HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: LEST WE FORGET: The Fate of the Homosexuals
Keywords: Auschwitz,Dirlwanger,Flossenburg,homosexual,Ravensbruck
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:56:10 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan09.130103.27212@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
# "A few remarks are in order about the various sex relationships in
# concentration camps. I start out with the homosexuals since they were
# accorded a special category among the inmates and `merited' a separate,
# pink triangle. ...
# 
# Very little has been written about the tens of thousands of homosexuals who
# were the damnedest of the damned, the outcasts among the outcasts in the
# concentration camps. There are really only estimates of figures. During the
# twleve years of Nazi rule, nearly 50,000 were convicted of the crime of
# homosexuality. The majority ended up in concentration camps, and virtually
# all of them perished. <84# According to a recent study, `at least 500,000
# gays died in the Holocaust.' <85# As Stefan Lorant observed in 1935, the
# homosexuals `lived in a dream', hoping that the heyday of gays in Germany
# of the 1920s would last forever. Their awakening was terrible. <86# Yet,
# the few survivors among them did not qualify for postwar restitution as the
# Jews or the politicals, because as homosexuals they were outside the law.
# By German law, homosexuality was a crime. After the prison sentences most
# homosexuals were automatically shipped to concentration camps. In 1935, a
# new law legalized the `compulsory sterilization (often in fact castration)
# of homosexuals.' <87# A special section of the Gestapo dealt with them.
# Along with epileptics, schizophrenics and other `degenerates', they were
# being eliminated. Yet homosexuality was still so widespread that in 1942
# the death penalty was imposed for it in the army and the SS.
# The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island

The extermination of homosexuals by the Nazis is a curious phenomenon,
since homosexuality and other forms of sexual perversion was common
among the higher ups of the Party, even after the Night of the Long
Knives eliminated Roehm and other SA leadership.  Was this simply
an example of different rules for the masses, or was homosexuality
simply used as an effective device for incarcerating and executing
people who would have otherwise been difficult to remove?

_Target Hitler_ gives an example of one of the German generals
removed from his position with a clearly trumped up charge of being
a homosexual -- and how upset other German generals were, since it
was known how much of Hitler's staff were homosexuals.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: BOSTON, 1770's, James Otis, & the revolution
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 21:56:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac
Keywords: Boston,Otis

I would like to locate some comprehensive material relating to
pre-revolutionary Boston, and a gentleman named James Otis.

It is my understanding that Mr. Otis published material which neither his
family nor the King appreciated, and I would like to learn more about him,
and similar characters, who were active in opposing British rule during the
pre-revolutionary period.

I'd appreciate pointers to textbooks or historical works which might deal
with the period, and Boston in particular.

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
 Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...  
                 Information is power - get connected
Xref: sparky soc.history:10668 alt.war.civil.usa:1827
From: kfl@access.digex.com (Keith F. Lynch)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Use of Pre-Civil War Railroads in Warfare
Date: 10 Jan 1993 16:56:41 GMT
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1iof9t$qsp@agate.berkeley.edu> turrell@violet.berkeley.edu (David Turrell) writes:
> I can't think of books that would tell absolutely when the first railroad
> use in war was, although I can think of some (many) that tell of Civil
> War usage, Haupt's Reminiscences in particular.

A history of Vienna Virginia, where I live, claims that this is where a
railroad was first used in warfare, during the Civil War, in June 1861.
There's also a plaque set up at the site, making the same claim.  If
there's interest, I'll find the book and look up the exact wording.

Keith Lynch, kfl@access.digex.com
From: buxton@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (buxton)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Soviet space disaster?
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:15:58 GMT
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison

In article <JMC.93Jan2132259@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU  
(John McCarthy) writes:
> I don't remember details, but I believe that Soviet space accidents
> have been fairly well reported by now - both in magazines like
> _Aviation Week_ and in the post-censorship Soviet Press.  Yurii
> Gagarin, the first man to orbit the earth, was killed flying
> a fighter jet.  So were two American astronauts.  Over the years,
> the Soviets had more and worse accidents than we did.
I thought that Yuri Gagarin was killed in a later space mission when his  
chute didn't deploy and he landed harder than anticipated.  Or did this  
fate befall some other Soviet cosmonaut?
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.war.civil.usa
From: dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu (Donald R. Newcomb)
Subject: Re: Use of Pre-Civil War Railroads in Warfare
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:20:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.171601.2724@leland.Stanford.EDU> disraeli@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jamie Lara Bronstein) writes:
>If the nearest railhead to the Crimea was 400 miles away, how was it that
>the front was able to send news to England quickly via telegraph?
>I was under the impression that telegraph lines were usually strung
>along the railroad tracks, so that stations could communicate
>with each other.

I did a paper on the Crimean War for a history class, oh, 'bout 20 years
ago. As I remember the Brits built a military railroad in the Crimea
as part of the campaign. That's one of the few items I remember from
that class. Other than the fact that the Brits had trouble keeping their
own arms merchants from selling weapons to the Russians.
-- 
Donald R. Newcomb                * Oh please, Mr. Clinton, won't
dnewcomb@whale.st.usm.edu        * you please just tax that other
newcomb@usmcp6.bitnet            * guy and send his money to me?
From: emery@goldfinger.mitre.org (David Emery)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: _Target Hitler_ a book review
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:26:21 GMT
	<vzhivov.726381282@cunews> <1993Jan7.191800.4471@island.COM>
	<vzhivov.726437511@cunews>
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

You know, it's hard to separate "good motives" from "bad motives".  If
you believe that someone is going to drive your country into the
ground, that's a reasonable excuse for opposition.  Many German
officers deplored things like "Kristallnacht".   Some of them (e.g.
Ludwig Beck) were active in the opposition movement on that basis.
Other were more pragmatic, expecting Hitler to lead Germany into a
miltary disaster.  In 1938-1939, there was *not* the general knowledge
of the excesses of the Nazis.  The mass killings (both extermination
camps and "on site") didn't really start until 1941.  Therefore,
opposition to Hitler's foreign policy is much more viable in 1938-1941.

Therefore I believe it to be unfair to say that those who opposed
Hitler because they believed that Hitler would start and lose a war
are any less 'honorable' than others.  

Incidentally, there is growing evidence that the Germans had a very
good reason to be afraid of Soviet intentions in '41 and later.

				dave
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: vzhivov@alfred.carleton.ca (Vladimir Zhivov)
Subject: Re: _Target Hitler_ a book review
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:59:02 GMT

In <EMERY.93Jan7182621@goldfinger.mitre.org> emery@goldfinger.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:

>You know, it's hard to separate "good motives" from "bad motives".  If
>you believe that someone is going to drive your country into the
>ground, that's a reasonable excuse for opposition.  Many German
>officers deplored things like "Kristallnacht".   Some of them (e.g.
>Ludwig Beck) were active in the opposition movement on that basis.
>Other were more pragmatic, expecting Hitler to lead Germany into a
>miltary disaster.  In 1938-1939, there was *not* the general knowledge
>of the excesses of the Nazis.  The mass killings (both extermination
>camps and "on site") didn't really start until 1941.  Therefore,
>opposition to Hitler's foreign policy is much more viable in 1938-1941.

>Therefore I believe it to be unfair to say that those who opposed
>Hitler because they believed that Hitler would start and lose a war
>are any less 'honorable' than others.  

>Incidentally, there is growing evidence that the Germans had a very
>good reason to be afraid of Soviet intentions in '41 and later.

>				dave

Please explain this "growing evidence". It's the first time I've heard
of anything of the sort.

                                                  Vladimir
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: townsend@capitol.com (Dave Townsend)
Subject: Use of Pre-Civil War Railroads in Warfare
Organization: Capitol Disc Interactive
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:10:14 GMT


	I'm doing a project on the American Civil War battle First Manassas.
	In researching the history, I keep running across weaselly adjectives
	when it comes to describing Johnston's use of railroads.  Things
	like:

	"Instead, it would require  - for the first time in an American war -
                                                               ^^^^^^^^
	 the use of technology, namely the Manassas Gap railroad."

			(Hennessy, The First Battle of Manassas, p. 2)


	OK, who first (period!) used railroads in war?  Napoleon III?

	Any references appreciated.


	--DaveT;

-- 
Dave Townsend, Capitol Disc Interactive			townsend@capitol.com
``With my imitation Gretsch guitar
    and my head full of songs and my eyes full of stars...''  R.Davies
Newsgroups: soc.history,sci.space,soc.culture.soviet
From: tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker)
Subject: Re: Soviet space disaster?
Organization: Me, at The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:05:24 GMT


>>Charles Packer (packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>>: Somebody told me recently that they had read that the
>>: former Soviet Union had suffered a space disaster in which
>>: they had to leave one of their cosmonauts in orbit to die
>>: because they couldn't rescue him. My informant said that
>>: his information came from reading newspaper accounts of
>>: formerly secret material that was made public in the last
>>: couple of years during the unravelling of the Soviet system
>>: and the subsequent increase in openness of discussion and 
>>: publication in Russia.

Ahhhhh.  During the Sixties there were indeed many persistant rumours
about heartless Communist space scientists launching cosmonauts in
unsafe capsules, and dead Soviets orbiting forever.  These rumours
never could be verified for my taste.

I wish I could quote exact references, but this kind of stuff was sort
of in the league of BOTH ufos and also propoganda.

I remember reading a Reader's Digest story about two young Italian
geniuses that loved to build radios.  They eavesdropped in on Mercury
flights, for instance, calculating the frequencies in use from a
picture of the Mercury antenna.

They also listened to Soviet flights, and tape recorded the
cosmonaut's heartbeat.  (Umm, you *DO* understand, don't you, that I
am relating this possibly untrue story as an example of the "rumours"?
I don't buy this tale, myself.)  They took the tape to a doctor, and
supposedly did not tell him what it was.  "This is the heartbeat of a
dying man," he was supposed to have said.

The point is that there were lots of stories like this.  Some even gave
names of the poor bastards that died in orbit before Gagarin's flight.
Put out for some Cold War reason, or just plain made up?  Or true?
Oh, well.
--------------------------------------.--------------------------------------
 Net - tombaker@world.std.com  __     | National Space Society is a nonprofit
uucp - uunet!world!tombaker   /  \  / | public organization dedicated to
 BIX - tombaker              /  O  /  | promoting the eventual establishment
 AOL - TABaker@aol.com      /  \__/   | of a spacefaring civilization.
______________________________________|______________________________________



Xref: sparky soc.history:10598 sci.archaeology:3141
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.history,sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: The Taj Mahal is a Hindu Temple
Keywords: Taj Mahal, Hindu, temple
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:19:05 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <C0FJx0.7vK@agora.rain.com> trifid@agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks) writes:
>
>
>Whatever you may think of this article, it was seen here (or on some other
>newsgroup I subscribe to) at least a year ago, so it has nothing to do with
>the current religious problems in India.
>
>(And I do believe I once read in a non-Indian history that Shah Jehan was,
>indeed, a hard man, and very tight with a rupee. I always wondered how the
>legend squared with the historic accounts of a man with an enormous harem he
>didn't treat very well, and a tendency to hate to part with money...)
>
>I suspect it may not be 100% revisionism, although given the continual strain
>in the region between the two major religions, I am not prepared to swallow
>this version whole, either.
>
>(And my interest in European history makes me much more willing to accept
>"revisions" after all the new evidence about Bronze Age Europe...  :-)
>
>Suze

I'm not in the habit of swallowing anything whole either, including what
is dished up by conventional scholarship.  Not that I won't eat it, but
I like to chew on it for myself.  Of course the study of history is not
a trivial thing, and it involves the comprehensive labor of many 
generations of scholars.  But neither do I accept the authoritarianism of
orthodox scholarship that tells me I am not qualified to judge complicated
issues for myself.  ONe the one hand, not everything is false that is taught 
in the university, and likewise, not everyone who writes a single revisionist 
work is to be accepted at once.  On the other hand, the discovery of a single
individual can render volumes of scholarly work obsolete.

I must say that what impresses me is the detailed architectural indications
wrt Hindu temple style, the contradictions with usual Moslem practice,
and the collateral evidence of the Moslem rulers widespread habit of taking
over Hindu temples and turning them into tombs.  Add to that the apparently
sealed off rooms supposedly containing Hindu idols and treasures, which the
authorities (probably for the sake of domestic peace) refuse to open, and
there is at least good grounds to ask more questions.  I can also understand
why most scholars avoid this like the plague.  In India you could get in
big trouble by stirring up the waters.  Outside India, if this were ones
specialty, then access to documents and archaeological sites could become
difficult, and ones reputation questioned.  The life of a professional
scholar is not easy.

What is this about the bronze age in Europe?

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Xref: sparky soc.history:10610 soc.culture.british:18362 soc.culture.celtic:8620
From: spxsjm@thor.cf.ac.uk (Mr S J Morris 92)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Britain/Ireland 400-1100
Date: 8 Jan 93 12:09:46 GMT
Organization: University of Wales College at Cardiff
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway

mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) asks
|I'm going to be taking a class in about a month on the archaeology
|of the period 400-1100 AD in Britain & Ireland.  I'm interested in
|doing some reading about this period beforehand, preferably not
|narrowly archaeological in nature (save that for the class).
|I'd prefer good references to books on its political & cultural / art
|history, & anything else that mite help my understanding of the
|period. I'm fairly well acquainted with material on Ireland, somewhat
|on the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, & pretty much clueless about Scotland
|& the other Celtic kingdoms of Britain, during that period.

Two good books on the history of the Brythonic Celts (i.e. the Welsh and
the former inhabitants of what is now England and Southern Scotland)
are:

 'Language and History in Early Britain' by Kenneth Jackson
                                          Edinburgh University Press
 - although this book is principally about the development of the Welsh,
   Cornish and Breton languages, the author performs a fascinating
   analysis of the social and cultural circumstances under which such
   developments took place.

 'When Was Wales? A History of the Welsh' by Gwyn A. Williams
                                          Pelican Books
 - with reference to the period you're interested in, Williams writes
   (I don't have the copy with me so I quote approximately) "so few
   facts are known about this period that the responsible course of
   action for a responsible historian would be to ignore it altogether -
   to do that, though, would be an appalling dereliction of duty on
   my part". He actually succeeds in producing a believable account
   of what may have happened, which at least fits in with the more
   secure history of the periods before and since.

Hope this helps.


-- 
Steve Morris,
Adran Ffiseg a Seryddiaeth, Coleg Prifysgol Cymru Caerdydd.
(Physics and Astronomy Dept., UWC Cardiff)
***************************************************************************
* For God so loved the world that he* Canys felly y carodd Duw y byd fel  *
* gave his only-begotten Son, that  * y rhoddodd efe ei unig-anedig Fab,  *
* whosever believes in him should   * fel na choller pwy bynnag a gredo   *
* not perish but have everlasting   * ynddo Ef, ond caffael ohono fywyd   *
* life.      (John ch.3 v.16)       * tragwyddol.      (Ioan p.3 ad.16)   *
***************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: vzhivov@alfred.carleton.ca (Vladimir Zhivov)
Subject: Re: _Target Hitler_ a book review
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:34:42 GMT

In <13828@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1993Jan5.191211.5333@island.COM>, fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>> Also, when the war was winding down (read: it was clear the Germans were going 
>> to get their tails kicked), Hitler insisted on providing all necessary supplies for his death-camps, even at the expense of the war effort. Surely, this cannot have been lost on the generals. 
>>  
>> Mike

>However, the principal plotters were involved and organized by
>1938, when their actions can only be read as a principled opposition
>to Hitler's madness.  Many attempts were made by them in 1942 and
>1943, but for a variety of reasons, the results were not discovered.
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
>Not a goal, just a statement of reality.

I truly disagree. There was opposition in 1938 because the generals
thought that Hitler would plunge the unprepared Wehrmacht into a war
with France, England, USSR, and Czechoslovakia - there would only be 6
divisions to man the West Wall and many of the generals were
pessimistic about being able to dispose of the Czechs. However, by
1940-41 the majority of the "opposition" seems to have melted away.
Buyoed by the conquest of France and Central/Eastern Europe the
military commanders were quite eager to grapple with the Soviet Union.
Since the war many former Wehrmacht officers have claimed that
Barbarossa was Hitler's greatest mistake, and that they could not
dissuade him. What a pile of crap! I extensively researched this, and
I found no hint of caution or opposition on the part of the officer
corps. They were sure that Russia was a "house of cards", "colossus
with feet of clay" that would be smashed within six weeks. The only
notes of caution came form the German military attache in Moscow (I'm
sorry - the name escapes me). Certainly there were some who opposed
Hitler on moral grounds, but they were too few and insignificant to be
referred to as "opposition" (mostly they were civilians from the old
Prussian aristocracy - von Moltke and so on). It was not until 1943-44
after Stalingrad, El Alamein, "Torch", Kursk, and the bombing campaign
that pointed to the inevitable German defeat that officers of the
German armed forces became "opponents" of Hitler.
          In conclusion, the military men may have disliked Hitler for
his manner, his origins, his violence or whatever, but the point is
they stuck with a winner until the writing was on the wall. Germany's
greatness was more important to them than moral qualms about the
slaughter of Jews, Soviet POW's or Slavic peoples.
                                                            
                                                            Vladimir
From: fxars@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Johns through History
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:11:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: camelot.FXARS.93Jan11151155
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <45075@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jmcd@cea.berkeley.edu (John McDonald) writes:
> Hi Everybody,
>	 There was John the Baptist
>	 and John Adams
>	 and Johnny Rotten
>
> There were a lot of people named John throughout
> history.  Please send me your own list of prominent
> Johns throughout history, i am interested in compiling
> such a master list.

I can't wait for the posts this is going to generate. (Sarcasm intended.)
=== Al
From: ccsaw@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (Andrew Weeks)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Britain/Ireland 400-1100
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:26:30 GMT
Organization: Bath University Computing Services, UK

mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) asks
>I'm going to be taking a class in about a month on the archaeology
>of the period 400-1100 AD in Britain & Ireland.  I'm interested in
>doing some reading about this period beforehand, preferably not
>narrowly archaeological in nature (save that for the class).
>I'd prefer good references to books on its political & cultural / art
>history, & anything else that mite help my understanding of the
>period. I'm fairly well acquainted with material on Ireland, somewhat
>on the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, & pretty much clueless about Scotland
>& the other Celtic kingdoms of Britain, during that period.

The standard work for Anglo-Saxon history is Frank Stenton: Anglo-Saxon England
in the Oxford History of England series (published by Oxford University Press).

If you want primary sources the best ones are the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (after 
700AD) and Bede's Ecclesiastical History (before 700), though this latter one
has lots of saintly miracles and stuff like that, and is generally better for  
bishops than kings.

Scottish history is much more difficult and I believe very little is known from
Scotland prior to the 11th Century, apart from King lists and occasional 
references in histories of England.

Andrew Weeks
South West Universities Regional Computer Centre
University of Bath
Claverton Down
Bath  BA2 7AY
Tel: 0225-826174		email:A.Weeks@uk.ac.bath
                                or:   A.Weeks@bath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: esfandk@saga.oih.no (ESFANDABADI KAYVAN HEMMAT)
Subject: test
Summary: test
Keywords: test
Organization: Oslo College of Engineering
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:34:55 GMT