MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 72 of 114 (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 )
Message
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8302
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/9/2023 7:53:33 AM
Check out 5-9 in history, comments? Anyone??

1502 4th & final voyage of Christopher Columbus occurs, how did it end? Was Columbus a great explorer? What say you??

1774 Louis XVI becomes King of France! How does his Reign go??

1775 Ethan Allan, & Benedict Arnold defeat the British at Fort Ticonderoga!! Why did Arnold turn traitor??

1857 Indian Mutiny in India how did it comeout? Anyone??

1865 Confederates President Jefferson Davis is captured by the 4th Michigan Cavalry including my GGGG Grandfather Andrew! Was he Jeff Davis dressed as A women as some have reported to try & escape?? Whats the truth?? What say you??

1869 the transcontinental railroad is completed in Utah! What happened to the gold spike? Anyone??

1874 Howard Carter, the discoverer of King Tuts Tomb is born! He & the other tomb openers died mysterious death! Do you believe the tomb was cursed???

1994 Nelson Mendella becomes president of S. Africa, why is this remarkable?? Anyone??

Comments on any of these or other new topics? Anyone??

Regards,
MD

BTW, Phil, Colin, Trevor, & Rich,


Guys feel free to keep up your current CW thread on this site if you want, it's fascinating!!
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6498
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/9/2023 7:57:35 AM
Excellent point, Trevor.

Desertion rates need to be studied.

I’m of the opinion that by the start of the Overland the confederates fell back on their NCOs to hold things together. Whether this was a necessity, or a deliberate choice, is moot and carries challenging implications about the armies and their respective societies.

Editing : “ Lee to the rear ! Go back, General Lee ! We’ll do this ! “ Whereupon a Texan sergeant or corporal seized the reins of Lee’s beloved Traveller and took Lee back from the frontline. There’s allegory here. Seasoned soldiers don’t like seeing their commanders getting themselves in harm’s way when it’s not necessary. Another vignette comes to mind from Gettysburg, when Longstreet went towards the Emmitsburg Road to conduct a reconnaissance. The troops deployed there took exception to his presence, and regarded it as a slight upon them, that it was deemed necessary to have such a highly ranked officer taking on such a task. Now, I regret that I cannot remember where I read this, and my narrative flow was interrupted by my consultant coming to see me to discuss my condition. Talking of “ flow”, oh dear!

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
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
5/9/2023 9:13:33 AM

I read a newspaper article, ( it was a contemporary, Athens Watchman comes to mind) about the men of my grt, grt grandfather`s outfit - 3rd Georgia Battalion Sharpshooters - meeting sometime in late spring of 1864 about the end of their 3 year enlistments.

There was a strong religious revival taking place amongst the ANV, in part due to the stories of harsh conditions back at home, severe deprivations that tore at the souls of the men. ( This religious revival would become the basis for the "Lost Cause mythology that would arise after Appomattox.)

The men of the 3rd Battalion Sharpshooters talked out the status of the war, made clear that they were not going to win, most likely....but these were hardened men in the sharpshooters, hand-picked..supposedly the best of the best. Despite the hardships back home, they voted in total to "see the thing to the end."

But desertion among the regular ranks was growing.

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6498
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/9/2023 10:22:13 AM
Thanks Morris,

That’s a very instructive anecdote.

The allusion to “ the best of the best “ is pertinent.

As this war - and other wars, too - reach a culminating phase, does it become a question of quality of men rather than quantity ?

Your forefathers were an elite cohort, determined to see things through, come what may.

I’m thinking of Lee’s last gasp attack at Fort Stedman in March 1865, when special southern storm troops were given the task of dismantling the various defensive devices that the yankees had installed along their lines. There was a detachment of rebels carrying axes who were trained to deal with the abatis and cheveux de frise.

The aspect of attritional performance hinges largely on the degrading of the qualitative as well as the quantitative resource of manpower.

In these terms, I reckon that the rebels prevailed in the Overland.

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: 3269
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
5/9/2023 10:58:06 AM
Quote:
Excellent point, Trevor.

Desertion rates need to be studied.

I’m of the opinion that by the start of the Overland the confederates fell back on their NCOs to hold things together. Whether this was a necessity, or a deliberate choice, is moot and carries challenging implications about the armies and their respective societies.

Regards, Phil


As did the Germans in 1918. That is one of my points. And these NCO´s were determined to keep many of their boys alive until they could surrender "with honour".

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.
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1064
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
5/9/2023 3:45:47 PM
There’s a trend in history that the qualitative edge often goes up in a military force as the quantity goes down or is deliberately kept low.

Sparta famously opted for quality over quantity in their citizen army. 300 of them (plus Greek allies) held up the Persian army for nearly three days at Thermopylae, buying vital time for the Greek cities to mobilise.

Alexander’s army was outnumbered in just about every engagement it fought, yet the Macedonian veterans who made it to India never lost a battle.

The Herculiani Seniores of the late western Roman army, who held the hill at Chalons at tragic cost against the cream of Atilla’s hordes, were as good as any legionary unit that fought under Caesar or Trajan. It’s just a pity there were only a thousand or so of them.

In more recent times, the German stormtroopers of 1918 had an edge over much of their Allied opponents. How many lives of high quality soldiers were frittered away in the attacks of spring 1918?

In the same conflict, the Anzacs were running on fumes by autumn 1918. I’m still not sure the Germans would have wanted to fight them at any given time.

I expect we could go on all day with examples. The point is that it is perhaps better to have a hundred well trained and battle hardened troops than a thousand green recruits. You can rely on the veterans to stand their ground and see it out; how many battles have been lost by the stampede of the rear echelons at the first hint of combat?

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."
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1064
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
5/9/2023 3:46:26 PM
Morris,

I really enjoyed your anecdote. If you have more, please do share.

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: 8302
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/10/2023 7:48:58 AM
May 10th stuff, comments?

1857 the Indian Mutiny, whats the story on this British Empire fiasco??

1862 the CW battle of Plumb Run, who won?, anything on this battle??

1865 Confederate President Jefferson Davis, captured in Georgia! Did he have Confederate Gold with him?? Did he dress as a women?

WWI, Allied ships get Destroyer Escorts to combat Uboats, I believe some were RCN?? Anyone?

10 may 1940 in Europe and GB.

1. PM Neville Chamberlain resigned as PM, to be replaced by WSC.

2. Germany launched its invasion of Luxembourg, Holland, Belgium and France!

Comments on these two big WWII events, or any other comments??

Cheers,
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: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/10/2023 8:09:59 AM
Quote:
WWI, Allied ships get Destroyer Escorts to combat Uboats, I believe some were RCN?? Anyone?


World War 1 or 2, MD? Year?

The reason that I ask is that I don't believe that the RCN had any destroyers in WW1. It only had two warships in Aug. of 1914. By the end of the war most of its vessels were trawlers assigned to ASW off the coast.

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8302
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/10/2023 8:34:59 AM
1917,
----------------------------------
"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: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/10/2023 10:54:48 AM
Quote:
1917,


Ok, you must be talking about the destroyers that the US added to convoy escort duty in April of 1917. The first ones sailed to Britain to assist on coverage of the approaches to the UK. The UK had been reluctant to introduce formal ocean convoys until 1917 and it felt that destroyers would do the job but they didn't have enough of them. When the US entered the war, it added sufficient numbers, over 30 I believe, to make up the shortfall.

The RN and other navies had been escorting short run convoys in the eastern Atlantic and in the Mediterranean but the ocean convoys from the US and Canada didn't begin until May of 1917 and fortunately, the US had entered the war shortly after Germany declared that it had instituted unrestrained submarine warfare again.

Of course the US had a vested interest in protecting these convoys as thousands of their soldiers had to be protected on their journey to Europe as did the goods and material that Britain needed.

As I said, I don't believe that the RCN was a factor in WWI convoy escorts. It didn't have the ships. In fact, when Canadian PM Borden asked the Admiralty to send ships he was told that Britain didn't anticipate that British strategy would require a naval commitment from Canada. Instead, Canada was asked to concentrate on provision of an army.

Good thing. As I recall, the RCN had two ancient cruisers at its disposal, HMCS Niobe on the east coast and HMCS Rainbow on the west coast. Both were offered for use to the RN with Canadian crews. Rainbow did patrol as far south as San Francisco but when it entered the US port for coal it was given a very small amount that would limit the distance it could travel. The US was concerned about violations of its neutrality.

The province of British Columbia bought two US submarines from a Seattle yard because it was worried about attacks on Pacific ports. It was an under the table deal that BC brokered without involving the federal government.

The RCN would become a major player in the Battle of the Atlantic in the next war.

Cheers,

George
RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/10/2023 1:10:02 PM
Quote:
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 ?


I'm having an odd moment of intense deja vu reading this. It reminds me so much of an argument I had nearly twenty years ago with a U.S. Army COTR regarding the definition of "winner" and "loser" in our database. The terms are completely subjective to the individual engagement and the hierarchy of combat and require interpretation. Did the AoP suffer a tactical defeat in the Battle of the Wilderness? Yes. Did it suffer an operational defeat? No. Did it suffer a strategic defeat? Of course not. Did the AoP suffer an operational defeat in the Overland Campaign (the concept of a "tactical defeat" in the context of an operational campaign is nearly meaningless)? Possibly but you could easily argue it was a draw and, again, it most certainly was a strategic defeat.

Was the fiasco of the Petersberg mine a tactical defeat? Of course. Was it an operational defeat? In the context of the overall Petersburg Campaign? No. Was it a strategic defeat? Again, no. Ditto for Reams Station. Was it embarrassing personally for Hancock? Of course but then he was past his prime after Gettysburg anyway and probably was no longer an effective corps commander. Nor does embarrassment lose wars. Did it end the wartime career of the II Corps due to "low morale"? BTW, no the II Corps did not "break" or "run" at Reams Station. Two regiments of Mile's Division did and then Rugg's Brigade of Gibbon's Division in reserve refused to advance when ordered. In the end, given the forces deployed, the poor position, and the failure of Meade to read the situation and reinforce Hancock promptly, the result was probably inevitable.

It wasn't an attritional success for the Union? That assessment would no doubt surprise both the Union and Confederate troops at Sailor's Creek and Appomattox Court House in April 1865.

What exactly did Early's Raid, which is what it was, an operational raid rather than a counteroffensive, have on the outcome of the Petersburg Campaign or the war? Zero. Zilch. Nada. The diversion of the VI Corps and XIX Corps detachment to Washington from the Petersburg lines did not result in Lee's desired "It was believed that the Valley could then be effectually freed from the presence of the enemy and it was hoped that by threatening Washington and Baltimore, Gen. Grant would be compelled to weaken himself so much for their protection as to afford an opportunity to attack him, or that he might be induced to attack us" did not happen. The Valley was freed for a few weeks at best and no opportunity to attack Grant presented itself. It did demonstrate the superior Union capabilities WRT operational movement though.

Note that absolutely and proportionately the Confederate Army in the Overland Campaign suffered greater permanent losses in terms of killed and captured than the Union Army. They also did not have the manpower to replace losses by that time. Empirically, Lee's Army numbered about 65,000 at the beginning of the Overland and only 35,000 by the beginning of the final campaign. The Union Army began with 104,000 and ended with 63,000 so went from about 1.6-to-1 superiority to about 1.8-to-1 superiority. The Union was able to increase its strength whereas the Confederacy could not.


Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6498
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/10/2023 3:57:58 PM
“ Note that absolutely and proportionately the Confederate Army in the Overland Campaign suffered greater permanent losses in terms of killed and captured than the Union Army.”

Forgive me if I disagree.

In terms of killed and mortally wounded, very obviously the exchange was strikingly against the Union Army.
I’m in a London hospital now, and will have to trust to my memory. Young tabulates just under six thousand killed or died from wounds in the Confederate army in the six weeks of fighting from early May to mid June.
My own research into regimental statistics from Fox suggests that the Union fatalities were in the order of 14,250, which is close to two and a half times as heavy as the confederate loss in those categories.

As for captured, yes, the advantage lay with the North, principally attributable to Spotsylvania. Ten thousand Confederate prisoners taken in those forty odd days, and I’m guessing that seven to eight thousand were captured by the confederates.

Taking the aggregate for dead and prisoners, you could advocate a proportional advantage for the North, but not a big one.

In absolute terms, absolutely not: a confederate win, and a big one at that.

I might be labouring this point excessively, but take a look at the numbers of wounded rebels that were left in Yankee hands, compiled by Young : an astonishingly small number bearing in mind the intensity and scale of the fighting.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8302
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/10/2023 9:17:32 PM
May 10th world history events still.not commented on? What say you?

1857 the Indian Mutiny, whats the story on this British Empire fiasco??

1862 the CW battle of Plumb Run, who won?,Isn't it part of Gettysburg NMP? anything on this battle??

1865 Confederate President Jefferson Davis, captured in Georgia! Did he have Confederate Gold with him?? Did he dress as a women?

1917 WWI, Allied ships get Destroyer Escorts to combat Uboats, I believe some were RCN? Actually USN? Thanks George for your reply setting us straight!

1940 Neville Chamberlain resigned as PM, to be replaced by WSC. His peace in our time comment, really hurt his credability? What say you? Was WSC the right choice??

1940 Germany launched its invasion of Luxembourg, Holland, Belgium and France! How successful was their Blitzkrieg strategy?? What say you?

Comments, &
Cheers,
MD

BTW great posts on the CW Overland Campaign!
----------------------------------
"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
5/10/2023 10:04:00 PM
I see my last post didn't post. This is becoming too common here. Bye.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4806
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/10/2023 10:07:28 PM
Quote:
10 may 1940 in Europe and GB.

1. PM Neville Chamberlain resigned as PM, to be replaced by WSC.

Amazing that two such events might happen on the same day, for in truth the events were for the most part unrelated.

Mr Chamberlain did resign, but only after a strong vote of non-confidence presented largely because of the incompetence and egregious losses during the Norwegian campaign. To his honour, WSC stood during this debate and admitted responsibility for the disastrous Norwegian endeavour. But the House, it seems, wanted a change from the Chamberlain government’s dealings with Hitler and the rising menace of fascism in Europe, with a failed track record of Ethiopia, the Spanish Civil War, Munich and Poland and Finland. The failure of he Norwegian campaign was simply a step too far, IMPO. The values which had held Chamberlain’s government together were finally seen as unacceptable.

WSC was duly accepted as the Leader of his party and the new Prime Minister, but it should be noted his appointment was not without strong disagreement. Even after becoming PM, and finding that he had become an active war PM, WSC was left carrying many of Chamberlain’s cabinet, which included Ministers whose interests remained economic rather than military. The interesting part of the ouster of Chamberlain and the reluctant acceptance of WSC as PM arose only after WSC attempted to make his mark on the Cabinet he inherited. Worth noting: Norway would not surrender to German forces until 10 June 1940. The Brits had accepted their collapse more than a month earlier. Something worth considering here!

For those interested in the events following WSC’s appointment as PM, I suggest reading Five Days in London: May 1940, John Lukacs (1999).

Quote:
2. Germany launched its invasion of Luxembourg, Holland, Belgium and France!

Without getting silly about it, I can’t understand how this invasion caught anybody by surprise. A month earlier, On 9 April 1940, Germany had upstaged a planned combined Franco/British military assault against Norway, with the possibly bogus argument of ferrying supplies to Finland (recently defeated in the Winter War). I think it’s now accepted that the British aim was to negate Norway’s neutrality, which allowed German military vessels to sail through Norwegian waters under Norwegian support. The Germans, read the same tea leaves; their argument (against an aggressively neutral group of nations) was that they were offering military forces to stop GB and France from violating Norwegian sovereignty. The irony here is wonderful IMHO, since the propaganda is so close to the truth.

The “Phoney War” had gone on for seven months. I would suggest that German success in Norway (and Denmark, though that was a different case entirely!) not just that indicated a strong German force in Western Europe, but the expectation that they would be used.

You talk of 10 May 1940, which is fair. The weeks between 10 May and 30 June (the final withdrawal of British/French troops ) from continental Europe needs lots of discussion in the coming weeks.

Cheers,
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6498
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/11/2023 2:23:14 AM
Quote:
I see my last post didn't post. This is becoming too common here. Bye.


Please retry, Rich.

It’ll do me a power of good to get my mind out of this hospital environment. Your contributions to this topic are important as far as I’m concerned, and are helping me re formulate my interpretation of the Overland fighting. By the way, I must stipulate that my interpretation of the casualty exchange in this fighting is predicated on the forty days - more or less- period of 5 May to 12 June 1864, when we’re dealing with the implications of 55,000 union and 33,000 confederate battle casualties. To get the big picture, of course, the remit goes right up to Appomattox : but the Overland conjures up the Wilderness to the crossing of the James.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8302
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/11/2023 8:23:21 AM
Quote:
Quote:
10 may 1940 in Europe and GB.

1. PM Neville Chamberlain resigned as PM, to be replaced by WSC.

Amazing that two such events might happen on the same day, for in truth the events were for the most part unrelated.

Mr Chamberlain did resign, but only after a strong vote of non-confidence presented largely because of the incompetence and egregious losses during the Norwegian campaign. To his honour, WSC stood during this debate and admitted responsibility for the disastrous Norwegian endeavour. But the House, it seems, wanted a change from the Chamberlain government’s dealings with Hitler and the rising menace of fascism in Europe, with a failed track record of Ethiopia, the Spanish Civil War, Munich and Poland and Finland. The failure of he Norwegian campaign was simply a step too far, IMPO. The values which had held Chamberlain’s government together were finally seen as unacceptable.

WSC was duly accepted as the Leader of his party and the new Prime Minister, but it should be noted his appointment was not without strong disagreement. Even after becoming PM, and finding that he had become an active war PM, WSC was left carrying many of Chamberlain’s cabinet, which included Ministers whose interests remained economic rather than military. The interesting part of the ouster of Chamberlain and the reluctant acceptance of WSC as PM arose only after WSC attempted to make his mark on the Cabinet he inherited. Worth noting: Norway would not surrender to German forces until 10 June 1940. The Brits had accepted their collapse more than a month earlier. Something worth considering here!

For those interested in the events following WSC’s appointment as PM, I suggest reading Five Days in London: May 1940, John Lukacs (1999).

Quote:
2. Germany launched its invasion of Luxembourg, Holland, Belgium and France!

Without getting silly about it, I can’t understand how this invasion caught anybody by surprise. A month earlier, On 9 April 1940, Germany had upstaged a planned combined Franco/British military assault against Norway, with the possibly bogus argument of ferrying supplies to Finland (recently defeated in the Winter War). I think it’s now accepted that the British aim was to negate Norway’s neutrality, which allowed German military vessels to sail through Norwegian waters under Norwegian support. The Germans, read the same tea leaves; their argument (against an aggressively neutral group of nations) was that they were offering military forces to stop GB and France from violating Norwegian sovereignty. The irony here is wonderful IMHO, since the propaganda is so close to the truth.

The “Phoney War” had gone on for seven months. I would suggest that German success in Norway (and Denmark, though that was a different case entirely!) not just that indicated a strong German force in Western Europe, but the expectation that they would be used.

You talk of 10 May 1940, which is fair. The weeks between 10 May and 30 June (the final withdrawal of British/French troops ) from continental Europe needs lots of discussion in the coming weeks.

Cheers,
Brian G



Hi Brian,

You raise some thought provocative questions here! As for Chamberlain's dismissal as PM, he seemed to conciliatory to Hitler. You wonder as far as WSC replacing him, that his experiences in WWI, like Gallipoli made him wiser??

Your take on Hitler, & the Germans taking advantage of Norway's neutrality is a big point!? The German Navy certainly took advantage off using Norway's huge coastline with its many fjords to it's advantage! How many naval operations did the use that coast?

The withdrawal of the Allies from the mainland in 1940, reflects just how successful the Nazi Military was early on in the war!?

All good points,
& lots to discuss here!?

Cheers,
MD

BTW Lukacs book Five Days in London, May 1940, looks like a great read, certainly relaying the importance of WSC & the British direction during this early vital response just when every thing was going wrong, with Germany's major threat in Europe! I'll have to check it out!?
----------------------------------
"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: 1064
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
5/11/2023 8:40:55 AM
Quote:


The withdrawal of the Allies from the mainland in 1940, reflects just how successful the Nazi Military was early on in the war!?



The Allies could have won or at least held on in 1940, but for better deployment of their mobile forces. Germany's assault through the Ardennes was a huge gamble; many German officers expected it to fail and for the war to settle into something resembling the previous conflict.

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: 6498
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/11/2023 11:34:35 AM
Quote:
Quote:


The withdrawal of the Allies from the mainland in 1940, reflects just how successful the Nazi Military was early on in the war!?



The Allies could have won or at least held on in 1940, but for better deployment of their mobile forces. Germany's assault through the Ardennes was a huge gamble; many German officers expected it to fail and for the war to settle into something resembling the previous conflict.

Cheers,

Colin


An awful thing to suggest, but the thought won’t go away : for Britain, that sharp defeat suffered by the Allies in the West in 1940 was a kind of deliverance.

Dare we imagine how many British lives were saved by the fact that the ordeal of” something resembling the previous conflict “ was not repeated ?

Hundreds of thousands, I daresay, with commensurate commonwealth losses too, although only Canada among the Dominions was willing to deploy troops to the Western Front (NW Europe )in WW2.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1064
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
5/11/2023 1:22:47 PM
Phil,

I agree with you. The rapid defeat / retreat meant the casualties for the BEF were mercifully light, in comparison to those suffered during the First World War. Similarly, the French and Germans casualties weren’t as heavy, although the fighting was fierce right up until France sued for an armistice.

Is it likely South African, Australian and New Zealand troops would have ended up on the western front had war in North Africa and Asia not broken out? I think it probably is, especially if the war carried on there into 1941/42.

We know from the fighting around Caen on and after D-Day what a ‘modernised’ solidified western front might have looked like across the piece. I recall you sharing stats that showed the rate of losses in the Commonwealth forces engaged there rivalled those of the fierce prolonged engagements a generation earlier. That the Commonwealth didn’t experience those scale losses again throughout the war is a blessing, I think.

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: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/11/2023 1:48:17 PM
Phil and Colin,

We acknoledge that Australia, NZ, SA and Canada contributed people to their own navies with thousands more serving on RN ships. And thousands served in RAF squadrons or as well as in their own national squadrons if they had them. Even if ships were recalled to the Pacific because of the Japanese attacks, Commonwealth air crew and naval crew serving with the RN or RAF were still present in Europe. I recall that RAN vessels were involved in the Battle of the Atlantic for quite a while before being recalled to protect the homeland.

Thousands of Commonwealth air crew served in the European theatre.

I agree that the losses suffered in the battles around Caen and to the closing of the Falaise Gap were very high. I don't recall Phil's "rate of loss" data but would be pleased to read that information and the comparison to WW1 rates of loss.

Cheers,

George
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6498
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/11/2023 4:24:01 PM
George and Colin,

The important word I used was “troops”.

In the war at sea and in the air, Commonwealth contributions were enormous. The number of Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and South African deaths in Bomber Command was appalling: Indian and Colonial airmen died too.

But when it came to Overlord and the battle for NW Europe, only Canadians were engaged alongside British troops on the ground.

Australians and Kiwis fought as soldiers in Crete and Greece, and the NZ division made a huge contribution to the Italian campaign, as did Canadian forces. There were Indians there, too.

North Africa was very much a battleground for the Aussies and Kiwis.

In terms of casualties, the rifle companies of the infantry in NW Europe took casualties that sometimes rivalled those of 1914-18, but they did not exceed them. Indeed, the worst episodes of WW1 were significantly more deadly, in relative as well as absolute terms. And , of course, the numbers were vastly higher a generation earlier, because in WW2 far smaller numbers were deployed in that murderous “ tip of the spear “ deployment.

Edit : George, a striking statistic revealing the extent of Canadian infantry casualties in NW Europe :

" By December 1944 69 per cent of Canadian officers in North-West Europe of major rank and lower had become casualties compared with 51 per cent of other ranks. "

The Bloody Battle for Tilly , Normandy 1944, by Ken Tout, page 216.



Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/11/2023 5:15:38 PM
Thanks Phil,

"The Bloody Battle for Tilly" is an excellent book. The title is apt.

Phil, I realized that you used the word troops. I just thought that I would remind everyone of the special relationship between the Commonwealth countries and the British branches of service. My intent was not to correct.

Even before the war, there were places reserved in the RN for Canadian and other Commonwealth naval officers to gain experience in a blue water fleet. When the war started many of these men returned to Canada to join the RCN and rubbed some of the men the wrong way as they tried to perpetuate the divide between officers and ratings that they had learned in service with the RN.

As well, I know that many Canadians who sought a career in the air force often paid their way to the UK to enlist in the RAF. "Buzz" Beurling of Malta fame comes to mind.

Cheers,

George



Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4806
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/11/2023 10:01:31 PM
Dave, you say:Quote:
As for Chamberlain's dismissal as PM, he seemed to conciliatory to Hitler. You wonder as far as WSC replacing him, that his experiences in WWI, like Gallipoli made him wiser??

I don’t think Chamberlain will ever be seen clearly by historians. He was an architect of Munich in late September 1938, and so shared the dubious honour of “Chief Collaborationist” with Edouard Deladier, his French counterpart. Both, we should remember, were lauded and cheered by their governments for their actions. But as German agitation eroded the Czech rump, and then the Slovakians, Chamberlain’s repulsion with Hitler and the Nazis grew. Not so the majority of his Cabinet, which included Lord Halifax. And even as Chamberlain’s role as PM was being called into question by parliament, the majority of his party was more committed to Halifax than to Churchill. It is said that even the King and Queen wished to see Halifax rather than Churchill as PM. To be blunt, WSC was not a popular nor a trusted man. It took some hard “seat-work” by a group of young Tories to sell WSC as the only possible choice. Five Days in May isn’t about Churchill replacing Chamberlain; it’s about Churchill’s battle with Halifax and his supporters for control of the governing party’s agenda.
Quote:
Your take on Hitler, & the Germans taking advantage of Norway's neutrality is a big point!? The German Navy certainly took advantage off using Norway's huge coastline with its many fjords to it's advantage! How many naval operations did the use that coast?

Just to be clear, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and (I believe) Finland had declared offensive neutrality in September 1939. So had Netherlands, Belgium and minor principalities in western Europe, as well as Switzerland, Italy, Portugal and Spain. I don’t think “offensive neutrality” is the accepted term, but in effect it meant that most of the nations declaring neutrality were prepared to battle with any nation who invaded its territory. Swedish iron ore was being shipped by train to northern ports in Norway, and carried by ship through neutral Norwegian (and Danish) waters to German ports. The British claimed the ore was a material of war, to no avail.

In addition, the German Navy was sending captured ships (under various flags) and rescued seamen from successes by German raiders (both naval vessels and merchant raiders) to Germany. The Norwegian coast was a long escape valve for German commerce raiders, so long as Norway did not feel under invasion.

At the same time, there had been a nasty war between Soviet Russia and Finland – the “Winter War”, which ended 16 March 1940 in a Finnish defeat. GB had offered military equipment to Finland; the offer was rejected. Undeterred, GB approached both Norway and Sweden for permission to move troops and military equipment from GB via northern Norwegian ports across Norway and Sweden by train with a Finnish destination. The request was refused: that was not considered an act of neutrality. GB’s War Cabinet and Admiralty (and keep in mind WSC was First Lord of the Admiralty at this point in his career!) nonetheless began planning an incursion across northern Norway and Sweden to move weapons to Finland.

Had the joint Franco/British landing taken place, this would have been a violation of the neutrality of Norway, Sweden and Finland. But the Germans, who had heard about Allied plans and who had their own reasons for wanting control of Swedish ore and the Norwegian coastline, moved just prior to Anglo/French movement. As a result, the British and French forces destined for Norway became a Norwegian support operation, and led to Norway linking with the Allies. Sweden and Finland remained neutral.

The Anglo/French forces were unable to halt the German invasion of the Scandanavian countries. In fact, with some exceptions – largely naval – their attempt to defeat German forces was embarrassing. This was, of course, why Chamberlain’s leadership was challenged. As for the Germans, all it takes is a quick look at a map to recognize that they gained huge access to the Atlantic and the North Sea. This would change the nature and conduct of all warfare in the northern Atlantic.

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: 8302
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/12/2023 9:50:59 AM
Hi Brian,

As far as Scandinavia Countries declaring their neutrality! It to them s better than facing the full weight of the Nazi War Machine!?

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: 8302
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/12/2023 9:55:07 AM
Interesting event that was previously brought up today, 5-12 in history!? Still.lots to discuss here!?.anyone??

Quote:
German U boats prowl U.S. Coast.

Gliding through the dark waters of the Gulf of Mexico, German submarine U-507 spots the SS Virginia just off the mouth of the Mississippi River, and torpedoes the 10,000-ton tanker, sinking her. Twenty-seven sailors perish in the audacious attack that will shock Americans.

Dick.



Thanks for this post Dick. That sub had already sunk 9 merchant ships around Florida and Cuba.

1942 was a difficult year for shipping anywhere near the US coast as the USN and USCG had not yet established a convoy system. Patrols did exist but on fixed routes and so the u-boats could easily avoid them. Merchant ships were travelling independently and could be picked off quite easily.

As well, blackouts on shore were uncommon in early to mid-1942.

Of course, the USN was quite busy in the Pacific at this time and it took some time to create a convoy system on the east coast.

SS Virginia was carrying fuel and it was desperately needed. The Royal Canadian Navy actually sent escort vessels down to the Caribbean to escort merchant ships north or from New York to the convoy collection points in Saint John, NB or Halifax, NS.


I will include a website called "uboat.net", so that people may scroll down to the map of ships hit by u-boats off the US east coast. Once there, you may zoom out and click on any marker to see the name of the ship that was sunk.

Deep blue (purple) marks the places where merchant ships were hit in 1942. The u-boats did incredible damage and many merchant sailors paid the price for the lack of convoys.

[Read More]

George

BTW thanks Dick, & George, great website!!!

Also.today in history 1780, the British.temporarily take Charleston SC!? Check.out another thread on this!?
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6498
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/12/2023 10:48:15 AM
This is one I must share with you.

Dan Todman : Britain's War, part two , into battle 1942-47.

This is perfect for our discussion on the way the Second World War was perceived, at the time and in posterity, and this summation of the Normandy Campaign is a perfect fit for our comparisons with that grim experience and its predecessor, and, indeed, with warfare that rages as I write.

There's a lot about Canadians. I thought of you, George !

I've photo snapped the relevant pages from my kindle, and will re write them here, stopping to save and edit as time runs out too quickly.

NORMANDY IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE


The eight month air-land- and- sea campaign that culminated in the defeat of the German army in Normandy represented a stunning victory for the Allied democracies. It confirmed the crushing power of the Atlantic production nexus and the abysmal failure of the Nazis high-tech hopes for reversing the tide of the war in the West. It was also a pivotal battle in military historical terms. If the high casualty rates in some infantry battalions and the devastated ground around such bitterly contested features as Hill 112 naturally invited comparisons with the previous war, then the cruise missiles and obliterating but frustratingly inaccurate bombers offered a presentiment of the future. The shades stalking the battlefield spoke not just of Ypres or the Somme, but of Korea and Sinai, the Ho Chi Minh Trail and the Basra road [ Bakhmut?].

It was also a triumph for the British Commonwealth. Notwithstanding the rising power of America and the approach of exhaustion on the home front, British and Canadian servicemen had played a leading role in the decisive battle of the war in the West and emerged still able to take part in the advance towards Germany. They had not just outlasted their opponents but outfought them. In Britain, the victory in Normandy confirmed Montgomery's status as a military celebrity and popular hero , and not without reason.

Allied ground casualties in Normandy were about 200,000 men, of which British, Canadian and Polish losses amounted to 16,138 killed, 9,093 missing and 58,594 wounded. Another 8,178 RAF aircrew were killed in operations over the UK and Northwest Europe during the same period. To the end of August, 5,126 Britons had been killed and another 14,712 injured since the start of the V1 attacks. By the standards of Britain's Second World War, this was therefore a bloody period. The volume of Allied mechanical effort, the strategic failure of Germany's missile technology investment, and the concentration of suffering among the relatively small percentage of the army in the foremost rifle platoons, however, all meant that the total number of casualties was relatively small. Indeed, the overall cost in British lives in the crucial moment of the war in the West was remarkably light in comparison to any of the major campaigns between 1916 and 1918 : an indicator of just how much advantage the country got from its ability to fight a war of machines.

As they approached the Seine, slightly ahead of schedule despite the long impasse around Caen, British troops travelled as liberators, and with the growing hope that the war might soon be over. With the war apparently about to be won, it went all but unnoticed that London was still within the predicted range of the V2s launched from the north of Holland. Germany was beaten, but the fighting was still far from done.


He's right on the money, isn't he ?

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/12/2023 11:01:21 AM
In 1958 the North American Aerospace Defence command was established. NORAD was a binational treaty between Canada and the US to aerospace warning a control. We are probably most aware of its existence whenever US or Canadian aircraft intercept Russian bombers flying close to Canadian or US airspace in the far north. There is interoperability between the forces of the two nations.

But its tasks are not that simple and it has been tasked, since 9-11 with monitoring asymmetrical actions by civilian aircraft. NORAD is also responsible for northern sovereignty operations, continental defence, missile launch detection and warning, and, increasingly, support to Head of State visits and high profile events (i.e. Vancouver 2010 Olympics).

NORAD recently add naval warnings to its responsibilities though the naval forces of the two countries are under separate commands.

The commander of NORAD is always an American and the 2IC is always a Canadian. Service people from both countries work together. The HQ at Peterson AF base near Colorado Springs has Canadian and US personnel working together. The old bunker in Cheyenne Mountain is now the back-up command centre.

By the end of WWII, Canada and the US had determined that the security of both nations was tied to a solid bilateral agreement. Canada realized that its security could no longer be guaranteed by the UK.

In 2006, the NORAD agreement was updated and it is to be in force in perpetuity.

Canada however is without its own air defence system and there is an ongoing battle between the armed forces and the government as to whether Canada needs a missile defence system. The US is pushing for Canada to install missiles on its territory but Canada has always resisted. The installation of a US BMD system is being assessed right now.

The concern seems to be that the BMD system is flawed and does not work. I am not qualified to assess whether the BMD system used by the US works or not.

Ironically, Canada just spent $400, 000,000 on the purchase of a US missile defence system for Ukraine.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/12/2023 11:01:35 AM
double
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/12/2023 11:01:35 AM
double. Actually triple. Sorry
GaryNJ
Cumberland NJ USA
Posts: 254
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
5/12/2023 11:53:14 AM
Quote:
I've photo snapped the relevant pages from my kindle, and will re write them here, stopping to save and edit as time runs out too quickly.


Phil,

Have you tried using the free Kindle PC app? Just open the book on the app and have it opened to full screen. Highlight the section you want to copy and a dialog box will open with the option to copy it.

BTW: it looks like an interesting book.

Gary
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6498
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/12/2023 1:53:42 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I've photo snapped the relevant pages from my kindle, and will re write them here, stopping to save and edit as time runs out too quickly.


Phil,

Have you tried using the free Kindle PC app? Just open the book on the app and have it opened to full screen. Highlight the section you want to copy and a dialog box will open with the option to copy it.

BTW: it looks like an interesting book.

Gary


Thanks Gary,

The kindle I’ve got is a clunky old thing, reconditioned and damnably uncooperative. Reminds me of me !

Given a bit of help, I could surmount my fear of IT and make a better account of myself in posting links here.

It appalls me that I resort to such labour intensive and torturous methods, especially when I’m eager to convey ideas with my friends here.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/12/2023 4:38:23 PM
Phil, would you recommend Todman's part one, Britain's War: Into Battle, 1937-1941.

Is it advisable to read part 1 before part 2?

Cheers,

George
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6498
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/13/2023 2:11:24 AM
George,

You’ll forgive me if I confess that I’ve only read the second part !

My belief, based on my reading of the second part, is that part one will be every bit as good, and, if anything, even better.

Daniel Todman makes a good account of himself in his ability to make an overall survey, conveying a sense for the sweeping themes, while also suffusing the narrative with anecdotes that can excite interest.

He gives a striking account of how Canadians came to Britain in large numbers and integrated well into our society. A lot of romantic liaisons were formed and marriages were numerous. This impinged on my own family.

I think that Brian Grafton would appreciate Todman’s frequent allusions to the mood of the British public as depicted by the Mass Observation endeavour.

Now I’m beginning to feel like buying Part One myself !

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8302
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
5/13/2023 7:35:36 AM
1943 on May 13th, 250,00O German & Italian troops surrender! What were the major factors in the win?? .Comments anyone?? As the Allies win in N. Africa!

Just a few events from.the BBC site for 5-14, comments welcome? Anyone??

1796 British Doctor Edward Jenner develops a vaccination to combat smallpox using believe this!? Puss from Cowpox !gross you say??

1948 British mandate for Palestine! The state of Israel is proclaimed by the Jews! What say you on the British helping create Isreal?? Anyone??

1955 the Soviets & Eastern Europe create the Warsaw Pact! Does it exist at all today?? Was it really a alliance forced by the Soviets? Does it effect the Russian invasion of the Ukraine at all?? What say you? Anyone??

Any other new history? Anyone??
MD

BTW up late last night watching the Stanley Cup playoffs, Leafs lost to Florida 3-2 in OT! Im Pulling for Canadian based teams without my wings in it!? Also Edmonton Lost to the knights, I must be bad luck?? Any comments on the NHL games??
----------------------------------
"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: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/13/2023 12:37:44 PM
Quote:
1948 British mandate for Palestine! The state of Israel is proclaimed by the Jews! What say you on the British helping create Isreal?? Anyone??


At the end of WW1 the British forces had defeated the remains of the Ottoman Empire in Palestine. We know that the international community had interests in that part of the world but Britain had secured Arab support when it promised that a Palestinian Arab state would be created once the Ottoman Empire was defeated. Britain had made promises that it was unable to keep.

It was the League of Nations that granted a mandate to Britain to administer to the territories of Palestine and TransJordan in the '20's. Mandates were created to provide a peaceful transition to independence and while a territory found its footing, a more stable nation would provide administrative services. Britain exercised its mandate for several decades.

It has been a while since I studied the British Balfour Report of 1917 but if memory serves Balfour declared that it was British policy that a home for the Jews would be found in Palestine but a Palestinian territory must be created at the same time. I think that that was the meat of it.

Britain had tried to regulate the immigration of Jews to the Palestinian Territory but after the horrors of WWII, some British politicians felt that it was morally reprehensible to prevent the world's remaining Jews from emigrating to Palestine if they wished. Even during the war, Britain regulated immigration of European Jews to Israel, not wishing to upset the Arab people by adding Jewish immigrants at a faster rate.

By the end of the war, Britain was under pressure from the US to support Zionism. Britain was opposed to the creation of a Zionist state without Arab approval, and Britain and President Truman were at odds. In 1946 Truman wanted Britain to allow 100,000 Jewish immigrants into Palestine, immediately. Britain balked as it was negotiating with the Arabs in the territory and other Arab nations to assure that both sides were happy.

The US and Britain would be at odds as to how to resolve the Palestinian issue.

Note that British soldiers were dying in Palestine at the hands of Jewish groups that demanded recognition of a Jewish state. The British considered these groups to be terrorists as they engaged in bombings and assassinations. The British launched military operations against them in 1946. The bombing continued.

In 1947, Britain asked the UN to step in to resolve the issues regarding the partition of Palestine. And in 1947 the UN surprisingly voted for partition. Britain was hopeful that it could withdraw but still had to maintain troops there to keep the peace. Britain allowed some autonomy in the Jewish areas and the Arab areas and was happy to withdraw some troops. But Britain had to intervene when trouble arose.

A good deal of what Britain proposed in its mandate was not accepted by the US and some other UN members. Britain still had interests in the area and that included Egypt and TransJordan. Britain had good reason to make promises to these countries as well.

It was Britain that delayed its recognition of the state of Israel until 1949. This upset the US and Truman who was anxious to see its allies approve of this new state of which the US approved. Of course, Arab states had immediately attacked the new Israel in 1948 because they did not approve of the deal.

Of note, it would not be long until the Suez Canal crisis began and the US did not support France and Britain when they sent troops to Egypt to regain control of the canal that they owned.

So yes, Britain finally approved of the existence of the State of Israel but was not happy with the deal that had been brokered. In 1937 Britain had proposed a partition plan that would create three zones, Israel, and Arab state and the City of Jerusalem which would be declared an international city. The 1947 UN plan also called for a Jewish and an Arab state but as mentioned, the Arabs rejected it as they saw the UN deal as heavily favoured toward Israel. I don't believe that the UN plan addressed the issue of Jerusalem which is a holy city to a number of faiths.

I would not say that the UK created Israel. Britain had a great deal of experience in the area but its proposals which would hopefully appease both the Jews and the Arabs were not accepted. Britain's influence on world affairs was waning.

I wish that I was better educated on this subject so that I could determine whether the British plans would have kept us out of the mess that we are in now with respect to Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Perhaps someone with greater knowledge will weigh in.

Cheers,

George




Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6498
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
5/13/2023 1:59:23 PM
George,

A delightful gift was dispatched to me by a very esteemed friend of mine on MHO.

O Jerusalem ! That’s the title .

It was for my seventieth birthday, but it was a great comfort to me in my ordeal in hospital .

What a complex and tortured story.

Palestine, India and those after Ireland in the aftermath of the previous war: we Brits have left an unholy mess as we retreated from our global role post WW2. We were busy building our own New Jerusalem here.


Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/13/2023 2:37:29 PM
Phil, I have ordered the kindle version of part 2 of Todman's. "Britain's War". Fairly inexpensive if you go the kindle route.

Now I just have to find time to read it. Spring and summer are quite busy as I fill the orders my wife's "honey-do" list. I hid the shovels and rakes but she found them.

Enjoy your birthday book and we'll hope for a quick return to good health.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
5/13/2023 2:44:17 PM
Quote:
BTW up late last night watching the Stanley Cup playoffs, Leafs lost to Florida 3-2 in OT! Im Pulling for Canadian based teams without my wings in it!? Also Edmonton Lost to the knights, I must be bad luck?? Any comments on the NHL games??


No comments fit to be be posted on this family forum.

Cheers,

George
Page 72 of 114 (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 )

© 2024 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC