HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Subject: Re: war list
Organization: The Nibelungenlied Incorporated
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:10:33 GMT

In article <1hih28INNpql@gap.caltech.edu> kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:

>I define war:  A political conflict in which at least 1000 people
>have died in one year and at least 100 people per year every year
>since that year.
>
>Western Hemisphere.
>Guatamala.  Central America's last war hangs on.
>Columbia.   Just when you thought it was all over...
>Peru.       How much longer can Sendero hold out?
>Bolivia.    Haven't heard much about this one lately, Eh?
>
>Eastern Hemisphere:

You mean east from Greenwich ? ;)

>Europe:
>Former Yuogoslavia.  Nuff said.

A real "everybody fighting everyone" -situation. Nut case.
The Balkans have always been refered as "the powder barrel of Europe." 
Good proverb, IMHO.

>Question. Anyone know if the basqu, catalonian or IRA sepratists movments
>quailify?

Hmmm, ETA has been quite latent for the last years, the Aragonese possibly
had it enough with the Olympics (saw all those Or, four pales Gules -banners),
the Northern Ireland (another nut case) certainly qualifies in; the last
remnant of the Thirty Years' War.

>Asia:
>
>FSU.  1)Georgia, 2)Armenia, 3) Azerbijian. That about does it for the FSU.

Tadzhikistan, Moldova, Kazakhstan to mention.

>Iraq.  1) The Kurds, 2) the Shites.
>Lebanon.  Who isn't fighting who?

Do they know it by themselves ?
>India. 1) Kashmire,  2) Sikkim,  3) Punjab
>Sri Lanka.  The Tamils still want their homeland.
>Burma.   Karen Rebels are still duking it out with the central government.
>Cambodia.  Things are still a bit hot there.
>Indonesia.  1) Timor, 2) Accra, 3) Irian Jiya
>Philipines. Doesn't the PLA know communism is dead?

No, my German teacher used to say: "Einige lernen nie".

>Africa.  
>Morocco.  Still trying to knock off SWAPO.

POLISARIO, I guess; SWAPO is the Namibian liberation organization.

>Liberia.  Another Lebanon in africa story.
>Angola.   May God damn Savimbi.
>Mozambique.  Does RENAMO even make rationalizations as to why they fight?

Hey, they just get their kicks from killing people !

>Ruwanda.  Peace accords are moving ahead smartly.
>The Sudan.  Islamic fundamentalists again.
>Somalia.  'Nuff said.

Total anarchy. Another Lebanon or Yugoslavia case.

>Questions.
>Do Ethiopia, Zaire, Chad, and Namibia really belong off the list?

Ethiopia - no. Zaire - no. Chad - certainly not ! Namibia - yes, the
democracy is growing on. How about Haiti ?

Gloria in excelsis Deo et pax in terra et bona voluntas hominibus...



--++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo FINLAND              ++ Edward III. All you need is an  ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like Duke of Alencon.     ++
From: mark@hfglobe.intel.com (Mark Tolonen)
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Reunions
Summary: Want to find members of 131st M.I. Company (1971)
Keywords: reunions vietnam
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:17:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intel Corporation - Hillsboro, Oregon

Does anybody have an idea how I can find the names and addresses of
members in my unit?  For example, does the army provide this information?

Do not reply here or to this email address.  Use:  garyh@narnia.intel.com.

Thanks,
Gary
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: jmjones@sdf.lonestar.org (Jon Mahler)
Subject: ignorance
Organization: sdf full-shell Public Access Unix - Dallas, TX - 214/436-3281
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:22:42 GMT

>Alright:
>
>
>                The POW/MIA situation is overpublicized

hey, right now I'm so pissed the most civil thing that I can find to say to
you is FUCK YOU and as larry said I hope that the same courtesy that you are   
extending to the POW/MIAs in Vietnam is given to you by St. Peter at the Pearly
Gates. I'll get back to you when I'm more rationial and not seein red because 
of the nearsighted views of a person who would rather forget the people that 
fought so that you and I can be here today.


-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+| jmjones@sdf.lonestar.org                               The only easy day     || Dallas, Texas                                          was yesterday         ||                                                         - BUD/S Class '89    |+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Good the war is over! 
From: Rikiya Asano <ra01+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 23:03:00 -0500 
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Friends,

.

        It is great that this war is over! Let us moarned the lost of
love one and humanity. Happy New Year!
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: FOREVER GONE
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:52:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.225826.8935@cs.su.oz.au> allanc@cluster.cs.su.oz (Restless Wanderer) writes:[in part]
>>In article <BzAwsn.9xB@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell) writes:
>>> Go talk to to Garwood, he working at a gas station in North Carolina,last
>>>I heard.

>Is that right,I was lead to believe he went into ' hiding ' after the
>Reagan administrations poor handling over MIA's

>Allanc

My source corrects me in that the area is West Virginia, not N.C. and that
if you wish to contact him directly, do as he did and look Garwood up in
person.  He's a little shy since Solarz had a go at him.

Larry J



-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam
From: drk@cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr)
Subject: Re: ignorance
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Comp Sci, Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:34:16 GMT


In article 702 of alt.war.vietnam jmjones@sdf.lonestar.org (Jon Mahler)
writes:
>[I write:]
>> The POW/MIA situation is overpublicized
>
> hey, right now I'm so pissed the most civil thing that I can find to say
> to you is FUCK YOU

Then the appropriate thing to do is not to post at all.

> I'll get back to you when I'm more rationial and not seein red

You should not have posted before this time.

> [you are] a person who would rather forget the people that fought

"Forget"?  Let's see, did I say the US military should stop searching for
remains in Vietnam, or that private citizens should be prevented from
conducting their own searches? Or am I calling for the demolition of the
Vietnam veteran's monument in DC, or their expulsion from VFW chapters, or
cessation of government benefits to them, or non-recognition of Vietnam
veterans on Veteran's Day?  No, I didn't think so.

> so that you and I can be here today.

Needless to say, there are a great many people in the United States (myself
included) who are more than a little bit skeptical that communist movements
in Vietnam (or Indochina generally) ever posed a threat to their existence.
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: war list
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:34:36 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1hih28INNpql@gap.caltech.edu> kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:

>Question. Anyone know if the basqu, catalonian or IRA sepratists movments
>quailify?

Well, since you've listed the Timor separatist movement in Indonesia and
several similar organizations in India I don't see why Northern Ireland et
al would not qualify for your list as well.

A better question. Since a 'Civil War' is an accepted type of war does any
internal warfare count as civil war?
Does terrorism count as warfare? Nation States treat terrorists like
criminals, but terrorists often claim to be military personnel.

Ah, the modern age.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business

    "Klingons do not allow themselves to be... 'probed.'"
		-Worf
From: parasite@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Leslie Mills)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Warfare in the Middle Ages
Date: 3 Jan 93 01:01:18 GMT
Organization: University of New Brunswick

In article <725614928snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec24.034607.26765@fcom.cc.utah.edu> syl5487@u.cc.utah.edu writes:
>
>  > 
>  > How important were archers and crossbowmen during the middle ages?
>
>As with most such questions, it depended on who, where and when you 
>were!
>
>Presumably you know the background of such battles as Agincourt, 
>Poitiers & Crecy, where the English were allowed to stand on the 
>defence, and the French blithley rode/walked into trouble.
>
The account that I read of Agincourt indicated that the English first
marched into firing range of the French, drove their stakes in the ground,
and commenced firing their arrows.  John Keegan estimated that English
bowmen outnumbered the French bowmen by a factor of 5 to one (if memory serves
me right).  The French were unlikely to win just by shooting back.  They
were forced either to charge or retreat.  They charged.  
One of the mistakes the French made was giving the English time to set up their 
defences.

>(rest of post deleted)
>
>Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
>mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 


-- 
Leslie Mills

If you love something, set it free.  If it doesn't come back to you,
Hunt it down and kill it -- Thus sayeth a T-shirt
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Infantry in square 
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 03:37:36 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


Another thread from Sci.military which might be better off here.


  > From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
  > 
  > >
  > > From Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu>
  > >
  > > >From silber@cs.uiuc.edu
  > > >
  > > >I wonder what point of development anti-cavalry tactics were at
  > > >this point in time. Weren't infantry still armed with matchlocks
  > > >and pikes? Perhaps bayonets had just come into vogue and the square
  > > >hadn't been perfected yet. Or perhaps the Austrians were taken by
  > > >surprise and didn't have time to form square.
  > >
  > > The square was perfected by the Romans. With the advent of guns, the
  > > square became less useful as a defensive formation. Even if the enemy
  > > missed you, he was likely to hit your opposite number in the back.
  > > That's one reason the line tactic was developed, to reduce the depth
  > > of the target for musket fire and to allow all muskets to be mass
  > > fired at the same target.
  > >
  > The Roman infantry didn't need to use squares against cavalry with the
  > same urgency as musket armed infantry however!  The musket/bayonet
  > combination is not nearly as useful as the Pila/shield of the
  > legionaires :-).
  > 
  > Many nations used squares or the equivalent to defend with infantry
  > against cavalry.  The answer was, as you have pointed out, was to
  > shoot them to death - as the French didn't do at Waterloo, and the
  > English did at Falkirk (? - English/Welsh longbows against Scots
  > schiltrons of spearmen).  All the classic "squares" were rather
  > immobile, due to the need to frequently dress ranks, and even at
  > Waterloo the British knew that the corners were particularly weak.
  > 
  > See John Keegan's "The face of battle" for an interesting analysis of
  > the "dynamics" of infantry/cavalry fights.
  > 
  > There were a number of recorded cases of squares being destroyed by
  > cavalry - the Russian Chevalier Guard rode down formed French squares
  > at Austerlitz in 1805 (1 French Regt - don't know how many squares),
  > and a number od instances are recorded in the Penninsular - in one
  > case a dead horse fell onto a square causing a gap which the rest of
  > the cav took advantage of.
  > 
  > At Quatre Bras, just before Waterloo the 42nd Highlanders formed a
  > square with French Lancers on the inside!!!  There can't have been too
  > many of them tho' 'cos the Scotsmen killed them all.  At the same
  > battle the young Prince of Orange refused to allow his troops to form
  > square and they got slaughtered.
  > --
  > Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
  > mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
  > 
  > 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
From: brian@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet)
Subject: Re: war list
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:46:33 GMT

Didn't the LA roits have a body count nearing a hundred?
What about inner city gang warfare?
From: juha.veijalainen@compart.fi (Juha Veijalainen)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Cease fire procedures
Date: 27 Dec 92 02:09:00 GMT
Reply-To: juha.veijalainen@compart.fi (Juha Veijalainen)
Organization: ComPart BBS, Helsinki-Finland, +358 0 506 3329 (14 lines V.32bis)

After reading a couple of books during Christmas, I started wondering 
about cease fire procedures.

In Finnish Winter war and Continuation war finnish troops were ordered to 
cease fire several hours before the Soviet troops did.  Soviets continued 
to use their antillery and infantry weapons and made several feint 
attacks.

This certainly is not the normal procedure.  I could not remember any 
other similar cases.  Could someone who knows war history better than me 
educate me on this matter?

---
 . WinQwk 2.0 a#152 . CTOS - What OS/2 wants to be when it grows up
                                                                  
----
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Helsinki, Finland  -  Number 1 BBS in Finland    |
+--------------------------------------------------+
From: J..Sloane@launchpad.unc.edu (J. Sloane)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: war list
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:29:50 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Dec29.104633.10852@cs.mun.ca> brian@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet) writes:
>Didn't the LA roits have a body count nearing a hundred?
>What about inner city gang warfare?

I think the body count was around fifty.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: Return of Captured Confederate Battle Flags
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:47:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.145023.8786@midway.uchicago.edu> cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <BzMFoq.HM7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>>Over the years, many of these flags were "returned" to the southern
>>states (again, I presume to statehouses or historical societies).
>>Can anyone provide information about these returns?  I believe that
>>there was some kind of mass return of flags shortly after the turn of
>>the century, while others, I think, have occurred quite recently.
>
>The only information I could find on this (although I haven't been able to 
>research it thoroughly) relates to the flags held by the US government.  I
>believe it had most of them.  There was an attempt in the 1890's to return
>the flags, which was voted down with some acrimony, and heavily lobbied
>against by the GAR.  In 1905 (February 24, to be exact) the matter was
>brought to a vote again, and passed without comment.  I suspect that the
>declining membership of the GAR was one reason, as well as the surge
>of good feelings between the sections resulting from the Spanish-
>American War.  None of my reference books had any reference to Confederate
>flags held by northern states.

Don't you just love people who reply to their own posts?  I just had the
thought to check Nexis on this, and found three or four stories in the
last ten years relating to the return by states of Confederate battle
flags.  Most recently, Massachusetts returned a Palmetto flag to South
Carolina, and the Iowa Historical Society returned a Georgia flag on
indefinite "loan" to the latter state.  Obviously this is an ongoing
issue.

Also, a correction; the original attempt to return the flags was not in
the 1890's, but in 1887.  Grover Cleveland issued an executive order four
days before Memorial Day of that year, directing the War Department to 
return the captured flags.  He was forced to rescind the order three
weeks later.
--Chuck
-- 
D'Angelo Law Library         "The dogmas of the quiet past are
cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu      inadequate to the stormy present. . .
uclcjt1@uchimvs1              We must disenthrall ourselves. . ."
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: E.V. Sumner (was General Lee and Union Army Command)
Date: 23 Dec 92 10:17:47 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec23.074008.305@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> In article <1992Dec22.204304.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
> 
>>Sumner may have been old (over 60 I believe;
>>Lee was 54 himself) but he certainly wasn't infirm. It is my
>>impression that he was one of the more effective Corps commanders up
>>until Antietam, when he apparently lost his stomach for his job (and
>>no wonder).
> 
> Catton's opinion of him seems to be that
> he followed orders well enough but that was about it. Also, Sumner really
> booted his attack at Antietam and then chickened out, ordering two attacks
> cancelled that could probably have won a crushing victory for McClellan.

My reading is that he was more of a gadfly to McClellan. He argued
that 40,000 men be left to defend DC (roughly the figure cited in a
recent post as the number required). It was Sumner that discovered
that Joe Johnston had abandoned the works at Yorktown. Sumner helped
save the day at Fair Oaks/Seven Pines, and I already mentioned his
success at Savage Station. It's true that he is being compared to
Franklin et al, who were undistinguished, but I was also comparing him
(in my own mind) to McClellan.

> 
>>As far as I can tell Sumner did not attend West Point. Maybe that had 
>>something to do with with his being passed over (by McDowell,
>>McClellan and almost Lee).
> 
> I'd be shocked if this was true... Catton comments that he was commissioned
> second lieutenant in 1819 when he first joined the army, and I believe that
> starting at 2nd L. means you were a West Point grad... but I can't find
> Catton actually saying so anywhere. Anyone else know for sure?
> 

I have a list of all West Point grads who made general (on either
side) of the War. I originally tried to find Sumner's name to
determine how old he was (compared to Lee) but I didn't see it.
Rechecking I still don't find it.

Sumner may or may not have been in the same class with Lee and Grant,
but I wonder how he would have compared to McDowell, McClellan,
Burnside and Hooker who for some reason passed him by (not to mention
Pope and Halleck).

> Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: callahanj@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Lincoln Conspiracy movie
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:39:28 GMT

I have a videotape titled "the Lincoln Conspiracy" from a company called Sun
Video.  It is a movie length story but isn't really of movie house quality nor
is it really a made for tv movie.

It is about the assasination of Lincoln, suggests that Booth was part of a
larger plot to kill the President and that he was not killed by the Union
troops who did drag a body out of a barn in Virginia.  I notice it was made in
1974 (I think).

Does anyone else know about this movie and is it at all credible or is it part
of the Watergate era of conspiracy fever??

JC
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: re: resplitting hairs: Fort Sumter
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:48:52 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

In commenting that a shooting war didn't erupt until Federal property 
was seized, I was perhaps presenting a straw dog. The analogy is not 
that the 'Feds' come after you if you blow up your mail box, but more 
aptly that they arrive if you occupy the local post office, and hold 
the postmaster at gun-point. IMHO, it was apparent in 1860 that things 
were going to turn ugly, but both sides wanted to take the high ground 
before pummelling their opponents. Fort Sumter was the excuse which 
allowed the Union to take the high ground. If Lincoln had wanted peace 
at all costs he could have met with the CSA representatives, or 
supported the congressional initiatives (sponsored by Virginia and 
Kentucky, I think) for conferences with the seceeding states. This 
things are possible without surrendering personal belief in the 
'unbreakable union'. But he didn't do this, perhaps because he saw, 
thru the filter of his first-rate intellect, that things would come 
to war regardless. He did not take steps to placate states which had 
already seceeded, but did attempt to maintain control in border 
states whose allegiances might be swayed.