MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 91 of 103 (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 )
Message
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/21/2023 12:47:43 PM
Wow sorry I put that Supreme Court topic in this thread. It can lead to one sided politics which leads to divisiveness. Of one side or the other?

Just let it go,

Peace,
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: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/21/2023 12:52:49 PM
Here I reposted the orginal topics, minus the divisive topic on SC, please keep to history only!?
Remember we did away with LFF thread for this very reason! I'll be careful in the future not to post anything divisive leading to political discourse! Sorry.

Quote:
Hey guys,

Lets check out new dates & history! Like 9-21, again I'm heading up north again, won't be able to post!!

1823 Joseph Smith Starts the Mormon Church when he sees a Angel!? What say you about the Mormons??

1931 England goes off the Gold standard! How did this effect the worlds economy back then!? Comments?

1950 comedian Bill Murray is born! Personally I think he's 1 of the best at his trade!? What is your fav. BM movie? I really liked, "What about Bob"!! ☺

1981 Belize becomes independent from GB! How & why did this happen?? Anyone?

9-22 events!??

1609 Moors driven out of Spain! Why didn't Muslims & Catholics get along back then? How's it going today?? Comments?

1692 the last of the Salem Witch Trials! How could they really believe in witches at this time!? Anyone??

1776 Nathan Hale a US officer executed by the British! He said I only regret that I have only 1 life to give to my country! He then became an immortal hero to the US cause! Why did the Brits kill such a brave man? Anyone??

1980 War between Iraq, & Iran begins! Just who was the bad guy in this war!?? What say you??

2002 the beginning of banning Fox Hunting in Great Britain! What was wrong with A bunch of royal rich dudes killing foxes!?? Comments?

On 9-23 first day of Fall! check these out! Comments?

1779 off the British Coast US naval officer, John Paul Jones sinks the enemy ship Serapis! becoming an American hero! What say you?

1806 Lewis & Clarke return from mapping the new Louisiana Purchase! How accurate were they? One of them died controversial, soon afterwards? Who & what happened?? BTW were They were fair to the British?? Anyone?

1862 Otto Von Bismarck comes to power! Was he an aggressive war leader!? Was this the beginning of a military based government in Germany!? Anyone?

1949 Rocker Bruce Springsteen was born! Was he really the Boss!? What of Elvis, he was the King after all!!? & others? Anyone??

& finally today 9-24 these events! Please comment on any!??

1960 1st Nuclear power sub, the USS Enterprise is launched! Does she still serve? Anyone on her history??

2015 thousands of pilgrims died in Mecca! How could this possibly happen in a religious place!? Anyone??

Now I go to all the trouble to post such a huge thread, please comment on as many events that interests you!?

Regards,
MD

BTW please continue your discussion on today's British Monarchy??

----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1457
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
9/21/2023 1:40:41 PM
Quote:
1960 1st Nuclear power sub, the USS Enterprise is launched! Does she still serve? Anyone on her history??

Regards,
MD


Hello MD. I believe you mean, SSN-571 USS Nautilus rather than Enterprise. The Nautilus first powered up with nothing but nuclear energy on 17 January 1955, the sub then sailed on some trials followed by a "shakedown" to Puerto Rico for nearly 90 hours submerged and was; "the longest submerged cruise, to that date, by a submarine, and at the highest sustained submerged speed ever recorded for a period of over one hour's duration."

[Read More]

Dan


----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/21/2023 2:04:22 PM
Hi Dan,

It was on the "On this day", website, for 9-24, must have been a misprint?? I have been watching old episodes of Star Trek lately, so you never know? Your right it was the USS Nautilus, which I should have known, my brother in law served in the Submarine Corps of the early 70's.

Thanks, & 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: 13377
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/21/2023 2:14:16 PM
Quote:
Wow sorry I put that Supreme Court topic in this thread. It can lead to one sided politics which leads to divisiveness. Of one side or the other?

Just let it go,

Peace,
MD.



That's rather sad, MD. I simple discussion of the selection process should not be overly contentious. I understand Dan's concerns but that is not what I wanted to address. My focus was the ways in which we can select our judiciary so as to assure that they remain fully independent of the executive and the legislature.

We seem to be avoiding almost any and all topics with a bit of meat in them.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/21/2023 3:08:38 PM
Quote:
Quote:
It seems that the bias of the Supreme Court and the selection process is of concern to many Americans. George


Oh boy, not sure I should go here, but the bias of Supreme Court Justice selections is of course biased, biased against the political hackery of liberalism/political activism attempting to write laws and/or alter them in the Supreme Court versus ensuring adherence, lawfully to laws already established which is the purpose of the Supreme Court.

This bias you mention George comes from left leaning media, news and political establishments hell bent on forcing the US republican government to bend over and take all that they wish to dish out; apologies if that is a crude explanation but, it's true. This quote clearly states the role of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.

The Supreme Court and its Chief and Associate Justices are entrenched for life if they so choose to stay that long; in many instances throughout US history, a justices' stay has been predicated on politics; see Ginsburg and how the left absolutely lost their minds when she bailed out on them, plus there are many other such "adjournments" of which I believe during the US Civil War there is a similar situation but I am going off what I believe versus what I know regarding that matter, or maybe what I think I know.
"various Acts of Congress have altered the number of seats on the Supreme Court, from a low of five to a high of 10. Shortly after the Civil War, the number of seats on the Court was fixed at nine. Today there is one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court."

When President Trump held office, the left, such as the Washington Post you cited were frothing at the mouth and brain, this is when the battle calls for increasing the size of associates started again but to do so in favor of the left. Anyone who believes that it was meant to be "fair and balanced" is not naive but is either a leftie or disingenuous, at best.

Personally for me, the phrase, "Constitutional Judge" rings loud, clear and appropriate; naturally it is another mater if that judge or judges actually adhere to the principals of such but, the application of a "Living Constitutional Judge" allows for manipulation of the law to fit a political agenda. IMHO, this is winging it and that must be avoided at all costs as the example of winging it we see nearly everyday in the House and Senate; and that demonstrates the strength of the Supreme Court and American Republicanism, no one branch has or can have absolute authority.

The wax and wane of associates on the court pleases then displeases, much like the US Presidency but unlike the Representatives and Senators in the House. The Supreme Court works well, so long as the associates ensure the law is adhered to while avoiding or altering law while ensuring written/enacted laws, etc., do not violate laws already in place or the rights of.


Dan




Dan, I read your response with interest, especially the part about the function of the Supreme Court (I put it in bold letter). I don't understand how something like the abortion laws comes under their gaze. And no, I do not wish to get into a discussion of abortion rights, only why the SC would take up and examine a law like Roe v Wade which seems address a health care issue to me. Why wouldn't the court simply refuse to hear it?

Why are the members of your SC so high profile? We have a Supreme Court too. It has made many important decisions especially since the patriation of the constitution but I daresay that many Canadians would be hard pressed to name one of the justices on the court. I think that the reason is that the selection process is low key, seems thorough and fair and most importantly the process is at arm's length from the executive and the legislature, albeit the PM does make the final decision. Left or right, conservative or liberal, these are not considerations in our selection process. We presume middle of the road judgements by our justices.

Cheers,


OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1892
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/22/2023 7:25:44 AM
"Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue). The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case.

Supreme Court Procedures | United States Courts" https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/22/2023 7:28:51 AM
Thank you, OP. So the court decided to pick up the R v W case.

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/22/2023 8:14:08 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Wow sorry I put that Supreme Court topic in this thread. It can lead to one sided politics which leads to divisiveness. Of one side or the other?

Just let it go,

Peace,
MD.



That's rather sad, MD. I simple discussion of the selection process should not be overly contentious. I understand Dan's concerns but that is not what I wanted to address. My focus was the ways in which we can select our judiciary so as to assure that they remain fully independent of the executive and the legislature.

We seem to be avoiding almost any and all topics with a bit of meat in them.

Cheers,

George




George,

I guess it's ok to discuss if everyone stays objective without slinging mud at the other side? Only talking about the workings of the Supreme Court, that would be ok!

I'm just not sure that's possible??

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: 13377
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/22/2023 12:59:31 PM
Quote:
1776 Nathan Hale a US officer executed by the British! He said I only regret that I have only 1 life to give to my country! He then became an immortal hero to the US cause! Why did the Brits kill such a brave man? Anyone??


It's the price that a soldier pays when he goes behind enemy lines out of uniform, with the intent to destroy and to spy. Some US historians suggest that Hale may have been a more competent spy than is often reported. He was only 21 when he died but had apparently carried out other espionage missions at the request of George Washington.

I often credit the propaganda organization with the rebels as being particularly brilliant. The story of Nathan Hale is a good example of the need to create heroes when involved in a war. The propagandists were particularly efficient at the portrayal of the British as fiends. Even the execution of Hale is given as an example of heinous behaviour.

There is some debate as to whether Hale ever uttered those famous last words before he was hung. The story of his last moments was reported years later by his good friend, Capt. William Hull, who claims to have had a meeting under a flag of truce with a British officer who was present at the hanging. The words are not original and appear to have been taken from the script of a play called Cato. On the other hand, is there any reason to doubt that a young, former school teacher like Hale would perhaps be able to quote verbatim from the theatre?

Other reports suggest that Hale expressed regret to a British officer that he had not fulfilled his mission and failed to report his findings to his commander in chief.

An interesting and short article that explores the myths associated with Nathan Hale. It is from the Connecticut Magazine.

[Read More]

Finally we acknowledge that espionage was an important part of the revolutionary war. One British officer said that while both sides were spying, the rebels were particularly good at it.

Quote:
“Washington did not really outfight the British. He simply out-spied us.”
. I don't know the name of the British officer.


Both sides executed the spies of the other. Had the British prevailed perhaps we would be extolling the bravery of people like Major John André, the head of British intelligence and the man who was assisting the great loyalist Benedict Arnold in his attempt to right his wrongs committed earlier in the war.

André was hung by Washington perhaps in retribution for the hanging of Nathan Hale.


Perhaps Thomas Hickey would have been lauded for his efforts on the part of the British. He was a Continental army soldier who later plotted to have Washington killed. The plot was uncovered and Hickey was found guilty of treason and hung two days after his court martial where he was tried. He was also guilty of accepting money from the British for various acts in their support.

The victors claim the right to construct the narrative.

Cheers,

George











DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1457
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
9/22/2023 5:49:42 PM
Quote:
Dan, I read your response with interest, especially the part about the function of the Supreme Court (I put it in bold letter). I don't understand how something like the abortion laws comes under their gaze. And no, I do not wish to get into a discussion of abortion rights, only why the SC would take up and examine a law like Roe v Wade which seems address a health care issue to me. Why wouldn't the court simply refuse to hear it?

Why are the members of your SC so high profile? We have a Supreme Court too. It has made many important decisions especially since the patriation of the constitution but I daresay that many Canadians would be hard pressed to name one of the justices on the court. I think that the reason is that the selection process is low key, seems thorough and fair and most importantly the process is at arm's length from the executive and the legislature, albeit the PM does make the final decision. Left or right, conservative or liberal, these are not considerations in our selection process. We presume middle of the road judgements by our justices.

Cheers,






Hi George. The high profile of SC justices is due to the 25-hour, 8-day a week spectacle the US media makes of itself. Speaking engagements, while not new enhance the visibility of justices, more so now with the gluttony of media sources available to the average person (TV, radio, internet, etc.). I cannot speak to the abortion issue other than, if it is a law matter, regardless if it is health or not, if they so decide and it appears before the court the justices have the option to review and rule on the law.

While Canada may, "presume middle of the road judgements by our justices", I suspect many US citizens wish for the same however the reality of politics, even in the courts prevails.

Dan

----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2023 8:48:11 AM
Thanks Dan. I am aware of the higher profile that US Supreme Court judges carry as compared to those in Canada. But our news people could and would cover the individuals in our SC if the justices were newsworthy. When major decisions are made, it is the decision that is covered and not so much the way that each individual judge voted.

So there is something different in your country with respect to SC issues. Here is what I have noticed over the years. Your two major political parties are much more closely aligned with conservatism or liberalism. There doesn't seem to be room for centrist or moderate viewpoints. The system that the US uses to vet and select SC judges seems to rely too much on the opinion of the ruling party and indeed, the President in power. The candidates for SC judges become more notable for their ideological bent than for their legal acumen and experience. And that makes them newsworthy.

I don't know whether Americans even want a reform of the SC. There is talk of increasing the number of judges but it would be wonderful if the selection process didn't eliminate quality candidates because they aren't sufficiently conservative or liberal enough for the ruling party. I am aware that the President nominates and the Senate confirms. That's constitutional. Would there ever be any appetite for allowing an arm's length committee to vet candidates based upon criteria that have less to do with ideology and then presenting that list to the President, from which he must make a selection for nomination? Am I correct in my belief that it is often senators from the President's party that make recommendations to the President for nominees?

If I understand your history, the Supreme Court was designed and preferred to be apolitical. It seems that judicial independence is no longer possible.

Cheers,

George
DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1457
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
9/23/2023 1:11:40 PM
Regarding the question of vetting based on a criteria less to do with ideology. IMO, activism within the courts is unprecedented in US history, this limits the ability to select candidates based on qualifications of adhering to the law as written versus candidate activism. Of course, this can go either way, left/right, but the growth of law activism began to sink its teeth into the courts beginning in the 1960's. It took time to establish activism within the courts throughout the 60's, 70', 80's and on but these decades allowed for it to expand upward and strengthen itself in the lower levels percolating into the law schools. As time moved on, activism hit the SC, and the battle was on hyped by the access of media.

I truly wish all courts would adhere to the laws as written but, recently in House hearings Senators Kennedy of Louisiana and Cruz of Texas raked over the hot coals candidates whose court work history reads as an utter failure of their ability to uphold the law and yet there they are looking to advance their careers further up the legal system. How do we get to a point where this ceases and judges and lawyers abide by the law rather than tweaking it to meet their individual and their sponsors' agendas? Well, I wish I had that answer other than, all applicants, within the SC must have a record clearly demonstrating they are constitutional judges. It’s the only response I can come up with and one I suspect many would attack.

Matters have gone rouge now days within the courts (see LA District Attorney Gascon as but one example) but when you have outside sources working to undermine "the system" (George Soros yet another one example) its rather difficult to have a system that is dependable, consistent, and untouched. The US Supreme Court is now affected by this externally from activist politicians and the selection process itself as well as internally with recent selections of new justices. Some would say the right is holding back the left, while the left is being undermined by the right. Adding more justices does nothing other than establishing an opportunity of lifetime employment.

Dan
----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3293
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2023 11:37:47 AM
It would be a great deal better if our Supreme Court was filled by Justices who would just allow the US Constitution to speak for itself, in matters where it is hard to determine, just research what the intention at the time the thing was written and debated and ratified was. Unfortunately, we entered into an era where decisions were not based upon the various amendments and what they said, but what people "wanted" them to have said. That makes it political. The document itself is apolitical....that is why we should have held to it.

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: 13377
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2023 11:57:16 AM
Hello Morris, is the document sufficiently comprehensive to allow judgements on issues that the founders could not have foreseen? You have only made 27 amendments since the adoption of the constitution. I hope that that is correct. But the amendment process is rigorous.

Off the top of my head, isn't it time to establish equality by permitting naturalized citizens to become President?

How effective is the constitution in dealing with privacy issues and the spread of disinformation? Protection from government surveillance? Protection from identity theft?

So I sympathize with the SC judges. There is a lot on their plate but does the constitution as beautifully written as it was, provide a template for assessing laws surrounding modern issues.

Cheers,

George

OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1892
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2023 5:18:58 PM
The naturalized v. natural born issue was to prevent Europeans from coming over here and "buying the office." Of course these days some folks have other non-citizens they worry over.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2023 6:20:46 PM


Today In World History for 9-25 in history,

1960 1st Nuclear power sub, the USS Nautileus is launched! Does she still serve? Anyone on her history??

2015 thousands of pilgrims died in Mecca! How could this possibly happen in a religious place!? Anyone??

Checking 9-26, in history a couple of events are?

1580 Sir Francis Drake completes his circumnavigation of the world! Was he a Pirate, British Admiral, A Knight? Or what?? What say you??

1815 Prussia, Russia, & Austria form the Holy Alliance! What was it's effect on Europe?? How did the Brits view them?? Anyone?

Regards,
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: 1892
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2023 6:30:36 PM
"1960 1st Nuclear power sub, the USS Nautilus is launched! Does she still serve? Anyone on her history??"

Adm. Hyman D. Rickover created the US nuclear submarine program. It's probably more valuable to research him than the sub. The Nautilus Museum is worth a detour, of course. https://ussnautilus.org/

Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2023 6:31:52 PM
More events at the end of September, comments??

9-27

1066 William & the Normans invade England, this will change England substantially!? Comments?

1918 the Allies attack the Hindenburg line, what effect on WWI will it have!? Anyone?

9-28,

1542 Juan Cabrillo, discovers California for Spain! I thought the natives had already settled it!? What say you?

1781 the Americans, & French are about to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown! Could they the Patriots have won without the aid of the French? 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: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/24/2023 6:34:24 PM
Quote:
"1960 1st Nuclear power sub, the USS Nautilus is launched! Does she still serve? Anyone on her history??"

Adm. Hyman D. Rickover created the US nuclear submarine program. It's probably more valuable to research him than the sub. The Nautilus Museum is worth a detour, of course. [Read More]



Thanks OP!
----------------------------------
"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: 6386
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2023 4:40:12 AM
1915 : An awful day of battle in France, entailing an unimaginable intensity, scale and loss of life to match.

In the northern sector of a mighty Allied offensive, in the region of Artois, the British attacked around a dismal colliery town called Loos. The French committed their troops at Vimy Ridge a bit to the South.

The biggest fight of all was the French attack in the Champagne province, which was a truly mighty business.

I’m confident that, in terms of loss of life, this is a contender for the worst day in modern military history.

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: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/25/2023 9:25:51 PM
Hi Phil,

If I'm correct the Battle of Loos, was the 1st time the British used poison gas! In the World Wars you always think of the British as ethical fighter!? I guess if your enemies the Germans use it, it's only fair that you do too?? BTW was poison gas used in WWII??

Thanks,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/26/2023 8:11:51 AM
Oops didn't see that George moved this Loos topic to it's own thread & basically asked the same question!?
----------------------------------
"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: 6386
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/26/2023 9:12:54 AM
Forgive me for failing to answer your question faster, Dave.

As far as I’m aware, poison gas was not used on any battlefield in Europe in WW2. Troops did carry gas masks, though, because while gas wasn’t unleashed against the enemy, there was always a fear that it might be, and there were stores of gas stockpiled ready for use. Indeed- and here I conjure up a story from memory which might be false - there was an American ship carrying a large cargo of mustard gas moored quite close to the beachhead at Anzio. The Royal Navy escorted this ship, and an accident occurred which resulted in this gas being released, and some of the British sailors suffered horrible blisters and burns as a result. About forty years later, one of these victims took legal action against either the British or the US government, and the extent of his injuries were made public. There had been a complete shut down of news of this incident, with offical secrecy laws preventing disclosure . The public outcry was significant, not just on account of the episode itself, but more so as a result of the cover up.

I think that the Japanese unleashed poison gas and even plague bacillus against Chinese populations, and I’ve read that the Soviets used it against Japanese soldiers when they were mopping up resistance in Manchuria in August and September 1945.

At Loos, in WW1, the British sought to retaliate for the German use of Chlorine four months earlier, and I’ve also read some harrowing accounts of the use of flamethrowers, too, in retaliation for the Germans unleashing that weapon against British soldiers near Ypres in July 1915.

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
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1892
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/26/2023 12:21:06 PM
I concur with the Anzio explosion.
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/26/2023 7:45:12 PM
Phil, not heard of the Anzio indicent, to be honest. To have you state it and OP support it means I must have missed the event somehow.

I am aware of an incident at Bari, Italy, I believe in early December 1943. The Luftwaffe attacked the harbour (being used by the US at the time), causing significant ship loss (17 vessels sunk) and an undefined number of US Navy and other casualties, including civilians. One of the Liberty Ships being unloaded was carrying a substantial number of bombs filled with a derivative of mustard gas; this was SOP for USAAC a/c commands, to be used only should Germany begin to use such weapons.

The cargo was secret, which led to led to some mistreatment of those affected, and once the existence of the toxic substance the event was covered up.
[Read More]

To my knowledge, German forces never used chemical (or biological) weapons in battle. Nor did the Allies, TMK.

Sadly, my understanding of Japanese use of such weapons is much fuzzier. They had a large research and testing facility, and I have to assume they used some in certain circumstances, but I don’t know if such circumstances were military. The Japanese War Crimes list of offences included he use of biological and chemical devices in contravention of certain War Conventions, but I have no recollection of the rulings of the Tribunal. And – yes, this might be a step too far – it may be that a defeated aggressor nation whose war techniques are repulsive to the winners, and whose nation had been indiscriminately fire-bombed for months, and who had suffered to atomic bomb attacks, had better be demonstrated to be utterly evil in every way, lest rational folk think the Japanese may be more sinned against than sinning.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1892
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/26/2023 9:49:03 PM
Oops, I'm leaning toward Bari myself now. BRB.
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1892
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
9/26/2023 9:49:53 PM
Yep, Bari. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/n/naval-armed-guard-service-in-world-war-ii/naval-armed-guard-at-bari-italy.html
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/27/2023 8:07:26 AM

Yesterday 9-26, in history a couple of events are?

1580 Sir Francis Drake completes his circumnavigation of the world! Was he a Pirate, British Admiral, A Knight? Or what?? What say you??

1815 Prussia, Russia, & Austria form the Holy Alliance! What was it's effect on Europe?? How did the Brits view them?? Anyone?

9-27

Today in World History, the Battle of Hastings, 1066 William & the Normans invade England, this will change England substantially!? What say you? Comments?

1918 the Allies attack the Hindenburg line, who carry the day? & what effect on WWI will it have!? Anyone?

& Tomorrow, 9-28,

1542 Juan Cabrillo, discovers California for Spain! I thought the natives had already settled it!? What say you?

1781 the Americans, & French are about to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown! Could they the Patriots have won without the aid of the French? Or would they have won anyway? Comments, What say you??

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/27/2023 3:11:28 PM
Quote:
1918 the Allies attack the Hindenburg line, who carry the day? & what effect on WWI will it have!? Anyone?


Sept. 29 refers to an attack on one part of the Hindenburg Line. In this case, I believe that it refers to the British operation in the St. Quentin Canal area with the Australians highlighted for their dash. Two American divisions were involved in the initial attack and they fought with great zeal if not always with great skill, but their inexperience showed and they became disjointed in the foggy conditions. Many men paid the price as they lost their lives in the confusion. Despite that the US 30th division did manage to cross the St. Quentin Canal

Australian General Monash who was in command of this operation sent his Australians forward to revitalize the attack. On their flanks were British Corps. The Australians passed through the Americans and captured Bellicourt.

British artillery hammered the German positions by firing nearly one million shells.

I believe that the attack actually began on Sept. 18 with a breach taking place on Sept. 29. Multiple lines (within the whole Hindenburg Line) had to be taken. The final line was breached on Oct. 5.

Quote:
Australian, British, French and American forces participated in the attack on the line, which began with a three-day bombardment, using 1,637 guns along a 10,000-yard-long front (in the last 24 hours alone, the British artillery fired almost a million shells). After first capturing the St. Quentin Canal, the Allies successfully breached the Hindenburg Line on September 29.


An Australian map




However, this was not the first breach of the Hindenburg Line. This line was over 100 km long. It featured multiple layers of defensive lines and fortifications. The Germans had prepared it in 1916.



You can see St. Quentin just below the large red arrow with the words Hindenburg Line written inside the arrow. The Sept. 29 breach was here.

Toward the very top you can pick out the name Drocourt. This was about the position of the Drocourt-Quéant Switch or Line which was the northernmost hinge of the Hindenburg Line. The D-Q Line was breached on Sept. 2 and 3 by British forces led by two Canadian Divisions of the Canadian Corps. The cost to the Canadians alone was 5,622 killed or wounded on Sept. 2. Seven Victoria Crosses were won by Canadians on Sept. 2.

We must remember that while there were successful breaches, the Germans still held large portions of the Hindenburg Line. They were in retreat but giving up some sections reluctantly and with stout defence. So many losses were taken in the final 100 Days of this war.

Cheers,

George
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/27/2023 5:46:00 PM
Quote:
Today [Sept 27] in World History, the Battle of Hastings, 1066 William & the Normans invade England, this will change England substantially!? What say you? Comments?

Roughly correct. IIRC, the Normans sailed on Sept 27, landed in England on Sept 28, but didn’t meet Harold’s army near Hastings until Oct 14.

That William and his army (4,000 - 7,000 strong) were able to sail at such a late date was lucky on two counts. I believe William’s supporters – in it for the potential loot – were growing impatient and their assembled troops somewhat restless. And that a southern wind of such power and duration should spring up, was against all expectations at the time. Hell, even Hitler “postponed” his invasion of Britain in mid-September because of worsening Channel weather.

The army that William landed was also – IIRC – in effect stranded in England. There was no way to lift troops or horses off the shore if they were routed; there was no supply chain from Normandy.

The defeat at Hastings routed Harold’s army that the way was open for William to secure his victory and move on London, where he was crowed (William I) on Christmas Day. But the English didn’t just roll over and play dead. He would be challenged by various English nobles in the West, in Wales and at other locations to the north and east. It wasn’t until 1071 that the country was considered under full Norman control and William could catlogue his new wealth (see Domesday Book).

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: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/28/2023 8:39:32 AM
Hi Brian,

So in actuality a army of Frenchmen, (Normans,) led by William I, the Conqueror! took over England!? Is there still areas where there is a French accent?? This can't sit well with many Englishmen?? The Normans were in your post motivated to win, because of the Channel, there was no way back? Is that right??

Thanks, & 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: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/28/2023 8:45:36 AM

9-27 yesterday,

1066 William & the Normans invade England, this will change England substantially!? Thanks Brian on your concise reply!

1918 the Allies attack the Hindenburg line, what effect on WWI will it have!? Thanks George on your great reply, & maps!

9-28, today in history! Not yet commented on!?

1542 Juan Cabrillo, discovers California for Spain! I thought the natives had already settled it!? What say you?

1781 the Americans, & French are about to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown! Could they the Patriots have won without the aid of the French? 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: 13377
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/28/2023 1:41:40 PM
Quote:
1781 the Americans, & French are about to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown! Could they the Patriots have won without the aid of the French? Comments, anyone??


The rebels owed a great debt of gratitude to Rochambeau's army and the French fleet under Admiral De Grasse. The British were boxed in with French and rebel forces on the land side and the French fleet preventing any rescue mission by the RN on the sea side. When the RN tried to force its way into Chesapeake Bay they were defeated by the French fleet. There would be no rescue for the British troops under siege.

The French were keeping the British busy in other parts of the world. This diverted resources from the conflict in the 13 colonies.

As well, France had been providing financial support and shipped a lot of arms and gunpowder to the rebel forces.

At Yorktown the British army under Cornwallis consisted of no more than 9000 men made up of regulars, Hessians and Loyalist regiments. It is my understanding that about 8,000 Continental Army troops marched from New York to Yorktown. This group was comprised of 4000 French troops and 3000 Continental soldiers. There they joined another 12,000 already at the site comprised of militia, French troops and Continental troops. In the end, it was about 19,000 against 9000.

The French troops captured a key redoubt and their artillery pounded the British positions. I don't think that a victory was possible without the presence of the French.

Perhaps a more important question is whether a British victory at Yorktown would have ended the rebellion. I suspect not but those more familiar with this conflict than I should weigh in to tell me whether my guess is accurate.

Of note, the French fleet departed Yorktown and headed to the Caribbean preparing to pick the bones of the British and to take their property. But the RN was not finished and they dispatched a fleet of 34 ships to meet 30 French ships. They did so in a naval battle called the Battle of the Saintes which took place about 6 months after the defeat at Yorktown. And the French were soundly defeated, losing seven vessels. Their commander was Admiral De Grasse, the same man who had defeated the RN at the Battle of the Chesapeake to ensure the French/Continental victory. De Grasse was taken prisoner. The British lost no ships but 1000 men died in the battle. The French lost seven and had several others damaged. 5000 men died. At least four warships were captured.

With that the French and rebel alliance was greatly weakened. The British had established their position as the most powerful navy on the oceans. They ended the threat to Jamaica and other British possessions.

The French losses could not be replaced. France's economy was in a bad way and while they wanted to rebuild it could not be effected without imposing more taxes on the people. The roots of discontent in France were partially caused by this disastrous defeat.

The Americans heard word of the French defeat and immediately realized that they could not count on French support any longer. The Continental forces had set their sights on the relief of Charleston but without French support, it would have been impossible so the plan was abandoned.

During negotiations the Americans had to soften their stance while the British stiffened theirs. The Americans had designs on obtaining Canada and the Newfoundland fisheries. The British said absolutely not and the Americans abandoned that goal.

France and the US were not supposed to make separate peace treaties with Britain but the French defeat at the Battle of the Saintes forced the US to abandon that agreement. France was desperate for a peace treaty and chose not to support its ally, Spain, in its quest for the cession of Gibraltar from the British. France needed a peace and signed one as well.

The British lost the 13 colonies to be sure but it could have been much worse and the defeat of the French off the island of Dominique had a lot to do with reducing the damage done.

Cheers,

George

Lightning
Glasgow  UK
Posts: 1042
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
9/28/2023 3:02:18 PM
Hi Dave,

The Normans didn’t replace the Saxons / English outright; they simply removed much of their existing power structure and replaced it with Norman feudal overlords. If there were French accents, they were gone within a few generations as the two cultures merged into what we recognise as Middle Ages England.

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."
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/28/2023 7:27:05 PM
The role of French in England post-conquest is, as you know, rather complex. There was no single English language, but rather a number of dialects which were often virtually unintelligible to each other; why would conquerors adopt them over their own native tongue? It became the language of courts (meaning social courts established by feudal lords, not courts of law), and with the adjunct of the literary concept of “courtly love”, would exert power on the development of English as a language and as a literature. “Courtly love” would give birth to what is now called “The Matter of Britain”, a literary tradition which would infuse English writing from “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” to Mallory’s “Morte d’Arthur”, and would have some influence on early historical chronicles of England (think Geoffrey of Monmouth and the rise of the Arthurian Legend, e.g.).

But as Colin points out, at least four varieties of English survived and – if they adapted to the continued existence of French – slowly reasserted themselves. By the late 1300s, e.g., Chaucer was using the use of certain dialects of French to poke at pretensions of the elite. The Prioress, during the preamble to the Canterbury Tales, is one obvious target. I don’t’ have a copy in front of me, but Chaucer’s rather biting comment reads something like this (with apologies to Chaucer):
She spoke the French of Stratford-atta-Bowe
For French of Paris was to her unknowe.


Chaucer’s work would have been read aloud as entertainment, particularly at John of Gaunt’s court. England was literate, but not yet bookish. This “dig” at the Prioress would not have been missed. I sense, to use another, later comment capturing what Chaucer was suggesting, hearers would hear that the Prioress was “mutton dressed up as lamb”.

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: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/29/2023 12:56:25 PM
Hey today September 29, is also National Coffee Day, & October 1, is International Coffee Day! Score a free or discounted cup at your favorite coffee place!? BTW how do you like your Java??

Checking 9-29 Today in World History!

1906 the US occupies Cuba, if they the US, were so imperialistic, why did they give it back right away to the Cubans?? What say you?

1961 Julia Gilliard becomes Australia's.1 st female Prime minister! Which country leads in promoting females as leaders?? Comments?

9-30 in history,

1895 the French occupy Madagascar! How, & Why??

1927 Babe Ruth hits 60 homers, last year, yesterday Aaron Judge hit #61, how has drugs played a part in baseball power #s??

1949 Berlin Airlift succeeds in stopping the Berlin blockade! How did they do it?? Anyone?

1954 the US Nautilaus is the 1st Atomic Powered Sub! How many Nuclear Subs now?.& what countries have the most? Any websites on it???

Seize the day!
MD

1938 Neville Chamberlain. Holds peace agreement, saying we have peace in our time! With Hitler, how could he be so wrong!??

Also thanks Colin, & Brian for clearing up the Normans taking over England!?
----------------------------------
"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: 13377
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
9/29/2023 2:15:45 PM
Quote:
1906 the US occupies Cuba, if they the US, were so imperialistic, why did they give it back right away to the Cubans?? What say you?


It all depends upon how we define, "giving it back right away". Cuba was seized as one of the spoils of war as the US defeated Spain and acquired many of their territories. US troops occupied Cuba and left in 1902.

But Cuba was still under the thumb of the US government. In 1901 the US Congress passed the Platt Amendment as part of the Army Appropriations Bill. It consisted of seven demands of Cuba and should they meet those demands, the US would remove its troops. The 8th article demanded that Cuba sign a treaty that acknowledges that they accept the first seven.

Senator Platt from Connecticut was also a proponent of the annexation of Hawaii and the occupation of the Philippines. Sounds a little imperialistic to me.

Essentially, Cuba sacrificed autonomy and sovereignty just so that they could get foreign (US) troops off the island. The Platt Amendment imposed US interference in both the domestic and foreign policies of Cuba.

Partial text of Platt Amendment:

Quote:

"I.-That the government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba nor in any manner authorize or permit any foreign power or powers to obtain by colonization or for military or naval purposes or otherwise, lodgement in or control over any portion of said island."

"II. That said government shall not assume or contract any public debt, to pay the interest upon which, and to make reasonable sinking fund provision for the ultimate discharge of which, the ordinary revenues of the island, after defraying the current expenses of government shall be inadequate."

"III. That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the government of Cuba."

"IV. That all Acts of the United States in Cuba during its military occupancy thereof are ratified and validated, and all lawful rights acquired thereunder shall be maintained and protected."

"V. That the government of Cuba will execute, and as far as necessary extend, the plans already devised or other plans to be mutually agreed upon, for the sanitation of the cities of the island, to the end that a recurrence of epidemic and infectious diseases may be prevented, thereby assuring protection to the people and commerce of Cuba, as well as to the commerce of the southern ports of the United States and the people residing therein."

"VI. That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty."

"VII. That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points to be agreed upon with the President of the United States."

"VIII. That by way of further assurance the government of Cuba will embody the foregoing provisions in a permanent treaty with the United States."


It seems to be that Cuba was nothing more than a vassal state to the US. Control was imposed by treaty without the need to maintain a military garrison on the island.

We should ask how many times the US exercised its right under the Platt Amendment to send troops to Cuba.

In 1903 the US and Cuba ratified another agreement:

Quote:
The U.S.-Cuba Reciprocal Commercial Convention, signed in December, concedes a 20 percent reduction to Cuban agricultural products entering the U.S. market in exchange for reductions between 20 to 40 percent on U.S. imports to Cuba.


That suggests to me that Cuba could not exact larger customs duties on US products in exchange for selling most of their agricultural products (read sugar) to the US.

US troops were sent back to Cuba from 1906-1909 when the Cuban President resigned. The US established a provisional government under a US governor.

In 1912 US troops returned to help put down an uprising of Afro-Cuban workers who felt that they were being abused. The US managed to obtain the rights to Guantanamo at the same time.

There is more. It's all part of the historical record but I think it is fair to say that the US never really relinquished control of Cuba fully. That may partly explain the enmity toward Cuba today after they rebelled and seized control under Castro.


Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4720
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
9/29/2023 7:11:10 PM
MD, you ask: Quote:
1938 Neville Chamberlain. Holds peace agreement, saying we have peace in our time! With Hitler, how could he be so wrong!??

May I redirect members to the current thread (“Czechoslovakia 1938”, started by Vince Patrick) in the WW2 forum? The thread is in danger of going two ways, but has some interesting insights.

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: 8089
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
9/29/2023 7:22:48 PM
Thanks Brian,

That thread is in much depth, with great informed posts!?

I'll check it out!
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Page 91 of 103 (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 )

© 2023 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC