HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Canada in the World Wars (was Re: VIMY, 1917)
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:49:43 GMT

In <skenny.702918715@femto.engr.mun.ca> skenny@nano.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny) writes:

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

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

>Although a tragedy with respect to human life, it was the turning point
>for Canada, more so in the eyes of English Canada, from a colonial
>status to a self-governing dominion. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Canadian
>Divisions assaulted and captured key positions on Vimy Ridge. What other

[description of action at Vimy deleted]

That bring up a question that I've always wondered about. As I
understand it, Canada was automatically in WWI because of the
declartion of war by Parliament in London.  After a visit to Canada a
few years ago (Toronto, Montreal, and Quebec City to be exact), I
bought and read the Pelican History of Canada (anyone have any
recommendations for a better one?), and I remember it made a big point
of the fact that Canada waited a week before entering WWII, showing
some amount of independence from London.

In the run up to the events of September, 1939, Chamberlain said upon
returning from Munich that he had saved Britain from becoming involved
in a war for a distant country over a people about who the British
knew little (or words to that effect).  But, of course, Czechoslovakia
is much closer to Britain than to Canada (or Australia or New
Zealand).  How did Canadians feel in 1939 about getting involved in a
war brought on mostly by the incompetance of British and French
politicians?  Was there any inclination in Canada to stay out of World
War II?

>--
>=================================
>skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca
>St. John's, NF, CANADA
>"Have a touton or do without'n !"
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Gettysburg/Shiloh turning point
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:45:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Apr11.234514.21885
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.


It has been said in earlier postings that it was downhill for Lee
after Gettysburg.  I do not think this is the case.  To me it looked
liked another in a series of invasions that were beaten back by the
other side.  In 1862, the union tried two and the south one, in 1863,
the north and south one each.
It is true that Lee did not invade in 1864, but it could be argued
that he was doing a good enough job on the Union Army of the Patomac
by fighting the series of defensive battles during 1864 that were
causing casualties at a 2:1 ratio in the South's favor.
In fact, the election of 1864 was in danger of going to the democrats
until Sherman captured Atlanta.  Up to the capture of Atlanta, all the
north had to show was minimal gains as "Butcher Grant" (others
opinions not mine) was trying unsucessfully to break Lee's lines at
around Petersburg.
Again the west is making the successes for the north!
comments?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Winningstad  Yea, I also ride motorcycles but this won't be cross
                  posted to rec.motorcycles. Also my employer has no
                  idea.....yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (a.j.s. nusbacher)
Subject: Re: 1302 - a boring year
Organization:  University of Toronto 
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:15:53 GMT

If I'm not mistaken, the Battle of Courtrai was fought in 1302.  This was one
of the first major actions of the High Middle Ages in which foot-soldiers armed
with pike stood up to a force of knights.  In this case it was a force of
Flemish burghers standing up to an army of French knights.  They had their
flanks protected by canals, and their lines delineated by baulks of timber.

This tactic was later adapted by King Robert Bruce of Scotland and used at the
Battle of Bannock Burn in 1314.
_____________________________________________________________________________
        Aryk Nusbacher                .. ..       Hart House, 1916
                                      ||_||  Women Admitted since 1972
          Hart House                  | I |     || ||          || ||  ..    ..
Informal Education in the University  |   |   . ||_||__________||_||  || ___||
                                      | O |___|_|__________________|__| /  \ |
    aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca         |   |       o oo  oo  oo   o      |__| |
                                      |_A_|_______A_oo  oo  oo   A__^^^______|
_____________________________________________________`------------____________
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Did American Troops Kill 3 Million Filipinos?
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:55:26 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Apr16.161309.5956@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, ak574@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David Choweller) writes:
> 
> So, is one million a low estimate?  I read the Atlantic article (a good
> read, by the way) and the estimate is from U.S. officer.  So Gore Vidal's
> estimate is on the high side.  If Vidal is right, then the U.S. came
> close to matching Hitler's killing of 6 million Jews!  Amazing!

 Casualty estimates in the immediate aftermath of a war are almost
 always inflated. 
 Encyclopedia Americana gives 200,000 deaths, mostly civilian, mostly due to
 famine, etc. Britannica gives no figures.
 Dupuis & Dupuis' Encyclopedia of Military History asserts 16,000 killed
 and 100,000 died of famine. Given the strong pro-military and pro-american
 slant of that book, I expect it to be a serious underestimate.
 If I get a chance I'll try to find some reliable references this weekend.
 
 Robert
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: sl@ccd.harris.com (Scott Linn)
Subject: Armenian Religious History
Keywords: Christian, atheist
Organization: Advanced Technology Department, Harris Corporation
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:46:09 GMT


-- 
Greetings,

    I have no interest in involving myself in the 
debate between the Azeris and the Armenians.

    I have heard it said that Armenia was the
first nation as a nation to convert to Christianity
and the first nation as a nation to "convert" to 
atheism.  I know that the first part of the 
statement is true - they converted to 
Christianity in the early 300's AD.  Can
someone confirm the second part of the statement?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    |  "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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: VIMY, 1917
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:53:35 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Apr13.173019.5023@ac.dal.ca>, hyde@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
> 	Many previous battles had obtained a limited, relatively
> 	cost free, gain in the first day(s), followed by tremendous
> 	loss of life for negligable gains later. 
	.....
> 	Had the battle been
> 	broken off when the objectives were attained, it would
> 	have been something of a classic. On a smaller scale,
> 	Petin had launched several such battles (one reason he
> 	was popular with the troops).  Perhaps the British had
> 	learned from him.
	
	Weren't Petain's offensives later in the year (after the mutiny
	was suppressed)?  Wasn't Arras roughly contemporary with Nivelle's
 	offensive? (My memory fails on the dates.)
	In any case the British seem to have promptly forgotten their
 	lesson, considering what happened in Flanders that summer.
	That also started with a limited success (Messines) but
	ended in disaster.
> 
> 	Not really.  In 1918 Ludendorff's attacks were quite out of
> 	the normal type.  They gained tremendous ground and inflicted
> 	casualties at least as great as those of the attackers.
> 	(Had the germans attacked in this style in 1915, the result
> 	of the war might have been very different)

	I don't think they could have - they were still fighting on
	two fronts (and Russia was a serious enemy before Gorlitz-Tarnow.)
	
Robert
From: hyde@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: VIMY, 1917
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:17:43 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <CB.92Apr14124422@tamarack12.timbuk>, cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
> Bill Hyde writes:
> 
>    > This was true of *every* breakthrough achieved by *either* side. 
>    ...
>    Not really.  In 1918 Ludendorff's attacks were quite out of
>    the normal type.  They gained tremendous ground and inflicted
>    casualties at least as great as those of the attackers.
>    ...
> 
> But Ludendorff's final drive failed for essentially the same old reason: he
> couldn't maintain the pressure with fresh forces brought from the rear.

	What seems different about Ludendorff's 1918 attacks was that,
	for basically the first time in the war, the attacker sustained
	less casualties than the defender.  If he could have repeated
	this campaign in 1919 (i.e. if there were no americans
	coming, and if austria were not on the verge of collapse),
	it might have won the war.  By contrast, the earlier types
	of offensive cost far more casualties than were inflicted on
	the defender, and nearly lost the allies the war (though
	the germans did well in the first phase of their verdun
	attack).

	Or to put it another way.  I'm not saying that L had found
	the way to restore freedom of manouver as in the franco-
	prussian war, but that he had found a way to make progress
	on the western front, given a local superiority.  It seems
	that Haig learned enough from what was done to him in
	early 1918 to apply the same measures to the germans in
	the fall.  Otherwise I find it hard to explain what seems
	(at least to me) to be his far more flexible attacking
	methods in 1918, as compared to 1916 (I'm not sure about
	1917 - I know his main attack of the year was a disaster,
	but I don't know if the planning was any better than 
	in 1916).


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@ac.dal.ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: VIMY, 1917
In-reply-to: skenny@nano.engr.mun.ca's message of Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:11:55 GMT
Organization: pubs
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:08:56 CDT

Shawn Kenny writes:

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

   ... What other Allied forces failed to do throughout the course of the
   war, the Canadian forces overwhelmed the German defenders, 3 lines of
   trenches, wire and pillboxes, in just a few hours.

Without diminishing the Canadians' accomplishment, I would point out that
such breakthroughs occurred any number of times on the Western Front.  But
they never led to any net advantage because...

   ... The only flaw in the plan was the lack of reserves to exploit the
   success and thus the attack eventually stabilized in the horrors of
   trench warfare.

This was true of *every* breakthrough achieved by *either* side.  The
generals never seemed to learn this lesson, nor were they very swift in
noticing that sending crowds of valiant soldiers charging toward machine
guns wasn't a very good battle strategy.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
GEnie: C.BREWSTER7
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Did American Troops Kill 3 Million Filipinos?
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:52:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Apr16.165209.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Apr16.105647.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>, parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson) writes:
> In article <1992Apr16.001536.28671@midway.uchicago.edu>, mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:
>> 
>> Just out of curiosity, can _anyone_ find _anything_ good to say
>> about this war?
>> 
>  Only that a large and articulate minority in the US opposed it - including
>  House Speaker Thomas Reed, former President Grover Cleveland, and Harvard
>  President Charles E. Norton, none of whom could by any stretch of the 
>  imagination called "leftist" or "pacifist".
>  Unfortunately, as with Mexico and Vietnam, the opposition wasn't enough.
> 
>  Robert

You can add Mark Twain to the list.  The Atlantic Monthly (which
includes Twain on the cover) has a previously unpublished article he
wrote (a book review) where he obviously opposes the conflict.  He was
Vice-President of an organization that opposed any kind of
"imperialism" by the United States, which is what they considered the
conflict to be.  They are probably right.  === Al Sparks
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: turning point definition
Date: 10 Apr 92 10:31:03 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

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

	Usually in wars it's military.  A good definition is when one side has
been able to force their opponent from a largely offensive position to a
largely defensive one.
	E.g. Battle of Britian, Stalingrad, Midway, El Alemain

Brett---------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________The best thing about morning________________________________________
__________________________________is that it's over by noon.____________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: f90pegu@fy.chalmers.se (Peter Gustafsson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: NEVER FORGET (the docudrama smear of IHR) / Witness for the Defense!
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:53:44 GMT
Followup-To: Re: NEVER FORGET (the docudrama smear of IHR) / Witness for the Defense!
Organization: Chalmers Univ. of Technology, G|teborg, Sweden



Ralph Winston, as we will remember him.

There once was a man called Ralph Winston.

He presented some rather interesting imaginary worlds
in which certain rather gross historical events never took place.

It is understandable that the full understanding of its the terror
can drive any man insane, but still, we must keep our heads clear
and not run away into daydreaming.

This must however have been the case of the unfortunate Ralph Winston,
for it seems as if his whole adult life has been dedicated to the
cause of expunging hard facts from not only his own mind, but of all others.
This shows us that you can't be too careful with children:0

He went to great lenghts in his attempts, and did not even refrain from
ridiculing other persons involved or even to call his dreams FACTS.

We must look kindly upon the likes of Ralph Winston, if indeed his obsession
of 'revising' history springs from personal problems.
If not, we must take a much sterner attitude and recognize the statements
such as they are.

If not, we must indeed ask ourselves what his motivations were.
A wish to expose himself?
A result of an abused childhood?
A wish to repress the truth and the spreading of lies to justify another 
series the all too well-known AND accepted historical events?

Whatever his reasons were we can say with almost 100 % certainty
that fifty years from now he will be forgotten,
but we will NEVER FORGET these historical facts.



/f90pegu@fy.chalmers.se (Peter Gustafsson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: Roman Numerals, Greek Fractions
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:16:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.223356.9471@flood.com>, tom@flood.com (Tom Chatt) writes:
> morna@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Morna J Findlay) writes:
> | 
> | Musing last night over the crossword, my S.O. said something along the
> | lines of "Of course, it was not having fractions that knackered
> | the Romans". :-)
> | 
> | 1. What is the "correct" way to write 49 in Roman Numerals?
> 
> Well, LXIX would be my guess, but XXXXIX might also be supportable.

LXIX is 69. === Al
From: root@cayenne.Eng.Sun.COM (Operator)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Humanities West Lecture
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:36:26 GMT
Reply-To: root@cayenne.Eng.Sun.COM (Operator)
Distribution: ba
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: cayenne

HUMANITIES WEST: "San Francisco 1906 - 1939: Recovering the Lost City",
May 8 - 9, 1992, Herbst Theater, San Francisco

What was it really like in San Francisco following the great quake of
1906?  Find out when you join Humanities West on May 8th and 9th in an
unprecedented journey to explore "San Francisco 1906 to 1939" through
the art, literature and politics of post-quake life.

Your conductors on this tour through the past include a stellar array
of historians, writers, performers and scholars.  Through the eyes and
memoirs of the people who were there, their lectures will cover (and
uncover) little known facts about an era which formed the character of
a city.  "San Francisco 1906 - 1939" begins Friday, May 8 at 8 PM and
continues through Saturday, May 9.  Join us for an excursion to the
colorful past.  Call Humanities West at 415 387-8780 for information
and reservations.
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary L. Hewitt)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: references on British insurrectionary movements
Date: 5 Apr 92 16:37:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <bellmar.702315729@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> bellmar@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Mary Bellmar) writes:
>In <1992Apr3.150325.18939@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk> jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
>
>a very helpful bibliography (most of which I have omitted).
>
>>nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) wrote (in soc.culture.british, I think):
>>> Can anyone out there recommend a book about the history of anarchist/
>>> communist (in the modern sense) and other popular anti-establishment
>>> movements in Britain?
>
>If you are interested in learning more about the seventeenth century,
>off the top of my head, I would suggest you read Christopher Hill "The
>Century of Revolution" and "The World Turned Upside-Down", both published
>in the 1970's and pretty widely available in this country in any academic
>library, or good bookstore.  Hill is a Marxist and "The Century of
>Revolution", especially, tries to prove that the class struggle was the
>cause of the events of the Interregnum.  Despite any disagreement you
>may have with Marxist history, both books give a good introduction to 
>seventeenth century radical and revolutionary groups, if you haven't 
>read them already.
>
Marxist history?  For shame...  :-)

For the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, I recommend: Hobsbawm
and Rude, Captain Swing (about agrarian uprisings); and of course, the
classic E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class.  I think
Rude (accent acute on the e) also wrote something on John Wilkes (Wilkes
and Liberty?)....

If you don't want leftists, read something by Edmund Burke -- it'll put
you in another frame of mind.

Gary

-- 
  ++================================++
  ||        Gary L. Hewitt          ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned by
  || glhewitt@phoenix.princeton.edu ||  my .signature!  HELP!
  ++================================++
From: proberts@.informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Famous conferences in history?
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:45:45 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

Perhaps this is the wrong newsgroup for this posting, since it contains no
flames and nothing about the Holocaust, but here goes anyway:

Here at work they want to find names for a number of conference rooms.
I thought, how about naming them after famous conferences in history?
For instance, `Yalta', and ... er ... ?

I am soliciting suggestions for the list `History's most famous
conferences' - please e-mail me.

Thanks ...

Paul

proberts@informix.com
proberts@cs.stanford.edu
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 92 15:42:38 CST
From:         C05705DA@WUVMD
To:           NETNEWS@WUVMD
Subject:         CW ARMIES
Newsgroups: soc.history

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.
From: kschroe2@ub.d.umn.edu (Kurt Schroeder)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Famous conferences in history?
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:27:37 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth. Information Services.

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

Ah, but there is a connection.  May I suggest for the world's most
notorious conference:

Wannsee Conference, January 1942.


Kurt Schroeder
kschroe2@ub.d.umn.edu
From: cb@tamarack12.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Re: Gettysburg/Shiloh turning point
In-reply-to: cdf@naucse.cse.nau.edu's message of 13 Apr 92 22:44:52 GMT
Organization: pubs
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:49:57 CDT

Craig Fischer writes:

   Gettysburg was not deciding battle in military terms.  But, 
   it was the deciding battle in diplomatic terms.  The 
   Confederacy up to Gettysburg had a good chance of being
   recognized by European Nations, like France and Great Britain.

Another way to look at it is this: if Lee had *won*, the Northern effort
may well have collapsed, with or without foreign recognition of the CSA.
It was in this sense that G'burg was the Confederacy's "high water mark",
not in how far Pickett advanced toward the Angle.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
GEnie: C.BREWSTER7
Newsgroups: soc.history