HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.war,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Britain vs. Italy Was Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor
Date: 23 Jul 92 03:53:20 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George) writes:

> In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul21150900@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) wri
> s:
> [deletions]
> >
> >    Note, however, that the British had already declared
> >    war on Italy; they were not engaged in "peace" talks.
> [deletions]
> 
> Minor correction here, which actually strengthens ATAYLOR's contention that
> Taranto is not equivalent to Pearl Harbor: Italy declared war on Great
> Britain in June 1940, roughly five months before Taranto, not the other way
> around (though Britain did declare war on Nazi Germany).  Britain was
> certainly not eager to add an extra enemy in the summer of 1940!
> 
> Robert George
> (speaking only for myself)


Really, none of it makes a lot of difference, in any case.

Man's attempts to liken war to some sort of sporting event, with rules and  
decorum, seem pointless. So does all the flap over the "sneak attack"
nature of the Pearl Harbor strike. War is not a polite exercise; why do
we persist in pretending that it can be?
 
So much of the morality play over Pearl Harbor strikes
me as propaganda aimed at whipping anti-Japanese sentiment to a fever
pitch (seemingly a redundant exercise after such an attack).  That it
should still resound into the present says less about the Japanese
than it does about us.

Equally senseless is for the Japanese to wag the finger of moral 
outrage at us over the use of the atomic bomb. 

Sherman was right: "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it."
G.

--
Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune         (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191                    (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106        galan@netlink.cts.com (Internet)
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: How many Indians?
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:08:44 GMT
Organization: pubs


Lowie's text "Indians of the Plains" gives population estimates for the
various tribes of the Plains, such as the Mandan, Lakota, and Pawnee
tribes.  What's striking, by comparison with modern society, is how
small the numbers are.  A typical tribe had 2000 to 5000 people in its
heyday, including tribes whose names are very familiar to us today.  It
stands to reason that a tribe in the northern plains would be limited in
numbers, since the same land supports relatively few people even today.
But I find it interesting that our intense study of early "cultures" can
be based on such small societies.  Does anyone have any basis for
disputing Lowie's numbers?

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin)
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:49:58 GMT

In article <11478@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>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
>
>I've seen estimates that Rome had perhaps as many as 700,000 during the
>late Empire period.  Remember, Rome had multistory apartment buildings
>over a substantial area of land, and current notions of crowding would
>not have seemed crowded then.

Also, the events in the coliseum must have been lightly attended, since
it has 40,000 seats.
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined - Albert Camus.)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: ...NVA 320th division???
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:02:00 EST


does anyone know the numbering logic of the North Vietnamese Army
having a "320th" division. 

many thanks for any info.

   ando.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: kja@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (krista.j.anderson)
Subject: Re: Goebbels' diaries reviewed by Irving??
Keywords: Chelmno,Eichmann,Goebbels,Irving
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:53:17 GMT

In article <15843@pitt.UUCP>, geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:
> goals of making Germany into a 1000 year Reich.  I don't think
> he wanted to be destructive as a goal in itself.  It just turned
> out that destruction was the result of his unswerving fanaticism
> in pursuing his goals for making Germany supreme.  I think he
> was less in it for personal power than Stalin was, actually.
> Hitler had principles, however perverted they seem to us,
> and was dedicated to an ideal outside himself.  Stalin, I think,
> was not.  He could have as well been a fascist as a communist.
> With Hitler that would have been unthinkable.

I think you are right that Hitler had principles.  It's an
interesting thing to ponder.  I suppose he believed that any means
whatsoever would be justified by his ultimate goal.  But he didn't
see that the means were destroying the Reich, Germany, himself.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu
Subject: Re: Geneaology
Organization: Utah Valley Community College
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:59:25 GMT

In article <4m1x=3@rpi.edu>, edgarm@rs6123.ecs.rpi.edu (Marc Edgar) writes:
> Greetings,
> 
> I hope I am not taking up to much bandwidth here but this seemed
> like the most reasonable place to ask these questions.
> 
> I am doing some family history research and would to find
> out a couple of things,
> 1) Are there any news groups where geneaology is discussed regularly?
> 2) For those familiar with the programs for preparing family trees:
>    Which shareware programs, such as those at simtel, would you
>    recommend or not recommend?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Marc Edgar
> edgarm@rpi.edu
> 
> PS - Please reply to me directly and I'll repost to the newsgroup.
> 
---Marc

Take a look at newsgroups: soc.roots, I think you'll find a lot of "rooters"
there.

Hey I like your name....
---Marc D. Jerome

Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,rec.arts.books,misc.legal
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: _A Constitutional History of the United States_
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:58:50 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 09:31:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.045850.8606@midway.uchicago.edu>, rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:

> In article <11425@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>>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. 

Astounding.  All your reading seems to have enabled
you to read things that aren't there.  Where does
he make any claims about your ability or desire to
read?
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Xref: sparky soc.history:6537 alt.war:1518 talk.politics.misc:34911 soc.culture.japan:6070
From: galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.war,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Taranto //WasRe: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japaneseatroc
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:35:43 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

> > That we can even mention war and morality in the same breath is 
> > remarkable. 
> 
>   Which is to say that self defense (on a countries level) is not 
> moral? Uh, boy. (waiting for Russ Nelson any minute here...)
> -- 
> 
> 		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)

The Japanese thught they were defending themselves, or at least tyheir 
interests, when they attacked us. Was that moral? Was Saddam Hussein
fighting a moral war because a coalition of nations attacked and 
partly invaded his? 
 
Wars may sometimes be justifiable on a practical level, but moral?
I don't think so.
G.

--
Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
San Diego Union-Tribune         (619) 293-1270 (voice)
P.O. Box 191                    (619) 293-2333 (fax)
San Diego, CA 92112-4106        galan@netlink.cts.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,rec.arts.books,misc.legal
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: NATO/Warsaw Pact forces (was Re: Greatest Prez...)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul8.153227.2698@desire.wright.edu>
	<JMC.92Jul14002258@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul21.201752.12569@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
	<l6p7osINN60u@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:03:01

The extreme superiority of the M1A1 tank to the T-72 was a big
surprise to the U.S. as well as everyone else.  A Soviet general
said that this was just to the export version of the T-72.
Maybe so.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: fsars@acad2.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:31:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Alaska

In article <159r56INNn4u@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes:
> 
> 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.     :-)
Didn't they have park and ride?  I understand that Rome was in the
forefront of urban planning at the time.  Mass transist must have been
a consideration.  === Al
Xref: sparky soc.history:6686 talk.bizarre:23439 soc.culture.indian.american:2261
From: abreu@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Abreu)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.bizarre,soc.culture.indian.american
Subject: Re: Columbus? (Portuguese first??)
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:12:27 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <1992Jul14.171506.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> olaf@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
 [...]
 > What made Portuguese voyages from the twelfth century so fascinating,
 > was their willingness to venture beyond sight of land. The discovery
 > of the Atlantic islands (Azores, Medeiras, Canaries, Cape Verde islands, 
                   ^^^^^^^          ^^^^^^^^
 > etc.) was truly impressive  
 [...]

Sorry for splitting hairs, but that should read "archipelagos" and "Madeira"
respectively.

Hamilton Abreu
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Subject: Re: Edward II
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:26:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.125924.21831@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> cohen@cumuli.vmsmail.ethz.ch (Mark Cohen) writes:
>I have some questions about the reign of Edward the second 

>i) Was it really a red hot poker or was Edwards death more mundane

Yes, it was. This was the common method of the era how to deal with homosexuals
(killing someone without leaving any external signs of violence ). This kind
of execution carries a Latin term, I don't, however, remember it.

>ii) How old was Prince Edward (later Ed III) when Edward II was deposed/killed

14. Immediately after making 18 he let Mortimer to be executed (I'd remember 
he was hanged (noblemen were usually beheaded, commoners hanged)) and quartered
and her mother cloistered.

>iii) Does any one know what the relationship between Gaverston and Edward II
>     really was.

Nobody knows exactly, but since homosexuality was during the Middle Ages some-
thing utterly illicit and therefore extermely hidden, there can be suspect-
ed anything, even a secret sexual relationship.

>iv) How wide spread was the disruption that surrounded the overthrow of 
>    Edward II was it a palace coup or a wide spread revolt.

Both. The Parliament deposed King because of the orders of Queen Isabella and
Mortimer. Edward II was not a popular king, though, and therefore nobody
protested nor resisted.

>Thanks in advance for any responses.
>Mark Cohen


  ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  ++
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:31:23 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Jul20183207@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>To what extent did the psychological impact of Pearl Harbour
>motivate the Cold War and the fear of a surprise attack by the
>Soviet Union on the US?

Good question, but I'm afraid the answer would be rather disappointing. So
far as I know, the USSR/Russia has never made the sort of surprise attack 
we are talking about here. They HAVE been the victims of such attacks
several times; the Japanese attacked the Russian Pacific Fleet without warning
in the early 1900's, the Japanese Manchurian army attacked Soviet positions
TWICE in the late 1930's BEFORE war broke out in Europe (the Japanese troops
were flattened) and of course, Barbarossa. It's more likely that the Soviets
were influenced, or at least their opinion that the world was potentially
very dangerous for them was reinforced by Pearl Harbor.

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..."
From: vvirrank@cc.Helsinki.FI (Ville Virrankoski)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:04:51 GMT
	<16JUL199212042736@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Jul20.184124.5523@island.COM>
	<23JUL199214120738@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
Organization: University of Helsinki, Finland

In article <23JUL199214120738@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> smpod@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:

>and.COM (Mike Fester) writes...
>>smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
>>>fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes...
>>>>Also, I believe the attacks on Japanese cities also reduced the effectiveness
>>>>of the Japanese military machine, which is a perfectly valid thing to attempt
>>>>to do.
>> 
>>>How did attacking the cities reduce the effectiveness of the Japanese military
>>>machine?
>> 
>>Uh, by destroying factories? By burning shops that supplied parts to the 
>>larger industries? By disrupting rail traffic? Shipyards?
>
>Why not bomb the factories, rail and shipyards instead of homes, temples and
>hospitals?
>

Destroyed facilities could be repaired with workers, but if You attack
workers, they wouldn't recover so fast.
Attacking homes is less risky as attacking military targets. Military targets
are quite small and so easily defended. There are much more civilian targets
and if You are supposed to defend them, You'll need a lot of stuff.
Public, cultural and national need to defend certain places.

And every man, every plane, every AA gun assigned to these duties are away
from front line usage!
 
>>Really, if all this is confusing, why don't you follow soc.culture.japan? It
>>HAS been discussed rather thoroughly there.
>
>The confusion lies elsewhere ;-)

Confusion? I'm confused.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: kja@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (krista.j.anderson)
Subject: Re: Goebbels' diaries reviewed by Irving??
Keywords: Chelmno,Eichmann,Goebbels,Irving
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:24:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.190430.15086@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, kja@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (krista.j.anderson) writes:
> I mean, after Kristalnacht, his pattern was pretty much set and
> Payne quotes from a speech he made afterward that shows a great
> deal of insight into why people become destructive. 

Oops, I didn't mean Kristalnacht; I meant after the "night of the
long knives" when over 200 people were killed who were SA members
or other enemies.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: traynor@fnala.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Population of Rome
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 04:43:16 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnala.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Jul29.000253.12374@u.washington.edu>, krzystek@milton.u.washington.edu (Jerzy Krzystek) writes:
> 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
It depends on when in the Roman Empire you wish to talk about.  During the late
republican/Principate  era, Rome's population did indeed number anywhere from
500,000-2,000,000 (although the most reliable estimates I saw quoted 750,000-
1,000,000 based on the amount of grain, etc. the emperors donated to the 
Roman populace).  By the later Roman empire (by which I mean the Dominate
(~300-450 A.D.) between civil wars and population/economic decline and insecurity
caused by repeated barbarian raids (forcing Rome to rebuild the walls around
herself in 270 A.D.), the city population had sunk to ~250,000.  Indeed, by that
time, Rome was no longer the political center of gravity in Italy--that had passed
to Milan and eventually Ravenna in the West, and in 327 to Constantinople in the 
East (IT WASN'T ISTANBUL YET HASAN!).  After the sack in 410 by Alaric, and another
in 457(?), the population continued to decline, but it was the re-taking of Rome
by Belisarius against the Ostrogoths that finally decimated the city and the Italian
peninsula--the Roman population sunk to a  nominal 50-60,000 by the seventh century.

If you want, please reply via e-mail, and I can suggest a number of books to read
about the Roman economy and population.

					-Mike Traynor

NNN  NN DDDD    Mike Traynor (ND '86)(Rice '93?) |||     Amiga 500 owner   ///
 N N N   D  D   Fermilab PO Box 500 MS 221 E683  |||     Only Amiga makes ///
 N  NN   D  D   Batavia IL, 60510               //|\\    it possible  \\\/// 
NN   NN DDDD    (708) 879-6095 [ans. mach.]    /// \\\                 \XX/


-- 
NNN  NN DDDD    Mike Traynor (ND '86)(Rice '93?) |||     Amiga 500 owner   ///
 N N N   D  D   Fermilab PO Box 500 MS 221 E683  |||     Only Amiga makes ///
 N  NN   D  D   Batavia IL, 60510               //|\\    it possible  \\\/// 
NN   NN DDDD    (708) 879-6095 [ans. mach.]    /// \\\                 \XX/
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: kamorgan@athena.mit.edu (Keith Morgan)
Subject: Re: NATO/Warsaw Pact forces (was Re: Greatest Prez...)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:47:15 GMT

In article <11363@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>There is a book titled _Inside the Soviet Army_, written by a 
>Soviet Army defector using the pseudonym Viktor Suvorov ....

>There are aspects to the book that are suspicious -- too much
>information seems to be in the book for an army captain to have
>had access to. 

	There was an interesting debate on Suvorov's identity that
reemerged every time a new book came out. Now that the CCCP is history
I wonder if we'll find out who Suvorov really was.

-Keith
--
Keith Morgan		      | Just because your voice reaches half-
MIT Libraries                 | way around the world doesn't mean
kamorgan@athena.mit.edu	      | you are wiser than when it reached 
                              | only to the end of the bar. Ed Murrow
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Paul Von Hindenburg
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:35:13 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Jul25.052439.2717@anasaz>, briand@anasaz (Brian Douglass) writes:
From .sig:
> "Fifty years after Waterloo Napoleon was as much a hero to English school 
> children as Wellington.  How do we know our grandchildren won't idolize Von 
> Hindenburg? If only we could learn to look on evil AS evil, whether it's clothed
> in filth, monotony or magnificence." F. Scott Fitzgerald, This Side of Paradise
> Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657

An interesting statement.  Of course it's been over 50 years since
WWI, and while we don't despise him, we don't idolize Von Hindenburg. 
Most people in this country remember the blimp that was named after
him better than the person.

He was President of Germany, after World War I, and his last year in
office (and of his life) included the appointment of Hitler as
Chancellor of Germany.  It's only fair to add that, as President, he
was obliged to appoint Hitler because his party had a majority in that
country's equivalent of Parliament (I don't think it was called the
Riechstag then).

He actually was a statesman, and served his country with distinction
after the war ended.  He served his country well before the war ended
too.

                    === Al Sparks
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: smpod@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: who knows
Date: 23 Jul 1992 13:51 EDT  

 fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes...
> smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
>>livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes...
>>>|> It is debatable wether who started bombing civilians deliberately.
> 
>>>Pardon me?  Germany bombed civilians in Spain and Poland
>>>before the allies were even at war, and in Holland before
>>>the period referred to above.
>>
>>I'm confining the argument the Anglo-American/German airwar.
> 
>Tell me, is it debatable who started the war? 

Let's test you reading skills: tell me in your words what I said? :-)
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek)
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:27:40 GMT

smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
>visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes...
>>	In the case of the british, there was a fair amount of desire for
>>"payback" in the bombing.  This has nothing to do with who started the
>>war and everything to do with the actions of the German air force during
>>1940-1941 over England.  London and Coventry created deep anger in England
>>which was bound to be shown at some point.
>It is debatable wether who started bombing civilians deliberately.

	It was the British who dropped on civilians first. During a 
night attack some RAF bombers let go on German Homes by accident. They
were aiming for a factory. The Germans were outraged, and hit British
civilians to retaliate. Than the british were outraged and hit German
civilians, and so on. Civilan bombing was started by a mistake. At the
time neither side knew what had happened, therefore it continued.

					James Dusek
Xref: sparky soc.history:6852 soc.culture.japan:6349