HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: US Empire (was: The British Lost!)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:25:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr07.005316.19442@sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) writes:
>m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (Barone) tries to get back on track:
>
>Sounds reasonable. Keep in mind however that the objections to the term
>"empire" is really not one of semantics: this is a coping mechanism for
>people who believe

And for others, it IS semantics.

>Meanwhile, it seems fairly clear that the cost of maintaining the US empire
>has done serious damage to the US economy. REmember Eisenhower? Something
>like "for every gun that is made, a child goes uneducated?" We may have a
>workforce that doesn't know a standard deviation from an interest rate, but
>by gawd we got the smartest bombs I ever seen!

One is forced to wonder how an uneducated workforce could produce something
like the "smartest bombs I ever seen". On might also wonder why the US is
still considered to have the finest university system in the world.

>Haven't been given a choice? Not quite. The obsessive fear of communism
>which drove much of the irrational empire-building is a symptom of the
>attitude prevalent through much of US industry; an adversarial relationship
>with labor and with suppliers. Both Japan and Germany have more of a
>partnership between capital and labor. In the case of Germany this dates 

That "partnership" in the case of Japan results from overwhelming government
intervention on behalf of industry, at the expense of labor. That this
has resulted in a relatively low standard af living (compared to other 
industrialized nations), little or no social welfare for those unfortuante
enough to have "fallen through the cracks" or have made the mistake of getting
old without having children to support them (a situation which is rapidly
worsening), and is the subject intense debate in Japan, is well known to 
anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Japanese situation. 

>back to Bismarck, and was one of the primary reasons for her commercial
>advantage over Britain fin-de-siecle. Britains educational system was 
>clearly inferior to Germany's, making it very hard for GB to compete. The
>US analogy extends into this area as well.

One merely has to look at the number of British Nobel prize winners to see
its "inferiority". BTW, the Japanese educational system was adopted from the
"inferior" British model.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d 
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 92 09:21:06 CST
From:         C05705DA@WUVMD
To:           NETNEWS@WUVMD
Subject:         Gettysburg/Shiloh/Atlanta
Newsgroups:   soc.history



I disagree with the Gettysburg statement.  After the return of Picket's
charge, Lee said that he had lost the war.  After the end of the battle,
Lee was forced to take the defensive; he no longer had the resources to
take an aggresive offensive or else he would have been at the low end of
the 2:1 ratio.  People say that the south out fought the north because of
the ratio; but, the generals at the time planned, calculated, and expected
that ratio if not worse.  The south encountered the same results from
many of their attacks as well.

As for Shiloh, I do not see it as a turning point.  This battle brought many
people back to reality about the war.  The northerns thinking of a short
and quick war and the south thinking that the north can't fight, 1 reb can
beet 15 yanks etc.

As for Atlanta, Jefferson Davis  @#$*ed up.  Gen. Johnston knew the north
didn't know that the north had won for all practicle purposes, just a matter
of time.  Therefore, he was going to hold out in Atlanta and NOT attack,
waiting out a seige was exactly what he wanted.  He planned no victory
but no defeat either and hope he wins a political victory in the north,
Lincoln's election.  But, Davis would have non of that, this tactic did
not show the glory of the south. So, punt Johnston, again, put in Hood
and lose the battle and Lincoln wins.  Johnston knew at that time that the
only way to win freedom was politically not militarilly.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: skenny@nano.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)
Subject: VIMY, 1917
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:11:55 GMT

I wanted to post this yesterday but the local sleet storm has wreaked
havoc on the power distribution for the northeast Avalon peninsula.

VIMY RIDGE, FRANCE
Easter Monday, April 9th, 1917.

Although a tragedy with respect to human life, it was the turning point
for Canada, more so in the eyes of English Canada, from a colonial
status to a self-governing dominion. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Canadian
Divisions assaulted and captured key positions on Vimy Ridge. What other
Allied forces failed to do throughout the course of the war, the
Canadian forces overwhelmed the German defenders, 3 lines of trenches,
wire and pillboxes, in just a few hours. The operation was a tactical
breakthrough which employed new ideas and strategies; such as, combined
planning, deployment of troops and platoon movement. During previous
battles the general infantry knew little of the main battleplan,
stategies and objectives, only the CO's had knowledge but for this
assault all were briefed. Also a massive artillery barrage was
undertaken prior to the orders to go over top --- the main difference
from previous attacks were the type and quantity of shells and the
mapping of key defensive emplacements to be taken out by the barrage.
The artillery destroyed or disrupted many of the German field guns and
MG's which would have wreaked havoc on the Canadians. The only flaw in
the plan was the lack of reserves to exploit the success and thus the
attack eventually stabilized in the horrors of trench warfare. The
victory was not without sacrifice as approximately 3,600 Canadians died
and 7,000 were wounded.
--
=================================
skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca
St. John's, NF, CANADA
"Have a touton or do without'n !"
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 92 07:47:28 CST
From:         C05705DA@WUVMD
To:           NETNEWS@WUVMD
Subject:      Re: Gettysburg/Shiloh/Atlanta
Newsgroups:   soc.history

So far I agree with everything except Shiloh.  In order to be a turning
point, it has to change from negative to positive.  Grant was winning and
holding the field all the way to Shiloh.  After Shiloh, there was still
the armies of Tennessee and Vicksburg, maybe more, still to deal with.
It wasn't so much of a turning point as much as the south, and north,
getting a taste of Grant's bulldog tactics.  After the battle, the south
did not keep hounding Grant, the south's mistake.  The south still
possessed too much danger on the Union to make it a turning point.  Later
on the south defeated the Cumberland and layed seige on the Union at
Chatanooga.  To back up a bit, Grant was having successes and holding
momentum ever since he started out in Missouri.  Therefore, my vote
is nay, just an importent battle.
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: 1302 - a boring year
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:31:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.45499
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Apr15.040817.3051@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.104235.3015@darwin.ntu.edu.au> salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au writes:
>>Did anything happen in 1302?
>Not much.  According to the Timetables of History:
>Dante exiled from Florence

There you go!  The year Florence told Dante to "Go to Hell!"

Shamelessly,
Larry J



-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)  JEWELL@PURCCMACE   jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu     # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: dickwin@sequent.com
Subject: Re: Did American Troops Kill 3 Million Filipinos?
Organization:  Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 02:42:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.165209.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.105647.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>, parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr16.001536.28671@midway.uchicago.edu>, mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, can _anyone_ find _anything_ good to say
>>> about this war?
>>>
>>  Only that a large and articulate minority in the US opposed it - including
>>  House Speaker Thomas Reed, former President Grover Cleveland, and Harvard
>>  President Charles E. Norton, none of whom could by any stretch of the
>>  imagination called "leftist" or "pacifist".
>>  Unfortunately, as with Mexico and Vietnam, the opposition wasn't enough.
>>
>>  Robert
>
>You can add Mark Twain to the list.  The Atlantic Monthly (which
>includes Twain on the cover) has a previously unpublished article he
>wrote (a book review) where he obviously opposes the conflict.  He was
>Vice-President of an organization that opposed any kind of
>"imperialism" by the United States, which is what they considered the
>conflict to be.  They are probably right.  === Al Sparks

One good thing:  The Colt 1911 45 cal pistol was developed to do a
better job than the 38 cal revolver, then in use, of stopping
insurgents with one shot.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Winningstad                                    I'm my own opinion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Did American Troops Kill 3 Million Filipinos?
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:56:47 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Apr16.001536.28671@midway.uchicago.edu>, mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:
> 
> Just out of curiosity, can _anyone_ find _anything_ good to say
> about this war?
> 
 Only that a large and articulate minority in the US opposed it - including
 House Speaker Thomas Reed, former President Grover Cleveland, and Harvard
 President Charles E. Norton, none of whom could by any stretch of the 
 imagination called "leftist" or "pacifist".
 Unfortunately, as with Mexico and Vietnam, the opposition wasn't enough.

 Robert
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Why did Field Marshal Erwin Rommel commit suicide?
Date: 3 Apr 92 15:40:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: Dr_No.EMERY.92Apr3104028
	<1992Mar30.171212.3907@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
	<1992Mar31.020131.22734@cs.brown.edu>
	<1992Apr1.223213.9818@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
	<1992Apr1.195940.1@acad3.alaska.edu>
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

Rommel's involvement with the German Resistance is still an
interesting question.  His Chief of Staff (Spiedel) was clearly
involved, and it's very likely that he discussed this with Rommel.
But, only Rommel and Spiedel know for sure how far these discussions
went.  The general consensus (e.g.  Young and Irving) would seem to be
that Rommel was aware of the plot, and consented to be a part of the
post-Hitler government (at one time he was proposed as President), but
it's unlikely that he was directly involved in the actual planning and
execution.  

					dave
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: peterd@polari.com
Subject: Re: turning point definition
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:14:36 GMT

Turning points don't necessarily have to be where the
eventual victors became unstoppable.  They could also
be the point when the previous victors 'lose it', possilbly
snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Case in point was the Battle for the Samkaya River (Central
Turkey, 1920. Greeks vs the Turkish Nationalists).  The
Greeks had to destroy the Turkish army, the Turks merely
survive.  After three weeks the Turkish defensive lines
were pushed all out of position, but the army was still intact.

The greeks withdrew, and the next year, the Turks went
over to the offensive, and the Greek army proved hollow.

As has no doubt been said before: the war is lost when one
side or the other cannot get rations to the grunts in the
line where they are; and the war is over when some grunt 
sits himself down in the center of town and says "My feet
hurt, where the h-ll am I?"

chus
pyotr
From: welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: turning point definition
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:13:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies

In article <1992Apr8.034639.12287@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>First off thanks for all the replies to my Shiloh as turning point
>idea.  I now have a lot to consider, and would still welcome more
>ideas or thoughts on the topic.
>I am also inerested in knowing if there is a definition of "turning
>point" for wars.  What constitutes a turning point anyway?  Is it
>strictly military, or are other fsactors included?

there is no definition that i am aware of.  in the context of the
pacific in WWII, you can argue that there are several turning points,
depending on your point of view.

1) pearl harbor

i could make a case that although this commenced the string of
japanese victories, it also was the ultimate cause of defeat,
since it brought an energized US into the war.

2) dolittle raid on tokyo

although it accomplished little in and of itself, it altered the
course of japanese strategy in a fashion which ultimately hurt
them badly

3) coral sea

this was the first major japanese offensive in the pacific to fail;
although the battle itself was tactically a draw or a marginal loss
by the US, the japanese landings that the carrier battle was to cover
were aborted.

4) midway

this was the second major japanese offensive in the pacific to fail,
4 of the 6 fleet carriers from pearl harbor were lost in this battle
(all 4 carriers that japan sent, as it happens), whereas the US
lost 1 of the 3 carriers participating.  this battle represents the
furthest advance of the japanese during the war; all of the japanese
aims in this battle failed.

5) guadalcanal

the american counteroffensive represented the first time that the
japanese were evicted from territory.  especially important was the
naval action known as `the naval battle of guadalcanal', which Eric
Hammel argues caused the japanese surface commanders to lose their
nerve; the japanese surface fleet did not come back out to fight until
the battle for leyte gulf, much later in the war.

so which of these is the turning point?  hell if i know.

cheers,
  richard
-- 
richard welty                            518-393-7228
welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: VIMY, 1917
In-reply-to: hyde@ac.dal.ca's message of 13 Apr 92 20:30:19 GMT
Organization: pubs
	<CB.92Apr10120854@tamarack12.timbuk> <1992Apr13.173019.5023@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:44:24 CDT

Bill Hyde writes:

   > This was true of *every* breakthrough achieved by *either* side. 
   ...
   Not really.  In 1918 Ludendorff's attacks were quite out of
   the normal type.  They gained tremendous ground and inflicted
   casualties at least as great as those of the attackers.
   ...

But Ludendorff's final drive failed for essentially the same old reason: he
couldn't maintain the pressure with fresh forces brought from the rear.
But I grant your subsequent point about the possible significance of Vimy
in that drive, had it not been in Allied hands.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
GEnie: C.BREWSTER7
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 92 14:50:01 CST
From:         C05705DA@WUVMD
To:           NETNEWS@WUVMD
Subject:      Re: Battle of Shiloh
Newsgroups:   soc.history

For what I have heard, Europe had no intension of joining the war; but
they did sympothise.  It wasn't practicle to go to war.  At the beginning
of the war, the British docks and warehouses were packed with cotton.
Plus, England was not overly fond of CSA trying to force them into war.
As the cotton started to get low, England encouraged colonies in Africa
and India to grow cotton.  This gave the south a jolt.  And when the
Emmancipation came along, the south was pretty much up-the-creek.  I
suspect the rest of Europe did similairly.  I do not know, but I would
take a wild guess that the Netherlands supported the Union since they had
invested so heavily in the U.S. ever since during the Revolution War.
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary L. Hewitt)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Textbooks and Lefty history (Was: Re: history)
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:05:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <10383@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <92098.202658HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>, HERSCH@auvm.american.edu (Herschel Browne) writes:
># 
># An absence of condemnation of the Soviet Union is evidence of
># Marxism? That seems rather a lot to swallow. During the Second
># World War alliance between the English-speaking countries and the
># Soviet Union, for example, Churchill and Roosevelt refrained from
># bad-mouthing Stalin. Does that mean that they were Marxists?
>
>What war are we fighting right now, that prevents leftists from
>condemning the totalitarian government of the Soviet Union?
>
What planet are we on?  What was the entire New Left movement of the
late '60s through (whenever), if it wasn't a defection of Amer. leftists
from the CP and support of the Soviet Union, precisely *over* the
problem of Stalin?  I might add the "cultural Marxism" of historians
like E.P. Thompson... 

># Not that I think that being a Marxist involves defending Stalin,
># or, indeed, anything the Soviet Union ever did. But surely, a
># failure to condemn Soviet policy or actions is not prima facie
># evidence of historical materialism, or other, as you might say,
># Marxist sins.
>
>It is if all the rest of the West's deficiencies are raised, and
>yet the Soviet Union's are ignored.
>
Maybe because the "West" is *us* -- the specter of the Soviet Union can
make the "West" or Americans feel a lot better about themselves, knowing
that they aren't godless or commies and have civil liberties, but
actually knowing one's own culture/past/history and even its *problems* is
not, unfortunately, conducive to smug self-satisfaction.  But then
again, I don't want to be self-satisfied.

Gary
-- 
  ++================================++
  ||        Gary L. Hewitt          ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned by
  || glhewitt@phoenix.princeton.edu ||  my .signature!  HELP!
  ++================================++
From: de@moscom.UUCP (David Esan)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Battle of Shiloh
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:07:28 GMT
Reply-To: de@moscom.UUCP (David Esan)
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY

In article <92104.144954C05705DA@wuvmd.wustl.edu> C05705DA@WUVMD writes:
>For what I have heard, Europe had no intension of joining the war; but
>they did sympothise.  It wasn't practicle to go to war.  At the beginning
>of the war, the British docks and warehouses were packed with cotton.

As noted above the British anticipated the war by overbuying cotton so
that they had a several year supply.

As this supply began to dwindle it was replaced.  There was cotton that was
smuggled past the blockade.  And there was cotton that was run past the
blockade by various legal and nearly legal means.  I believe the Bruce Catton
series on the Civil War has some discussion on the sieve that was the economic
blockade.  Cotton was exchanged for salt, and for gold all along the
Mississippi, particularly in Louisiana which was under Union control from 
a very early time.  There were great scandals as small time officers got 
rich from trade in contraband.

There is vague memory that this also was the downfall of General Butler, but
I am not sure.

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 -->     David Esan      de@moscom.com  
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Battle of Shiloh
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:15:02 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Apr7.173842.14281@cabot.balltown.cma.COM>, welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty) writes:
> 
> what of Antietam?  granting that McClellan pretty much dropped the ball,
> giving up an opportunity for a decisive battle due to his evidently
> boundless caution, even so, it was a costly battle where the Union
> held the field at the end.
> 
> cheers,
>   richard

but does "holding the field" constitute a victory?  I consider Antietam a 
draw.

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|  "It is good fortunes for politicians that people don't think."- A. Hitler  |
|                       Aoibheann beatha an scol/aire!                        |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Famous conferences in history?
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:45:38 +0900

In article <1992Apr13.184545.10025@informix.com>, proberts@.informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
> Perhaps this is the wrong newsgroup for this posting, since it contains no
> flames and nothing about the Holocaust, but here goes anyway:
> 
> Here at work they want to find names for a number of conference rooms.
> I thought, how about naming them after famous conferences in history?
> For instance, `Yalta', and ... er ... ?
> 
> I am soliciting suggestions for the list `History's most famous
> conferences' - please e-mail me.
> 


The place where food is served has to be called the Diet of Worms.


Linden

-- 
Linden Salter-Duke		email: SALTER_DUKE@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Northern Territory University
Darwin, Australia		Snail: Box 40146, Casuarina, NT 0811
Newsgroups: soc.history