MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 71 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
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
5/3/2023 11:00:48 AM
Quote:


Hi Trevor, & Colin,

I see where you guys would object to Margaret Thatcher, she was left wanting in her treatment of your countrymen!? Just curious which British Prime Minister did meet most with your approval, & why??

Thanks,
MD


Hi Dave,

Without creating a league table of British Prime Ministers (although that could be fun), I've always had time for the work of Lloyd-George, Attlee, Macmillan, Wilson and (partially) Blair & Brown (two sides of the same coin IMO). On the latter, I can't forgive Iraq or PFI.

Churchill as a war leader too, but not much else.

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
5/3/2023 1:23:52 PM
Quote:
Hi George,

No way would I want to be any where near a fire like that! How long did it burn for?? How many Forrest fire personnel & firefighters fought it??

Scorcher,
MD


As I write, there is a wildfire sweeping just to the south of Fort McMurray. The authorities are watching to make sure that it doesn't change course.

The town is here:



The 2016 fire caused a great deal of damage. Two deaths were recorded but were not directly related to the fire but to an accident that occurred during the evacuation of 90,000 people. The fire has been described as the most costly natural disaster in Canadian history.

It was actually a system of fires which began to the north of the town on April 30 coalesced into one big fire that covered 229,000 hectares (565,800 acres).

The camps to the north of the town that housed oil workers and the FN reserves were evacuated and then the whole town. The townsfolk were not permitted to return to the town until June 1. By that time, the path of destruction of the fire had covered 579,767 hectares (1,432,635.46 acres). Massive.

They returned to find:

2400 homes and businesses destroyed
530 other buildings destroyed and damaged

2,000 fire fighters were employed on every day of the fire. That includes crews manning helicopters and water bombers.

200 fire fighters from the US were engaged. 60 from Mexico. 289 from South Africa.

Assistances from the RCMP and the Canadian military was also noted.

In Canadian dollars, the cost of the damage amounted to $$4,068,678,000

The source for these statistics is the Canadian Disaster Database.









Apparently 20% of all private homes were destroyed. The fire covered a much larger area than just the town of course and a good deal of boreal forest was destroyed too.



Cheers,

George





Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/3/2023 8:24:50 PM
Guys,

Checking today 5-3 in world history, what about these??

1568 French forces in Florida slaughter hundreds of Spaniards! Why?? Anyone??

1865 Abraham Lincoln's funeral train arrives in Springfield Illinois! How many citizens lined the train route? Anyone?.& what if Lincoln had lived??

1926 US Marines land on Nicaragua! What ever for? I thought we were at peace with this country? Anyone??

1948 the US Supreme Court rules against certain monopolies! Is today's Supreme court fair, & bipartisan? Also is it to powerful?? What say you??

1982 A British Sub sinks Agentina's largest naval vessel, in the Falklands War! Margaret Thatcher ordered its sinking!? Was she correct in doing so? Anyone on the specifics??

New comments & topics welcome!? Anyone??
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
5/3/2023 9:26:03 PM
Quote:
1926 US Marines land on Nicaragua! What ever for? I thought we were at peace with this country? Anyone??


One invasion in a long history of intervention in Central America and specifically Nicaragua. But I am pretty sure that the US maintained a USMC unit in Nicaragua up ever since the US invaded Nicaragua in 1912 to put down a revolution. They stayed until 1925, left and then came back in 1926.

But interest in Central America goes back to the previous century. The British had business interests there in 1848. Cornelius Vanderbilt began a carriage business in Nicaragua to take people and goods between the Atlantic and the Pacific when gold was discovered in California. It wasn't until 1893 that some sort of a Nicaraguan government was established.

Nicaragua refused to allow US interests to build a canal across the country and so the US assisted people in Panama to become independent of Columbia so that they could build the Panama Canal. The Nicaraguan government was going to hire another country to build a competing canal and when the US heard this rumour it assisted a revolutionary group to overthrow the government. That government executed two Americans who assisted the rebels and that is when the US sent in the marines, in 1912.

So the 1926 invasion was nothing new. The US had established that it would intervene in central American countries at any time that its interests were threatened.

I found this letter that Pres. Calvin Coolidge sent to Congress to explain his rationale for sending in the troops. His rationale was that the treaty that all the Central American countries had signed had been broken by Nicaragua justifying the intervention by the US in 1926 It's an interesting read.

[Read More]


Perhaps someone could tell me how Americans responded to these interventions. Was there support or simply disinterest?

Cheers,

George
DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1527
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
5/3/2023 10:28:19 PM
Quote:
The US had established that it would intervene in central American countries at any time that its interests were threatened.
George


Hmmm, another slight against the USofA when history clearly has shown that this is nothing new to countries across the globe.

Dan

----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/4/2023 8:36:33 AM
Guys,

The US did have an obligation to protect it's many citizens living in Nicaragua, also the British, & Italians asked for help in protecting their citizens of this Republic! As we know Mexico was sending arms to the Revolutionaries! The US did not have designs on taking over, just stabilizing the situation! BTW back when the route of the Canal was being decided, a stamp with volcanoes in this country was sent to Congress, in seeing this, Congress went a head with the Panama choice for the Canal!

The US is not always the bad guy!
Peace,
MD

Also have you ever studied the groups the US was opposed to in Nicaragua? perhaps like many you would thank the US for lending a hand, against these oppressors!!
----------------------------------
"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
5/4/2023 1:44:10 PM
Quote:


BTW back when the route of the Canal was being decided, a stamp with volcanoes in this country was sent to Congress, in seeing this, Congress went a head with the Panama choice for the Canal!

The US is not always the bad guy!



Dave,

I don’t think anybody is saying the US is always the ‘bad guy’. What is being suggested is that US influence, from the Spanish-American War onwards, tended to be backed with the overt threat of military action if it didn’t get its way. As Dan says, there’s nothing new about that. Britain did the same when it had hegemony, as did the other leading powers throughout history.

The idea that the US was being benevolent in its interventions might perhaps be contested by many in those countries where the Marines showed up or the battleships anchored off from.

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
5/4/2023 1:56:52 PM
Quote:
Quote:
The US had established that it would intervene in central American countries at any time that its interests were threatened.
George


Hmmm, another slight against the USofA when history clearly has shown that this is nothing new to countries across the globe.

Dan




Dan, I am sorry that you have seen my post as a slight. The US is a major power and it can exert its influence to compel smaller countries to behave in a manner acceptable to the US.

I disagree that countries across the globe are doing the same thing. Political coercion is the purview of the large powers with large militaries.

Allow me to explain my comment. We were discussing the Monroe Doctrine not too long ago. This foreign policy declaration in 1823 was designed to let the world know that the US would not tolerate any further attempts to colonize parts of this hemisphere.

Teddy Roosevelt not only accepted this doctrine but asserted that the US would intervene in the affairs of other countries of the hemisphere if the US felt that those countries did not have stable governments or were engaged in wrong doing. My reaction to TR's declaration is one of dismay and not a little fear. As a citizen of a country that has felt the effects of US interventionism on more than one occasion, it angers me too. Why? Because TR not only allowed the US to assume a position of "international policeman". He was an advocate of the filibuster, the use of military force wherever and whenever deemed necessary to further US interests.

EDIT: I didn't mean to suggest that the US military went off half cocked without permission. But the US has encouraged others within a country to engage in military acts to subvert a government.

And always he would assert that the US was only trying to do good for the countries in which the US chose to intervene.

Quote:
Under any circumstances a sufficient armament would have to be kept up to serve the purposes of international police;
. Teddy Roosevelt, 1905

Roosevelt's declaration is referred to as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine

This is a transcript of Roosevelt's annual message to Congress in 1905 in which he describes his rationale for his modification of the Monroe Doctrine. To a lesser power statements like this are alarming. What does one have to do to assure that the US doesn't engage in interventionism? Put yourself in the shoes of a small nation with no chance to oppose a military intervention in one's country.

[Read More]

Not that authorization of this sort of political policy did not meet with some opposition. In fact the other Roosevelt, FDR, declared that he wanted to approach problems in Central America differently. This was his Good Neighbour policy in which he declared that the US would avoid military intervention when dealing with problems in the hemisphere in favour of co-operation and beneficial trade relationships.

I will add that in 1938 FDR promised that the US would not stand idly by if Canadian soil was threatened by a foreign power. This was a restatement of the original Monroe Doctrine and greatly appreciated in Canada, at the time.

No offence was intended in my original post. It was my view of events that had taken place over most of a century in one Central American country, Nicaragua.

Cheers,

George


George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/4/2023 4:41:34 PM
Quote:
Guys,

The US did have an obligation to protect it's many citizens living in Nicaragua, also the British, & Italians asked for help in protecting their citizens of this Republic! As we know Mexico was sending arms to the Revolutionaries! The US did not have designs on taking over, just stabilizing the situation! BTW back when the route of the Canal was being decided, a stamp with volcanoes in this country was sent to Congress, in seeing this, Congress went a head with the Panama choice for the Canal!

The US is not always the bad guy!
Peace,
MD

Also have you ever studied the groups the US was opposed to in Nicaragua? perhaps like many you would thank the US for lending a hand, against these oppressors!!


I don't think that anyone has said that the US is always the bad guy, MD. But it is difficult to address the less savoury aspects of US foreign policy on this forum as there are more Americans than any other group represented. We are quite different people but I have noticed that even the British are willing to acknowledge failures of foreign policy when GB was the big dog.

So I looked at your post and implicit is the assumption that intervention by the US is necessary. It is my belief that all countries develop foreign policy that furthers their interests and I look askance when any country declares that it is engaging in interventions for reasons altruistic. And so I think that the US had commercial interests in Central America and was adamant that there would be no unrest when the US wished to develop and protect those interests. Specific to Nicaragua, at the time that the decisions was taken to develop the canal in Panama, Nicaragua made it known that it wished to develop its own canal.

US commercial interests were already present in Nicaragua including Vanderbilt who had established a steamship and carriage company to transfer goods from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The US certainly did not wish to see a competing canal built and preferred to continue to build over what the French had already started in the Panama area. And when the French began that canal it was through a treaty with Colombia. Cost overruns led the French businessmen to abandon the project for a decade.

Remember that Panama was part of Colombia and Colombia did not wish to lose this part of its territory. When break-away factions rebelled in the Panama area, Colombia tried to send troops to quell the rebellion. Teddy Roosevelt sent USN vessels to cities on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Nicaragua. And so Colombian soldiers were unable to intervene. The Panamanian rebels declared independence.

The US was the first country to recognize the independence of the people in Panama and quickly signed a deal to complete the Panama Canal. Coincidence?

Should it not have been up to the people of Colombia to decide whether a part of their country should separate? US support was for commercial reasons, I believe.

Oh, and that stamp was sent to Congress by the French businessman who still wanted a piece of the action when the US took over the construction of the canal. His name was Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla and he was the design engineer on the original canal. So he assisted in the declaration of independence of Panama from Colombia and he mailed each member of the US Senate a Nicaraguan stamp with the spewing volcano on it to encourage them to opt for the Panama option. This served to panic the Senators who then approved the continued construction in Panama. They feared that active volcanoes would interfere with the construction and operation of a canal through Nicaraguan territory.

As I recall, the leader of Nicaragua at this time was a staunch nationalist and also a dictator.

Some may be interested in the following article written by Latin American expert, John Coatsworth. It was written in 2005 and according to Coatsworth,

Quote:
In the slightly less than a hundred years from 1898 to 1994, the U.S. government has intervened successfully to change governments in Latin America a total of at least 41 times. That amounts to once every 28 months for an entire century


Quote:
Direct intervention occurred in 17 of the 41 cases. These incidents involved the use of U.S. military forces, intelligence agents or local citizens employed by U.S. government agencies. In another 24 cases, the U.S. government played an indirect role. That is, local actors played the principal roles, but either would not have acted or would not have succeeded without encouragement from the U.S. government.


He goes on to describe the motivation for these interventions and in most cases the US cites US security as justification even if a red herring. But Coatsworth points to economic concerns and a preference for democratic governments as greater motivation.

Coatsworth asks whether these interventions actually serve the interests well considering the level of resentment that these interventions invite in Latin America. It's a good question if we care to discuss it.

[Read More]

MD, I don't think that the US has an obligation to send in troops to protect US citizens or their businesses that they have set up as guests in a foreign country. There are other ways that employ softer diplomacy and co-operation which seems to be descriptive of current US foreign policy, I think. I hope.

Cheers,

George


Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/4/2023 6:13:50 PM
Quote:
Guys,

Checking today 5-3 in world history, what about these, not yet commented on!?

1568 French forces in Florida slaughter hundreds of Spaniards! Why?? Anyone??

1865 Abraham Lincoln's funeral train arrives in Springfield Illinois! How many citizens lined the train route? Anyone?.& what if Lincoln had lived? Would the post Civil War Era have gone smoother?? What say you?

1948 the US Supreme Court rules against certain monopolies! Is today's Supreme court fair, & bipartisan? What controversy has it wrought? Also is it to powerful?? What say you??

1982 A British Sub sinks Agentina's largest naval vessel, in the Falklands War! Margaret Thatcher ordered its sinking!? Was she correct in doing so? Anyone on the specifics??

New comments & topics welcome!? Anyone??
MD


Feel free to continue the US-Nicaragua debate!?
----------------------------------
"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
5/4/2023 9:14:57 PM
MD, I get the motive behind your list of events for the near future. I’ll admit, though, I have trouble keeping up with events which occurred on the present day.

For me, today’s most important issue is Kent State – in my guts, forever, the Kent State murders. I was, de facto, disowned by my father and rejected by my older brother over what remains misuse of force by unsuccessfully trained wannabe soldiers, against a student protest concerning misuse of a college facility.

“Ohio”? Powerful, defiant, challenging at the least. Also, IMHO, thought-changing. “Soldiers are gunning us down…” was excellent, brilliant writing to the point, but it was also flag that Viet Nam was now being fought for real in the heart of the US.

After Kent State. I might suggest that popular music changed. And it did so because US policies were seen as totally separate from at least the youth of the US. Youth would no longer be marginalized, but would be targeted as an enemy. That was the story “Ohio” told; I think, sadly, they got it right in one.

Lots to think about.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/4/2023 9:35:00 PM
Quote:


1970 actually 5-4, 4 students killed by National Guard fire in Kent State Ohio! How could this possibly happen? Anyone?? What of Neil Youngs song, " Ohio", as in 4 dead in Ohio! Could someone post it? Or the famous sad photo of the girl student reacting to it??




Your right Brian,

I posted it early, & your right again on your take of this tragic event, & it's repercussions!!

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: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/5/2023 6:54:43 AM
Today 5-5 in history! Check the following, Comments??

1494 Columbus land in Jamaica, what a big mistaka for the natives! Comments??

1814 the British attack the Americans at Fort Ontario! Who won?? Comments?

1821 Napoleon dies on the Island of St. Helena, some say he was poisoned?. What say you??

1916 US invades the Dominican Republic! Another Banana War attack??

1945 Holland & Denmark are freed from the Nazis! Any details??

1961 Alan Shepard becomes 1st American in space! What's it's significance? Comments?

Any other new items??
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
5/5/2023 9:03:50 AM
Quote:
1814 the British attack the Americans at Fort Ontario! Who won?? Comments?




Fort Ontario is near Oswego, New York. You can see that it is fairly close to the US naval base on Lake Ontario at Sacket's Harbor. And the RN naval base and fort at Kingston is also not too far away from either US fortification.

There was never a major battle between USN and RN squadrons on Lake Ontario. US Commodore Chauncey and RN Commodore James Yeo managed to avoid a battle such as those that occurred on Lake Erie or on Lake Champlain. Instead, they either stayed in port if the enemy had a stronger squadron or engaged in raids on one another's installations around the lake.

Throughout the winter of 1813-1814 both sides had been trying to complete the construction of frigates, two each. This ship building war had been going on since the onset of the war and would continue beyond the end of the war. And it was the British who completed their ships first and when the ice went out, they set sail.


The British were first to build on the Oswego site and in 1755 they built Fort of the Six Nations. The French destroyed that installation in 1757 during the French and Indian Wars.

There was another fort opposite Fort Ontario and it was called Fort Oswego. I don't know why the two forts were so close together.



No matter, the French also destroyed Fort Oswego in 1757.

The British rebuilt Fort Ontario in 1759 and turned it over to the Americans in 1796 once Jay's Treaty was negotiated.

That brings us to 1814 and the British attack on the fort. The British squadron under Yeo and with soldiers under Gordon Drummond appeared in Lake Ontario and began a bombardment which the American artillery returned. The artillery exchanges could be heard across the lake in Kingston. Originally, Drummond and Yeo had their sights on the main US naval base at Sacket's Harbor but they did not have sufficient numbers of soldiers for an operation against the better defences at Sacket's Harbor. And so they decided to attack Fort Ontario.

They had also heard rumours that cannon that had been manufactured to be installed on new American warships were being stored at Fort Ontario and the destruction of those cannon would not allow Chauncey to equip his new frigates properly. As well, the town of Oswego was a major transit point for the Americans and goods destined for the base at Sacket's Harbor would come through Oswego.

Note that when the US had the larger squadron in 1813 they chose to attack York rather than the main RN base at Kingston, also fearing that they didn't have sufficient numbers to defeat the British at Kingston.

At night a storm was brewing and the British moved farther off shore to wait out the storm. They returned in the morning and landed 900 troops. Fort Ontario was garrisoned by 400 American soldiers.

Quote:
The British forced the Americans to withdraw from Fort Ontario, leaving behind 13 dead, 18 wounded and over 30 captured soldiers. British losses were 19 killed and over 50 wounded.
. source: Oswego County news

The attack was only partly successful. The British did destroy the fort and they captured tons of foodstuffs. They also captured one schooner that had some of the cannon destined for Commodore Chauncey's new ships at Sacket's Harbor. But 21 of the guns were still en route and the British missed those.

They would go on to try to blockade Sacket's Harbor to prevent delivery of the guns but that failed so those guns were installed on the two new frigates. That would give the USN the numerical advantage that would last until the British launched the magnificent HMS St. Lawrence at Kingston. This massive ship of the line would ensure that the British dominated Lake Ontario until the end of the war. It never had to engage the Americans who chose to avoid contact. That's how the naval war went on Lake Ontario. It was called the War of the Ship Builders.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/5/2023 2:01:52 PM
Hey George,

Sounds like neither side had enough military strength to maintain any gains!? Oswego, NY sounds like a picturesque town on the lake are the 3 forts still in evidence? I've never been there, have to check it out next time I go out east!?

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
5/5/2023 3:27:02 PM
Quote:
Hey George,

Sounds like neither side had enough military strength to maintain any gains!? Oswego, NY sounds like a picturesque town on the lake are the 3 forts still in evidence? I've never been there, have to check it out next time I go out east!?

Regards,
MD


MD, Fort Ontario was rebuilt. I would have to check but I think that US troops were there as late as WWII

The fort is a New York State historic site. Since the British destroyed the place it was up to the Americans to rebuild and they did that in the 1840's. So when you go there, that's what you will see. I don't know whether the rebuilt fort is true to the original design.

According to the site linked below, it was also used as a camp for Jewish refugees from 1944-46

[Read More]

Looks like an interesting fort to visit, MD

[Read More]



Cheers,

George





Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/5/2023 8:34:40 PM
Today s 5-5 in history!? Last chance for comments?.Anyone??

1494 Columbus land in Jamaica, what a big mistaka for the natives! Comments??

1821 Napoleon dies on the Island of St. Helena, some say he was poisoned?. What say you??

1916 US invades the Dominican Republic! Another Banana War attack??

1945 Holland & Denmark are freed from the Nazis at this time! What countries were involved? Any details??

1961 Alan Shepard becomes 1st American in space! What's it's significance? BTW when was the 1st Russian in space? Comments?

Any other new items??
Regards,
MD

Also George it is a beautiful fort, but weren't there 3 forts? What of the others??
----------------------------------
"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
5/5/2023 9:22:04 PM
Quote:
Also George it is a beautiful fort, but weren't there 3 forts? What of the others??


I believe that the rebuilt Fort Ontario is the only one left. But it seems that there may have been as many as eight structures built on the east and west side of the river at Oswego. The Oswego River was an important route for the Iroquois and for French and British fur traders.

I found an article titled, "The Forts of Oswego".

[Read More]


Cheers,

George

George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/5/2023 9:37:48 PM
Quote:
1945 Holland & Denmark are freed from the Nazis at this time! What countries were involved? Any details??


On May 5, 1945, Canadian General Charles Foulkes accepted the capitulation of all German forces in the Netherlands at Wageningen. Foulkes decided to draw up a separate surrender document from the one that the Germans had already signed for Monty.

So Foulkes sent a message that he wanted German General Blaskowitz to sign a capitulation document. Blaskowitz sent a subordinate and he was sent away to tell the General that he had to show up himself. At 4 PM on May 5 he arrived at a hotel in Wageningen. We note that Prince Bernhard, acting commander of the Netherlands forces of the Interior was also present at the hotel.

Waginengen calls itself the "City of Liberation" and celebrates the liberation of Netherlands on the anniversary of the signing.

Hotel in Waginengen where the surrender took place.



General Foulkes and General Blaskowitz



Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/6/2023 9:14:45 AM
Hi George,

In looking at the 3 Nazis at this surrender table, they even look hateful!?

One pic tells a thousand words! What say you?

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/6/2023 9:15:01 AM
D
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/6/2023 9:19:28 AM
For 5-6 history events,

Quote:
On this day in 1937, the German airship Hindenburg was enveloped in flames and crashed while docking at Lakehurst, New Jersey. Thirty-six of 97 on board were lost. Together with the loss of the British R-101, this at-the-time catastrophic air event probably brought an end to the development of airships as a viable mode of travel.

Two points:
First, I have never understood what the on-site reporter of the Hindenburg disaster meant to say when he uttered his “Oh, the humanity!”

Secondly, With the end of the British airship programs a man named Barnes Wallis moved to Vickers, joining their engineering/design team. There he developed his geodetic frame, which was used first on the RAF Wellesley bomber and then on the great Wellington, also known as the “Wimpy”, which was one of the finest bombers of the early war years.

Cheers,
Brian G


Thanks for that, BG! I think, "oh the tragedy", or Oh the horror"! Would have been more appropriate!? Also it's shocking after seeing the video that only 36 of 97 people on board died!? What say ya'll? Anyone??
----------------------------------
"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
5/6/2023 10:02:42 AM
Quote:
Hi George,

In looking at the 3 Nazis at this surrender table, they even look hateful!?

One pic tells a thousand words! What say you?

Regards,
MD



There is more a look of resignation, I think. Blaskowitz initially just sent his Chief of Staff to handle the signing but Gen. Foulkes and I presume, Prince Bernhard wouldn't accept that.

We didn't mention Denmark but it was liberated with the capitulation of German forces to Montgomery on May 4. Monty accepted the capitulation in Netherlands, northwest Germany including all islands, in Denmark and all naval ships in those areas. No allied forces ever entered Denmark to liberate them.

So why would Canadian General Foulkes draw up a separate surrender? Part of it was symbolic but it is also true that Foulkes had been negotiating with Blaskowitz since April 28 to allow humanitarian aid to flow into western Netherlands, where people were starving to death. The Canadian Army had held up at the Grebbe Line while negotiations took place.

The number of German soldiers in western Netherlands outnumbered the Canadians. It would have been a bloody contest to evict the German forces in that area.

Blaskowitz eventually agreed to a ceasefire across the whole Grebbe Line rather than on one single road that would allow trucks carrying food into western Netherlands. According to an article in Legion magazine, Foulkes was bluffing a bit. Still Blaskowitz seemed to be stalling on a surrender and Foulkes sensed that he would not officially surrender unless forced to do so.

Blaskowitz was at odds with Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the German appointed governor of occupied Netherlands in that he wanted to fight on. When discussing surrender, Blaskowitz wanted assurance that his army would not be sent to Russia as slave labour and he wanted to be assured that he wasn't on any allied list indicating that he would be tried for war crimes. Foulkes assured him that he was not a war criminal but would be if the Germans decided to breach the dikes to flood more of the western Netherlands as Seyss-Inquart had threatened.

Now later Blaskowitz was held on a trumped up war crime suggested by the Russians, and he killed himself before his trial at Nuremberg was to begin.

On May 3, Foulkes presented a map of troop dispositions to Blaskowitz to emphasize that his cause was hopeless and that he demanded an unconditional surrender. Foulkes told him that the surrender was to be "unconditional" as per his instructions. And so it was.

The Legion article describes the surrender event and a little bit about the personality of Blaskowitz.

[Read More]

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/6/2023 4:23:15 PM
Quote:
1916 US invades the Dominican Republic! Another Banana War attack??


Yes, the marines arrived in 1916 and the US presence in Dominican Republic lasted until 1924.

But US citizens had significant economic investments in the Dominican Republic and US control actually began in 1905. The US cited the Roosevelt Corollary to justify the invasion, arguing that the country was not well led and was an economic disaster. And so the US took over D.R. customs and used the duties to pay off foreign investors. And the D.R. signed a treaty with the US to legitimize the relationship.

In 1912 there was an assassination of the D.R. President and the US sent 750 marines to the country to keep order and look after US interests.

In 1915, the US demanded more control of D.R. finances as the US felt that the DR debt was too high. They also demanded that the DR military be disbanded in favour of a police force headed by someone that the US would select. The new government of the DR announced that it would comply with US requests and the people of the country indicated their displeasure with the US demands and affront to their sovereignty.

The President of the DR asked for money from the US so that he could put down the civil unrest. The US denied that request and told the President that they were going to send in the troops to help the President gain control. The President of the DR was opposed to US troops on DR soil but the US sent in the marines on May 7, 1916. All attempts by Dominican leaders to negotiate with the US were rebuffed.

The US dismissed the DR government and installed a US military government. The US claimed that the DR had violated the 1907 treaty that let the US take over the economy.

There were protests from the DR people and from others in Latin America. The US responded to the criticism by offering to allow the DR to gradually move toward self rule but on the condition that the US would still control the police force. Several deals were proposed but all contained the provision that the US could intervene in DR affairs any time that it felt it necessary. Cuba was under the same constraint.

How many Dominicans died during this invasion and on the other side of Hispaniola when the US also occupied Haiti? These were not non-violent takeovers.

It wasn't until 1924 that the US finally withdrew its troops in 1924 and ceded policing authority to the D.R.

Based upon an article published by the US state department, I believe these facts to be accurate.

[Read More]

The question for me is whether the US was correct in interfering in the affairs of other nations who were no real threat to the US itself.

And much later in 1941, the Canadian government had considered an invasion of the French islands of St. Pierre et Miquelon, just off the coast of Newfoundland. The Canadian military had pushed the government for two years to allow them to invade the islands as they suspected that Vichy operatives on the island were in communication with German submarines and that the islands could serve as a safe haven for those submarines. Politics being what they were at the time, it was necessary to bounce the plans off the British and the Americans.

The Americans, still neutral, initially approved of a plan for the Canadians to take over the radio broadcast station on St. Pierre et Miquelon but they withdrew that support because a Canadian invasion would represent a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. The US interpretation was that no territory in the hemisphere should suffer occupation as a result of the war.

Ironically, one of the reasons cited for the invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1916 was that Germany could possibly use the country as a base from which to attack the US in the event that the US should join the fray.

The US had also protested a Canadian plan to send troops to Greenland to protect it from a possible German invasion. The US was vehemently opposed to that and yet it sent its own troops there in 1941. Was the US fearful that Greenland would become a part of Canada? Just speculating on that one.

The US had established that it would police the hemisphere and that meant that other countries in the hemisphere could not do likewise, whether there was a war on or not.

Cheers,

George




GaryNJ
Cumberland NJ USA
Posts: 254
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
5/6/2023 5:44:10 PM
George,

I intended to thank you for linking to the article by Martin F. Auger titled ‘A Tempest in a Teapot’: Canadian Military Planning and the St. Pierre and Miquelon Affair, 1940-1942. Here is a link to the pdf to that interesting article at Journal of the History of the Atlantic Region Acadiensis at the University of New Brunswick. This is more convenient than using JSTOR.

[Read More]

It is apparent from the article that there was more to concern the Canadian government than just the view of the United States.

Gary
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/7/2023 7:26:09 AM
Hey MHO'ers,

Today 5-7 in world history, some events are?? Past & present discussions welcome!??

1429 the English siege of Orleans broken by Joan of Arc, how did a women back then become a Commanding officer?? Anyone!?

1765 HMS Victory launched, this was to be Adm. Lord Nelson's ship at Trafalgar! What was it about the RN? How did they manage to control the seas for so long? Anyone??

1861 a riot occurs in Knoxville, TN. between processionists, & Unionists!? Why was East Tennessee so Union? Who won the riot? Anyone??

1864 the Battle of the Wilderness! Why did the Union have 3× the losses of the Rebs.?? Anyone??

,1912 who was Joseph Pulitzer, so famous, they name the Pulitzer Prize after him!? How many categories to the prize are there? What say you??

1942 the Naval battle of the Coral Sea stops IJN expansion, helping the Australians, as well? Comments?

1947 Douglas MacArthur approves the Japanese Constitution! Why did Mac have so much power in the Pacific? & what was up with that ridiculous pipe!? What say you??

All new topics!
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
5/7/2023 8:24:32 AM
Quote:
George,

I intended to thank you for linking to the article by Martin F. Auger titled ‘A Tempest in a Teapot’: Canadian Military Planning and the St. Pierre and Miquelon Affair, 1940-1942. Here is a link to the pdf to that interesting article at Journal of the History of the Atlantic Region Acadiensis at the University of New Brunswick. This is more convenient than using JSTOR.

[Read More]

It is apparent from the article that there was more to concern the Canadian government than just the view of the United States.

Gary


Thanks for posting that article, Gary. It does indicate the complexity of the issues surrounding two little French islands during war time.

Indeed and I was lax in not addressing the various political footballs that a smaller nation like Canada was juggling. Despite having full control over its foreign policy since the Statute of Westminster was implemented in 1931, Britain at times intended that Canada would simply mirror the foreign policies of Great Britain.

Canada also had not severed ties with the Vichy Regime, preferring to be close to a potential enemy. That made it politically difficult to impose military occupation on St. Pierre et Miquelon.

And then there was the proud colony of Newfoundland which was suspicious of Canada's motives and intent, and coveted the French islands which they considered a part of Newfoundland.

And also the US which was adamant that it would enforce hegemonic control in the hemisphere. But Canada and the US had been becoming closer and closer and the steps had been taken to bring Canada into a North American defence scheme which became more evident as the war progressed. Certainly Canada had the assurance of the US that even during the period of US neutrality, that the US had Canada's back. So it was a difficult diplomatic juggling act for Canada.

Those chunks of rock just off the coast of Newfoundland remained a bone of contention between Canada and the French much after the war as France would attempt to use its position there to take a greater piece of the fishing pie than it deserved. There was a great diplomatic kerfuffle in the 1970's when the France-Canada Maritime Boundary Dispute took place. And it wasn't just the fish. France wanted control of the sea bed out to a 200 mile limit for the same reasons that everyone else wanted control of the sea bed, oil and minerals.

Overlapping areas of the respective economic zones of the two countries put them in conflict. There was tension between fishing fleets.

In the 1980's France refused to honour fishing quotas put in place by Canada. Canada was trying to protect the dwindling cod stocks on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and France wanted no part of it.

It wasn't until 1992 that an international board of arbitration finally limited French control with a 24 km economic zone stretching outward from the islands and a long and thin corridor running south for 200 km. That still seemed generous to me considering how small the population of St. Pierre et Miquelon is.

It makes me wonder why the British decided that the French could keep the two islands after the defeat of France in 1759-60 and the Treaty of 1763. I realize that it was considered a small concession by the British as they attempted to make peace with France. The repercussions could not have been anticipated, I suppose.

Cheers,

George

Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/7/2023 5:06:08 PM
Quote:
George,

I intended to thank you for linking to the article by Martin F. Auger titled ‘A Tempest in a Teapot’: Canadian Military Planning and the St. Pierre and Miquelon Affair, 1940-1942. Here is a link to the pdf to that interesting article at Journal of the History of the Atlantic Region Acadiensis at the University of New Brunswick. This is more convenient than using JSTOR.

[Read More]

It is apparent from the article that there was more to concern the Canadian government than just the view of the United States.

Gary



Guys,

Also wouldn't the attack on these 2 French Islands by Canadian Forces, be an example of Canadian Imperialism!??

MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1527
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
5/7/2023 7:23:52 PM
Quote:

1942 the Naval battle of the Coral Sea stops IJN expansion, helping the Australians, as well? Comments?

Regards,
MD


Not just a strategic victory, but a tactical victory as well. Admirals Fletchers' forces stopped the invasion of Port Moresby, the main focus of Japan's Operation MO.

Dan
----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/7/2023 7:31:05 PM
Quote:
Quote:
George,

I intended to thank you for linking to the article by Martin F. Auger titled ‘A Tempest in a Teapot’: Canadian Military Planning and the St. Pierre and Miquelon Affair, 1940-1942. Here is a link to the pdf to that interesting article at Journal of the History of the Atlantic Region Acadiensis at the University of New Brunswick. This is more convenient than using JSTOR.

[Read More]

It is apparent from the article that there was more to concern the Canadian government than just the view of the United States.

Gary



Guys,

Also wouldn't the attack on these 2 French Islands by Canadian Forces, be an example of Canadian Imperialism!??

MD


Bit of a stretch, MD. There was no intent to take possession of the islands or to annex them. No intent to pull the islands into an economic sphere. No economic imperialism in other words.

The occupation of the islands would have been during wartime and because the Vichy supporters were possibly using the radios and port to assist enemies with whom Canada was at war, Canada intended to take measures to protect the ships in the convoys from attacks by German submarines.

Even if fishing boats from St. Pierre et Miquelon had reported the sighting of convoys and that information was relayed to the islands and then to Vichy France and then to the Germans, the convoy ships could be in greater peril than they already were. The radio station on the island was capable of this type of communication and somehow better radio equipment had made its way to the islands. They were upgrading their radio communications system.

An occupation of the sort that was planned was no more imperialistic than the landings in France on June 6, 1944, I think.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/8/2023 9:19:49 AM
Hey MHO'ers,

Not yet commented on???

Yesterday, 5-7 in world history, some events are?? Past & present discussions welcome!??

1429 the English siege of Orleans broken by Joan of Arc, how did a women back then become a Commanding officer?? Anyone!?

1765 HMS Victory launched, this was to be Adm. Lord Nelson's ship at Trafalgar! What was it about the RN? How did they manage to control the seas for so long? Anyone??

1861 a riot occurs in Knoxville, TN. between processionists, & Unionists!? Why was East Tennessee so Union? Who won the riot? Anyone??

1864 the Battle of the Wilderness! Why did the Union have 3× the losses of the Rebs.?? Anyone??

,1912 who was Joseph Pulitzer, so famous, they name the Pulitzer Prize after him!? How many categories to the prize are there? What say you??

1942 the Naval battle of the Coral Sea stops IJN expansion, helping the Australians, as well? Comments?

1947 Douglas MacArthur approves the Japanese Constitution! Why did Mac have so much power in the Pacific? & what was up with that ridiculous pipe!? What say you??

All new topics!
Regards,
MD

BTW George, It seems in past discussions you and other Canadians covit those French Islands of Miquelon, & St. Pierre! With the possible exception of your Quebecers!? It's not a popular thing that the British let the French have them, leaving you to have to deal with them, fishing rights ect!?
----------------------------------
"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
5/8/2023 11:35:18 AM
Quote:
BTW George, It seems in past discussions you and other Canadians covit those French Islands of Miquelon, & St. Pierre! With the possible exception of your Quebecers!? It's not a popular thing that the British let the French have them, leaving you to have to deal with them, fishing rights ect!?


I don't recall any exchange of posts that would indicate that Canada wants those islands. I have said that the concession to France in 1763 has proved to be problematic both in wartime and in peace.

The treaty that ended the Seven Years War (French and Indian) and ceded the two islands to France was concluded over one hundred years before Confederation. Britain did have ownership in the early 1700's but the islands have exchanged hands many times.

Brits and Americans lived on the islands. In fact, I think that Britain sold one of the islands to a man from New Hampshire. I would have to look that up. I don't know how he lost it but Britain did give the islands back to France.

Canada's relationship with the islands is pretty good right now. They pay Newfoundland for health care that cannot be provided on the islands. They travel to NFLD to shop and Canadians can travel to St. Pierre et Miquelon for a little taste of French culture without the need of a passport if staying for fewer than 90 days. A driver's licence is sufficient.

The Canadian dollar is widely accepted and used but the official currency would be Euros.

It is true that Newfoundland wanted to annex the islands during WWII. Newfoundland has long been at odds with St. Pierre especially when the French moved back after being expelled by the British near the end of the American revolution.

But NFLD was not Canada in 1945. It was an independent British territory and quite adamant that it wished to remain that way. Economic decline led them to join Canada in 1949 by a slim margin. Just 52% indicated a preference to join Canada. The other option that was defeated was to remain independent and to establish responsible government.

In 1903, the US wanted to buy the islands from France. This created some panic in Canada and Canada asked the UK to buy the islands for Canada. Some of the people on the island wanted to be annexed by the US because that would give access to a much bigger market. In the end, there were no deals and the islands remained French.

In 1994, Canada and France signed an agreement with the wordy title, "The Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of France Relating to the Development of Regional Cooperation Between the Canadian Atlantic Provinces and the French Territorial Collectivity of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon".

Canadian and French representatives meet at least once per year to discuss, Economic and Sustainable Development, Societal Matters (promotion of French language, education, health), Security, and Environment and Science.

As for the people of St. Pierre, they seem quite happy to remain French citizens. I have read that France provides millions in Euros to St. Pierre just to keep the territory afloat. It is doubtful that Canada would provide the same degree of financial support. St. Pierre is dependent heavily on fisheries to survive except for a brief period during prohibition in the US when fishermen made a fortune while smuggling booze to the US. They still smuggle booze into Newfoundland which upsets the NFLD government.

The people opted to remain an overseas territory of France. I believe that officially they are called a territory with special status.

There are a few politicians on the islands who have suggested that they must join Canada if they wish to improve the economy. Joining Canada would give the fishermen greater access to the much larger economic zone that Canada has compared to that of St. Pierre et Miquelon. But those French politicians have also said that they would prefer to enter as part of the Province of Québec. The is understandable because of the language similarities but geographically it makes no sense. I am not sure that the people of St. Pierre would want to be part of NFLD given that historically there has been bad blood between them

And if they entered as a territory of Canada, that would impose financial responsibilities on the federal government of Canada. Several times in our past the Caribbean islands of Turks and Caicos have asked to be admitted to Canada as a territory. That always sounded appealing to have our own Caribbean island that uses the CDN dollar. But it also means that a lot of responsibilities for education and health care and social services would be ours as well. So Canada has rejected these proposals.

During the Covid crisis, Canada's maritime provinces established an Atlantic bubble that allowed quarantine free travel between the provinces. St. Pierre petitioned to join that bubble but I cannot recall whether it was admitted or not. But the fact that they would ask indicates that while French, they are very much a part of the Canadian maritime region.

I do know that Canada would not be happy to see St. Pierre et Miquelon acquired by the US much as it was upset when a US President who shall remain nameless wanted to buy Greenland. A purchase of the islands by the US would give it fishing, and exploration rights in areas to which it currently does not have access. If the US undertook a gambit like that then I think that Canada would be forced to respond in kind.

Anyway, I would like to travel to St. Pierre et Miquelon just to experience a little bit of French culture in North America.

Cheers,

George




RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/8/2023 1:20:57 PM
Quote:
1861 a riot occurs in Knoxville, TN. between processionists, & Unionists!? Why was East Tennessee so Union? Who won the riot? Anyone??


Union sentiment was rife throughout the South, especially in ares like eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama where the plantation economy and slavery had never really taken hold. That nevertheless Tennessee seceded should reveal who "won" the riot.

Quote:
1864 the Battle of the Wilderness! Why did the Union have 3× the losses of the Rebs.?? Anyone??


They didn't. Probably the most complete count of Confederate casualties is by Alfred C. Young, which totals 11,033 casualties versus the better documented 17.666 Union casualties, so basically 1.6-to-1 about half the ratio you cited. The reason? The Confederates were defending. They lost 16.7% of their strength versus the Union loss of 14.9% of its strength.

Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/8/2023 3:25:38 PM
Quote:


They didn't. Probably the most complete count of Confederate casualties is by Alfred C. Young, which totals 11,033 casualties versus the better documented 17.666 Union casualties, so basically 1.6-to-1 about half the ratio you cited. The reason? The Confederates were defending. They lost 16.7% of their strength versus the Union loss of 14.9% of its strength.



Those loss ratios were very much in Lee’s comfort zone when you compare them with Chancellorsville, Gettysburg or Antietam. More than that, the proportion of fatalities was lower in the confederate casualty list : just under two thousand confederate killed, mortally wounded or missing subsequently counted as dead, compared with well over four thousand yankees( 2,246 confirmed kia and c 2,000 Dow and Mia presumed dead). More striking still, a phenomenally small number of southern wounded were left in enemy hands: an important yardstick in impact on morale and attestation of tactical superiority. This battle damaged the North more than it did the South; the same could be said of the entire Overland Campaign in terms of attrition of manpower and morale. The Union army was gutted by this campaign to a greater degree than the confederate . My opinion, of course.


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
5/8/2023 7:18:57 PM
Quote:
This battle damaged the North more than it did the South; the same could be said of the entire Overland Campaign in terms of attrition of manpower and morale. The Union army was gutted by this campaign to a greater degree than the confederate . My opinion, of course.


The Overland Campaign damaged the Union Army so severely that 36 days later they settled into the siege of Petersburg that placed a stranglehold on Lee's army and ended another 304 days later with Lee's capitulation.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/9/2023 12:18:44 AM
Quote:
This battle damaged the North more than it did the South; the same could be said of the entire Overland Campaign in terms of attrition of manpower and morale. The Union army was gutted by this campaign to a greater degree than the confederate . My opinion, of course.


The Overland Campaign damaged the Union Army so severely that 36 days later they settled into the siege of Petersburg that placed a stranglehold on Lee's army and ended another 304 days later with Lee's capitulation.


Rich,

To which my comment: the failure of the Union army to carry the rebel works at Petersburg June 15-18 was a significant missed chance that was to extend that siege for three hundred days. The slaughter of the inexperienced and clumsily deployed Maine Heavy Artillery, deployed as infantry, revealed the degree to which Grant’s attacks had resulted in the use of troops ill suited to the combat that bestowed a tactical edge on the more experienced rebels. This had already happened as early as 19 May at Spotsylvania, before the more famous repulse of 18 June. The yankees were scraping the barrel. The subsequent Petersburg fighting , with the Mine fiasco at the end of July being prominent, revealed a strong and reflexive rebel defence that indicated a qualitative edge over the demoralised and profoundly damaged federal forces.
The most telling example of this was at Reams Station in August, when, to Hancock’s dismay, his beloved and esteemed Second Corps broke and ran and there was a sense of disgrace about the affair. This was the upshot of the casualty exchange of the battles of May and June that had gutted the AoP. Not an attritional success for the North.

More striking still, at a time when Grant was keen to advocate that his campaign had “ pinned “ Lee’s army at Petersburg, Early was able to mount a major foray towards Washington that rather dispelled that claim.

More to come, but the clock defeats me,

Editing : that clock defeated Lee, too. He himself acknowledged that. “ If it becomes a matter of ciphering, it’s a question of time “ . That’s more or less what he said, isn’t it ? And Grant did succeed in his endeavour to make it thus, no doubt about that. As to the toll of the Overland, I’m convinced that, in terms of the casualty exchange rate, things went against Grant, and badly, too. Fifty five thousand Union against thirty three thousand confederate battle casualties is close to parity in proportional terms. That’s luxury for Lee compared with, say, Chancellorsville.
Parity on that scale was far outside the North’s comfort zone, especially when accompanied by tactical roughing up at the Wilderness and Cold Harbor, and elsewhere. Without the success attained by Sherman in Georgia, and also by Sheridan at Cedar Creek, what were Lincoln’s chances of being re-elected in late 1864, in view of the bloodbath we’ve been discussing ?
Shame that this thread is not in the Civil War section. It’s rather constrained in the This Day in History. It deserves more than a brief reference in a fast moving survey.


Regards, Phil


----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
5/9/2023 4:44:07 AM
Quote:
Without the success attained by Sherman in Georgia, and also by Sheridan at Cedar Creek, what were Lincoln’s chances of being re-elected in late 1864, in view of the bloodbath we’ve been discussing ?
Shame that this thread is not in the Civil War section. It’s rather constrained in the This Day in History. It deserves more than a brief reference in a fast moving survey.

-Phil



Phil,

Good to have you out on parade again. Hopefully you're feeling better and recovering well following your ordeal.

You ask a very pertinent question. I think without Sherman's storming of Atlanta and the rapid disintegration of Confederate forces in the West, it would have been unlikely that Lincoln would have been re-elected. The peace Democrats would have won and then the question of negotiating some form of end to the bloodbath would have taken place. I think that might have ended with the Southern states being readmitted only on the basis that slavery would not be prohibited in the new territories. Failing that, Southern secession would have been formalised, perhaps under arbitration by Britain, France, Russia or Prussia (or maybe a conference of them all).

However, Union success in the West had been going on for some time. The fall of Vicksburg fatally wounded the Confederate war effort, so it is likely a decisive breakthrough was going to happen somewhere in the West, especially as the Confederate war effort was so focused on the East. Therein lies the very crux of the Civil War; the Confederates could not afford a long war that sapped their reserves of men and materiel. The Union could afford this, only if it had the stomach for the cost.

How very different it would have all been if McLellan had found the courage to throw in his reserves and had finished off Lee's army at Antietam back in 1862.

Cheers,

Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/9/2023 6:03:44 AM
Thanks for your kind words, Colin.
To my dismay, things aren’t settled yet and I write this from hospital, although I’m mending. Two general anaesthetics in three days have left me reeling. Is the prostate designed to thrill or kill ?

Both, maybe !

If I feel sorry for myself, I think of those poor boys left wounded and dying between the lines at Cold Harbor and Spotsylvania, and the harrowing fate of helpless wounded trapped by the fires in the Wilderness.

That brings me to an important point that I failed to emphasise properly in my response to Rich.

These casualty figures that we’ve been discussing need to be analysed.

Editing: back again !

People cite the numbers of casualties: 17,666 union and 11,033 confederate in the Wilderness battle alone, 55,000 yankees and 33,600 rebels in the Overland between early May and mid June.
Percentage rates are cited and compared.
Does that allow for a discerning summary?
Not in my interpretation.
We need to investigate the nature of those casualty figures.
What was the fate of the wounded? Was there a bigger incidence of severe cases and concomitant deaths in one army than in the other ?
Did one side suffer a greater proportion of wounded being abandoned on the field than the other ? In all those criteria, I believe the confederates enjoyed a big advantage.
This reflected the tactical outcomes entailed in the southern troops fighting effectively on the defensive, while being able and willing to mount really fierce and successful counter attacks that knocked the yankees about badly. Look no further than Longstreet’s attack on 6 May in the Wilderness. When fighting behind their earthworks, the rebels exacted a frightful toll : Cold Harbor, obviously, but other episodes, too, at Spotsylvania. Th fate of the wounded federal soldiers in these circumstances was truly harrowing and hit morale hard.
Lee actually reported after the Wilderness that, while the number of his wounded was large, there was a reassuring preponderance of slights wounds among the cases, attributable to the lack of artillery fire in the heavily wooded battlefield.

In all the battles of the Overland, the rebels succeeded in recovering an astonishingly large proportion of their wounded. I can authenticate this by studying the book by Young that Rich alluded to.

For the yankees, the mortality and abandonment of the wounded was far more apparent in the regimental statistics furnished by Fox.

Grant’s change of base also disrupted the survival chances of his wounded.

More significantly, many of the yankees reported missing in action had been killed, left to die on the field or burned to death in the woodland fires.

There is a suspicion that General Warren deliberately falsified his casualty figures by suppressing the number of killed and posting them to the missing instead.



The principal feature of Lee’s casualty list that Grant could legitimately claim as a success was the large haul of prisoners captured on 12 May. Several thousand went into the bag, and they were irrevocably lost to Lee. More than thirty percent of Lee’s casualties in the campaign were unwounded prisoners, and that certainly was an attritional success for Grant .

Regards, Phil


----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
scoucer
Berlin  Germany
Posts: 3270
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
5/9/2023 7:46:00 AM
Phil,

There is another figure that I think you have to consider, particularly for the Confederates. That is desertion.
There are similarities, I have often thought about, in Confederate soldiers thinking and Germans in 1918 ( something I hope to write about in the future).

This goes along the lines of:
I joined up to defend my home and family. Now I´m hearing my family is starving and the government is shooting at them for complaining about it. The Yankees are in my home state and I have no idea how my family is doing. What am I doing in Virginia ?

Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/9/2023 7:50:55 AM
Quote:
Quote:
This battle damaged the North more than it did the South; the same could be said of the entire Overland Campaign in terms of attrition of manpower and morale. The Union army was gutted by this campaign to a greater degree than the confederate . My opinion, of course.


The Overland Campaign damaged the Union Army so severely that 36 days later they settled into the siege of Petersburg that placed a stranglehold on Lee's army and ended another 304 days later with Lee's capitulation.


Rich,

To which my comment: the failure of the Union army to carry the rebel works at Petersburg June 15-18 was a significant missed chance that was to extend that siege for three hundred days. The slaughter of the inexperienced and clumsily deployed Maine Heavy Artillery, deployed as infantry, revealed the degree to which Grant’s attacks had resulted in the use of troops ill suited to the combat that bestowed a tactical edge on the more experienced rebels. This had already happened as early as 19 May at Spotsylvania, before the more famous repulse of 18 June. The yankees were scraping the barrel. The subsequent Petersburg fighting , with the Mine fiasco at the end of July being prominent, revealed a strong and reflexive rebel defence that indicated a qualitative edge over the demoralised and profoundly damaged federal forces.
The most telling example of this was at Reams Station in August, when, to Hancock’s dismay, his beloved and esteemed Second Corps broke and ran and there was a sense of disgrace about the affair. This was the upshot of the casualty exchange of the battles of May and June that had gutted the AoP. Not an attritional success for the North.

More striking still, at a time when Grant was keen to advocate that his campaign had “ pinned “ Lee’s army at Petersburg, Early was able to mount a major foray towards Washington that rather dispelled that claim.

More to come, but the clock defeats me,

Editing : that clock defeated Lee, too. He himself acknowledged that. “ If it becomes a matter of ciphering, it’s a question of time “ . That’s more or less what he said, isn’t it ? And Grant did succeed in his endeavour to make it thus, no doubt about that. As to the toll of the Overland, I’m convinced that, in terms of the casualty exchange rate, things went against Grant, and badly, too. Fifty five thousand Union against thirty three thousand confederate battle casualties is close to parity in proportional terms. That’s luxury for Lee compared with, say, Chancellorsville.
Parity on that scale was far outside the North’s comfort zone, especially when accompanied by tactical roughing up at the Wilderness and Cold Harbor, and elsewhere. Without the success attained by Sherman in Georgia, and also by Sheridan at Cedar Creek, what were Lincoln’s chances of being re-elected in late 1864, in view of the bloodbath we’ve been discussing ?
Shame that this thread is not in the Civil War section. It’s rather constrained in the This Day in History. It deserves more than a brief reference in a fast moving survey.


Regards, Phil







Hi Phil,

Your right it would be a great thread in the Civil War section, Come up with a title, perhaps the last year of the war in the East, or Grant verse Lee?? Perhaps some one could cut & paste pertinent posts already made??

Hope all is well for you,
Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Page 71 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