HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: Goebbels' diaries reviewed by Irving??
Keywords: Chelmno,Eichmann,Goebbels,Irving
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:40:00 GMT

As a side remark to this debate, Hitler's responsiblity for the "euthanasia"
(mercy killing) program, in which about 75,000 insane and retarded people
were killed, is unquestionable. The "euthanasia" program paved the way
for the gas chambers the death camps - many of the murder techniques were
the same, and many of the people who ran the "euthanasia" program have
switched over to run the death camps.

As for Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust - I have not read enough
to form an opinion. From what I *have* read, it seems that his attitude
was "do it but don't tell me about it". Irving makes a large effort to
shift the blame on Himmler and Heydrich, but it does not make a lot of
sense to assume that Hitler wouldn't know what was going on.

-Danny Keren.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: NATO/Warsaw Pact forces (was Re: Greatest Prez...)
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:18:20 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <54711@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
> In article <JMC.92Jul21180301@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
> >A Soviet general
> >said that this was just to the export version of the T-72.
> 
> This shows the sweeping faith CCCP had in their vassal states.  (Of course
> the Spartans were never anxious to arm the helots, so "there's nothing new
> under the sun.")
> 
> >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> #Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN) WWII-L Listowner    jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu     # 

In fact, I've read somewhere that for a helot to even TOUCH a weapon
was a capital crime -- for fear that they would become too familiar
with them, and use them (as they eventually did) to overthrow their
masters.  (Parallels to the current efforts to disarm the American
tax-helots should be obvious).

Does anyone have a common (i.e., probably in a local library) source
for the Spartan rule about arms and helots?
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,rec.arts.books,misc.legal
From: cline@cs.scarolina.edu (Ernest Cline)
Subject: Re: _A Constitutional History of the United States_
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:28:58 GMT

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:


>Looking for a good capsule introduction to the U.S. Constitution and
>its history?  Prof. Forrest McDonald wrote _A Constitutional History
>of the United States_ in 1982, and it has been recently reprinted.

>I've read quite a number of books on the Constitutional Convention,
>all of the published ratification debates, and a number of works
>associated with First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Fourteenth
>Amendment issues, and to the extent that he addresses these issues,
>I find his narrative and analysis to be mainstream, and careful to
>distinguish theories from facts.  In particular areas where I have
>never ventured, he provides substantial details that were previously
>unknown to me:

>    Upon being reelected by a record majority in 1936, Roosevelt
>    proposed a controversial court-packing plan, which combined
>    bribery with coercion.  All Supreme Court justices over the
>    age of seventy (which included the four conservatives) would
>    be permitted to retire with comfortable pensions.  Those who
>    chose not to take advantage of this generosity could not be
>    forced to do so, but for each who did not retire within six
>    months after reaching the age of seventy, the president would
>    be authorized to appoint an additional justice.[p. 197]

>I knew about the court-packing plan, but not that the pensions
>would be dependent on retiring young.  I would doubtless have
>found this out, if I had gone looking for it, but having it 
>mentioned in the middle of an overview book greatly expanded
>my interest in knowing more about the details of the plan.

Where do you get the impression that they had to retire young to
get the pension? The basic idea was that at age 70 the president
would be able to appoint a new judge regardless of whether the old
coot retired or not. In adition, if I recall correctly, up till
then there were no pensions for federal judges, so financial
consideration could force a judge to keep his job even if he wasn't
truly able to do the job. While we have view today of a nice stable
Supreme Court, changing the number of justices was a fairly common
19th century tactic.

Ernest Cline		cline@cs.scarolina.edu		TheUSC
"Halcyonity is relative." - Calvin's dad
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Subject: Roman Priesthoods (Flamen Dialis)
Reply-To: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 02:51:38 GMT


Could anybody out there in net-land tell me where one may find
art with _authentic_ representations of the Roman high priest of
Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the _flamen dialis?_  I've just finished
Colleen McCullough's novels _The First Man In Rome_ and _The Grass
Crown_, but although she gives verbal descriptions of what the 
_flamen dialis_ wore, I have a hard time visualizing it.

What I'd prefer, if possible, would be contemporary art (esp. 
sculptural) showing a _flamen dialis_ in full rig-out.  

Please reply via e-mail as well as here, since I often don't
have a chance to check here.
  
 
-- 
Technomad.  Portmanteau word from a novel I'm roughing out, about
a nomadic culture in a "cyberpunk" dark future.  I thought it up
before Cyberpunk 2020 ever came out.  On ISCA and Quartz, they
know me as a Flame-god.  cc697@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:40:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Jul30.154958.9708@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
>Also, the events in the coliseum must have been lightly attended, since
>it has 40,000 seats.
Of course they were lightly attended.  Just look at how small the parking
lot is.     :-)

-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: krzystek@milton.u.washington.edu (Jerzy Krzystek)
Subject: Population of Rome
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:02:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.111718.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu 
(Allen R Sparks) writes:

>During the time of
>the Roman Empire, there were few "big" cities.  What was the population of
>Rome at that time?  20,000?  === Al Sparks

Rome's population in the Empire era was more than 1 million, perhaps close
to 2 million. It took me two days to circle the Aurelian wall which was built
about 270 A.D.

Jurek Krzystek
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: kutluk@ccl.umist.ac.uk (Kutluk Ozguven)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: soc.history, the looney bin
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:44:50 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

In <1992Jul21.081708.14235@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> carl@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Carl J.M. Alexander) writes:

>In article <1992Jul20.232542.8237@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>>
>>I for one would be interested in how to set up a kill file for mutlu,
>>please send me the information.
> 
>Okay; here are the first two lines of my kill file for soc.history.  
[..]
>is worth reading.  I too would farour having a moderated group where 
>we could actually talk about history.

You mean the history tailor made for your preference.

Kutluk
Newsgroups: soc.history
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,rec.arts.books,misc.legal
Subject: Re: _A Constitutional History of the United States_
From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:58:50 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <11425@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>Looking for a good capsule introduction to the U.S. Constitution and
>its history?  Prof. Forrest McDonald wrote _A Constitutional History
>of the United States_ in 1982, and it has been recently reprinted.
>It was intended as a text for an undergraduate class, and in 
>recognition of the realities of who goes to college these days:
>
>    It is a sad fact of life in contemporary America that reading
>    is neither the favorite activity nor the most common skill
>    among college students.  It is pointless to write a book or 
>    assign it to students if they are unwilling or unable to read
>    it.  This book is written to be read -- which, in my experience,
>    requires most brevity as well as simplicity both conceptually
>    and in terms of vocabulary.  I have tested it in manuscript
>    form with my own undergraduates; for every word that gave them
>    trouble, I found a more common one, and for every concept that
>    proved difficult for them, I rewrote until they found the idea
>    clear and readily comprehensible.[p. 2]
>
>While a sad commentary on the state of education, it also means
>that the book is nearly painless to read, even for those who are
>only somewhat interested in constitutional history, and are reading
>such a book because they should, rather than because of unbounded
>interest.

You, and he, should speak for yourselves. I'm a college student currently
on leave of absence, which means I'm not required to read anything -- and
still go through four or five nonfiction books a week and am reading fic-
tion almost constantly. (Do not walk softly in front of me. I may bump into
you without lifting my head.)

Generalizations should be handled with care. 

>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!

	-Nora
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: NATO/Warsaw Pact forces (was Re: Greatest Prez...)
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:27:44 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <JMC.92Jul21180301@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>The extreme superiority of the M1A1 tank to the T-72 was a big
>surprise to the U.S. as well as everyone else.  

According to whom, please?  Not to the tankers I spoke with.  They were 
uniform in saying that they could kick butt anywhere.  Place a tank with
a stablized gun against a tank without the system, and one tank instantly
becomes "sitting duck".

>A Soviet general
>said that this was just to the export version of the T-72.

This shows the sweeping faith CCCP had in their vassal states.  (Of course
the Spartans were never anxious to arm the helots, so "there's nothing new
under the sun.")

>Maybe so.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.


-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN) WWII-L Listowner    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: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:55:46 GMT

In article <nkinlrs@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.155417.2114@island.COM>, fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>|> In article <nhvu2n4@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>This is not an answer to the question: "What kind of accuracy are 
>you talking about?".
>
>|> 
>|> >You equate "starting a war" with "justify bombing civilians",
>|> >and then you say that this is "not inaccurate".
>|> 
>|> No, no. I equate 'starting a war" with "accepting the consequnces".
>
>No, you are misquoting yourself.   You were asked "How does the 

Uh, I equated starting a war with accepting the consequences, pure and simple.

>attack on a military attack justify bombing civilians?" and you 
>replied "I believe it's called 'starting a war'.   It involves 
>provoking a power to use said power against you."  
>
>This was in posting  <1992Jul15.232054.13899@island.COM> in case you 
>need to look up what you wrote.
>
>So, you specifically answered a question asking how bombing civilians
>can be justified, and you just as clearly replied that the answer is
>"starting a war".

Bingo.
 
>|> >What I pointed out was that it has *become* the expected thing
>|> >through a process of one side doing it, the other side retaliating,
>|> >and so on.
>|> 
>|> It became the "expected" thing to do as soon as the technology to 
>|> do it came into being. This seems to amaze you (why, I no idea).
>
>Now you are misquoting me.   I said it had become expected.  I also
>said that being expected does not mean that it's justified, only that
>it had become what people do.  I also explained how it had become
>the thing people do: by a process of retaliation.

Then you are incorrect. There are very good reasons to attack a civilian area,
particularly those involved in military production. This was done on a routine
basis. Has nothing (necessarily) to do with retaliation.

>If you don't understand that distinction, I don't know what to say,
>except that this is one reason I call your position amoral and glib.

You'll pardon me if your judgements don't mean much to me.

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..."
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: brian@odie.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet)
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:48:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.110640.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.142719.19934@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul28.111718.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>> Yet we constantly see allusions to the 100 million native Americans killed
>> by the Europeans in the early 16th century.  Considering that the U.S.
>> population was only about 10 million 200 years later makes these kinds of
>> numbers difficult to accept.
>> 
>
>But what was the population of Europe when it was composed primarily
>of nomads that were hunters and gatherers?  Also, Europeans weren't
>the only ones killing off Indians, the various tribes were killing
>each other off as well.  It was a hard life, and as you pointed out
>earlier, it takes a lot of land to support that kind of lifestyle.
>                    === Al Sparks

I have seen population figures in the order of a million for the US and Canada.
[much more for mexico and the incas but thats a different story..]
Then again I remember 3 million for the population of new guinea [sp?]

From what I hear it was desies that killed off most of them [the Indians
 excuse the poli incorrectness]. Sure there were fights between them
, maybe not to the extent that we know it and not to the point of genicide
but if I remember right there were conflits between the indians and the inuit
 I have heard this from several sources..

I FLEX IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION!! :)
VOLCANO

Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<STEINLY.92Jul20183207@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Jul21.163558.24141@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:41:42

Both Stalin and his successors were military opportunists.  There is
no reason to suppose they had a grand plan, but they were ready to
take anything that wasn't well defended.  The war in Korea was Kim Il
Sung's idea, but first Mao and then Stalin agreed to help.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: soc.history
From: hap@scubed.com (Hap Freiberg)
Subject: Re: The problem of trusting popular press when writing history
Keywords: Chelmno,Eichmann,Goebbels,Irving
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:24:42 GMT

In article <11342@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>I have the same experience -- Time seldom gets anything right.
>The NY Times, on the other hand, contrary to their claim of the
>being the "newspaper of record," simply doesn't cover a lot of
>things that should be covered, usually because it doesn't fit in
>with their leftist mindset.
>
>This raises a disturbing question: how far should an historian
>trust a newspaper account?  I recently had occasion to read some
>articles from Time, in 1935 -- and the style is so similar, that
>you might conclude that the same writers are still working there,
>almost 60 years later.  The style has the same careful inclusion of 
>most of the facts, but with a strong, insulting tone that shows that 
>not even a pretense of objectivity is present.
>
>I certainly wouldn't trust anything that appeared in Time unless
>I could verify it in several other more reputable sources.
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
>with whom I work.

After reading this post I could suppose that you subscribe to similiar 
thinking and writing style only from the right...

Hap


Newsgroups: soc.history
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: The problem of trusting popular press when writing history
Keywords: Chelmno,Eichmann,Goebbels,Irving
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:03:00 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Independence
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <11342@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes...
>most of the facts, but with a strong, insulting tone that shows that 
>not even a pretense of objectivity is present.


There is no law that says the press has to be objective, or even
tell one shred of truth! It all depends on what need the press
fills. The only people who need "objective" news are those who
bet money on the news, such as investors. Historians presumably
use the press the way an archeologist uses a grave site --
as a source of interesting objects that individually are clues,
but have to be understood in the context of what purpose the
grave itself served. 
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Organization: The Instrumentality
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:11:01 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Jul22.161732.2512@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:

>I have a difficult time seeing anything we did in that war to the Japanese
>or Germans to provoke them, prior to 1941. We cut off oil shipments and 
>froze Japanese assets in response to further Japanese incursions in Asia
>(a unilateral embargo). For this, we were attacked. IMO, this attack was
>completely unjustified. If you disagree, then we have a basic conflict in 
>values.

Well, I think one could certainly make some arguments that the Japanese
attack was "justified". It was "justified" in a pragmatic sense because our
oil embargo left the Japanese with a very limited supply of oil--their
fleet had enough reserves for maybe a month or two of operation. That meant
they had to get oil from _somewhere_, and get it quick. The only logical
place to get it were the Dutch East Indies (and I think the British
possessions, e.g.Malaya had oil also). However, a strike against Dutch and
British possessions would certainly involve the United States; therefore,
why not attack first, and gain the advantage of surprise?

A moral argument would revolve around the claim that the oil
embargo--declared by the US in support of China--removed us from the role
of neutral, and made the US a de facto belligerent. (Something that the
Roosevelt administration surely could not have been entirely unaware of.)

I'm not saying that Japan was right and we were wrong; I do think that the
question of "blame" in a war is usually quite complex, and that both sides
tend to present simplistic arguments that lay the entire blame on the other
side. The winner, of course, gets to preserve his arguments for posterity.

It might be a good thing not to focus so much on misleading questions like
"who started the war", and examine the complete picture. I believe, for
example, that there were very good reasons why the United States should
have become involved in WW II, and that the cause of honesty, at any rate,
would have been better served by an open declaration of war against the
axis by the United States at a much earlier date than December, 1941. It is
one of the peculiar quirks of American psychology that we _like_ to be
attacked--indeed, it is almost necessary for us to be attacked--so that we
can see ourselves in the role of the victim, and thus can strike without
being troubled by conscience.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
	<SMITTIE.92Jul22125147@lark.csulb.edu>
	<1992Jul27.175108.3345@island.COM>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:59:33 GMT

>A successful attack and a military success are different; the purpose of the
>attack was to cripple the US fleet, particularly the carriers, and force the
>US to the negotiating table. It failed in both respects.

Every book that I've read including "The Japanese Navy in World War II" (in
which Yamamoto's right hand man in the planning of the Hawaii Operation) states
clearly that the purpose of the attack on Pearl Harbor was to prevent or slow
down America's effective entry into the Pacific War. The attack on Pearl Harbor
was not to take place until the Japanese were sure that there was no hope of
Negotiation.

>Also, I believe that Germany lost ALL of its colonies during/immediately after
>WWI; if they were "active in China", it was with the Japanese.

Uhm, you got that one a wee bit mixed 'round. Japan declared war on Germany in
support of Britain. At the Paris Peace talks the allied nations sought to give
the German territories, now spoils of war, back to China. At this point Japan
threaten to walk out of the negotiations and boycott the newly formed League of
Nations. It was the US who gave in to Japan's demands and supported Japanese
claims to the German territories.

>Whom were we invading at the time?

We already had possession. We were quite busy exploiting our "little brown
brothers" in the Philippines.

Smittie
-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
GEnie, MCI, AOL:Smittie | If all of us were as smart as we think we are the
smittie@beach.csulb.edu |  current world problems would be yesterday's news.
________________________|___________________________________________________
Newsgroups: soc.history