MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 86 of 115 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85    86    87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115 )
Message
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
8/13/2023 9:27:25 PM
Quote:
Hi George,

I do know during WWII, the US & the Philippines, were the closest allies, & they worked well together to defeat & expell the Japanese! As you know my dad was there in the middle of this fight, & he would concur with this observation on the united front presented by troops from the US, & the Philippines! What ever problems they had prior to the Japanese invasion, they certainly put them aside, & today are allies!!!

Regards,
MD


True enough. The US is also allied with the Japanese today. They have a common foe in China and also North Korea. Necessity makes friends out of former enemies.

I just wanted to point out that something terrible happened to the Filipinos at the beginning of the 20th century. In many ways, the Filipino culture was destroyed.

Many may not be aware that the US brought US school teachers into the Philippines to teach a US style curriculum to the kids. The plan to assimilate was not unlike that imposed on Indian kids in the US and Canada.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
8/14/2023 8:44:48 AM
Hey guys,

A few 8-13 events not commented on yet, were??

1521 the great Aztec Empire falls to a few Spanish soldiers!? How can this be?? Anyone?

1781 the Swamp Fox, Francis Marion ambushes 450 Loyalists outside of Charleston SC! Marion is legendary now, in this area, many say the Mel Gibson movie the patriot is about the Swamp Fox!? Comments anyone??

1961 Berlin is divided, perhaps the biggest Cold War event!? Did it lead to major arms build ups?? & NATO & Eastern Blocks forming? Isn't the Eastern Bloc, actually just one entity, the Soviet Union?? What say you??

1995 MLB great Mickey Mantle of the Yankees passes away at 63, how can a athlete like Mantle die at such an early age? Comments on the Mick!??

Comments? &
Regards,
MD


Also it seems Americans & Canadians for the most part have a different perspective on Cuba, lets just leave it at that! Peace??
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
8/14/2023 8:47:27 AM
Hi MHO,

& today 8-14 in history, some notable events happened, Comments anyone??

1827 Race riots in Cincinnati, over 1000 African Americans leave for Canada! Why Canada? & how did our northern neighbors handle this?? Anyone?

Speaking of Canada, in the CFL this year, the Argos are in 1st ! The double blue are #1, do you think the boat-men can win the Grey Cup again this year?? Go Arrrrghhooos!?

1900 the Boxer Rebellion is crushed by an international Force! Comments on how this played out? Anyone??

1917 China declares war on Germany & the Axis! Did the actually play any major role in the conflict?? What say you?

1935 FDR passes the Social Security Act, some complain about it, but are grateful when it helps them out! Comments??

1941 WSC, & FDR start the Atlantic Charter! What was this about? Comments anyone?

1947 Pakistan kicks out the British, & is independent!? How could they leave the Empire? What say you??

Comments? &
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
8/14/2023 9:14:00 AM
Quote:
Also it seems Americans & Canadians for the most part have a different perspective on Cuba, lets just leave it at that! Peace??


Ok, I can leave it MD. But your initial lead on the topic suggested that the Philippines was liberated from Spanish rule by the US. That alone makes the US look like the good guy in all of this and I think that that would be an incorrect assessment in 1899. If I have misrepresented the facts in any way, we should discuss it.

I also think that many American scholars are aware of charged racial atmosphere of the Philippine-American war.

I am curious though. What are US kids taught about this part of their history?

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
8/14/2023 9:56:32 AM
Quote:
1947 Pakistan kicks out the British, & is independent!? How could they leave the Empire? What say you??

Comments? &


"Kicks out" is a bit charged, MD. Britain had agreed to Indian independence in 1947. Indeed there was discontent and a nationalist movement in India growing even during the second world war. It had become clear that India was not governable as a Dominion of the British Empire. The British did engage in violent activity against protestors.

India provided the greatest number of troops to the Commonwealth forces during the war but there were Indian nationalist forces who actually fought with the Japanese in some battles against the British.

But even with the British declaration that Indian independence would be granted no later than 1948 there was still a great deal of discontent and violence among the Indians themselves with the sides divided on religious lines.

The Indian National Congress agreed, in 1947, to partition India into a Muslim nation to the north which became Pakistan and India to the south. India had hopes that the subcontinent would be united but the concept of two nations on the continent had been discussed since the '20's.

The decision to divide India led to the migration of millions of people with Muslims heading to what would be Pakistan and Hindus heading to India. The theory was that peace was only achievable with a division along religious lines. Estimates that over 14 million people were on the move and many died en route.

I am not sure why Pakistan celebrates its independence one day before India does.

Gaining independence from the Empire occurred by different means in different places.

Colonial India in 1947



And after separation in Aug. of 1947



There would be more adjustments to the border in the future and to this day, India and Pakistan still take shots at one another in Kashmir where both maintain troops. There is still a dispute over this territory.

From what I can see, the separation of people based upon religious affiliation has not brought peace to India itself. There are still flare-ups between Muslims and Hindus.

Cheers,

George



Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
8/14/2023 11:44:03 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Also it seems Americans & Canadians for the most part have a different perspective on Cuba, lets just leave it at that! Peace??


Ok, I can leave it MD. But your initial lead on the topic suggested that the Philippines was liberated from Spanish rule by the US. That alone makes the US look like the good guy in all of this and I think that that would be an incorrect assessment in 1899. If I have misrepresented the facts in any way, we should discuss it.

I also think that many American scholars are aware of charged racial atmosphere of the Philippine-American war.

I am curious though. What are US kids taught about this part of their history?

Cheers,

George


George,

Very magnanimous of you to leave it, as I too thought Dave’s choice of words that the US had somehow liberated anywhere from Spanish rule to be perplexing! TBH, I see no difference between the American conquest and occupation of the Philippines with that of any of the occupations carried out by any of the European powers across the world.

It’s worth noting that many Americans were against the imperialistic policies of the US at this time. Roosevelt may have charged up the hill at San Juan but it was the circuit of the Great White Fleet that truly set the US up as a global power.

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: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
8/14/2023 11:46:02 AM
Quote:


1521 the great Aztec Empire falls to a few Spanish soldiers!? How can this be?? Anyone?



A few hundred Spanish soldiers heavily armed with state of the art weaponry and backed by tens of thousands of local allies. Cortez was a powerful military leader, but an even better diplomat. The Aztec empire was hated and he exploited that hatred to build an army who were utterly ruthless in their moves to overthrow the Aztec regime.

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."
MikeMeech
 UK
Posts: 528
Joined: 2012
This day in World History! Continued
8/14/2023 12:41:17 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also it seems Americans & Canadians for the most part have a different perspective on Cuba, lets just leave it at that! Peace??


Ok, I can leave it MD. But your initial lead on the topic suggested that the Philippines was liberated from Spanish rule by the US. That alone makes the US look like the good guy in all of this and I think that that would be an incorrect assessment in 1899. If I have misrepresented the facts in any way, we should discuss it.

I also think that many American scholars are aware of charged racial atmosphere of the Philippine-American war.

I am curious though. What are US kids taught about this part of their history?

Cheers,

George


George,

Very magnanimous of you to leave it, as I too thought Dave’s choice of words that the US had somehow liberated anywhere from Spanish rule to be perplexing! TBH, I see no difference between the American conquest and occupation of the Philippines with that of any of the occupations carried out by any of the European powers across the world.

It’s worth noting that many Americans were against the imperialistic policies of the US at this time. Roosevelt may have charged up the hill at San Juan but it was the circuit of the Great White Fleet that truly set the US up as a global power.

Cheers,

Colin

Hi

The Philippines Insurrection 1899-1902 I think should be separated from the US defeat of the Spanish rulers as it was a consequence of it due to the US assuming sovereignty. The insurrection was led by Aguinaldo (he had taken over after treacherously executing the previous leader Bonifacio (who was actually more popular) in 1897, they had already been fighting the Spanish). After the Spanish capitulation Aguinaldo had 80,000 semi-regular troops half of this force was around Manila. The US commander Otis provoked hostilities with them in February 1899, which was against his orders, and routed them in the first period of conventional warfare. The insurgents retreated to the mountains and reverted to guerrilla warfare. It appears the volunteer part of the US Army went home in 1899 and filled the newspapers with atrocity stories and that Otis was inept he was then recalled to the USA at his own request and received a hero's welcome in May 1900. Arthur MacArthur (the father of Douglas) became the new military governor and increased the strength of US forces to a peak of 70,000. He introduced a policy based on the carrot of amnesty for surrendered guerrillas and civic action in pacified areas, this did not work totally he used the stick of 'concentration camps', confiscation of property and ruthless retaliation. In July 1901 MacArthurs handed over civilian power to Taft and military command to Chafee, the later applied the 'stick' vigorously which led to a congressional investigation. One of his Brigade commanders boasted of shooting prisoners and was sacked although it is stated that President Theodore Roosevelt was involved in some cover up of the actions. Figures vary but 4,234 US troops were killed 2,818 wounded. An estimate of 20,000 Filipino deaths in 'combat' and perhaps 200,000 civilians mainly from disease and privation. To compare the 2nd Boer war was taking place over roughly the same period with 8,000 British and 4,000 Boer troops killed with another 13,000 Britons, 15,000 non-whites and 30,000 Boers dying from disease or malnutrition.
Info based on 'The Oxford Companion to Military History' Ed. Richard Holmes.

I hope that is of interest.

Mike
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
8/14/2023 12:43:44 PM
Thanks Mike, great context.

The 70,000 Americans left in the Philippines must have constituted the larger part of the regular army, if the volunteers went home?

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."
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
8/14/2023 3:42:07 PM
The perspectives on Cuba and Castro are very differing as to whom one speaks to.

My longtime next-door neighbor when I lived in Lawrenceville, a man named Ramon, had hosted a radio program in Cuba. He told me that he had a long interview with Fidel Castro...and based upon his inter-actions with the man...he made the decision to start planning the escape of his family to the US. He said there was no doubt that while Castro put forward the facade of leading a humanistic revolution, he was in fact a closet communist. I asked him if this was before or after Castro`s visit to the United States and he told me it was before, and that it was plain to see that he was consorting with known Marxists, and planning to put into place a "shadow government" formed by these Marxist elements while pretending to be something else.

There was a New York Times article from many years back that mentioned the name of the then aging "historian" of Castro`s movement who admitted as much.

And while Batista and US business had a marriage that did nothing for the people of Cuba, I grow tired of the constant praise for literacy, or healthcare, or the "good that Castro brought to his people," while ignoring the fact that being able to read does not mean much when the benevolent dictator and his government determine WHAT you get to read, determine WHAT you don`t hear about, and good health while rotting in a political prison isn`t such a great deal. Or having to endure the three hour speeches of an abhorrent man who loved to listen to his own voice..while silencing untold many others...for a lifetime of one person rule.

A different perspective.

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
8/14/2023 7:17:03 PM
Quote:
The perspectives on Cuba and Castro are very differing as to whom one speaks to.

My longtime next-door neighbor when I lived in Lawrenceville, a man named Ramon, had hosted a radio program in Cuba. He told me that he had a long interview with Fidel Castro...and based upon his inter-actions with the man...he made the decision to start planning the escape of his family to the US. He said there was no doubt that while Castro put forward the facade of leading a humanistic revolution, he was in fact a closet communist. I asked him if this was before or after Castro`s visit to the United States and he told me it was before, and that it was plain to see that he was consorting with known Marxists, and planning to put into place a "shadow government" formed by these Marxist elements while pretending to be something else.

There was a New York Times article from many years back that mentioned the name of the then aging "historian" of Castro`s movement who admitted as much.

And while Batista and US business had a marriage that did nothing for the people of Cuba, I grow tired of the constant praise for literacy, or healthcare, or the "good that Castro brought to his people," while ignoring the fact that being able to read does not mean much when the benevolent dictator and his government determine WHAT you get to read, determine WHAT you don`t hear about, and good health while rotting in a political prison isn`t such a great deal. Or having to endure the three hour speeches of an abhorrent man who loved to listen to his own voice..while silencing untold many others...for a lifetime of one person rule.

A different perspective.

Respects, Morris



Thanks for that perspective on Cuba, Morris. I have heard that story that Castro was a secret Communist but I have also read that some experts were unsure. In any case, by 1961 he had declared that he was a Marxist/Leninist and the fall out for the Cuban people began. Some of that was good. Rapacious foreign business owners were out. They could chart their own path.

Castro's declaration occurred after the Bay of Pigs invasion. Prior to that he had not committed to the communist ideology. He was a socialist however.

Cuba did develop a very good health care system even as access to necessary products and equipment was limited. Cuban research has even produced their own vaccines and other medicines. It was a necessity to do so.

And indeed, Cuba has an enviably high rate of literacy. That is a 180 degree turn around from the Batista days.

We know that there is censorship of the internet in that country. For that matter, only about 25% of Cubans have that restricted access. Amnesty International reported the following. OONI is the Open Observatory of Network Interference, a group that explores levels of internet censorship around the world.

Quote:
Between May and mid-June 2017, OONI tested 1,458 websites from eight locations across Havana, Santa Clara, and Santiago de Cuba. The list included websites under 30 broad categories. Of these, 1,109 were international sites, mostly from a standard list it uses all over the world for OONI-probe (its testing software for censorship.) They include major mainstream sites of general interest – including Facebook and Twitter. The remaining 349 sites were more specific to the Cuban context.

Of the total number of sites tested, OONI found 41 sites blocked. (OONI tests only a small sample – so many more sites which they didn’t test are also likely blocked).


Is there some hope for optimism in that quote? Note that the 41 international sites that were blocked were critical of the Cuban government.

Text messaging is also monitored in Cuba and texts are banned that include the words like democracy.

It is strange that many common and open apps and web sites are not blocked. Facebook, Whatsapp and Wikipedia are not blocked.

Political activism is banned.

Cuba bans private media but it is transforming. There is at least one independent private radio station. I'm sure that they have to be cautious when reporting but it is a start.

I am getting this stuff from Amnesty International. No I would not wish to live under these conditions but I see no reason to continue to punish these people. Even with reform, they may choose to practice a one party government. Can we live with that?

None of this censorship is palatable to us. But I ask, are they better off under this flawed political ideology than they were before the revolution? And with greater access to the outside world would we see political and economic reform? I don't see Cuba if given the choice, behaving like the hermit kingdom, North Korea.

Cuba is not a threat to the US. Perhaps it is time for detente.

Thanks for that post, Morris. I started looking up some of the articles on Castro's timeline and association with Communism. I suppose that the answer is important because the US policy toward Cuba and many other countries has often been determined by the affinity for communist rule in those countries. If there had been no concern of communist affiliation would the US have given Castro more attention when he came to Washington after the revolution?

Cheers,

George
MikeMeech
 UK
Posts: 528
Joined: 2012
This day in World History! Continued
8/15/2023 2:12:13 AM
Quote:
Thanks Mike, great context.

The 70,000 Americans left in the Philippines must have constituted the larger part of the regular army, if the volunteers went home?

Cheers,

Colin


Hi

As an aside the US action in the Philippines also led to Kipling's poem 'White Man's Burden'.

Mike
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
8/15/2023 8:04:14 AM
Guys,

Checking Today in world history, 8-15 in history, we see,,

1534 Ignatius of Loyola founds the Jesuits religious order! Here the Jesuits tried to convert & save the so called saveges instead they played a part in killing most of them off! Comments??

1914 the Panama Canal is opened for shipping! Who benefited the most from this?? Anyone?

1935 Will Rogers was killed in a plane crash in Alaska! You had to like his attitude of never meeting a man he didn't like? Or was he niave??

This day in world history seems to be a good date to gain your countries independence! See next 3 items below!!

1947 Independence for India, why was India the Crown Jewel of the British Empire?? Just what did they have? & contribute?? What say you??

1960 the Congo gains independence from France! Why is this area so militant? Anyone??

1971 Bahrain gains independence from Britain, how did that go?? Comments?

1979 the classic war movie Apocalypse Now, opens! What was your take on this Erie movie on Vietnam!? Anyone? Comments?

1998 Car bombs go off in N. Ireland, the Real IRA, claims responsibility! What say you about this conflict!? Anyone?

2021 the Taliban take over Afghanistan! The Russians failed to hold it! Do you think it was impossible for the west to win this conflict as well? It's Something about Afghanistan? ?Comments?

More good topics today!?
Comments, anyone??
Regards,
MD

BTW hope I didn't say anything in this post that's controversial, or construed as wrong!? My last this "day in history", I got blasted by 1/2 of MHO???🤔
----------------------------------
"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
8/15/2023 8:19:41 AM
One of the articles that I provided on the Philippines topic said that some words adopted by US servicemen have become part of the language. The US soldiers used to call the Filipinos,"Gu-gu's or Goo-Goo's. " That may have been the origin of the derogatory term used in Vietnam, gooks. One soldier in the Philippines wrote home about the beautiful Filipino women and their goo-goo eyes.

"Gugo" in Tagalog refers to a bean that grows there and the bark of the tree that it grew on was rendered into some sort of shampoo.

Bundok is the Tagalog word for mountain and the US soldiers began to call any trek into the bush or mountainous country to seek out Filipino fighters as heading to the "boondocks".

That sort of appropriation must have happened in all wars. My father used to use a couple of expressions that he may have picked up in Italy during WWII I wish that I could recall them.

Cheers,

George

Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
8/15/2023 10:25:19 AM
Quote:


BTW hope I didn't say anything in this post that's controversial, or construed as wrong!? My last this "day in history", I got blasted by 1/2 of MHO???🤔



Hi Dave,

Sorry if any offence was caused. I appreciate that we can share opinions without falling out - long may that continue! Please also accept my huge thanks for keeping this thread (and thus most of the active forum) alive.

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
8/15/2023 1:31:44 PM
Quote:
Quote:


BTW hope I didn't say anything in this post that's controversial, or construed as wrong!? My last this "day in history", I got blasted by 1/2 of MHO???🤔



Hi Dave,

Sorry if any offence was caused. I appreciate that we can share opinions without falling out - long may that continue! Please also accept my huge thanks for keeping this thread (and thus most of the active forum) alive.

Cheers,

Colin


Hi Dave, I don't think that you were blasted. You introduced a topic and we explored it a little. I trust that we may continue to do that. I find it more interesting when we expand the range of a topic beyond just the identification of its occurrence.

I realize that I disagreed with your characterization of the annexation of the Philippines as a liberation. Hopefully this was done respectfully. I too wish to thank you for keeping this part of the forum alive. There aren't too many of us left and even new people don't seem to last very long.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
8/15/2023 7:49:04 PM
Quote:
Quote:


BTW hope I didn't say anything in this post that's controversial, or construed as wrong!? My last this "day in history", I got blasted by 1/2 of MHO???🤔



Hi Dave,

Sorry if any offence was caused. I appreciate that we can share opinions without falling out - long may that continue! Please also accept my huge thanks for keeping this thread (and thus most of the active forum) alive.

Cheers,

Colin




Colin, & George,

No offense meant, no offense taken!!

Cheers,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
8/16/2023 6:56:40 AM

Guys,

Checking yesterday, again, 8-15 in world history, we see,, these events, & some weren't commented on yet!? Anyone?

1534 Ignatius of Loyola founds the Jesuits religious order! Here the Jesuits tried to convert & save the so called saveges instead they played a part in killing most of them off! Comments??

1914 the Panama Canal is opened for shipping! Who benefited the most from this?? Anyone?

1935 Will Rogers was killed in a plane crash in Alaska! You had to like his attitude of never meeting a man he didn't like? Or was he niave??

1971 Bahrain gains independence from Britain, how did that go?? Comments?

1979 the classic war movie Apocalypse Now, opens! What was your take on this Erie movie on Vietnam!? Anyone? Comments?

1998 Car bombs go off in N. Ireland, the Real IRA, claims responsibility! What say you about this conflict!? Anyone?

2021 the Taliban take over Afghanistan! Why was it impossible for the west to win this conflict?? Comments?



& checking 8-16, today in world history events see below! Or comment or new topics, anyone??

1780 Cornwallis wins the battle of Camden for the Brits., did he have help from Loyalists?? Comments?

1812 William Hull surrenders Fort Detroit with out a fight, he was Court marshaled, & sentenced to death! Did he deserve this?? Comments?

1888 TE Lawrence, AKA Lawrence of Arabia, was born! How did he effect war in the middle east at this time? Or is this overblown? Anyone??

1913 Begin, & Sadat share the Nobel peace prize! Weren't they adversaries?? How did this happen?? What say you??

1948 Babe Ruth dies at 53, how great a power hitter was he in MLB history? Comments?

1954 James Cameron, Canadian producer Of Titanic & other modern films, was born! Why was he so notable in the industry?? Anyone?

1977 Elvis Presley dies from a drug overdose! What was his influence on Rock n roll?? What say you??

2003 Idi Amin dies in Saudi Arabia how terrible was he towards the general populations? Especially in the Congo??

Also feel free to continue previous topics!?

Or, Any More good new topics today!?
Comments, anyone??
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
8/16/2023 9:57:02 AM
Quote:
1812 William Hull surrenders Fort Detroit with out a fight, he was Court marshaled, & sentenced to death! Did he deserve this?? Comments?


The court martial was justified because of his cowardly behaviour at Fort Detroit and the death sentence along with it was probably justified as well if the standards of the day are applied. Today, I would like to think that the man's mental and emotional status would have garnered some sympathy.

But William Hull was a retread from the revolutionary war where he had distinguished himself. He was a Lt. Col and even George Washington noted his performance in battles like White Plains, Trenton, Stillwater, Saratoga, Fort Stanwix, Monmouth and Stony Point.

He was an older man when he invaded Upper Canada on July 11, 1812. He really did not advance too far into Upper Canada at that time. Even as he marshalled his troops from Ohio at Fort Detroit, the British had intercepted a US vessel that was on its way to Fort Detroit with supplies and all of Hull's personal papers. And in those papers he had revealed his near irrational fear of First Nations warriors. Of note, Hull's family had accompanied him to Fort Detroit and they would be present at the surrender and this undoubtedly influenced his decisions.

But he did invade as ordered and issued proclamations to the public that he was there to liberate them from the British. He also said in his proclamation that any white man found fighting alongside First Nations warriors would be executed.

Quote:
The first stroke of the Tomahawk, the first attempt with the scalping knife, will be the signal for one indiscriminate scene of desolation. No white man found fighting by the side of an Indian, will be taken prisoner. Instant destruction will be his lot. If the dictates of reason, duty, justice and humanity cannot prevent the employment of a force which respects no rights, & knows no wrong, it will be prevented by a severe and relentless system of retaliation.


Complete text of the proclamation that angered many of the residents of Upper Canada

[Read More]

When Hull learned that British General Isaac Brock had convinced several FN tribes under the great warrior chief Tecumseh to join him against the Americans, Hull lost his nerve. He also felt that he had insufficient assets with him to lay siege to Fort Amherstburg on the Canadian side. So he retreated to Fort Detroit to wait for reinforcements that were on the way. One officer would report at the court martial that he and the men had lost confidence in Hull even at that point. His comment was:

Quote:
“He is a coward…and will not risk his person.”


First Nations warriors had intercepted those columns and as I recall succeeded in only delaying them.

Meanwhile the aggressive Gen. Brock and Tecumseh's warriors decided to attack Fort Detroit. This was a bold stroke by a bold officer. Tecumseh reportedly was very impressed with Brock who eschewed the ordered caution when greatly undermanned. This attack was not the preferred defensive posture at this stage of the war.

Brock's force was much smaller than the US force in the fort. So the story goes, Tecumseh's warriors made repeated appearances as they circled and then re-circled the fort. Hull was convinced that there were thousands upon thousands of FN warriors opposing him.

Brock was well aware of Hull's fears of the FN and so he sent a message to the fort to tell Hull that hoped that Hull would surrender as Brock felt that once the battle commenced that he would not be able to control the behaviour of the warriors.

Quote:
The force at my disposal authorizes me to require of you the immediate surrender of Fort Detroit. It is far from my intention to join in a war of extermination, but you must be aware, that the numerous body of Indians who have attached themselves to my troops, will be beyond control the moment the contest commences. You will find me disposed to enter into such conditions as will satisfy the most scrupulous sense of honour. Lieut.-Colonel McDonnell and Major Glegg are fully authorized to conclude any arrangement that may lead to prevent the unnecessary effusion of blood.
- Gen. Isaac Brock

Brock ordered a few rounds of artillery and kept the FN warriors out of site. And that was it. Hull ordered a white flag to be displayed. From the descriptions of his disgusted officers, it may well be that Hull had suffered some sort of mental breakdown. Officers reported that they found him sitting on the floor in his office. He was incoherent in his speech with spittle dripping from the corners of his mouth. But the men did as ordered and displayed the flag of surrender. One wonders whether any thought was given to simply relieving him of his command. That is a bold step, I realize.

Hull would later write that the British had far superior forces which was false and that he surrendered to protect the women and children in the fort from a slaughter.

The situation was most embarrassing for the American government and the military. They had been assured that this invasion of BNA would be smooth and that they would be received as liberators. They had misjudged the resolve of the British and the citizens including Loyalists who had been forced to leave the US after the revolution.

Hull was charged with treason, cowardice, neglect of duty, and unofficer-like conduct. I believe that the treason charge was dropped because it was beyond the purview of a military court martial.

He was found guilty of the other charges and sentenced to death. William Hull is the only General in US history that has ever been sentenced to death. However, President James Madison commuted the sentence and settled for Hull's dismissal from the military.

Hull spent the rest of his life trying to justify his performance. Modern historians suggest that Gen. Hull would today be assessed as having PTSD.

Cheers,

George
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
8/16/2023 11:35:29 AM
George,

Great post, I really enjoyed that. Thank you.

On Hull, that he suffered from PTSD seems obvious. How many officers on both sides on the war must have been terrified on facing down the Native Americans / First Nations in close combat. This wasn't too long after the massacre of St Clair's defeat, still the heaviest defeat of a European force in North America at the hands of indigenous people; perhaps Hull was terrified into inertia by the thought of this being repeated on an even bigger scale?

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
8/16/2023 1:48:09 PM
Quote:
George,

Great post, I really enjoyed that. Thank you.

On Hull, that he suffered from PTSD seems obvious. How many officers on both sides on the war must have been terrified on facing down the Native Americans / First Nations in close combat. This wasn't too long after the massacre of St Clair's defeat, still the heaviest defeat of a European force in North America at the hands of indigenous people; perhaps Hull was terrified into inertia by the thought of this being repeated on an even bigger scale?

Cheers,

Colin


I'm glad that you enjoyed it, Colin.

The Indian wars in Ohio (Northwest Territory) were bloody. Several Indian tribes had loosely confederated by 1787 and were fighting back against the raids and destruction of their villages. 1787 was the year that the US passed the Northwest Ordinance to effect settlement in the Ohio Valley.

With that white settlers began to flood the territory. The First Nations were upset. This was their traditional hunting grounds. They felt that the treaties that had been negotiated piecemeal after the revolution were invalid because in some cases members of tribes who were not authorized to sign, did so. The whole Indian Confederacy was not present when treaties were accepted.

Washington became President and had ordered the US army to enforce sovereignty in the Northwest territory. The Indian Confederation sent a delegation to Washington to ask for renegotiation of the treaties.

US forces began to raid and burn Shawnee villages even destroying them when the all the men were off hunting. They would burn all the crops growing and those that had been put away for the upcoming winter.

The Battle of the Wabash or Saint Clair's Defeat in 1791 represents retribution for the First Nations. The US had been maintaining a small standing army but it is my understanding that the losses on the Wabash made that militia army ineffective forcing the US to reconsider whether it needed a large standing army or not. There was little confidence that militia troops could secure territory although I recall that Kentucky militia raided Indian villages many times and killed with zeal.

We know that eventually the Indian Confederation was defeated with one major defeat coming at Fallen Timbers in 1794. That was the end of the Confederacy until Tecumseh reconstituted one in time for the War of 1812.

While these raids were occurring, First Nations representatives contacted the British and asked them to intervene. The British commander at Fort Detroit sent a message to Guy Carleton who was the Governor General of British North America. Carleton's return message was that Britain and the US were at peace with one another. No aid was forthcoming.

And still when the US invaded Canada in 1812, many of those First Nations still decided to support Britain. They still saw Britain as their only hope for survival.

Cheers,

George
GregT
Three Rivers MA USA
Posts: 164
Joined: 2013
This day in World History! Continued
8/16/2023 5:59:56 PM
Referring back to the posts about Cuba, I see they have a team in the Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pa.

Are Cubans free to come and go from their country? Also, can they freely come and go to the U.S?

Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
8/16/2023 9:44:29 PM
Last chance,

For 8-16, today in world history events not yet commented on? Anyone??

1780 Cornwallis wins the battle of Camden for the Brits., did he have help from Loyalists?? Comments?

1888 TE Lawrence, AKA Lawrence of Arabia, was born! How did he effect war in the middle east at this time? Or is this overblown? Anyone??

1913 Begin, & Sadat share the Nobel peace prize! Weren't they adversaries?? How did this happen?? What say you??

1948 Babe Ruth dies at 53, how great a power hitter was he in MLB history? Comments?

1954 James Cameron, Canadian producer Of Titanic & other modern films, was born! Why was he so notable in the industry?? Anyone?

1977 Elvis Presley dies from a drug overdose! What was his influence on Rock n roll?? What say you??

2003 Idi Amin dies in Saudi Arabia how terrible was he towards the general populations? Especially in the Congo??


Regards,
MD

& Greg, there are still restrictions on Cubans entering the US, on the other hand US citizens can enter Cuba with a pass port, my nephew was just there!!
----------------------------------
"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
8/17/2023 7:54:48 AM
Canadians have been taking vacations in Cuba for decades. We have to apply for a tourist visa which when granted allows you to stay for up to 90 days. About 1.3 million Canadians enter and leave Cuba in any year although numbers dropped off the table during the pandemic. Cuba is our largest export recipient in the region.

Apparently we can enter the US from Cuba but the US will require Canadians to apply for a tourist visa at the US Embassy. We don't need a visa to travel to the US from Canada.


As for the Cubans, it seems that in 2013 the Cuban government allowed unrestricted travel for any citizen with a passport. A google search tells us that at least 32 countries allow Cubans to visit without a visa. The rest require Cubans to apply for a travel visa.

I don't know how many Cubans come to Canada just to visit but they do. Cubans make up a small percentage of the immigrants who come to stay, something like .2%. That they are permitted to emigrate is interesting because they do have to go through all immigration procedures at the Canadian embassy.

Now I thought that I read that Raoul Castro was tightening up on that freedom to travel though I also read that the Cuban government wasn't overly aggressive at preventing refugees from leaving. They would like political dissidents to go.

Cubans come to Canada for visits with relatives, as students and on business related trips. They must apply for a visa of one type or another and must have a valid passport. Visas are obtainable on line though all visa applications for Cubans are processed at the Canadian embassy in Havana.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
8/17/2023 8:15:02 AM
Quote:
1780 Cornwallis wins the battle of Camden for the Brits., did he have help from Loyalists?? Comments?


The Battle of Camden in South Carolina was a rout. The British force was much smaller but the rebel colonial troops broke and ran very quickly. Accounts of the battle say that at the sight of the British approaching with bayonets, the Virginia militia bolted and ran so quickly that they only suffered three wounded on the day. The North Carolinian militia ran when they saw the Virginians run.

Lord Cornwallis' troops bested the rebel troops led by the former British army officer and traitor, Horatio Gates.

Cornwallis army arrived with 1500 regular troops, some of whom were Hessians I believe. And he had 600 Loyalist militia at his disposal. One of his regular regiments had been raised in the colonies. Another regiment was Tarleton's Legion which was also raised in the colonies.

Gates had more troops, about 4000 but a very high percentage were militia and they did not fight particularly well in this battle.

Cheers,

George

morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
8/17/2023 8:54:49 AM
Camden would serve as a lesson plan for the colonial victory at Cowpens.

Morgan had studied the situation of Camden and devised a defense-in-depth at Cowpens that would lead to the only double envelopment of the war.

He would deploy his force on the field with rivers to their backs forcing the men to fight rather than think of trying to flee. He formed them in three lines upon a hill, sharpshooters to the front, a second line of militia, then the main line of defense made up of continentals and experienced and more proven militia. He ordered the up-front militia to fire two volleys at the enemy, then withdraw to the left flank and to the rear and re-form. This he did to encourage the British force to believe that militia was once again breaking and running away..knowing that Tarleton was likely to pursue and attack headlong into Morgan`s center. He also would order a short withdrawal of the line to further the impression of retreat. When Tarleton bought the ruse, Morgan then turned his force back, and sprang an attack on both flanks of the attackers and virtually destroyed the British force, suffering only about 25 dead while Tarleton and only 200 or so survivors fled.

It was a brilliant tactical feat by Morgan that was born in that defeat at Camden.

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
8/17/2023 10:32:16 AM
Quote:
Camden would serve as a lesson plan for the colonial victory at Cowpens.

Morgan had studied the situation of Camden and devised a defense-in-depth at Cowpens that would lead to the only double envelopment of the war.

He would deploy his force on the field with rivers to their backs forcing the men to fight rather than think of trying to flee. He formed them in three lines upon a hill, sharpshooters to the front, a second line of militia, then the main line of defense made up of continentals and experienced and more proven militia. He ordered the up-front militia to fire two volleys at the enemy, then withdraw to the left flank and to the rear and re-form. This he did to encourage the British force to believe that militia was once again breaking and running away..knowing that Tarleton was likely to pursue and attack headlong into Morgan`s center. He also would order a short withdrawal of the line to further the impression of retreat. When Tarleton bought the ruse, Morgan then turned his force back, and sprang an attack on both flanks of the attackers and virtually destroyed the British force, suffering only about 25 dead while Tarleton and only 200 or so survivors fled.

It was a brilliant tactical feat by Morgan that was born in that defeat at Camden.

Respects, Morris




Hi Morris,

Excellant example of Learning from you're mistakes! Glad to see Banester Tarleton taking it on the chin! Wasn't this battle used as a background for the movie, the Patriot, with Mel Gibson??

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
8/17/2023 10:37:23 AM
Morris, this is all in your wheelhouse, not mine. So why did Gates engage at Camden? I was reading that he was concerned about the high number of militia he had at his disposal and yet he entered South Carolina hoping to push the British out.

Is it not true that as Gates approached the British garrison Cornwallis rushed from Charleston to mobilize his forces to meet them?

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
8/17/2023 10:39:46 AM
double
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
8/17/2023 12:57:29 PM

Dave the battle at the climax of "The Patriot" is a combination of two battles, Guilford and Cowpens. While niether Nathanial Greene, nor Lord Cornwallis were present on the field of Cowpens, as the movie depicts, the battle sequence, the tactics behind it are directly from Cowpens.

And yes, Bannister Tarleton pulled off his own version of Custer along the Greasy Grass...though he escaped with his life!

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
8/17/2023 1:10:46 PM
George, I have a reason for knowing a little about the battle of Cowpens. My mother`s direct ancestor, Frederick Davidson was from Buncombe County SC and a soldier in the South Carolina militia who fought there. He used his service in that war to be eligible for a land grant in North Georgia and settled there. His is buried in the cemetery at Mossy Creek Methodist Church near Cleveland and is marked by The Daughters of the American Revolution.

Gates was determined to take Camden and perhaps had misplaced faith in his militia. Cornwallis was just as determined to hold Camden as it had huge stores of British war supplies, vital to the War in the South, as well as it being a holding place for hundreds of British soldiers too sick or wounded to be evacuated. It was a military tradition at the time to post your best on the right of the line...it was "the position of honor." And, for some reason Gates fronted the British right and the best of Cornwallis`s fiercest regulars with his least trustworthy or proven militia.
The result was....a good skeedadle. But the lesson was learned by Daniel Morgan, and six months later was Cowpens.

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
8/17/2023 3:07:47 PM
Thanks Morris, I had read about that policy or protocol that places and army's best on the right side. Certainly, it doesn't make sense today. You would think that a commander would want to give his force the best chance of success.

I sense as well that when one militia from Virginia bolted that that panic would be contagious. Do you happen to know what happened to the Continental Army regulars that did stay to fight? Were they cut down?

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
8/17/2023 3:14:02 PM
Anyone,

Back on 8-14 in history, this notable event happened, Comments anyone?

1941 WSC, & FDR start the Atlantic Charter! What was this about? Comments anyone?

& Speaking of the British verse the Nazis in WWII, why was Lord Halifax seeking appeasement, & peace with the Nazis!? Who was Halifax, anyway, & was his take on dealing with the 3rd Reich faulty??

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."
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
8/17/2023 4:42:25 PM

George, it is said that Gates had about 4,000 men to attack the 2,200 men that Cornwallis had at Camden. But many of Gates men had dysentery, he probably did not field more than 3,000 if that many. One can wonder if Gates actually realized how much fewer men he would have in the field. Though Gates did have a slight advantage in numbers, once his militia broke and ran from British bayonets ( they had no bayonets) that left two fine brigades of Continentals left to stand and fight...which they did with great ferocity. But it was not enough, and the casualties, especially, in captured, were extreme.

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
8/17/2023 4:42:45 PM

double post.
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
8/17/2023 8:41:44 PM
Quote:

1941 WSC, & FDR start the Atlantic Charter! What was this about? Comments anyone?


The Atlantic Charter was a short expression by the two men of their vision for a post war world but for Britain points laid out in the charter may have laid the groundwork for the dissolution of imperial Britain, the Empire.

The Charter was discussed in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland. In great secrecy, the two men rendezvoused off the shore of the island that was a part of the Empire. The arrival was a study in contrast. The American vessels arrived all shiny and new and looking very impressive. WSC arrived in HMS Prince of Wales which was painted and decked out for war. One nation was still at peace though assisting Britain. Britain in 1941 was in a desperate fight for survival. The meetings took place on board the ships.

And so they met and hammered out this charter which comprised 8 principles. How difficult for Churchill to realize that agreement with all of these principles would acknowledge imperial preference in trade would be the forfeit. In effect the Charter gave a nod to the eventual end of the Empire.

But it was necessary to sign because Churchill needed a full commitment from FDR to the war and by the time that the two sailed for home, Churchill was convinced that FDR would bring his country into the war. FDR would make war but not declare war as WSC apparently put it.

On first glance this document seems rather benign and aspirational but I think that some clauses were significantly opposed to the way Britain had seen the world.

Quote:

The President of the United States and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, have met at sea.

They have been accompanied by officials of their two Governments, including high-ranking officers of their military, naval, and air services.

The whole problem of the supply of munitions of war, as provided by the Lease-Lend Act, for the armed forces of the United States, and for those countries actively engaged in resisting aggression, has been further examined.

Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister of Supply of the British Government, has joined in these conferences. He is going to proceed to Washington to discuss further details with appropriate officials of the United States Government. These conferences will also cover the supply problems of the Soviet Union.

The President and the Prime Minister have had several conferences. They have considered the dangers to world civilization arising from the policies of military domination by conquest upon which the Hitlerite government of Germany and other governments associated therewith have embarked, and have made clear the steps which their countries are respectively taking for their safety in the face of these dangers.

They have agreed upon the following joint declaration:

"The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future of the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement, and social security;

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons, must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea, or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.


FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL."

The second principle stating that neither the US nor GB seek no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, seems to me to be a promise to grant independence to people in territories owned by the two countries should the people therein wish it. Is the end of imperialism implicit in this principle?

The third principle reinforces the second as it states that all nations should have the right to choose the type of government under which they wish to live.

The fourth principle deals with trade and access to raw materials suggesting that all countries should have access to the raw materials and goods that the country needs to bring happiness. This is an acknowledgement by WSC that freer trade is desired and that would spell the end of imperial preference within the Empire

I have read that it was FDR who was adamant that these statements be included in the Atlantic Charter. I wonder whether Churchill would have agreed to all of these principles had his country not been in such a dire state in Aug. of 1941.

However, we must note that the Charter of the United Nations was based partly on this Atlantic Charter. If we support the principles that guide the nations of the world at the UN then we may thank FDR and WSC for their work at Placentia Bay.

Cheers,

George

Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
8/17/2023 9:03:31 PM
Quote:
1941 WSC, & FDR start the Atlantic Charter! What was this about? Comments anyone?

& Speaking of the British verse the Nazis in WWII, why was Lord Halifax seeking appeasement, & peace with the Nazis!? Who was Halifax, anyway, & was his take on dealing with the 3rd Reich faulty??


Yep, Atlantic Charter was announced on 14 August, 1941. The conference which generated the charter, The conference which spawned it took place at Naval Station Argentia, Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, 9-12 August. Note: at the time, Newfoundland was not part of Canada, and Canada had no official standing at the conference.

The Atlantic Conference itself was either a statement of ideals or a huge exercise in political manipulation; in some ways, the Charter is a brilliant bit of propaganda. It reads very like a list of activities directly opposite to the acts of Germany and Italy, but IMHO without any indication the points were more than polemical rhetoric. Yet it was codified, IIRC, into the Declaration of the UN as early as 1942.

As for Lord Halifax, I find the man rather interesting, and perhaps more representative of Edwardian English character than others. He is what I would call a Tory by birth, by family, by upbringing, by education, by values and by inclination. He served his country from the time he was 28, in the House of Commons, in the military, at war, in vice-regal positions, at Cabinet rank, as diplomat, and when he came into his Title in the House of Lords. He was, in short, a man who served his country continuously; he was entering his 4th decade of service when WW2 broke out.

Halifax has a reputation as an appeaser. I think that is justified. But he is particularly attacked because he is often also seen as almost a “fifth columnist”. This, I believe, is both misleading and unkind. He had spent time in Germany and had met senior Nazis, it is true. But he did so at the urging of Anthony Eden, then Foreign Secretary and Halifax’s immediate boss, and only after Göring invited him to go fox-hunting on his estates (Halifax was at the time an active Master of one of the Hunts in Britain). It was, of course, a diplomatic invitation; Halifax met many wealth, influential men (not to mention Hitler himself) who would call on this meeting to forward offers of peace even after the attack on Poland and he Declaration of War. He listened with hope, because he was fervid against war.

That is almost a definition of appeasement, of course. There were many who shared that viewpoint. But there were few with such a potential for leadership holding such views, and when the crisis of confidence in the House of Commons arose (over the collapse of the BEF Norwegian effort), Halifax was still a respected and powerful name to contend with. With Chamberlain’s resignation as PM, Halifax was the favourite choice to replace him. He was supported by the Torys. The King wanted him. Labour was prepared to accept him in coalition, though they had rejected Chamberlain as a coalition leader. Hell, the rumor is that even Churchill was ready to accept him. Only Lord Halifax questioned his own suitability as PM. He felt he would work better behind the scenes for England’s war effort. To the surprise of many, Churchill became PM.

Churchill reduced the size of his Cabinet, but kept both Chamberlain (now sitting as an MP) and Halifax with portfolios. Yet before the end of May 1940 the difference in values between Halifax and Churchill reached crisis point. Halifax bowed under Churchill’s rhetoric, and rejected all further entreaties from supporters of the Nazis. So goes the story.

May I suggest, as some good reading on the final establishment of Churchill’s power, John Lukacs’ Five Days in London: May 1940.

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: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
8/18/2023 7:08:58 AM
George, Morris, & Brian,

I learned so much from your replies from yesterday, from the Revolutionary Battles at Camden, & Cowpens, to the situation in WWII that lead to the Atlantic Charter!!!

Thanks guys, you rock!!

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
8/18/2023 7:15:00 AM
About this day in CW history, Scott's Anaconda Plan! It was implemented, & was the blueprint for successfully defeating the Confederacy, can someone define it??

Also checking today 8-18 in history we see the following topics! Comments? Anyone??

1227 Genghis Khan died at age 55, he used horrific military policies to expand from Mongolia, his son would conquer even more of Asia, & threaten Europe!? What's your take on the Khans??

1896 Butch Cassidy brings over 200 outlaws together into the Wild Bunch! Comments on the lawlessness of the wild west!? Anyone??

1920 the 19th Amendment passes, women can finally vote! Has it made a difference in how candidates run, & governmental policy?? Anyone??

1969 Woodstock attracts some 400,000 strong, sex starved, drug addicted dare we say hippies!? BTW I'll have what their having!? ☺

Any other new topics!?
Regards,
MD

Also definitely feel free to continue previous discussions, & any new ones not mentioned!??
----------------------------------
"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
8/18/2023 11:57:25 AM
Quote:
George, Morris, & Brian,

I learned so much from your replies from yesterday, from the Revolutionary Battles at Camden, & Cowpens, to the situation in WWII that lead to the Atlantic Charter!!!

Thanks guys, you rock!!

Regards,
MD



This is Placentia Bay where FDR arrived in 1941 on the heavy cruiser USS Augusta and WSC on HMS Prince of Wales. Kind of desolate place for a meeting of the two world leaders. Perhaps that was by choice. FDR's voyage was shrouded in secrecy while WSC had to ask for permission to leave the country.



Prince of Wales would sunk by the Japanese on Dec. 10, 1941

George
Page 86 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