Part of the treaty Carter signed with Panama contains a stipulation that the
US government will not attempt to build a canal through Nicaragua. I am not
sure what time limit – if any – exists on that clause. So obviously a lot of
people have given thought to the idea. Maybe TRoosevelt couldn’t steal
Nicaragua “fair and square.”

>My apologies to Che’, if I have misspelt his name. 🙂
>
>Over on CONSIM-L, we are having a lively discussion about whether or
> not the Soviets were ever thinking about building the canal through
> Nicaragua (eventually) and the strategic implications/consequences
> of that. (You’ll never guess who raised the issue. 🙂 )
>
>Someone has said there was even a SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN on the alternative
> Nicaragua canal … although it was assuming *we* would be building it,
> of course.
>
>Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

My apologies to Che’, if I have misspelt his name. 🙂

Over on CONSIM-L, we are having a lively discussion about whether or
not the Soviets were ever thinking about building the canal through
Nicaragua (eventually) and the strategic implications/consequences
of that. (You’ll never guess who raised the issue. 🙂 )

Someone has said there was even a SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN on the alternative
Nicaragua canal … although it was assuming *we* would be building it,
of course.

Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

>I do not know if the USSR ever contemplated doing it, but I’ve read more than
>one article over the last 30 years about the advantages of building a new
>canal
>through Nicaragua.

I don’t think this was really the bone of contention (I know it wasn’t
in my case), it was the ramifications of such a project that people
disagreed on.

By the way, there is a web page somewhere that contains details on
the actual tests run in the early 60s for port or canal excavation
using nukes. Use a web search tool and look for “Sedan” (I think that
was the name of this test series).

Markus

>Eric Bergerud wrote:
>SNIP
>>>>Could never figure out why WWI pilots like Richthoven and Rickenbacker
>were world famous – or at least tremendous national heroes, while the great
>fliers of WWII are known only to the aviation fans.>>>
>SNIP
>
>I suspect it had to do with the exciting newness of aviation at the time,
>with the aviators portrayed as something akin to the knights of old, jousting
>in single combat.
>
>John Snyder
>John_Snyder@bbs.macnexus.org
>
Beg to disagree. Aviators in the 20’s and 30’s were at the height of their
fame. I don’t think that there has ever been a more famous man than
Lindbergh. But he was hardly alone. Amelia Ehrhardt, who perished just prior
to the war, was probably the most famous woman of her era. Aviation itself
was considered something of a wonder and the popular press couldn’t get
enough of it.

I think there was something different about the respective wars. In World
War I the individual “hero” was a staple in all countries. It wasn’t just
aviation. Lawrence of Arabia, Sgt York and so on. I think in the interwar
period that the democratic cultures began to look at war and heroism
differently. If you read newspapers from the two wars the difference is
quite marked. In WWI accounts you run into all kinds of purple prose. The
WWII counterpart is much more business-like, more grim. (Also much more
realistic: the public of WWII was well aware of how much official lying had
gone on during WWI.) I can’t remember which of our leaders said that “valor
was a common virtue”, but I think that’s very much the way that the public
tended to view WWII. There were medal winners galore (many of these men
became local town heros) but no real equivalent of Sgt York or Richthoven.
Wish I understood this better. Although we were fighting the most necessary
war in history, there was little talk about crusades among our fighting men.
So many WWII vets have told me the equivalent of “we had a job, nobody liked
it, but we had to do it so we could get home.” Very businesslike. Very
dangerous if you were someone like Hitler or Tojo.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

I have found the official histories of the various US armed forces technical
branches to be bibliographic nightmares to track down. Did the Navy do
anything like the medical volumes done by the Office of the Surgeon General?
I’d really like to find out if there is data concerning series injuries
aboard warships in the Pacific. Also like to know how badly sailors were
plagued by malaria and the other jungle goodies that flourished in the
SOPAC. Tnx in advance.

Also, can anyone recommend a good book on Marine Corps aviation in that
covers the pre-WWII period?
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Mr. Bergerud and Mr. Lanzendoerfer write:

<< About time that someone writes about it. There'sn't (I guess my English teacher >would have been pretty mad now) much about the stepping up of the Solomons
>ladder, is there? Though to my shame I must admit I have not yet bought the
>land-war book, I guess you have a customer for this one.
>
>Tim

Guadalcanal has gotten a lot of attention. 1943 and New Guinea in general
kind of sunk into a black hole. Pity really: the Japanese air forces had
their guts ripped out in 43 not 42 and its a story that’s rarely told. One
reason that we cut them to ribbons in the Central Pacific in 44 is that
th >>

It is true that the campaign in the central and northern Solomons has not
gotten anything like the attention that Guadalcanal has. Apart from the
official histories, Mr. Bergerud’s book (which I bought a few months ago and
am looking forward to reading) is about the only major history covering that
period as a whole. There have in recent years, however, been several
additional books on the period. Eric Hammel wrote a book on the New Georgia
campaign called “Munda Trail,” and Harry Gailey wrote a book on Bougainville
(published by University of Kentucky Press; like many university press books I
think it must have had a very limited press run and not a lot of publicity).

New Guinea has also been neglected, but there are a few books out there in
addition to the U.S. Army official histories: Lida Mayo’s “Bloody Buna”; a
brand new book by Stephen R. Taaffe, “MacArthur’s Jungle War,” on the New
Guinea campaign of 1944; and Edward Drea’s “MacArthur’s Ultra,” about
intelligence in the Southwest Pacific. There is also a Leavenworth monograph
by Drea called “Defending the Driniumor.” The Australians bore the brunt of
the New Guinea campaign in 1942-1943 but American historians tend to overlook
their role; I would think there are some good Aussie books on the subject.

One area that is truly undercovered is the Luzon campaign of 1945–the most
neglected large-scale campaign in U.S. military history (there were more U.S.
troops engaged on Luzon than in the Italian campaign, if memory serves).
Apart from the official history, which is pretty good, and a recent Brit book
only on the Battle of Manila, I am not aware of anything on this campaign.
Regards, Keith Allen

EWitten507 wrote:

> Saturday afternoon, while browsing the shelves at my local used book
> store, I came across a copy of William C. Davis’ _Duel Between the
> First
> Ironclads_ (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company 1975). The
> following appears on pages 69-70:
>
> This left the Cumberland. Just nine years old, she had
> at one time been a magnificent forty-four-gun screw
> frigate,

This is just crazy. According to Chapelle’s _The American Sailing
Navy_, the _Cumberland was one of 8 sisters of the _Brandywine_ class
and was laid down as a *sailing* frigate in 1825. She was launched at
Boston Navy Yard in 1842 and commisioned in 1843.

> the flagship of Commodore Joseph Smith’s
> Mediterranean squadron. and of the African squadron
> as well.

Don’t know about this.

> In 1856 she had been “razeed”-cut down a
> deck, making her into a sloop of war mounting
> twenty-four guns, twenty-two 9-inch smoothbores, one
> 10-inch smoothbore, and one formidable 70-pounder
> rifle.

The razing started in 1850 and lasted until 1856. Chapplle has this to
say: “One of the best examples of a cut-down frigate was the
_Cumberland_. It will be recalled that this ship was relatively new,
having been launched in 1842. She originally carried 40 carriage guns,
32-pdrs., and 10 of the 64 pdr 8″ shell guns. She was . . . reduced to
a magnificent corvette carrying 26 guns on her main deck, 32 pdrs., and
2 10″ guns on pivots, one each at bow and stern. . . .Stripping these
ships of the weight of their spar-deck bulwarks and armament, as well as
removing the heavy quarter galleries (and the reducing of windage that
resulted from the removal of the spar-deck bulwarks and hammock rails)
made the ships very fast sailers.”

She never had an engine.

> Edward Wittenberg
> ewitten507@aol.com

—

Steve Alvin
Dept. of Social Sciences
Illinois Valley Community College

salvin@ocslink.com

“I have snatched my share of joys from the grudging hand of fate
as I have jogged along, but never has life held for me anything
quite so entrancing as baseball.”–Clarence Darrow

Tom Robison wrote:
>
> I am trying to determine the exact criteria for the award of the Vietnam
> Service Medal. A fella and I are having a difference of opinion over it.
> Yes, I could go to the library and look it up, but I thought I could find
> the info online. Alas, I cannot, as yet.
>
> Does anyone know of a web site that shows exact chapter and verse of the
> regulation?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom
>
> Tom Robison
> Ossian, Indiana
> tcrobi@adamswells.com
> _|_
> –X-X-(ô)-X-X–

Tom,

The Americal Division (23rd Infantry Div.) Veterans Association has
transcribed several regs pertaining to Army awards, including the
Vietnam Service Medal and placed the text on their web site. It can be
accessed at:
http://www.americal.org/awards/vsm.htm. The various campaign (battle
star) date parameters can be accessed elsewhere, if needed.

Regulations *were* to have been identical between services.

David Riley

**************************
Participate in the most “honor”able of hobbies
Join the Orders and Medals Society of America (OMSA)
http://www.omsa.org

Thanks to all who responded to my earlier post about U.S.S. Marblehead.
She did indeed survive to do her part in the war, and I learned about
a valuable new resource online at www.uss-salem.org. Now, for a trip 136
years into the past.

Saturday afternoon, while browsing the shelves at my local used book
store, I came across a copy of William C. Davis’ _Duel Between the First
Ironclads_ (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company 1975). The
following appears on pages 69-70:

This left the Cumberland. Just nine years old, she had
at one time been a magnificent forty-four-gun screw
frigate, the flagship of Commodore Joseph Smith’s
Mediterranean squadron. and of the African squadron
as well. In 1856 she had been “razeed”-cut down a
deck, making her into a sloop of war mounting
twenty-four guns, twenty-two 9-inch smoothbores, one
10-inch smoothbore, and one formidable 70-pounder
rifle. Serving as the flagship of the Home Squadron in
1860, Cumberland cruised off Veracruz until early
1861, when threats of war at home called her back to
Hampton Roads. Anchored off Norfolk at the suggestion
of officers who later went over to the Confederacy,
she was intended to play a part in blocking up the
Elizabeth River to prevent herself and other valuable
ships, such as the Merrimack, from getting out. In the
panic to evacuate the navy yard in April, she was
saved from the torch and taken across Hampton Roads
to anchor near Fort Monroe. There followed a brief
refitting trip to the North, and subsequently
participation in the Hatteras Inlet operations, where
she was reputedly the last American frigate to go into
battle under sail. Then it was back to Hampton Roads,
in November 1861, to spend the following winter
blockading off the mouth of the James River.

My question is: Why was the Cumberland converted from a forty-four
gun screw frigate into a sailing sloop of war mounting twenty-four
guns, especially given the fact that in 1862 she was only nine-years
old? Thanks in advance, Ed.

Edward Wittenberg
ewitten507@aol.com

Regarding the several messages about the Yorktown retrieving aircraft
going astern, were there URLs for these or was it just a picture quoted
from a book?

Tracy Johnson
tjohnson@adnetsol.com
“Trust No One”
“Semper Pollus”
ADC-2239-5531
Vietnam: “Missed it by *that* much!”

Tim,

Did the Navy do an official history of the SeaBees or is that included under
the volume listed below?

>>Keep us informed if you find some jems on the bases.
>
>Take a look at Paolo Coletta’s United States Navy and Marine Corps
>bases, overseas, (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1985) and Building
>the Navy’s Bases in World War II: history of the Bureau of Yards and
>Docks and Civil Engineer Corps, 1940-1946, (Washington: GPO, 1947).
>
>There are gems in both of these works.
>
>Timothy L. Francis
>Historian
>Naval Historical Center
>email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
>voice: (202) 433-6802
>
>The above remarks are my opinions, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
>Department of Defense
>
>
>
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930