HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeff Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: Battle of Shiloh
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:01:16 GMT

richard welty writes:
>...
>>The point is, Shiloh may be the first major battle where the Union held
>>the field at the end, but I'd hardly say that it was a turning point
>>in the sense that Gettysburg was.
>
>hmmm.  i'd argue that Vicksburg was more important than Gettysburg;
>Lee got his army away from Gettysburg, but the army in Vicksburg
>surrendered.

The army in Vicksburg, though, was not the main force. That force, 
under Joe Johnston, stayed in Alabama during the siege and survived
to fight Sherman through Georgia. Johnston specifically declined to 
attack Grant's rear during the siege, as he was begged to by Pemberton.  
I do agree, though, that Vicksburg was of more strategic importance
than Gettysburg. Elsewise Meade might have ascended, rather than Grant. 

>>Leading up to Gettysburg, you had 
>>battles like Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, and after Gettysburg
>>it was all downhill,
>
>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.

Antietam was after Shiloh. And the Union didn't exploit that victory, 
due in large part to the failings of Gen. McClellan. I don't think it's
comparable to the way things went after Gettysburg. 

>> a chase back to Virginia and siege and starvation
>>through the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and Petersburg. In
>>the West, however, it was more than a year before Grant stood in front
>>of Vicksburg, and only then at great cost. After Vicksburg, though, it
>>was a chase back across the Confederacy through Chatanooga, Atlanta,
>>and Charleston. 
>
>herein lies the basic problem with most Civil War history:  excessive
>focus on the East, when the West was the decisive theater.

I didn't mean to dismiss the West, though. I was drawing a comparison
between the speed of the fall of Lee after Gettysburg to the speed of
events in the West after *Shiloh*. After Vicksburg, the army of the 
Cumberland/Tennessee/West made *much* better time than the Army of
the Potomac. I mean, they went all the way to the South Carolina
coast while Grant futzed around in the same 500 mile radius in which
the entire Eastern theatre played out. 

Regards,

JZ
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	      One Shift		 ,			   Two Shift
Re d  S   h    i     f      t    ,       B     l      u      e     S    h  i ft
Xref: sparky soc.history:3464 soc.culture.spain:1267
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.spain
Subject: Re: The jewish expulsion (was Re: article)
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:18:39 GMT
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <1992Apr2.224107.11662@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:

>why not: "Juan Carlos _should_ apologize, because it can't hurt!"  What
>possible harm could it do for him to apologize for the actions of his
>ancestors, when they were clearly in the wrong?  The persecution, not

Do the Bourbons have any bloodlines back to the Catholic Kings?
I thought they were French grafts.




-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Battle of Shiloh
In-reply-to: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com's message of 6 Apr 92 17:42:31 GMT
Organization: pubs
	<1992Apr6.174231.25042@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:36:32 CDT

Jeff Zurschmeide writes:

   The Confederates were always unable to follow up a victory and exploit
   it.

So was the North most of the time, until the thing was almost decided.  So
were both sides in World War I.  These are the only two wars I know much
about.  Military leaders seem (for obvious reasons) to put most of their
thought into winning the immediate battle and little thought into what
they'll do after that.  The next step typically requires fresh reserves,
which usually aren't available or aren't brought up soon enough.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
GEnie: C.BREWSTER7
From: phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: US Empire (was: The British Lost!)
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:37:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.172533.3249@island.COM>, fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
> In article <1992Apr07.005316.19442@sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) writes:
> 
> 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.

	I don't know if this is true.  Considered by who?  Generally here
(Australia) most people I have talked to consider the US to have some of the
finest universities in the world as well as a lot of very poor ones.  To argue
from this to the "system" seems problematical.  My impression is that US
education can be extremely good, but a lot of the population comes out under
educated these days, and that the system has declined a lot from earlier in the
century when excellence was looked for.  We have similar problems here. 

	However a lot of the educational theorists say this is not the case and
that the impressions of greater excellence in the past is incorrect.  However I
still feel that the current crop of undergraduate students include a large
number with a very poor background in many areas.  Possibly this is my
prejudices talking (besides I don't trust educational theorists)!

>>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.

	Similar claims are made for the British system, when it is good it is
very good, but when it is poor it is very poor.  This seems to be particularly
true of the late 19th and early 20th century when nothing like the German
technical and trade training existed.  The number of Nobel prizes only shows
something about the high end of the system.  Some comments I have read from
British sources suggest that these problems still exist to some extent today. 
Also I must say that the Scottish system was said to be better than the
English!  I don't know much about the Japanese system, but thought it had a
good technical element.
 
-- 
Stephen Harker			phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Monash University		Baloney baffles brains: Eric Frank Russell
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: JPFO Jews ("anti-Semites"??) *AGREE* with "WHO RUNS THE MEDIA?"!!!
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:54:18 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: usa

In article <gate.kg5RiB1w164w@b-cpu.UUCP> ralphw@b-cpu.UUCP (Ralph  
Winston) writes:
> An interview in the November 1989 issue of American Survival Guide has
> announced the formation of a new pro-gun organization called Jews for
> the preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).
> 

I can't blame them. If I were Jewish and were reading the stuff
churned out by Ralph and his cohorts, I'd buy a gun too.  

By the way, by stretching the definition quite a bit, you can
perhaps call the revisionist crap that has been filling up this
group "history."  How, pray tell, is this latest bunch of garbage
history?   

--
Jim Mann                                       
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com 
Stratus Computer
From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeff Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Battle of Shiloh
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:47:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

Chris Brewster writes:
>Jeff Zurschmeide writes:
>
>   The Confederates were always unable to follow up a victory and exploit
>   it.
>
>So was the North most of the time, until the thing was almost decided.  So
>were both sides in World War I.  These are the only two wars I know much
>about.  Military leaders seem (for obvious reasons) to put most of their
>thought into winning the immediate battle and little thought into what
>they'll do after that.  The next step typically requires fresh reserves,
>which usually aren't available or aren't brought up soon enough.

I think it had more to do with supply lines in this case. Consider the 
campaign from Texas to New Mexico by the rebels. They beat the Union 
at every skirmish, and the Union commander just kept retreating on up to 
the next fort to the north. By and by, the southerners had to quit and
go home when their suply lines got too long and they lost men 
garrisoning all those forts along the way. 

The fighting between Van Dorn and ??? (can't remember who off the top
of my head) in Arkansas and Missouri. Same story. Contrariwise, the 
Union was able to take and hold land and continue. Consider the conquest
of New Orleans and the Baton Rouge, and the progression through Tennessee
and Mississippi down the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers that lead to
Vicksburg. 

I think most military leaders have a long-term strategy, or at least
one beyond winning this battle. It's just that there's that other guy
on the field, and most often, you have to follow him, and *that's* 
your strategy. 

JZ
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	      One Shift		 ,			   Two Shift
Re d  S   h    i     f      t    ,       B     l      u      e     S    h  i ft
From: dickwin@sequent.com
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Gettysburg/Shiloh/Atlanta
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:35:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Apr13.233546.12800
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

In article <92104.092059C05705DA@wuvmd.wustl.edu> C05705DA@WUVMD writes:
>
>
>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.

Because of the ratio due to the use of trench warfare and rifled
barrels on guns,Grant was frustrated in getting a decisive result on
the field.
Lincoln was in trouble politicly due to the lack of success and high
casualties on the field.  But if the east is looked at alone, the flow
of battle moves back and forth in a very restricted area of about a
two hundred mile diameter in the Washington Richmond area.  My point
was the east was stalemated until Sherman coming from the west started
to occupy the sources of supply for the Army of Virginia.


>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.

I believe Shiloh was a turning point because confederate aggression
was stopped and the south was put on the defensive in the west. This
made Vicksburg an eventuality and the Atlanta/Carolinas campaign
possible.

>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.

 I agree here. If Johnston had been able to frustrate Sherman, that
along with Grants problems in the noth might have cost Lincoln the
election.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Winningstad                 My boss doesn't pay attention either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: US Empire (was: The British Lost!)
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 19:00:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr02.232348.10190@sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) writes:

>Another example is the case of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. Didn't
>the invasion start a few days after George Schultz (Sec. of State? Ford
>administration?) left Djakarta, after "security consultations"? In spite
                       ^^^^^^^^ (1)
>of mass killings, no protest was heard from the US government. Cover-up, or
>business as usual in the greater east-asia co-prosperity sphere: you be
                     (2)  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
>the judge. These are off the top of me 'ed, so if I left out your favorite
>
>
(1)  The spelling changed to Jakarta when reforms were made in the
spelling in Bahasa Indonesia in 1971.

(2)  Propaganda?  The East-Asia co-Prosperity Sphere was a creation of
the Japanese and the title was misleading.  It was designed for
JAPANESE prosperity, not East-Asian prosperity.  It died out after the war.

The East Timor invasion had little if any to do with this.  Late in
1974, the Portugese declared East Timor independent.  It was seen
likely that FRETILIN (the Communist Party) would take control of the
government.  Naturally, Suharto would not want to see a communist East
Timor on its border, especially considering the troubles the PKI
(Partai Kommunis Indonesia) gave the government under Sukarno
(Soekarno back then).

In early 1975, because of the communist threat, and the desire to
unite all Malay peoples, Suharto had Indonesian forces invade and take
control of the island.

The desire to unite was seen during the Sukarno era during the
Confratation with Malasia in the early 1960's and the taking of Irian
Jaya (West New Guiena) in the mid 1960's.












-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Go BLUE JAYS   1-0   at Tigers Monday (4-2), Wednesday and Thursday
 End the strike.  Get back on the ice.  Get the playoffs going.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: BOOK: PURSUIT OF POWER  by William McNeil
Keywords: military, technology, society, western
Organization: The Instrumentality
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:33:39 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 <1992Apr16.212912.14066@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes:
>Has anybody read or have opinions about william mcneil's book the;
>pursuit of Power?
>
>The book describes the influence of technological progress on war 
>and on society as a whole through war.  It complements his other
...
>He says that when the market system got out of control in europe
>(but not in China) that the stage was set for runaway technology.
>While he doesn't blame capitalist greed for all the arms races of
>the 19nth and 20th century-=- he does note that the arms producing
>portions of the state are out of control. 

Maybe--but doesn't he also make the point that technological _progress_ is
also due in large part to the connection between industry, finance, and war
in European countries (and the US)? I didn't get the impression that McNeil
thought all progress was evil. 

Furthermore, McNeil points out that the (ex) Marxist countries also relied
on technology to make war, but had to content themselves mostly with
stealing Western technology because their repressive social order was
incompatible with technological innovation. I thought _that_ was very
interesting.

Remember that McNeil asserted that Chinese exploration and technical
advance were deliberately stopped as a matter of social policy because they
were seen as dangerous by the ruling class--if a powerful middle class were
to arise, if a technical elite were to gain a measure of power, then their
own status would be threatened. I don't think McNeil thought that this was
a desirable alternative to our "runaway technology"--and neither do I.

>It is an interesting book on the origin of the arms race (which is
>why I read it to begin with) as well as a good history of war in
>general (????). I am an electrical engineering student not a historian.
>If anyone wishes to comment or discuss this-I wish they would send
>me mail, as I don't read  soc.history regularly.

Why do people bother posting to groups they don't read?

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: Why did Field Marshal Erwin Rommel commit suicide?
Date: 07 Apr 92 22:24:02 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group

As a sidebar, I cannot help but think about the news story last
week that Rommel's son (is his name Konrad by any chance?)
was saying a fond farewell to a unit of the U.S. Army that
was permanently leaving the city of which this Rommel is
mayor.

It is these kinds of ironies that make getting up in the
morning the sport it is today. Rommel's son probably would
not even be alive today if the Field Marshal hadn't
consented to suicide. So the son is today the mayor (a bourgeois
politician!) of a German city. And he's saying he's going to
miss the U.S. troops withdrawing from city--U.S. troops in
Germany!

(Isn't Mussolini's daughter running for a seat in the
Italian parliament as a member of a neo-fascist party, he
asked parenthetically?)

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Only the mediocre can always be at their best." -- Mencken
For an average time write uunet!microsoft!frankm
For an even more mediocre time try frankm@microsoft.com
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: James Longstreet (Was: a few comments about ``revisionism'')
Date: 3 Apr 92 15:47:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: Dr_No.EMERY.92Apr3104731
	<1992Mar31.191810.17764@odin.corp.sgi.com>
	<1992Apr1.202905.10737@cabot.balltown.cma.COM>
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

Shaara's "Killer Angels" has a good portrayal of the relationship
between Longstreet and Lee (and it's very good reading.)  I've been
preparing a paper on Lee and Longstreet at Gettysburg (for an Army
class), and I agree completely with Richard.  Lee did not do a very
good job commanding at Gettysburg.  Longstreet, however, did not put
his entire heart into this action, because he predicted (accurately)
its result.  But the primary blame is on Lee, for 
	a.  not communicating his intent
	b.  not adequately coordinating his subordinates
	c.  not checking up on his subordinates
Many have argued that, if Jackson were alive, that Gettysburg would
have been much different.  They excuse Lee's 'shortcomings' with the
assertion that Jackson would have known what Lee meant, and would have
done the right thing.  This may well be true, but after 2 years, Lee
knew Longstreet as well as Jackson, and there's no excusing Lee's
failure to exercise full command over Longstreet.

As I study the Civil War more, I'm coming to the conclusion that Lee
was a solid (but maybe not brilliant) strategist, and he was a master
of what we call "operational art" (the conduct of campaigns).  But,
Lee was not as good as others (Jackson, Grant, Sherman) at the conduct
of actual battles.  This is probably a heretical thought....

				dave
From: sl@ccd.harris.com (Scott Linn)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Roman History, Manilius, The colour of Sirius
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:42:47 GMT
Organization: Advanced Technology Department, Harris Corporation


-- 
In article <1992Apr2.151333.4747@ac.dal.ca>, hyde@ac.dal.ca writes:
|> In article <1992Mar31.101459.18829@uniwa.uwa.oz.au>, ibacon@uniwa.uwa.oz.au (Ian Bacon) writes:
|> > I am a Masters's student in Classics & Ancient History at the University
|> > of Western Australia. My research topic is an ancient Roman Astronomer,
|> > Marcus Manilius.
|> >  
|> 	Perhaps you should repost your original question to
|> 	Sci.astro.  You might get your question addressed by
|> 	a real astronomer, not an ex-astronomy student.
|> 
|> 
|> 						Bill Hyde
|> Department of Oceanography
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> Dalhousie University,
|> Halifax, Nova Scotia
|> hyde@ac.dal.ca or hyde@dalac

Greetings,
 
     Don't you deal more in the world of Jacques Piccard rather
than Jean-Luc?  But then, I'm an ex-history major who earns
his keep as an accountant. :->

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    |  "Athanasius, the world is  
For the Crown Rights of King Jesus, |  against you." 
                                    |  "Then Athanasius is against the 
Scott Linn                          |  world."
sl@ccd.harris.com                   |        CONTRA MUNDUM 
                                    | St. Athanasius the Great, bastion  
                                    | of the Trinitarian faith against
                                    | the Arians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: dickwin@sequent.com
Subject: Re: CW ARMIES
Organization:  Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 01:28:16 GMT

In article <92101.154229C05705DA@wuvmd.wustl.edu> C05705DA@WUVMD writes:
>In the postings somewhere in the Shilos, it was mentioned that the Union
>Army of the West went to Atlanta, or somewhere anyway with Sherman, I
>thaught that the armies under Sherm were the Tennessee, Cumberland, and
>Ohio.  I have heard of the army of the West, but where did they go and
>what did they do?  Did they fight the army of the Missouri in Mo.?
>Through out the war, many armies formed and reformed and merged and etc.
>I'm curious about the more unknown armies on both sides.  thanks.

I was using the term west in a generic sense.  Your right, the armies
Sherman led were properly named Army of Tennessee etc.  West was only
used to locate the scene of action.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Winningstad
----------------------------------------------------------------------