Happy Thanksgiving!  

MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:    Password:

 
General History
Page 20 of 23 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19    20    21   22   23 )
Author
Message
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4650
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/2/2020 9:23:58 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Following on from my previous post and its allusions to Protestantism, I couldn’t resist mentioning that today is the 480th anniversary of the execution of Thomas Cromwell, who went from zero to hero and then back to zero again in a spectacular fashion. It was a very dangerous time to associate with royalty in those days !

Regards, Phil


Funy enough Phil, I was reading about Dominic Cummings and Thomas Cromwell sprung to mind.

Trevor


Hey ! Now there's a thought : Mark Rylance could be cast in the role of Dominic Cummings.....come to think of it, they look quite like each other !

Imagine our thespian hero leaping around the grounds of Barnard Castle !

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5893
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/2/2020 9:34:35 AM

Quote:
These 2 daily history websites are perpetual, they are always on the correct day!?

[Read More]

[Read More]

Good for days I have limited access!
MD


Hi George, & Brian, Phil, other MHO’ers,

Thanks for the information on the underground RR, ending many times in Canada. Were runaway slaves safer from laws like the”Fugitive Slave Laws once across the border? What recourse did slaves & Canadians have to discourage such slave carchers from capturing slaves and hauling them back to the South? Also why did the South harbor Confederates in their territory during the CW? BTW good discussions on multiple topics by MHO members, by all means continue!

As for 8/2 in history, here are some new topics, feel free to comment or add to them, anyone?

1934, Hitler becomes dictator of Germany, how could a totally insane artist from Austria pull that off? Comments??

1865, the CSA Shenandoah finally learns the CW is over? This warship sank more Union ships than any, how did they do it? Did the British help.? Comments on the fascinating history of the CSA Shenandoah??

1945, the Potsdam conference concludes, how did it help lead to the Cold War? Anyone??

1917, a major mutiny breaks out on a German Battleship, how can this happen during WWI, comments?

Regards, & stay safe,
MD

BTW check both our perpetual websites above for lots of history! Bring up any new or old topics!

For example from the 2nd website, George’s, I believe, in 1610, Henry Hudson discovers the bay named after him, why did his crew set him adrift to die? Anyone?

1701, the Treaty of Montreal how did this effect the 1st Nations, & future of Canada??

1798 British brilliant Admiral H. Nelson, defeats the French in the Battle of the Nile, Nelson was always winning these naval battles, he must have been bored by his opponents navies? What say you?

1943, future President John F Kennedy’s PT Boat 109, sinks in the Solomons, what a heroic story, comments?

Sorry, sometimes you don’t hear from me for awhile, I was at our cottage near Lake Michigan.







----------------------------------
"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
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/2/2020 4:32:02 PM

Quote:
Thanks for the information on the underground RR, ending many times in Canada. Were runaway slaves safer from laws like the”Fugitive Slave Laws once across the border? What recourse did slaves & Canadians have to discourage such slave catchers from capturing slaves and hauling them back to the South?


Canada West or Upper Canada was sovereign British territory. Slavery had been grandfathered there in 1793.

The Fugitive Slave Law was a US piece of legislation and had no application in the British colonies.

One of the reasons that former black slaves established settlements inland in Upper Canada was to ensure that they were a good distance from the border with the US. Safer that way.

Slave catchers would use ruses to get a black person to return to the US side where he would be snatched up and taken back to his master. Black people were made aware that if they received a notice saying that their wife or husband had also escaped and were waiting for him or her in Detroit or Buffalo, that they must ignore this notice. It was a scam.

The US requested extradition of escaped slaves on many occasions. Often, the extradition request was based upon a charge of theft in the US. If the slave had taken his master's horse to effect his escape, that was called theft. In theory, even the clothes on the person's back were considered the property of the slave owner.

In one case, a man named Jesse Happy did take his master's horse and rode it all the way to Detroit. He left it there and crossed the river into Canada. These extradition requests often made it as far as an English court if they could not be resolved in the colony. In the case of Jesse Happy, the English courts ruled that he had not stolen the horse but had borrowed it so that he could get away. Extradition request denied.


Any black person who entered the British colonies then was a free man as of 1834. That doesn't mean that black people were always respected in a place like Upper Canada but they were free. And as far as Upper Canada or Canada West was concerned, there was no compulsion to return slaves to the US under the terms of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty which defined borders and determined the grounds for extradition for specific crimes.

There was a case of extradition that is often cited as the one that indicated clearly that Canada West would not return a person to the US just for being an escaped slave.

John Anderson was an enslaved black man who escaped to Canada after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850. While slaves had been coming to Canada for some time, the FSA encouraged many more to flee. It is estimated that between 15-20 K black Americans entered Canada throughout the 1850's.

Quote:
Reverend William M. Mitchell, who was active in the Underground Railroad during this period of its peak success, estimated that there were sixty thousand blacks in Canada by 1860.


John Anderson was a slave in Missouri. His master had sold his mother away when he was ten. He married a woman from another farm and her master allowed him to visit. John was sold to another farmer and this master refused to allow him to visit his wife and demanded that he take another wife from among his slaves so as to produce some more slaves for him. So he left and with him he carried a small dagger.

While crossing the farm of a Mr. Digges, John was stopped and questioned. Digges could have earn a $25 reward for apprehending an escaped slave. John ran and Digges and some of his slaves gave chase. A few hours later, they caught up to him.

They got into a fight and Anderson stabbed Digges. Digges died 13 days later.

Anderson made it to Canada. He worked freely under the name Burton but somehow his presence was discovered in Canada.

The US asked that he be extradited on the charge of murder.

In fact, an Upper Canada tribunal ordered him to be returned to the US but this was challenged. Citizens in Upper Canada were opposed to his extradition. Newspapers and citizens groups lobbied in his favour.

The case made its way to Great Britain under appeal, and a court there ordered a writ of habeas corpus, releasing Anderson from jail. This created another issue in that Upper Canada was opposed to the interference by British courts in the justice system of the colony. Anderson's release was popular but the interference of Britain was not.

The British need not be involved because Anderson's lawyer in Canada had appealed to the Court of Common Pleas in Toronto. That court found that while Missouri sought extradition for murder, that in Canada, Anderson would have been charged with manslaughter and not murder. Therefore the extradition request was denied. This was in 1861.

You may read about the whole case here. Quite the ordeal for Anderson but it indicates that the anti-slavery movement was strong in Upper Canada. And I must add that there were others that wished to limit black immigration and felt that the escaped slaves should be sent back.

Quote:
"... let (them)... be free in their own country; let us not countenance their further introduction among us; in a word, let the people of the United States bear the burden of their sins," wrote one colonist.
. source: CBC, Canada: A People's History.

[Read More]



There are examples of slave catchers crossing into Upper Canada, looking for escaped slaves. This was illegal as they had no jurisdiction in UC. Sometimes, the slave catchers would just grab any black person that they could and attempt to take them back to the US.
The escaped slaves were no longer shy about protecting themselves. In one case, a slave owner and his agent travelled into Canada, seeking his former slave named Joseph Alexander in Chatham, Upper Canada. Chatham was one of those towns that had been populated by a large group of escaped slaves.
The slave owner and agent were staying at the Royal Exchange Hotel in Chatham. A large crowd which included Joseph Alexander gathered in front of the hotel upon learning that the owner was in town. Words were exchanged and Alexander spoke to his former master.
The master offered him $100 to come to Windsor with him. Alexander refused the offer and as the owner and agent attempted to seize him, the crowd interceded. The two men were forced to leave town and Alexander went on with his life.

This is not the only story of US slave catchers showing up in Canada and former slaves were always wary of strangers arriving in their settlements.

In one other case in 1858, a slave catcher snatched a 10 year old boy named Venus and took him on a train with the goal to take him stateside to be sold. Venus was not a fugitive.
The train was passing through Chatham, mentioned in the previous story. 50% of the population of 3,585 was black in 1858. A black man named Shadd warned the people and a crowd gathered and it stormed the train and freed the little boy. They found out after that he was a freed slave and he was going to be re-enslaved if he had been taken into the US.

Good for them, we say now. But there were people in Chatham who felt otherwise and were concerned that Americans wouldn't want to come to Canada anymore.

Quote:
"A great outrage has been committed on the Great Western at Chatham," wrote Amelia Harris, a society matron from London, Canada West. "A southern gentleman was passing through with a slave boy of ten years old. Some Negro made the discovery here and telegraphed to the coloured people in Chatham who assembled a mob of three hundred and when the train stopped at the station they took the boy forcibly from his master although the child cried and did not wish to go... It will turn the American travel from Canada."


And Isaac Shaad? He and 6 others were convicted of rioting and some did jail time.

Upper Canada was certainly not perfect but for a black slave, it was salvation.

Cheers,

George

----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4650
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/2/2020 5:18:07 PM

What a wonderful story, George !

Interesting that Amelia Harris alluded to Some Negro and then to ....the coloured people in Chatham .

Note the spelling, too : coloured as opposed to the American colored. What form do Canadians use now ?

Over here in Britain the good citizens were able to bask in the moral grandeur of Abolition without having to face the demographic consequence : black slaves were liberated, but they remained thousands of miles away.
More than that, there was compensation payable for the loss of property that emancipation entailed.
It was to take another 114 (?) years before they confronted the racial tension attendant upon the arrival of the descendants of those slaves.

Canadians were close to the frontline in this respect.

I really want to discuss the issue of slavery....and I mean “ issue” in the more literal sense.

It’s a challenge, because I’m frightened of saying something that might give offence.

Regards, Phil



----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/2/2020 6:46:26 PM

Quote:
1917, a major mutiny breaks out on a German Battleship, how can this happen during WWI, comments?

The ship was Prinzregent Luitpold, the last-built (1912) of the Kaiser-class Battleships which were the mainstay of the IGN. They were good ships, and well-matched against RN equivalents.

Personally, I wouldn’t call this a major mutiny. Four hundred disgruntled men aboard one capital ship doesn’t constitute a major mutiny, IMHO. Even the RN Invergorden mutiny of 1931, involving three capital ships ([i/Rodney, Valiant? and Hood) and more than 1,000 matelots wasn’t officially a mutiny, but only an action.

I can’t quite figure out what might have caused the mutiny aboard Prinzregent Luitpold. I doubt it was cowardice, despite hints in that direction from some accounts. In the relatively few major engagements between RN and IGN forces, the Germans had acquitted themselves well – in stamina, in gunnery, in strength of ship. It may have been something as simple as reduction of rations (another suggestion), combined with lack of naval activity. After Jutland (31 May/1June 1916) the IGN never again engaged the RN at a fleet level.

It could also have had something to do with general ship’s morale. I know virtually nothing about rotation and replacement of either officers or crew aboard IGN ships of the line. But one can assume that in five years there had been at least one change in command. And I can only assume that, as in any other navy, a change of command can bring with it an entire shift in focus for the ship – from a focus on comradeship to a stress on competition between watches; from gunnery to general seamanship; from adaptability in crisis to continued discipline under intense fire.

Certainly, some considered “ring leaders” by tribunals set up to investigate the mutiny were executed or imprisoned. That is not harsh under typical wartime regulations, at least for the time.

The other issue raised around this one-ship mutiny is the impact it may have had on later IGN mutinies beginning 4 Nov 1918. I think this is a red herring, to be honest. IIUC, the IGN mutiny of 1918 was driven by three distinct issues, only one of which may have been shared with the actions aboard Prinzregant Luitpold.

Ineresting sidebar to history, however.

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
Posts: 10971
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/3/2020 8:43:59 AM

Quote:
Interesting that Amelia Harris alluded to Some Negro and then to ....the coloured people in Chatham .

Note the spelling, too : coloured as opposed to the American colored. What form do Canadians use now ?


Our children are supposed to be taught correct British English. I was taught that way and so I and others of my age will spell correctly. So for me it is colour, rumour, programme, humour and labour. But I do spell a lot of words like realise with a "z" in place of the "s".
A word like defence is spelled with an "s" in the US.

However, we live next door to the great republic and its influences on our culture are significant and that extends to correct spelling. Computer use in social media platforms leads many to see American spelling and so they adopt it.

My spell checker is set for "Canadian English" and so it will catch any lapses into incorrect spelling but if you set it for "American English", the checker will accept all of the incorrect spelling of English words.

Television has a great effect upon the pronunciation of English words. One example is the word "route" which we should pronounce as "root" as it is French word adopted by the English. Americans in many regions and certainly their sports reporters pronounce the word as "rowt". However, I have heard northerners pronounce the word as we do here.

[Read More]

The entry point to a home is called a "foyer". Again a French word, in Canada we say "Foi-eh". Many Americans say "Foi-err".

In sports, we pronounce semi-final as "sem-ee final". Americans say, "sem-eye". And I have heard Canadian broadcasters use the American form and it makes me cringe.



The final letter of the alphabet is "Zed". Americans say "Zee". And I have heard a lot of Canadians use the American pronunciation.

In truth, Americans and Canadians do pronounce many words in a similar manner but I still fight the good fight when it comes to spelling.

You may enjoy this British fellow explaining the difference between British and American pronunciation of some common words. And I will confess that for some words, Canadian and American pronunciation is the same. As well, pronunciation of words may vary from region to region, across the continent.

[Read More]

Cheers,

George
----------------------------------
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/3/2020 9:54:06 PM

George, do you honestly believe there is “correct” spelling, and its genesis is British? I would argue that “incorrect” spelling is spelling which raises doubt about a word or its meaning. If on a quilting site I wrote “Weave a new technique…”, meaning can be lost. But “labour” is no more correct than “labor”. Both are valid. To suggest that British spelling is “correct” is, IMHO, a no-go.

I can’t find my copy of the “CP Stylebook” right now, but I believe it no longer supports many of the words you cite. Programme has become program; cigarette has become cigaret. I don’t have trouble following such a communication guide, unless they become too politically correct to be correct.

I honestly don’t spend much time on this kind of stuff. Seems to me, e.g., that if I ask for assistance, a person may offer some “advice”, but if I chat with him he may “advise” me. Nouns and verbs might be separate words.

What, in the name of all thats Holy, is the distinction between Zed and Zee. Neither captures the sound of the letter in any way. And you’re not talking spelling here, but pronunciation. Both the US and Canada spell the letter “z”!

I will admit that Canada adapts some US usages or spellings while maintaining certain British usages or spellings. But I would argue it has nothing to do with “correct” usage. Are you, e.g., suggesting that Canadians are wrong to use “tire” rather than “tyre”.

I’m gonna stop here: I just lost a more complex reply because things timed out. But I think that – unconsciously – you are waving a flag that most people no longer care about.

I love language, from spelling to meaning to structure to parsing to history. So I’m open for more discussion on this. Hell, one of the men I studied (knighted by George III) spelled his name at least two different ways, and talked about the death of the “Prince of Whales”.

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4650
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/4/2020 3:59:27 AM

Brian and George,

How interesting these trans Atlantic variations are !

American : Go tell !

British : Go and tell !

American : Outside of New York.

British : Outside New York

American : Out the window

British : Out of the window

The use of the preposition is very fickle.

It's a rear guard action, at best, for British people to try and stem the flow of American phrases and words into everyday language .

Talking of the rear, my grandson said that his butt hurt. I said that “ butt” is an American word, and we use the word “ Arse”.....at that point, his older sister called him an “ asshole”, and I realised that the battle was lost.

Edit : The last words in Shakespeare’s Hamlet endorse American usage :

Go, bid the soldiers shoot


Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
Posts: 10971
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/4/2020 8:08:47 AM

Brian, lighten up, my friend. I used "correct" to take the mickey out of our southern friends. Should have used an emoticon, I suppose.

Do you have any concerns that whatever passes for Canadian culture has been subsumed by the culture to the south? I do and so I cherish anything that highlights our differences, however trivial. And so I spell as I was taught as a child, knowing full well that I may be using spelling, at times, that is "American" in nature. It is a wave of the flag that I do care about.

BTW, I haven't seen evidence that programme, labour and cigarette have fallen by the wayside in my part of the country.

Re: "Zed" or "Zee". I did comment that we were talking about pronunciation. To that point, I thought that the "Zed" pronunciation had a practical component to it. It is impossible to confuse the pronunciation of "zed" with the letter "c" as it is with the pronunciation, "zee". I recall that explanation given to me so many decades ago.

And I still cannot stand to watch a CFL game only to hear a Canadian broadcaster talk about, "pass rowts".

I do wonder whether a Canadian who attends school in the US would be penalized for using Canadian or British spelling in an essay. I presume that either form of spelling would be accepted but I don't know for sure. We have some high school teachers from the US on the forum. I wonder how they would react to say, a student's use of the spelling "cheque" rather than "check" in an essay.

Cheers,

George

Gotta go to the bank. I have CHEQUE to deposit.

George
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4650
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/4/2020 1:26:59 PM

George,

You write ...but I don’t know for sure.

For sure ; for free ; for real.....these are grammatical distortions, which I believe stem from American usage.

To my dismay, I find myself using “ for sure” !

Regards, Phil

----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/4/2020 4:38:42 PM

Quote:
I do wonder whether a Canadian who attends school in the US would be penalized for using Canadian or British spelling in an essay. I presume that either form of spelling would be accepted but I don't know for sure. We have some high school teachers from the US on the forum. I wonder how they would react to say, a student's use of the spelling "cheque" rather than "check" in an essay.

That’s a concern I have as well, but in reverse. My grandson, schooled in the US, begins university at University of Waterloo in four weeks’ time.

Cheers. An stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
Posts: 10971
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/4/2020 8:44:24 PM

Quote:
Quote:
I do wonder whether a Canadian who attends school in the US would be penalized for using Canadian or British spelling in an essay. I presume that either form of spelling would be accepted but I don't know for sure. We have some high school teachers from the US on the forum. I wonder how they would react to say, a student's use of the spelling "cheque" rather than "check" in an essay.

That’s a concern I have as well, but in reverse. My grandson, schooled in the US, begins university at University of Waterloo in four weeks’ time.

Cheers. An stay safe.
Brian G



Here you go Brian.

University College at the University of Toronto

[Read More]

And at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario

[Read More]

University of Ottawa

[Read More]

Ryerson University reminds students to set their computer spell checker to Canadian English.

[Read More]


I couldn't find much from the Univ. of Waterloo but the other three do seem to acknowledge that American spelling has crept into use. They do say that you should not mix American and Canadian spelling in any submissions. If a student mixes Canadian and American spelling in a single paper, that is frowned upon. The preference seems to be for Canadian spelling and the use of Canadian dictionaries. Several recommend the Canadian Oxford Dictionary.

However, if you do use American spelling in a paper, use it all the way through. There seems to be some consensus on that point.

So Brian, your concern for your grandson may be valid.

He has probably already done his homework on this already but if not, I did find this link to the U. of W. Writing Style Guide which may be downloaded. Pretty exciting time upcoming for your grandson. I hope that he enjoys the experience.

[Read More]

Cheers,

George



----------------------------------
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5893
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/4/2020 9:56:31 PM

Quote:
These 2 daily history websites are perpetual, they are always on the correct day!?

[Read More]

[Read More]

Good for days I have limited access!
MD



Hi Guys nice Language Arts lesson between Canada & the US.

On this day 8/4, Anne Frank is captured leading to a sad ending for the little Jewish Girl-Author, comments??

[Read More]

On this day in 1873, George Armstrong Custer & the 7th are attacked by the Sioux, 3 years later he will meet his demise in the Battle of the Little Big Horn! Comments on it's significence??

[Read More]

[Read More]

Feel free to discuss any new events1

Regards,
MD

Also on 8/5/1914 Germany starts the 1st battle of WWI, comments on how it esculates??

[Read More]

----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Wazza
Sydney
 Australia
Posts: 573
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/4/2020 10:09:01 PM

On this day 05 August 1944, the largest mass breakout of POW's occurred at Cowra NSW Australia.

1,104 Japanese POW's executed a planned mass escape from the Cowra POW camp in rural NSW.

4 Australian guards and 104 Japanese died. Interestingly the majority of Japanese dead were from suicide or at their own comrades hands.

Today the site is a memorial and museum to the camp.

The Cowra Breakout was a 1984 4 1/2 hour tv mini series for those interested.
----------------------------------
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/4/2020 11:00:20 PM

On this day in 1704, England wrested control of Gibraltar from the Spanish as part of the settlement of the War of the Spanish Succession. In effect, this put a plug into the straits leading from the Med to the Atlantic, and provided the English with a combined naval/shipping facility as it expanded its routes both in the south Med and as part of the triangle route for the slave/spice trade triangle. And as British influence expanded (and fluctuated) over the the next 250 years, affected the balance of power in the region.

On occasion, Spain attempted to reclaim it, with no luck. Occasionally, others wished Spain to press its claims either by diplomacy or by force of arms. Both Hitler and Mussolini felt a Spanish assault on Gibraltar would be a quid pro quo for assistance they provided Franco and the Falangists during the Spanish Civil War. And God knows that when GB had been all but driven out of the western Med, a loss of Gibraltar could have presaged the collapse of British arms in North Africa and the Middle East. I think Franco’s rejection of Hitler’s request may have represented the biggest diplomatic failure of Hitler’s time in power.

I’ve only been to Gibraltar once, and that was sixty years ago (1960). Spain was still a Franco fiefdom and dead poor. We (2 Canucks; 4 Ozzies and a German) camped the night before our visit to Gib in Algeciras, being awakened by Guardia Civil in the early a.m in their typical fashion – a sub-machine muzzle probe in the ribs, a light in the eyes, and a “request” for “papers”. At La Linea the next day, we were vetted again. All that ugliness and threat and distrust made the visit more meaningful and uplifting than perhaps it deserved in reality.

Okay. Franco’s gone, though perhaps not the Falangist movement. And the Spanish have made a couple more attempts at wresting Gib from GB. Yet it still remains there, a giant and improbable monolith waving the Union flag 216 later.

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4650
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/5/2020 5:32:07 AM

Quote:
Quote:
1917, a major mutiny breaks out on a German Battleship, how can this happen during WWI, comments?

The ship was Prinzregent Luitpold, the last-built (1912) of the Kaiser-class Battleships which were the mainstay of the IGN. They were good ships, and well-matched against RN equivalents.

Personally, I wouldn’t call this a major mutiny. Four hundred disgruntled men aboard one capital ship doesn’t constitute a major mutiny, IMHO. Even the RN Invergorden mutiny of 1931, involving three capital ships ([i/Rodney, Valiant? and Hood) and more than 1,000 matelots wasn’t officially a mutiny, but only an action.

I can’t quite figure out what might have caused the mutiny aboard Prinzregent Luitpold. I doubt it was cowardice, despite hints in that direction from some accounts. In the relatively few major engagements between RN and IGN forces, the Germans had acquitted themselves well – in stamina, in gunnery, in strength of ship. It may have been something as simple as reduction of rations (another suggestion), combined with lack of naval activity. After Jutland (31 May/1June 1916) the IGN never again engaged the RN at a fleet level.

It could also have had something to do with general ship’s morale. I know virtually nothing about rotation and replacement of either officers or crew aboard IGN ships of the line. But one can assume that in five years there had been at least one change in command. And I can only assume that, as in any other navy, a change of command can bring with it an entire shift in focus for the ship – from a focus on comradeship to a stress on competition between watches; from gunnery to general seamanship; from adaptability in crisis to continued discipline under intense fire.

Certainly, some considered “ring leaders” by tribunals set up to investigate the mutiny were executed or imprisoned. That is not harsh under typical wartime regulations, at least for the time.

The other issue raised around this one-ship mutiny is the impact it may have had on later IGN mutinies beginning 4 Nov 1918. I think this is a red herring, to be honest. IIUC, the IGN mutiny of 1918 was driven by three distinct issues, only one of which may have been shared with the actions aboard Prinzregant Luitpold.

Ineresting sidebar to history, however.

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G



Brian,

Troublesome lot, sailors, aren’t they ?

Kronstadt sailors especially so ! Twice or thrice they made life difficult for authorities.

When things go wrong in military discipline, I suppose the confined quarters of ships amplify the effect.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4650
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/5/2020 5:40:50 AM

Quote:
On this day in 1704, England wrested control of Gibraltar from the Spanish as part of the settlement of the War of the Spanish Succession. In effect, this put a plug into the straits leading from the Med to the Atlantic, and provided the English with a combined naval/shipping facility as it expanded its routes both in the south Med and as part of the triangle route for the slave/spice trade triangle. And as British influence expanded (and fluctuated) over the the next 250 years, affected the balance of power in the region.

On occasion, Spain attempted to reclaim it, with no luck. Occasionally, others wished Spain to press its claims either by diplomacy or by force of arms. Both Hitler and Mussolini felt a Spanish assault on Gibraltar would be a quid pro quo for assistance they provided Franco and the Falangists during the Spanish Civil War. And God knows that when GB had been all but driven out of the western Med, a loss of Gibraltar could have presaged the collapse of British arms in North Africa and the Middle East. I think Franco’s rejection of Hitler’s request may have represented the biggest diplomatic failure of Hitler’s time in power.

I’ve only been to Gibraltar once, and that was sixty years ago (1960). Spain was still a Franco fiefdom and dead poor. We (2 Canucks; 4 Ozzies and a German) camped the night before our visit to Gib in Algeciras, being awakened by Guardia Civil in the early a.m in their typical fashion – a sub-machine muzzle probe in the ribs, a light in the eyes, and a “request” for “papers”. At La Linea the next day, we were vetted again. All that ugliness and threat and distrust made the visit more meaningful and uplifting than perhaps it deserved in reality.

Okay. Franco’s gone, though perhaps not the Falangist movement. And the Spanish have made a couple more attempts at wresting Gib from GB. Yet it still remains there, a giant and improbable monolith waving the Union flag 216 later.

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G



The Union Flag and the legendary Barbary Apes ( actually Macaques Monkeys) are mainstays of Gibraltar.....at least, up till now.

When I visited the place I sat in a square in a cafe, and was alarmed at the very high winds that were shaking the tables around me and seemed to be yanking the big umbrellas out of their moorings. My anxiety was justified : a huge umbrella was lifted out of a nearby table, and flew across the space , and I was hit on the back of my head by the heavy umbrella pole so hard that I was actually knocked senseless for a few seconds. The proprietor rushed out, desperate about my plight and, I daresay, worried that I would sue for damages. She offered me a large brandy, and I accepted. That settled any grievance on my part.

I think it’s a spectacular but scruffy and rather horrid place.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/6/2020 12:01:09 AM

But an icon of British military and imperial history nonetheless. Get this painting:


This is Lord Heathfield, one-time Governor of Gibraltar.Quote:
George Augustus Eliott, 1st Baron Heathfield, KB, PC (25 December 1717 – 6 July 1790) was a British Army officer who served in three major wars during the eighteenth century. He rose to distinction during the Seven Years' War when he fought in Germany and participated in the British attacks on Belle Île (France) and Cuba. Eliott is most notable for his command of the Gibraltar garrison during the Great Siege of Gibraltar, which lasted from 1779 and 1783, during the American War of Independence. He was celebrated for his successful defence of the fortress and decisive defeat of Spanish and French attackers.

The painting is a Reynolds, so it is muddy. There is actually an upended cannon to the right side to balance the down-facing cannon the left. The key is symbolic; his stance is drawn from classical art. This was the age of neo-Classicism, after all. But George Eliott, 1st Baron Heathfield was one of the pillars of the burgeoning British Empire. And if PC represents “Privy Counsel”, as it does now, it suggests he was esteemed beyond mere peerage. Lot to think about; lot of history.

I recognize that this post is a personal indulgence of sorts. Hope I haven’t bored too many folks too hugely.

Cheers. And stay safe.
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
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/6/2020 10:16:44 AM

Quote:
These 2 daily history websites are perpetual, they are always on the correct day!?

[Read More]

[Read More]

Good for days I have limited access!
MD


Hi,

Today in history, the 1st Atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima! Sad that such a weapon had to be unleashed! Do you think the US under the circumstances, did the correct thing? What are the reprocussions today? What say you?

Also great discussion on the UK obtaining Gibraltar, I heard it’s quite the place, has the world’s most dangerous airport, & it must be formidable to defend. No one has taken it from Great Britain! Why, anyone?

Check the read mores for more history!?

Stay safe, reporting from Michigan’s Porcupine Mtns.
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
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/6/2020 3:29:32 PM

Quote:
Today in history, the 1st Atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima! Sad that such a weapon had to be unleashed! Do you think the US under the circumstances, did the correct thing? What are the reprocussions today? What say you?


Hi Dave. We have debated this before I think.

The yes we had to drop it side will point to estimates of the number of deaths of allied soldiers in an invasion that could be anticipated had the bomb not been dropped as sufficient reason to drop it. They will argue that the Japanese would have fought to the last person as they had done on so many of the islands out of which they were driven.

The no side will say that conventional bombing was destroying the country anyway and that the island was blockaded and that it was only a matter of time before the Japanese would have to sue for peace as they were starving to death. They would argue as well that as Stalin had promised to enter the fray and could have attacked Japan from the north, that the bombs were designed to dissuade him from any unilateral action. The Japanese turned to Stalin for help on Aug. 8 but Stalin declared war on that date, I believe.

This article in Stars and Stripes presents both arguments but does call the "no" side argument revisionist history.

[Read More]

This one suggests that it is impossible to determine which arguments are most valid regarding whether the bombs should or should not have been dropped.

[Read More]



We know that 100,000 people died in the blast and many more deaths followed due to radiation. So many were civilians. If this bomb was just a demonstration, certainly it was effective in that sense.

But the world was shocked at the power that was unleashed and great diplomatic efforts took place to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. In 1963, UN states had agreed not to test nuclear weapons in outer space, in the atmosphere or under water.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) of 1968 was an important step for the UN to take.

Somehow we knew intuitively that events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not be repeated. I am concerned however that we are forgetting. The Russians have been accused of violating the terms of another agreement, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) that Ronald Reagan signed in 1987. NATO concurred that the Russians have deployed a new type of cruise missile in violation of INF.

And so the US has pulled out of the deal and fear that I have is that we are embarking on another all out arms race that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons on a future battlefield. So what have we learned?

Cheers,

George
----------------------------------
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/6/2020 9:25:55 PM

God points, George. But every number you point to or infer can be challenged, and there are still disagreements over how near Japan was to surrender in early August.

Personally, I don’t think the argument will ever end. Nor should it. This was not simply another step in a war against Japan; it was a step into the unknown. For months, the USAAF under the direction of Curtis LeMay was deliberately assaulting Japan’s civilian population; the fire-raids against major Japanese cities was designed to kill and dehouse on a scale even greater than RAF’s assaults on Germany (where LeMay learned his trade!). IMHO, the use of even a single A-bomb’s only possible justification was that it would the war, but it took a second bombing – for emphasis and proof of implacability – before that occurred.

What did surrender say about estimates of Japanese resistance to an invasion? Nobody talks about that. What about the condition allowed under the demand for “unconditional surrender”? Most discussion skip Hirohito’s survival.

Could an argument be made, in theory, against US politicians, scientists, and various levels of the military who made the deliberate destruction of civilians – with unknown consequences – a lever of war? Were the two A-bombs WMDs? Could this have been considered a war crime, under other circumstances?

Quote:
Today in history, the 1st Atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima! … What are the reprocussions today?

MD, I think I read today a news clip suggesting that China is assisting the Saudis in establishing a nuclear program which could make weapons-grade material available. The US is wondering how to deal with this situation with “a close US ally”. IMHO, that – on an admittedly negative side – is just the latest in 75 years of repercussions.

George talks about various treaties, and I can remember watching the doomsday clock with each treaty signing and hoping for the best. SALT1, SALT2, Helsinki Accord, NPT, INF – we alphabetized the Cold War. But we still got India, Pakistan, (deniable)-Israel, North Korea and Iran in the picture. Adding the Saudis to the list simply means that the most volatile regions on earth (Middle East; South Asia; East Asia) now have more nations with nuclear capability. And increasingly the protocols used to restrain any kind of nuclear use or response are not applicable.

I’m not as great a naysayer as my post may suggest. I am a great supporter of most nuclear applications in power and medicine. But a discussion of the repercussions of the A-Bombs can’t help but lead to further discussion of nuclear proliferation.

Cheers. And stay safe.
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
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/7/2020 6:28:39 PM

Quote:
These 2 daily history websites are perpetual, they are always on the correct day!?

[Read More]

[Read More]

Good for days I have limited access!
MD



Brian, & George,


Your right a lot of unstable countries have the bomb!

On this day in 1782, George Washington established the Purple Heart, my dad received 2of them!

Carry on guys,
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
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/7/2020 7:54:32 PM

Quote:
Quote:
These 2 daily history websites are perpetual, they are always on the correct day!?

[Read More]

[Read More]

Good for days I have limited access!
MD



Brian, & George,


Your right a lot of unstable countries have the bomb!

On this day in 1782, George Washington established the Purple Heart, my dad received 2of them!

Carry on guys,
MD


Dave, do you know whether the awarding of a Purple Heart was dispensed with in WW1? I recall reading that the US forces adopted a French system which was a wound chevron that they wore on the left sleeve of the uniform. It was awarded for wounds received in combat.



This site describes AEF uniform insignia. Scroll down to read the short paragraph on wound chevrons.

[Read More]

So has the Purple Heart been awarded consistently from 1782 onward or only for certain conflicts? When was it instituted as the only designation for a wound received in combat?

Cheers,

George



----------------------------------
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/8/2020 9:07:24 PM

Meant to post this yesterday, but ran out of time. I deserve an award of some sort for being always a day late and a dollar short!

On August 7 or August 7/8, RAF Bomber Command flew against Germany five times, from 1940 to 1944. During two of those years, there were no day raids by BC Main Force. I thought it might be interesting to look at levels of activity each year, within a framework of the war in Europe.

1940
The war in the west is 90 days old – less time than most of us have been under various forms of lockdown or social distancing. Except for the Vichy rump of France, Germany owns Europe or – for a very few nations – maintaining treaties or alliances. Britain is three weeks into the Battle of Britain, and in fear of German invasion. Germany’s Luftwaffe are attempting to gain control of British air space, and Hitler has set an invasion date of 17 Sept, only 40 days in the future. There is no consensus concerning Britain’s ability to survive any German invasion attempt. Ambassador Kennedy is advising against support of Britain; the majority of US news correspondents feel Britain to be in trouble but not lost.

RAF Fighter Command are building their glory as “The Few”; RAF Bomber Command have been tasked to disrupt German troop movement, barge collection and other activities associated with a possible invasion.Quote:
7 August 1940
29 Blenheims to attack airfields, only 2 bombed. 5 Blenheims on sea sweep. No losses.

7/8 August 1940
50 Hampdens and Wellingtons attacked Emmerich, Hamm, Soest and Kiel and laid mines. No losses.

1941
“The Blitz” has run its course, ending in late April; Hitler needs his bombers for tactical support and terror in the east, where he has attacked Russia some 2 weeks ago. Britain can offer Russia little direct military support, but commits to supporting convoys to the USSR carrying essential materials supplied largely by the US. The majority of pundits expect German arms to prevail before winter sets in.Quote:
7 August 1941
12 Blenheims on Circus operations to St-Omer airfield and Lille power-stations. Only St-Omer was bombed. There were no Blenheim losses.

7/8 August 1941
ESSEN
106 aircraft – 54 Hampdens, 32 Wellingtons, 9 Halifaxes, 8 Stirling, 3 Manchesters – to attack Krupps Factory. 2 Hampdens and 1 Stirling lost.
Essen reports only 39 high-explosive and 200 incendiary bombs in the city, causing light damage. A bakery which was destroyed was the most serious incident. There were no casualties in Essen.

HAMM
45 Wellingtons and 1 Stirling to bomb the railway years. No aircraft were lost. Large fires were started wit smoke rising to 11,000 ft.

DORTMUND
20 Wellingtons and 20 Whitleys. No losses.

Minor Operations: 6 Wellingtons to Boulogne, 8 Hampdens minelaying in the Frisians nd off Denmark. 2 O.T.U. [edit: Operational Training Units] sorties. No losses.

Worth noting: these RAF BC activities are taking place 10 days before the release of the Butt Report (18 August 1941) which would argue that to date RAF BC had been largely ineffective. The results of the Essen attack on this night is typical of RAF BC success to date.

1942
Bomber Harris had been in command for some 5 months at this time. The force he commanded was growing in numbers and capacity, but even as late as August 1942 twin-engined bombers were still part of his main force. Lancasters, Halifaxes and Stirling were increasingly on strength, but Wellingtons, Hampdens and Whitleys still made up more than 50% of the force. A heavy raid against Düsseldorf on 31 July/1 August of 603 a/c, e.g., comprised 386 twin-engined a/c (308 Wellingtons, 54 Hampdens, 24 Whitleys) against 244 four-engined a/c (113 Lancs, 70 Halifaxes and 61 Stirlings).

His “millennium” raids in May/June had been regarded as successes, but RAF BC was still weak in target finding and target marking. Within 10 days, PFF (Pathfinder Force) would be introduced as an integral component of RAF BC Main Force assaults. This might explain why RAF BC was so quiet between 1 Aug and 17 Aug, though I note that moonlight was on the wane, with a new moon on 12/13 August. Whether weather conditions might also have played a role, I do not know. Quote:
7 August 1942
3 Mosquitoes to Germany but only 1 bomber, at Mannheim or Worms. No losses.


1943
We’re some 2 weeks from when Harris’ “Battle of Hamburg” began (but note, only 4 days after it ended). RAF BC is given a politically charged target: attack major industrial areas of Italy (Genoa, Milan, Turin). It’s worth noting that this was not really an RAF BC Main Force raid. Quote:
ITALY
In response to urgent political orders, 197 Lancasters of 1, 5, and 8 Groups were despatched to attack Genoa, Milan and Turin. It is believed that every aircraft reached the target area; 195 crews returned and reported bombing; 2 aircraft were lost. Group Captain J.H. Searby, of 83 Squadron, acted as Master Bomber for the bombing at Turin but with only limited success. This as a trial in preparation for the role he would play in the raid on Peenemünde later in the month.
The only report available from Italy says that 20 people were killed and 79 were injured in Turin.

4 Mosquitoes bombed Cologne and 1 bombed Düsseldorf. No losses.

1944
At this point, we are close to 9 weeks after D-Day. Allies have established their hold on the Normandy beaches, and are on the point of effecting a breakout. RAF BC are asked to perform in a role that is not to their strength: support of ground troops. Quote:
7/8 August 1944

NORMANDY BATTLE AREA
1019 aircraft – 614 Lancasters, 392 Halifaxes, 13 Mosquitoes – attacked five aiming points in front of Allied ground troops. The attacks were carefully controlled – only 660 aircraft bombed – and German strong points and the roads around them were well cratered. 10 aircraft – all Lancasters – were lost, 7 to German fighters, 2 to Flak and 1 to an unknown cause.

Minor Operations: 4 Mosquitoes to Coulommiers airfield, 48 R.C.M sorties, 11 Mosquito patrols, 18 Halifaxes and 11 Stirling minelaying off Brest, 6 aircraft on Resistance operations. No aircraft lost.

Total effort for the night: 1,117 sorties, 10 aircraft (0.9 per cent) lost.

I don’t know how to assess this kind of operation, to be honest. While it states that 1019 a/c attacked five aiming points, it also says 660 a/c bombed, which is only 65% of the total a/c involved in the Op – a weak return for RAF BC at this time in the war. Lots of room for discussion, were there any other RAF BC nuts on MHO.

I don’t know if this kind of post is of interest, and would like some honest feedback. I created it on a whim, based on my interest in RAF Bomber Command. I may choose another date at random in the future if the idea resonates with members. But can I point out that this may open an avenue to personalize military history?

I lost an uncle in WW1. Perhaps I should choose to raise his name on the day of his death, and tell what I know of the battle he died in. Morris, I believe, has a long history of family both serving and dying in the military. Others served with pride, and all might have a story to tell. Why not breathe a breath of life into days of service, as one aspect of “a day in history”?

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
scoucer
Berlin
 Germany
Posts: 2778
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/9/2020 7:07:27 AM

Enjoyed it immensely Brian. I´m no RAF BC nut but find it interesting to look into something I´ve never considered before, to expand my knowledge and extend my perspective. Especially from someone who knows what they are talking about. ( Isn´t that what MHO is all about ?).

Something that Morris also said is that this thread is fascinating because it provides impulses and things where I think " now that sounds interesting" and I´m off surfing to find out more.

We seem to be living in times when understanding history - and I don´t mean ideological myths and legends - is becoming increasingly of importance.
Gouvernments, political/ideological movements, fundamentalist religions, from the whole sprectrum, of all shapes and colours are trying to shape "our past" in order to manipulate "our present". This is not a new phenomenon just as "fake news" isn´t. Think only of Shakespeare´s hatchet job on Richard III or the torrent of "fake news" launched against Marie Antoinette or Roman Emperor Nero. Consider the role of the pampleteers in the Thirty Years War or ( for MHO members in particular) even of newspapers and preachers in the escalation to the ACW.

The problem is that the technology of communication has so radically altered everything. My impression is that so many proffessional historians have retreated into specialist niches leaving the field to agenda-driven journalists with dubious claims to be historians and a whole horde of halfwits who manage to get a blog together and post a load of BS and think it´s history.

Long may MHO stay an oasis for those who love History - warts and all. I wish I could more.

Keep up the good work

Trevor Davies
----------------------------------
`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
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/9/2020 10:46:55 AM

Quote:
7/8 August 1944

NORMANDY BATTLE AREA
1019 aircraft – 614 Lancasters, 392 Halifaxes, 13 Mosquitoes – attacked five aiming points in front of Allied ground troops. The attacks were carefully controlled – only 660 aircraft bombed – and German strong points and the roads around them were well cratered. 10 aircraft – all Lancasters – were lost, 7 to German fighters, 2 to Flak and 1 to an unknown cause.

Minor Operations: 4 Mosquitoes to Coulommiers airfield, 48 R.C.M sorties, 11 Mosquito patrols, 18 Halifaxes and 11 Stirling minelaying off Brest, 6 aircraft on Resistance operations. No aircraft lost.

Total effort for the night: 1,117 sorties, 10 aircraft (0.9 per cent) lost.


Hello Brian, this would have been in support of Operation Totalize, I believe. The CDN 2nd Corps (pretty sure) were trying to break through the German defences below Caen and to open the Caen to Falaise road. CDN Gen. Simonds hoped to use the bombers to smash the German defences to allow his armour and infantry to push them back.

How much practice had the allies had to determine the effectiveness of heavy bombers in a tactical role? There had been some use of the bombers in that role in Italy though I don't think that the battles for Monte Cassino were aided by the bombers, were they?

Operations Charnwood and Goodwood in the Caen battles featured heavy bombers credited with opening up a pathway to success that was not exploited. BC felt that it had been successful and met its objectives during the Caen missions. Goodwood ended on July 21 and German Field Marshall Von Kluge said this:

Quote:
“The psychological effect on the fighting forces, especially the infantry, of such a mass of bombs, raining down upon them with all the force of elemental nature, is a factor which must be given serious consideration…. I am able to report that the front has been held intact until now…. However…the moment is fast approaching when this overtaxed front line is bound to break up. And when the enemy once reaches the open country a properly co-ordinated command will be almost impossible, because of the insufficient mobility of our troops.”


Heavy bombers did play a role in the success of the Americans during Operation Cobra on July 25, 1944 as well. However, I believe that the US soldiers were bombed by their own aircraft unfortunately.

Operation Bluecoat on July 31 made use of BC and USAAF planes and the analysis was that the bombers made a difference in tactical support.

It is difficult to gauge the effectiveness of the bombers during Totalize.

During Phase 1 Totalize, I believe that the BC heavies were supposed to bomb the flanks of the German forces to destroy their armour but intelligence had indicated that the Germans were not concentrating their armour on the flanks and so while the intent was admirable, the German armour was not on the flanks.

And in Phase 2, beginning on Aug. 8, the USAAF was employed and unfortunately two squadrons short bombed the Canadians and Poles and killed about 65 and wounded another 250 men. It was disruptive but CDN 2nd corps managed to regroup. Only 24 of 492 US bombers bombed incorrectly but it did disrupt preparations for the attack.

The follow-up operation Tractable, again designed to push troops through to Falaise was assisted by BC bombers only and unfortunately some planes again bombed the Canadians. And some of those planes were from Group 6.
Still 90% of the planes bombed accurately and destroyed the German positions that were targeted.

I think that the allies had seen the potential for tactical support from heavy bombers though I understand that after Tractable, there was discussion about putting an end to tactical support. However, it did continue to the end of the war. Boulogne and the battles of the Rhineland and even on Walcheren Island made use of the heavies in support.

So how do planners prevent the deaths of their own ground troops when employing heavy bombers in a tactical role? Do they pull the attacking troops back to protect them from the bombs or do they scrub missions when the attacking troops are too close to the enemy? Certainly not my area of expertise but it must be demoralizing to be bombed by your own planes.

Cheers,

George
----------------------------------
G David Bock
Lynden
WA USA
Posts: 337
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/9/2020 10:57:44 PM

EXCERPT/QUOTE:
1945
August 09
Atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki

On August 9, 1945, a second atom bomb is dropped on Japan by the United States, at Nagasaki, resulting finally in Japan’s unconditional surrender.

The devastation wrought at Hiroshima was not sufficient to convince the Japanese War Council to accept the Potsdam Conference’s demand for unconditional surrender. The United States had already planned to drop their second atom bomb, nicknamed “Fat Man,” on August 11 in the event of such recalcitrance, but bad weather expected for that day pushed the date up to August 9th. So at 1:56 a.m., a specially adapted B-29 bomber, called “Bockscar,” after its usual commander, Frederick Bock, took off from Tinian Island under the command of Maj. Charles W. Sweeney.
.....
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/atomic-bomb-dropped-on-nagasaki
[Read More]
.......
Also of related note:
.....
(Excerpt/Quote: )



Silverplate was the code reference for the United States Army Air Forces' participation in the Manhattan Project during World War II. Originally the name for the aircraft modification project which enabled a B-29 Superfortress bomber to drop an atomic weapon, "Silverplate" eventually came to identify the training and operational aspects of the program as well. The original directive for the project had as its subject line "Silver Plated Project" but continued usage of the term shortened it to "Silverplate".

Testing began with scale models at the Naval Proving Ground in Dahlgren, Virginia, in August 1943. Modifications began on a prototype Silverplate B-29 known as the "Pullman" in November 1943, and it was used for bomb flight testing at Muroc Army Air Field in California commencing in March 1944. The testing resulted in further modifications to both the bombs and the aircraft.

Seventeen production Silverplate aircraft were ordered in August 1944 to allow the 509th Composite Group to train with the type of aircraft they would have to fly in combat, and for the 216th Army Air Forces Base Unit to test bomb configurations. These were followed by 28 more aircraft that were ordered in February 1945 for operational use by the 509th Composite Group. This batch included the aircraft which were used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Including the Pullman B-29, 46 Silverplate B-29s were produced during and after World War II. An additional 19 Silverplate B-29s were ordered in July 1945, which were delivered between the end of the war and the end of 1947. Thus, 65 Silverplate B-29s were made.

The use of the Silverplate codename was discontinued after the war, but modifications continued under a new codename, Saddletree. Another 80 aircraft were modified under this program. The last group of B-29s was modified in 1953, but never saw further service.
..........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverplate
[Read More]
..........
BTW, an interesting footnote of sorts.

I had an uncle, another Fred Bock, whom served with the 14th Air Force in the CBI - China, Burma, India Theater during the war.

Another interesting coincidence ......
(Excerpt/Quote)
Moritz Albrecht Franz Friedrich Fedor von Bock (3 December 1880 – 4 May 1945) was a German Generalfeldmarschall who served in the German Army during the Second World War. Bock served as the commander of Army Group North during the Invasion of Poland in 1939, commander of Army Group B during the Invasion of France in 1940, and later as the commander of Army Group Center during the attack on the Soviet Union in 1941; his final command was that of Army Group South in 1942.
......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedor_von_Bock
[Read More]

Bock is a rather common German name, still I find it rather interesting that my family name plays prominent roles in both starting and ending World War Two.
----------------------------------
TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/9/2020 11:13:42 PM

Trevor, thanks for the feedback. When I wrote my afterthought, I was thinking of two old-time MHOers – Arnold, and Red Bailey. Both served at the tail-end of WW2, IIRC, and both served in peacetime with the USAF and USN respectively as I recall. From time to time, they could bring their own experiences to bear on a subject, Arnold with his rather flamboyant appreciation of language and Red with a clarity and control you’d want under fire. I wasn’t comparing my comments with theirs, but I was remembering how enlightening their comments about how the guts of a situation were. Arnold’s thread on the number of cumulative errors needed to send B-52s flying over the US with armed nuclear weapons was both frightening and enlightening.

I’m exploring your synopsis of historical manipulation, particularly in the light of your other synopsis on what you call “the technology of communication”. Couple of thoughts come to mind.
• Somewhere in my library, I have a book called The First Casualty, really a short version of “The first casualty of war is truth.” Its about propaganda, of course, and I can’t imagine anyone on this site not realizing that all nations at war use various devices for political/cultural support. You seem to broaden that for earlier times, when information was understood differently and was transmitted differently. So despite my lack of rebuttal, I’m not sure I can agree with all of your inclusions in manipulation.

e.g., I’ve never been a great Shakespeare supporter, though I am as impressed by his literary skills as I am those of Sir Philip Sidney. Shakespeare didn’t do a hatchet job on Richard III. He used “reputable” source material (which was written to do a hatchet job on Richard III), most likely Holinshed’s Chronicles, but perhaps the earlier Hall’s Chronicles, on which Holinshed is based.

Henry VII searched for a chronicler who could write a “history” supporting the Tudor right to the throne, which was not unassailable. Hall undertook the task, but died before his work was complete. One Richard Grafton (possibly an ancestor) completed Hall’s “Chronicles”, and later underwrote a second edition. Holinshed rewrote Hall in more modern language. So Will was simply using the best, approved, acceptable sources for his Histories. His sources supported his country, his faith, and his Monarch, of course. But they also gave him good material to run at the Globe. The man had to make a living.

• I’m not sure when “ … the technology of communication … so radically altered everything.” You’re suggesting this as a relatively recent phenomenon, and I remember huge arguments with social media manipulators during the Arab Spring. My step-son, living in Victoria, was a conduit for information coming out of Cairo, though he had not an ounce of training as a professional journalist. His arrogance in assuming timeliness was more impactful than reliability marked a line in the sand for me.

Oh boy, I could go on for hours!

Cheers. And stay safe.
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
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/9/2020 11:29:27 PM

G. David, thanks for covering Nagasaki. Nice job!

I’m not clear if you were noting a link between your family and Quote:
Moritz Albrecht Franz Friedrich Fedor von Bock (3 December 1880 – 4 May 1945).
. He appears to have been a successful officer in a host of challenging commands.

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
G David Bock
Lynden
WA USA
Posts: 337
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/10/2020 12:01:01 AM

Just in form of common name. Like a Smith, but not a related Smith. Bock is sort of common, but not 'that' common among German names (other than the beer ).

Field marshal Bock did do well, but wasn't a toady to Hitler and fell from "favor" later in the war.
----------------------------------
TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/10/2020 10:07:38 PM

George, good demanding post, with hosts of good or implied questions. E.g., you ask:Quote:
How much practice had the allies had to determine the effectiveness of heavy bombers in a tactical role? There had been some use of the bombers in that role in Italy though I don't think that the battles for Monte Cassino were aided by the bombers, were they?

The short answer, for both USAAF and RAF BC is “virtually none”. I don’t know enough about USAAF practices, but can say with some certainty that leaders for both services were to a large extent supporters of “strategic” bombing, which typically meant a belief that an effective bombing campaign would negate the need for ground troops. It would be nice to say the USAAF was less focused than RAF BC, but “Hap” Arnold, “Bomber” Harris and a host of other senior officers were adamant in supporting campaign tactics which suggested that air power could win the war.

At essence, Heavy Bombers were only as effective as their training, and there was no training for the typical USAAF or RAF BC crew to bomb accurately. The moment the ASAAF created toggliers the concept of accurate bombing died for US air forces, though for decades the USAF claimed it bombed specific targets. In the same way, from the moment RAF BC altered its focus to night bombing of cities, accuracy was defined in vry broad strokes. Think of Hamburg: to bomb within a half-mile of target markers was considered bombing “on target”. This is fine when the target covers a broad area (perhaps 15 square miles), but not when the target is frontline, rather narrow, and close to “friendly” forces.

Sorry, George, this is so incomplete and so close to giving the wrong information. This is a very complex issue, and deserves more attention than I have given it here.

Details would demand pages of commentary. I know. This is my third attempt to write to your comments.

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
Posts: 10971
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/11/2020 7:12:45 AM

Thanks Brian. It seems, despite some failures that resulted in loss of allied life, that the commanders of the British and Commonwealth forces were convinced that the use of bombers in support of the troops was valuable. Perhaps it was a case of learning on the job and I presented examples of the use of bombers in a more tactical role right up to the end of the war.

And if my memory of past readings is accurate, the armies had to fight with BC to encourage them to lend support. Is it true that Harris, in particular, felt that his air crews were not trained for this role and that their use in a tactical role diverted them from their primary task of strategic bombing?

Cheers,

George
----------------------------------
Michigan Dave
Muskegon, Michigan
MI USA
Posts: 5893
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/11/2020 6:49:42 PM

Quote:
These 2 daily history websites are perpetual, they are always on the correct day!?

[Read More]

[Read More]

Good for days I have limited access!
MD


Guys,

You don't want to call Bomber Harris out!!

[Read More]

On this day in 1934, federal prisoners first came to Alcatraz! What say you about this un-escapable prison!?

[Read More]

[Read More]

1786 another British Colony is established in Malaysia! Damn, the sun never sets on the British Empire! Comments?

[Read More]

Check the read mores for more topics or continue with old ones!?
Stay safe!
MD

BTW, We recently talked on the Battle of Quebec, it's rare that both commanders are killed, can you name any others?
George, what do you think?

[Read More]

PS What do you think of each side standing still and taking full volleys from the enemy? madness, pure madness! comments anyone?? We also recently discussed Waterloo, check out this great documentary, comments??

[Read More]

[Read More]

Quite well done, & worth your time!! Guys you might compare Waterloo to Gettysburg, comments anyone? Phil?



----------------------------------
"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
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/11/2020 7:45:55 PM

George, to your: Quote:
And if my memory of past readings is accurate, the armies had to fight with BC to encourage them to lend support. Is it true that Harris, in particular, felt that his air crews were not trained for this role and that their use in a tactical role diverted them from their primary task of strategic bombing?

That is certainly my reading of the situation, though other MHOers disagree with either my assessment or my turn of phrase.

From mid-1943, IIRC, planning for the invasion of Europe was seen as an all-arms effort. Eisenhower’s Deputy was the RAF’s Air Marshall Tedder, an appointment made (some said) to cement the ideas that this was an allied effort and that the air component was a part of an army invasion. Tedder recognized the importance of air support, as did. Charles Portal, one-time commander in chief of Bomber Command and from 1940 Chief of Air Staff, was appointed (at the Casablanca Conference, 1943) Co-ordinator of the combined USAAF and RAF bombing program against Germany. He supported the lead-up to Overlord, but remained a committed believer in strategic bombing; he would urge continued area bombing of German cities until Churchill closed the practice down after fallout over the Dresden raids.

Harris, as C-i-C Bomber Command, was the real stumbling block, IMHO. I get that he was a strong proponent of strategic bombing, though I think his argument rather weak, based on his Bomber Offensive (1947). I get that he was a realist; he argued that bombers had never ended wars before, but only the future would tell if bombers could win wars. He set out to prove they could.

Harris took control of Bomber Command in late February 1942. BC was in very dire straits at the time. The Butt Report of August 1941 had noted in no uncertain terms how ineffective strategic bombing ops were. A/c had proven to be too vulnerable to bomb during daylight, but there was little training in astral navigation. The Kammhuber Line, growing larger and more efficient, was destroying more a/c using night-fighters. And while BC was urged to attack production centres, the Air Ministry was never comfortable saying “since production centres are in cities, feel free to bomb the cities.” That was left implied.

Harris didn’t shy away from what he was doing, and he worked hard to improve BC’s record to date (which was pretty abysmal). He was fortunate, of course, to take command just as the heavies were coming on line in numbers. He set about rebuilding confidence across his command; he scraped together the brilliant propaganda-rich “Millennium” raids; he devised a strategy to minimize the impact of the Kammhuber night-fighters; he devised more effective bombloads and better timings.

He accepted innovation, but never all that readily; target marking, PFF, Master Bombers and high-accuracy techniques appeared on his watch, but not always without Harris arguing to the end. He fought against elitism, because it might make his Main Force fliers feel second-rate. 617 Sqdn was a hard sell, as was the potential for the spinning mine of Dam Busters fame; PFF was formed using existing crews.

Why am I offering all this stuff? Because Bomber Harris was a strong and effective leader in many ways. His men adored him. His biggest weakness was his unwavering belief in strategic or area bombing. Bomber Command a/c were often drawn off to meet non-strategic bombing demands. Harris called them “panacea raids”, raids that were more cosmetic than strategic, and he never wavered in his distaste for them. Many of the targets in the lead-up to Overlord (railway yards; communications nodes; distribution points) were, in Harris’s mind, “panacea targets” when compared to destroying German cities and dehousing German citizens.

And the point is, he could do something about this; it was his job to receive target priorities and allocate bombing resources based on issues under his purview – a/c availability; projected weather over targets; ordnance availability; projected enemy strengths; other issues. Only when issued a direct order (RAF Bomber Command will bomb a target as directed by ground forces at this location at this time) need Harris face a charge of insubordination. IIUC, he never faced such a charge. but he must have been a pain in the ass to deal with.

All that said, RAF BC became surprisingly efficient at support bombing. Part of this might be because Luftwaffe power was weak (but not nonexistent) in the west; part may be because increasingly BC was adding day missions to its repertoire; part may reflect the adaptability of a proud force. And, of course, part was the increasing use of Master Bombers, who might circulate a target calling in specific strikes on specific locations. They did get pretty good at this “panacea” stuff, and they aided the boots on the ground enormously in relatively close support. But as soon as possible, both Portal and Harris reverted to their strategic mantra, and returned to area bombing cities deemed attackable.

So, a complex issue – or at least one I see as complex. Just discussing this aspect of it makes me want to probe Army thinking at the time. How much of their strength or weakness was determined by the expectation of air support? E.g., we all know that the tactical air arms were doing splendid work attacking enemy formations and armour. They were, in effect, duplicating the role of the Luftwaffe in 1939/40, probably because it was such a successful model to follow.

A different issue for a different thread, I think!

Cheers. And take care.
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
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/11/2020 9:19:57 PM

Brian,

Are you talking about these guys? Bri you may find this documentary of some interest? comments?

[Read More]

Carry on, but stay safe!
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
scoucer
Berlin
 Germany
Posts: 2778
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/12/2020 10:18:52 AM

Quote:
George,

You write ...but I don’t know for sure.

For sure ; for free ; for real.....these are grammatical distortions, which I believe stem from American usage.

To my dismay, I find myself using “ for sure” !

Regards, Phil



I don´t think one should underestimate the influence of the german language on american english. Not so much in words and vocabulary as in grammar and thought patterns. Much as in "Scouse" - Liverpool dialect, the grammar and thought patterns of welsh, scandiavian and gaelic languages are underlying. Immigrants would learn english words but would think and "speak" in the grammar and thoughts of their original language. I´ve experienced this personally. It is one thing to speak german but another to speak and think like a german.

"For sure ; for free ; for real." is exactly how a geman would use the words - Sicherlich ( surely ), Freilich ( of course or certainly) and Wirklich ( really, truly, real ).

Similarly with the tendence in american english to turn a noun into a verb ex. opinioning. Common in german or the use of " -wise" as in the german "-weise".

If I remember rightly, didn´t german almost become the official language of the USA?

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.
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4650
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/12/2020 3:12:31 PM

Do you still speak with a scouce accent, Trevor ?

The other day, an online delivery parcel arrived from a firm called Purple Turtle, and I wondered how you’d pronounce that .

Recently, I’ve found myself becoming more and more interested in things to do with Liverpool.

This I cannot account for, but I’m beginning to suspect that you’ve got something to do with it !

Regards , Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 3203
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/12/2020 9:40:33 PM

Interesting discussion, gentlemen. Just some random thoughts … .Quote:
Do you still speak with a scouse accent, Trevor ?

I would guess even after 30+ years Germans would say Trevor speaks with a British accent, and that folks in Liverpool say he has lost his scouse accent. My late mother-in-law – a war bride – never became Canadian. She was proud of her British accent and her heritage (her parents ran a hotel in Stratford-Upon-Avon). When she returned to the UK on a trip in 1980 and remarked to a shop-keeper how things had changed, the shop-keeper asked, politely, “Oh, so you’ve visited us before have you, Madam?”

Trevor, food for thought in: Quote:
I don´t think one should underestimate the influence of the german language on american english. Not so much in words and vocabulary as in grammar and thought patterns. Much as in "Scouse" - Liverpool dialect, the grammar and thought patterns of welsh, scandiavian and gaelic languages are underlying. Immigrants would learn english words but would think and "speak" in the grammar and thoughts of their original language. I´ve experienced this personally. It is one thing to speak german but another to speak and think like a german.

English is cognate to German, of course. I would nevertheless be wary of assuming similarities of usage can be defined working only one way. Some form of German impacted some form of English from the time of the Anglo-Saxons. I know I cannot read Old English, and I assume most Germans cannot read Old German. But I also know I speak words derived from, and use sentence structures common to, both Old English and Old German, with a sprinkling of Middle Norman French.

If you’re thinking more recently, might I suggest the German influence on Britain from the time of George I (who spoke, IIUC, only German), if not from the time of William and Mary (he may have spoken or understood Plattdeutsch). I have some doubts about the popularity of the Hanoverians, so I can’t make an argument that their presence changed the English spoken at the time. I’m certain the rise of neo-classicism (which all but coincided with the death of Queen Anne) was the driver in defining English.

I’m not a linguist in any way. So when I look at the interaction of cognate languages such as German and English, and then look at their cultural histories, I fall back on observations rather than interlinks or precedential values. In the mid 1980s, e.g., I was in Barbados with friends, and the woman said ( I have no idea why), “Ich bin hungrisch! Let’s grab some food!” I was taught (in the early 1960s) that the German format was “Ich habe Hunger”, and called her on the difference. She’d never learned the form I was told reflected proper “hochdeutsch”. I don’t know what’s behind it, but “Ich habe Hunger” sounds like a translation from the USA idiom.

More interesting to me is the German use of “Man hat…” and the host of expressions that are associated with it. English has a similar structure, with the use of “one”, which many find snobbish or associated with higher classes or their uncouth apers. “Man ist was er isst” is, IMHO, more effective than “our are what you eat”. But the German construct probably had less effect on the simililar use in English than the Latin pedantry of “educators” of the 19th century.
Quote:
If I remember rightly, didn´t german almost become the official language of the USA?

Interesting concept. I would have said no, but I’d love more information on the subject.

I guess there has to be some thought given to New York being – at one time – Niew Amsterdam (have I got the spelling correct?) Even a casual glance at names like Roosevelt or Knickerbocker suggest that there were early cultural/language values we’ve since forgotten.

Probably I’ve taken myself into these issues based on bad reading. If so, sorry!

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
scoucer
Berlin
 Germany
Posts: 2778
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/13/2020 10:17:35 AM

Quote:
If I remember rightly, didn´t german almost become the official language of the USA?

Trevor


Apparantly it´s a myth.

[Read More]

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.
scoucer
Berlin
 Germany
Posts: 2778
This day in World History! Volume II
Posted on: 8/13/2020 4:09:11 PM

Quote:
Do you still speak with a scouce accent, Trevor ?

The other day, an online delivery parcel arrived from a firm called Purple Turtle, and I wondered how you’d pronounce that .
Regards , Phil


When I speak english – Yes
Pearp-ul Tur-el.

Quote:
I would guess even after 30+ years Germans would say Trevor speaks with a British accent, and that folks in Liverpool say he has lost his scouse accent.


Actually, I´m mostly mistaken for Swiss. When in Liverpool it only takes 2 days and I´m back in the groove. Mostly it´s the idioms that have changed.

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.
Page 20 of 23 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19    20    21   22   23 )

© 2020 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC