MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 30 of 115 (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   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115 )
Message
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 2:51:55 AM
Quote:
Quote:
“ This is not peace. This is an Armistice for twenty years. “

Who said that, and when, and why ?

Regards, Phil


Foch wasn't it? But not for the reason that we may think. Foch felt that the treaty didn't sufficiently neuter the German military or its potential to recover.

There were others who made similar statements. Gen. Currie, Gen. Pershing both thought that Germany should have been pursued and defeated utterly.

Cheers,

George


Yes, it was, his comment being made as the Versailles Treaty was signed.

Utterly prescient, of course, but, as you say George, hardly surprising in view of the appalling ordeal of France 1914-18 and the very understandable French fear of another German onslaught a generation later.

Must add this passage from Macmillan’s book as a concise and accurate summary.

Page 496:

….some of the great problems that had faced the peacemakers at the start of the Peace Conference had only been shelved.
Russian Bolshevism had been contained, perhaps, but the longer war between the capitalist West and the communist East was only just starting. The German question was still there to trouble Europe. The Allied victory had not been decisive enough and Germany remained too strong.


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
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 6:10:53 AM
In a televised speech of extraordinary gravity, President John F. Kennedyannounces on October 22, 1962 that U.S. spy planes have discovered Soviet missile bases in Cuba. These missile sites—under construction but nearing completion—housed medium-range missiles capable of striking a number of major cities in the United States, including Washington, D.C.

Kennedy announced that he was ordering a naval “quarantine” of Cuba to prevent Soviet ships from transporting any more offensive weapons to the island and explained that the United States would not tolerate the existence of the missile sites currently in place. The president made it clear that America would not stop short of military action to end what he called a “clandestine, reckless and provocative threat to world peace.”

What is known as the Cuban Missile Crisis actually began on October 14, 1962—the day that U.S. intelligence personnel analyzing U-2 spy plane data discovered that the Soviets were building medium-range missile sites in Cuba. The next day, President Kennedy secretly convened an emergency meeting of his senior military, political, and diplomatic advisers to discuss the ominous development. The group became known as ExComm, short for Executive Committee. After rejecting a surgical air strike against the missile sites, ExComm decided on a naval quarantine and a demand that the bases be dismantled and missiles removed. On the night of October 22, Kennedy went on national television to announce his decision. During the next six days, the crisis escalated to a breaking point as the world tottered on the brink of nuclear war between the two superpowers.

On October 23, the quarantine of Cuba began, but Kennedy decided to give Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev more time to consider the U.S. action by pulling the quarantine line back 500 miles. By October 24, Soviet ships en route to Cuba capable of carrying military cargoes appeared to have slowed down, altered, or reversed their course as they approached the quarantine, with the exception of one ship—the tanker Bucharest. At the request of more than 40 nonaligned nations, U.N. Secretary-General U Thant sent private appeals to Kennedy and Khrushchev, urging that their governments “refrain from any action that may aggravate the situation and bring with it the risk of war.” At the direction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. military forces went to DEFCON 2, the highest military alert ever reached in the postwar era, as military commanders prepared for full-scale war with the Soviet Union.

On October 25, the aircraft carrier USS Essex and the destroyer USS Gearingattempted to intercept the Soviet tanker Bucharest as it crossed over the U.S. quarantine of Cuba. The Soviet ship failed to cooperate, but the U.S. Navy restrained itself from forcibly seizing the ship, deeming it unlikely that the tanker was carrying offensive weapons. On October 26, Kennedy learned that work on the missile bases was proceeding without interruption, and ExComm considered authorizing a U.S. invasion of Cuba. The same day, the Soviets transmitted a proposal for ending the crisis: The missile bases would be removed in exchange for a U.S. pledge not to invade Cuba.

The next day, however, Khrushchev upped the ante by publicly calling for the dismantling of U.S. missile bases in Turkey under pressure from Soviet military commanders. While Kennedy and his crisis advisers debated this dangerous turn in negotiations, a U-2 spy plane was shot down over Cuba, and its pilot, Major Rudolf Anderson, was killed. To the dismay of the Pentagon, Kennedy forbade a military retaliation unless any more surveillance planes were fired upon over Cuba. To defuse the worsening crisis, Kennedy and his advisers agreed to dismantle the U.S. missile sites in Turkey but at a later date, in order to prevent the protest of Turkey, a key NATO member.

On October 28, Khrushchev announced his government’s intent to dismantle and remove all offensive Soviet weapons in Cuba. With the airing of the public message on Radio Moscow, the USSR confirmed its willingness to proceed with the solution secretly proposed by the Americans the day before. In the afternoon, Soviet technicians began dismantling the missile sites, and the world stepped back from the brink of nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis was effectively over. In November, Kennedy called off the blockade, and by the end of the year all the offensive missiles had left Cuba. Soon after, the United States quietly removed its missiles from Turkey.

The Cuban Missile Crisis seemed at the time a clear victory for the United States, but Cuba emerged from the episode with a much greater sense of security.The removal of antiquated Jupiter missiles from Turkey had no detrimental effect on U.S. nuclear strategy, but the Cuban Missile Crisis convinced a humiliated USSR to commence a massive nuclear buildup. In the 1970s, the Soviet Union reached nuclear parity with the United States and built intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking any city in the United States.

A succession of U.S. administrations honored Kennedy’s pledge not to invade Cuba, and relations with the communist island nation situated just 80 miles from Florida remained a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy for more than 50 years. In 2015, officials from both nations announced the formal normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba, which included the easing of travel restrictions and the opening of embassies and diplomatic missions in both countries.


NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 6:19:14 AM
Russian Bolshevism had been contained by the sacrifice of the Poles who defeated the Soviets in the Polish-Russian War of 1919-1921. Certainly not the Allies.

Few Allies aided the Poles, perhaps some advisers. The most significant contribution was made by about 20 Americans airmen who formed the Kosciuszko Squadron. Prominent among them was Merian Cooper who went on to produce such movies as King King, Fort Apache, and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.

Regards, NYGiant
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 6:33:37 AM
As we know, it did not stop the next war.

The League of Nations lacked any way to enforce its rulings through military means. France had lost a generation of men in the war and fore-sight . Great Britain had suffered tremendous casualties in World War I and ignored any events in Germany until it was too late. The former ally, Imperial Russia was now the Soviet Union which was the antithesis of Capitalism. The United States turned its back on Europe, refused to join the League of Nations and became isolationist.

It wasn't necessarily Hitler who was allowed to re-establish the German military. Secret protocols with the Soviet Union allowed the Germans to develop their Air-Force. This was unknown to the Allies. In return, the Germans helped to are-build the Soviet Officer Corps and modernize the Soviets. This all occurred during the 1920s during th time of the Weimar Republic. Hitler put a stop to this once be gained power.

Looking at a map of Europe, those democracies that were formed by the Treaty, all disappeared under the onslaught of German and Soviet aggression. The Soviets fought to regain what was taken away from them and they had had nosy in that.Same for the Germans, who classified Slaves as inferior.






Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 7:05:03 AM
NYG,

By Slaves you mean Slavs, presumably ?

That’s not being snotty on my part : I’ve often wondered if the word “ Slav” and “ Slave” are conflated.

I note you have a keen interest in the Russo-Polish war.

Many Poles I know express a hatred of Russians that exceeds even their hatred of Germans.

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 MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 8:39:04 AM
Guys,

10-18 in history, check out these events!? New comments? Anyone?

1469 Isabel 1, Married Ferdinand II, Spain had quite the leadership to explorev-& claim new lands!?

1851 Herman Melville writes Moby Dick, one of the most read adventure novels of all time!? What say you??

1931 Thomas Edison dies! What were some of his best inventions & achievements is he responsible for? Anyone?

1931 Al Capone is off all things, convicted of tax evasion! Maybe history will repeat itself??

1919, Pierre E Trudeau is born! What effect did he & his family have on Canada's leadership!? Commrnts, maybe from our Canadian posters!?? A lil help here!?

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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 8:39:17 AM
Quote:
Russian Bolshevism had been contained by the sacrifice of the Poles who defeated the Soviets in the Polish-Russian War of 1919-1921. Certainly not the Allies.

Few Allies aided the Poles, perhaps some advisers. The most significant contribution was made by about 20 Americans airmen who formed the Kosciuszko Squadron. Prominent among them was Merian Cooper who went on to produce such movies as King King, Fort Apache, and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.

Regards, NYGiant


Why is the involvement of the 20 Americans the most significant? Surely the mission sent by France was more significant. The Poles actually offered French General Weygand a command but he turned it down and remained in an advisory role where he and other French advisors are credited with fixing the supply line problems that the Poles were experiencing.

There were British advisors too but the largest contingent in support was the 400 French military and civilian advisory group that arrived to help Poland. Charles de Gaulle was one of the French officers on this mission.

There was considerable support for the Russian revolution among worker's parties in Britain and France. None wanted troops sent to help the Poles. British PM David Lloyd George wanted to conclude a trade deal with the Bolsheviks and he threatened to call off the talks if the Russians didn't make peace with the Poles. Lloyd George threatened to arm the Poles if Russia didn't comply. Russia refused and Britain was dealing with considerable labour unrest and never did send arms.

France also sent soldiers who had been fighting with them in WW1. These men were of Polish origin.

Hungary sent supplies.

But in the end, it was the Poles who did the fighting.


I must add that there was quite a bond between the Poles and Canada during WW1. When a Polish army in exile needed a place to train, ‘Camp Kosciuszko", was established at Niagara-on-the-Lake in Ontario. 22,395 Poles were trained here in 1918-1919. They were living in North America but were not citizens of the US or Canada. With the assistance of the Canadian military, they became a fighting force that would be called the "Blue Army" under Polish Gen. Jozef Haller. They fought in WW1 under French command and then were transferred to the Polish forces hoping to establish their independence but who were fighting a war against the Bolsheviks.


Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 8:49:12 AM
Hi MHO,

10-19 in history, comments??

1781 the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, at Yorktown puts the Patriots, in the drivers seat to win the Revolutionary war!? What say you?? A lil help from France!? Viva la France!??

1789 John Jay becomes the 1st chief justice of the Supreme Court! What's wrong with today's Supreme Court?? Anyone??

1812 Napoleon begins his disastrous retreat from Russia, & winter is coming on!? How will this workout for him??

1914 the Germans emphasized trench warfare! Does this keep casualties down?? 1st battle of Ypres! How did the Commonwealth forces handle this? What say you??

Sieze the day!
MD

10-20 in history,

1808 the US acquired Louisiana Purchase, best Us land bargin?? What say yuo?

2011 Lybian leader Quaddafi is killed! How bad of a leader was he? Who killed him?? Anyone?

1021's history,

1520, Ferdinand Magellan sails through the southern tip of South America on his ships voyage around the world! What made this passage so horrific?? Anyone?

1797 the US Naval yard in Boston builds the USS Constitution! Old Ironsides prove the RN has nothing on the USN! What say you??

1805 Lord Nelson won the battle of Trafalgar! How did he do it? Why do the Brits hold him in such high esteem!? Comments??

1940 Ernest Hemingway writes the novel For whom the bell tolls! Do you rate Ernest the best US writer? If not than who??

& finally today in history, 10-22,

1836 Sam Houston becomes the 1st president of Texas! What did he predict to the Texans about the coming Civil War!? Should they have listened!? What say you??

1962, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy alerts America of the Cuban Missile Crisis! How did he react to it? What say you?

What else is going on in this timeframe??

New events to discuss?
Cheers,
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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 11:52:05 AM
Quote:
Wow George,

I never fathomed that Canada (British at the time) was so pro Confederate!? I thought like Great Britain itself it would disapprove of Slavery so much, they wouldn't think of aidding the Rebs!? But from your post above, I would surmise that they were damn near allies!? Did they ever consider recognizing the Confederate States of America!?

Rather surprised that they felt ill well towards the North!?
The neighboring states are much more like Canadians??

Regards, & Peace!
MD


No the British and its Dominions like Canada were ostensibly neutral although Britain and France had recognized the Confederates as belligerents, something that the US had argued assertively against while the Confederates sought recognition as a country all across Europe.

Britain did consider whether recognition of the Confederate States was wise and rejected it. Britain did not wish to see another war with the US.

I did mention that of the 40-60K of Canadians who actually volunteered to fight in the civil war, the vast majority fought with the Union.

Slavery had been abolished in the British Empire in 1833. In Upper Canada, now Ontario, the importation of slaves was stopped in 1793 by Governor Simcoe. All of this made the provinces of British North America very attractive to fugitive slaves and while it would be naive to suggest that there was no racism in BNA, fugitive slaves were considered to be free men as soon as they crossed the border.

So it begs the question as to why the Confederates had considerable support from some people in BNA. There was support from Lower Canada (now Québec) because they saw the Confederates as kindred spirits who were fighting for their independence as the French-Canadians had done against the British, where they lost of course. Québec RC priests who were very influential, told the people that the people in the southern US were similar to Quebeckers, an oppressed group of people fighting to maintain a unique life style. And yet most were opposed to slavery. Odd that.

Canadians had long memories and they did not fully trust the US. The colonies that did not choose to join the revolution were immediately attacked. The US Civil War began in 1861. Only 47 years before in 1818, American soldiers were killing British regulars, Canadian militia and First Nations on British/Canadian soil and had been driven out. Canadians in Upper Canada especially have not forgotten the War of 1812.

Oddly there had been a lull in tension between BNA and the US just prior to the civil war due to a Reciprocity Treaty signed between the US and Britain that was a trade deal for the British colonies in North America. From 1854-66 the treaty was in effect but in the aftermath of the civil war, the US was angry at Britain's apparent support for the Confederacy and it was cancelled by Congress.

With Confederates in Canada and ships being built in Britain for the Confederacy, there was talk in the US newspapers during the war of an invasion of Canada. Many Canadian newspapers wrote in support of the Confederacy seeing it as an underdog standing up to a bully. The Union lost a lot of support in Canada when Lincoln said that the war was not about freeing the slaves but about preserving the Union. Any Canadian support for the Union was based upon the belief that the institution of slavery was about to be destroyed.

Quote:
At first the sympathies of the British people were unmistakably with the North. They imagined that Mr. Lincoln had determined to wage a war against slavery, and in heart and soul they were with him.”
. source: Toronto Globe after Lincoln's inaugural address.

You would think that the Emancipation Proclamation that came a year later (I think) would have re-established support for the Union in Canada but it did not. The north was not well liked and was seen as a threat to Canada.

The Trent Affair in 1861 put the British colonies on higher alert. When the US boarded a British mail packet to seize two Confederate representatives, Britain considered going to war. The US military and other advisors told Lincoln to invade Canada but he demurred uttering, "One war at a time".

And Britain did send thousands of troops to the Maritime colonies and to the Canadas in anticipation of an American invasion, once again as a result of the boarding of the Trent.

I won't deny that some areas of Canada were openly and ebulliently supportive of the Confederates. As an example we may look to Saint John, New Brunswick on the Bay of Fundy and in 1862 after a Confederate victory, the town held a celebratory parade. Confederate flags flew and bands played "Dixie". Confederate spies felt at home here and so did Confederate ships that were allowed to use the harbour.

Lincoln also appointed William Seward as his Secretary of State. Seward was hated in BNA and for good reason. He spoke often and loudly about either the annexation of Canada or the invasion of it. He was doing this before the war and after. Canadian newspapers would point to Seward as proof that the Union had designs on Canada. Seward would later attempt to convince British politicians that the colony of British Columbia wanted to join the US. He was a slippery one, this Seward and he did little to improve US and British/Canadian relations.

Northern newspapers were full of anti-Canadian opinion pieces and support for invasion. Canadian newspapers would dutifully reprint these screeds so that Canadians were fully aware of the enmity toward BNA.

Influential Canadian newspapers were surveyed and it was found that 84 were pro-south while 33 were pro-north and 8 were neutral.

As if to prove that the Canadian fears of invasion were well founded, in 1866, 1600 former soldiers in the Union Army, Irish-Americans all crossed the border near Buffalo, NY and fought and defeated a Canadian militia group at the Battle of Ridgeway. The Fenians quickly headed home when British reinforcements arrived

The goal of these Fenians was to seize British territory to compel Britain to treat Ireland fairly. These Fenian raids began before Canadian Confederation and continued until 1871. By 1871 the US did attempt to stop these raids but not initially.

The biggest raid was the first and it had the approval of the US administration. The commander of the Fenians had approached the US administration to tell them what he planned to do and asked for support. And he received tacit support from President Andrew Johnson. Despite having Neutrality Laws that prevented an attack on a friendly nation, Canada in this case, Johnson turned a blind eye. He told the Fenians, and I am paraphrasing here, that he would wait to see the results of the raid before committing.

Remember that the US was seeking reparations from Britain because of the British built ships that had destroyed so much US shipping when crewed by the Confederates. And so Johnson wasn't above putting a little pressure on Britain with a raid like this.
The US sold surplus weapons to the Fenians and Johnson even met with the leaders personally.

After the failure of the first raid, five days later it was announced that the Neutrality Laws would be enforced. A bit late but it meant that in future Fenian raids the US would attempt to stop them.

Negotiations took place in Washington to determine appropriate compensation for damages caused by British built ships sailing for the Confederacy. This was in 1871 and some American politicians and newspapers were adamant that Canada, now a Dominion within the British Empire should be the forfeit. So concerned were the Canadians that our first Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald attended those meetings just to make sure that the British didn't even address the matter at the table.

So yes, many Canadians who study our history feel that there were Americans who saw the existence of BNA and later Canada as "unfinished business" to be dealt with later.

I have gone on at length but it is a sore spot with me. Dave I must say to you that you have made the mistake of calling northern Americans as quite similar to Canadians, and that you could not understand the support for the Confederacy. Many Americans make the same mistake. We may look the same and even speak a somewhat similar language although we know how to spell.
But the genesis of our countries is much different and we have fought because of that. As well, Canadians have developed a more collective mentality. The needs of the individual should never out weigh the needs of the collective. It is an important distinction.

Sorry, long one. I had a lot to say,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 6:00:53 PM
Quote:
1797 the US Naval yard in Boston builds the USS Constitution! Old Ironsides prove the RN has nothing on the USN! What say you??


Most of the success of the USN took place early in the war when the RN was very busy fighting Napoleon.

Indeed USS Constitution did have some success against much smaller RN vessels mostly in one on one battles. The US tended to build frigates that were much larger than the RN vessels. As well, in the early stages of the war the RN could not despatch its best ships nor the number required to fight on the other side of the Atlantic.

The RN ships were poorly maintained and the crews were understaffed. And their gunnery wasn't as good as that of the USN made especially noticeable because for the most part, the RN frigates were under gunned. (18 pounders vs 24's in US ships)

Still, USS Constitution had a stellar battle record when meeting single vessels and when she was able to leave port.

And that was the problem with the USN in general. It was much too small to fight the RN when the RN chose to send larger squadrons to North America and large ships of the line.

In Nov. 1812 the RN was ordered to begin to blockade US ports. This was to be implemented in stages as ships became available.

Quote:


-Feb. 6, 1813 – Chesapeake and Delaware Bays (“Mid-Atlantic”)
-May 26, 1813 – New York harbor and Long Island Sound to New London (“New York”)
-Sept. 1, 1813. -North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia
-April 25, 1814- Rhode Island to Maine


The blockade wasn't lifted until Mar. of 1815 when word arrived that the war was over.

So when did the USN have its victories. 1812 was a very good year.

USS Constitution defeated HMS Guerrière and HMS Java. USS United States defeated HMS Macedonian

Still in 1812 RN ships that were smaller than the first 3 mentioned were captured or destroyed.

So the British were upset and we know that they ordered their smaller ships not to engage in one on one battles.

But with greater success against the French, the RN was able to send more and larger ships.

The RN effectively blockaded US ports and that kept the USN frigates in port. It also put a damper on the privateers. That doesn't mean that some ships didn't run the blockade. They did especially on a dark and stormy night or when the RN had to send a couple of ships off station for refit or resupply.

So the USN languished in port.

USS Congress stayed in Portsmouth, NH. USS United States was stuck in New London, CT along with Macedonian.

USS Constellation had never been to war as it was blockaded into port at Norfolk, Virginia.

Now what of USS Constitution. It had spent 6 months of the war in dry dock and then was pinned in Boston Harbour by a squadron of RN vessels. That began in April of 1814 and it wasn't until Dec. of 1814 that she was able to run the blockade. Call it 9 months confined to port after 6 months in dry dock. The Treaty of Ghent was signed in Dec. 24 of 1814. The contribution of USS Constitution to the war effort was more in the area of morale than anything else. Certainly she and the other ships of the small US navy had little effect on the ability of the RN to control US ports.

US vessels could not stop the RN from roaming the coast carrying British soldiers to attack at will.

So how did Constitution escape? The RN vessels thought that she wasn't ready to sail and so the blockade was reduced to two ships while the others headed for port in Halifax to be repaired or resupplied. Constitution saw an opportunity and took it on Dec. 18.

Heading south, Constitution did no locate RN vessels initially. They headed for Bermuda in stormy conditions and came across a British schooner that had been damaged in the storm and it was surrendered without a fight and scuttled.

But later in this voyage, Constitution would defeat two smaller RN vessels before they all learned that the war had been over for a month.

I understand the need to boost morale and indeed the USS Constitution was an excellent ship with a good commander and better armed than most of her opponents. And she did well.

But she spent a good portion of the war blockaded in port or under repairs. The largest ships of the USN were frigates which were larger than British frigates and better armed. But the RN just had too many vessels and the USN had little effect on the course of the war in the Atlantic. The RN blockade neutered them and nearly destroyed the US economy.

That does not disparage the seamanship and gunnery demonstrated by the USN vessels but a navy with only 9 frigates cannot do much when they are stuck in port.

GEorge


NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 7:17:03 PM
The French didn't send any troops to fight, just advisors. The Americans wee experienced aviators, and they actually flew missions.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 7:17:45 PM
pesky sauto correct.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 9:47:15 PM
MD, here’s a brief comment, just a day late and a dollar short. 

For 21 Oct 1510 you note: Quote:
1520, Ferdinand Magellan sails through the southern tip of South America on his ships voyage around the world! What made this passage so horrific?? Anyone?
The answer, in a single word: “weather”. Magellan made his attempt (which I thought was closer to the end of November) in early spring, which could have minimized the hazards he faced. But winds, tides and rain can change dramatically in days.
The answer, in a different single word: “length of passage”. The Strait of Magellan is about 350 miles long. How long would it take a fleet under sail to transit it, particularly if they wish to maintain contact and at the same time have no rutters to give them guidance?

The strait itself is not as far south as at least some people think, ranging roughly between 52.5°S and 54°S. In the northern hemisphere, that would be about the equivalent of London’s location; for New Worlders, the tip of Newfoundland is at about 52°N, and nearly everyone knows where 49°N is.

I’m not a nautical person, and I don’t know southern waters well. But even I have heard of the “Roaring Forties”, the rather global Westerlies that blow all but unbroken by land masses in the southern hemisphere. Magellan would have been sailing against them.

Cheers
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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/22/2022 10:20:19 PM
Quote:
The French didn't send any troops to fight, just advisors. The Americans wee experienced aviators, and they actually flew missions.


NYG, you made a statement that, "the most significant contribution was made by 20 American airmen".

That means that you consider that 400 French military advisors plus some British advisors was not as significant a contribution as 20 airmen. I think that the overall contribution of the western allies was tepid but France did send experienced military officers. The Poles gave a medal to French General Weygand. I mentioned that De Gaulle served there and I would have to check but I believe that Foch was there for a time.

Now I am not going to disparage the efforts of these American fighting men. Well done to them, but the French were dealing with logistics and supply and apparently that was appreciated and helpful.

I also mentioned that the 20K plus "Blue Army" consisting of people of Polish heritage from the US and Canada had some training in Canada and then fought with the French, in French kit, during WW1. In 1919, this "Blue Army" was transferred to Poland. Eventually the Polish leader of the Blue Army was given overall command I believe.

So if we are to say that they most significant contribution was by 20 airmen then we had best be able to substantiate that. As tepid as the allied response was, there was assistance offered.

There were issues of concern for the western allies that gave them pause in sending any aid at all. They had failed to clearly delineate the eastern border of Poland in the Treaty of Versailles. When the Poles entered Kiev, that caused a problem as in those days Ukraine was considered part of Russia and so the Polish attack was seen as foolhardy and not a defensive measure but an imperialistic foray.
The western allies had discouraged an attack on Russia by the Poles and so support would be limited. But they also did not want the Bolsheviks to push through the Poles to wind up on Germany's borders.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 5:50:48 AM
From childhood, Merian Cooper knew the family message that Poles are brave, courageous, do not let go, and now he saw with his own eyes the confirmation of this message. Therefore, he decided to pay off the debt of honor.

American airmen flying in the Kościuszko Squadron fought with bravado. During the Kiev expedition, they raised the morale of the Polish soldier by flying low over the columns of the Polish army heading east. They attacked stations, trains, sunk a military transport on the River Dnieper. It was they who warned the Polish General Staff against Budyonny's cavalry approaching from a direction from which no one had expected it, and then they covered the retreat of the Polish troops. Like angels of death, they circled over Budyonny's Cavalry Army, inflicting heavy losses on it. When the ammunition ran out, the wheels of the planes knocked the Cossacks off their saddles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American air men actually fought.


How many French soldiers joined the Polish Army and actually fought? I would have thought that the French had already lost a generation of young men.

George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 8:07:18 AM
Quote:
How many French soldiers joined the Polish Army and actually fought? I would have thought that the French had already lost a generation of young men.


I don't know how many foreign nationals fought with the Poles against the Russians. We have to remember that both France and Britain were dealing with thousands of workers who may have supported the Bolshevik cause. While the allies sent troops to support the White Russian forces they did not have unanimous support of the people. As well, returning soldiers to many nations were fed up with the status quo and were demanding more respect that had been earned with the blood of their comrades.

The British Labour Party said that British workers are not Polish allies. However, Winston Churchill advocated moving RAF squadrons to Poland. He didn't win on that one.

The Poles didn't have a lot of support from the international community.


But Haller's "Blue Army" fought as part of the French Army in WW1 and were transferred to Poland to fight for Polish independence. The Blue Army was made up of Polish ex-pats from North America. They received their initial training from the Canadian military at Niagara-on-the-Lake, not far from Niagara Falls. They received further training from the French and fought in French kit.

Perhaps we could find out how many foreign nationals or legions fought with the Poles. We know about the American flyers because they arrived as a group.

I also know that some Canadians fought in the Polish Army during the 1920 war. I would surmise that soldiers from other nations also joined. Canada has had a long relationship with Poland. We, like the US, have received many Poles as immigrants. The Polish Armoured division in WWII was attached to the Canadian Army. It was these Poles that eventually plugged the hole in Falaise pocket.

In any case, I think that the contribution of 400 French soldiers and civilians plus British advisors is significant even if the hearts of the governments of the western allies weren't fully committed. The French trained Polish officers and developed a single training model for the troops base upon the French model. Prior to that the Poles were using a hodge-podge of training manuals from different countries.

Charles De Gaulle was there and he actually fought in a Polish unit. Other French officers did the same.

When an independent Polish Army was set up in France in 1917, it was commanded by a French officer and the army was subordinate to the French Army. France and Poland set up a commission to recruit soldiers to this new Polish Army and they allowed Poles living in France to join but also POW from the German Army if they were born in Silesia or Posen. They were given different names to protect them from discovery.

The men in the Blue Army who were transferred to Poland to fight were allowed to return to North America and this was funded by the US Secretary of State, Robert Lansing. I don't know how many of the 21,000 or so accepted that offer and how many chose to remain in Poland.

Here's the thing. I don't object to the acknowledgement of 15-20 American flyers to the Polish cause. But I do object to a blanket statement that this was the most significant contribution of the allies to that cause. Hell, if you wish you could claim that Haller's Blue Army was an American contribution since most of that army were Polish ex-pats living in the US plus a smaller number of Polish ex-pats living in Canada. Nearly 22,000 of them.

This is an interesting article describing the genesis of the Polish Army in France and also explains how many foreign nationals including Americans fought in this army. The article appears to be a French site so I am cautious as the Poles and the French do differ somewhat on the significance of French influence on the Polish forces.

[Read More]

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 8:44:14 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Wow George,

I never fathomed that Canada (British at the time) was so pro Confederate!? I thought like Great Britain itself it would disapprove of Slavery so much, they wouldn't think of aidding the Rebs!? But from your post above, I would surmise that they were damn near allies!? Did they ever consider recognizing the Confederate States of America!?

Rather surprised that they felt ill well towards the North!?
The neighboring states are much more like Canadians??

Regards, & Peace!
MD


No the British and its Dominions like Canada were ostensibly neutral although Britain and France had recognized the Confederates as belligerents, something that the US had argued assertively against while the Confederates sought recognition as a country all across Europe.

Britain did consider whether recognition of the Confederate States was wise and rejected it. Britain did not wish to see another war with the US.

I did mention that of the 40-60K of Canadians who actually volunteered to fight in the civil war,

So it begs the question as to why the Confederates had considerable support from some people in BNA. There was support from Lower Canada (now Québec) because they saw the Confederates as kindred spirits who were fighting!

Canadians had long memories and they did not fully trust the US. The colonies that did not choose to j Canadians in Upper Canada especially have not forgotten the War of 1812.

With Confederates in Canada and ships being built in Britain for the Confederacy, there was talk in the US newspapers during the war of an invasion of Canada. Many Canadian newspapers wrote in support of the Confederacy seeing it as an underdog standing up to a bully.

You would think that the Emancipation Proclamation that came a year later (I think) would have re-established support for the Union in Canada but it did not. The north was not well liked and was seen as a threat to Canada!

And Britain did send thousands of troops to the Maritime colonies and to the Canadas in anticipation of an American invasion, once again as a result of the boarding of the Trent.

I won't deny that some areas of Canada were openly and ebulliently supportive of the Confederates.

I have gone on at length but it is a sore spot with me. Dave I must say to you that you have made the mistake of calling northern Americans as quite similar to Canadians, and that you could not understand the support for the Confederacy. Many Americans make the same mistake. We may look the same and even speak a somewhat similar language although we know how to spell.
But the genesis of our countries is much different and we have fought because of that. As well, Canadians have developed a more collective mentality. The needs of the individual should never out weigh the needs of the collective. It is an important distinction.

Sorry, long one. I had a lot to say,

George


George thanks for the long response,

It had to take along time to print out! When I said that the Northern US is a lot like Canada, I meant Michigan, & the western Great Lakes Area, & not during the War of 1812! Most of these threats to Canada by Finians, & New Englanders!? I think to pre vivid in my instance & how I have crossed the border to ski, fish, vacation, & how I personally found Canadians to be friendly, & like me politically, I have a few friends from the old city of York, that I will see down south this winter!

So in my situation I did not make a mistake!?
Remember Michigan was once part of BNA! ☺
MD

Also I can spell, my tablet has a feature that changes what I typed out, & if I don't carefully proof read it, It will correct what it thinks I meant!? I hate it! I'm not that bad of a speller!!!!!
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 8:52:16 AM
Quote:
MD, here’s a brief comment, just a day late and a dollar short.


For 21 Oct 1510 you note: Quote:
[span style="background-color: rgb(250, 251, 255); letter-spacing: 0.14994px; color: var(--mud-palette-text-primary); font-size: var(--mud-typography-default-size); font-weight: var(--mud-typography-default-weight); text-align: var(--bs-body-text-align); text-transform: var(--mud-typography-default-text-transform);"1520, Ferdinand Magellan sails through the southern tip of South America on his ships voyage around the world! What made this passage so horrific?? Anyone?
[/span]
[span style="background-color: rgb(250, 251, 255);"The answer, in a single word: “weather”. Magellan made his attempt (which I thought was closer to the end of November) in early spring, which could have minimized the hazards he faced. But winds, tides and rain can change dramatically in days.[/span]
[span style="background-color: rgb(250, 251, 255);"The answer, in a different single word: “length of passage”. The Strait of Magellan is about 350 miles long. How long would it take a fleet under sail to transit it, particularly if they wish to maintain contact and at the same time have no rutters to give them guidance?[/span]
[span style="background-color: rgb(250, 251, 255);"
[/span]
[span style="background-color: rgb(250, 251, 255);"The strait itself is not as far south as at least some people think, ranging roughly between 52.5°S and 54°S. In the northern hemisphere, that would be about the equivalent of London’s location; for New Worlders, the tip of Newfoundland is at about 52°N, and nearly everyone knows where 49°N is.[/span]
[span style="background-color: rgb(250, 251, 255);"
[/span]
[span style="background-color: rgb(250, 251, 255);"I’m not a nautical person, and I don’t know southern waters well. But even I have heard of the “Roaring Forties”, the rather global Westerlies that blow all but unbroken by land masses in the southern hemisphere. Magellan would have been sailing against them.[/span]
[span style="background-color: rgb(250, 251, 255);"
[/span]
[span style="background-color: rgb(250, 251, 255);"Cheers[/span]
[span style="background-color: rgb(250, 251, 255);"Brian G[/span]


Hi Brian,

Thanks for the response, I agree with you on how inhospitable traveling through the Straits of Magellan can be!? I especially remember how William Bligh & HMS Bounty went through hell, & even then failed to go through it! Weather including terrible sea conditions of wind and cold & waves!? Actually not far from Antarctica!?

Thanks again!
Cheers,
MD

BTW not sure why I get gibberish, when I post your quotes?? Anyone know?
----------------------------------
"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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 11:44:17 AM
Quote:
Also I can spell, my tablet has a feature that changes what I typed out, & if I don't carefully proof read it, It will correct what it thinks I meant!? I hate it! I'm not that bad of a speller!!!!!


My spelling comment was in reference to the correct spelling of the English language. You know, colour not color, valour not valor, honour not honor, centre not center, ZED not ZEE, and so on. One of my pet peeves is when US companies set up shop in Canada and their payment machines don't reflect that they are in Canada.

So I complained to Home Depot when I was using my debit card and the machine gave my the option, "Checking or Savings". I gnashed my teeth and when I phoned HD I reminded them that my account choice should have been, "Chequing or Savings". Now I have been told that in Britain, the word is written as "chequeing". I haven't had that confirmed.

All I know is that when I check something I am trying to confirm whether it is correctly made or whether a statement is accurate. If I wish to check something I may be trying to slow it down. I never cheque my tire pressure nor do I write a check.

EDIT: Look at my spelling of "tire". We all spell it that way in Canada now. The erosion of culture is now my personal shame.

To their credit, Home Depot has changed that feature so I suspect that I have supporters out there. Other companies don't seem to give a damn. They think that a crazy old man is shopping in the store.

Don't get me started on pronunciation. When I travel I plan my route which is pronounced "root" not "rowt" or whatever it is.

Petty? Not for me. We have to preserve the culture even if the young people are writing in some kind of code on their cell phones.

Is it too early for a pint? Has life passed me by?

George
Steve Clements
Toronto ON Canada
Posts: 910
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 1:25:14 PM
George,

I do enjoy a good rant-:)

Speaking of our friends at Home Depot…it is only in the last couple of years that the check out at Home Depot allowed you to “tap” your “chip” credit card.

s.c.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 4:12:52 PM
While 400 French aided the Poles, they were advisors mostly concerned with logistics. Now don't get me wrong, certainly logistics is important in a campaign. But so is control of the Air. Especially with utilizing the newly developed technology of aircraft.

George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 7:27:35 PM
Quote:
While 400 French aided the Poles, they were advisors mostly concerned with logistics. Now don't get me wrong, certainly logistics is important in a campaign. But so is control of the Air. Especially with utilizing the newly developed technology of aircraft.




NYG, are you trying to prove that 16-20 US airmen were the only ones that did anything meaningful? Otherwise, I don't know why you are continuing with this.

I provided information to indicate that not only did the French stabilize the training methodology of the Polish Army but that French Army officers served in Polish units.

Right now British and Commonwealth soldiers are training Ukrainian troops in the UK. Is that significant? I think so. The role accepted is advisory and important to the success of Ukraine's armed forces.

Was the effect the same in 1920 when the French helped to train the Poles?

Foreign nationals including former members of the German forces were permitted to join the Polish Army.

And over 20,000 soldiers, Polish ex-pats, were trained initially in Canada and then fought with the French Army before being transferred to Poland.

I haven't disputed that the 16-20 American flyers made a difference. I thought that your statement that the participation of the airmen was the most significant allied contribution should be examined.

It seemed odd to me that the only contribution by the west was a few American pilots and I was correct on that count.

There were other contributions and sizeable ones at that.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 8:01:27 PM
Hi George,

This is what I wrote...."The most significant contribution was made by about 20 Americans airmen who formed the Kosciuszko Squadron."

I never wrote that 20 US airmen were the only ones that did anything meaningful. And I never wrote that the only contribution by the West was a few American pilots.

Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 8:37:55 PM
NYG, I like your: Quote:
This is what I wrote...."The most significant contribution was made by about 20 Americans airmen who formed the Kosciuszko Squadron."

I never wrote that 20 US airmen were the only ones that did anything meaningful. And I never wrote that the only contribution by the West was a few American pilots.


You’re absolutely correct! You didn’t say anything like that. But your statement implies that 20 Americans were most significant in their contribution compared to all other contributions. And that might not be accurate, or might be unprovable.

BTW, where do you hang your shingle?

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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 8:54:48 PM
Quote:
Hi George,

This is what I wrote...."The most significant contribution was made by about 20 Americans airmen who formed the Kosciuszko Squadron."

I never wrote that 20 US airmen were the only ones that did anything meaningful. And I never wrote that the only contribution by the West was a few American pilots.



I know what you said. And what you said suggests that the "most significant" contribution was made by 20 Americans. That means that any other contributions must be less significant. And you didn't bother to cite any other contributions to allow us to weigh one against the other. I presume that you may have been unaware of other contributions.

I think that I provided sufficient information to suggest that you may have trouble proving your assertion.

Once again it seems that you must win. Whether you knew about the French contribution or the Polish ex-pats from North America, I don't know. I didn't truthfully, but your claim didn't smell right so I did a little research. And I learned something and it was interesting too. Does that mean that the French contribution is more significant than the contribution of the US airmen?

Beats me. I can't prove it because I am not educated sufficiently on the Poland-Russia war of 1920.

NYG, you are approaching this discussion forum as though you are in a competition. Is it possible that the information that I provided may have given you pause to reconsider your statement or modify it but you just can't bring yourself to do it?

NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 8:55:11 PM
This is what commanding officers have written...The 13th Infantry Division wrote in a report: "The American pilots, though exhausted, fight tenaciously. During the last offensive, their commander attacked enemy formations from the rear, raining machine-gun bullets down on their heads. Without the American pilots' help, we would long ago have been done for."

In August 1920 the Kościuszko Squadron took part in the defense of Lwów, and after the Battle of Warsaw it participated in the Battle of Komarów which crippled Budionny's cavalry. Most active days were August 16 and 17, when Escadrille, reduced to 5 uninjured pilots, fulfilled 18 ground attack missions each day.

All my shingles are on the roof.



Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/23/2022 8:59:03 PM
MD, to your: “Thanks for the response, I agree with you on how inhospitable traveling through the Straits of Magellan can be!? I especially remember how William Bligh & HMS Bounty went through hell, & even then failed to go through it! Weather including terrible sea conditions of wind and cold & waves!? Actually not far from Antarctica!?

MD, IMHO anything lower than the polar “circles” are not close to either pole. Do you consider London as not far from the Arctic? I certainly don’t. The issue isn’t degrees south, or polar proximity alone. It’s lack of land mass to disrupt water and air currents. But your comment about HMS Bounty makes the broad point.

BTW not sure why I get gibberish, when I post your quotes?? Anyone know?

That could be me, using old means of quoting in the new forum rather than going back to MHO old-style to post using quotes. Either Brian will make such functions available, or I’ll have to find what might already be there, if I understood it.

Cheers
Brian G

----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 6:24:29 AM
On October 24, 1921, in the French town of Chalons-sur-Marne, an American sergeant selects the body of the first “Unknown Soldier” to be honored among the approximately 77,000 United States servicemen killed on the Western Front during World War I.

According to the official records of the Army Graves Registration Service deposited in the U.S. National Archives in Washington, four bodies were transported to Chalons from the cemeteries of Aisne-Marne, Somme, Meuse-Argonne and Saint-Mihiel. All were great battlegrounds, and the latter two regions were the sites of two offensive operations in which American troops took a leading role in the decisive summer and fall of 1918. As the service records stated, the identity of the bodies was completely unknown: “The original records showing the internment of these bodies were searched and the four bodies selected represented the remains of soldiers of which there was absolutely no indication as to name, rank, organization or date of death.”



The four bodies arrived at the Hotel de Ville in Chalons-sur-Marne on October 23, 1921. At 10 o’clock the next morning, French and American officials entered a hall where the four caskets were displayed, each draped with an American flag. Sergeant Edward Younger, the man given the task of making the selection, carried a spray of white roses with which to mark the chosen casket. According to the official account, Younger “entered the chamber in which the bodies of the four Unknown Soldiers lay, circled the caskets three times, then silently placed the flowers on the third casket from the left. He faced the body, stood at attention and saluted.”

Bearing the inscription “An Unknown American who gave his life in the World War,” the chosen casket traveled to Paris and then to Le Havre, France, where it would board the cruiser Olympia for the voyage across the Atlantic. Once back in the United States, the Unknown Soldier was buried in Arlington National Cemetery, near Washington, D.C.​



Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 8:16:38 AM
What an immensely poignant rite of commemoration that must have been : it still is.

All the principal belligerents - and, I’m sure, some of the minor ones- sought to assuage public grief in this act of remembrance.

For the USA, the proportion of unknown soldiers was small, reflecting participation in the late battles of the war, and being spared the grisly static warfare of the earlier years of the Western Front.

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
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 8:32:40 AM
I don't have the exact numbers at my fingertips, from what I've been told by the people at the Army War College at Carlisle, PA, is that the US suffered tremendous casualties ( not as great as GB and France) for only being in combat for a few months.

The loss of life was another reason the US turned to isolationism between WWI and WW II

George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 8:32:51 AM
All praise and respect to the men who fought in that bloody war.

NYG, why were four bodies initially selected? Were the three soldiers not selected also buried at Arlington or were they released to their families?

As well, I am curious as to the source of information for the claim of 77,000 deaths. Other sources place the US death total at around 116,000 but that includes deaths from the Spanish flu and other causes as well. It is my understanding that the combat deaths for the AEF were around 53,000. Many countries struggle with getting the actual numbers just right. That's why I am asking which source the authors of this article used.

As well, the Battle of St. Mihiel is significant because it was the first and I believe only battle that was US led. Prior to that the US had been training and learning from the French and fighting with them. Pershing had objected to the use of US divisions removed from the AEF to support other allied attacks piecemeal, and this was the chance for the Americans to work together with other allied units supporting them. Pershing negotiated with General Foch who agreed to allow Pershing to assume control of the St. Mihiel sector so long as he was ready to disengage for the Meuse-Argonne upcoming battles. As well, Pershing had to leave 3 divisions in the French sector.

And the US Army was supported in the air by 1500 allied aircraft. 800 were US planes, I believe.

Costly battle because of the frontal assaults but a victory none the less. The St. Mihiel salient had been reduced.

The US was worried about this battle and prepared for 50,000 casualties. That they took only 7,000 is remarkable. In this war that number was acceptable. According to German reports, they elected to retreat in good order and that may have lowered the casualty count.

Great site below that describes the 1st US Army at St. Mihiel. I realize that I seem to have gone off topic but this battle is worthy of analysis. For the US in this war it is historically significant.

[Read More]

Cheers,

George

Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 9:00:15 AM
Quote:
I don't have the exact numbers at my fingertips, from what I've been told by the people at the Army War College at Carlisle, PA, is that the US suffered tremendous casualties ( not as great as GB and France) for only being in combat for a few months.

The loss of life was another reason the US turned to isolationism between WWI and WW II



The numbers were indeed high . I can give a decent summary : 53,000 killed, or died of wounds and gas poisoning; 205,000 wounded and/ or gassed; about 4,000 POWs. Well over a quarter of a million battle casualties in all. There was additional and relatively heavy loss of life through disease and accidents: of the seventy seven thousand US military personnel who died on the Western Front, roughly one third were from non battle causes. The Franco British experience was very different : fewer than 5% of British soldiers who died in France and Flanders were victims of disease or accidents. This, of course, reflects the fact that British and French soldiers were exposed to fighting of extreme intensity for a vastly greater time. The great influenza pandemic ravaged all armies in 1918, but even in that year the Americans suffered conspicuously heavy loss of life from that cause, and I have to wonder why. Could logistics have been inferior for the Doughboys, thereby depriving them of medical support that was more readily available for the Entente armies ?

Editing : US deaths at home accounted for roughly forty thousand of the 116,000 total from all causes.

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
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 9:08:41 AM
George, From what I understand, those remaining were re-interred in the Meuse Argonne Cemetery, France. Four bodies were transported to Chalons from the cemeteries of Aisne-Marne, Somme, Meuse-Argonne and Saint-Mihiel. All were great battlegrounds, and the latter two regions were the sites of two offensive operations in which American troops took a leading role in the decisive summer and fall of 1918.

My numbers coincide with your numbers...53,402 battle deaths and 63,114 non combat deaths.

Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 9:57:40 AM
George,

As a Canadian, you’re bound to observe that the number of US battle deaths in WW1 was almost identical to those of your country .

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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 1:47:34 PM
Quote:
George,

As a Canadian, you’re bound to observe that the number of US battle deaths in WW1 was almost identical to those of your country .

Regards, Phil


Yes indeed. And of course living so close to the colossus to the south, we do compare numbers like that especially in the Great War. When the war ended there was considerable anger on the Canadian side of the line because the American press were touting the great American victory in Europe. Canada was at war from the beginning and as we will see below, paid an awful price and had earned a great reputation as a fighting force.

However, there are great discrepancies in the reports from different agencies with respect to how many Canadians were killed in the conflict. For example, the Book of Remembrances in Ottawa has over 66,000 entries from the first war. But those numbers may include service people who died after the war. They may have died of wounds but who knows.

StatsCan reports 56,638 battle casualties.

[Read More]

The Canadian War Museum reports 51,748 members of the CEF who died from enemy action although 59,544 died in total.
And then we add 150 deaths in the small Royal Canadian Navy. There were thousands of Canadians serving in the RN and the British Army and those numbers have never been tabulated. A lot of work has been done to determine how many Canadians died while serving in the British Flying Services. CWM pegs it at 1388. So that's 53,288.

Tim Cook is probably Canada's premier historian of the Great War. He works at the Canadian War Museum and has analyzed our casualty lists and he is pretty confident that 61, 122 is the number of Canadians killed during the war. This number does not include those Canadians who served in the British Army or the RN.

I have seen estimates to indicate that 40,000 Canadians serving in the British Army or the RN were killed. I cannot find a the site upon which I read that. We know that Canada was and is a land of immigrants and that when war was declared, thousands of British immigrants headed back home to enlist rather than wait to join the CEF.

We also don't count the 1,305 Newfoundlanders that perished in the Great War. They were not part of Canada in those days.

So for a country of fewer than 8 million people, it was quite a price to pay.

I would be remiss if I did not point out the our Commonwealth brothers in Australia also saw about 60,000 killed and this from a country with just under 5 million people. What a war record. 416,000 enlisted. And I believe that the Australians are also revising their casualty statistics in which they report about 62,000 killed and of those 8,870 from non-battle causes which means their battle deaths are somewhere in the 53,000 range.

I don't know whether either of the Dominions will ever get an accurate count.

Lastly I know that these numbers pale beside those of the Britons who paid with their lives. Perhaps you could give us a summary of those, Phil.

Cheers,

George


Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 2:06:04 PM
Hey guys,

10-20 in history, A few topics not discussed!? Anyone?

1808 the US acquired Louisiana Purchase, best Us land bargin?? What say you?

2011 Lybian leader Quaddafi is killed! How bad of a leader was he? Who killed him?? Anyone?

1021's history,

1520, Ferdinand Magellan sails through the southern tip of South America on his ships voyage around the world! What made this passage so horrific?? Ask Capt. William Bligh!?

1805 Lord Nelson won the battle of Trafalgar! How did he do it? Why do the Brits hold him in such high esteem!? Comments??

1940 Ernest Hemingway writes the novel For whom the bell tolls! Do you rate Ernest the best US writer? If not than who??

& finally today in history, 10-22,

1836 Sam Houston becomes the 1st president of Texas! What did he predict to the Texans about the coming Civil War!? Should they have listened!? What say you??

1962, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy alerts America of the Cuban Missile Crisis! How did he react to it? What say you?

What else is going on in this timeframe?? here is 10-23. In history!

1942 Monty beats Rommel at Al Alamein! He was benefited by Malta's defense, ultimately blocking supplies to the Desert Fox!.He was short on tank fuel, ammo, & other supplies!? Plus breaking the German code!?

1944 Adm. Bull Halsey, leads USN in battle of Leyte Gulf! Wasn't it Halsey who after Pearl Harbor, told his men, "kill japs! Kill Japs! kill more Japs"!? He was upset!? What say you??

1983 suicide terrorists kill 300 US ,& French troops in Beruit!? What brought this on?? How do you counter human bombs?? What say you??

Check today 10-24 in history!? Comments, & posts, anyone??

1861 the Pony Express ends, & the Telegraph begins? Hoe did Canada send communications across their huge country at this time? Anyone??

1917, In 1 battle 600,00 Italians surrendered! Some say the Italians were not good fighters? What say you? & how did so many give up?? Anyone?

1929 Stock market crashes, Black Thursday! How close are we to this happening again?? What to do with your retirement!? Anyone??

1922 Benito Mussolini becomes dictator of Italy! How did he & Hitler hit it off?? Comments?

1945 the UN s founded! Has it really done much to curb terrorism!? What say you??

1992 the Toronto Blue Jay's win the World Series over Atlanta! The only non US team to do it!? What did it mean to Canada? Do you remember this team?? Anyone??

New events to discuss?
Cheers,
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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 3:57:43 PM
Quote:
1992 the Toronto Blue Jay's win the World Series over Atlanta! The only non US team to do it!? What did it mean to Canada? Do you remember this team?? Anyone??


Sure I remember the team. It was all very exciting. There were two MLB baseball teams in Canada at the time. The Montréal Expos closed shop in 2004 (??).

Both teams had a lot of support but the Blue Jays have considerable national support. Players who come to the city realize that the fan base is not confined to the city of Toronto.

Baseball was very popular in Canada before the Expos and the Jays arrived. The game has been played here as long as it has been played in the US. As a kid I used to go to Triple A games at Toronto Maple Leaf Stadium. The ball team had the same name as the hockey team. It was affiliated with the Red Sox so before the Jays if you were a baseball fan, Boston was the team to cheer.

The manager of the Maple Leafs was Dick Williams and my favourite player was Mike Andrews who went on to a pretty good career with the Red Sox and then the White Sox. Played short in AAA but second in majors.

But Triple A died in Toronto and when the Jays came in they became popular.

I don't get too excited about the fact that they were the first team outside of the US to win the World Series. Toronto is just a franchise in MLB. And in 1992 the roster was made up of mostly Americans, one Dominican and a couple of Puerto Ricans. Oh, and one Canadian, Rob Ducey. So I don't really see nationalism as at stake here. Same in hockey although somewhere around 45% of an NHL roster is Canadian, I think.

Some great players on the roster though and they were embraced and loved in the city and across Canada. The pitching staff was outstanding. Dave Stieb, Jimmy Key, Jack Morris, and Juan Guzman. My favourite pitchers were a couple of relievers, Mike Timlin and Tom Henke.

So the '92 win was a big deal but everyone remembers the '93 World Series win because of the dramatic way that it ended with a 3 run walk-off homer by Joe Carter, in the bottom of the 9th. Still brings chills. The TV call of the game was made by legendary broadcaster Tom Cheek who was also embraced by the country.

"Touch 'em all, Joe. You'll never hit a bigger home run in your life".

[Read More]


Now if my Leafs can just win the Stanley Cup, I will be a happy man. I was an 18 year old kid in 1967 the last time that they won. It's beginning to wear on me.

George

George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 4:30:06 PM
Quote:
1861 the Pony Express ends, & the Telegraph begins? Hoe did Canada send communications across their huge country at this time? Anyone??


Telecommunication has been very important to the development of this country.

But you're talking 1861 and there was no country of Canada. The first telegraph communication in British North America took place in the colony of Upper Canada with a message sent from Toronto to Hamilton in 1847.

The British colonies were quick to embrace Morse's technology. The US was ahead of the game and in 1846 had installed trunk lines to link the major eastern cities.

To show you just how integrated communications would become between the US and Canada, by 1847 telegraph lines in the Niagara Falls area had crossed the Niagara River and communication with New York City began.

Different companies were involved in adding lines and by 1857 the link from Upper Canada to New Brunswick and then down to Halifax had been made. American companies also bid on jobs. By 1856 a telegraph link using submarine cable between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland had been created.

Now Canada has a lot of wide open spaces between Upper Canada and the Pacific and there were British colonies on the west coast.
Telegraph service here tended to be north and south with lines from British Columbia to Seattle. A submarine cable from Victoria on Vancouver Island to Seattle was completed in 1865. Pre-Confederation, the US company Western Union was a big player in the west and in the east for that matter. Western Union bought out the Montreal company that had pushed lines to the maritimes, in 1881.

But with Confederation and the expansion of the railroad to the west coast, rail lines were being built. The Canadian government subsidized the building or telegraph lines that tended to follow the rail lines. And as the rails were laid from east to west, telegraph lines were sent south to points in the US. And finally, a link to the west was made. The Canadian government lines weren't profitable because there just weren't sufficient numbers of people or businesses to warrant the lines.

But that wasn't the point. It was important to establish sovereignty over this vast territory and to make sure that all parts of the country were linked with the most modern telecommunication systems. It took until the early 20th century before the US monopoly in telegraph systems was broken in Canada and it was the Canadian railways that took over the business. The addition of more lines was subsidized by the federal government.

Now with the invention of the telephone, how long did it take before the telegraph lines became obsolete?

Cheers,

George
George




DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1527
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 5:05:08 PM
Is this correct; Quote:
1917, In 1 battle 600,00 Italians surrendered!


I am reading that was the total of Italian soldiers who were PoW's during the war. Of which, talk about mistreatment of its citizen soldiers, the Italian military commands were tyrannical in their command care for the troops and inept with leadership abilities. It is astounding how poorly Italian soldiers lived in the Alps, and their fighting capacities were exacting in logistics, performance and capabilities.

Luigi Cadorna, a so-called Marshall of Italy was capable of one thing only, killing his fellow citizens wether they be a front line dogface or an officer, it mattered not to him. He is, IMO, ranked as one of the worst military leaders of WWI (if not the worst) and of all time.

----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/24/2022 5:31:34 PM
Quote:


Lastly I know that these numbers pale beside those of the Britons who paid with their lives. Perhaps you could give us a summary of those, Phil.

Cheers,

George




As with your Canadian sources, George, there is some disparity when it comes to the figures of British dead 1914-18. The ballpark figure of 750,000 military dead is a fair starting point. The trouble is, the Irish record can muddy the waters, with the UK being rather different in the aftermath of the Great War from what it had been before. CWGC data give a much higher figure - about 850,000 - but that has a wider remit in terms of time and place, and includes Crown Colonies and Dependencies, which are attributed to the UK.

The official UK total was 744,702, comprising 705,000 army, 32,000 navy and 8,000 air force personnel.

An elaborate statistical survey of the impact of wars on population by the Soviet demographer Urlanis tabulates the belligerents' military fatalities, and for the British and Dominion experience he reckoned :

Great Britain : 715,000 dead, equating to 125 out of every 1,000 mobilised, 62 out of every 1,000 males between 15 and 49 years of age, and 16 out of every 1,000 of the total population.

Canada : : 61,000 dead, 97 per 1,000 mobilised, 26 per 1,000 males aged 15 to 49, 7.5 for every 1,000 total population.

Australia : 60,000 dead, 145 per 1,000 , 44 per 1,000, 12 per 1,000.

New Zealand :16,000 dead, 129 per 1,000, 50 per 1,000, 15 per 1,000.


New Zealand is the nearest to the UK in ratio of total population killed, although the Australian figure was highest in terms of the percentage of deaths among men mobilised. I have reservations about that.

Not everyone will agree with this assessment, but it is a decent source of reference for an overall feel for the numbers.

For the USA the same table gives a total of 114,000 dead, equating to 27 per 1,000 mobilised, 4 per 1,000 for all males between 15 and 49, and 1.15 per 1,000 of total population.

Compare the above with Metropolitan France :

1,327,000 dead, equating to 168 per 1,000 of men mobilised, 133 per 1,000 of all males aged 15 to 49, and 34 per 1,000 of total population.

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
Page 30 of 115 (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   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115 )

© 2024 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC