HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Relativity of Pearl Harbor
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:06:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University

In article <1992Jul30.162439.3156@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.181126.11830@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
>>>launching a successful attack from the Kurile Islands .....over a distance
>>>of 2500 miles...not to mention that the entire fleet had to refuel in the
>>>middle of the Pacific and yet had to aviod detection...is a feat that
>>>few countries had matched.
>The attack was launched from the Kuriles? Hardly. The Kuriles are north of
>the Japanese main islands.

Sorry, the Kido Butai (Striking Force) carriers mustered in Tankan Bay, in
the Kuriles before leaving for Hawaii. 

I have several sources for this, from Morison to Costello.

Larry J


-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN) jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu                         # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
Xref: sparky soc.history:6601 alt.war:1533 talk.politics.misc:35405 soc.culture.japan:6137
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.war,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Date: 23 Jul 92 00:06:05 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <5599@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>, mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
|> From article <ATAYLOR.92Jul21145758@gauss.nmsu.edu>, by ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy):
|> > <In article <n8tanpg@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > <   Yes, of course, and no-one is forgetting.  However, it's fifty
|> > <   years later, and people still rememember Pearl Harbour as a
|> > <   "Day of infamy" and still seem to experience a sense of outrage,
|> > <   and even some racist feelings, about the whole thing.
|>  
|> > 	Yeah, those survivors of the Bataan Death March should
|> > 	just shut up, right?
|> >	[Lots of true stuff about the Bataan Death March deleted] 
|> 
|> Now, all of what you said about the Bataan Death March may be true (I
|> don't see anything wrong in it, anyway), but what does it have to do
|> with the topic of Pearl Harbor as a "day of infamy"?  Nothing.  Of
|> course, you could argue that in the public image, these things tend to
|> mixed together, but then that is exactly what this discussion is
|> about: that they shouldn't be, i.e., you're showing a great example of
|> the problem with public perception of Pearl Harbor *as a way of
|> opening a war*.  Nobody denies that the Japanese did not conduct the
|> war according to the Geneva convention, but then that is not the
|> topic.

I completely agree with that.  The  Bataan Death March was a 
piece of gratuitous persecution inflicted on soldiers who had 
already been taken prisoner.   So it has a moral dimension and 
almost no military dimension.

Pearl Harbour has a moral and a military dimension, and my
original comment was that we seem to insist too much on the 
moral dimension.

jon.
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Theodore Roosevelt
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:37:33 GMT
Organization: Kalamazoo College

fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>
>Theodore Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize for that.  Yet, unlike
>George Bush, he's also remembered for his domestic policies.  He
>really was an enviromental President, having signed legislation that
>created some of the first National Parks and reserves.
>
>  .
>  :
>I still admire him, especially in light of how ineffective our
>government has become today.

"When the Constitution was adopted, at the end of the eighteenth
 century, no human wisdom could foretell the sweeping changes,
 alike in industrial and political conditions,
 which were to take place by the beginning of the twentieth century.
    ...
 The conditions are now wholly different, and wholly different action
 is called for."

    -- President Teddy Roosevelt
       First Annual Message to Congress
       3 December 1901
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I honestly don't have the time to bicker with you and explain
  everything to you.  Nor do I have the time to devote to a proper
  debate about the Holocaust."         - Dan "Maynard" Gannon, 20 July 1992
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: traynor@fnalc.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 00:19:28 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalc.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

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

If the rationale for bombing the Japanese civil population were similar to the
British rationale for bombing the German civil population in WWII, it may have
been as follows:

1) Accuracy for nighttime bombing (evidently unlike in Europe B-29s bombed Japan
   at night) was low enough that area bombing was de-facto enforced anyway:

2) Bombing civilians would win the war quicker through massive demoralization 
   of the civilian population (through de-housing, civilian injuries, etc.)

3) Since the accuracy were so low, bombing large cities is more effective than
   bombing factories (I recall some study where for British nighttime bombing
   only 1% of the bombs fell within one mile of the designated targets).

I would have a hard time believing #1 and #3 for the USAAF since in Europe they
concentrated on daylight precision bombing.  I can believe #2, and I can also
believe that LeMay would want to "experiment" (a macabre experiment, but that
usually happens in war) since the daylight bombing's effectiveness vs the Nazi
war effort was not encouraging.

Just speculation.

					-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,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,rec.arts.books,misc.legal
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: _A Constitutional History of the United States_
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:23:00 GMT

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul29023137@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.045850.8606@midway.uchicago.edu>, rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
...
#
## 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

Mark: Do you really think that Claytons comments about the state of reading
were not intended as a generalized insult to the college students of today?

Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: NATO/Warsaw Pact forces (was Re: Greatest Prez...)
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:20:03 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <brian.712120712@coombs>, brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
> 	In addition, Suvorov's claims WRT to "new" Soviet equipment (and old
> as well, particularly some of the SU-series of SPAT guns) have also been proven
> quite correct.  What does though have to be taken with a considerable grain
> of salt is the claim that are made in all of the Suvorov books WRT to Soviet
> intentions and abilities.  I suspect that Suvorov and Co., all with their
> own particular axe to grind, particularly  WRT to their own beliefs (and the 
> particular beliefs of their intended audience - the right in the West)
> pandered to their own worst fears in order to sensationalise and sell their
> books.  I also suspect that they are unrepentant about such things in the
> belief they had a particular mission to fufill to "awaken" a complacent
> West to the terrible "dangers" of the Soviet conspiracy.
> 

It could be that what you say is true, that Suvorov and Co. were
alarmists, and would do anything to warn the west of the Soviet threat
including stretch the truth.  However, I like to think of another time
in history, the 1930's, where Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of
Great Britain wanted peace so much, he set his country in a direction
that, in the end, required it defend it's future existance in a
terrible war, which almost bankrupted it.

I'm glad our leaders took the Soviet threat seriously, instead of
pulling another Chamberlain.  They probably saved us from an even more
terrible war.  === Al Sparks
From: brian@odie.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet)
Subject: Re: The history of bathing and baths
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:32:52 GMT

Are You looking for this sort of stuff [others have posted anadotes]
or were you looking for the history of baths in their development
and the like. I have seen a bit of info on Roman baths scattetred about

I FLEX IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION!!! :)
VOLCANO

Newsgroups: soc.history
From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Egyptian Civilization from 5000 B.C. to 3000 B.C.
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 05:00:30 GMT


My "Wall Chart of Science and Invention" says that:

"the first Egyptian Nile civilization arose before 5000 BC.
[...] it lasted 26 dynasties.  It was conquered by the Persians
in 525 BC."

I had always thought that Egyptian civilization began in 3000 BC.,
but I now suppose that 3000 BC was merely the approx year that they
invented writing.

Now I am wondering: If 3000 BC was the year they invented writing,
and thus began recording their history,

(1) How do historians know that 5000 BC was when the civilization
began?

(2) How do historians know that they had a total of 26 dynasties
from 5000 BC to 525 BC?


-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lonestar.org    
tom@europa.lerctr.org   	tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: hap@scubed.com (Hap Freiberg)
Subject: Re: The problem of trusting popular press when writing history
Keywords: Chelmno,Eichmann,Goebbels,Irving
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:29:03 GMT

In article <11342@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>The NY Times, on the other hand, contrary to their claim of the
>being the "newspaper of record," simply doesn't cover a lot of
>things that should be covered, usually because it doesn't fit in
>with their leftist mindset.
>
>This raises a disturbing question: how far should an historian
>trust a newspaper account?  I recently had occasion to read some
>articles from Time, in 1935 -- and the style is so similar, that
>you might conclude that the same writers are still working there,
>almost 60 years later.  The style has the same careful inclusion of 
>most of the facts, but with a strong, insulting tone that shows that 
>not even a pretense of objectivity is present.
>
>I certainly wouldn't trust anything that appeared in Time unless
>I could verify it in several other more reputable sources.
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
>with whom I work.

It would appear from the tone of this posting that the only difference
in thinking and writing style between Mr. Cramer and NY Times and Time
is the rightist inflection of Mr. Cramer. Objectivity seems to be in 
the eye of the beholder....

Hap
Xref: sparky soc.history:6823 alt.revisionism:632
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goebbels' diaries reviewed by Irving??
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 23:07:46 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA
Keywords: Chelmno,Eichmann,Goebbels,Irving

In article <Bs80qC.B0p@well.sf.ca.us> wtangel@well.sf.ca.us (William Thomas Angel) writes:

>dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) writes:
>>As for Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust - I have not read enough
>>to form an opinion. From what I *have* read, it seems that his attitude
>>was "do it but don't tell me about it". Irving makes a large effort to
>>shift the blame on Himmler and Heydrich, but it does not make a lot of
>>sense to assume that Hitler wouldn't know what was going on.

Lifton's "The Nazi Doctors" covers this subject very well, beginning with
the so-called "euthanasia" (T4) project. Lifton demonstrates that Hitler not
only knew about T4, but initiated it and initially controlled it directly
from the Chancellery.

The T4* project eventually wound its way into the transportation of Jews from
Germany to Lublin, and there, of course, they eventually were murdered in
one fashion or another. The chain between Hitler, the German doctors, and
the Final Solution is quite clear, at least to me.

>The "number two" man in the Nazi hierarchy was Goering, and the same
>questions concerning Hitler's involvement in the "final solution" can
>be asked about Goering.  Did Goering authorize the mass exterminations?
>Did he shield Hitler from the truth about what form the "final
>solution" took? Goering's primary motivation in most of his actions as
>a Nazi seems to have been greed: greed for power, greed for honor,
>greed for materialistic possessions.  It is quite possible that he
>approved of the liquidation of the jews primarily out of greed for
>their possessions; racism and ideology didn't really enter into his
>motives.  Wealthy jews possessed art, jewelry, and large homes, and he
>approved of their extermination simply to acquire their wealth.

I confess to sharing your assessment of what made Goering tick - he was a
fat, greedy pig. He would have accepted the liquidations in any event, as
they clearly reflected the desires of his hero, Hitler; I haven't read
enough of the man recently to be real clear in my mind as to how he felt
about the killings, although the attitude he expresses in the diaries makes
a _very_ strong case for unreserved approval.

*    T4 - The camouflage organization created for the medical killing of 
     adults was known as the Reich Work Group of Sanatoriums and Nursing 
     Homes (Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft Heil- und Pflegeanstalten, or RAG).  
     It operated from the Berlin Chancellery, at Tiergarten 4, hence 
     the "T4" code name.

-- 
"The heavy smoke from the  crematory building  is said to be  visible  over
Hadamar every day... At full capacity [they] smoked day and night. Locks of
hair went up through the chimneys and landed in the street."     [From Nazi
documents critical of "mistakes" made at medical killing centres]
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: rjr1186@zeus.tamu.edu (Ryan Russell)
Subject: Re: Egyptian Civilization from 5000 B.C. to 3000 B.C.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:38:00 GMT

c. 3100 BC was when Upper and Lower Egyptian Civilizations were
united into one kingdom.

Ryan
From: miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman )
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:15:43 GMT
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>The population of Central America and the Andes area of South America
>was supported by extensive agriculture rather than by hunting and
>gathering.  The population there got fairly large and large losses
>occurred after the Conquest.  Many people accept the theory that
>the cause was European diseases.  The population of the region that
>is now the United States is controversial.  When I was a child in
>school the numbers were thought to be between 400,000 and 1,000,000.
>Later 4 million was mentioned, and Noam Chomsky has cited some source
>that says 16 million, a number more suited to his anti-U.S. propaganda
>goals.

	The 1992 World Almanac cites Rand McNally for the figures:

	N. America - 5 M, S A. - 8 M (circa 1650)
	
	(Just another data point)

	My reading of Mayan civilization tends to support the
	idea that they had population booms and busts for which the
	reasons are not universally agreed.  Theories tend to follow the
	dominant anxieties of the times of the theorist ("economic
	collapse" during the '30s, "war" during the '40s, "ecological
	exhaustion" during current times.)

	- Michael Goldman

-- 
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have
exhausted all other alternatives." - Abba Eban
	Disclaimer:  All views are solely my own & not the views of Acuson.
	<sun!sono!miklg>  or  [miklg@acuson.com]
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:06:40 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Jul29.142719.19934@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
> In article <1992Jul28.111718.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>>I'm not sure I get your point.  Almost by definition, all early
>>cultures are going to have a small population (depending on how you
>>define "early").  You've got to start somewhere.  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
> 
> Yet we constantly see allusions to the 100 million native Americans killed
> by the Europeans in the early 16th century.  Considering that the U.S.
> population was only about 10 million 200 years later makes these kinds of
> numbers difficult to accept.
> 

But what was the population of Europe when it was composed primarily
of nomads that were hunters and gatherers?  Also, Europeans weren't
the only ones killing off Indians, the various tribes were killing
each other off as well.  It was a hard life, and as you pointed out
earlier, it takes a lot of land to support that kind of lifestyle.
                    === Al Sparks
From: bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: History on soc.history
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:07:00 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <3507@keele.keele.ac.uk> hia04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Chris Harrison) writes:
>Liam McDaid has a point.  The range of topics is disappointingly narrow. 
>Is that because most historians don't have access to the net?  As a new
>reader I had hoped to find the electronic equivalent of _Notes & Queries_
>(which, for those who don't know is not some `alt' source but a
>long-standing printed source for historical and literary ephemera. 
>
>So here are some of one reader's interests:
>
>   English medieval history
>   English local history of the early modern period
>   The workings of the medieval and early modern legal systems
>   Manor courts
>   Agrarian history
>
>Are there other readers who share these interests?  Hope so!
>If so, let's hear from you.
>
>Chris Harrison
>Keele
>England

I share your interest in English medieval history (mine
being fueled recently by a two-week trip through England
and Scotland). However, I am neither a historian nor a
history student. My exposure to history is limited to the
amount of time I can cut out for leisure reading and my
reading of UseNet (ACK!). I therefore share your disappointment
with what soc.history has become and tend to latch onto any
thread that is not military or political in nature. I would
be particularly enthusiastic, however, about threads dealing
with

	Mary, Queen of Scots
	The reign of William the Conquerer
	The Scottish House of Bruce
	The Great Rebellion and the fall of Charles I

A very narrow scope, I admit, but as I say, I'm not a
historian, just a hacker.

P.S. I know zip about African history, but Liam's question
about the Nok culture sounds interesting. Any experts out
there?

-------------------------------------------------
Bruce Overby
Stratus Computer, Inc.
San Jose, CA


"Get at dem beans!"  -- Hoss Cartwright

My opinions may not reflect those of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------
  
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.revisionism
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Irving's later book
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Keywords: Chelmno,Eichmann,Goebbels,Irving
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:24:10 GMT

geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:
>
>Someone wrote that Irving now has changed his mind about Hitler
>knowing due to the Goebbels diaries.

Allow me to swerve over to a different topic.

Maynard claimed the Himmler speech was a fake, and that I should consult
Faurisson and Irving about it.  I said, "OK," and pulled an Irving quote
from the 1977 _Hitler's_War_ in which he refers to it as genuine.
Maynard says Irving changed his mind in a later revision of
_Hitler's_War_.

(1) I didn't know he revised HW, I thought he just changed his stance
in later books.  Am I wrong?  (2) Can anyone with ready access to
any such books find a quote or two about the speech for me please?

When I pointed out that Faurisson was a professor of _literature_,
Maynard claimed that he was an expert in document authentification.
Kind of irrelevant, considering that the speech is taped, but (3)
can anyone confirm or deny this?

Note the followup.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "I honestly don't have the time to bicker with you and explain
  everything to you.  Nor do I have the time to devote to a proper
  debate about the Holocaust."    - Maynard "Gannon" Erickson, 20 July 1992
Xref: sparky soc.history:6566 talk.politics.misc:35136 soc.culture.japan:6111