MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 53 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
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
1/19/2023 8:17:33 PM
Again 1-19 in history,

1861 Georgia secedes from the Union, why did the Confederate States break away one at a time? Instead of altogether? Anyone??

1942 Japanese forces invade Burma, why didn't the UK Commonwealth forces successfully reply?? I heard Japanese forces used bike?? What say you?

1958 The CFL is officially named the Canadian Football League! But how far do they really go back? Anyone??

1978 the last VW Beetle is made at Germany's Volkswagen plant. Do they still make them today? Any stories on VW's you owned or road in??

Is it true that there's a bridge tunnel from Denmark to Sweden?? Most US people did not know this??

New topics or events? Anyone??

[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

3 perpetual sites, check for topics.? Any new topics?? Anyone?
cheers,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
1/19/2023 8:40:04 PM
The South said "These United States" instead of "The United States". "States' Rights" came before national unity. Didn't change when they joined another country, the Confederacy.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
1/20/2023 7:14:11 AM
Quote:
e]

Phil,

I could not agree more with this thoughtful answer. It was the contributions of many nations that ultimately defeated Germany. We do need to acknowledge the fact that the Russians faced the majority of the German ground forces and suffered horrendous casualties both military and civilian. It is understandable that the Russians would from their perspective believe they were most responsible for defeating the Germans.

Do you have any statistics on how many German military casualties were suffered against the Russians compared to other areas such as Western Europe and North Africa?

Gary


Gary,


This is a controversial matter because there's a bewildering array of contradictions in the statistical record.

So much disruption and destruction accompanied the German defeat and there was also a huge degree of secrecy in the Soviet Union's approach to the archives which were in their possession.

Here is one of the most authoritative tabulations, compiled at the end of November 1944, when there was still virtually six months of unimaginable carnage to come.


This is the breakdown for the land force only, and it's important to appreciate that the " missing" includes prisoners as well as the dead.

Western Front ( including all fighting in 1939-40 as well as D-day onwards : 120,000 killed ; 341,000 missing.

North Africa : 12,000 killed ; 90,000 missing.

Italy : 48,000 killed ; 97,000 missing.

Balkans : 24,000 killed ; 12,000 missing.

Russia : 1,419,000 killed ; 907,000 missing.

Others ( including deaths from air raids in Germany): 87,000 killed ; 94,000 missing.

Total : 1,710,000 killed ; 1.541,000 missing.

The preponderance of the Russian Front is very stark : 83% of all the killed, and 59% of all the missing, were attributed to it, and the most catastrophic destruction of manpower was yet to come.

This table was found by the Soviets in the German " secret archives" in Flenberg, covering losses by fronts prior to November 30 , 1944.

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
GaryNJ
Cumberland NJ USA
Posts: 254
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
1/20/2023 10:25:21 AM
Phil,

Thanks. I have not previously seen figures on the different fronts. I knew the Germans suffered larger casualties against the Russians, but these figures are amazing. Great research.

Gary
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
1/20/2023 10:44:06 AM
Gary,

They are indeed amazing figures.

When you consider that the Soviet Union suffered 6.25 million combat deaths fighting the Germans, and additional millions who perished as prisoners of war in German hands, then the immense preponderance of German deaths that were suffered on the Eastern Front is easier to understand.

No wonder some of the German politicians are reluctant to provoke the Russians by sending those Leopard tanks to Ukraine !



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
RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
1/20/2023 1:32:14 PM
Quote:

This is a controversial matter because there's a bewildering array of contradictions in the statistical record.

So much disruption and destruction accompanied the German defeat and there was also a huge degree of secrecy in the Soviet Union's approach to the archives which were in their possession.

Here is one of the most authoritative tabulations, compiled at the end of November 1944, when there was still virtually six months of unimaginable carnage to come.


This is the breakdown for the land force only, and it's important to appreciate that the " missing" includes prisoners as well as the dead.

Western Front ( including all fighting in 1939-40 as well as D-day onwards : 120,000 killed ; 341,000 missing.

North Africa : 12,000 killed ; 90,000 missing.

Italy : 48,000 killed ; 97,000 missing.

Balkans : 24,000 killed ; 12,000 missing.

Russia : 1,419,000 killed ; 907,000 missing.

Others ( including deaths from air raids in Germany): 87,000 killed ; 94,000 missing.

Total : 1,710,000 killed ; 1.541,000 missing.

The preponderance of the Russian Front is very stark : 83% of all the killed, and 59% of all the missing, were attributed to it, and the most catastrophic destruction of manpower was yet to come.


That table was actually compiled as a series of reports reconciling incomplete loss reports from the summer of 1944. Without actually seeing it, it sounds like a follow-up to the 5 November 1944 reconciliation found in OKW/WFSt/Op (H)/Org.Abtl., NARA T77, R826, F3126~ and prior to the final report of 10 January 1945 found in Heeresartz i. OKH, Gen.Stb. d. Heer/Gen.Qu., NARA T78, R414, F3228-3229.

Quote:
This table was found by the Soviets in the German " secret archives" in Flenberg, covering losses by fronts prior to November 30 , 1944.


So this is part of the "germandocsinrussia.org" collection? If so, it would greatly surprise the British troops who seized the Flensburg archives that it was the Soviets who found them.

The source of those were the old Soviet State Archives and are made up of various document collections seized during the war, including apparently some dispersed in the evacuation of the Reichsarchiv Potsdam, some parts of which were seized at Flensburg, but also elsewhere around the former Reich. For example, most of the KM archives were seized nearly intact at Kiel, while other civil and military archives were found in various locations, some in former minesand others till on their train cars (55 trainloads of documents were evacuated to Moscow at the end of the war, which probably make up the bulk of the German Documents in Russia collection and the main personnel file holdings of WASt were captured at Meiningen in the Soviet occupation zone on rail cars by American forces and moved to Fürstenhagen near Kassel before the American forces withdrew).
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
1/20/2023 1:56:16 PM
Rich,

A big Mea Culpa from me !

I used Boris Urlanis as the source for that tabular citation. Here's what he wrote :

For a proper appraisal of the role played by the various fronts, we shall draw on material from the German secret archives found in Flenberg.

B. Urlanis, Wars and Population, page 119.

I should have been more circumspect about the provenance ; my error was to assume that those data had been found by the Soviets.

Urlanis was bound to reflect the soviet polemic. That said, some of the data he presented are worthy of respect.

My intention was to provide Gary with a " sense" of the huge pre-eminence of the Eastern Front in the destruction of German manpower, compared with the losses on the other fronts. That four fifths ratio seems to hold good in most assessments.

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
RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
1/20/2023 4:49:30 PM
Quote:
Rich,

A big Mea Culpa from me !

I used Boris Urlanis as the source for that tabular citation. Here's what he wrote :

For a proper appraisal of the role played by the various fronts, we shall draw on material from the German secret archives found in Flenberg.

B. Urlanis, Wars and Population, page 119.

I should have been more circumspect about the provenance ; my error was to assume that those data had been found by the Soviets.

Urlanis was bound to reflect the soviet polemic. That said, some of the data he presented are worthy of respect.

My intention was to provide Gary with a " sense" of the huge pre-eminence of the Eastern Front in the destruction of German manpower, compared with the losses on the other fronts. That four fifths ratio seems to hold good in most assessments.

Regards, Phil


No problem but I remain wary of those figures. The more complete 10 January 1945 survey gives 5,538,060 casualties in the east and 1,062,214 in the west.

Feldheer Casualties 22 Jun 41-10 Jan 45 (Heeresartz i. OKH, Gen.Stb. d. Heer/Gen.Qu., NARA T78, R414, F3228-3229)

Ostheer: 888,262 KIA, 3,458,986 WIA, 1,107,339 MIA
Geb.AOK 20: 16,299 KIA, 60,329 WIA, 6,845 MIA
AOK Norwegen: 21 KIA, 94 WIA, 1 MIA
OB Sued-West: 44, 433 KIA, 160,106 WIA, 204,854 MIA
OB Sued-Ost: 16,113 KIA, 48,585 WIA, 16,784 MIA
OB West: 60,526 KIA, 199,107 WIA, 393,188 MIA
Total: 1,025,654 KIA, 3,927,207 WIA, 1,729,011 MIA

Note the dates. Those figures do not include any of the operations prior to 22 June 1941. Note also they are for the Feldheer only so do not include Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine losses unless they were attached to the Feldheer.

Feldheer Losses in the Polish, Norwegian, French, and Balkan Campaigns (Organizationsabteilung d. Gen,Stb. d. OKH. 6 Feb 45, NARA T78, R414, F3226-3227)

Poland: 8,082 KIA, 27,278 WIA, 5,029 MIA
Norway: 1,166 KIA, 1,548 WIA, 1,091 MIA
France: 27,650 KIA, 115,299 WIA, 13,607 MIA
Balkans: 1,593 KIA, 4,845 WIA, 644 MIA

Feldheer Casualties 1 Jun 44-10 Jan 45 (Heeresartz i. OKH, Gen.Stb. d. Heer/Gen.Qu., NARA T78, R414, F3228-3229)

Ostheer: 136,493 KIA, 632,028 WIA, 565,834 MIA
Geb.AOK 20: 4,184 KIA, 15,034, 4,587 MIA
AOK Norwegen: 27 KIA, 71 WIA, 16 MIA
OB Sued-West: 19,066 KIA, 66,066 WIA, 59,889 MIA
OB Sued-Ost: 8,241 KIA, 27,259 WIA, 11,095 MIA
OB West: 59,145 KIA, 196,134 WIA, 392,994 MIA
Total: 227,156 KIA, 986,592 WIA, 1,034,415 MIA

Feldheer Casualties 1 Sep 39-20 Apr 45 (Organizationabteilung d. Gen.Stb. d. Heer, 26 Apr 45, NARA T78, R414, F3189)

Ostheer: 1,005,413 KIA, 3,992,062 WIA, 1,369,174 MIA
Geb.AOK 20: 16,395 KIA, 60,515 WIA, 6,852 MIA
OB West: 109,046 KIA, 382,776 WIA, 772,460 MIA
OB Sued-West: 48,750 KIA, 174,734 WIA, 215,525 MIA
OB_Suedost: 22,370 KIA, 70,064 WIA, 24,620 MIA
Other: 9,248 KIA, 28,826 WIA, 6,120 MIA
Total: 1,211,222 KIA, 4,708,977 WIA, 2,394,751 MIA

You can compare these Feldheer-only figures to: Total Losses of the Wehrmacht (Gesamtausfaelle der Wehrmacht) by Year (1 Sep-31 Aug) as of 30 November 1944 (NARA T78, R414, F3184)

Heer: 1,554,066 KIA, 298,369 Dead, 223 UNK, 7,810 EXE, 1,298,729 MIA, 242,100 PW, 379,108 DIS, 593 DES
Marine: 38,016 KIA, 10,030 Dead, 0 UNK, 728 EXE, 23,217 MIA, 8,988 PW, 10,384 DIS, 107 DES
Luftwaffe: 130,534 KIA, 18,231 Dead, 47 UNK, 975 EXE, 113,907 MIA, 27,113 PW, 48,860 DIS, 32 DES
Total: 1,722,616 KIA, 326,630 Dead, 270 UNK, 9,513 EXE, 1,435,853 MIA, 278,201 PW, 438,352 DIS, 732 DES

KEY:
KIA = killed through enemy action
Dead = dead through accident, sickness and suicide
UNK = dead to unknown causes
EXE = executed
MIA = missing in action and interned
PW = prisoner of war
DIS = discharged from the service
DES = deserter (still at large)
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
1/21/2023 12:41:06 AM
Rich,

Those are mind boggling figures : not just in their substance, but also in their implications. Thanks for posting them . I feel that you’ve done me honour in offering them.

My knowledge of these figures is infantile compared with yours, but I’ve done my best to assess them.

The abbreviations confound me, because I don’t know German.

What, for example, is Geb.AOK ?

I’m unable to find the 90,000 missing in North Africa that was cited in the table I sent. What happened to “ Tunisgrad” ?

The secrecy of the Nazis certainly didn’t prevent them from compiling meticulous figures, did it ? The question is : how far were they willing to share them ?

Those authorities that compiled these casualty stats weren’t trying to kid themselves, were they ? Far from it !

But the final total of aggregate deaths that you provide shows just over two million confirmed , which, I reckon, was only half the actual total. The MIA figures are so slippery, with large portions of them obviously dead ; and even those that did enter captivity were bound to die in hundreds of thousands in soviet hands. I find it very hard to believe the recent estimate of Overmans, who goes into the realm of 5.4 million or thereabouts, but I’ve been wrong before. That Soviet demographer Urlanis estimated 4.5 million, and if he exaggerated, it wasn’t by much. He was certainly candid about his own country’s experience, admitting ten million soviet military deaths from all causes ( more than a third of them from non battle causes, I note, the vast majority being POWS)

Then, of course, the dates of compilation are a crucial factor, with the last months of the war being impossible to chronicle in respect of casualties.

The thing that stands out is the admission of nearly ten thousand executions. Good grief ! When you think of the outcry raised over the British soldiers who were “ shot at dawn”in WW1 - barely three hundred of them from a total of about one million British Empire soldiers who died 1914-18 - you realise the extent of totalitarian control in the German regime in WW2. IIRC, of the two million German soldiers killed in WW1, fewer than one hundred were officially executed. Circumspection required, of course, there might have been many discreet killings carried out off the radar, so to speak.

My investigation into the casualty reporting of 1914-18 indicates that authorities did their best to keep accurate numbers, but that they were overwhelmed by the scale and intensity of the fighting, and did the best they could, but failed to keep up. The French experience in the first months of fighting in 1914 is to the fore here. The Germans also struggled in this respect, not getting a final figure of deaths established until fifteen years after the Great War . The Russian and Austro Hungarian authorities were simply overwhelmed, and never managed to get a final figure.

The astonishing thing is the difference between the Soviet-Nazi regimes in WW2 and the democracies at war in America 1861-65 and Britain 1914-18. Look at Larry Purtell’s newspaper articles from Gettysburg : every slight wound recorded, no holding back on disclosure of casualties. Same for the British public 1914-18, in dreadful revelations.

There were, admittedly, attempts to impose very exaggerated reports of enemy losses which amounted to propaganda. This gets me agitated today, when I see Ukrainian estimates of Russian losses in the current war : one hundred thousand Russian soldiers killed ?

Rambling reflections on my part, sorry ! I’m trying to get the essentials of the details you’ve provided and incorporate them into a general history theme.

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
1/21/2023 7:49:54 AM
[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

3 perpetual sites, check for topics.?

Check the read mores above for new topics?
For 1-21 in history! All old & new topics welcome!?

Again thanks guys!
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
1/21/2023 7:53:58 AM
Guys,

An interesting point on the 1st Concord flite (you know the funny looking jet with the bet down nose!) from last year on this date, from Brian Grafton!?

Quote:
Jan 21, 1976 saw the first commercial flight of the Concorde. A remarkable aircraft inaugurated an all-too rarified form of travel for all too short a time. Initially, the Concordes of Air France flew from Orly to Rio de Janeiro, while the British Concordes flew Heathrow to Bahrain, but trans-Atlantic flights to the US soon followed.

Was this an historical event, or merely one of many moments where a quiet, unnoticed shift in man’s story takes place. Am I making too big a deal of this inaugural flight?Love some thoughts on it, particularly from anyone who ever flew on one of these outrageously costly machines.

I only know two people (a couple) who flew Concorde. They had been bumped from 1st-class seats Heathrow to Vancouver, and were promised seats into New York on Concorde the next day as recompense. To this day, the man remembers both his seat number and the incredible buzz of the flight.

At the same time, the Concorde was essentially a costly error by futurists and others who misread the future of travel rather dramatically. Initial talks between Britain and France began in 1956, with design and implementation beginning in 1962. For timeline comparison, PanAm entered the 707 to commercial service in 1958. In 1960, it took an elapsed time of 21 hours to fly from Vancouver to Halifax. I know that, because I made the flight. But although there were air flights from North America to Europe, they were prohibitively expensive. Most travellers crossed the Atlantic by ship: it took four+ days, but was considered a major part of the travel experience.

IIUC, there was a debate – possibly introduced because of the DeHavilland Comet entering commercial flight in 1952 – over the future of travel. Air travel had always been expensive compared to ocean travel, going back to travel between the wars. As I understanding it, during debate in the 50s and early 60s, one side arguing that air travel would increasingly become more exclusive, used largely by diplomats and senior government officials (with some few business moguls) and the other believing that more people would travel if they didn’t have to spend a large portion of their vacation on transportation. This side of the market felt that a bulk carrier would reduce passenger flight cost considerably, and could be acceptably uncomfortable for a relatively short period of time. Wiki notes: Quote:
After introducing the 707 in October 1958, Pan Am wanted a jet 2+1⁄2 times its size, to reduce its seat cost by 30% to democratize air travel. In 1965, Joe Sutter left the 737 development program to design the 747, the first twin aisle airliner.


To be honest, I think we all know who got it right. It wasn’t the Concorde group. But I sense the “bulk packagers” have pushed things to the limit. Any time longer than six hours in any jet is now hazardous to a traveller’s health, and it will be interesting how this is dealt with. Also, the time benefits of short- or middle-distance flying have been eaten away by various health and security issues: often time in the departure lounge is as long as the flight time.

These are, of course, my views based on my less than expert understanding. I’d love alternate discussion, or insulting rejection, or whatever. I guess I think the first flight of the Concorde was significant, because it gave life to one vision of the future that didn’t prove viable.

Cheers. And stay safe.
Brian G


& thanks Brian!
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
1/21/2023 1:04:42 PM
Quote:
Rich,

Those are mind boggling figures : not just in their substance, but also in their implications. Thanks for posting them . I feel that you’ve done me honour in offering them.

My knowledge of these figures is infantile compared with yours, but I’ve done my best to assess them.

The abbreviations confound me, because I don’t know German.

What, for example, is Geb.AOK ?


Gebirgs-Armee-Oberkommando - Mountain Army

Quote:
I’m unable to find the 90,000 missing in North Africa that was cited in the table I sent. What happened to “ Tunisgrad” ?


All African losses were under Ob.Sued-West.

Quote:
The secrecy of the Nazis certainly didn’t prevent them from compiling meticulous figures, did it ? The question is : how far were they willing to share them ?


All these documents were generally Geheime Kommandosach! Secret Command Matter or Top Secret.

Quote:
Those authorities that compiled these casualty stats weren’t trying to kid themselves, were they ? Far from it !


Well of course not. They had to know where and how many replacements to send.

Quote:
But the final total of aggregate deaths that you provide shows just over two million confirmed , which, I reckon, was only half the actual total. The MIA figures are so slippery, with large portions of them obviously dead ; and even those that did enter captivity were bound to die in hundreds of thousands in soviet hands. I find it very hard to believe the recent estimate of Overmans, who goes into the realm of 5.4 million or thereabouts, but I’ve been wrong before. That Soviet demographer Urlanis estimated 4.5 million, and if he exaggerated, it wasn’t by much. He was certainly candid about his own country’s experience, admitting ten million soviet military deaths from all causes ( more than a third of them from non battle causes, I note, the vast majority being POWS)


Overmans figures are a statistical exercise with huge gaps in them. The Soviets meticulously recorded 381,067 German POW deaths in their custody but that counted only deaths occurring after they entered the main camp system. Deaths in transit were not recorded and may have been as many more.

Heer Losses 1 Sep 39-1 May 45 (Organizationsabteilung d. OKH, 10 May 1945, NARA T78, R398, F8326)

Reported for 1 Sep 39-31 Dec 44 (rounded to nearest thousand)
KIA: 1,600,000
Dead: 149,000
Other: 8,000
Total: 1,757,000
MIA: 1,334,000
PW: 276,000

Estimated for 1 Jan-1 May 45
Dead: 250,000
MIA: 1,000,000

Losses include Waffen SS and Luftwaffe Ground Forces. The figures for 1 Sep 39-31 Dec 44 appear to be from the same source as the Table VII, although the number of “Dead” in this case is less than one-half that in the previous table.

Finally, “according to a Soviet study [in Voyenno Istoricheskiy Zhurnal, 1960] which cites a German document which has not been located, in June 1945 General Jodl reported that during World War II German losses amounted to 12,400,000 men. Of these 2,500,000 were killed, 3,400,000 were missing in action or known prisoners of war, and 6,500,000 were wounded, 10-15% of them too badly to return to duty. The Soviets rightly question the last figure and point out that in 1953 there were about 2,000,000 disabled veterans in Western Germany alone, of whom three quarters had more than 25% disability. They cite statistics taken from various German documents that show a total of 8,899,000 casualties (KIA, WIA, MIA, POW) between 22 June 1941 and 28 February 1945, of whom 2,584,000 returned to service, and 6,315,000 were permanently removed from the Field Army” (HERO, p. 49).

The actual total reported for the Feldheer on 28 February 1945 was 1,098,041 KIA, 4,24,694 WIA and 1,860,816 MIA for a total of 7,201,551 (Heeresartz i. OKH, Gen.Stb. d. Heer/Gen.Qu., NARA T78, R414, F3217). Given that Marine and Luftwaffe KIA, MIA and PW totaled 341,775 as of 30 November 1944 and assuming a 1-to-4 ratio of killed to wounded, then the approximately 1.7-million discrepancy may be accounted for. To that may be added a probable 60,000 plus casualties for the Ersatzheer.

So, what may we all conclude from this? For one thing, it is important to understand that casualties, killed in action, died, died of wounds, missing in action, prisoner of war, and all the other terminology of loss refer to specific things. In terms of the Wehrmacht in World War II, it appears that there is good reason to believe that at least 16 percent of the total identified wartime dead (not including MIA later declared dead or PW who later died) were not as a result of enemy action. Another thing to remember is that all casualty reports refer to a specific population. Thus, Wehrmacht, Heer, Feldheer, Ersatheer, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe all refer to different groups, some of which are subsets of others. And, although we can probably say that Heer losses accounted for about 90 percent of the total Wehrmacht losses, we cannot say that the remaining 10 percent was irrelevant when that 10 percent could include close to 1 million casualties.

Now, how does all this apply to Overmans? Simply put, Overmans’ argument, in its fundamentals, is that previous estimates of German losses undercounted military deaths in the war by as much as 2.2-million. He arrives at that figure by a statistical analysis of a sample of the Allgemeine Kartei, which totals 15.2-million and which in theory represents those Wehrmacht personnel who did not die in combat (that number is documented in the approximately 3.1-million Totenkartei). Now, given that the evidence is that possibly 496,000 of those acknowledged “war” casualties were not combat related (the 16 percent figure above), is it surprising that 14.4 percent of the Allgemeine Kartei sample investigated by Overmans contained cases he classified as additional deaths? One could as easily say that Overmans’ sample was too small (7,619 of 15.2-million or 0.05 percent of the total) and that it is just as likely that 16 percent of the personnel represented in the Allgemeine Kartei, or 2.432-million is the correct number of “additional” deaths.

The crux of the matter is that Overmans assumes that the majority of these “additional” deaths were due to combat. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be much evidence for this theory. Furthermore, his conclusion that the German casualty reporting system prior to 1945 was highly inaccurate has been dealt with in Zetterling’s critique. Zetterling demonstrates that Overmans data, as found in his table of confidence intervals, closely matches the data provided for the Heersartz (on the Ostfront through 4 September the Heeresartz reported about 1,220,000 killed and wounded whereas Overmans calculates 1,240,000 for the same period).

Fundamentally, Overmans problem is that military casualty reporting systems are not really designed to answer the question he raised – “how many German servicemen lost their lives”? Rather, such systems are designed as manpower management tools and as means for tracking the combat effectiveness of a force.

I suspect the "true" figure for German losses is somewhere around the middle - c. 3.5-3.6 million but have no real basis other than gut feeling for that.

Quote:
Then, of course, the dates of compilation are a crucial factor, with the last months of the war being impossible to chronicle in respect of casualties.


Exactly.

Quote:
The thing that stands out is the admission of nearly ten thousand executions. Good grief ! When you think of the outcry raised over the British soldiers who were “ shot at dawn”in WW1 - barely three hundred of them from a total of about one million British Empire soldiers who died 1914-18 - you realise the extent of totalitarian control in the German regime in WW2. IIRC, of the two million German soldiers killed in WW1, fewer than one hundred were officially executed. Circumspection required, of course, there might have been many discreet killings carried out off the radar, so to speak.


IIRC it was similar in the Great War. The Germans did not fool around with regards to discipline.

Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
1/22/2023 3:33:58 AM
Rich,

You bring standards of professional expertise to our forum which are invaluable.

It must be pretty vexing for you when you reach a “ gut feeling “ that roughly three and a half million German military personnel died, while Overmans - widely cited and, apparently, accepted by the most popular authors on WW2 history- is pitching a figure that is fifty percent higher.

What a huge disparity!

It troubles me, let me tell you.

Overmans is telling us that roughly half of the 5.3 million Germans who died were victims of the last ten or eleven months of the war. More than that, he attributes an impossibly high number of these to the last three months. Worse still, he allows people to think that these soldiers were killed in combat.

At Singapore, in February 1942, the best part of one hundred thousand British Commonwealth troops were captured. Most of them had not fired a shot, or been shot at. In their ensuing captivity, thirteen thousand of them perished in foul circumstances.

It would be ludicrous to count them as being killed at Singapore. And yet, in a sense, that is how people have interpreted the Overmans study when it comes to German deaths in WW2.

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
1/22/2023 10:16:42 AM
[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

3 perpetual sites, check for topics.?

Check the read mores above for new topics?
For 1-22 in history! All old & new topics welcome!?

1690 Iroquois tribes align with the British over the French! Why would they trust the Red coats?? Anyone?

1771 Spain hand the Falkland Islands over to the British? Why?? & why does Argentina think they own the Malvinas?? What say you?? Falklands war later!?

1879 its 139 British troops verse 4,00 Zulu warriors at Rorke's Drift! Who & why will they ? Win?
What say you??

1906 The SS Valencia runs aground near Victoria BC, 130 people drown! How did this tragedy occur? Anyone?

1941 Commonwealth force take Tobruk from the Italians! Was Canadian forces there?? Anyone?

Regards,
MD

Again thanks guys! Seize the day!!

BTW please continue current discussions!!!


----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
1/22/2023 10:38:03 AM
You forgot the zero, Dave !

It was four thousand Zulu, not four hundred.

Forgive me: you know I’m a numbers nerd.

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
Wazza
Sydney  Australia
Posts: 814
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
1/22/2023 1:32:12 PM
The initial attack on Tobruk was largely an Australian affair with support from British Commonwealth units.
I'm afraid I don't believe any Canadian units were involved at this time MD.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
1/22/2023 1:52:19 PM
Tobruk became important as a symbol.

It did have great strategic value, of course, being a major port in a theatre of war which was notoriously bereft of logistical infrastructure.

As a kid, I remember being taken to the cinema to see a black and white film called The Rats of Tobruk. I reckon that was in the early 1960s, perhaps to mark the twentieth anniversary of the defence in 1941.

The Australians -9th Division? - did a tremendous job holding it and repulsed the Axis attacks .

In order to relieve the defenders, Auchinlek launched Operation Crusader in late 1941 and early 1942, gaining success at first.

Tobruk was captured by the Axis in June 1942. The Australians did not lose it : the South Africans were there at that time.

Churchill got news of this when he was visiting FDR at the White House, and he was mortified. Roosevelt was moved by Winston’s distress, and said that the US would do all in its power to help.

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
1/22/2023 2:05:35 PM
Quote:
You forgot the zero, Dave !

It was four thousand Zulu, not four hundred.

Forgive me: you know I’m a numbers nerd.

Regards, Phil



Thanks Phil, 1 added a digit, 4,000 Zulu Warriors it is! I think the Zulu military leader didn't do a good job in this battle!? One thing use the lives of a fair amount of warriors to count the numbers, & guns that the British had? He made other costly tactics!?

Kind of costly, don't you think??
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
1/22/2023 4:50:57 PM
Quote:
The initial attack on Tobruk was largely an Australian affair with support from British Commonwealth units.
I'm afraid I don't believe any Canadian units were involved at this time MD.


The Canadians were the first Commonwealth army to arrive in Britain and likely the last to get into combat. Canadians questioned their government wanting to know what was wrong with our troops. As historians have discovered, PM W.L. Mackenzie-King was fearful of a full commitment on land as he wished to avoid another domestic dispute with French Canada. And so he and the military leaders approved of a war of "limited liability". Mackenzie-King felt that the RCN on convoy duty and the RCAF and the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan would be sufficient.

That policy did not last very long as there was a need for troops and so the single division of infantry sent to Britain in January of 1940 would be the start of a major commitment. But at the time of Tobruk the Canadians were on garrison duty in Britain.

That doesn't mean that there were no Canadians involved in the North African campaign. Canadian army officers and NCO's had been sent on a rotational bases to join British units to gain experience.

Specifically at Tobruk, RCN flotillas were engaged primarily in the removal of mines.

Canadians served in RAF units in North Africa. Canadian historians sometimes refer to these men as the "Lost Legion" because of the numbers of Canadian air and ground crew serving with the RAF.

So Canada was not exactly absent from North Africa but at this stage of the war our PM, as was his wont, was reading the tea leaves to see just how much military participation the country would tolerate. And they wanted more from their army.

EDIT: Unfortunately, the Dieppe Raid on Aug. 19, 1942 was accepted by the Canadian military as an acceptable risk and commitment and a chance to see the troops blooded.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
1/22/2023 8:53:51 PM
d
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
1/22/2023 8:53:51 PM
Quote:
1690 Iroquois tribes align with the British over the French! Why would they trust the Red coats?? Anyone?


Why would they trust the Redcoats? You're betraying your American bias, MD. This was 1690, not 1776. The British colonies were protected by the RN and the Redcoats. And the British subjects in those British colonies depended upon them to keep the French and the FN allies of the French, at bay.

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the French came to some sort of detente in 1701 with the Great Peace of Montréal. But until that time, there had been nearly a century of war between the French and the Haudenosaunee.

The French had explored along the St. Lawrence and in 1608, Champlain established Québec City as a colonial outpost. He had made friends with First Nations of the Algonquin and Wendat (Huron) tribes who were enemies of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois as the French called them). In 1609, Champlain accompanied a group to the lake that would eventually bear his name and they confronted a group of Mohawks of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Champlain wanted to improve the French position in the fur trade and so he wished to curry favour with Algonquin and Wendat people.

The two groups looked as though they were preparing to fight when Champlain stepped forward and fired a weapon which killed three chiefs. The Haudenosaunee left and Champlain's party were ecstatic. The Haudenosaunee intended to be the most powerful group in this part of North America and often they were. They have been accused of genocidal practices against other FN tribes like the Wendat (Huron) whom they destroyed.

And they decided that the French were their sworn enemies. They nearly destroyed them and at times had the French bottled up and confined to Québec City or its outpost of Montréal. It took until the mid 1690's before the French began to stop the Haudenosaunee raids on New France. In 1696, the French governor, Frontenac, sent troops into Haudenosaunee territory and they burned villages and destroyed crops. It was then that the Haudenosaunee determined that they had better seek peace hence, the Great Peace of Montréal in 1701.

But up until that time, consider that the Haudenosaunee dominated the route from Albany to the Great Lakes. Neither the French to the north nor the British to the south and east could establish control of that area. But the British could and did trade with the Haudenosaunee and provided them with the goods made in Europe that the FN valued. Albany was an important trading post. All was peaceful unless the colonists encroached upon Haudenosaunee territory.

In 1690, Britain and France were at war again. The French and their Indian allies had been attacking colonists in Maine, New York and New Hampshire.

In retaliation, the Colony of Massachusetts Bay took its militia under command of Sir William Phips and attacked the French settlement at Port Royal which was on the Bay of Fundy in what would become Nova Scotia. They were successful.

In August, Sir William took 34 ships and 2000 men and headed for Québec. The Haudenosaunee were allied with the English and they were supposed to head up the Richelieu River to attack the French settlements at Montréal and Trois Riviere at the same time that the English attacked Québec.

But note the time period. It was 1690 and the French were becoming more successful in their century long battle with the Haudenosaunee. In 1689, the French had been very successful against these enemies and so the Haudenosaunee were in no position to undertake the promised attack on Montréal and Trois Rivieres. And so Sir William's attempt to seize the fortress at Québec failed but not really because of the absence of the Haudenosaunee. They attempted an amphibious landing and were repulsed. Then they tried to bombard the fortress and that failed too and so the English headed down river to Boston.

I do not recall that 1690 was the first alliance between the British and the Haudenosaunee. They had been allied for a long time before that and would remain allied during the French and Indian Wars.

The Haudenosaunee did not understand why Englishmen were fighting Englishmen when the American Revolution began and initially they rebuffed both sides who wanted the Haudenosaunee to fight with them. The British pushed the Haudenosaunee to honour their alliance and to fight with them. So the revolution split the Confederacy and while most Haudenosaunee fought with the British, men from the Tuscarora and Oneida supported the rebels.

When the war ended many Haudenosaunee headed north into British territory. The Haundenosaunee Confederacy had signed a separate peace with the Americans in 1784. The tribes that had supported the British lost their lands but the Tuscarora and Oneida were treated shabbily as well. The Confederacy was destroyed.

The Haudenosaunee that came to Canada as Loyalists were granted land in Upper Canada called the Grand River Tract. They are still there. Note the section of land called the Haldimand Tract. That is what the Haudenosaunee thought was their property but the British did not. In 1793 a deal was worked out so that much of the tract was purchased from the Haudenosaunee. There are still land disputes that have to be resolved to this day and the Mohawks have never been shy about asserting their rights. They will blockade roads if the local township issues building permits on disputed land.





The Mohawks of the Confederacy also own land near my home. They are on Lake Ontario and not far from the City of Belleville. They arrived in 1784 and the leader of the Grand River tract, Joseph Brant, was opposed to the Mohawks settling there.




The Mohawks also have a reserve near Montréal called Khanawake




So the most powerful First Nations confederacy of the North American northeast is still alive.

Cheers,

George


EDIT: I should have added that when the Americans invaded Upper Canada in 1812 that the First Nations including the Mohawks played an integral part in sending them packing.

During WW1, First Nations warriors joined the Canadian army and fought with distinction. The top sniper on the British side was Francis Pegahmagabow MM & two bars. "Peggy" as his mates called him was Ojibwa from the Parry Sound band.

During WWII, First Nations warriors managed to volunteer despite discrimination against them. Most were in the army. Other indigenous people volunteered from Inuit and Métis communities but we don't have data on the numbers. FN who were "status Indians" were easier to count. Indigenous people who lived off the res were not as easy to count. Accepting praise for the number of men who had served from his Mohawk reservation, one chief commented, and I paraphrase here, "It is good to know that life on the reservation has not dampened the warrior spirit of our people.".




Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
1/22/2023 9:20:28 PM
MD, I note your Jan 22 incident: Quote:
1906 The SS Valencia runs aground near Victoria BC, 130 people drown! How did this tragedy occur? Anyone?

The answer (as you appreciate from your work on wrecks in the Great Lakes)? The combination of weather, isolation, navigational error and (to some extent, it seems) at least some breakdown of emergency control). Lack of familiarity with coastal conditions may also have contributed; this was Valencia’s first time on the SF-Victoria-Seattle run. Her regular run was SF-Alaska, but she was moved to the SF-Seattle run to replace SS City of Puebla, out of service for repairs.

SS Valencia was, for her time, well-equipped for passenger safety, though she had only minimal support were she to carry her maximum passenger load she was licensed for (286 passengers). Seven lifeboats could carry 181 bodies; 3 rafts carried an additional 54, giving a total of 235 rescue places. She also carried 368 life-preservers, and was equipped with a Lyle gun with a 1500’ line. On this trip, the 108 passengers and 65 crew were well covered.

But Vancouver Island’s west coast, even today, is remote, inaccessible and largely unpopulated. The sight of the sinking is not all that far from Victoria, but just as in 1906 a disaster such an event can only be handled by sea. Or, of course, by air. That wasn’t an option in 1906. Even today, 117 years after the sinking of Valencia, there are no major roads on the west coast of the island, Many west coast communities are reached by routes including service and logging roads from the single highway on the east coast of the island.

There is a very popular hiking trail along the the part of the coast where Valencia was destroyed. One might have to wait six months after applying before being given a start time to attempt the trail, which typically takes 6-7 days and requires hikers to carry in all needed supplies and carry out any refuse. I understand that the 100-foot cliffs against which the SS Valencia was crushed is now named the Valencia Cliffs.

I offer the following link, for those who want to read more about the disaster: [Read More]

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Wazza
Sydney  Australia
Posts: 814
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
1/23/2023 1:41:06 AM
Just on the earlier Zulu war theme:

On this day 144 years ago Australian born Lieut. Edgar Oliphant Anstey died at Isandhlawana.
He served in the 1st Battalion, 24th Regiment of Foot.

His body was identified and recovered by his brother Captain Thomas Henry Anstey Royal Engineers and transported back to England for burial at the family vault in the little churchyard of St John's near Woking station.

He is apparently the only Isandhlawana casualty to be buried in the UK.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6509
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
1/23/2023 2:34:04 AM
Quote:
Just on the earlier Zulu war theme:

On this day 144 years ago Australian born Lieut. Edgar Oliphant Anstey died at Isandhlawana.
He served in the 1st Battalion, 24th Regiment of Foot.

His body was identified and recovered by his brother Captain Thomas Henry Anstey Royal Engineers and transported back to England for burial at the family vault in the little churchyard of St John's near Woking station.

He is apparently the only Isandhlawana casualty to be buried in the UK.


Isandhlwana ! The British equivalent of Little Big Horn, and quite close in time, too. Both were cases of imperial hubris and nemesis.

One of the two British officers to escape with their lives was Horace Smith -Dorrien: his luck in 1879 was to be replicated thirty five years later when he was able to make a desperately risky stand at Le Cateau on 26 August 1914, when , as Corps Commander, he disobeyed orders by not continuing to retreat.

He was eventually sacked because he advocated withdrawal from parts of the deadly Ypres Salient in the late spring of 1915.

Ironic.

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
1/23/2023 9:06:46 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Just on the earlier Zulu war theme:

On this day 144 years ago Australian born Lieut. Edgar Oliphant Anstey died at Isandhlawana.
He served in the 1st Battalion, 24th Regiment of Foot.

His body was identified and recovered by his brother Captain Thomas Henry Anstey Royal Engineers and transported back to England for burial at the family vault in the little churchyard of St John's near Woking station.

He is apparently the only Isandhlawana casualty to be buried in the UK.


Isandhlwana ! The British equivalent of Little Big Horn, and quite close in time, too. Both were cases of imperial hubris and nemesis.

One of the two British officers to escape with their lives was Horace Smith -Dorrien: his luck in 1879 was to be replicated thirty five years later when he was able to make a desperately risky stand at Le Cateau on 26 August 1914, when , as Corps Commander, he disobeyed orders by not continuing to retreat.

He was eventually sacked because he advocated withdrawal from parts of the deadly Ypres Salient in the late spring of 1915.

Ironic.

Regards, Phil


Hi Phil,

Good correlation, between Isandhlawana & the Little Big Horn! So much in common, including the uppity attitudes of their commanding officers!? In these cases the so called inferior infidels jumped up to bite them!?

Thanks,
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
1/23/2023 9:16:19 AM
Quote:
MD, I note your Jan 22 incident: Quote:
1906 The SS Valencia runs aground near Victoria BC, 130 people drown! How did this tragedy occur? Anyone?

The answer (as you appreciate from your work on wrecks in the Great Lakes)? The combination of weather, isolation, navigational error and (to some extent, it seems) at least some breakdown of emergency control). Lack of familiarity with coastal conditions may also have contributed; this was Valencia’s first time on the SF-Victoria-Seattle run. Her regular run was SF-Alaska, but she was moved to the SF-Seattle run to replace SS City of Puebla, out of service for repairs.

SS Valencia was, for her time, well-equipped for passenger safety, though she had only minimal support were she to carry her maximum passenger load she was licensed for (286 passengers). Seven lifeboats could carry 181 bodies; 3 rafts carried an additional 54, giving a total of 235 rescue places. She also carried 368 life-preservers, and was equipped with a Lyle gun with a 1500’ line. On this trip, the 108 passengers and 65 crew were well covered.

But Vancouver Island’s west coast, even today, is remote, inaccessible and largely unpopulated. The sight of the sinking is not all that far from Victoria, but just as in 1906 a disaster such an event can only be handled by sea. Or, of course, by air. That wasn’t an option in 1906. Even today, 117 years after the sinking of Valencia, there are no major roads on the west coast of the island, Many west coast communities are reached by routes including service and logging roads from the single highway on the east coast of the island.

There is a very popular hiking trail along the the part of the coast where Valencia was destroyed. One might have to wait six months after applying before being given a start time to attempt the trail, which typically takes 6-7 days and requires hikers to carry in all needed supplies and carry out any refuse. I understand that the 100-foot cliffs against which the SS Valencia was crushed is now named the Valencia Cliffs.

I offer the following link, for those who want to read more about the disaster: [Read More]

Cheers
Brian G



Hi Brian,

I really enjoyed your post, clearly 1906 was time of want for coming nautical technology! & yes it reminds me of great lakes tragedy's of the same timeframe, some I have been involved with investigating. Back then any kind of hostile weather could lend itself to tragedy!? Many times in high stormy seas, many would perish just leagues from safety! Your "read more" on this & other Maritime Pacific Coast history is excellent! I invite anyone interested in the topic to comb through it, great nautical happenings abound!? The story itself as presented in the feature article reads like a tragic movie theme! It is reminiscent of the Titanic tragedy in some ways!?

What say you??
Thanks again!

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
1/23/2023 6:53:49 PM
[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

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

Hi Y'all,

I been beach walking on the Carolina Coast, looking for sharks teeth near the Atlantic, (have never found one yet?) & it's still kind of cold 56 degrees F, currently but nothing like all the snow & cold in the Great Lakes area.

Checking out 1-24 in history, We see Today in 1848 ( thanks OP!) gold is discovered in California, what gold rush was the most lucrative? Comments anyone?

1892 in Uganda French Missionaries attack English Missionaries! What are they going to do throw bibles at each other!???

1915 the British & German Fleets fight off Dogger Bank, UK. Why is it in WWI naval engagements the German surface fleet gave the RN such a hard time! What say you??

1935 1st canned beer produced! Which way do you prefer your beer, cans or bottles, or just out of the keg??

1943 Hitler orders his troops in Stalingrad to fight to the death! Boy his generals hate that order! What say you about Hitler as A military leader??

Gotta go happy hour calls.

MD


BTW Brian,
How could the concord fly when it's nose was bent down?? Just how dangerous was this huge passenger jet!??

Speaking of Rorkes Drift,
I always loved the movie Zulu! One of the better history movies IMHO!?

Hey guys, any other new topics???
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
1/23/2023 6:56:07 PM
"We see Today in 1948 gold is discovered in California..."

1848
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
1/24/2023 7:46:56 PM
Quote:
Quote:
1690 Iroquois tribes align with the British over the French! Why would they trust the Red coats?? Anyone?


Why would they trust the Redcoats? You're betraying your American bias, MD. This was 1690, not 1776. The British colonies were protected by the RN and the Redcoats. And the British subjects in those British colonies depended upon them to keep the French and the FN allies of the French, at bay.

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the French came to some sort of detente in 1701 with the Great Peace of Montréal. But until that time, there had been nearly a century of war between the French and the Haudenosaunee.

The French had explored along the St. Lawrence and in 1608, Champlain established Québec City as a colonial outpost. He had made friends with First Nations of the Algonquin and Wendat (Huron) tribes who were enemies of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois as the French called them). In 1609, Champlain accompanied a group to the lake that would eventually bear his name and they confronted a group of Mohawks of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Champlain wanted to improve the French position in the fur trade and so he wished to curry favour with Algonquin and Wendat people.

The two groups looked as though they were preparing to fight when Champlain stepped forward and fired a weapon which killed three chiefs. The Haudenosaunee left and Champlain's party were ecstatic. The Haudenosaunee intended to be the most powerful group in this part of North America and often they were. They have been accused of genocidal practices against other FN tribes like the Wendat (Huron) whom they destroyed.

And they decided that the French were their sworn enemies. They nearly destroyed them and at times had the French bottled up and confined to Québec City or its outpost of Montréal. It took until the mid 1690's before the French began to stop the Haudenosaunee raids on New France. In 1696, the French governor, Frontenac, sent troops into Haudenosaunee territory and they burned villages and destroyed crops. It was then that the Haudenosaunee determined that they had better seek peace hence, the Great Peace of Montréal in 1701.

But up until that time, consider that the Haudenosaunee dominated the route from Albany to the Great Lakes. Neither the French to the north nor the British to the south and east could establish control of that area. But the British could and did trade with the Haudenosaunee and provided them with the goods made in Europe that the FN valued. Albany was an important trading post. All was peaceful unless the colonists encroached upon Haudenosaunee territory.

In 1690, Britain and France were at war again. The French and their Indian allies had been attacking colonists in Maine, New York and New Hampshire.

In retaliation, the Colony of Massachusetts Bay took its militia under command of Sir William Phips and attacked the French settlement at Port Royal which was on the Bay of Fundy in what would become Nova Scotia. They were successful.

In August, Sir William took 34 ships and 2000 men and headed for Québec. The Haudenosaunee were allied with the English and they were supposed to head up the Richelieu River to attack the French settlements at Montréal and Trois Riviere at the same time that the English attacked Québec.

But note the time period. It was 1690 and the French were becoming more successful in their century long battle with the Haudenosaunee. In 1689, the French had been very successful against these enemies and so the Haudenosaunee were in no position to undertake the promised attack on Montréal and Trois Rivieres. And so Sir William's attempt to seize the fortress at Québec failed but not really because of the absence of the Haudenosaunee. They attempted an amphibious landing and were repulsed. Then they tried to bombard the fortress and that failed too and so the English headed down river to Boston.

I do not recall that 1690 was the first alliance between the British and the Haudenosaunee. They had been allied for a long time before that and would remain allied during the French and Indian Wars.

The Haudenosaunee did not understand why Englishmen were fighting Englishmen when the American Revolution began and initially they rebuffed both sides who wanted the Haudenosaunee to fight with them. The British pushed the Haudenosaunee to honour their alliance and to fight with them. So the revolution split the Confederacy and while most Haudenosaunee fought with the British, men from the Tuscarora and Oneida supported the rebels.

When the war ended many Haudenosaunee headed north into British territory. The Haundenosaunee Confederacy had signed a separate peace with the Americans in 1784. The tribes that had supported the British lost their lands but the Tuscarora and Oneida were treated shabbily as well. The Confederacy was destroyed.

The Haudenosaunee that came to Canada as Loyalists were granted land in Upper Canada called the Grand River Tract. They are still there. Note the section of land called the Haldimand Tract. That is what the Haudenosaunee thought was their property but the British did not. In 1793 a deal was worked out so that much of the tract was purchased from the Haudenosaunee. There are still land disputes that have to be resolved to this day and the Mohawks have never been shy about asserting their rights. They will blockade roads if the local township issues building permits on disputed land.





The Mohawks of the Confederacy also own land near my home. They are on Lake Ontario and not far from the City of Belleville. They arrived in 1784 and the leader of the Grand River tract, Joseph Brant, was opposed to the Mohawks settling there.




The Mohawks also have a reserve near Montréal called Khanawake




So the most powerful First Nations confederacy of the North American northeast is still alive.

Cheers,

George


EDIT: I should have added that when the Americans invaded Upper Canada in 1812 that the First Nations including the Mohawks played an integral part in sending them packing.

During WW1, First Nations warriors joined the Canadian army and fought with distinction. The top sniper on the British side was Francis Pegahmagabow MM & two bars. "Peggy" as his mates called him was Ojibwa from the Parry Sound band.

During WWII, First Nations warriors managed to volunteer despite discrimination against them. Most were in the army. Other indigenous people volunteered from Inuit and Métis communities but we don't have data on the numbers. FN who were "status Indians" were easier to count. Indigenous people who lived off the res were not as easy to count. Accepting praise for the number of men who had served from his Mohawk reservation, one chief commented, and I paraphrase here, "It is good to know that life on the reservation has not dampened the warrior spirit of our people.".







Thanks George,

Great post on the Six Nations! A little more complicated than I thought! But now I can see why they sided with the British. Is your 1st Nations areas much like the Reservation system in the US? I also notice the 1st Nations, Iroqouis areas are by your populated cities, like Hamilton, & Toronto! I hope unlike the Americans you didn't cheat them out of their lands!? Also as you stated 1690 is 75 years before the American Revolution!? Do they also like American Tribes have Casinos??

Good post,
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
1/25/2023 8:39:38 AM


Today 1-25 in history; Briefly put, A few events, comments anyone??

1787 Shays Rebellion!
1840 Charles Wilkes discovers Antarctica as A continent!
1863 Hooker replaces Burnside!
1865 Confederate warship CSS Shenandoah is in Australia!
1918 Russia becomes Soviet Union!
1942 Rommel winning in N.Africa!
1955 Panama & US agreement reached!
1981 Iran hostage crisis!

Anyone still out there?
Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
GaryNJ
Cumberland NJ USA
Posts: 254
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
1/25/2023 5:11:09 PM
Today, January 25, is the birthday of the famous Scottish poet Robert Burns. All who know the song Auld Lang Syne know or should know that Burns wrote the words. I'm sure, Brian, our resident scholar of 18th century Britain will have a word or two about Robert Burns.

Here are two links on Burns.

[Read More]

[Read More]

Gary
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
1/27/2023 11:39:57 AM
[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

3 perpetual sites, check 1-27 for topics.?
cheers,
MD

Hey guys!

Where is everybody???? Hardly any posts lately, hey post something even if it's short!??????

Up north It must be terribly cold?? here in South Carolina it was not to bad 41F this morning!? How cold is it in your neck of the world? Anyway here is today in history!

1820 the Russians discover Antarctica! That's surprising, how many nations today have bases in Antarctica? Comments anyone!?

1825 the greedy racist US government institutes the trail of tears! Do you agree with that statement?? What say you?

1870 Manitoba & the NW Territories incorporated in Canada! How significant was this to a growing Canada & do they have proportionally an equal say in the National government??.Anyone?

1941 Peru warns the US of a possible attack on Pearl Harbor! How could they know 10 months before it happened?? What's your take on this?? Comments??

1943 1st USAF attack on Germany was this to much for the Luftwaffe to overcome, with the RAF already.bombing them big-time? What say you?

1944 the Russians win the Siege of Leningrad! Was this the turning point of WWII in Europe? Or was it other events? What say you??

1945 Russian Troops liberate Auschwitz! How horrific this must have been! Comments on on perceptions on discovering these death camps!?

1965 Apollo 1 tragic fire! How could this happen on the ground in a training situaton? What say you??

Plenty to discuss here, please pitch in! Let's get active again!?

Any new topics?
Regards, stay safe!
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
1/27/2023 12:29:59 PM
Quote:
1870 Manitoba & the NW Territories incorporated in Canada! How significant was this to a growing Canada & do they have proportionally an equal say in the National government??.Anyone?


Canada is a federation. Manitoba is a province which means it has certain responsibilities or powers under the constitution. For example, Manitoba administers its own education and health care. All provinces do. NWT is a territory as the name suggests which means that it has some autonomy to make decisions but needs federal support for many initiatives. Territories have small populations and small economies that make it difficult to take on the same responsibilities as a province.

Our Westminster style Parliament consists of the House of Commons and the Senate. Manitobans elect representatives to the federal Parliament. In that sense, they have as much say in the federal government as any other citizen. None of us vote directly for our Prime Minister. We vote for a person in our riding or electoral district who represents a political party. Generally, the leader of the party that wins the most seats becomes the PM.

Our Senate is appointed by the PM office through the Governor-General and does not have the same responsibilities that the US Senate does. Senators examine legislation and issues and make recommendations to the House of Commons. The Senate must sign off on legislation passed in the House of Commons and a bill must pass in the Senate before becoming law. It would be a rare thing indeed for the Senate to refuse to pass legislation from the House.

The Senate is set up to represent the different regions of the country and to counter balance the representation by population of the House of Commons.

There is a committee that operates at arms length from the government that makes recommendations to the PM for Senate appointments. The government now invites Canadians to volunteer to be considered as Senators. Provincial committees make recommendations as well. All candidates are vetted. The hope is to eliminate the patronage that marked the Senate for decades and caused many Canadians to call for the Senate to be eliminated. There is a list of criteria that Senate candidates are required to demonstrate to hold to be considered eligible.

Senate appointments are also guided by geography so that the more populated provinces are represented by more Senators. Example, Ontario has 24 Senators. So does Québec while Alberta has 6. The territories like Nunavut and NWT have one senator each.

I could go on but suffice to say that each province also has a provincial parliament to deal with matters that constitution indicates are provincial and not federal powers.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
1/27/2023 1:28:58 PM
The first group of convicts from Britain arrived in Botany Bay, Australia in January of 1788. From 1788 to 1868 apparently 160,000 convicts had been transported to New South Wales.

I was musing about the decision that the British had to make in the selection of Australia as a penal colony and how that decision was impacted by the American Revolution.

Britain had been shipping convicts to the 13 colonies of North America. After 1718 and up to the Revolution, nearly 60,000 were shipped to North America. Most of them wound up in Virginia and Maryland. I am unaware of the deal or arrangement that the Crown made with these two colonies so that they would accept shiploads of convicts. Benjamin Franklin commented negatively on this practice and suggested that the British would be most upset if the colonists decided to send rattlesnakes to Britain.

With the revolution finished Britain could no longer use its former colonies as repositories for convicts. For some reason, the US would no longer accept them.
Britain had thought that Newfoundland would be a great place to send convicts and attempted to establish penal colonies in 1730 and again in 1789. Too many convicts died or just came back to Britain and the project was abandoned.

The British debated whether to send convicts to Nova Scotia and Québec before they opted for Australia. I am not sure why they chose Australia, but it has been suggested that they hoped to establish a colony in Australia that would help Britain trade more effectively with China.

Britain also established a separate colony on Van Dieman's Land (Tasmania) in 1803 and it became notorious as a brutal and harsh penal colony. In 1825 Britain sent Sir George Arthur to Van Dieman's land to be the Lt. Gov. He would also administer to the penal colony as well as the rest of the island. He proved to be a cruel man both to the indigenous people whom he forced into a tiny corner of the island and to the convicts in the penal colony.

The people on Van Dieman's land including convicts were sending hundreds of letters home to the government to complain about Sir George and his autocratic management style. Britain recalled him in 1836. In his tenure he had executed 260 people by hanging them. Prior to his arrival, no colonists or convicts had been hung. Sir George was a life long bureaucrat and despite concerns expressed in the Colonial Office, in 1838 he was sent to Canada.

Descriptions of life on Van Dieman's land indicate a high level of lawlessness among the free settlers and the convicts who were often released to forage for food and who preyed upon the free settlers.

1837 had been a difficult year in Upper and Lower Canada (now Ontario and Québec). There had been violent rebellions which had been put down harshly by the British. Sir George arrived just in time to provide his insight into how to deal with the rebels. Some were hanged but 141 were put on transports and taken away.

58 of the rebels were sent to New South Wales in Australia while 83 went to Van Dieman's land. Many of these people would likely have been pardoned but unfortunately Sir George Arthur had some influence though no control of the judiciary. And he recommended the penal colonies in Australia and Van Dieman's land.

Most had sentences of 3-5 years. They did hard labour as members of road building crews. Some, with good behaviour, became ticket-of-leave men which meant that they could serve the remainder of their sentences outside of the colony. Most managed to make their way home and as many of these people were well educated and had been fighting for their rights back in Canada, some chose to write books about their time on Van Dieman's land.

[Read More]

Cheers,

George

Wazza
Sydney  Australia
Posts: 814
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
1/28/2023 3:01:11 AM
Actually Jan 26 for Australians is the date we separated from Britain to be our own self governing nation.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
1/28/2023 7:25:21 AM
Checking 1-28 in World History, we find the topics listed below.

[Read More]

[Read More]

[Read More]

3 perpetual sites, check for new topics, as well!?

cheers,
MD

Today in history 1099, the 1st Crusade is in full swing with attacks in Syria, what say you about warfare over religion!?

1521 King Charles V opens a diet of Worms! It had to be awful for him unless he's like a Robin or Fish!? Any comments on the diet??

1547 A 9 year old succeeds Henry Henry VIII as king of England! How did this kid king do? Brian, what say you?

1864 in the CW the Battle of New Bern, NC. Who won & how important was this battle? Any CW posters, comments??

1865 Confederate President Jefferson Davis names 3 peace officers, did he hold out hope for a peaceful exit from the Union still?? What say you on how close the Confederacy, would come to a diplomatic end to the CW with independence for the South!? Comments, anyone??

1944 683 RAF Bombers attack Berlin! Greetings to the Fuhrer! How successful was this attack!? Anyone??

1973 Bloody Sunday in N. Ireland! Any posts on it's history of what occurred there? Anyone??

1822, Alexander Mackenzie's birthday,on this date, he was the 2nd Priminister of Canada, what kind of leader was he?? Comments?

Comments on the above events?
Anyone?? Or new events?

Cheers,
MD

BTW, George,

Thanks for the Canadian NW territory & Manitoba, history lesson! BTW, The US also once had NW territory, Michigan was part of it!?
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
GaryNJ
Cumberland NJ USA
Posts: 254
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
1/28/2023 9:27:27 AM
On January 28, 1986 the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded on launch killing all seven members of the crew. A truly tragic event witnessed by millions on live television.

[Read More]

Gary
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
1/28/2023 10:42:07 AM
Quote:
Actually Jan 26 for Australians is the date we separated from Britain to be our own self governing nation.


Hello Wazza,

Does Australia pay attention to the day in 1901 that Dominion status was achieved? That's when all your states amalgamated, wasn't it?

Cheers,

George
Wazza
Sydney  Australia
Posts: 814
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
1/28/2023 2:43:00 PM
Yes George its a national day of celebration but also its now also a day of commemoration by first nation peoples as invasion day.

So we celebrate it with one eye on the front door for local protestors and troublemakers. It has become quite a devisive topic at the moment with moves to change the date to another more acceptable day.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
1/28/2023 3:14:46 PM
Quote:
Yes George its a national day of celebration but also its now also a day of commemoration by first nation peoples as invasion day.

So we celebrate it with one eye on the front door for local protestors and troublemakers. It has become quite a devisive topic at the moment with moves to change the date to another more acceptable day.



We're both struggling with the relationship between the "settlers" and the indigenous people. We celebrate our independence on July 1 and many of our First Nations people call for it to be named a day of mourning. I don't know if we're ever going to see eye to eye. The settlers or colonists as they call us aren't going anywhere and the indigenous people do have treaties made with the crown or with Canada and these must be honoured.

Too bad that your special day is fraught with conflict as well. There is good to be celebrated even with the bad things that happened in the past.

Cheers,

George

Page 53 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