today in military history (annotated)

[Fritz]

Died

1916 Helmuth "the Younger" Moltke, German chief the general of staff, dies
v. Moltke the younger gets a bad rep for tinkering with the v. Schlieffen plan, causing the Imperial Germans to fail in their 1914 coup de main bid for France. My feeling is this is overstated, because the v. Schlieffen plan did need some modification, and a victory like one the germans would see in 1940 was hardly assured. I attribute the bad reputation to the German's need to find scapegoats in the 20's and 30's and to the over zealous teachings of the schwerpunkt principle of war that emerged with "blitz" style warfare.

1974 Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgi Zhukov, dies at 78
On of the great generals of ww2. The amazing thing is he managed to keep alive 1974. Those soviet military leaders seemed to have short lives.


Event
1812 War of 1812: US declares war against Britain
This underappricated war was very important to the development of our country. [added] It is fair to call this our first American War, one where we drove home the point that the United States of America was its own nation and had interests that would be defended. The Treaty of Ghent (1814) ended the war and settled many of the property and navigation issues with the Crown. A curiosity in the ToG is the tenth article. This little bit states that "the Traffic in Slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and Justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object. "


1815 Battle of Waterloo: Napoleon defeated by Wellington & Blucher
And with this, France was doomed to 150 years of weak leadership. Perhaps one of our resident frogs has a different opinion.

1900 Empress Tsu-tse orders the Boxers to expell all foreigners from China
This is an important event in American history. US forces, along with members of the European delegations, put down the rebellion and secured their national interests. This was a critical step in foreign policy relative to Europe and Asia. Some would point to this on the heels of the Spanish American War as the start of American imperialism. Although our war with Spain was very important because of the territories we aquired (like the Phillipines), the policy was still based on the Monroe Doctrine (regional hegemony). China was a new direction in foreign policy.

1942 Churchill in Washington for consultations with President Roosevelt.
Too bad Winnie was not more persuasive with our socialist president.

1973 Frederick Fraske, last veteran of the Indian Wars, dies at 101
This is more a triva note than anything else. It gets me thinking that our ww1 vets should be almost all gone now (If you figure that a 17 year old in 1917 would be around 102 now.)

[Anrhydeddu]

Very nice, I love the annotated comments.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Very nice, I love the annotated comments.

I wish my writing skills were better (like yours or Quiks).

[WSUCougar]

A few interesting tid-bits from the War of 1812:

* The British invaded, burned parts of our nation's capital, and basically kicked American hiney on land - fortunately they were stopped at Fort McHenry (Baltimore)

* Buoyed by a superior 44-gun frigate design, we kicked some British hiney in numerous warship duels.

* The U.S. invaded Canada, quite unsuccessfully - our naval efforts on Lake Erie saved us from futher humiliations up north

* Andrew Jackson tagged the British (whose army included veterans from the Napoleonic wars) with a devastating loss at the Battle of New Orleans. Ironically this occurred after the aforementioned Treaty of Ghent was signed across the Atlantic.

[sachmo71]

Wasn't the Battle of Quebec in the War of 1812. If that had gone differently, I wonder what the country would look like today.

[Anrhydeddu]

Not sure, I know there was a huge one during the French and Indian War.

[Anrhydeddu]

Fritz/Sach/WSUCougar, I have just started reading "Battle of Wits", all about codebreaking in WW2. I had always wanted to find out more about these crucial battles that went on behind the scenes and I was motivated after seeing the enigma, jn-25 and other machines at the Smithsonian last week.

[sachmo71]

Looks like the Battle of Quebec was in 1775, making it a battle either very, very early in the War of 1812, or a battle in the American Revolution. GB the inter-net.

[WSUCougar]

Yeah, the Battle of Quebec was 1759 (French vs. Brits).

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Fritz/Sach, I have just started reading "Battle of Wits", all about codebreaking in WW2. I had always wanted to find out more about these crucial battles that went on behind the scenes and I was motivated after seeing the enigma, jn-25 and other machines at the Smithsonian last week.

Dola...

Let me know how you like it, Buc. I've always been interested in the intelligence war, but the few books that I've tried to read that were exclusive to the subject were pretty dry, and I lost interest. I would love to find one that reads well.

[WSUCougar]

I guess I'm excluded from the codebreaking book discussion, since I was not named...

[sachmo71]

Why would anyone exclude the great Cougar from anything? Discuss! Discuss!

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Fritz/Sach, I have just started reading "Battle of Wits", all about codebreaking in WW2. I had always wanted to find out more about these crucial battles that went on behind the scenes and I was motivated after seeing the enigma, jn-25 and other machines at the Smithsonian last week.

The codebreaking stuff has been declassified in the last 25 years. This is important because much of the written history was done before 1980 and does not take this facet into account. One historian said that you could take (almost) everything written between 1945 and 1980 and throw it in a big trash can.

[Anrhydeddu]

I had thought it was only since 1995?

Coug, sorry my friend, I'll revise.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I had thought it was only since 1995?

obviously the govt has not declassified everything at once. My understanding is that the first big wave happened in the late 70s. before then people didn't really have access to the intell information.

I do know that many items are kept sealed until a certain event is triggered. It could be time, or it could be the death of the people involved. I recall seeing that many intel items from ww2 were still classified because they delt with the Soviets and could impact current events.

[Anrhydeddu]

I know the NSA released a slew of stuff from WW2 in 1995 when it was pressured to release anything older than 50 years.

[tucker342]

The War of 1812 is a war we never study in school. What was the point of that war anyways?

[Anrhydeddu]

The War of 1812, the second war with Great Britain our country had within two generations, has been sort of pushed aside in our historic memories by other bigger wars. But Americans did serve and did die in the defense of their country in this war, so I think it's important that we remember it. There were two major causes of this war from the viewpoint of the United States. They were the impressment of seamen by England, and the riling up of the Indian tribes on our frontiers by British agents.

England took the stance that the seamen they dragged from American merchant vessels were deserters from their navy, who had left to accept the higher pay from American merchant shippers. They flat out denied agitating the Indians, without explaining why their troops were on our frontiers. Then to top off these acts England started to blockade all French ports (England and France were at war) and demanded that all ships (mainly American) stop at English ports to be searched. Any ships trying to run the blockade were sunk or confiscated by the British. This was seen to be an act of war by the "War Hawks" in Congress, and on June 18, 1812, Congress voted that war be declared against Great Britain.

With a standing army of only 7,000 men, the United States was not prepared to fight a war against a major power such as England. Even these 7,000 men were scattered about the frontiers.. The fighting started on the western ends of Lakes Erie and Ontario, and went bad for the Americans right away. The Americans at Detroit were under the command of aged General William Hull. He had been a dashing figure in the Revolution, but was now very old and quite timid. He was planning to hit the British Fort Malden across the river from Detroit, but dragged his feet too long, and the British attacked him first.

The British, under General Brock, fired a few cannon balls at the Americans and Hull gave the order to surrender. He was later court martialed for his actions and sentenced to death for "Cowardice and Neglect of Duty". Due to his loyal service in the Revolution, the sentence was never carried out and he was cashiered from the service. By August 16th the British held the whole territory North and West of the Ohio River by taking Fort Dearborn (present day Chicago) and Ft Michilimackinac as well as Detroit. Right after Detroit fell, the fighting moved to the New York/Canadian border.

American Regulars stormed across the Niagara River and took the Canadian town of Queenston from the British garrison on the 13th of October. They were to be re-inforced by New York Militia . The Militia refused to leave the State and the regulars were killed or captured when a superior force of British counter attacked. The British General Brock was killed in this engagement. The two American Generals Van Renesselaer and Smyth were both dropped from the U S Army roles for this debacle. Another case of soldiers dying due to poor leadership.

The only bright spot for America in this first year of the war was the Navy. They had five consecutive victories over the vaunted British Navy. They were: The Constitution under Capt.Isaac Hull taking the frigate HMS Guerriere, The Wasp under Capt Jacob Jones beating HMS Frolic, the United States under Capt.Stephen Decatur taking HMS Macedonian, The Constitution under Capt. Bainbridge, also sunk HMS Java, and the Hornet, under Capt. James Lawrence sunk HMS Peacock.

It was the same Capt. Lawrence that gave the Navy it's rallying cry of "Don't give up the ship" the following year as he lay dying of wounds. After this first disastrous year, President Madison realized that the Army needed new leadership,and training, and started to take steps to rectify the situation.

from http://www.grunts.net/wars/19thcentury/1812/introduction.html

The War of 1812 is a war we never study in school

That is sad.

[Fritz]

The war of 1812 was fought over boundries, territorial disputes, navigation, trade, and soverignty. In many ways, the war was fought to say "TAKE NOTE! WE ARE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND YOU WILL RESPECT US AND TREAT WITH DIGNITY AS A NATION!"

The revolution sperated us from the Crown, but did not settle many issues created by that speration. 1812 happened because of diplomatic failures in resolving those issues.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Damn, and I thought this was gonna include june 18th 1940 when General De Gaulle (then only a colonel I believe) adressed the French Nation on the BBC in London and told every french soldier and citizen to take up arms and resist against the german nazi occupation force.

I guess just a footnote in history for you guys.

[start of jokes on french military here]

[tucker342]

in school we study about four wars, Revolutionary(sp?) War, WW1, WW2 and Vietnam, we may talk about the other wars in class a little bit, but not very much...

[Fritz]

Originally posted by fantastic flying froggies
Damn, and I thought this was gonna include june 18th 1940 when General De Gaulle (then only a colonel I believe) adressed the French Nation on the BBC in London and told every french soldier and citizen to take up arms and resist against the german nazi occupation force.

I guess just a footnote in history for you guys.

[start of jokes on french military here]

Wasn't on my list, but if it had been I would have talked about De Gualle some.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by tucker342
in school we study about four wars, Revolutionary(sp?) War, WW1, WW2 and Vietnam, we may talk about the other wars in class a little bit, but not very much...

You skip the Civil War?

[Chief Rum]

I find it hard to believe you skipped the Civil War, tucker. If you did, tell your teacher he or she should be ashamed of themselves for glossing over it.

As for the War of 1812, I always thought that not only was it about the U.S. further establishing its sovereignty, it was also about Britain's desire to bring us back into the fold. I think in the entire 30 year period between the end of the revolutionary War and the War of 1812, England continued to believe it was only a matter of time before they came to dominate us again and take us back as a colony. So this was a little like a second War of Independence, although one degree removed, of course.

If I recall correctly, we Americans owe a debt to Napoleon. England's war with him kept them from focusing completely on us. After he was captured and sent to Elba (I believe that was the first island prison they sent him to), England began to turn more of its attention to us. I think continued attention would have been a bad thing--as much as our navy was holding its own, we were pretty damn miserable on land, and I think the war-trained redcoats would have kicked our asses royally (as indeed they did int he few engagements we had). At the very leat it would have been a very bloody and much more important war.

Fortunately for us, Napoleon escaped from Elba and returned to power, so England was forced to not only return their forces to Europe, but sue for peace with us. And, of course, there remains the possibility that Jackson's victory would have elevated him into the kind of inspired military leader we had in the Revolution (George Washington), which might have been bad news for the British. But the odds were still definitely against us.

Chief Rum

[wbonnell]

I'm truly not trying to stir up trouble. I have a question to ask, though, that's always bothered me- more so lately. What is it a military historian finds interesting about war? After all, surely the taking of another's life is despicable. Certainly, wars have been fought over just principles though not many. Does anyone truly believe that the war in Iraq was to free its people? If so, then the US has a dozen other countries right there in the same region who need the same liberation.

Sorry for the digression. So, as I was saying, war is occasionally necessary but never glorious. Men die for causes as contrived as political favor, terroritorial gain, wealth, or power mongering. And yet we glorify war. We talk about the slaughter of thousands of men as if the event is somehow noteworthy for its "tactical brilliance". I must say, I don't see the interest.

Now, that's not to say that war can't teach us a few things. We should learn that war is usually unnecessary and always tragic. We should remember war with heavy heart- not with a boner for the strategical genius? What kind of genius sends men to die while calling the shots from the rear?

[Anrhydeddu]

Throughout history, usually the alternative could be worse. It's hard to say, but war sometimes mean the end justify the means. We gained independence from a tyrannical monarchy through war, we destroyed a slave culture through war, we stopped the spread of an awful reich through war, etc. Besides, with sinful humankind, what else should you expect?

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Throughout history, usually the alternative could be worse. It's hard to say, but war sometimes mean the end justify the means. We gained independence from a tyrannical monarchy through war, we destroyed a slave culture through war, we stopped the spread of an awful reich through war, etc. Besides, with sinful humankind, what else should you expect?

But that doesn't answer my question. What is it about war that allows one to study it without dwelling on its evil?

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by wbonnell
But that doesn't answer my question. What is it about war that allows one to study it without dwelling on its evil?

Perspective.

CR

[ISiddiqui]

What is it a military historian finds interesting about war?

The same reason thousands play wargames on their computers and the same reason thousands more play real time strategy games. Because of strategy and tactics (respectively). It's a grand game of chess, only using humans and death... and it can be utterly facinating.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
Perspective.

CR

Yes, like I said that seems a legitimate reason. However, how does, say, a book of military weapons improve one's perspective?

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
The same reason thousands play wargames on their computers and the same reason thousands more play real time strategy games. Because of strategy and tactics (respectively). It's a grand game of chess, only using humans and death... and it can be utterly facinating.

Admittedly, wargames can be fun, but then we're talking about an abstract representation. Indeed, no lives are truly lost. But glorifying, reenacting, or trivializing real war feels wrong to me...

[Chief Rum]

Well, you asked about the study of wars from historical distance, not about the particular articles of war.

With regards to your specific example, I think Steve Buscemi said it best when he straddled a nuclear weapon in Armageddon: "I just wanna feel the power between my legs, brother!"

That's all about power. It does have its allure, like sex, money, and other vices. People tend to want to acquire power. Weapons give people power. Thus the fascination with weapons. This is particularly in intellectual manners, where the active decision to use a weapon isn't employed, but its use is merely studied, once again, from "afar" (perspective, of course).

I think you'll found that most of those who seem so interested in weapons would not actually use one on another human being without extremem provocation or a very loose moral code. Since our society makes it a point to weed out most of the latter, most of the rest of the world has comparatively less to be concerned about on this scale.

The study of wars, battles and even weapons is much more of an intellectual exercise.

Chief Rum

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Admittedly, wargames can be fun, but then we're talking about an abstract representation. Indeed, no lives are truly lost. But glorifying, reenacting, or trivializing real war feels wrong to me...

dola,

Humanity gets off on adrenaline, on excitement. This is a known biological fact--most people enjoy exciting experiences, and some even go to death-defying levels to achieve the ultimate nirvana of such excitement.

I think that exploring the subject of war is not only an intellectual exercise that improves the mind, it is also an alternative outlet from seeking more dangerous or harmful ways to meet the human need for excitement. And it also gives us perspective, so that we might be better prepared should the threat of war come upon us again--it teaches us survival instincts and, hopefully, it also teaches us that war is best avoided where possible.

If those who studied war or fantasized about it or played games about it or whatever were glorifying war for the purpose of glorifying war, then I would agree with you, that that is wrong. But as a side consequence of alleviating our need for excitement? I view the positive effects of that as outweighing the negative consequence of war glorification.

You also have to draw a line between where an act is entirely within the mind and where it becomes an actual act of war. Most of society knows where that line is, and what reasons might be acceptable for crossing it. Our society is set up to punish those who do otherwise.

Chief Rum

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
dola,

Humanity gets off on adrenaline, on excitement. This is a known biological fact--most people enjoy exciting experiences, and some even go to death-defying levels to achieve the ultimate nirvana of such excitement.

I think that exploring the subject of war is not only an intellectual exercise that improves the mind, it is also an alternative outlet from seeking more dangerous or harmful ways to meet the human need for excitement. And it also gives us perspective, so that we might be better prepared should the threat of war come upon us again--it teaches us survival instincts and, hopefully, it also teaches us that war is best avoided where possible.

If those who studied war or fantasized about it or played games about it or whatever were glorifying war for the purpose of glorifying war, then I would agree with you, that that is wrong. But as a side consequence of alleviating our need for excitement? I view the positive effects of that as outweighing the negative consequence of war glorification.

You also have to draw a line between where an act is entirely within the mind and where it becomes an actual act of war. Most of society knows where that line is, and what reasons might be acceptable for crossing it. Our society is set up to punish those who do otherwise.

Chief Rum

Modern humanity, anyway. We are in constant pursuit of greater and greater stimulation- instant gratification to be sure. Marriage, for instance, is now percieved as boring. It doesn't provide the short term excitement that dating does. Thus, divorce rates have spiraled. Books are no longer read. They have been replaced by reality television. Baseball is boring. Drugs are especially satisfying. And on and on. At what point is the pursuit of the next "adrenaline rush" deleteroius?

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by Chief Rum

That's all about power. It does have its allure, like sex, money, and other vices. People tend to want to acquire power. Weapons give people power. Thus the fascination with weapons. This is particularly in intellectual manners, where the active decision to use a weapon isn't employed, but its use is merely studied, once again, from "afar" (perspective, of course).

Do you imply that excessive interest in war is a vice?

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by wbonnell
Modern humanity, anyway. We are in constant pursuit of greater and greater stimulation- instant gratification to be sure. Marriage, for instance, is now percieved as boring. It doesn't provide the short term excitement that dating does. Thus, divorce rates have spiraled. Books are no longer read. They have been replaced by reality television. Baseball is boring. Drugs are especially satisfying. And on and on. At what point is the pursuit of the next "adrenaline rush" deleteroius?

Society sets guidelines all the time for this, and then reinvents them, even as society changes. I don't know at what point that line lies upon, except that as a society we set out to protect innocent members of our society whom are threatened by such excesses (and to punish those who cross that line). So long as the pursuit of excitement does not infringe upon the rights and quality of life of others, is there a line we shouldn't cross? Indeed, is there a line we can't cross? I don't know.

That line might not even be set by morality but by simple physicality. For instance, one of your examples is drugs. Well, overdosing would probably be a form of reaching the line where the excitement is too much for the body, at least metaphorically (in actually, of course, it is the buildup of toxins in your body and their effects that kill you in an overdose, not excessive excitement). The pursuit of that excitement led the overdosed person to, accidentally or intentionally, take a lethal dose of the drug he or she OD'd on.

Further shading the line is that excitement is relative. Like a drug, it loses its effects over time, except that in this case it is the life experiences of each individual person that act as the individual elements of that "drug". A never-leave-home-body who comes face to face with a scary looking bum might get more excitement out of the experience than a SWAT team leader who busts into a hostage situation gets from his experience, simply because of their relative levels of experience with excitement in that form.

As for interest in war being a vice, it is odd to think of it that way, but in the strictest sense of the word, it is. Essentially, every human behavior, good or bad, exists on a spectrum of behaviors which range from one extreme to the other. I may ogle a hot chick one day, and my behavior is somewhere on the lewdness scale. It may not be the nicest thing to do, but it's relatively harmless to anyone involved (as long as a big ass boyfriend doesn't notice). But further down that lewdness scale there might be the willingness to pay for sex and further beyond that could be horrible crimes like sexual assault or forcible rape. Close to the middle of the spectrum, you have the societally acceptable actions, and then as you move out to the extremes, you get to socially unacceptable behaviors (but still legal), and then beyond that you get to actual crimes, behavior that has been deemed to be harmful and deserving of punishment. Does my occasionally looking at a hot chick consititute a vice? I doubt I am any different than most other heterosexual males, but the answer is yes, to an extent. And it works int he opposite direction, too, toward prudeness and complete abstention or asexuality as well.

Heck, Mother Teresa's vice was caring for people. Funny way to put it, eh? But in the strictest sense it is true. She took a human behavior--albeit a very well received and regarded one--and took it to an extreme most others couldn't even imagine.

So, yeah, at some point, interest in war can be considered a vice, and int he strictest sense, any interest in war can be called a vice (but only the harshest of disciplinarians would likely say so).

Chief Rum