MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 89 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
9/2/2023 2:28:21 PM
Quote:
What exactly are the authentic "chips"?

I assume we aren't talking french fries.


Hand cut in the shop, skin on or off, fried in fat or vegetable oil; preferably vegetable oil since my doctor just flagged my cholesterol level as a bit high.

I don't know but they seem to taste better than the frozen ones heated in the oven. McCain Foods is the largest provider of frozen French Fries in the world. The McCain family of Florenceville, New Brunswick is still the majority shareholder of a company with plants all over the world. The products are very good. We probably have some in the freezer.

But I would be most distressed to head to the local chipper for a feast of fish and chips and then see bags of McCain's in the kitchen.

When I was a kid, we always called these pieces of potato, "chips". And we knew the difference between those chips and a bag of potato chips.

But the expression "French Fries" gradually slipped into the fast food culture imported from the US and most kids today just call them "fries". My guess is that most of English speaking Commonwealth still calls them "chips". Canada, so close to the colossus below us is influenced by that culture. I think that I read that US soldiers began to call "chips" that they were served in France or Belgium, French Fries. I don't know whether that is true or not.

So chips or French Fries are the same thing other than the chips benefit from the more subtle culinary arts that I described and are applied to them at the Fish and Chip shop.

Cheers
GregT
Three Rivers MA USA
Posts: 164
Joined: 2013
This day in World History! Continued
9/2/2023 4:03:26 PM
Thanks George

Cholesterol aside, everything tastes better deep fried.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/2/2023 4:38:11 PM
Quote:
Thanks George

Cholesterol aside, everything tastes better deep fried.


I agree. But now I found myself checking the labels on everything. Saturated to unsaturated fat ratio? Cholesterol? Trans fats? I already had learned to do that many years ago but I wasn't overly concerned with what the labels said.

What's left? Shall I just chew on a carrot for dinner?

Cheers,

George
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
9/2/2023 6:51:15 PM
Proper chips cooked in beef dripping (beef fat) is a pleasure I enjoy maybe once or twice a year. Beyond that seems tempting fate!

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: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/3/2023 3:39:30 AM
Quote:
Proper chips cooked in beef dripping (beef fat) is a pleasure I enjoy maybe once or twice a year. Beyond that seems tempting fate!

Cheers,

Colin


Potatoes roasted in beef dripping : whenever I eat them I realise that there IS a god !

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
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/3/2023 12:08:51 PM

1939.


This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final Note, stating that unless we heard from them by 11 o’clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received , and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.

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
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/3/2023 6:07:30 PM
Yes indeed, Phil. The words that began the war which broke a twenty-year, sometimes shaky peace. Uttered by a man who, scarcely 11 months earlier had held aloft a piece of paper while announcing “peace in our time”.

It must have been one of Chamberlain’s most galling moments in public life, announcing publicly that his hopes for Britain and the Commonwealth were in ashes.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
vpatrick
MA MA USA
Posts: 2522
Joined: 2020
This day in World History! Continued
9/3/2023 7:44:12 PM
Hitlers "Mein Kampf" pretty much told what he intended to do and he attempted it, "Mein Kampf" lays it out it even says that the leader of the county should lie to achieve its goals, it was all right there, I would gather Chamberlain did not read his book. Everything in "Mein Kampf" was attempted. I have never read it just heard excerpts from "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" which the author says Hitler knew what he was going to do as he wrote his book in 1924 in prison.

Its chilling to see Hitlers plans as they are explained in his book about his master race and his reasons for liebslingraum and how he hoodwinked the masses of Germans to fight for his bullshit.




vpatrick
----------------------------------
nuts
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/4/2023 6:32:53 AM
“ He hoodwinked the masses of Germans to fight .”

People who seek scapegoats for defeat and disgrace - or a general sense of despair and decline- will buy into a creed that suits their narrative.

We can see it happening now .

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/4/2023 4:23:47 PM
First part of September, in World History; new topics not commented on yet!? Moved to new page!!?

891 Vikings defeated near Louvaine, France, I thought the Norsemen seldom lost? Comments?

1482 Tarters plunder Kiev, Ukraine! Where did this group of barbarians originate from? Anyone?

1792 the Liberty Bell arrives in Philadelphia, from a foundry in London! Do you find this ironic??

1807 Aaron Burr acquitted of treason. Burr seemed to be a controversial chracter? Why was he accused in the 1st place? What say you?

1864 Atlanta is evacuated as the Union advances! The Confederates are gone with the wind? Should they have put up more of a fight?? Comments?

1898 Lord Kitchener attacks the Sudan! Just what are the British doing there? & what do you think of Kitchener? Was he worthy of command? Anyone?

1914 the last Passenger Pigeon dies in a Ohio Zoo, these birds once darkened the skies! How could they all die off?? Anyone?

1918 the Allies win a major battle in the Sinai, & Palestine! How in WWI was warfare spreading to the Middle east? Comments? Anyone?

1939 Switzerland declares neutrality, were they actually neutral in WWII? What say you??

1939 WWII starts with German invasion of Poland, if the Allies had been more pro active could they have stopped the Nazis here?? Anyone?

Hope you had a great Labor Day Weekend,

Still lots to still discuss here, 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."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/4/2023 4:30:49 PM
9-2 sadly yesterday Jimmy Buffett passed away!

9-3, 1609 Henry Hudson founds New York, then New Amstedam! Why couldn't the Dutch hold it? Anyone??

1658, Olive Cromwell dies, how was he vital to the English Civil War?? Comments?

1783 the Treaty of Paris! Was the treaty to favorable to the new US??

1894 1st Labor Day! How was yours??

& today, Labor Day, 9-4 in history,

925 A Saxon king becomes the 1st king to rule all of England!? How, & why??

1870 Napoleon III deposed of as France's 1st president! How did this occur!? Political or military? What say you??

1989 NASA launches last Titan rocket!? What was it's problem? TO dangerous or to expensive?? Anyone?

Tommorow, 9-5's history,

1793 Reign of Terror in France! Why so bloody? What say you about using the guillotine? Do you think its about the grossest way to be executed? Anyone?

1836 Sam Houston becomes 1 st President of Texas! He later begged Texas not to join the Confederacy! They should have listened!? What say you??

1972 Munich Olympics attacked by terrorists!? Why? & Was security bad?? Anyone?

2001 Scientists discover black holes in space!? Why do so many people, especially in the US, not believe in Science!? Comments??

, 9-6 in history,

1901 Pres. William McKinley assassination occurs! Who, & why? anyone??

1914 the 1st battle of Marne starts, can some one give us a good website or synopsis of it??

1944 Germans fire the 1st V-2 Rocket! Did Great Britain have a defense for it?? Anyone?

1997 Princess Diana's funeral! Did the Paparazzi ever have to pay any repirations?? Who was mostly to blame??.what say you??

Lots to discuss here!
Regards,
MD


BTW did someone mention fish & chips? I'll have a big order!!!

----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/4/2023 6:48:32 PM
Quote:
“ He hoodwinked the masses of Germans to fight .”

People who seek scapegoats for defeat and disgrace - or a general sense of despair and decline- will buy into a creed that suits their narrative.

We can see it happening now .

Very wise indeed, Phil. And applicable in places other than Germany between the wars. Hopefully, this is not an inevitability.

I like your choice of the word “creed”. Much of any political movement is based on core values, whether cultural, religious, racial or – in some cases – limited political distinctions. Any astute politician (military, civilian, or religious) can work core values to his/her own ends. It doesn’t take a majority of voters to power.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/4/2023 8:24:26 PM
Quote:
1939 WWII starts with German invasion of Poland, if the Allies had been more pro active could they have stopped the Nazis here?? Anyone?

Short answer? Nope! Germany scored a diplomatic winner with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of late August, which all but guaranteed success of the Polish invasion and all but eliminated the western allies’ hope of supporting Poland, without a distasteful alliance with the Bolsheviks. This would change, of course. By July 1940 Churchill would be prepared to ally with the Soviets. But as of September 1939 the Soviets were not availale as a threat, except perhaps to the allies.

Being “proactive” is, IMHO, a bad choice of words. France made excursions over he Franco-German border, but were cautious. Their war strategies, unlike the “attack” value of WW1, included creating a powerful defensive barrier. On the Franco-German border it was the Maginot Line. The BEF was in what had become it’s historical place: facing the Belgian border. It had no enemy to face (Belgium was neutral). Its Air Force was limited in offensive ability because RAF a/c were denied Belgian and Dutch air space, which was aggressively neutral air space. And while German forces opposite France were weakened, I know of no allied plan of the time which called for aggressive action of a joint nature.

Cheers
Brian g

Fuzzy point: WW2 did not start until Sept 3; you have to have adversaries to have a war. Until the ultimatum was unanswered, the invasion of Poland was simply a variation on Sudetenland and Austria. Point the twooth, until April 1940, only three nations were at war (unless the Finland-Soviet Winter War is included) were involved. With the exception of some sea action, they largely ignored each other. Both sides knew what wasn’t happening: the Brits called it the “Phoney War”, and the Germans – IIRC – “Sitzkrieg”. That’s hardly a World War.

----------------------------------
"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
9/5/2023 7:28:14 AM
Hi Brian, & Phil,

IMHO a war doesn't start at combat between sides but when those sides are beyond the point of no return with warfare imminent! Bri you mention Poland not yet involving Germany verse France, & Great Britain, but they declared war on the Nazis! Just as they say in WWI that the war starts with the assassination of the Arch-duke Ferdinand!?

I don't know 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."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/5/2023 10:28:44 AM
The point of no return ?

Dave, it’s arguable that there was a chance to prevent war : the assassination at Sarajevo in June 1914 still allowed for an avoidance of war. Difficult, yes, but not impossible.

Not so easy to assess the prospects for 1939.

More fragmented without the same universal onslaught ?

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/5/2023 10:29:43 AM
Quote:
Quote:
1905 Alberta, & Saskatchewan join the Canadian Confederation! Just what was the criteria for them to be allowed in?? Help us out here??


Survivability was an important factor. The US had expanded rapidly to the west in the 19th century and had created four states along the international border that abutted Canada's North-West Territory.



Canada had come to exist as a Dominion in 1867 and had its own western expansion plans. The need to establish sovereignty in the west was motivated by fears that the US would annex parts of the North West Territory. The US had shown great interest in the lands to the north of Pembina, Minnesota (now in North Dakota). The US also desperately wanted British Columbia and lobbied to have the population approve of annexation. So the new Canadian government was motivated to get some people out there. Use it or lose it.

Canada had purchased the massive Rupert's Land territory from the Hudson's Bay Company. By 1885, treaties with the First Nations of the west had pacified the area. This was after two rebellions by Métis people already living in the west.

Canada began to send settlers to the west. In 1885 the whole of the North West Territory seen in the map above had a population of 32,000 with half being indigenous and half European settlers. By 1911, the population had risen to 492,000 with a massive shift population demographics. Only 2.4% of that population was now indigenous. (source: Canadian Encylopaedia)

The North West Territory was administered from Ottawa by the federal government but was granted responsible government in 1897 though still under the watchful eye of the federal government. The settlers began to clamour for provincial status in 1900 but some wanted the whole North West Territory to be considered one giant province. The federal government said that that area was just too large for a single government to manage. And so it was decided to create two provinces from a part of the Northwest Territory.

And so Alberta and Saskatchewan were born in 1905 on Sept. 1 with the passage of federal legislation.

The remainder of the land not used to create the two new provinces remained as the federally administered North West Territory.

Canada to 1912. After 1912, Manitoba, Ontario and Québec would see their territories expanded.



Cheers,

George




Hi George,

How much did Canada pay for Prince Rupperts Land? Hopefully they got a good deal? Also the Prairie Provinces were considerably smaller (see your maps) so did they join the Canadian Federation before their territory expanded? Also you can't blame the US for coveting British Columbia, it's a beautiful province, & the US could hook up with Alaska if they acquired it!? BTW surprising that the British would give up Newfoundland to Canada as much as the RN could use it?

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."
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
9/5/2023 11:40:26 AM
Quote:
The point of no return ?

Dave, it’s arguable that there was a chance to prevent war : the assassination at Sarajevo in June 1914 still allowed for an avoidance of war. Difficult, yes, but not impossible.

Not so easy to assess the prospects for 1939.

More fragmented without the same universal onslaught ?

Regards, Phil


Hi Phil,

IMO, war was unavoidable after the Nazi government reneged on the Munich agreement. Even the staunchest supporters of appeasement recognised at that point that Nazi Germany would need to be faced down. We could argue forever about the precise points where Nazism could have been stopped by collective international action, but I fear by 1938 it was too late to stop Nazi Germany without a long and costly war.

In 1914, I think if the British had managed to get everyone around a table (as Edward Grey had tried), we would have seen the war stopped. Obstinacy and malevolence at the heart of many European governments prevented such a conference from going ahead.

Brian,

I enjoyed your post on the start of WW2, but would disagree that the invasion of Poland was just another Sudetenland or Anschluss. The Poles fought hard and bravely in an active hot war to defend their homeland and suffered grievous casualties in doing so. Perhaps I misinterpreted your post, however.

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: 6508
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/5/2023 1:21:27 PM
At the risk of sounding like a tiresome and sanctimonious opponent of “ Western - centric “ perceptions of history, we must remember that the huge scope of the Second World War was predicated largely on the war between Japan and China, which started in earnest with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in 1937, and was to cause tens of millions of deaths and witness genocide on a scale that rivalled anything in modern times. Even on this September day in 1945, the Soviet Union was mopping up Japanese resistance as it consolidated control of Manchuria and islands close to the Japanese homeland. It’s not widely acknowledged in terms of its importance and scale.

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: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/5/2023 2:56:35 PM
Quote:
Hi George,

How much did Canada pay for Prince Rupperts Land? Hopefully they got a good deal? Also the Prairie Provinces were considerably smaller (see your maps) so did they join the Canadian Federation before their territory expanded? Also you can't blame the US for coveting British Columbia, it's a beautiful province, & the US could hook up with Alaska if they acquired it!? BTW surprising that the British would give up Newfoundland to Canada as much as the RN could use it?

What say you?
MD


The Hudson's Bay Company owned Rupert's land. The company had been granted exclusive domain over all the lands surrounding the rivers that drained into Hudson's Bay. The territory was named after Prince Rupert, one of the chief shareholders of the company. The charter that was granted to the company came after two intrepid French-Canadians, Radisson and Groseillers, went to London and reported that the territory was rich in furs. And so a group of investors who called themselves the Company of Investors, led by Prince Rupert, applied for a charter and received it. As I recall, Radisson and Groseillers did not benefit greatly from the creation of the Hudson's Bay Company.

HBC had a monopoly over trade in this massive territory.

By the time that Canada was born in 1867, the fur trade was not what it once was. HBC was looking to sell and had a willing partner in the United States.

But Britain was greatly concerned about US expansion and the comments made by many US politicians that it was time for British North America to join the US. And so Britain put the squeeze on the HBC and "encouraged" the company to sell the land to Canada. Canada also had expansionist aims and the loss of Rupert's Land would likely have meant the end of the Canadian plan to expand from coast to coast to coast. Reluctantly, HBC sold Rupert's Land to Canada in 1870 for £300,000 or $1.5 million dollars.

In retrospect, it was a steal.

And so Canada expanded by 3,861,400 sq.km (1.5 million sq. miles). I believe that the Louisiana Purchase was smaller at 828,000 sq. mi. Of course the LP contains far more arable land than did R.L. though Rupert's Land is rich in natural resources and arable land too.

Provinces were added to Canada from the undeveloped territories as populations expanded enough to make their creation sensible. After 1870, the land was all Canada's and it took time to create the administrative format of provinces in a federation. We also know that it was necessary to treat with the First Nations so that they were pacified and ostensibly treated fairly before provinces could be created.

British Columbia was a different case as it was already a British colony before Confederation and so it was necessary to convince them to join Canada. The building of a trans-continental railroad was part of the incentive for BC to join Canada rather than consider annexation to the US. It was quite a political battle. US Sec. of State William Seward was convinced that there was a strong annexationist movement in British Columbia and he sent agents to the British province to lobby for the entry of the colony into the union. He had also sent people to Britain to convince the members of Parliament that the population of BC wanted to become part of the US. Canada responded by sending its own representatives to London to explain that the annexationist movement wasn't all that strong and that Canada needed support to assure BC's entry into Confederation. That didn't happen until 1871.

Newfoundland's colonial government had attended the Québec Conference in 1864 where British colonies discussed the possibility of Confederation. They did sign the resolutions but in the end decided to remain independent.

Responsible government in NFLD collapsed in 1934 and Britain had to take responsibility for administration of the Dominion once again. There was a brief uptick in prosperity during WWII when Canadian and US service personnel were stationed on the island but that was short lived. And Canada who did not wish to see another US territory on its eastern side as it did on the west was concerned that the US would possible attempt to buy NFLD.

In 1948, NFLD held referenda. The first posed three options:

1. Join Canada
2. Remain independent with NFLD's own responsible government
3. Continue under a government appointed by a British commission.

The third option was rejected but the option to remain independent actually won with the option to join Canada in second place

And so a second referendum was required but with only two options, join Canada or remain independent.

The Newfoundlanders opted to join Canada but it was a tight race. Newfoundlanders are and were a hardy and independent sort of people and they were loyal to the British Empire. But a small majority were convinced that their best option for a better life was with Canada.

The vote in the 2nd referendum was 52.3% in favour of joining Canada and 47.7% in favour of retaining NFLD independence.

Cheers,

George









Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/6/2023 8:17:32 AM
Quote:
At the risk of sounding like a tiresome and sanctimonious opponent of “ Western - centric “ perceptions of history, we must remember that the huge scope of the Second World War was predicated largely on the war between Japan and China, which started in earnest with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in 1937, and was to cause tens of millions of deaths and witness genocide on a scale that rivalled anything in modern times. Even on this September day in 1945, the Soviet Union was mopping up Japanese resistance as it consolidated control of Manchuria and islands close to the Japanese homeland. It’s not widely acknowledged in terms of its importance and scale.

Regards, Phil



Hi Phil,

Again, what I love about MHO, I had never heard of the Marco Polo Bridge, & the incident, between China, & Japan that militarily led to the escalation of their military conflict, thus WWII in the far East! It would seem the Japanese were more the aggressor here!? Boy that Marco Polo got around!!?

What say you?
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
9/6/2023 8:20:47 AM
Mornin MHO,

Today, A few topics, 9-6 in history,

1901 Pres. William McKinley assassination occurs! Who, & why? anyone??

1914 the 1st battle of Marne starts, can some one give us a good website or synopsis of it??

1944 Germans fire the 1st V-2 Rocket! Did Great Britain have a defense for it?? Anyone?

1997 Princess Diana's funeral! Did the Paparazzi ever have to pay any repirations?? Who was mostly to blame??.what say you??

Regards,
MD

BTW did I miss any important history?? Anyone?

& thanks George, for the very informative post on additional Canadian Provinces joining your country!?
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/6/2023 10:06:25 PM
Quote:
I enjoyed your post on the start of WW2, but would disagree that the invasion of Poland was just another Sudetenland or Anschluss. The Poles fought hard and bravely in an active hot war to defend their homeland and suffered grievous casualties in doing so. Perhaps I misinterpreted your post, however.

Colin, you didn’t misinterpret anything. You ran into some writing that sacrificed accuracy for terseness. My fault entirely.

What I was trying to say – too glibly, it seems – is that the German plans for Poland were no different than those for Austria or the region of Sudeten Czechoslovakia. There were also plans firming up for various Eastern European countries, including Hungary and Rumania. The aim, IMHO, was to eat up bite-sizes of Europe without war if possible but in isolated wars if necessary. I think people forget how important the signing of the Ribbentrop-Molotov non-aggression alliance was to emboldening Hitler’s plans for Eastern Europe.

That the Poles fought, and fought well, in what was a doomed cause is not at question. Had the Munich talks failed and no treaty been signed, I believe Hitler would have marched into the Sudetenland, and I’m certain the Czechs would have fought as bravely and well as the Poles would do 11 months later. My point is that Germany had a rough power program in place that, as early as Jan 1939 included the taking of Poland by one means or another.

No matter how it might occur, Hitler was convinced the Brits and French would once again wiggle out of their commitments, as they had done so disgustingly at Munich. The utter lameness of the Anglo-French actions after their declarations of war against Germany indicate that Hitler was, in essence, correct. On the Franco-German border, the war evolved into nine months of “Sitzkrieg”/Phoney War.

Lots more to consider, of course, but it should be moved from this forum to the WW2 forum to be treated extensively.

Thanks for calling me on my sloppy writing.
Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
9/7/2023 4:34:37 AM
Good morning Brian,

Thanks for the reply and further detail on your wider point. There's absolutely no need apologise for any aspect of your writing; we are here to engage in discourse, after all. I always enjoy your posts.

I agree that Hitler thought the western allies to be weak and impotent, with no intention of fighting an aggressive war to defeat him. Where I think a 'hot war' in the Sudetenland would have differed with the invasion of Poland is that, firstly, the German armed forces were not as strong in 1938 as they would become in 1939-1940. Rearmament had made Nazi Germany a potent force, but the Czechs had not been idle either and had a fairly substantial and modernised army with armoured vehicles of similar quality of Germany's, although clearly not in quantity. Secondly, unlike the plains of western Poland, the terrain facing the Germans in the Sudetenland was mountainous in places. I think the German forces would have had a hard time getting through the Czechs as quickly as they dismembered the Polish army.

Whilst German victory over the Czechs would have eventually happened if the Czechs were not supported directly by the allies, I think the war itself would have lasted longer. The Czechs were also allied with the Soviet Union, whom I think would have fought their way through Poland to assist the Czechs, if only to acquire Polish territory whilst doing it. A war in 1938 could have easily seen the Germans and Poles on one side with the Czechs and Soviets on the other, with the western allies acting as a third power base. It's easy to see the US pulled in as a mediator if such a war dragged on into 1939/1940.

Lots on which to speculate, and further speculation is probably best reserved for the WW2 forum if there's appetite to carry on there.

Cheers,

Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/7/2023 6:28:59 PM

Today, Checking 9-7 in history,

1533 Elizabeth 1, English Queen is born! How highly would you rate her as far as Queens of England?? What say you??

1822 Brazil becomes independent! How did they become such a slave dependent nation!? Anyone??

1825 the Canal Era in Canada starts with the Lachine Canal near Montreal! Later the Rideau & Welland Canals! How important were they to travel, & the economy of Canada? Any good websites or posts welcome!?

1901 the Boxer Rebellion ends! Why was it called "Boxer Rebellion", & again, what was it about?? Comments, Anyone?

Does any MHO'ers have any new topics!?
Comments on anything welcome??
& Carry on!
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/7/2023 7:07:02 PM
"In the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, a Chinese secret organization called the Society of the Righteous and Harmonious Fists led an uprising in northern China against the spread of Western and Japanese influence there. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/55_Days_at_Peking
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/7/2023 10:10:31 PM
Thanks OP,

"In the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, a Chinese secret organization called the Society of the Righteous and Harmonious Fists led an uprising in northern China against the spread of Western and Japanese influence there. "

[Read More]
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/7/2023 11:56:33 PM
Quote:
1533 Elizabeth 1, English Queen is born! How highly would you rate her as far as Queens of England?? What say you??

MD, you continue to drag me into these issues!

Women – particularly women of royal blood – sometimes were in positions of power from the time of William I (1066). But it was not until the time of the Tudors (1485-1603) that queens in their own right appeared. Thank Henry VII for this change: he had two daughters and no sons at one point, and so decreed that, should there be no male heirs, royal females were eligible to ascend the throne. Subsequently, he had a son (and heir) Edward VI who, as his health declined, declaimed Lady Jane Grey as his heir and successor. Lady Jane’s reign lasted 9 days – not a good start.

In effect, there have been only 7 queens of England/Britain, depending on how you read the auguries:
• Lady Jane Grey
• Mary I
• Elizabeth I
• Mary II (with William of Orange)
• Anne
• Victoria
• Elizabeth II
Some would not include Lady Jane Grey; some would question including Mary II, considering the power William of Orange assumed.

I would argue – just listing them makes the decision easier but not firm – that Elizabeth I was the most powerful of the rightful Queens of England or Great Britain.

Victoria cemented the widespread influence and economic power of Britain, and was the first true Monarch of the British Empire. Her power, and by extension her nation’s power reached their greatest point under her rule. I get all that.

Elizabeth II, largely through her personal charm, maintained a commonwealth commitment while Britain was losing power and global strength. The House of Windsor does not appear to be popular, but the post-Empire British commonwealth now see her as a unifying symbol.

Elizabeth I, on the other hand, formed England in the face of Papal and papally-supported aggression. She rejected Papal authority and solidified the Church of England. She expanded England’s sea power. She provided at least (or at best) a weak but royally supported number of colonies to counter Spanish and Portuguese settlements. In effect, she “grew” England from a small island nation to a seagoing nation challenging current divisions of the New World. She defeated the Armada. In fact, she established a nation her grand-father would not have recognized.

Victoria, Elizabeth II and Elizbeth I were all quite exceptional monarchs. But I think Elizabeth I was most impactful in creating and solidifying what England became in the 16th century.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
9/8/2023 8:27:29 AM
Hi Brian,

Of your list, I'd say there were only two, maybe three who actually held any executive power. Thus, can we compare a monarch with the power to directly legislate (Mary, Elizabeth I, perhaps Mary II to a certain extent) against a constitutional monarch (Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II) whose powers had virtually all been given to Parliament?

What impact did the constitutional monarchs have on foreign policy, the economy and the general improvement of the country? I think Britain would still have been the predominant industrial power until 1880 if it had been anyone else on the throne - its success was not down to Victoria. Britain would still have de-colonised if King George VI had lived longer.

Conversely, a monarch with a weaker character than Elizabeth I might have been indecisive during the Armada crisis and brought about a national calamity. A more conciliatory monarch than Mary I might have brought about a lawfully mandated compromise on religion that allowed English Catholics and Protestants to live together openly and at peace.

In short, we are comparing apples with oranges.

Cheers,

Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/8/2023 8:47:33 AM
Yesterday, again, Checking 9-7 in history,

1533 Elizabeth 1, English Queen is born! How highly would you rate her as far as Queens of England?? What say you?? Thanks Brian for your excellent take on Liz I, you too Colin, you both make good points!!

1822 Brazil becomes independent! How did they become such a slave dependent nation!? Anyone??

1825 the Canal Era in Canada starts with the Lachine Canal near Montreal! Later the Rideau & Welland Canals! How important were they to travel, & the economy of Canada!?

1901 the Boxer Rebellion ends! Why was it called "Boxer Rebellion", & again, what was it about?? Comments, Anyone?

Today, 9-8 history,

1941 The Nazis lay the Siege of Leningrad! Why did it fail?? Comments?

1945 Japan's forces surrender to the US & Soviets in Korea! Why did the Russians attack IJA so late? Anyone??

Tomorrow, 9-9 in History,

1087 King William I dies from combat injuries! Why did Kings actually fight in wars back then? & not in recent times?? Anyone?

2015 recently passed away Queen Elizabeth II becomes the longest reigning Monarch in British history! Comments on the late Queens achievements ??

any new topics!?
Regards,
MD

BTW I will not be able to post this WE, plus into next week, heading up to historic Mackinac Island, please pick up the slack!!?? Thanks!
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1070
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
9/8/2023 10:11:35 AM
Thanks Dave, enjoy your time away!

Cheers,

Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/8/2023 10:38:38 AM
Thanks Colin,

Mackinac Island is not only beautiful but full of important history, including great forts & historical buildings going back to the colonies, Revolutionary War, & War of 1812! Try googling it or checking YouTube videos, that goes for anyone from MHO, I'll try to answer any questions!? Since I'll be gone until 9-12, posted a few events for each day!?

Checking other General History events, on 9-10!

1608 John Smith chosen President of Jamestown, was this the colonies 1st election?? Anyone?

1813 US naval forces win the Battle of Lake Erie, paving the way for control of the Great Lakes!? Comments?

Of course yesterday day 9-11 was the horrific terrorists attack on the twin towers, & Pentagon!?

1814 the USN defeat the British on lake Champlain! The RN seemed to have trouble winning naval battles on large NA inland lakes? Why?? Anyone?

1944 WSC & FDR meet in Quebec, what was planned?? What say you?

2008 big fire in the Chunnel between GB, & France? What caused it? Anyone??

& on 9-12

The German Commandos freed Benito Mussolini to Munich! How did they accomplish this? Anyone??

Any other new topics? Or discuss those above??
BTW these general world history topics come from Encyclopedia Britannica!

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
9/8/2023 1:02:01 PM
Quote:
1813 US naval forces win the Battle of Lake Erie, paving the way for control of the Great Lakes!? Comments?


The US did defeat a RN squadron on Lake Erie and eventually that would force the British to retreat from the Fort Detroit area that had been in their possession since the earliest days of the War of 1812. The loss of Lake Erie meant that the British could no longer supply Fort Detroit by sending ships through Lake Erie with arms and supplies. Fort Detroit had provided the British and Canadian militia and First Nations warriors with some protection on their western flank. And so they retreated to the east and abandoned Fort Detroit. They followed an easterly route along the Thames River

The US forces under William Henry Harrison pursued them and met the British and the FN allies under the great chief Tecumseh at Moraviantown (Battle of the Thames) where they defeated the British and killed Tecumseh.

However, this victory did not pave the way for US control of the Great Lakes. The British still had possession of Fort Michilimackinac on Mackinac Island. That island, strategically placed as it was maintained British control of the upper Great Lakes until the end of the war. The US mounted an attack in July of 1814 but were unsuccessful in dislodging the British garrison. They set up a two ship blockade to prevent the British from using the fort as a base of operations but the British mounted their own operation and seized the two USN vessels in September of 1814.

That left Lake Ontario and there never was a pitched battle on that lake between the US squadron under Chauncey and the RN squadron under James Yeo. The Americans had the larger squadron through much of 1813 and managed to attack the town of York (now Toronto) and Fort George where troops were landed. However, Chauncey was protective of his squadron and always concerned about Yeo's movements. They tended to shadow one another but never met in combat.

Chauncey was loathe to lend support to the US army that had once again invaded Upper Canada. He felt that that placed him in a role of subservience to the land commanders. And when Yeo attacked the US naval base at Sacket's Harbor, Chauncey took his squadron back to the harbor. This meant that he was not available to support the US initiatives on the Niagara peninsula in 1813.

The naval war on Lake Ontario has been described as a battle of the carpenters. Both sides were trying to outbuild the other and whichever side had the greatest number of ships and the larger ships would prevail on the lake. Later in 1814 the British launched HMS St. Lawrence at the naval base at Kingston. This vessel was the only ship of the line built by either side during this war. It was larger than Nelson's ship, HMS Victory. And with that, the British had control of Lake Ontario and would do so until the end of the war.

To be sure, the naval battle near Put-In Bay on Lake Erie was important because it forced the British into the defensive posture that they had anticipated but hoped to avoid. The US victory also led to the destruction of Tecumseh's confederation and his hopes for an Indian homeland in the Ohio Valley.

But it did not represent complete control of the Great Lakes.

Bit of a small map but you can see Fort Michilimackinac to the north covering entry into Lakes Huron and Michigan. And you can see Fort Detroit that assured British control of the western part of Upper Canada and eastern Michigan.




Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/8/2023 4:37:34 PM
Quote:
1814 the USN defeat the British on lake Champlain! The RN seemed to have trouble winning naval battles on large NA inland lakes? Why?? Anyone?


The RN put most of its resources in the Atlantic to blockade the USN and trading vessels in their ports. In that they were very successful and nearly destroyed the US economy whose federal government depended heavily on customs duties to finance the war.

On the Great Lakes it was a different story. The US had all of the construction advantages that the British could not possibly have had on the Great Lakes. The US was quite a bit ahead in the race to build ships initially. And the ship construction had to take place on the lake in which the vessel would be used, hence a Lake Erie squadron and a Lake Ontario squadron.

The other difference is that initially the RN did not send many sailors to man whatever vessels it had. Instead ships were manned by members of the Provincial Marine which was a small group of colonial sailors but not fighting sailors. The Provincial Marine was administered by the British army and it served as a taxi service for the army as well as being the sailors on the supply boats and barges.

RN officers were despatched to whip these men of the Provincial Marine into some sort of fighting shape and the officers found these men to be wholly inadequate as sailors on a fighting ship. And so in 1813 I believe, the Provincial Marine sailors were absorbed into the RN and the RN did send more sailors but not at the expense of reducing the abilities of the fighting ships on the Atlantic.

There were two major engagements on the Great Lakes. One was the Battle of Lake Erie and the other was the Battle of Lake Champlain. The two US squadrons bested the British in both cases.

And in both cases, the RN vessels decided to engage despite not being ready to do so. On Lake Erie, the RN squadron had pieced together as many cannon as they could but had lost most of the cannon intended for the Erie squadron when the US attacked York on Lake Ontario in April of 1813. The cannon destined for Lake Erie were destroyed or taken.

As well, the Erie squadron was woefully short of RN sailors and had to rely upon Provincial Marine and foot soldiers of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment to ensure that it was even possible to sail. Still they went to war knowing that they needed more time to prepare and gave a good account of themselves.

The Lake Champlain squadron was in better shape as far as having a higher percentage of actual RN sailors but the squadron was ill prepared. Many ships in the squadron had not reached the work-up phase of training but the military commander, George Prevost was marching his troops south toward Plattsburgh and he insisted that the squadron get on with it. Prevost was a poor substitute for the dynamic Isaac Brock who was killed at the Battle of Queenston Heights in 1812 and he should not have pressed his squadron commander, an Officer named Downie to attack.

But Prevost insisted that to wait any longer would jeopardize the attack on Plattsburgh as the fighting season would be coming to an end shortly.

Captain Downie lost his life and his squadron and the ever cautious Prevost decided to take his large and well trained army back to Canada.

Given that the British were taking the war to the US in late 1814, I do think that the victory on Lake Champlain was far more important than the victory on Lake Erie.

But let us not think that these British squadrons were representative of the quality of sailors or ships busy on the high seas while these events occurred.

Cheers,

George

Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/8/2023 7:39:11 PM
Quote:
At the risk of sounding like a tiresome and sanctimonious opponent of “ Western - centric “ perceptions of history, we must remember that the huge scope of the Second World War was predicated largely on the war between Japan and China, which started in earnest with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in 1937, and was to cause tens of millions of deaths and witness genocide on a scale that rivalled anything in modern times.

Amen, Phil, you tiresome and sanctimonious old somethingorother!. I’ve been tedious and sanctimonious about the fact there were only 4 combatants in the first eight months of what would for as much as 28 months a largely European and colonial war rather than a world war.

To your point, I can think of only two general histories of WW2 that incorporate the various stages of the Sino-Japanese wars into their WW2 histories. One is Total War by Peter Calvocoressi and Guy Wint; the other is World War II Almanac 1931-1945 by Robert Goralski, who predates your start date by some six years. Both books are rather long in the tooth (1972 and 1982 respectively), so I’m certain there are more recent volumes of similar scope available.

I can see arguments for each side of this topic. But there seems little doubt that aspects of the Sino-Japanese were ignored. One example is the rather decisive defeat of Japanese troops on the Mongolian-Manchurian frontier. Stuart D Goldman gives an excellent overview:Quote:
In the summer of 1939, Soviet and Japanese armies clashed on the Manchurian-Mongolian frontier in a little-known conflict with far-reaching consequences. No mere border clash, this undeclared war raged from May to September 1939 embroiling over 100,000 troops and 1,000 tanks and aircraft. Some 30,000-50,000 men were killed and wounded. In the climactic battle, August 20-31, 1939, the Japanese were crushed. This coincided precisely with the conclusion of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact (August 23, 1939) – the green light for Hitler’s invasion of Poland and the outbreak of World War II one week later. These events are connected. This conflict also influenced key decisions in Tokyo and Moscow in 1941 that shaped the conduct and ultimately the outcome of the war.

His entire article can be found here: [Read More]
I would argue that Zhukov’s victory was also ignored by western military leaders, who were almost unanimous in arguing the purges of Stalin’s military in the late 1930s had left the Russian Army an empty shell.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
GaryNJ
Cumberland NJ USA
Posts: 254
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/8/2023 8:21:03 PM
Quote:
To your point, I can think of only two general histories of WW2 that incorporate the various stages of the Sino-Japanese wars into their WW2 histories. One is Total War by Peter Calvocoressi and Guy Wint; the other is World War II Almanac 1931-1945 by Robert Goralski, who predates your start date by some six years. Both books are rather long in the tooth (1972 and 1982 respectively), so I’m certain there are more recent volumes of similar scope available.


A few years ago I read a fascinating book on China in World War 2 called Forgotten Ally: China’s World War II, 1937-1945 by Rana Mitter.

Gary
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/8/2023 9:10:37 PM
Quote:

However, this victory did not pave the way for US control of the Great Lakes. The British still had possession of Fort Michilimackinac on Mackinac Island. That island, strategically placed as it was maintained British control of the upper Great Lakes until the end of the war. The US mounted an attack in July of 1814 but were unsuccessful in dislodging the British garrison.



Cheers,
George



Hi.George,

Being a Michigander heading this WE to Mackinac Island, I believe you have your forts mixed up Fort Michilimackinac is on the mainland of the northern tip of the Lower Peninsula at Mackinac City, the fort on Mackinac Island is Fort Mackinac! I have been to both multiple times!! Otherwise your post is fairly accurate!?

Regards,
MD


BTW Brian G., you raise a very valid point most WWII histories, do not give the nations of the far east their just due, as far as the part they played in WWII?? In stead they are Western Nation centered! Why is that? Bias?? What say you?
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/8/2023 11:38:21 PM
MD, have yourself a great vacation. It’s almost 50 years since I lived in The Soo, so much of my memory of the area is lost or hazy. But I remember the vibrancy of colour and the general untouched beauty of the land. You should enjoy every minute.

Cheers
Brian G

PS: the only base I remember (with anything but delight) is Kincheloe AFB and what was known in The Soo as the “Kincheloe ‘beep’”, the penetrating sound of the radar system. Don’t know if that ever affected you or not!
B
----------------------------------
"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
9/9/2023 7:33:40 AM
Thanks Brian,

Colorful fall foliage is just beginning. As far as Kincheloe AFB goes I'M not sure if the "Kincheloe beep" ever affected us? However the little town Rudyard up there ( next to the base) had some good athletes on their sports teams because they were Air force brats!

Talking about beautiful areas Victoria, BC doesn't play 2nd fiddle to anyone!

Seize the day!
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
9/9/2023 7:35:48 AM
Again a few events,

Checking other General History events, on 9-10!

1608 John Smith chosen President of Jamestown, was this the colonies 1st election?? Anyone?

1813 US naval forces win the Battle of Lake Erie, paving the way for control of the Great Lakes!? Thanks George for the great reply!

On 9-11 was the horrific terrorists attack on the twin towers, & Pentagon!?

1814 the USN defeat the British on lake Champlain! The RN seemed to have trouble winning naval battles on large NA inland lakes? Again George, thanks for your post, your the main man when it comes to the War of 1812! You must have taken a class on it in college??

1944 WSC & FDR meet in Quebec, what was planned?? What say you?

2008 big fire in the Chunnel between GB, & France? What caused it? Anyone??

& on 9-12

The German Commandos freed Benito Mussolini to Munich! How did they accomplish this? Anyone??

Any other new topics? Or more to discuss those above??

Regards,
MD

BTW the Mackinac Area can be a zoo in the summer, the loft seasons are best! See ya!
----------------------------------
"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
9/9/2023 8:25:09 AM
Quote:
Hi.George,

Being a Michigander heading this WE to Mackinac Island, I believe you have your forts mixed up Fort Michilimackinac is on the mainland of the northern tip of the Lower Peninsula at Mackinac City, the fort on Mackinac Island is Fort Mackinac! I have been to both multiple times!! Otherwise your post is fairly accurate!?

Regards,
MD


The naming of the fort is confusing but I think that I have it correct for the time period. The original Fort Michilimackinac was built by the French on the mainland of what would become the upper peninsula. I believe that they moved it a couple of times but it remained on the mainland. The British took control after the French and Indian War ended in 1763.

The British stopped giving gifts to the First Nations people and they got angry and gathered by Fort Michilimackinac and began to play a game of lacrosse or baggataw'ai as they called it. So the story goes they tossed a ball into the fort and the gates were opened by the British. The FN women watching carried weapons under blankets which they gave to the warriors who entered the fort and killed many soldiers and seized the fort. That was during Pontiac's War, I believe. Anyway it took the British about a year to reclaim the fort after they had made peace with the FN.

But they decided that the mainland based fort was in too precarious a position and in 1781 they began to move the fort's buildings across the water to Mackinac Island. It took two years to do that by barge and sled over the ice.

And the British continued to call the installation, Fort Michilimackinac. As far as I know it was the Americans who shortened the name to Fort Mackinac after the revolution but the British continued to call it Michilimackinac during the War of 1812. And I believe that they pronounced it as Mich-e-le-mack-e-naw because that's how the Ojibway said it.

So I think that I was correct in calling it Fort Michilimackinac during the War of 1812 time period. But I stand to be corrected.

Maybe there will be something about the name change at the fort on Mackinac Island and you could check it out for me please, MD. I am curious because all of the literature that I have read about the War of 1812 indicates that the British seized Fort Michilimackinac early in the War of 1812 during the Battle of Mackinac Island.

Cheers,

George

EDIT: To illustrate my point that the British were calling the fort on Mackinac Island, Fort Michilimackinac, I will post this archival letter written by Gen. Isaac Brock to the Governor-in-Chief of North America, George Prevost

Quote:
Major-General Brock to Sir George Prevost.

YORK, July 29, 1812.

I have the honour to transmit herewith a dispatch this instant received from Captain Roberts, announcing the surrender by capitulation, on the 17th instant, of Fort Michilimakinack.

The conduct of this officer since his appointment to the command of that distant post, has been distinguished by much zeal and judgment, and his recent eminent display of those qualities your excellency will find has been attended with the most happy effect.

The militia stationed here volunteered this morning their services to any part of the province without the least hesitation. I have selected 100, whom I have directed to proceed without delay to Long Point, where I purpose collecting a force for the relief of Amherstburg. This example, I hope, will be followed by as many as may be required. By the militia law, a mail refusing to march may be fined £5, or confined three months; and although I have assembled the legislature for the express purpose of amending the act, I much fear nothing material will be done. Your excellency will scarcely believe, that this infatuated house of assembly have refused, by a majority of two, to suspend for a limited time the habeas corpus.

The capture of Michilimakinack may produce great changes to the westward. The actual invasion of the province justifies every act of hostility on the American territory.

It was not till this morning that I was honored with your excellency's dispatches, dated the 7th and 10th instant. Their contents, I beg to assure your excellency, have relieved my mind considerably. I doubt whether General Hull had instructions to cross to this side of the river; I rather suspect he was compelled by a want of provisions. I embark immediately in the Prince Regent for Fort George. I return here the day after to-morrow, and shall probably dissolve the legislature.





Page 89 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