MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 68 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
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
4/15/2023 8:20:25 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hardly cowardly.

Why speculate on things that never happened? Here is the US, we have enough people who specialize in alternative facts. The facts are, the French did aid the American colonists and we did fight for and win our Independence.



Quelle surprise.

Try it this way then. Assess the significance and extent of the involvement of the French government and the French forces in the progress and the result of the Revolutionary War. There you go, NY. Just your average essay type question. Perfectly legitimate I think and important to understanding the conduct of the war and indeed, the final result.

I think that your rather shallow and narrow approach has been exposed. I understand though. It is quite difficult to admit that the war was not won simply by citizens emboldened by righteous indignation and the writings of Rousseau. Those damned French, there they are again.
Note that I have never disparaged the efforts of the citizen soldiers. They showed great resilience at places like Valley Forge when they could have just thrown in the towel. But there are other significant factors at play in this historical event.


That's an essay question where the FACTS ARE KNOWN.

You are proposing eliminating the facts and are discussing a hypothetical, where there was no French involvement.

I deal with facts. Evidently, you deal in whimsy. I understand though.


Still being evasive. "Assess the significance and extent of the involvement of the French government and the French forces in the progress and the result of the Revolutionary War." is a reasonable assignment and a good topic for discussion and it accepts the historical fact that the French were involved. How significant and how much?
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
4/15/2023 8:34:20 PM
Hello Brian,

I believe that Londonderry was an important port of call for RCN ships. It was a British base but the official RCN history had this to say:

Quote:
“Canadian sailors in ‘Derry tended to see themselves as ‘nobody’s baby,’ but from late 1943 to the end of the war Canadian naval personnel formed the largest single group of sailors in that port. Five Canadian escort groups, comprising 6,500 men, were using the base. As many as 3000 Canadians were liable to be ashore in the town at any one time. By 1944 there were seventy-five Canadians on Commodore Simpson’s staff, but they were the minority. It was still a British base under British command. From the sailor’s point of view, that did not seem to matter a great deal.”


Derry is right on the border with the Republic of Ireland. Was it bombed at any time?

Cheers,

George
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
4/15/2023 8:52:23 PM
Quote:
1942 King George VI awards the George Cross to all of the people on the Island of Malta! Why? & what is the George Cross? Anyone??

The George Cross was instituted by George VI in 1940 to fulfill a gap in honours in recognition of certain kinds of service. It is not an insignificant honour; some have called it the civilian equivalent of the Victoria Cross, which remains Britain’s greatest mark of military valour (and is, in many ways, similar to the US Congressional Medal of Honor). It was a replacement medal; an earlier medal – the Empire Gallantry medal – would cease to exist, and those holding the EG would receive the George Cross. In the 30 years following the institution of the George Medal, fewer than 140 medals have been awarded, including 18 medals replacing the Empire Gallantry medal.

Malta and her people received the George Cross in 1942 because, at the time, Malta was the most bombed, attacked and sieged island on earth. Keeping Malta from falling to either Italy or Germany was vital to Great Britain, and only the strength and pride of the citizens of Malta allowed that to happen. Hence the award.

But you will indulge me, let me raise a vague memory. I remember that George VI was particularly struck by the guts of a young woman manning the radar screens at one of the Chain Home stations (on the Isle of Wight?) during one of the Luftwaffe’s first attacks focused on the CH Towers. The RDF screens and electronics were typically stored in building surrounding the bases of the towers. There were no “remote” locations. When her station came under intense assault (largely by Ju 87s), this young woman refused to leave her post, remaining there to send vital data to RAF stations.

She survived, and her bravery was reported to George VI, who suggested her bravery met the requirements for a VC. But she was not eligible; she was no an active member of Britain’s military. Hence the decision to create the George Medal. War had come home to civilians; their bravery needed to be recognized.

If I have created a myth, I’m sorry. Anyone who can, please correct me or tell the real story! What I remember is worthy of being true.

Being awarded the George Medal is an honour indeed.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
4/15/2023 9:01:28 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hardly cowardly.

Why speculate on things that never happened? Here is the US, we have enough people who specialize in alternative facts. The facts are, the French did aid the American colonists and we did fight for and win our Independence.



Quelle surprise.

Try it this way then. Assess the significance and extent of the involvement of the French government and the French forces in the progress and the result of the Revolutionary War. There you go, NY. Just your average essay type question. Perfectly legitimate I think and important to understanding the conduct of the war and indeed, the final result.

I think that your rather shallow and narrow approach has been exposed. I understand though. It is quite difficult to admit that the war was not won simply by citizens emboldened by righteous indignation and the writings of Rousseau. Those damned French, there they are again.
Note that I have never disparaged the efforts of the citizen soldiers. They showed great resilience at places like Valley Forge when they could have just thrown in the towel. But there are other significant factors at play in this historical event.


That's an essay question where the FACTS ARE KNOWN.

You are proposing eliminating the facts and are discussing a hypothetical, where there was no French involvement.

I deal with facts. Evidently, you deal in whimsy. I understand though.


Still being evasive. "Assess the significance and extent of the involvement of the French government and the French forces in the progress and the result of the Revolutionary War." is a reasonable assignment and a good topic for discussion and it accepts the historical fact that the French were involved. How significant and how much?


I thought this was the question....Would the American colonists have won the war had not France actively engaged in providing weapons, munitions, and eventually troops and ships?
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
4/15/2023 9:06:51 PM
Brian, it seems to me that the government of Malta became disenchanted with Britain after the award of the George Medal and that it was removed or stolen from the library at Valletta where it was on display. It was a single individual that removed it and not conspiratorial in any way.

That was in the '70's. And I believe that it was lost for a while. Hopefully, it is on display somewhere in Malta today.

Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
4/16/2023 6:47:45 AM
On this day in World History....
On April 16, 1917, Vladimir Lenin, leader of the revolutionary Bolshevik Party, returns to Petrograd after a decade of exile to take the reins of the Russian Revolution.

Born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov in 1870, Lenin was drawn to the revolutionary cause after his brother was executed in 1887 for plotting to assassinate Czar Alexander III. He studied law and took up practice in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg), where he moved in revolutionary Marxist circles. In 1895, he helped organize Marxist groups in the capital into the “Union for the Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class,” which attempted to enlist workers to the Marxist cause. In December 1895, Lenin and the other leaders of the Union were arrested. Lenin was jailed for a year and then exiled to Siberia for a term of three years.

After his exile ended in 1900, Lenin went to Western Europe, where he continued his revolutionary activity. It was during this time that he adopted the pseudonym Lenin. In 1902, he published a pamphlet entitled What Is to Be Done?, which argued that only a disciplined party of professional revolutionaries could bring socialism to Russia. In 1903, he met with other Russian Marxists in London and established the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party (RSDWP). However, from the start, there was a split between Lenin’s Bolsheviks (Majoritarians), who advocated militarism, and the Mensheviks (Minoritarians), who advocated a democratic movement toward socialism. These two groups increasingly opposed each other within the framework of the RSDWP, and Lenin made the split official at a 1912 conference of the Bolshevik Party.

After the outbreak of the Russian Revolution of 1905, Lenin returned to Russia. The revolution, which consisted mainly of strikes throughout the Russian empire, came to an end when Nicholas II promised reforms, including the adoption of a Russian constitution and the establishment of an elected legislature. However, once order was restored, the czar nullified most of these reforms, and in 1907 Lenin was again forced into exile.



Lenin opposed World War I, which began in 1914, as an imperialistic conflict and called on proletariat soldiers to turn their guns on the capitalist leaders who sent them down into the murderous trenches. For Russia, World War I was an unprecedented disaster: Russian casualties were greater than those sustained by any nation in any previous war. Meanwhile, the economy was hopelessly disrupted by the costly war effort, and in March 1917, riots and strikes broke out in Petrograd over the scarcity of food. Demoralized army troops joined the strikers, and on March 15, 1917, Nicholas II was forced to abdicate, ending centuries of czarist rule. In the aftermath of the February Revolution (known as such because of Russia’s use of the Julian calendar), power was shared between the ineffectual provisional government, led by Minister of War Alexander Kerensky, and the soviets, or “councils,” of soldiers’ and workers’ committees.

After the outbreak of the February Revolution, German authorities allowed Lenin and his lieutenants to cross Germany en route from Switzerland to Sweden in a sealed railway car. Berlin hoped, correctly, that the return of the anti-war socialists to Russia would undermine the Russian war effort, which was continuing under the provisional government. Lenin called for the overthrow of the provisional government by the soviets; he was subsequently condemned as a “German agent” by the government’s leaders. In July, he was forced to flee to Finland, but his call for “peace, land, and bread” met with increasing popular support, and the Bolsheviks won a majority in the Petrograd soviet. In October, Lenin secretly returned to Petrograd, and on November 7, the Bolshevik-led Red Guards deposed the Provisional Government and proclaimed soviet rule.

Lenin became the virtual dictator of the world’s first Marxist state. His government made peace with Germany, nationalized industry and distributed land but, beginning in 1918, had to fight a devastating civil war against czarist forces. In 1920, the czarists were defeated, and in 1922, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was established. Upon Lenin’s death in early 1924, his body was embalmed and placed in a mausoleum near the Moscow Kremlin. Petrograd was renamed Leningrad in his honor. After a struggle of succession, fellow revolutionary Joseph Stalin succeeded Lenin as leader of the Soviet Union.



Lenin returns to Russia from exile
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lenin-returns-to-russia-from-exile?cmpid=email-hist-tdih-2023-0416-04162023&om_rid=21539c69abde70e4e3fda02b9d14d1819c3badeaf5a2bcab48a023eefe0cd3d2
On April 16, 1917, Vladimir Lenin, leader of the revolutionary Bolshevik Party, returns to Petrograd after a decade of exile to take the reins of the Russian Revolution. Born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov in 1870, Lenin was drawn to the revolutionary cause after his brother was executed in 1887 for plotting to assassinate Czar Alexander III. […]
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
4/16/2023 7:08:11 AM
On this day in 1746, the Jacobite army of Charles Stuart was decisively defeated by a British government army under the Duke of Cumberland. Following a failed attempt to invade England and usurp George II from the throne, the Jacobites returned to Scotland, hoping to regroup and await promised French support.

The Jacobites deployed onto the moor exhausted, after a failed night march failed to locate the government army camp to launch a dawn attack. The government army was well rested, well equipped and well trained.

Cumberland knew the power of the Jacobite ‘highland charge’, where the Jacobite infantry would fire a volley at close range and then engage with personal arms (swords, daggers and pistols), negating the defensive power of the British army’s artillery and bayonets. In response, he had spent the winter at Aberdeen training his men in the new bayonet drill, where the infantry would bayonet to attacker to their right rather than straight ahead. The idea was that the Jacobite attacker would be exposed to a bayonet thrust as they raised their sword arm and couldn’t deflect the blow with their targes (small shields).

The battle took a while to start as the Jacobites deployed. Time was wasted in an ineffective exchange of artillery, which allowed the government army more time to deploy its reserve lines. Eventually the order to attack was given by Charles Stuart. The MacDonalds on the left floundered in rough terrain, meaning the Jacobite line hit the army line at separate times under murderous musket and canister volleys.

The Jacobites briefly penetrated the government front line, but Cumberland’s prudence in deploying his army into three lines paid off and the Jacobites were driven back. The Jacobite right was hit by enfilade fire, and a general rout ensued. The French regulars, about 300 Irish expatriate troops, formed a rearguard that allowed the Jacobite leadership and some of the army to get away. They were captured and treated fairly, as they were recognised as legitimate opponents and were eventually exchanged for British prisoners.

The Jacobite captured and wounded were not treated so well. Many were butchered on the spot, with others rounded up over the next few weeks subject to summary justice which involved execution or imprisonment and deportation. The Highlands of Scotland were deemed a hotbed of treason (save for the clans who had sided with the government) and were robustly and brutally searched and pillaged as the army chased after Charles Stuart. Nevertheless, Charles got away to a French ship anchored off Skye. Although he promised to return, his bolt was shot and he could not raise the necessary French funds and Jacobite support for another attempt to regain the throne.

The Jacobite cause died at Culloden, along with the Highland way of life. The wearing of tartan and handling of personal arms was outlawed, with the use of the Gaelic language suppressed also. Sheep, not crofting tenants, became profitable to the chief landlords and many highland folk sought a new home in British North America. The Crown, not the clan, became the predominant patriarchal power in the Highlands.

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
4/16/2023 7:30:02 AM


Checking 4-15 in history, not commented on yet?

1943 A Allied Bombing mission misses a German Automobile Factory, & hits the Belgium city of Mortsel killing almost 1,000 innocent civilians! How could this miscue of a tragedy happen?? Anyone??

1955 McDonald's Restaurant is founded by Ray Kroc in Des Plaines, Illinois! How many are there today, & in how many countries??

1989 almost 100 soccer fans are killed in Hillsborough Stadium, England! How could this happen at a peaceful sporting event?? Comments??

Any new comments or topics to discuss??
Cheers,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
4/16/2023 7:33:18 AM


Also on 4-16 in history check out these events! Comment on any??

73 AD, Masada a Jewish Fortress falls to the Romans, after a long seige! It in photos looks impregnable!? Incredible and horrific ending for the defenders! Anyone have pics, or websites on this event? It's enthralling history!? Comments??

1818 the Rush Bagot treaty establishing the border of Canada, & the US is ratified by the US Senate! Who came out ahead in this situation? Was it fair?? Comments, anyone??

1947 the term Cold War is used to describe the conflict between the Soviet Union, & the West is used! Is it still going on today??

What say you? Anyone??
Regards,
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
4/16/2023 7:37:10 AM
Quote:


1989 almost 100 soccer fans are killed in Hillsborough Stadium, England! How could this happen at a peaceful sporting event?? Comments??



Hi Dave,

One of our members has trauma from this tragedy. For those of us who watched it unfold on television it was horrific.

For those who experienced it, I think it is still too raw to discuss. I can’t imagine what they have went through, from the tragedy itself, to the attempt to smear the supporters and cover it up, to the long and gruelling fight for justice.

Let us leave this one alone.

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
4/16/2023 7:57:54 AM
Quote:
On this day in 1746, the Jacobite army of Charles Stuart was decisively defeated by a British government army under the Duke of Cumberland. Following a failed attempt to invade England and usurp George II from the throne, the Jacobites returned to Scotland, hoping to regroup and await promised French support.

The Jacobites deployed onto the moor exhausted, after a failed night march failed to locate the government army camp to launch a dawn attack. The government army was well rested, well equipped and well trained.

Cumberland knew the power of the Jacobite ‘highland charge’, where the Jacobite infantry would fire a volley at close range and then engage with personal arms (swords, daggers and pistols), negating the defensive power of the British army’s artillery and bayonets. In response, he had spent the winter at Aberdeen training his men in the new bayonet drill, where the infantry would bayonet to attacker to their right rather than straight ahead. The idea was that the Jacobite attacker would be exposed to a bayonet thrust as they raised their sword arm and couldn’t deflect the blow with their targes (small shields).

The battle took a while to start as the Jacobites deployed. Time was wasted in an ineffective exchange of artillery, which allowed the government army more time to deploy its reserve lines. Eventually the order to attack was given by Charles Stuart. The MacDonalds on the left floundered in rough terrain, meaning the Jacobite line hit the army line at separate times under murderous musket and canister volleys.

The Jacobites briefly penetrated the government front line, but Cumberland’s prudence in deploying his army into three lines paid off and the Jacobites were driven back. The Jacobite right was hit by enfilade fire, and a general rout ensued. The French regulars, about 300 Irish expatriate troops, formed a rearguard that allowed the Jacobite leadership and some of the army to get away. They were captured and treated fairly, as they were recognised as legitimate opponents and were eventually exchanged for British prisoners.

The Jacobite captured and wounded were not treated so well. Many were butchered on the spot, with others rounded up over the next few weeks subject to summary justice which involved execution or imprisonment and deportation. The Highlands of Scotland were deemed a hotbed of treason (save for the clans who had sided with the government) and were robustly and brutally searched and pillaged as the army chased after Charles Stuart. Nevertheless, Charles got away to a French ship anchored off Skye. Although he promised to return, his bolt was shot and he could not raise the necessary French funds and Jacobite support for another attempt to regain the throne.

The Jacobite cause died at Culloden, along with the Highland way of life. The wearing of tartan and handling of personal arms was outlawed, with the use of the Gaelic language suppressed also. Sheep, not crofting tenants, became profitable to the chief landlords and many highland folk sought a new home in British North America. The Crown, not the clan, became the predominant patriarchal power in the Highlands.

Cheers,

Colin


Fascinating stuff on infantry tactics, Colin. Did the modification to the bayonet charge work? It would seem that as the government soldier struck the Scots soldier to his right that he would also be exposed on his left. Were the Scots cut down by this tactic?

Also you mentioned that some clans sided with the government. Why were they disposed to do so? I hesitate to ask but to which side was the Gordon clan attached?

You are probably aware that many of the officers sent to North America to fight the French in the French and Indian War had fought in the Jacobite Rebellion. James Wolfe, conqueror at the Plains of Abraham in 1759 was present at the Battle of Culloden.

One of his most trusted regiments at Québec was the Fraser Highlanders who, I believe, sided with the government during the Jacobite Rebellion.

Great post, Colin

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
4/16/2023 8:04:25 AM
Quote:
Quote:
On this day in 1746, the Jacobite army of Charles Stuart was decisively defeated by a British government army under the Duke of Cumberland. Following a failed attempt to invade England and usurp George II from the throne, the Jacobites returned to Scotland, hoping to regroup and await promised French support.

The Jacobites deployed onto the moor exhausted, after a failed night march failed to locate the government army camp to launch a dawn attack. The government army was well rested, well equipped and well trained.

Cumberland knew the power of the Jacobite ‘highland charge’, where the Jacobite infantry would fire a volley at close range and then engage with personal arms (swords, daggers and pistols), negating the defensive power of the British army’s artillery and bayonets. In response, he had spent the winter at Aberdeen training his men in the new bayonet drill, where the infantry would bayonet to attacker to their right rather than straight ahead. The idea was that the Jacobite attacker would be exposed to a bayonet thrust as they raised their sword arm and couldn’t deflect the blow with their targes (small shields).

The battle took a while to start as the Jacobites deployed. Time was wasted in an ineffective exchange of artillery, which allowed the government army more time to deploy its reserve lines. Eventually the order to attack was given by Charles Stuart. The MacDonalds on the left floundered in rough terrain, meaning the Jacobite line hit the army line at separate times under murderous musket and canister volleys.

The Jacobites briefly penetrated the government front line, but Cumberland’s prudence in deploying his army into three lines paid off and the Jacobites were driven back. The Jacobite right was hit by enfilade fire, and a general rout ensued. The French regulars, about 300 Irish expatriate troops, formed a rearguard that allowed the Jacobite leadership and some of the army to get away. They were captured and treated fairly, as they were recognised as legitimate opponents and were eventually exchanged for British prisoners.

The Jacobite captured and wounded were not treated so well. Many were butchered on the spot, with others rounded up over the next few weeks subject to summary justice which involved execution or imprisonment and deportation. The Highlands of Scotland were deemed a hotbed of treason (save for the clans who had sided with the government) and were robustly and brutally searched and pillaged as the army chased after Charles Stuart. Nevertheless, Charles got away to a French ship anchored off Skye. Although he promised to return, his bolt was shot and he could not raise the necessary French funds and Jacobite support for another attempt to regain the throne.

The Jacobite cause died at Culloden, along with the Highland way of life. The wearing of tartan and handling of personal arms was outlawed, with the use of the Gaelic language suppressed also. Sheep, not crofting tenants, became profitable to the chief landlords and many highland folk sought a new home in British North America. The Crown, not the clan, became the predominant patriarchal power in the Highlands.

Cheers,

Colin


Fascinating stuff on infantry tactics, Colin. Did the modification to the bayonet charge work? It would seem that as the government soldier struck the Scots soldier to his right that he would also be exposed on his left. Were the Scots cut down by this tactic?

Also you mentioned that some clans sided with the government. Why were they disposed to do so? I hesitate to ask but to which side was the Gordon clan attached?

You are probably aware that many of the officers sent to North America to fight the French in the French and Indian War had fought in the Jacobite Rebellion. James Wolfe, conqueror at the Plains of Abraham in 1759 was present at the Battle of Culloden.

One of his most trusted regiments at Québec was the Fraser Highlanders who, I believe, sided with the government during the Jacobite Rebellion.

Great post, Colin

George

Not to correct the history, but....

Simon Fraser, 11th Lord Lovat (c. 1667 – 9 April 1747, London), nicknamed the Fox, was a Scottish Jacobite and Chief of Clan Fraser of Lovat, known for his feuding and changes of allegiance. In 1715, he had been a supporter of the House of Hanover, but in 1745 he changed sides and supported the Stuart claim on the crown of Great Britain. Lovat was among the Highlanders defeated at the Battle of Culloden and convicted of treason against the Crown, following which he was sentenced to death and subsequently beheaded.

Frasier sided with and supported the Stuart claim to the throne.

Frasier's Highlanders ....The 78th Regiment, (Highland) Regiment of Foot also known as the 78th Fraser Highlanders was a British infantry regiment of the line raised in Scotland in 1757, to fight in the Seven Years' War (also known as the French and Indian War in the US.). The 78th Regiment was one of the first three Highland Regiments to fight in North America.

Frasier's Highlanders did not exist at the time of the Jacobite Rebellion.

respectfully submitted,
NYGiant, Military Historian.




Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
4/16/2023 8:39:16 AM
Thanks George.

Historical views are mixed on whether the new bayonet tactics had much effect; the Jacobites really didn’t get close enough to the government frontlines to truly test it. Where they did (on the government left), they still managed to break through. It would appear it was musket and canister fire which broke up the attack, not bayonets.

Nevertheless, the Jacobites probably had a good chance of success had they managed to pull off the night attack. The army’s strength was in neat lines firing volleys; a dispersed camp in the light of dawn would have made ideal pickings for the Jacobite army, as it had proved at Prestonpans a seven months earlier.

George, you ask of why the clans chose different sides. The lowlands of Scotland had experienced the economic boom of union with England and were thus quite happy to keep the Hanoverians on the throne, who allowed unhindered Scottish access to now British markets and colonies. Some of the highland clans openly sided with the government, citing sectarian differences (largely Catholic Jacobites vs Protestants) and similar economic interests to the lowlanders. The Campbells were one such clan, who had (on the government coin) butchered the MacDonalds at Glencoe in 1689. In my lifetime there have been repercussions to this. Glasgow has a few pubs frequented by displaced highlanders (such as the Park Bar), where the highland Campbells were/are not welcomed. Hopefully old scores have been finally forgiven. I certainly didn’t notice anything the last time I popped in for a pint about a year ago.

Anyway, I digress. You ask of the Gordons; their chief pledged allegiance to the Crown, but his brother would not. Gordons under the chief’s brother fought and died at Culloden for the Jacobites. However, the chief’s pledge kept the clan largely safe and eventually many of the young men entered military service. The Gordon Highlanders were a crack infantry unit for much of their service to the Crown.

As NYG points out, it was the Frasers who fought against the government rather than with the regiment itself which was formed later. Nevertheless, I expect the many men fought in both entities saw little difference in the experience of their service for and against the Crown.

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
4/16/2023 8:41:45 AM
Quote:
818 the Rush Bagot treaty establishing the border of Canada, & the US is ratified by the US Senate! Who came out ahead in this situation? Was it fair?? Comments, anyone??


Sometimes called an agreement rather than a treaty, this document did provide the groundwork for the establishment of the longest demilitarized border in the world. It still is but it has never been truly undefended. As far as I know the western boundary between the US and BNA had not been established and would not be so until 1846 and the Oregon Treaty.

I see the agreement as largely a symbolic acknowledgement of the good will desired between two nations after a nasty war that ended in 1814.

What it did do was limit the tonnage of military vessels permitted on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain? In that it was reasonably effective though technically abrogated by the US on at least two occasions. The agreement stipulated that the US and BNA could maintain one vessel of 100 tonnes or less with a single cannon on Lakes Ontario and Champlain. On the other Great Lakes, each side could maintain two vessels.

But Rush-Bagot did not stop the construction of military installations on land bordering the Great Lakes. Both sides built forts and other installations well after Rush-Bagot. There are dozens of them on both sides of the lakes. And Canada went on a canal building spree just in case the US decided to invade again.

In times of war, the treaty was ignored or modified. During the US Civil War, the US armed cutters for service on the lakes to intercept Confederate raiders operating out of Canada. Perceiving the British to be unenthusiastic about enforcing its neutrality, the US threatened to repeal the agreement. US Sec. of State placed orders for the construction of military vessels for use on the lakes and armed a number of cutters that were already there.

At the beginning of WWII, Canada began to construct war ships at ports along the Great Lakes. The US, then neutral, refused to allow Canada to arm these ships until they reached the open sea. The symbolic nature of the agreement was very important to the US at that time.

Later on when the US had joined the fray, both countries agreed that that newly constructed warships from either side should be armed and tested before reaching the open sea.

By the end of the war, Canadian and US defence interests had come to the fore and Canada proposed that training of crews on warships in the Great Lakes should be permissible if the two countries informed each other in advance of the training session.

After 9-11, the US became very concerned about security and it decided to arm its USCG vessels on Lake Huron and Erie with MG's. Why just those two lakes, I don't know. I am not sure whether Canada protested this decision as a violation of the terms of the agreement but Canada did announce that it would perceive the arming of coast guard vessels as part of a police action rather than preparation for war. That sounds like a face saving measure to me because the US was going to arm ships in spite of the Rush-Bagot agreement.

The agreement is still in effect and as I said, it is probably more symbolic than anything. Despite tensions at times between Canada and the US since 1814, there has been peace between the nations for over 200 years. The border is not undefended but there are no fences and no armies lined up facing one another across a line. In some places the border is still wilderness or farm fields that abut one another and we are both good neighbours.

I don't know whether anyone would know if you decided to jump from one side to the other and back at this place.





Cheers,

George




Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
4/16/2023 8:46:10 AM
Thanks George, I really enjoyed that post.

I’m surprised Seward didn’t go further during the Civil War in terms of erecting defended and deploying more military resources. Confederate raiders operating out of Canada were hardly encouraged by Britain, but I’m not sure what could have been done to stop them without deploying military resources that could have started an arms race in the arena?

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."
RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
4/16/2023 1:20:46 PM
Quote:
What it did do was limit the tonnage of military vessels permitted on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain? In that it was reasonably effective though technically abrogated by the US on at least two occasions. The agreement stipulated that the US and BNA could maintain one vessel of 100 tonnes or less with a single cannon on Lakes Ontario and Champlain. On the other Great Lakes, each side could maintain two vessels.

...

After 9-11, the US became very concerned about security and it decided to arm its USCG vessels on Lake Huron and Erie with MG's. Why just those two lakes, I don't know. I am not sure whether Canada protested this decision as a violation of the terms of the agreement but Canada did announce that it would perceive the arming of coast guard vessels as part of a police action rather than preparation for war. That sounds like a face saving measure to me because the US was going to arm ships in spite of the Rush-Bagot agreement.


"His Royal Highness acting in the name and on the behalf of His Majesty, agrees, that the Naval force to be maintained upon the American Lakes by His Majesty and the Government of the Unites States shall henceforth be confined to the following vessels on each side. That is: -

On Lake Ontario to one vessel not exceeding one hundred Tons burthen and armed with one eighteen pound cannon.

On the upper lakes to two vessels not exceeding like burthen each and armed with like force.

On the waters of Lake Champlain to one vessel not exceeding like burthen and armed with like force.

And His Royal Highness agrees that all other armed vessels on these Lakes shall be forthwith dismantled, and that no other vessels of war shall be there built or armed."

The USCG decision to arm the eleven cutters on Erie and Huron was not just because of 9/11 but also because of increased smuggling activity at the time. Why there was more activity there than on Superior and Ontario is a good question.

Given that the bullet of a MG 60 makes it roughly a "one-third ouncer" it would be difficult to argue that any of them exceed the 18-pound limit in the agreement.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
4/16/2023 8:15:44 PM
MD you ask this morning about 4/15 events not discussed, including the following: Quote:
1943 A Allied Bombing mission misses a German Automobile Factory, & hits the Belgium city of Mortsel killing almost 1,000 innocent civilians! How could this miscue of a tragedy happen?? Anyone?
I had written briefly on this raid when it first arose some ten days ago, but cannot find my posting.

The raid you speak of was not on 15 April, 1943, but on 5 April. It was not against a German Auto Plant, but against a Belgian factory named Erla which was now a repair facility for Messerschmitt a/c, whether for -110s or -109s I cannot say. Bf- or Me-110s were increasing impressive as night-fighters against RAF Bomber Command, while Bf- or Me-109s were the major threat to USAAF bombing theory and forces alike. So the target was certainly legitimate.

It was a USAAF raid of relatively small size. Ninety-five a/c (70 B-17; 25 B-24) were dispatched, carrying some 566,000 lbs of bombs, an average bomb load of about 6,000 lbs per a/c. Of the 95 a/c dispatched, 82 reached target, dropping 446,000 lbs (approx 5450 lb per a/c). I have no information about the composition of those bomb loads; typically bomb loads mixed blast and incendiary, but the USAAF was in a period of transition at the time. In addition, I’m not sure of how complex US bomb racks were in early 1943. I believe at this point, e.g., that typical B-17 racks were optimized for carrying 500lb GP bombs, but I don’t that I’m correct, or if this had an easy workaround.

I won’t go on, because my earlier response may still be out there. But I would argue that this was just a typical badly executed raid. This isn’t an attack on the USAAF tactics or the Mighty Eighth; the RAF had hosts of botched raids as well. I would note that this raid may indicate weaknesses of the introduction of Master bomb aimers and toggliers, which would even on good USAAF raids change USAAF bombing from “precision” to “carpet”. And I might suggest that this was an indication (or, at least, a hint) at limitations of the Norden bomb sight, which IMHO was great in the US South but not capable of being calibrated for European weather.

Cheers
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
4/16/2023 8:16:52 PM
dup
----------------------------------
"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
4/17/2023 7:37:13 AM
Hi Brian,

It seems I also remember you posting a response to this topic, I also back tracked but didn't find the post??

So thanks, again,
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
4/17/2023 7:39:17 AM


Checking 4-17 in history, how about these events??

1824 Russia abandons all North American claims south of 54, 40', What if Great Britain had offered the Russians more for Alaska than the Americans eventially did??

1492 Columbus will sail the Ocean Blue, for Spain!? Was he good for Native Americans? Comments?

1820 Alexander Cartwright developed base ball? I thought it was Abner Doubleday?? So what's the story??

1861 Virginia becomes the 8th state to secede from the Union! What if they hadn't? Would that have stopped the revolt??

1864 USS Grant bans prisoner exchanges! How does this effect the Civil War? Anyone??

1961 the Bay of Pigs invasion why does it fail?? Comments on this fiasco? Anyone??

1970 Apollo 13 Astronauts finally land! How under impossible odds did they make it back safely! Comments??

Comments please,
Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
4/17/2023 7:55:37 AM
Quote:
The USCG decision to arm the eleven cutters on Erie and Huron was not just because of 9/11 but also because of increased smuggling activity at the time. Why there was more activity there than on Superior and Ontario is a good question.

Given that the bullet of a MG 60 makes it roughly a "one-third ouncer" it would be difficult to argue that any of them exceed the 18-pound limit in the agreement.


Rich, I do recall the anger on both sides of the line when it was announced that the USCG would install MG's that fire at 600 rounds per minute. The lower Great Lakes are congested with shipping and with tourist craft and with commercial and recreational fishermen.

The announcement raised the ire of the mayors of cities in the US and Canada whose port cities are on the lakes. They were fearful that gun drills would be dangerous to boaters. As well bilateral arm's length agencies concerned with the protection of the lakes protested the dumping of lead into the lakes. The health of the Great Lakes and the species that swim in it is of great concern to both countries. So far as I know, the use of lead weights by recreational fishermen has been curtailed.

From 2006

[Read More]

In the aftermath of 9-11 the US expressed concern over the porosity of the undefended border and claimed that heightened security was the rationale behind the decision to add the MG's. Smuggling concerns were not only related to illicit goods like drugs and cigarettes but to human smuggling as well. The US was concerned about terrorists slipping into the country from Canada. We all recall that initially some US lawmakers said that the terrorists who caused so many deaths on 9-11 had come in from Canada. That assessment was completely unfounded as the terrorists had entered the US legally and taken basic flight training there.

As to why Lake Ontario was a major concern, it has been a major concern for both governments forever. During your civil war, Confederates used Lake Ontario to ferry agents from Ontario to New York state.

During prohibition, booze was smuggled from Windsor to Detroit and directly across the 21 mile span of Lake Ontario to parts of the south shore that were comparatively unoccupied.

A current smuggling problem has to do with US made handguns being brought into Canada by smugglers at land crossings and water crossings.

One of the greatest sources of smuggled goods and human beings is the Akwesasne Mohawk Reserve located at Cornwall, Ontario. Unique to our two nations, that reserve is partly in Canada and partly in the US. The Mohawk First Nations people haul contraband over water in both directions. Cigarettes and guns are big items to be moved. Our taxes on cigarettes are much higher than in the US and it is lucrative to move cigarettes from New York to Ontario. But I do know that the FN's make their own cigarettes and smokers enter the reserves to buy them in plastic bags. It is legal and it is cheap so I don't see the need to smuggle but it is a major problem there.

Currently, the big problem for the US is that people entering Canada on a visitor's visa are doing so only to find a spot to slip into the US. Within the last couple of weeks the bodies of a Romanian family and an Indian family were found in the waters of Akwesasne. Someone was being paid to ferry them to the US side and one FN man is missing and tragically, these people drowned. They likely were not terrorists but economic migrants.

So I can see why the USCG would be concerned but I don't think that they have any jurisdiction in Akwesasne anyway. It is a problem for the border services of both nations and local police including band police. I stand to be corrected on that count.


RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
4/17/2023 1:24:00 PM
Quote:
The raid you speak of was not on 15 April, 1943, but on 5 April. It was not against a German Auto Plant, but against a Belgian factory named Erla which was now a repair facility for Messerschmitt a/c, whether for -110s or -109s I cannot say. Bf- or Me-110s were increasing impressive as night-fighters against RAF Bomber Command, while Bf- or Me-109s were the major threat to USAAF bombing theory and forces alike. So the target was certainly legitimate.

It was a USAAF raid of relatively small size. Ninety-five a/c (70 B-17; 25 B-24) were dispatched, carrying some 566,000 lbs of bombs, an average bomb load of about 6,000 lbs per a/c. Of the 95 a/c dispatched, 82 reached target, dropping 446,000 lbs (approx 5450 lb per a/c). I have no information about the composition of those bomb loads; typically bomb loads mixed blast and incendiary, but the USAAF was in a period of transition at the time. In addition, I’m not sure of how complex US bomb racks were in early 1943. I believe at this point, e.g., that typical B-17 racks were optimized for carrying 500lb GP bombs, but I don’t that I’m correct, or if this had an easy workaround.


The 5 April 1943 raid on Erla Antwerp was Eighth Air Force Mission No. 50. 104 aircraft were dispatched, 79 were B-17: 91 BG (20); 303 BG (21); 305 BG (18); 306 BG (20) of which 64 attacked. 25 were B-24: 44 BG (14) and 93 BG (11) of which 18 attacked. All 4 aircraft lost were B-17 of the 306 BG.

The 82 aircraft reported as attacking the target dropped 245.5 short tons of bombs - all were HE.

The B-17 bomb racks were not optimized for any particular bomb but were designed when the typical "standard" bomb in use by the Army Air Corps in 1934 was the 300-lb M31 Demolition Bomb, while the "large" bomb was the 600-lb M32 Demolition Bomb. The B-17 bomb bay consisted of four racks with a total of 42 bomb stations - 8 each on the ourboard racks and 13 each on the inboard racks. 16 300-lb M31 or 8 600-lb M32 could be carried, which was considered an optimum load - in 1936. However, by 1943 the 600-lb M32 was practically out of inventory and the General Purpose Bomb was preferred, typically the 500-lb AN-M43 or AN-M58, of which 12 could be carried - as an overload.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
4/17/2023 9:12:11 PM
Hi guys,

Checking 4-17 in history, some good topics, anyone?

1824 Russia abandons all North American claims south of 54, 40', What if Great Britain had offered the Russians more for Alaska than the Americans eventially did??

1492 Columbus will sail the Ocean Blue, for Spain!? Was he good for Native Americans? Comments?

1820 Alexander Cartwright developed base ball? I thought it was Abner Doubleday?? So what's the story??

1861 Virginia becomes the 8th state to secede from the Union! What if they hadn't? Would that have stopped the revolt??

1864 USS Grant bans prisoner exchanges! How does this effect the Civil War? Anyone??

1961 the Bay of Pigs invasion why does it fail?? Comments on this fiasco? Anyone??

1970 Apollo 13 Astronauts finally land! How under impossible odds did they make it back safely! Comments??

Regards,
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
4/17/2023 9:13:40 PM
Rich, thanks for the post. Slightly different numbers; slightly different bomb load dropped. I drew my data from a Belgian source, and would assume your source is closer to an official US number.

I’ll admit to some ignorance concerning US a/c bomb capabilities. Thank you for the numbers, which give max. loads of 4800 lbs (16x300; 8x600) or 6000 lbs (12x500). 6000 lbs matches specs I’ve seen for B-17 average loads, with suggestions that maximum bomb loads exceeded 11,000 lbs. Know anything about how that last number might have been configured in even late model B-17s?

I did a ground tour of what I assumed was a late model B-17 (chin turret; cheek turrets; extended vane on the tailplane), and was impressed by the compactness of the bomb bay as I sidled down the walkway aft of the cockpit. But it struck me at the time it looked very different from the bomb bay of a Lancaster, which by contrast was just a gaping maw.

Again, thanks Rich.
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
4/17/2023 9:14:14 PM
Phil, thanks for the post. Slightly different numbers; slightly different bomb load dropped. I drew my data from a Belgian source, and would assume your source is closer to an official US number.

I’ll admit to some ignorance concerning US a/c bomb capabilities. Thank you for the numbers, which give max. loads of 4800 lbs (16x300; 8x600) or 6000 lbs (12x500). 6000 lbs matches specs I’ve seen for B-17 average loads, with suggestions that maximum bomb loads exceeded 11,000 lbs. Know anything about how that last number might have been configured in even late model B-17s?

I did a ground tour of what I assumed was a late model B-17 (chin turret; cheek turrets; extended vane on the tailplane), and was impressed by the compactness of the bomb bay as I sidled down the walkway aft of the cockpit. But it struck me at the time it looked very different from the bomb bay of a Lancaster, which by contrast was just a gaping maw.

Again, thanks Rich.
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
4/18/2023 8:24:58 AM
Quote:
1824 Russia abandons all North American claims south of 54, 40', What if Great Britain had offered the Russians more for Alaska than the Americans eventially did??


I still have trouble understanding how the US and Russia could have come to an understanding over access to Pacific ports and the establishment of Russian territory on the Pacific coast down to 54'40. The US was only one player on the Pacific coast. The British and the Spanish also had interests. And the dominant power in the Columbia district to the south of 54'40 was Great Britain. The US called the Columbia district, the Oregon territory.

But the Russo-American Treaty of 1824 gave the US the rights to Russian interests to the south of 54'40. Effectively, they ceded the Oregon territory though it is my understanding that the Russians were not overly interested in explorations inland. They were more interested in coastal operations. That's how we got into an argument over the Canada/US border in Alaska. The distance inland that the Alaskan panhandle went was not clearly defined.

In 1825, Russia and Britain negotiated the Anglo-Russian Treaty (Treaty of St. Petersburg) to deal with navigation and trade issues in the Pacific Northwest. In that agreement the southern boundary of Russia was confirmed at 54'40 and the existence of British territory to the east of the Alaska panhandle was confirmed. As mentioned, the treaty did a poor job of defining the depth (width??) of the Alaska Panhandle. The treaty did indicate that the future territories of the Yukon and NWT were British domains.

I am not familiar enough with the two treaties to say whether the Treaty of St. Petersburg established that ownership of the Columbia District (Oregon). I don't believe that the British recognized the US claims laid down in the Russo-American Treaty of 1824. And indeed, the US and GB began negotiations around the ownership of that disputed territory in 1834. And it would not be until 1846 that the US and GB agreed that the lands to the south of the 49th parallel would be US territory.

The US purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867. And in that same year the Dominion of Canada was established. Canada did not exist until July 1 of that year and was in no position to become a player in the Alaska negotiations which concluded in October of 1867. As well, Canada did not make its own foreign policy in those days but relied upon Britain for those diplomatic services.

So the question is then, why didn't Britain buy it? I think that it is unlikely that Russia would even have considered selling Alaska to their principle rival in the Pacific, Great Britain. Relations between Russia and GB had been hostile in the two decades prior to the sale. The Crimean War had concluded in 1856 and Russian had been humiliated in that conflict. It was only little more than a decade later that the sale to the US was concluded.

Britain was interested in obtaining Alaska but the Tsar was in no mood to deal after the Crimean debacle. The Hudson's Bay Company was well established in the Oregon Territory and would have gladly moved into Alaska to establish control of the fur trade.

Russia's trade fortunes in Alaska had taken a dive. The trade in sea otter pelts was no longer profitable. As well, Russia had acquired some Chinese islands and the border between China and Russia had been altered in Russia's favour and had concerns about the establishment of control on that part of its border were of greater concern.

Russia was concerned that British ownership of Alaska would give the RN ports that were very close to Russia proper. I am not sure just how much of a threat Britain could be to Russia from the Alaskan coast but Russia preferred to see Alaska in the hands of a friendly power like the US. The British and French had attacked the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula during the Crimean War. It was one of the few success stories for Russia but it certainly cemented the thought that they were vulnerable on their east coast.

The US and GB were in conflict over land claims in the Pacific NW and the sale of Alaska to the US would create problems for GB and later Canada. The Tsar was still pretty angry and embarrassed by his loss in 1856.

I have read that the Monroe Doctrine may have been a factor in the sale as the US was making noise about its right to expansion to the west and north. If anyone has some knowledge about how this doctrine would perhaps lead the Russians to believe that there was little point in trying to hold on to Alaska, please weigh in. Did the Monroe Doctrine sway their thoughts?

It would have been lovely to have seen Alaska as part of Canada. The map wouldn't look so improper with that incorrectly coloured land mass glued to Canada on the west side.
On this map, Alaska would look beautiful if coloured orange like Newfoundland on the east side



As well, we wouldn't have to provide health care and electricity and educational opportunities to isolated Alaskan towns in the panhandle. And those demands in some quarters of the US that Canada should sell a land corridor from the 49th parallel to Alaska so that Americans wouldn't have to clear customs to get to Alaska, would cease.
Cheers,

George



Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
4/18/2023 8:27:07 AM
Also;

Checking 4-18 these 2, amoung several occurred!?

1942 Jimmy Doolittle bombs Tokyo & other Japanese Cities! What was it's effect on Japan??

1943 US P38's shoot down Yamamoto after breaking the Japanese code! How did the Allies keep it a secret that they had broken the code??.what effect did shooting Yamamoto down have!?

Any more?
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
4/18/2023 8:29:55 AM



BTW George, we know Canada is a beautiful colorful country, the above map proves it!!! ☺
----------------------------------
"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
4/18/2023 10:24:51 AM
Quote:
Quote:
1824 Russia abandons all North American claims south of 54, 40', What if Great Britain had offered the Russians more for Alaska than the Americans eventially did??


I still have trouble understanding how the US and Russia could have come to an understanding over access to Pacific ports and the establishment of Russian territory on the Pacific coast down to 54'40. The US was only one player on the Pacific coast. The British and the Spanish also had interests. And the dominant power in the Columbia district to the south of 54'40 was Great Britain. The US called the Columbia district, the Oregon territory.

But the Russo-American Treaty of 1824 gave the US the rights to Russian interests to the south of 54'40. Effectively, they ceded the Oregon territory though it is my understanding that the Russians were not overly interested in explorations inland. They were more interested in coastal operations. That's how we got into an argument over the Canada/US border in Alaska. The distance inland that the Alaskan panhandle went was not clearly defined.

In 1825, Russia and Britain negotiated the Anglo-Russian Treaty (Treaty of St. Petersburg) to deal with navigation and trade issues in the Pacific Northwest. In that agreement the southern boundary of Russia was confirmed at 54'40 and the existence of British territory to the east of the Alaska panhandle was confirmed. As mentioned, the treaty did a poor job of defining the depth (width??) of the Alaska Panhandle. The treaty did indicate that the future territories of the Yukon and NWT were British domains.

I am not familiar enough with the two treaties to say whether the Treaty of St. Petersburg established that ownership of the Columbia District (Oregon). I don't believe that the British recognized the US claims laid down in the Russo-American Treaty of 1824. And indeed, the US and GB began negotiations around the ownership of that disputed territory in 1834. And it would not be until 1846 that the US and GB agreed that the lands to the south of the 49th parallel would be US territory.

The US purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867. And in that same year the Dominion of Canada was established. Canada did not exist until July 1 of that year and was in no position to become a player in the Alaska negotiations which concluded in October of 1867. As well, Canada did not make its own foreign policy in those days but relied upon Britain for those diplomatic services.

So the question is then, why didn't Britain buy it? I think that it is unlikely that Russia would even have considered selling Alaska to their principle rival in the Pacific, Great Britain. Relations between Russia and GB had been hostile in the two decades prior to the sale. The Crimean War had concluded in 1856 and Russian had been humiliated in that conflict. It was only little more than a decade later that the sale to the US was concluded.

Britain was interested in obtaining Alaska but the Tsar was in no mood to deal after the Crimean debacle. The Hudson's Bay Company was well established in the Oregon Territory and would have gladly moved into Alaska to establish control of the fur trade.

Russia's trade fortunes in Alaska had taken a dive. The trade in sea otter pelts was no longer profitable. As well, Russia had acquired some Chinese islands and the border between China and Russia had been altered in Russia's favour and had concerns about the establishment of control on that part of its border were of greater concern.

Russia was concerned that British ownership of Alaska would give the RN ports that were very close to Russia proper. I am not sure just how much of a threat Britain could be to Russia from the Alaskan coast but Russia preferred to see Alaska in the hands of a friendly power like the US. The British and French had attacked the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula during the Crimean War. It was one of the few success stories for Russia but it certainly cemented the thought that they were vulnerable on their east coast.

The US and GB were in conflict over land claims in the Pacific NW and the sale of Alaska to the US would create problems for GB and later Canada. The Tsar was still pretty angry and embarrassed by his loss in 1856.

I have read that the Monroe Doctrine may have been a factor in the sale as the US was making noise about its right to expansion to the west and north. If anyone has some knowledge about how this doctrine would perhaps lead the Russians to believe that there was little point in trying to hold on to Alaska, please weigh in. Did the Monroe Doctrine sway their thoughts?

It would have been lovely to have seen Alaska as part of Canada. The map wouldn't look so improper with that incorrectly coloured land mass glued to Canada on the west side.
On this map, Alaska would look beautiful if coloured orange like Newfoundland on the east side



As well, we wouldn't have to provide health care and electricity and educational opportunities to isolated Alaskan towns in the panhandle. And those demands in some quarters of the US that Canada should sell a land corridor from the 49th parallel to Alaska so that Americans wouldn't have to clear customs to get to Alaska, would cease.
Cheers,

George






George,

As far as your map goes. Just looking at where a logical border of the Alaskan Panhandle should be, everything south of Yakutat, & Yakutat Bay to Ketchikan, that whole Panhandle coast should have been British Columbia!? That would be as bad as the British taking the whole New England Atlantic coast, & leaving that part of the Eastern US seaboard land locked!? Why that's what happened to Canada's Western Pacific Coast! Unfair! I say? Back then the British should have taken it by force!??

What say you??
MD

I say the Panhandle if nothing else on your map should of been green!??
----------------------------------
"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
4/18/2023 12:33:51 PM
Hello MD,

It would have been wonderful had the US seen fit to negotiate the panhandle border so that Canada had secured a port. Right now Canada has no sea ports north of 54'40.

However, the 1825 Anglo-Russia Treaty acknowledged that the most southern point in Russian territory was 54'40. So really the only question was where the line between BC and Alaska would be.

The Canadian and British proposal that was not accepted by the international tribunal which consisted of three American delegates negotiating with the two Canadian and one Briton. When Lord Alverstone sided with the Americans, he became the skunk at a garden party as far as Canadians were concerned. This was 1903 when the border was decided and Canada as a Dominion still relied on British input in foreign affairs. The problem for Canada was that the British had lost interest in Canada which was steadily moving toward full independence. There were bad feelings between Britain and the former colony for a time after that.

I have posted this map several times before



Note that the Canadian proposal which suggested measuring the width of the panhandle from the farthest islands would have given Canada access to the sea. Skagway would have belonged to Canada. The American proposal suggested measuring from the mainland and directly inland 10 leagues (whatever a league is) from every point of land.

The compromise solution foolishly still gave the Americans that full strip down the coast and Canada had no access to the sea.

You suggested, tongue in cheek I presume, that Britain should have seized the panhandle by force. That wasn't going to happen in 1903. The USN was much more powerful than it had been even up to the end of the US civil war. The US administration was making all sorts of threats that it would seize the land that it wanted by force. Teddy Roosevelt even said that if the negotiations didn't favour the US that he would send in the marines. Big stick diplomacy at work.

Britain did not have the political will to start a war with the US over a thin strip of land along the Pacific sea coast. Lord Alverstone's knowledge of the geography was limited.

No the time for Britain to wave its own big stick was in 1825 when the Treaty of St. Petersburg was negotiated. Russia had produced a flawed map in 1826 which showed the boundary lines as being 10 leagues from the coast to the 141st meridian. The Russians published the map in French in 1827 and it took more land than the British had intended. But they didn't protest at all and it was this map that the Americans used when they purchased Alaska in 1867. If the British cared that much then they should have protested when the Russians produce a map that did not comport with British interpretation of the 1825 treaty. And so the Americans used that old Russian map during the Alaska boundary dispute with Canada.

Ironically, Canada had been trying to get the Americans to firm up the borders and boundaries since 1867 but the US thought the effort to be too expensive. As early as 1871 when BC joined Confederation, the Canadian government had asked the US to join in a joint survey of the boundaries. The US argued that the whole area was sparsely populated and not that important economically so it refused.

Gold rushes in 1862 and 1897 in the Klondike made it pretty clear that not knowing the exact position of the panhandle boundary was problematic. Miners were trying to get to the Klondike gold in Canada via the Chilkoot and Whites Passes. Canada sent North West Mounted Police and the Yukon Field Force (army) to enforce the boundary. The US then claimed that the boundary was actually farther inland near Bennett Lake.

This map will show just how much Canada and the US differed in their interpretation of the 1825 treaty. This is the historic Chilkoot trail and in the top right hand corner you can see Lake Bennett. The head of that lake is where the US wanted the border. From Skagway on the coast to Lake Bennett was US territory in their view.



So neither Britain and certainly not Canada were prepared to go to war over this line. Canada's hope was that the tribunal would come up with a more reasonable solution.

When the mounties and the army provided security at the Chilkoot Pass, the Americans accepted that but it was clear that negotiations finally had to begin. Hence, the tribunal.

Cheers,

George

EDIT: Poking about I found this site that provides some insight on the Alaska boundary dispute. I didn't realize that the Russian American Co. and the Hudson's Bay Co. were at odds in Alaska. Nor did I know that the people who lived for centuries on those lands, the Tlingit, didn't necessarily feel that they were bound by a treaty between two European nations. As well, there is a question of whether Lord Alverstone was ordered to vote in favour of the American position because of Roosevelt's threats. Britain didn't want war with the US.

[Read More]

Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
4/19/2023 8:05:27 AM
Hi George,

Great reply, map, & site! Yeah it looks like Canada got screwed over again! Teddy Roosevelt's, Big Stick Policy, & the British desire to avoid conflict doomed their chances for a Pacific Coast Port!?

In away you got the last laugh with the Yukon, Klondike gold rush! Some Canadian Gold Miners became slightly wealthy!?

What say you??
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
4/19/2023 8:07:48 AM
Morning,

Checking 4-19 in history here's some history events! Comments??

1775 the American Revolution begins with the battle of Lexington! The beginning of a small group of freedom loving Patriots defeating the most powerful military on Earth! What say you??

1861 Abraham Lincolns orders a blockade of the Confederacy! How effective was it?? Anyone?

1927 Communists & Nationalists fight it out in China! Who will ultimately win??

1938 Gen. Franco, declares victory in the Spanish Civil War! Who did the Nazis support, & why??

Anyone have any other events for 4-19??
Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
4/19/2023 9:03:03 AM
Quote:
Hi George,

Great reply, map, & site! Yeah it looks like Canada got screwed over again! Teddy Roosevelt's, Big Stick Policy, & the British desire to avoid conflict doomed their chances for a Pacific Coast Port!?

In away you got the last laugh with the Yukon, Klondike gold rush! Some Canadian Gold Miners became slightly wealthy!?

What say you??
MD


I say that those miners came from around the world but at least half were Americans. The Northwest Mounted Police had to disarm them. No second amendment in Canada, the mounties told them.

Canada just wasn't big enough or strong enough to thwart the wishes of the Americans. Even today, the US claims that the waters between the islands of our Arctic archipelago are not Canadian but are international waters. They don't want Canada to regulate travel in the Northwest Passage.

On the east coast the US claims ownership of Machias Seal Island which has had a British or Canadian maintained lighthouse on it for the past 200 years. But this island sits in the middle of a prime lobster bed hence the interest in this small chunk of Canada. The island is about 16 km from Maine and about 19km from Grand Manan Island which is Canadian.

These disputes are just part of our long history as neighbours.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
4/19/2023 11:16:40 AM
Hi George,

Other territorial disputes between these two love birds are, The water boundary in the Strait of Juan Dr Fuca, Beaufort Sea dispute between Yukon, & Alaska, Northwest Passage dispute where Canada claims its their territorial waters, US says it's International Areas!?? Dixon Strait between Alaska & British Columbia, & of course Machias seal island!?

What say you?
Peace,
MD
----------------------------------
"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
4/19/2023 2:35:07 PM
Quote:
I’ll admit to some ignorance concerning US a/c bomb capabilities. Thank you for the numbers, which give max. loads of 4800 lbs (16x300; 8x600) or 6000 lbs (12x500). 6000 lbs matches specs I’ve seen for B-17 average loads, with suggestions that maximum bomb loads exceeded 11,000 lbs. Know anything about how that last number might have been configured in even late model B-17s?


That is not the max bomb load in terms of weight. It is the max number of certain types of bombs that could be carried. Note too that the 6,000-lb weight was at overload so would reduce the tactical radius as well as put more of a strain on the air frame. For example, on the 5 April 1943 Mission #50, the 17 aircraft of the 303 BG were each carrying six 1,000-lb. HE M44. But mixed loads were possible because the limitation wasn't really weight, it was size, due to the design of the B-17 bomb bay. The maximum 12,800-lb bomb load including two 2,000-lb GP externally and two internally, along with eight 600-lb GP, which was never carried on a mission I suspect.

Quote:
I did a ground tour of what I assumed was a late model B-17 (chin turret; cheek turrets; extended vane on the tailplane), and was impressed by the compactness of the bomb bay as I sidled down the walkway aft of the cockpit. But it struck me at the time it looked very different from the bomb bay of a Lancaster, which by contrast was just a gaping maw.

Again, thanks Rich.
Brian G


Yes, the size and design of the bomb bay had more to do with it than the bomb weight. You're welcome.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
4/20/2023 7:42:18 AM
Again, 4-19 in history

1775 the American Revolution begins with the battle of Lexington! The beginning of a small group of freedom loving Patriots defeating the most powerful military on Earth! What say you??

1861 Abraham Lincolns orders a blockade of the Confederacy! How effective was it?? Anyone?

1927 Communists & Nationalists fight it out in China! Who will ultimately win??

1938 Gen. Franco, declares victory in the Spanish Civil War! Who did the Nazis support, & why??

4-20,

1770 Capt. James Cook arrives in New South Wales, was he Britains top explorer? What say you??

1920 Tornados kill 219 people in Alabama, & Mississippi, It seems that we are getting more & worse Tornados in recent years!? Why? Anyone?? How about more stroms in your areas, what say you is weather more volatile??

1968 Pierre Trudeau swore in as Canada's Prime Minister, # 15, was he a good one? What's his legacy? Anyone?

Anyone have any other events for 4-20?
Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
4/20/2023 1:10:02 PM
Quote:
1968 Pierre Trudeau swore in as Canada's Prime Minister, # 15, was he a good one? What's his legacy? Anyone?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau was a consequential figure in Canadian politics. He was not always loved especially out west in oil country. I saw him as a man with progressive policies.

He was very well educated and could come across as pompous and prideful. He was a lawyer educated at the Univ. of Montréal, Harvard, the Paris Institute of Political Studies and the London School of Economics. Other Canadians on the forum may weigh in but I think that he had trouble engaging with regular Canadian folk who had not had the advantages that Trudeau had when growing up.

Despite that he managed to capture the interest and affection of many Canadians in the early days. Those of us of a certain age recall the "Trudeaumania" craze that took over the country and other countries as well.

And the man did win four elections and three of those were majority victories while one was a minority.

He has been criticized because he did not serve overseas during WW2 and like most Quebeckers, he was opposed to compulsory service. But he was entered into the Canadian army's officer training programme though I do not know whether that was as a conscript under the controversial National Resources Mobilization Act.

He is perhaps best known as the PM who patriated our constitution, the British North America Act and added the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to it. This document has been studied and copied all over the world because of its flexibility and the fact that it addressed issues not considered at the time of Confederation.

But even before becoming PM, Trudeau had been the Minister of Justice in PM Lester Pearson's government. That government passed a criminal law reform bill that was and is still very important progressive legislation. This was in 1968 and among many reforms it called for:

1. decriminalization of same sex intimacy in privacy. When queried about why he felt that this was an important step, Trudeau famously said, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". (I think that I quoted him correctly.)

2. legalized abortion if the physical or mental health of the woman was in danger

3. decriminalized contraception

4. He made the act of selling handguns to mentally unwell people a criminal act.

A lot of this was ground breaking stuff.

He was a polarizing person though and with the oil crisis of the late '70's Trudeau promoted a National Energy Programme. I forget a lot of the details but the programme was designed partly to ensure "made in Canada" pricing of the oil that we were producing. The federal government would also reap tax revenues from the new policies. Trudeau also wanted to take control of the industry from the big American oil companies that owned so much of the industry in Canada.

Canada's oil patch is in Alberta and a bit in Saskatchewan and they hit the roof. Canada is a federal democracy and provinces guard their fiefdoms with great fervour. So the NEP was seen as an attempt to wrench control of Alberta's resource. I have always felt that the Norwegian model with respect to this resource would have given us a national heritage fund with some of the profits from the sale of oil funnelled in and to be used for projects of national interest. This could include federal transfers to provinces for health care or education. But it never happened and currently each province is very protective of its natural resources.

I also recall that Pierre wanted to pull us out of NATO at one time and that he was instrumental in enforcing a draw down in Europe that removed our significant army and air force contingent from direct defence of Europe. Trudeau was out of office by 1993 when the two bases in Germany closed down but he is acknowledged as approving of the initiative.

He was always accused of being anti-military and anti-NATO but Canada is criticized rightly today for not meeting the 2% of GDP standard investment in defence. I think that we are at 1.4%. Under Pierre Trudeau our investment was never lower than 2.2%

And it was under Trudeau that the RCAF received 135 F-18 Hornets. And from the time of procurement to delivery only took two years. Still he was criticized for not buying enough planes. He also ordered the design and construction of four, Iroquois class destroyers for the RN.

Here is a short article that puts paid to some of the concerns about the relationship with the military that Trudeau was purported to have had.

[Read More]

The other big criticism that we hear regularly is that Trudeau was a communist. He was not but he did take steps to normalize relations with China and with Cuba. The US government was most upset by the attention that Trudeau gave to Castro and Cuba. Trudeau felt that Cuba was of little threat to Canada or the US and felt that the sanctions should be dropped. Of note, Canada has never cut ties with Cuba and Trudeau has been gone for a long time.

Pierre's son Justin is our current PM and he is hated out west. I cannot help but feel that westerners have just transferred their enmity toward Pierre to his son.

I cannot recall how many times that I voted for Pierre Trudeau as my personal politics were even more left of his in those days but I know that I did vote for him in at least one election.

I admired the fact that Pierre had more statesman like qualities than most of our PM's. He was known and admired internationally. And so when he died and was lying in state in Ottawa, my wife and I actually drove to Ottawa and stood in a long, long line just to walk by his casket and give our respects. Like I said, I wasn't necessarily enamoured with the Liberals in my younger days but I felt that he deserved that respect.

Cheers,

George

EDIT: I forgot about the October Crisis of 1970. Separatistes cells in Québec had been blowing up mail boxes and injuring people when one or two cells decided that it would be smart to kidnap a couple of politicians. One was British and he was released. The other was a Québec politician named Pierre LaPorte and they killed him. Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act which put the armed forces on the streets of Montréal. This shocked the nation and he took a lot of heat for it. When asked just how far he was prepared to go he said, "Just watch me". The War Measures Act has been repealed and replaced with the Emergencies Act which demands parliamentary oversight if it is to be used. The PM cannot act unilaterally.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
4/20/2023 4:56:55 PM
Hi George,

Thanks for the good synopsis on Pierre Trudeau as your PM. The fact that he was elected 4 times tells us that he was popular at least with most of the voting population! It seems he leaned to the Liberal side of things. He seems rather unsure militarily, wanting to pull out of NATO yet buying updated arms being Pro Cuba didn't endear him to the US? Being French he did well to gain support of most of the country, except the Oil Provinces!? At least he looked & acted the part of an involved leader trying to do what he felt was right for most of the country!?

What say you?
Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
4/20/2023 8:10:20 PM
Quote:
Hi George,

Thanks for the good synopsis on Pierre Trudeau as your PM. The fact that he was elected 4 times tells us that he was popular at least with most of the voting population! It seems he leaned to the Liberal side of things. He seems rather unsure militarily, wanting to pull out of NATO yet buying updated arms being Pro Cuba didn't endear him to the US? Being French he did well to gain support of most of the country, except the Oil Provinces!? At least he looked & acted the part of an involved leader trying to do what he felt was right for most of the country!?

What say you?
Regards,
MD


Remember that we don't elect our PM directly. The leader of the party that wins the most seats becomes the new PM. And with four major parties vying for the top spot, that often means means that the winning party may not have received 50% plus of the votes.

In the last federal election in 2021:

Liberals under Trudeau took 160 seats and had 32.6% of the popular vote.

Conservatives under Erin O'Toole took 119 seats but had 33.7% of the popular vote. That was higher than the Liberals as you can see but the Cons didn't take nearly as many ridings.

So I think that I am trying to say that under our system, the result of the election doesn't always indicate the popularity of the winning party leader.

With respect to his French-Canadian background, it is difficult for any party to win seats in Québec without a fully bilingual leader. Québec is a large province with many seats to be won. If a unilingual English speaker hopes to lead the country, he will have to take seats everywhere else in the country because Quebeckers tend to vote for a party that shows concern for their specific issues. And that could be a separatist party like the Parti Québecois.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
4/21/2023 7:34:58 AM
Not trying to act as locum for MD. Just some things worth noting ( perhaps not) on this day:

1926: HM Queen Elizabeth was born in London. Oddly, though her official birthday is celebrated to some extent, her actual birthday is a low-key event (for a queen!).

1941: Greece, after 3 weeks’ war with Germany, submitted to armistice terms dictated by Germany

1942 I quote Robert Goralski,, World War II Almanac, 1931-1945, p. 214: ‘Spain pledged a million men if necessary to help defeat the Soviet Union. Spanish Foreign Minister Rámon Serrano Sùner said Madrid hoped the Axis powers would win the war because “a victory for the Allies would be tantamount to a victory for Bolshevism.”’ As far as I know, such numbers were never close to being reached, but the pledge suggests Falangist Spain’s detestation of socialism. I met a member of the Blue Division (which fought with the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front) when I was in Spain in 1960. It was 15 years after the end of the war, but Franco was still very much in power.

1945: The Russian Eighth Guards Army attacked the suburbs of Berlin. German forces counter-attacked but could not stop Soviet encirclement. Hitler had one week to live.

Cheers
Brian G

Thanks, BG
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Page 68 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