MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 33 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
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 7:07:26 AM
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev orders withdrawal of missiles from Cuba, ending the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In 1960, Khrushchev had launched plans to install medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles in Cuba that would put the eastern United States within range of nuclear attack. In the summer of 1962, U.S. spy planes flying over Cuba had photographed construction work on missile facilities. President John F. Kennedy announced a naval blockade to prevent the arrival of more missiles and demanded that the Soviets dismantle and remove the weapons already in Cuba.

The situation was extremely tense and could have resulted in war between the United States and the Soviet Union, but at the last minute, Khrushchev turned the Soviet ships around that were to deliver more missiles to Cuba and agreed to dismantle and remove the weapons that were already there. Kennedy and his advisers had stared the Soviets down and the apparent capitulation of the Soviet Union in the standoff was instrumental in Khrushchev’s being deposed in 1964.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 7:11:02 AM
Quote:
Quote:
What many forget about WW I, the Germans would not have made those offensives in 1918 if the Americans hadn't entered the war. Basically because of the Americans, the British could risk their last army and the French could take the offensive with an army that was gun-shy.
This is basically from the Introduction of Sons of Freedom.



I'll be reviewing this book later this year.


Between July and November 1918, the French suffered 400 000 casualties - at least- on the Western Front. Being a “ gun- shy” poilus was a rather dangerous experience.

Regards, Phil


Phil,
The French Army mutinied. The 1917 French Army mutinies took place amongst French Army troops on the Western Front in Northern France during World War I. The mutinies and associated disruptions involved, to various degrees, nearly half of the French infantry divisions stationed on the Western Front. The term "mutiny" does not precisely describe events; soldiers remained in trenches and were willing to defend but refused orders to attack.

Regards, NYGiant
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 7:42:29 AM
This guy does not engage in discussion. This latest post directed to Phil involved cutting and pasting lines from a wiki article.
Nothing here about the French response to the mutinies. Nothing about the French response to the mutinies or answers as to how the French army managed to fight after the mutinies.

Lazy and dishonest participation.

[Read More]

A baiter and a troll, both violations of the forum code of conduct. And yeah, I have been feeding him.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 7:48:43 AM
I wish to offer praise to MD for "This Day in World History" section. In a sense it has revived the forum.

However, I do think that when a topic promotes extensive discussion that we should move it to the appropriate section in the forum.

It was a bit frustrating over the last few days because there were multiple comments to multiple topics and all sharing the same forum space. Some if it got lost in the collection. One example was DT509er's introduction of Italian losses on the Izonzo. After a couple of exchanges, then other topics began to dominate.

Now I do not know whether others would have wanted to comment on Caporetto but if so, the opportunity had passes as other comments began to dominate.

I just find it difficult to keep up with four or five discussion topics within this single section of the forum.

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 7:48:59 AM
Phil made a comment and I responded where I rebutted his comment.

Push-back is something that evidently you are uncomfortable with. If you don't like what I say, don't respond. From my position, you are the baiter and you are the troll.

No one is forcing you to participate here.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 8:25:44 AM
Quote:
Phil made a comment and I responded where I rebutted his comment.

Push-back is something that evidently you are uncomfortable with. If you don't like what I say, don't respond. From my position, you are the baiter and you are the troll.

No one is forcing you to participate here.



You don't even do the man the courtesy of crafting a three line response and then you refuse to cite your source anyway, choosing to cut and paste lines out of context.

This was not a rebuttal. Phil offered the casualty rates for the French from July 15,1918 in response to your suggestion that the French and British were spent forces. You offered no rebuttal to that instead opting to cut and paste events from April of 1917.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 8:27:38 AM
Quote:
Colin, Tom, I agree wholeheartedly! This is increasingly tiresome.


Cheers
Brian G

Dito!!!
----------------------------------
"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: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 8:40:06 AM


10-26 in history, moved to the new page for continued discussion!?

1813 the battle of Chateauguay, mostly Frenchmen turn back attempt to take Montreal!? Comments? Thanks for the informative response, George!!

1825 The Erie Canal is completed how did this aid in Westward Expansion? Was Canada building canals as well??

1881 the Clanton gang is shot down by Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, & Co., at the OK Corral! Is today's scene out west simular with all the weapons ect.??

New events to discuss? Anyone??
Cheers,
MD



BTW continue with previous discussions, by all means!?

10-27, as Brian pointed out in 1978 Carter, Begin, & Sadat are given the Nobel Peace Price for signing peace treaty in the Middle east! & your right Bri. couldn't they find a bigger table!??
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 8:40:33 AM
Since when is cutting and pasting illegal?

I made a comment to push back against his comment. The French did mutiny.

Looks to me that you are the troll, and am baiting me.

Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 8:49:31 AM
Quote:
I wish to offer praise to MD for "This Day in World History" section. In a sense it has revived the forum.

However, I do think that when a topic promotes extensive discussion that we should move it to the appropriate section in the forum.

It was a bit frustrating over the last few days because there were multiple comments to multiple topics and all sharing the same forum space. Some if it got lost in the collection. One example was DT509er's introduction of Italian losses on the Izonzo. After a couple of exchanges, then other topics began to dominate.

Now I do not know whether others would have wanted to comment on Caporetto but if so, the opportunity had passes as other comments began to dominate.

I just find it difficult to keep up with four or five discussion topics within this single section of the forum.

George


Agreed. Like a slippery eel, we grasp a topic that is fascinating and which inspires a bit of research and discussion, and then it’s gone, with a huge amount left unsaid.

That, I suppose, is the purpose of the thread, but I would so much like to dig deeper and develop more research. My thanks to George for the efforts he makes and the constructive comments he pitches.

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: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 8:50:08 AM
Quote:
I wish to offer praise to MD for "This Day in World History" section. In a sense it has revived the forum.

However, I do think that when a topic promotes extensive discussion that we should move it to the appropriate section in the forum.

George



Hi George,

Thanks for the compliment, basically that's the purpose of the this day in world history thread, continued new topics on it, & if anyone wants a longer term of discussion on a single topic feel free to move it to a new thread! As I would say "seize the thread"!? ☺

Or " what say you??"
Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 9:07:37 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Guys,

Again, Just moving these topics to the new page!!!?

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

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

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??

10-25 in history,

1936 the Berlin- Axis is formed! Was it an effective alliance?? Comments anyone??

1950 Red China joins with N. Korea to fight the Allies in Korea! How did this effect the Korean War? Anyone??

1983 under President Reagan, the US invades the tiny Island of Grenada! Why? Was it justified!? Comments!?

New events to discuss? Anyone??
Cheers,
MD



BTW continue with previous discussions, by all means!?


----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 9:14:35 AM
Quote:
Morris,

Please don’t think for a moment that I seek to downplay or disparage US contribution to victory in both world wars. I’d be mortified if that’s how my comments were interpreted.

Regards, Phil

Hello Phil, I was not directing my comment to you. I am also not one of those "I`m offended at everything" types who are destroying civil discourse. My comment was a general one. The US was late to both of the parties, WW1 and WW2.....it wasn`t our front or back yard. Yet in about a year in WW1....and then three years in WW2 we suffered a million and a half casualties. That is not...to borrow an old television ad here in the states, " it`s shake n bake, and I helped." We went full in for the time we became involved. In the case of WW1, the President we had just elected ran on a campaign of " Vote Woodrow Wilson...he`ll keep us out of war." He rounded up and imprisoned opponents of our involvement, in violation of their rights ....so, when we wound up with all the casualties, the dead, the maimed....the people here became staunchly isolationist. Many said "never again will we get drawn into yet another European war.

Damend if it didn`t happen all over again less than twenty years later.

Anyway, my main point was the US didn`t win WW1. Our involvement did cause the acceptance of the reality...and help bring about the conclusion.

Did the US win WW2. Well, no one wants to arrogantly proclaim that we did...when so many sacrificed for so long...but the US was a monster of the allied side. We didn`t just suffer the losses on the battlefields, but we brought Ford and General Motors....we brought the capacity for massive manufacture of planes, tanks, jeeps, transport ships,.....so, yeah, we kinda did a lot of awful heavy lifting to win that war.

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 9:29:02 AM
Today 10-28 in history!?

1704 John Locke passes away! He had some major ideas on how a government should be run! What say you about his influence on today's Western Governments??

Lockean philosophy anyone??
Regards,
MD

Also on 10-28,

1790 Spain yield to Great Britain on the Nootka Sound Controversy! What effect did it have on British Columbia!?? Comments!?

1886 the Statue of Liberty is dedicated! Who made out the best the US, or France with the Effil Tower?? Anyone?

1962 Nikta Khrushchev pull missiles out of Cuba! What caused him to do this? What say you??

----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 9:54:16 AM
Let's look at the facts. GB and France had fought for 4 years to a stalemate.

The Battle of Cantigny, fought May 28, 1918 was the first major American battle and offensive of World War I. The War is over less than 6 months later.

NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 10:14:56 AM
962 Nikta Khrushchev pull missiles out of Cuba! What caused him to do this? What say you??

A ploy to have the Allies leave a divided Berlin.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 10:16:49 AM
Will I be complicit in troll feeding if I ask NYG to refer to the Battle of Malmaison, October 23, 1917 ?

It needs to be cited as evidence that, within three months of the mutinies, the French army was fighting very effectively .

To a degree, this might strengthen some of NYG’s argument, because the French commander, Petain, was determined to fight in a carefully planned and husbanded manner while waiting for the Americans to arrive. The result was a tactical masterpiece, which has passed under the public radar and gets little acknowledgement.
In this, and other attritional battles fought by the French in the summer and autumn of 1917, the Germans suffered disproportionate damage, and were justifiably worried about the prolongation of these operations, and sought the knock out blow rather than risking death by a thousand cuts. The decision to launch an all out strategic offensive in the spring of 1918 was attributable in large part to the success of these little known battles. Being able to wait for the Americans afforded the French the chance to do this.

If you don’t know about this battle, NYG, please google it.

The British made their own progress in this development, especially the Canadians at Hill 70 near Lens in August 1917. Cambrai stands out, too.

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
10/28/2022 10:27:09 AM
Thanks Phil!

By October 26, the French had gained 3.5 miles in some places at a cost of only 12,000 casualties, far fewer than Germany’s 38,000 and a significant improvement over the 30,000 French losses suffered in the same area during April’s Nivelle Offensive. Another innovation applied to the battlefield.

My pals who follow tank warfare appreciate this.
scoucer
Berlin  Germany
Posts: 3270
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 3:36:25 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I wish to offer praise to MD for "This Day in World History" section. In a sense it has revived the forum.

However, I do think that when a topic promotes extensive discussion that we should move it to the appropriate section in the forum.

It was a bit frustrating over the last few days because there were multiple comments to multiple topics and all sharing the same forum space. Some if it got lost in the collection. One example was DT509er's introduction of Italian losses on the Izonzo. After a couple of exchanges, then other topics began to dominate.

Now I do not know whether others would have wanted to comment on Caporetto but if so, the opportunity had passes as other comments began to dominate.

I just find it difficult to keep up with four or five discussion topics within this single section of the forum.

George


Agreed. Like a slippery eel, we grasp a topic that is fascinating and which inspires a bit of research and discussion, and then it’s gone, with a huge amount left unsaid.

That, I suppose, is the purpose of the thread, but I would so much like to dig deeper and develop more research. My thanks to George for the efforts he makes and the constructive comments he pitches.

Regards, Phil


I agree. Many posts I wish to make ( Yes, the Caporetto one too) are often complex and one wishes to check sources - nothing that one can dash off in a few minutes.

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.
vpatrick
MA MA USA
Posts: 2522
Joined: 2020
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 3:44:25 PM
May I suggest if a diversion gains traction and seems to deviate from the threads intention to simply start another thread about the topic on the appropriate board where it will live or die.

vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 3:54:44 PM
Why not post in both paces?
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 3:56:06 PM
Why not post in both paces?
vpatrick
MA MA USA
Posts: 2522
Joined: 2020
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 6:45:19 PM
NYGIANT

Threads have intent this one is to mark a day in history its easily derailed when one goes off on a tangent about a particular days events. While an interesting topic may be discovered about a particular day in history its easy to derail the threads intention. Many folks enjoy this thread and have been posting on it for years with little acrimony until well....

If one finds an interesting aspect of a particular day in history and would like to discuss it further then a new thread can easily be created on another board with the interested party giving street signs to that thread, just a suggestion. We do try to keep our threads clean here they do not always achieve that but an effort is made to keep on topic so the thread doesnt turn into written chaos. Many times a poster will realize he has derailed a threads intentions and apologizes and make an effort to point the thread back to its original intention or will just shut up or the thread just gets derailed to the authors dismay. With different topics all smashing around under one heading it turns a thread into a chat room which will eventually give that thread a slow death.

This particular thread (one of the oldest and most enjoyed) has been one of our most tranquil threads and most posts have innocuous intentions until a bomb thrower shows up. MHO is a good site its a gem NY in fact its an internet haven. I cant say I haven't thrown a few bombs myself but I think most here respect this site as many of us have been on here for years and endeavor to talk with each other with respect even though we may differ with our views on history, politics and country. Its not always perfect in fact far from it but I think strides have been made since the Trump presidency.

Its not a chat room NY or is it a place where the smartest guy wins or where we have to prove something just a bunch of dudes or gals just discussing stuff that interests us and I can say over the years I have learned alot. I love this Socrates quote or maybe it isnt " Those that think thing they know everything now nothing" I didnt have time to google it.

vpatrick


Michigan Dave/ anyone: Can you get this thread back on track please
----------------------------------
nuts
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 8:40:12 PM
Quote:
Today 10-28 in history!?

1704 John Locke passes away! He had some major ideas on how a government should be run! What say you about his influence on today's Western Governments??

Lockean philosophy anyone??
Regards,
MD

Also on 10-28,

1790 Spain yields to Great Britain on the Nootka Sound Controversy! What was this controversy about? What effect did it have on the future British Columbia!?? Comments!?

1886 the Statue of Liberty is dedicated! Who made out the best the US, or France with the Effil Tower?? Anyone?

1962 Nikta Khrushchev pull missiles out of Cuba! What caused him to do this? What say you??



More world history on 10-28!?

Also in 1919 Prohibition is enforced despite President Woodrow Wilson being against it! Who started this Prohibition thing anyway!? I'll drink to that!? Comments?? What other countries tried to prohibit Alcohol consumption, & sales!!??

1971 Great Britain launches a major satellite l why weren't they a major player in space?? What say you!?

Comments on any of 10-28 in history!??
Regards,
MD

BTW we have MHO'ers from a fair amount of countries please, sometimes would you guys give us history events from your countries!? We would like that!!☺

So there you go Vince!!!
----------------------------------
"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
10/28/2022 9:23:21 PM
Quote:
1790 Spain yield to Great Britain on the Nootka Sound Controversy! What effect did it have on British Columbia!?? Comments!?
1790 Spain yield to Great Britain on the Nootka Sound Controversy! What effect did it have on British Columbia!?? Comments!?


This is Nootka Sound on west coast of Vancouver Island



In 1789, a British merchant established a trading post in Nootka Sound. John Meares was supposed to have purchase land from Nuuu-chah-nulth chief Maquinna.

In this period in history, several European nations were competing for supremacy along the Pacific coast of North America. Spain had been claiming that they held the rights to the whole Pacific coastline.

Spain had also arrived Vancouver Island in 1789 and they had been harassing British merchant vessels that showed up to trade with the locals. Spain had built a fort at Yuquot.

In 1790, Spain entered Nootka Sound. They wanted it for the same reasons that the British wanted it. It was a safe harbour and would allow them a base from which to access China. They seized the British trading post and the ships in the harbour. The owner of the ships sent a message back to Britain and Britain decided that this was one step too far on the part of Spain. Both countries spoke of war.

Spain sought to ally with France, GB's traditional enemy and French King Louis XVI was obliging. But France's revolution was beginning and the French government told Louis that he couldn't make a unilateral declaration of war. Spain then was on its own and decided that war with Britain would be unwise.

And so diplomacy became the order of the day. Each side appointed a commissioner, George Vancouver for GB and a man named Quadra for Spain. They came up with the Nootka Convention of 1790. There were actually three conventions.

The upshot was that Spain, under convention #2 agreed to pay reparations to GB for losses incurred by the seizure of British shipping.
Both agreed that either country could trade out of Nootka Sound.
Under convention #3 theyagreed that temporary buildings could be constructed but no permanent forts.
Eventually, they agreed that Nootka Sound would be a free port, open to any nation.

In 1795, both left and when Spain pulled out they watched the First Nations people tear down their fort.

Eventually Spain would abandon all of its pretensions to ownership on the Pacific Coast.

Of course, none of this settled ownership and the US was not yet a player on the coast. I recall that after the War of 1812, the US made some claim to ownership of the Pacific coast and the British pulled out the Nootka Convention to prove that they had established their presence on the coast before the US. As well, Britain had seized US fur trade post Astoria on the west coast. When the war ended, the owners of the fur trade company at Astoria sold it to the British.

I should mention that Nootka sound was the traditional homeland of the Nuuu-chah-nulth people who had been living on this part of what became Vancouver Island for hundreds of years. It was, it is a complex culture. And of course, with the arrival of Europeans, their lives would change. When Britain and Spain squabbled over the ownership of Nootka Sound, no consideration was given to the fact that the people who claimed this territory were the Nuuu-chah-nulth.

Cheers,

George

vpatrick
MA MA USA
Posts: 2522
Joined: 2020
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 9:45:10 PM
Quote:
we have MHO'ers from a fair amount of countries please, sometimes would you guys give us history events from your countries!? We would like that!!☺

So there you go Vince!!!



Well Done Dave,

thank You


vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/28/2022 11:12:16 PM
On this day in 1918, German sailors refused – for the first of five times – to go to sea to face the Royal Navy. I believe, in any western navy, a refusal to obey legitimate orders falls under the term “mutiny”.

IIRC, the order to sail against the RN was German Admiralty based, declared without reference to German civilian governing bodies. By the fifth refusal, the issue had spread both to the naval base at Kiel and to some unionized workers involved in naval support. In effect, the mutiny of German sailors meshed with civilian workers to undermine the pro-war faction of the German government, thereby weakening Germany’s ability to make war.

In the wake of the Versailles Treaty, both the Imperial Navy’s refusal to sail and the the link between navy refusal and labourers was considered to indicate one element of Bolshevik undermining of the Imperial war effort. Under Nazi rule, the German Navy was the least trusted and least supported of German armed forces.

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
10/29/2022 6:47:54 AM
Israeli armed forces push into Egypt toward the Suez Canal, initiating the Suez Crisis. They would soon be joined by French and British forces, creating a serious Cold War problem in the Middle East.

The catalyst for the joint Israeli-British-French attack on Egypt was the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egyptian leader General Gamal Abdel Nasser in July 1956. The situation had been brewing for some time. Two years earlier, the Egyptian military had begun pressuring the British to end its military presence (which had been granted in the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty) in the canal zone. Nasser’s armed forces also engaged in sporadic battles with Israeli soldiers along the border between the two nations, and the Egyptian leader did nothing to conceal his antipathy toward the Zionist nation.

Supported by Soviet arms and money, and furious with the United States for reneging on a promise to provide funds for construction of the Aswan Dam on the Nile River, Nasser ordered the Suez Canal seized and nationalized. The British were angry with the move and sought the support of France (which believed that Nasser was supporting rebels in the French colony of Algeria), and Israel, in an armed assault to retake the canal. The Israelis struck first, but were shocked to find that British and French forces did not immediately follow behind them. Instead of a lightning strike by overwhelming force, the attack bogged down. The United Nations quickly passed a resolution calling for a cease-fire.​

The Soviet Union began to issue ominous threats about coming to Egypt’s aid. A dangerous situation developed quickly, one that the Eisenhower administration hoped to defuse before it turned into a Soviet-U.S. confrontation. Though the United States sternly warned the Soviet Union to stay out of the situation, Eisenhower also pressured the British, French and Israeli governments to withdraw their troops. They eventually did so in late 1956 and early 1957.

George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/29/2022 8:18:23 AM
The Suez Crisis of 1956 caused a rift among NATO allies. Egypt would not budge from their stance that the canal had been nationalized.

The US, along with Britain had agreed to finance the construction of the Aswan dam and in 1956, the US withdrew its financial support. John Foster Dulles didn't like or trust Nasser. Dulles was warned by his own people that withdrawal of support could compel Nasser to enter into some kind of deal with the USSR.

And with that US action, Egypt decided that it would control the canal and use the transit fees to fund the building of the Aswan dam. The British were furious with the US, concerned that the USSR would now have a toe hold in Egypt. And that is what happened. The Aswan was eventually built with USSR support.

This was an error in US diplomacy I think.

Without telling NATO, Britain and France with Israel decided to take military action. That led to the rift. The US was opposed to military action though its withdrawal of aid had precipitated the conflict.

Now the British plan was that it and its two allies would advance to the canal and then Egypt and Israel would be told to leave. Israel left but Egypt's Nasser wouldn't depart claiming that he was on sovereign Egyptian territory. In response, Britain and France started to bomb the canal zone.

The US was angry. It did not want Britain to be influential in Egypt.

The role of the UN and Canada in leading the countries to a peaceful resolution is often underestimated in historical accounts that are not Canadian.

The UN was quite upset with developments in Egypt and in this case acted assertively to bring a resolution. Canada's head of the UN delegation was Mike Pearson who was also Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada and he would go on to become a Prime Minister.

Canada was actually quite upset with the UK for taking military action in Suez. The fact that Britain didn't inform Canada or any of its allies of its plans was disturbing. Having come through WWII and the Korean War as allies, Britain's decision to go it alone was upsetting. Mike Pearson sought a better way to end conflicts.

Pearson and colleagues had been working on a diplomatic solution in Suez when Britain and France started the bombing. The UN had placed observers in Kashmir and Palestine to monitor cease fire agreements.

Mike Pearson had been mulling over a bigger UN operation and he proposed sending in a well supplied and armoured peacekeeping force. On Nov. 4 the UN took a vote and 57 countries voted Yes to the idea while 19 abstained. No country voted against the proposition.

And when it came time to put together UNEF, many nations volunteered to help. Eventually the UN Secretary-General announced that UNEF would be made up of contingents from Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Pakistan and Sweden. Later Afghanistan, Brazil, Burma, Ceylon, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Laos, New Zealand, Peru, the Philippines, Romania and Yugoslavia agreed to help.

The final decision was that UNEF would be comprised of forces from Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, India, Indonesia, Norway, Sweden and Yugoslavia.

The US agreed to help with airlifts, shipping, transport and supplies.

It is heart warming to me to see that the world was prepared to try something different to ensure that the Cold War didn't become a hot war.

British PM Anthony Eden arranged a ceasefire on Nov. 6. The US had been pressuring him to do so. And the next day, the UN's first large scale peacekeeping force entered the canal zone. It was commanded by Canadian General E.L.M. "Tommy" Burns who was a WW1 and WWII veteran. Note that Egypt, after some intense negotiations, approved the entry of UNEF.


Over time 6000 peacekeepers kept the warring Egypt and Israel apart in Suez. Perhaps more importantly, the presence of the UN allowed Britain and France to withdraw without losing face. UNEF turned out to be a very successful endeavour even though the Israelis refused to allow UNEF to place troops in its territory. Egypt was much more co-operative though it retained the right to send UNEF home when it saw fit.

UNEF adopted the blue beret and helmets which are universally recognized by countries that contribute troops to UN peacekeeping measures.

And Mike Pearson? He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for his work in creating UNEF and establishing peacekeeping as a means to reduce conflict across the world.

Ten years later, tensions were rising in the Middle East and Egypt ordered UNEF to leave which it did. And three weeks later the Six Day War began. Unfortunately, there were still some UNEF troops in Egypt who had not yet withdrawn and 15 were killed who were based in the Gaza strip.

There were some people in Canada who saw Canada's and Pearson's actions as a betrayal of the mother country, Great Britain. Not all as Canada had transitioned since 1867 from colony to Dominion and had been asserting independence with notable contributions in two world wars and Korea. Still the Liberals, and Mike Pearson was a Liberal, lost the next federal election. Some think that the Canadian initiative to help create UNEF and lead it was responsible for the loss.

However, Mike Pearson would go on to lead the Liberal Party and he became PM in 1963.


From the UN files

[Read More]

Cheers,

George





Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
10/29/2022 11:30:07 AM
You would be hard pushed to find any British historian who believes the invasion of the Suez Canal zone to have been the UK's finest hour. In the last act of unilateral imperialism, Britain's vulnerabilities were truly exposed. It could not undertake foreign expeditions without at least the tacit support of the United States. The days of the UK and France as front rank Great Powers were over. Although both still possessed formidable and flexible military machines, they no longer possessed the financial clout to pursue independent global strategies that did not align with those of the US and NATO. The Winds of Change were fast approaching and the UK's days of throwing its influence across the globe were drawing to an end.

The UK/French/Israeli forces met just about all of their military objectives, with the Egyptian forces proving largely ineffective in combat. However, the US threat to sell off Sterling reserves and effectively cripple the UK economy (unless UK forces withdrew) was not one to be forgotten in a hurry. The UK could point to American actions over Suez when it was asked why it would not assist in in the bloodletting in Vietnam a decade later.

There have been many attempts to stick a date on the end of the British Empire, with many pointing to the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997 as truly settling the issue. For me, it was the Suez Crisis, as the humiliation of the withdrawal from Suez brought a sober realisation that it was now 1956, not 1896. Britain was no longer a world power and this acceptance accelerated the shedding of territories of the Empire. The Empire was rapidly trimmed down and British focus moved away from the Empire and Commonwealth to the European continent. The Little Englanders had finally won the argument.

Cheers,

Colin

----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/29/2022 11:45:32 AM
Good post, Colin. The US was determined to neuter the former great imperial powers and has supplanted them of course, especially in the middle east.

Do you feel that the UN initiative gave France and Britain a chance to withdraw with some honour intact? Were the British people and the press angry with the British government for the withdrawal?

Cheers,

George
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
10/29/2022 2:14:59 PM
The greatest humiliation since Suez .

How many times have we heard that on British media in the last weeks ?

Suez remains the benchmark.

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
10/29/2022 3:38:15 PM
This is the International Monetary Fund's description of how it influenced the monetary crisis of 1956. Not that I understand all of the terminology but it seems that as Colin mentioned earlier, it was a speculative attack on the pound Sterling that encouraged Britain's withdrawal from the Suez.

[Read More]

France financed the construction of the canal and I was wondering whether it was compensated in any way for the loss of ownership of the canal.

I believe that Britain bought out a major shareholder to become part owner of the canal. And then GB invaded Egypt in that latter part of the 19th century.

Did Britain and France ask for compensation and did the subject arise in the UN?

Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/30/2022 7:02:54 AM
On October 30, 1941, President Roosevelt, determined to keep the United States out of the war while helping those allies already mired in it, approves $1 billion in Lend-Lease loans to the Soviet Union. The terms: no interest and repayment did not have to start until five years after the war was over.

The Lend-Lease program was devised by President Roosevelt and passed by Congress on March 11, 1941. Originally, it was meant to aid Great Britain in its war effort against the Germans by giving the chief executive the power to “sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of” any military resources the president deemed ultimately in the interest of the defense of the United States. The reasoning was: If a neighbor was successful in defending his home, the security of your home was enhanced.

Although the Soviet Union had already been the recipient of American military weapons, and now had been promised $1 billion in financial aid, formal approval to extend the Lend-Lease program to the USSR had to be given by Congress. Anticommunist feeling meant much heated debate, but Congress finally gave its approval to the extension on November 7.

By the end of the war, more than $50 billion in funds, weapons, aircraft, and ships had been distributed to 44 countries. After the war, the Lend-Lease program morphed into the Marshall Plan, which allocated funds for the revitalization of “friendly” democratic nations—even if they were former enemies.​
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
10/30/2022 8:22:29 AM
I heard that crates with "Gift of the United Nations" or some such was painted over before moving out of the ports. Never dug into that rabbit hole.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
10/30/2022 11:27:21 AM
Quote:
On this day in 1918, German sailors refused – for the first of five times – to go to sea to face the Royal Navy. I believe, in any western navy, a refusal to obey legitimate orders falls under the term “mutiny”.


IIRC, the order to sail against the RN was German Admiralty based, declared without reference to German civilian governing bodies. By the fifth refusal, the issue had spread both to the naval base at Kiel and to some unionized workers involved in naval support. In effect, the mutiny of German sailors meshed with civilian workers to undermine the pro-war faction of the German government, thereby weakening Germany’s ability to make war.


In the wake of the Versailles Treaty, both the Imperial Navy’s refusal to sail and the the link between navy refusal and labourers was considered to indicate one element of Bolshevik undermining of the Imperial war effort. Under Nazi rule, the German Navy was the least trusted and least supported of German armed forces.


Cheers,
Brian G

Hi Bri,

The refusal of the German Navy to fight the RN 5 times!? How can a countries navy get away with that?? Your right it IMHO is mutiny!!??

Any other comments on it?? Anyone?
Regards,
MD

Also today 10-30-95 Quebec almost breaks away from Canada!? How can this be? & A simple vote is a legal means to break.away?? Boy if it happened Canada would be fractured!??

Help me understand this??
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
10/30/2022 12:00:40 PM
Lend Lease provided great assistance to Great Britain. It did come after Britain's coffers had been stripped bare because of the US, "cash and carry" policy.

That meant gold transfers or pay in USD. Britain was broke before lend lease began.

Operation Fish was the operation that transferred Britain's gold reserves to Canada to protect it. £30 million in gold bullion was transferred. As well, £200 million in marketable securities arrived with the gold. And that was just the first shipment.

This would keep it out of the hands of Germany if the worst happened. It would also provide a ready source of funds should the "cash and carry" policy continue in the US.

By the summer of 1940, Churchill told FDR that it could not continue to pay on a cash and carry basis and he proposed a lend lease plan. And FDR eventually came up with his own plan.

In 1944, WSC and FDR met in Québec and began to discuss the post war economy. Churchill was already concerned because there had been a reduction in transfers of goods and armaments to Britain, even though the war was not over.

Some in the American military felt that too much was being transferred and there was pressure on FDR to wrap up L-L.

At Québec, Churchill explained that the UK was in big trouble financially and posed that Lend-Lease be extended beyond the end of the war to assist in Britain's recovery. He explained that Britain was in no position to take on a heavy loan burden.

American historian G.G. Herring explained that Churchill became quite emotional at this meeting and FDR did tell him that L-L would be extended. But he got a lot of push-back from some cabinet members and members of Congress. There were others in the cabinet that felt a moral obligation to assist Britain post war given that it was Britain and the Commonwealth that had continued the fight until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

FDR pulled back somewhat on the dollar amounts and quantities to be transferred but Phase II of L-L was still a go.

But FDR died before the details of the plan which included restrictions on British trade, could be finalized. And on VJ day, Pres. Harry Truman immediately cancelled L-L.

Britain was offered a loan and even though it was not in a position to take on this debt, really the UK had no choice.

Truman would later say that his cancellation of L-L was the worst thing that he could have done for Britain. The terms of the loan were adjusted later to allow Britain to carry it.

There is an older article that may be found in jstor titled, "The United States and British Bankruptcy, 1944-1945: Responsibilities Deferred".

[Read More]

It was written by the historian that I mention, George Herring, Jr. It provides an interesting view of the economics of war. It also explains that there were US politicians who were tired of helping Britain, suggesting that it was time that they stood on their own two feet. Others said that if any country deserved a hand up, it was Britain given the sacrifices made.


Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
10/30/2022 12:02:11 PM
double
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
10/30/2022 12:12:15 PM
Great Britain was still the richest country in the world by some measures, but she was cash short.

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/index.html is a fun read
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
10/30/2022 3:33:04 PM
"Lend Lease provided great assistance to Great Britain. It did come after Britain's coffers had been stripped bare because of the US, "cash and carry" policy."

Because of the conclusion of the Nye Committee, which asserted that United States involvement in World War I was driven by private interests from arms manufacturers, many Americans believed that investment in a belligerent would eventually lead to American participation in war. The first Neutrality Act was passed in August 1935. It was renewed in 1936 and later extended to May 1937. The Act forbade selling implements of war or lending money to belligerent countries under any terms. US passengers traveling on foreign ships were advised that they did so at their own risk.
The Neutrality Act of 1937 continued this policy, and in addition, forbade U.S. citizens from traveling on belligerent ships. However, belligerent countries could purchase non-military items provided they paid cash and the goods were not transported on American ships. (Raw materials such as oil were not considered "implements of war".) Roosevelt arranged the inclusion of the "cash and carry" clause "...as a deliberate way to assist Great Britain and France in any war against the Axis Powers, since he realized that they were the only countries that had both the hard currency and ships to make use of "cash-and-carry." The clause was set to expire after two years.

Page 33 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