MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 4 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
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/5/2022 8:24:53 PM
MD, re Quote:
back again to 1788 Hobbies take to London's streets! Were they the 1st actual police force!??
I assume a typo, and that you meant ‘bobbies’.

I doubt they were the first actual police force, though that is a claim often heard. I think they may have been the first publicly funded organization to provide police services to a specific geographical area, but that is a different thing.

Officially they were something like the Metropolitan Police Force. They are still referred to as “the Met”. But unofficially they were known both as “bobbies” and “peelers”. Both names derive from Sir Robert Peel, who was responsible for their creation. IIUC, Sir Robert is also behind another British expression, “Bob’s your uncle”, which I would translate as “easily done” or “no problem”.

Don’t know about “copper”, a British term that I believe might be distinct from the North American “cop”. Comments? Thoughts?

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
2/5/2022 9:57:14 PM
Quote:
Quote:
[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

Check 2-4, & 2-5, in history, for topics.?
Anything for discussion??
cheers,
MD

Other 2-4 events were!?

1194 King Richard I, $100,000 paid for Ransom paid! What's the story on how this predicament hsppened?? What say you? Anyone??

1787 Shays Rebellion! Any comments or websites on this event?? Anyone?

1789 George Washington becomes 1st US President! How was he elected? Comments?

1822 Free American Blacks form Liberia in West Africa! What's the history behind this?? Anyone?

1861 Jefferson Davis elected president of the Confederacy! Was he the best choice? Comments?

1932 Japanese force take Manchuria, why wasn't anyone concerned?? What say you??

1938 Hitler siezes the German Army, No stopping him now!? Anyone??

1941 British Tanks occupy Lybia, how will they fare against the Afrika Korps!? Comments?
Lots to discuss here!?

1991 Alex Trebek a Canadian? Becomes 1st person to host 3 game shows at once? Any more on this famous Canuck??

Here is 2-5, historical events! Comments??

1803 English Explorer, George Bass sets sail from Sydney Australia, to Tahiti, & S.America! & He is never seen again!? Does anyone have anything on this mystery!??

1864 the Union takes Jackson, MS. How did cutting the Confederacy in two, with control of the Mississippi hurt the South!? What say you?? Was the lack of a substantial navy really an achillies heel to the Confederates?? CW guys , any comments??

1885 the news on the fall of Khartoum reaches London! Who was responsible for this loss? How did the Empire respond!?

1900 the US & the UK sign a treaty over Panama Canal! How was the UK involved?? That's a surprise, anyone??

1904 the US gives Cuba back to the Cubans! See the US is not always imperialistic! Comments non believers!?

358 RAF bombers attack Stettin in 1944, how did this go over? At this point do the Allies for some part, control the skies!? What say you??

1945, Big 3 meet at Malta! Did WSC represent Canada, too?? Anyone?

1945 Douglas MacArthur returns to Manila! Why we he so criticized by some? Even called Dugout Doug! Why??

back again to 1788 "Bobbies", take to London's streets! Were they the 1st actual police force!??

Tons to discuss here! Anyone???
Cheers,
D


Right you are Brian, Like my last event. I ment "Bobbies"!? My Tablet prints what it thinks I mean!? Not what I actually type! If I don't proof read it, it could be ridiculous! Like "Hobbies" instead of Bobbies?? I hate that feature on my tablet!!!!!



Any new topics from 1-6 in history?? Comments on the above, or something else new??

----------------------------------
"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
2/6/2022 9:12:49 AM
d
----------------------------------
"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
2/6/2022 10:11:49 AM
Quote:
1900 the US & the UK sign a treaty over Panama Canal! How was the UK involved?? That's a surprise, anyone??


Just another signal that the UK was acknowledging its diminished influence in this hemisphere.

Building the Panama Canal had been the vision of both Americans and Europeans including the British. The UK and the US had a treaty from the mid 19th centurey that said that should the Panama Canal be built, it should not be controlled by a single nation. The British were trying to assure their right to trade through this future canal.

By 1900, it was clear that the US was the dominant power in the region and the US didn't like the restrictions imposed by the treaty that demanded consultation with the British over building a canal. Britain was ready to let go of its influence so long as the canal would be neutral territory, that is, open to everyone all of the time.

And so they signed a new treaty that gave the US carte blanche to build the canal as it saw fit and to have sole control over it. I do not know whether the Colombians and later the Panamanians had any say in the matter.

It is interesting to me anyway that the British seemed to be aware that its ability to influence affairs in North America was waning and that its economic interests were elsewhere. I note that it is also within this 1900 time period that the US was insistent that the Alaska/Canada boundary dispute be settled. President Roosevelt agreed to allow an international panel to determine where the line would be on the Alaskan panhandle and also indicated that if it didn't go the way that he wanted it, that he was prepared to send in the marines.

The US was supposed to have three representatives and Canada would have two plus a British representative because Canada had not yet negotiated with Britain for the right to control its own foreign affairs. All six of the representatives were supposed to be impartial but the US sent three proponents of US expansion in Elihu Root, Henry Cabot Lodge and George Turner. The Canadians sent two rather passive men and the British sent Lord Alverstone. And it was Lord Alverstone who sided with the Americans who all voted for the US version of the boundary line. Game, set match and Canada has no access to the ocean from the northern part of British Columbia or the Yukon Territory.

Some historians have written that Britain was more concerned with maintaining good relations and trade with the US than with helping Canada with what it felt was a minor land dispute.

So whether the Panama Canal or the Alaska Boundary, Britain was not willing to challenge US hegemony in North America.

Lastly, Canadians were absolutely livid at the Alaska Boundary decision but their anger was not directed at the US but at Great Britain. There had been signals since the War of 1812 that Britain expected Canada to assume greater responsibility for its economy and its defence. Britain was gradually pulling away and some British politicians openly expressed their belief that Canada would eventually become part of the US. The boundary dispute was a wake-up call for Canadians who had felt that their participation in the Boer War, and whose efforts were praised by the British military, would ensure British support in matters dealing with Canadian foreign affairs.

Pardon my digression but I see the Panama Canal issue and the boundary issue as part of a trend.

George

Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6510
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/6/2022 2:21:00 PM
February 6th 1952, death of King George VI and ascension of Elizabeth II to the throne of the UK .

Seventy years our Queen : she’s done a decent job, hasn’t she ?

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
2/6/2022 2:40:32 PM
Quote:
Quote:
1900 the US & the UK sign a treaty over Panama Canal! How was the UK involved?? That's a surprise, anyone??


Just another signal that the UK was acknowledging its diminished influence in this hemisphere.

Building the Panama Canal had been the vision of both Americans and Europeans including the British. The UK and the US had a treaty from the mid 19th centurey that said that should the Panama Canal be built, it should not be controlled by a single nation. The British were trying to assure their right to trade through this future canal.

By 1900, it was clear that the US was the dominant power in the region and the US didn't like the restrictions imposed by the treaty that demanded consultation with the British over building a canal. Britain was ready to let go of its influence so long as the canal would be neutral territory, that is, open to everyone all of the time.

And so they signed a new treaty that gave the US carte blanche to build the canal as it saw fit and to have sole control over it. I do not know whether the Colombians and later the Panamanians had any say in the matter.

It is interesting to me anyway that the British seemed to be aware that its ability to influence affairs in North America was waning and that its economic interests were elsewhere. I note that it is also within this 1900 time period that the US was insistent that the Alaska/Canada boundary dispute be settled. President Roosevelt agreed to allow an international panel to determine where the line would be on the Alaskan panhandle and also indicated that if it didn't go the way that he wanted it, that he was prepared to send in the marines.

The US was supposed to have three representatives and Canada would have two plus a British representative because Canada had not yet negotiated with Britain for the right to control its own foreign affairs. All six of the representatives were supposed to be impartial but the US sent three proponents of US expansion in Elihu Root, Henry Cabot Lodge and George Turner. The Canadians sent two rather passive men and the British sent Lord Alverstone. And it was Lord Alverstone who sided with the Americans who all voted for the US version of the boundary line. Game, set match and Canada has no access to the ocean from the northern part of British Columbia or the Yukon Territory.

Some historians have written that Britain was more concerned with maintaining good relations and trade with the US than with helping Canada with what it felt was a minor land dispute.

So whether the Panama Canal or the Alaska Boundary, Britain was not willing to challenge US hegemony in North America.

Lastly, Canadians were absolutely livid at the Alaska Boundary decision but their anger was not directed at the US but at Great Britain. There had been signals since the War of 1812 that Britain expected Canada to assume greater responsibility for its economy and its defence. Britain was gradually pulling away and some British politicians openly expressed their belief that Canada would eventually become part of the US. The boundary dispute was a wake-up call for Canadians who had felt that their participation in the Boer War, and whose efforts were praised by the British military, would ensure British support in matters dealing with Canadian foreign affairs.

Pardon my digression but I see the Panama Canal issue and the boundary issue as part of a trend.

George




George

I know when I look at the map of Canada, It's rather unusual that British Columbia's Central & Northern coast, or at least were they should be, come within a few Kilometers from the Pacific Ocean, & then the Alaskan border blocks them!? It looks unusual, & unfair!?

I.feel for you Canadians!
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
2/6/2022 3:33:41 PM
Quote:
George

I know when I look at the map of Canada, It's rather unusual that British Columbia's Central & Northern coast, or at least were they should be, come within a few Kilometers from the Pacific Ocean, & then the Alaskan border blocks them!? It looks unusual, & unfair!?

I.feel for you Canadians!
MD


When I look at the GB/Russia treaty that acknowledged the extent of Russian property, even I have to admit that the Canadian claims were weak. The debate was not that the panhandle had now become US property but the depth of penetration of the boundary into Canada; the width of the panhandle in other words. And unfortunately, the GB/Russia treaty was woefully weak on the measure. It made some reference to a line somewhere in the mountains. The US wanted as much of that as it could get. Canada wanted water access.

As well, Canada had asked the US to share in the costs of a survey of the area but the US wanted no part of that. It argued that a survey for "such a peripheral tract of land" would be too costly.

The US was pointing to Russian maps to make its claim. The problem was that the Russian maps claimed much more territory than they actually owned. The compromise was to agree to an independent panel to adjudicate.

Truthfully, Canada was looking for a direct land route from the Klondike gold fields to the sea and that probably would have seen Skagway become part of Canada. But the US had already flooded that part of Alaska that was in dispute with people and soldiers so Canada's point was moot.

We can see that the US claim was a little more inland which would deny Canada any control of the land on the panhandle. Canada wanted a line that provided ocean access. The final boundary was somewhere in the middle but still denied Canada an ocean port.



I am not sure why the US refused to compromise though I must say that a compromise had been worked out in 1898 but British Columbia and the US western states rejected it. I do not know that terms of the original compromise. US Pres. McKinley had also suggested that the US could lease a port to Canada but Canada rejected that.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
2/6/2022 3:34:42 PM
double
GaryNJ
Cumberland NJ USA
Posts: 254
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
2/6/2022 6:04:32 PM
George,

In The Alaska Frontier by Thomas Willing Balch there is a Hudson's Bay Company map of the Alaska panhandle presented to a House of Commons committee in 1857. Sir George Simpson of the Hudson's Bay Company told the committee: "There is a margin of coast, marked in yellow on the map, from 54° 40' up to Cross Sound, which we have rented from the Russian Company."

[Read More]

This is where the US claim comes from and not only from Russian maps.

Gary
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/6/2022 7:37:09 PM
MD, “1945, Big 3 meet at Malta! Did WSC represent Canada, too?? Anyone?”

Actually, they met at Yalta, in the Crimea. Stalin never liked to travel too far from Soviet territory. WSC probably felt he was representing every person under the Imperial Hat, but IMHO he should be seen as representing Great Britain. This was a meeting of the Big Three – USA, USSR, GB – not the Allies. They are not meeting about defeating Germany and Japan so much as dividing the world in ways that work best for each of the three remaining great powers. No France, e.g.

The last of the Big Three would be in Potsdam, running from 17 July to 2 August. The US would be represented by President Harry S Truman (FDR was dead), the USSR by Marshall Josef Stalin, and (from 18 July) PM Clement Attlee. Given the shift in leaders, it was pretty much game, set and match for Stalin. USSR took the Gold; the US took a close Silver; GB took a distant Bronze.

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/6/2022 9:05:20 PM
Quote:
February 6th 1952, death of King George VI and ascension of Elizabeth II to the throne of the UK .

Seventy years our Queen : she’s done a decent job, hasn’t she ?

Yes, Phil! Our Queen. That in itself says something, as does her 70-year commitment. For those in the US, she has been our queen through 14 presidencies, and has met with all but one of them (Lyndon Johnson) at least once.

And, yes, I would agree she’s done a decent job. Over 70 years, some highs and lows.

I think she and Phillip offered a youthful, fresh direction to the monarchy in the post-war years; it was almost as if the end of the Age of Austerity and the coronation of a new Queen were twin signals for the future. But I think by the mid-sixties much of the original polish had rubbed off; we started seeing too many shots of her in head scarves and Wellies, walking her dogs and pushing prams (she gave birth to Andrew in 1960, and Edward in 1964). That was a time, at least in Canada, when comments about “Liz” and “Phil the Greek” started to appear.

Then came “Annus Horribilis”, which at least made the Royal Family real in new and all-too-normal ways. And while Elizabeth’s response to that may have showed her guts and moxie, I believe it was the elephant in the room – the unhappy and adulterous marriage between Charles and Diana – and the response to Diana’s death that ultimately saved the Queen from being forsaken by her followers. That, and William and Harry.

I’m concerned, to be honest, about seeing Charles crowned as king. I’m concerned in different ways about Camilla Parker-Bowles becoming Queen Regent. IMHO, hers is officially a morganatic marriage. If this comment by Elizabeth is something Charles is demanding, it’s one more indication of my concerns about his suitability to wear the crown.

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
2/6/2022 9:22:04 PM
Quote:
George,

In The Alaska Frontier by Thomas Willing Balch there is a Hudson's Bay Company map of the Alaska panhandle presented to a House of Commons committee in 1857. Sir George Simpson of the Hudson's Bay Company told the committee: "There is a margin of coast, marked in yellow on the map, from 54° 40' up to Cross Sound, which we have rented from the Russian Company."

[Read More]

This is where the US claim comes from and not only from Russian maps.

Gary



Thank you for that map Gary. Maps aside though, I was under the impression that the US and Britain/Canada interpreted a couple of articles of the 1825 treaty between Russian and Great Britain.

Quote:
III. The line of demarcation between the Possessions of the High Contracting Parties, upon the Coast of the Continent, and the Islands of America to the North-West, shall be drawn in the following manner:-
Commencing from the Southern-most Point of the Island called Prince of Wales Island, which Point lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes, North Latitude, and between the 131st and 133d Degree of West Longitude (Meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the North along the Channel called Portland Channel, as far as the Point of the Continent where it strikes the 56th Degree of North Latitude; from this last mentioned Point the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the Coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st Degree of West Longitude (of the same Meridian); and, finally, from the said point of intersection, the said Meridian Line of the 141st Degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and British Possessions on the Continent of America to the North West.

IV. With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article it is understood;
1st. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia.
2d. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel to the Coast, from the 56th degree of north Latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of West Longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than ten marine leagues from the Ocean, the limit between the British Possess- ions and the line of Coast which is to belong to Russia, as above-mentioned, shall be formed by a line parallel to the windings of the Coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom.


The two articles are confusing. But the "54' 40" line of latitude was never in dispute. It was the method in which the coastline should be drawn that was disputed in Canada/Britain. The width of the panhandle was never supposed to be more than 10 leagues at any point and so if one of the mountain peaks was greater than 10 leagues from the coast, then a line parallel to the windings of the coast was to be drawn.

The coastline is not straight of course and Canada felt that the initial measurement should not have been taken from the farthest point inland on the deepest fjord.

EDIT: What the heck is a "nautical league" anyway?

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
2/7/2022 9:14:13 AM
Quote:
[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

3 perpetual sites, check for topics.?
cheers,
MD

Brian,
I can't believe it, again my stupid IPad changed my word from Yalta to Malta! Every elementary kid knows Big 3 meet at Yalta! boy FDR, & WSC looked on their last leg, in the famous picture!?

Moving on to 2-7, in history;

1783 the Great seige of Gibraltar, Spain & France try to take the rock but can't! How did England get this area? What made it so impregnable?? I believe even Hitler couldn't take it!? Comments on Gibraltar's history! Anyone??

1845 A priceless 2,000 year old vase was shattered into 80 pieces by a drunk at the British museum! take a look at how well it was fixed in the picture in the 1st read more! How did they do it! Any one??

1862 & again in 1864, the Union Navy takes coastal areas of the Confederacy! The South's Coast was pretty much at the mercy of the Union Navy! What say you??

1904 Baltimore catches fire, 1,500 buildings destroyed in 80 blocks! What was your area's cities worst fire!? Why were they so destructive??

1946 Filibuster kills major bill in the Senate! Isn't this practice non productive! Should it be done away with!?? What say you??

1850 Sen. Joe McCarthy involved in Red Scare! Was he nuts? What was this all about? Anyone??

1859 Castro proclaimed new Cuba, 3 years later Kennedy is blockading it! What happened? Anyone??

1879 Sanford Fleming proposes Universal Time in Canada! What does that mean? How is Canadian time laid out?? What say you? Is it in time zones like the US??

Again lots of topics?
Any others??
Cheers!
MD

BTW you might wonder why I have time for morning posts despite being on a sub tropical island!? Well it has also been cold & rainy even here! & my wife likes to sleep in! So bad yesterday I even passed on free museum day in Savannah, GA.!?

----------------------------------
"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
2/7/2022 11:34:14 AM
1879 Sanford Fleming proposes Universal Time in Canada! What does that mean? How is Canadian time laid out?? What say you? Is it in time zones like the US??

Sandford Fleming was a Scot who emigrated to Canada as a teenager. He came to Canada in 1845 which was before Confederation of course. At home in Scotland, and at the tender age of 17 he had already been involved in the survey of rail lines.

He took a few years to prosper in Canada but he did well:

1. Fleming did the survey and plans for the Inter-Colonial Railroad

2. He became the first director of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and he supervised the completion of the CPR transcontinental line. Here he is, the man in the tall hat, watching the last spike being driven in 1885.




Telegraph communication was being installed along with the rail lines and Fleming realized that people were crisscrossing the continent and the other continents at greater speed than ever. They were sending messages across the country too. The world was becoming faster and more interconnected.

Fleming "time zone" concept was borne out of his frustration with running a railroad and drawing up timetables with departure and arrival times. Every town in Canada had been creating a local time zone base on the solar noon. That meant that Toronto and Montréal for example were noting the noon our but not at the same time. 12 noon in Montréal would be 11:35 AM in Toronto.

So he came up with Universal Standard Time and he divided the world into 24 time zones. 24 hours in the day, so 24 zones.





So Fleming travelled the world and lobbied his fellow sciences to consider his proposal. One of them was an American named Abbe and together they lobbied the US President to get on board. So the world convened in Washington in 1884 and agreed that UST was a valuable concept and it came into effect on Jan. 1, 1885.

Most of this information I gleaned from Canadian Geographic.

Cheers,

George




Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
2/7/2022 12:29:31 PM
Quote:
MD, re Quote:
back again to 1788 Hobbies take to London's streets! Were they the 1st actual police force!??
I assume a typo, and that you meant ‘bobbies’.

I doubt they were the first actual police force, though that is a claim often heard. I think they may have been the first publicly funded organization to provide police services to a specific geographical area, but that is a different thing.

Officially they were something like the Metropolitan Police Force. They are still referred to as “the Met”. But unofficially they were known both as “bobbies” and “peelers”. Both names derive from Sir Robert Peel, who was responsible for their creation. IIUC, Sir Robert is also behind another British expression, “Bob’s your uncle”, which I would translate as “easily done” or “no problem”.

Don’t know about “copper”, a British term that I believe might be distinct from the North American “cop”. Comments? Thoughts?

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G


Hi Brian and Dave,

As an aside, the first constabulary in Glasgow were initially issued with cutlasses, such was the fear of the armed criminal gangs in Calton, then a peripheral but wild area of the east of Glasgow. It's much calmer now, I assure you!

Some might also argue the Roman Urban Cohorts were the first truly standing police force in European history.

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."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
2/8/2022 3:37:16 PM
Quote:
Quote:
[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

3 perpetual sites, check for topics.?
cheers,
MD

Hi Ya'll,

Moving on to 2-7, in history; also check 2-8 In history! New topics anyone??

1783 the Great seige of Gibraltar, Spain & France try to take the rock but can't! How did England get this area? What made it so impregnable?? I believe even Hitler couldn't take it!? Comments on Gibraltar's history! Anyone??

1845 A priceless 2,000 year old vase was shattered into 80 pieces by a drunk at the British museum! take a look at how well it was fixed in the picture in the 1st read more! How did they do it! Any one??

1862 & again in 1864, the Union Navy takes coastal areas of the Confederacy! The South's Coast was pretty much at the mercy of the Union Navy! What say you??

1904 Baltimore catches fire, 1,500 buildings destroyed in 80 blocks! What was your area's cities worst fire!? Why were they so destructive??

1946 Filibuster kills major bill in the Senate! Isn't this practice non productive! Should it be done away with!?? What say you??

1850 Sen. Joe McCarthy involved in Red Scare! Was he nuts? What was this all about? Anyone??

1859 Castro proclaimed new Cuba, 3 years later Kennedy is blockading it! What happened? Anyone??

1879 Sanford Fleming proposes Universal Time in Canada! I notice the Canadian Timezones match up.with the US ones! Comments??

Again lots of topics?
Any other new ones??
Cheers!
MD




d
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/8/2022 8:02:11 PM
Don’t mean to flog a dead horse, but there was brief mention concerning Elizabeth’s 70 years on the throne: Quote:
February 6th 1952, death of King George VI and ascension of Elizabeth II to the throne of the UK .

Seventy years our Queen : she’s done a decent job, hasn’t she ?

I had a beer with a buddy today who actually attended a lunch in honour of Elizabeth’s accession on 6 Feb. Some interesting people were part of the group, including MPs, ex-Cabinet Ministers and retired senior military officers. These are just a bunch of old friends, but there was a formal toast to the Queen, so they were taking themselves pretty seriously on this occasion.

Much of the discussion centred on two issues: the prospect of Charles as king, and the strength and value of the monarch as titular head of the Church of England. And mixing the two issues, of course – whether Camilla Duchess of Cornwall should be recognized as Queen Consort when Charles takes the throne. Charles is not a popular figure in my part of Canada; nor is Camilla. The two issues are linked, of course, because Camilla was a divorcee, and under Church of England law while divorce is possible, remarriage of a divorcee is not. This is an issue that led to Edward VIII’s abdication in 1937, and that kept Princess Margaret (Elizabeth’s younger sister) from marrying Peter Townsend in 1955, so while it’s not a major issue it is a recurring one.

As I say, flogging a dead horse. But I was surprised to find active , at least semi-formal interest in matters royal in BC, and astounded that such issues became the topics over the port!

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G

----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/8/2022 8:17:51 PM
Does anyone on MHO care that on this date Mary, Queen of Scots, was beheaded on the order of Elizabeth I. Or that her behaviour was remarked on as strong and dignified?

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6510
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/9/2022 3:05:50 AM
Quote:
Does anyone on MHO care that on this date Mary, Queen of Scots, was beheaded on the order of Elizabeth I. Or that her behaviour was remarked on as strong and dignified?

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G



Good call, Brian !

The poor woman underwent a gruesome ordeal, the executioner botching the job and Lord knows what she must have suffered.

I reflect on the peril that wearing a crown entailed in those days : the fact that Mary’s grandfather, James IV, was killed by the English in battle at Flodden, and that her grandson, Charles I of England, also went to the executioner’s block, is a startling thing to contemplate . The Stewart line was Scottish, and while Mary’s son, James, became an architect of the United Kingdom when he became James 1 of England, the story of the Stewart dynasty is replete with Anglo Scottish conflict .

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
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
2/9/2022 5:17:04 AM
The Stewarts (later, Stuarts) had a long and powerful influence over the politics of the British Isles. Their name is taken from 'steward', as their ancestors had been High Stewards of Scotland all the way back to Walter Fitz Alan in the 12th century.

As for Mary, she showed nothing but contempt for her Scottish subjects. Raised in France, she spoke fairly poor English and no Scots; her primary interest was expanding her holdings and that meant getting hold of the English crown to restore the 'true' Catholic faith. You'll not find much love for Mary up here. Whilst the evidence against her was (and is) subject to debate, I think Elizabeth needed Mary out of the way to avoid a full-blown Catholic insurgency, as Mary was proving to be a powerful figurehead for her opponents at home and abroad.

You only have to see the actions of her son James once he became the king of both kingdoms to see how Mary would have acted; he went to London and rarely came back to Scotland. Scotland was a backwater in the power struggles of Europe. The Stewarts were power players and they knew where the real action was; the Reformation greatly expanded the scope of their ambitions. Even the noted failure Charles, the 'Young Pretender', wasted little time in getting to England during the 1745 rebellion, when some astute politics and negotiations could well have seen Scotland's independence restored and a kingdom given to his father. Like many of his ancestors, he simply wasn't interested in the runner's up prize.

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."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6510
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/9/2022 5:47:36 AM
Thanks, Colin : your insight here is appreciated.

I still think that Alec Guinness gave one of the best screen depictions I’ve ever seen when he portrayed Charles 1 in that old film about Oliver Cromwell !

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
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
2/9/2022 8:12:45 AM
Hi Phil,

I enjoyed that film, although having proud Irishman Richard Harris depict Cromwell (of all people) was a shocker for me. Alec Guinness was always great value.

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."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
2/9/2022 8:48:24 AM
Quote:
Quote:
[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

3 perpetual sites, check 2-9, in history, for topics.?
Anything for discussion??
cheers,
MD

Guys,

Welcome to 2-9 in history!

1674 the English take New York from the Dutch! What if the Dutch had held out & been players in America! Would that have changed the Colonial War??

1861 Jefferson Davis declared President of the Confederacy! A job he didn't want! Was he the best choice! Comments??

1916 Great Britain Institutes a draft for WWI, did this include all the Commonwealthers?? What say you??

1943 the Japanese evacuate Guadalcanal, for the 1st time Japanese Forces are defeated! Comment on this great victories importance! Anyone??

1944 2 U boats U74 & U238, sank off Ireland!? How did the RN do it? What say you??

1971 Apollo 14 returns to Earth! Why did NSAA stop Moon Missions?? Anyone?

Any other new topics?
Regards,
D

BTW Great discussion on Mary Queen of Scots Execution, & It's significance! By all.means continue!?


----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
2/9/2022 10:00:54 AM
Quote:


1916 Great Britain Institutes a draft for WWI, did this include all the Commonwealthers?? What say you??



Hi Dave,

Conscription 'at home' didn't extend beyond Great Britain (i.e. England, Scotland and Wales), as Ireland was exempt due to ongoing civil strife. Australia resisted conscription, as did South Africa and India. Canada brought it in in 1917 to limited effect, whilst New Zealand introduced it in 1916.

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
2/9/2022 3:49:34 PM
Quote:
1916 Great Britain Institutes a draft for WWI, did this include all the Commonwealthers?? What say you??


The "white Dominions" had greater autonomy than other colonies and so Canada, Australia and New Zealand could take different paths when it came to their commitment to war. We often say that in the early part of the 20th century that, "when Britain was at war, the Empire was at war." There is truth to that but the extent to which these Dominions involved themselves was within their purview.

It is difficult to explain the relationship between former colonies and Britain. The Dominions saw themselves as independent and different from Britain but also thrilled to be part of the great Empire. To be a proud Canadian and a proud imperialist were not seen to be concepts opposed to one another or conflicting. In fact I can say that for Canada, with a land hungry neighbour to the south, the affiliation with the Empire was seen as the means to ensure independence.

And so Australia for example never introduced conscription. All were volunteers. But the PM of the day did introduce on two occasions, in 1916 and 1917, referenda essentially asking the people whether they wanted conscription. On both occasions the people said no.

New Zealand introduced a conscription bill in Parliament in 1916 and called up 134,000 men. I think that 20% of all the New Zealanders who entered the services were conscripts but I do not know how many actually got to France.

For these Dominions that entered the war in 1914 to great fanfare, there was tremendous shock at the losses taken. It wasn't long before it became apparent that volunteers would not be sufficient to replace those who were lost. This was a bloody war as we know with casualty lists in battles that were unfathomable.


The Dominion of Canada was no different. It had taken tremendous losses and the army sought replacements and felt that conscription would be necessary. But Canada may be a little different than the other two Dominions in that it was formed from two founding cultures, French and English.

The rate of volunteerism was very high in 1914 but 70% of the volunteers were either recently arrived from Britain or they had arrived as children. Canadian born men did volunteer too but this was a country of immigrants and mostly from England. The French-Canadians who had been conquered by the British could not understand this need to send men to die in a European war and they despised imperialism. They had been victims of imperial policy and many did not wish to support it.

Note that the Quebeckers had turned their backs on Europe and France when France failed to support them during the conquest. And so they were greatly opposed to conscription. But it was not only the French speaking who were opposed. It is just that nearly 30% of the population were French-Canadians with most of them living in one province, Québec.

From 1914 to 1915 over 330,000 had volunteered out of a population of just under 8 million.

As with the other Dominions and Britain, soldiers were being injured and killed at a great rate and the ability to reinforce was of concern.

PM Robert Borden went to the Imperial War Conference in London, in May of 1917 and then he went to France to visit the trenches. He could see that more soldiers were needed and I must remind all that the slaughter of the Battle of Passchendaele had not yet occurred.

Our PM visiting the wounded in a hospital in France



Politically and because of the great division between those who wanted conscription, the Anglophones and those who did not, the Francophones, it was going to be difficult to ram through a conscription bill. So fearful of being defeated by the Liberals if he pushed conscription without their support, he offered to form a Union government with the old warhorse Laurier and offered him an equal number of seats in Parliament if they agreed to support conscription in a coalition. Laurier turned that down because while French-Canadian he was also a Canadian nationalist and he felt that by lending support to conscription, he would lose all support in Québec and contribute to the rise of separatism.

So PM Borden's Conservatives passed the Military Service Act in Aug. of 1917. Nearly all the French speaking MP's in Parliament opposed it but most of the MP's from English speaking ridings support it. The divide was clear.

Borden cobbled together a coalition to run in the 1917 election without the Liberals and conscription was the number one item of discussion. Borden's Union government took 153 seats and only 3 were in Québec. The Liberals under Laurier took 82 seats and 62 of those were in Québec. Governing Canada is difficult because of the original cultural make-up of the country and because of geography.

Conscription began in Jan. of 1918. Many men not just Quebeckers headed for the back woods.

401, 882 men were registered for conscription. Of those only 124,588 entered the army and of those only 24,132 made it to France.

Conscription nearly tore this country apart. Québec was clearly angered by what it considered a betrayal. They had been told that there would be no conscription. Farmers across the country were especially angered because conscription took away sons who were their farm workers.

The anger led to the Conscription Riots during Easter of 1918 that took place in Quebec City. Martial law was declared and thousands of troops were sent to quell the riots. These troops were shot at and had bricks and all sorts of things thrown at them. There were over 150 casualties and the soldiers killed four civilians.

Quote:
Some 619,636 Canadians enlisted with the Canadian Expeditionary Force during the war, and approximately 424,000 served overseas. Of these men and women, 59,544 members of the CEF died during the war, 51,748 of them as a result of enemy action. The small Royal Canadian Navy reported 150 deaths from all causes. No accurate tabulation exists for Canadians who served as volunteers in the Royal Navy or British Army. An additional 1,388 Canadians died while serving with the British Flying Services.
. source: Canadian War Museum

So after all the hand wringing and domestic violence resulting from the conscription crisis, only 24,000 conscripts got to the front.

I can tell you that Canada went through a similar conscription crisis during WWII with the government very much afraid of recreating the riots and divisions in the country that had occurred only 20 years before. And once again, when it was finally done, very few of the conscripted men got into action.

In both wars, the Canadians were very proud of their near 100% volunteer status. Note that the few conscripts that got into action were in the army only. The navy and those who flew were all volunteers.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
2/9/2022 4:36:57 PM
Quote:
1944 2 U boats U74 & U238, sank off Ireland!? How did the RN do it? What say you??


Well I had to look this up but it seems that U-74 was sunk in the Mediterranean in May of 1942, off the coast of Spain. Two British destroyers used depth charges in the attack.

U-238 was sunk by three British ships and again by depth charges on Feb. 9, 1944.

According to uboat.net, 264 u-boats were destroyed by ships while 250 were destroyed by airplane.

Another 37 were destroyed by ships and aircraft working together.

If I am reading the chart correctly, 393 were scuttled at the end of the war. Many of those were in defiance of Doenitz's change of order to not scuttle the boats.

I hope that the data on uboat.net is accurate. The site notes that its figures may not be the same as from other sources.

[Read More]

Cheers,

George
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6510
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/9/2022 4:52:21 PM
George,

The number of Canadian deaths in the flying services 1914-18 is disproportionately high : by that, I mean that it's a higher figure than the British equivalent, in terms of its ratio to army deaths.. Did Canadians have a particular penchant for enlisting in the air force ? Perhaps it appealed to the more adventurous, and this, along with a flair for technology, might account for a relatively high Canadian focus. It certainly applies to the Second World War, judging by the number of Canadians who died in Bomber Command.

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
2/9/2022 9:38:20 PM
Quote:
George,

The number of Canadian deaths in the flying services 1914-18 is disproportionately high : by that, I mean that it's a higher figure than the British equivalent, in terms of its ratio to army deaths.. Did Canadians have a particular penchant for enlisting in the air force ? Perhaps it appealed to the more adventurous, and this, along with a flair for technology, might account for a relatively high Canadian focus. It certainly applies to the Second World War, judging by the number of Canadians who died in Bomber Command.

Regards, Phil


Hi Phil,

I think that the fact that Britain felt that Canada was a safer place to train air crew in both wars contributed to the great number of Canadians who flew in the precursors (RFC, RNAS) to the RAF in WW I and in the RAF, RCAF and FAA in WW II.

In 1917, the Royal Flying Corps set up a training programme in Canada. There were six training fields in my province of Ontario and Canadians were recruited. Note that in the winter there were concerns that flying instruction would be compromised so training was transferred to the US (Texas, I believe) where there are cemeteries that contain the remains of some fliers that died in training.

According to the Canadian War Museum, 22,000 Canadians served in the RFC (later RAF) during the war and by November of 1918, 25% of RAF officers were Canadian. I had thought that about 5,000 Canadians were pilots so I do not know how the 22,000 factors into the scheme. Many air mechanics were also produced as part of the programme.

We also know that many Canadian army men, disenchanted with trench life and enthralled with the romance of flight, transferred into the RFC during the war. Men were making that transfer as early as 1914. Billy Barker was one of top "British" pilots of the war and he had served as a machine gunner in the Ypres salient in 1915.

One historian, S.F. Wise described the British training programme based in Canada in WW1 as the “the single most powerful influence in bringing the air age to Canada”.d

[Read More]

Cheers,

George





Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/9/2022 10:29:52 PM
George, you note: Quote:
According to the Canadian War Museum, 22,000 Canadians served in the RFC (later RAF) during the war and by November of 1918, 25% of RAF officers were Canadian. I had thought that about 5,000 Canadians were pilots so I do not know how the 22,000 factors into the scheme. Many air mechanics were also produced as part of the programme.

Just messing with your comment, I note that “by November of 1918, 25% of RAF officers [my bolding] were Canadian.” Is that significant? Was it necessary to be an officer in order to be a pilot? Was it easier for an officer in the CEF to transfer to the RFC than for an OR? You also mention air mechanics”; may I ask if you mean “mechanics” in a very broad sense. IIUC, much of the work needed on combat a/c was not what we would normally thing of as “mechanical”. Fitters, trimmers, “truers” and the like worked with cloth and wood and wire rather than engines or armaments.

Just mulling your numbers in my mind… .

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G

On a different subject, I have found «uboat.net» to be an excellent and accurate source. Occasionally there are minor conflicts between «uboat.net» and other equally reliable sources, but the discrepancies are typically minor in nature and at least some of the time capable of being sorted out (e.g., was the cause of sinking of a steamer a result of two torpedos or one torpedo and a boiler exploding?)

I can’t give them a 100% rating because of such nit picks, but I would be hesitant to challenge their numbers without very good cause. Minor issues apart, I’d give them a “10”!
B
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6510
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/10/2022 3:57:39 AM
George,

Thanks for weighing in with such useful info.

Putting my interpretation to a very rough arithmetical test, it seems that in the UK forces, 1914-18, one hundred soldiers died for every airman ; in Canadian forces, it looks like fifty soldiers for every airman. Enough of a disparity to invite speculation. You’ve certainly helped me understand this phenomenon .


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
MikeMeech
 UK
Posts: 528
Joined: 2012
This day in World History! Continued
2/10/2022 6:45:23 AM
Quote:
George,

Thanks for weighing in with such useful info.

Putting my interpretation to a very rough arithmetical test, it seems that in the UK forces, 1914-18, one hundred soldiers died for every airman ; in Canadian forces, it looks like fifty soldiers for every airman. Enough of a disparity to invite speculation. You’ve certainly helped me understand this phenomenon .


Regards, Phil


Hi

'Airmen Died in the Great War 1914-1918 - The Roll of Honour of the British and Commonwealth Air Services' includes all ranks, all causes for men and women that died during the Great War, a total of 9,350, while serving in the 'Air Services', which is available on a DVD-ROM from the Naval & Military Press. This is searchable, so those who put their residence or origin as Canada we have a total of 904 dead of whom 666 were pilots. For Australia this is 270/183, South Africa 173/135 and NZ as 63/45.
'Aviation in Canada 1917-18' by Alan Sullivan, Toronto 1919 (which should be available on line) has details of air crew output of the RFC/RAF training system in Canada, this started to produce 'trained' pilots in June 1917, but the majority were trained during 1918. The totals stated are Pilots Completed Training - 3,135, of whom Pilots sent Overseas - 2,539, Pilots Retained as Instructors - 356, Pilots Retained in Canada due to signing of Armistice - 240. On Observers, who only started to complete training from August 1918, the figures are Observers Completed Training - 137, Observers Sent Overseas - 85, Observers retained due to Armistice - 52. Do note that being sent 'Overseas' did not mean going into combat, generally, that arrived in the UK to complete more advanced training on operational aircraft and operational methods, those trained in the latter part of 1918 were probably still in the UK training system when the Armistice was signed.

Mike
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6510
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/10/2022 8:21:33 AM
Superb and timely contribution, Mike, thanks !

Looks like my rough and ready assessment is not too far out : 9,350 air services deaths from all causes 1914-18. with rather under 8,000 from the UK. With UK army deaths being in the order of 705,000, my hundred to one soldier to airman deaths passes muster.

Airman of course being a loose term : mechanics etc included. I wonder if the higher figure for Canadians that George cites for the air services extends to the post war years until 1921 and includes deaths from illness.

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
2/10/2022 9:31:34 AM
Phil, I am trying to find more data on the Canadian experience but the Canadian War Museum seems to have a good deal to say on the matter of Canadian aircrew in WW1.

On the link that I have included below, the war museum says:

Quote:
Canada did not have its own air force until the final months of the war, but 22,812 Canadians served with the British flying services and another 13,160 served as aircrew.


So now I am more confused.

[Read More]

And from another source: The Canadian Encyclopaedia

These figures seem to include only those men who trained in the programme. I presume that other Canadians found other routes to the RFC and RNAS.

Quote:
Over the course of the war, nearly 16,000 men passed through the RFC/RAF Canada Recruit Depot(s). By November 1918, the program had graduated more than 3,100 pilots and observers, and another 7,400 mechanics and aircraftsmen.


[Read More]



You will have noted the difficulty that the Canadians had in answering, "who is a Canadian?" There were so many immigrants from Great Britain and other places that it was difficult to attribute citizenship. And beside that, there was no Canadian citizenship officially until 1947.

As well, a British Recruiting Mission was established in Washington, ostensibly to recruit British ex-pats and to encourage them to enlist in the RFC. In actual fact, the mission was after Americans and it was a delicate balancing act as the US was neutral. But the British and the Canadians had no qualms about enlisting Americans if they could make their way to Canada. The American government for its part seemed to turn a blind eye even though the British had given written assurance that they would not recruit Americans. (source: S.F. Wise)

For those who may be interested I have included as well, "Canadian Airmen and the First World War: The Official History of the Royal Canadian Air Force" by the historian S.F. Wise.

The section about the British training programme in Canada begins on page 76. Just click on that section from the menu.

[Read More]

Cheers,

George




Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
2/11/2022 9:23:05 AM
Quote:
[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

3 perpetual sites, check for topics on 2-11, in history? For example?

1543 King Henry VIII signs Anti French Covenant! Why did the English always hate the French!?? Can anyone explain it??

1766-1768 Colonists like Sam Adams stir up anti British imposed tax feelings! We're their good reasons for this?? What say you?

1814 Norway's independence proclaimed! How did this come about? Kai? Or anyone??

1861 Lincoln takes a train through Baltimore, why did he have to fear for his life? Even then? How did he get safely to DC?? What say you?

1861 US Congress passes resolution to not interfere with Slavery in any state!? So why didn't the Confederacy say lets not fight, this is good enough?? Yet they continued the Civil War?? To bad they would have saved a lot of lives!?
Comments anyone??

1916 Germany notifies the US they it will sink its ships! Why? & how did the Americans respond? I take it they were already sinking Canadian ships? Comments??

1941 the Desert Fox arrives in N. Africa, his Panzers move quickly forward! What factors cause him to falter, & lose favor with Hitler?? Anyone??

1945 Eisenhower picked as Supreme Allied Commander over Monty The Brit. wasn't happy!?
Did he have a beef?? Any Monty fans out there??

1946 Operation Dead light ends when 116 of 156 Uboats scuttled! WWII is over? So What's up with this? I never knew it? Can anyone explain it???

1975 Margaret Thatcher defeats Mr. Heath as UK's PM.! Later she leads the UK to victory in the Falklands!? Was she a great leader?? Help us out here? Anyone??

Again plenty to discuss!
What say you??
Cheers,
MD



cheers,
MD

----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
2/11/2022 10:22:30 AM
Quote:


1975 Margaret Thatcher defeats Mr. Heath as UK's PM.! Later she leads the UK to victory in the Falklands!? Was she a great leader?? Help us out here? Anyone??

MD


Hi Dave,

Point of order - Thatcher beat Heath to become Conservative Party leader. She wouldn't become PM until 1979 when the Tories squashed Labour at the general election. Her legacy remains contentious, particularly in my part of the world.

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."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6510
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
2/11/2022 12:10:01 PM
Thatcher's victory in 1979 was aided by the votes of many trade union members who were traditionally enemies of the Conservative Party. A similar thing happened at the end of 2019 when millions of " Red Wall "voters - traditional, even tribal, Labour supporters - voted for Boris Johnson and sustained a Conservative government.

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
scoucer
Berlin  Germany
Posts: 3271
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
2/11/2022 3:29:08 PM
Quote:


Don’t know about “copper”, a British term that I believe might be distinct from the North American “cop”. Comments? Thoughts?

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G


I think it comes from the slang "to cop" which means "to catch".

Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
2/11/2022 5:14:38 PM
Quote:
1916 Germany notifies the US they it will sink its ships! Why? & how did the Americans respond? I take it they were already sinking Canadian ships? Comments??


The war began in 1914 and in February of 1915, Germany announced unrestricted submarine warfare. It declared the sea around Great Britain to be a war zone and u-boats began to attack merchant shipping. That is how the Lusitania was sunk with about 1200 lives lost including 138 Americans.

The neutral US protested to Germany and said that diplomatic relations would be damaged if US registered ships were attacked.

So it seems to me that sometime in 1916, Germany cancelled its unrestricted submarine warfare policy and it was not reinstated until 1917. The RN had blockaded German ports and so Germany determined to cut off supplies to Britain by destroying the vessels carrying the goods.

Those attacks created a desperate situation for Great Britain as over 1000 merchant ships went down up until convoy service was established. But that was in May of 1917 and it was very effective. The US had only entered the war in April of 1917 and it was necessary to ensure that goods and soldiers were delivered safely.

German u-boats did attack off the east coast of Canada in the summer of 1918. Canada's tiny little navy had little success in stopping the attacks.

EDIT: Initially the British Admiralty told Canada not to worry about mounting a naval presence. Later they told Canada to prepare for u-boat attacks. A couple of u-boats operating off the east coast did sink a number of ships but they were mostly fishing trawlers and that did not impact the shipment of goods to GB.

Canada had a small merchant navy that was transporting some goods to Britain in 1914 but it was not a co-ordinated effort. It wasn't until 1918 that the informal merchant fleet was renamed the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. So Canada had few ships but plenty of sailors were working on British registered vessels.



Cheers,

George

George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
2/11/2022 5:34:09 PM
Quote:
1945 Eisenhower picked as Supreme Allied Commander over Monty The Brit. wasn't happy!?
Did he have a beef?? Any Monty fans out there??


Montgomery was a true fighting general. Eisenhower was not I don't believe. Certainly Monty didn't think so. But he was wonderful at soothing the egos of all of the fighting generals and his diplomatic manner was critical in ensuring the success of the allied armies. He managed this war effectively.

I just finished reading, "Monty and the Canadian Army" by John A. English. The author was quick to point out Monty's faults but also to show just how well prepared and creative this soldier was. He was a true student of warfare right up to the nuclear age and he influenced the growth and training of the Canadian army. English called him the "Godfather of the Canadian Army".

Unfortunately, he is remembered in some quarters only for some unfortunate remarks at the end of the Battle of the Bulge. What is not often acknowledged is that Monty did step in by request to put some order to the response. He was given temporary command of all British and American forces to the north of the bulge in the line. Monty's deployment of reserves to stop the Germans at the Meuse River was critically important.

So yeah, count me as a Monty fan. He was unbearable at times but an excellent soldier.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
2/12/2022 7:53:27 AM
Quote:
[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

3 perpetual sites, check for todays topics.?
cheers,
MD

2-12 in history, Like in 1554, Lady Jane Grey is executed of treason after only 9 days as Queen! What's up with that!?? Comments anyone?

1733 Georgia founded in Savannah, by James Oglethorpe! Hey I'm there, this week! Awesome historical town!!

1777 Captain James Cook arrives in New Zealand! I believe he losses some of his crew to cannibals? Anyone??

1870 last day allowed for US silver coins to circulate in Canada! why? What say you??

BTW, Later I had a scheme, where I would take Canadian coins and circulate them in the US for full US exchange value, by mixing them with US coins! No one notices coins, & I was able to pull it off! Just a kid back then I felt quite the genius!?? ☺

1873 the US goes on the Gold standard! No inflation with that??

1879 the British are annillated in the Battle of Isandlwana to the Zulus! The news reaches London! What commander was responsible for this fiasco?? Comments on this! Anyone??

Got to go heading to the great city of Charleston, sc.! Historically speaking sadly, much of it's wealth, built by the efforts of enslaved people?! Comments anyone??

See ya later!
MD




----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Page 4 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