after the release of the three terrorists.

So I think that it is easy to criticize their choice after the Munich massacre but I can't agree that the Germans should never again host an Olympic games if that is their choice. And it is fair to ask that we all examine Germany's approach to terrorism after these responses that have garnered some negative comments. Did they change their approach to terrorism?

I think that the answer is yes.

We could look at the GSG-9 team response to a highjacking of a Lufthanza plane in Somalia in 1977 to see the political and practical changes to the German approach after Munich. These were PLO highjackers as well.

So if the West Germans had been unready and had mismanaged events at Munich, certainly they seemed to have realized what had to be done and then quickly did it. Were the rest of any more ready than the Germans were, for a Munich style massacre in the early '70's?

----------------------------------
MikeMeech

 UK
Posts: 470
Re: This day in World History!
Posted on: 9/6/2019 4:20:16 PM

Quote:
It would be interesting to hear the rationale for the decisions made by the West German government in the wake of the Olympic disaster.

How many other nations were under threat of terrorist attacks from external groups at the time? The 70's were a period of unrest in many countries and acts of domestic terrorism aren't hard to find.

Are my recollections correct when I say that West Germany was targeted many times throughout the '70's by all sorts of foreign terrorist elements and domestic factions as well.

I had to look this up but an El Al airplane was attacked in Munich in 1970 by the PLO. US military installations were attacked a couple of times in the '70's in Germany but not by the PLO but by the Baader-Meinhoff gang.

West Germany, in 1972, had already had one high jacking before the Olympics and had paid a large ransom. This was a PLO action.

NYC had a couple of bombings by Cubans.

I guess that my point is that West Germany may, and I am speculating here, felt that they were a favoured PLO/Black September target. And they had already elected the ransom route in January or February of 1972.

Germany was attacked verbally after the Olympics for its handling of the affair, and after the release of the three terrorists.

So I think that it is easy to criticize their choice after the Munich massacre but I can't agree that the Germans should never again host an Olympic games if that is their choice. And it is fair to ask that we all examine Germany's approach to terrorism after these responses that have garnered some negative comments. Did they change their approach to terrorism?

I think that the answer is yes.

We could look at the GSG-9 team response to a highjacking of a Lufthanza plane in Somalia in 1977 to see the political and practical changes to the German approach after Munich. These were PLO highjackers as well.

So if the West Germans had been unready and had mismanaged events at Munich, certainly they seemed to have realized what had to be done and then quickly did it. Were the rest of any more ready than the Germans were, for a Munich style massacre in the early '70's?



Hi

I don't think any democratic country was prepared for the terrorist activity, including aircraft hi-jackings, in the early 1970s. This was apparent after the Dawson Field triple hi-jack of 1970 (I think), when prisoners were exchanged for the hostages. This was why new organisations were formed or had the counter-terrorist role added to their function. The Germans formed GSG9, the United States formed Delta Force (the US was not prepared either) the British added the role to the SAS who always had a squadron on immediate standby after the decision was made. Other countries done similar, you may recall the Dutch had problems with some 'South Moluccan' militants who held hostages in a train and a school in the later 1970s, these were dealt with. By the 1980s most democracies had organisations that were proficient at handling these situations to a great extent. Hostage situations are not easy, the public and the press 'expect' the 'authorities' to get everyone out alive, which is not an easy task, otherwise the 'press' would report it as a 'disaster'. It is an even bigger problem these days as it is more likely that 'hostage takers' are not wanting to get out alive and the publicity they desire is not a long drawn out negotiation on exchanging them for prisoners but the impact of killing as many people as possible. The 'CT game' has changed to some extent and counter-terrorist organisations have had to change with it.

Mike
----------------------------------
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5893
Re: This day in History!
Posted on: 9/7/2019 8:13:27 AM

Quote:
Hi Guys,

Day 2 of our new "this day in history! Today Sept. 7, in 1776 during the Revolutionary war was the 1st Submarine attack in history!

[Read More]

Other noted events that happened!

[Read More]

US, named "Uncle Sam, in the Civil War Atlanta is evacuated, Panama is to control the Canal, Nazis begin Blitz Kreig, 1940!

always something happening in history,
Regards, & comments,
MD


Day 2, 365 days ago!? Compare that "this day in history", with 2019's, any changes??

[Read More]

They look the same? Well there is always George's site??

[Read More]

BTW Germany lost 41 Bombers in 1940 while bombing London, take that Luftwaffe! Comments?

[Read More]
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5893
Re: This day in History!
Posted on: 9/7/2019 9:30:10 PM

Quote:
On this day in history, 1974, President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in a controversial move? Ford contended it was to get back to running the country, what say you?

Also on this day, in 1945; US troops arrived in Korea, do you think the US should have stayed out of that situation?


In 1941 Germany stated their siege of Leningrad, we. All know how that turned out! Bad move?

Also check the website for battles fought in both the Revolutionay, and Civil War!

Comments anyone?
MD



Guys,

I’m all for continuing the thread, but certainly wouldn’t mind some help! Perhaps if you have a post from that calendar day you could start the thread off? Also if nothing is going on or it’s a holiday, there might not be a post on that day?

What say you??
MD

BTW here is 1 year ago on 9/8, comments.
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Page 53 of 53 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52    53  )

© 2020 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC