HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Taranto //WasRe: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japaneseatroc
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:30:15 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <R3B6NB2w164w@netlink.cts.com>, galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:
> regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George) writes:
> 
> > In article <2uuZNB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) 
# # The Royal Navy air strike on Taranto cannot be morally compared with the
# # IJN strike on Pearl Harbor, because a *recognized belligerency* existed
# # between Italy and the U.K. at the time (and indeed, Italy had initiated
# # the belligerency).
# # Robert George
# # (speaking only for myself)
# 
# That we can even mention war and morality in the same breath is 
# remarkable. 
# 
# Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.

Absolutely right.  It was clearly immoral to interfere with Hitler's
little party in Eastern Europe.  Ditto, Lincoln should have done what
many Northerners suggested: "Erring sisters, depart in peace."

:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-) for the sarcasm
impaired

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: hoehen@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Walter Hoehenberger)
Subject: Re: Paul Von Hindenburg
Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:33:43 GMT

fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:

[Deleted] ...

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

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

>                    === Al Sparks

Totally wrong. Check the history books. 
                                           W.H.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Relativity of Pearl Harbor
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul28.181126.11830@srg.srg.af.mil>
	<1992Jul30.162439.3156@island.COM>
Distribution: na
Date: 30 Jul 92 11:51:35

It seems to me that the Russo-Japanese war was a success for Japan.
They got the southern half of Sakhalin Island and prevented the
Russians from expanding further in China.  I know that the war
was regarded as a disgraceful defeat in Russia, and I believe it
was regarded as a victory in Japan.

World opinion was substantially on the side of Japan in that war,
I suppose mainly because the Tsarist autocracy was regarded as
extremely backward.

The peace treaty was signed in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Theodore Roosevelt
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:42:09 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Jul29.151205.1557@island.COM>, fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>        The Japanese also asked us to mediate the Russo-Japanese war. Hardly
> sounds like long term, deep-seated enmity.

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.

TR, as he was known, also signed the first anti-trust legislation. 
When you look at today's Republican Party, it's very surprising that
Roosevelt, a Republcan, pushed something so anti-business.

He was also a President with "coattails".  He was the last President
whose party gained seats in the House of Represenatives in
off-Presidential elections.  (Richard Nixon's party did the same thing
in the Senate in 1970, but considering that the whole Senate doesn't
ever stand for election, and their make up doesn't reflect our
population in any way, I won't count that at all.)

I guess we couldn't call him the education President, but he was, as a
private citizen, a founder of the Boy Scouts of America.

A lot of people would find a lot to criticize TR.  He did a lot that
increased the federal government's intrusion into our lives.  But I
still admire him, especially in light of how ineffective our
government has become today.

  === Al Sparks
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Goebbels' diaries reviewed by Irving??
Keywords: Chelmno,Eichmann,Goebbels,Irving
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:20:28 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <1992Jul20.162323.8463@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:

>>although he defensively said "that is Himmler's affair and his
>>alone" when pressed on it.
>
>Hitler said that?  The Fuehrer was _pressed_ on this issue?  I find
>this a little hard to believe;  where in Irving can I find this
>statement?
>
I don't have the book anymore, it is back at the library, but it
is about 2/3-3/4 of the way through.  Near the end of the war,
when the allies began liberating the concentration camps, one
of the generals asked Hitler what about these camps.  Hitler's
first response was "allied propaganda", but when pressed by
the general, he made the Himmler statement.  Try looking up
Jews or Final Solution, I forget what Irving calls it in the
index.  Maybe Danny Keren can find it in his copy.

>In _The_Holocaust_In_History_, Marrus presents a good case for both
>intentionalism and functionalism;  the former claims Hitler deliberately
>sent the orders, and the latter claims that he just sort of stood by and
>encouraged the extermination.  I'm not sure which I believe, and I'm not
>sure it matters.  Neither claims that Hitler _didn't_know_ about the
>Holocaust;  that's a deniers' claim that nobody gives any credence to,
>unless I'm mistaken.

I'm not sure it even makes any difference whether he knew or not.
He certainly caused it, even if indirectly, and was responsible
for the actions of Himmler.  Irving does provide quite a bit of
documentation to show that Hitler didn't know early on.  He even
reproduces orders that Hitler gave explicitly that the Jews of
Rome were not to be exterminated (after he knew what the SS had
been doing).  They were sent to Dachau and exterminated anyhow.
Someone wrote that Irving now has changed his mind about Hitler
knowing due to the Goebbels diaries.  I think rather than saying
"that's a denier's claim", the correct posture is to examine the
evidence and consider all explanations.  Most people haven't done
that but merely reacted to the claim as outrageous.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: NATO/Warsaw Pact forces (was Re: Greatest Prez...)
Date: 21 Jul 1992 23:34:52 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Jul21.201752.12569@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
>
>I believe the 10-1 figure either refers to the massive numerical superiority
>of WP artillery to NATO artillery (wasn't it more like 11-1?) or the ratio
>of WP tanks in Europe to UNITED STATES tanks in Europe.  

The Soviets sure do like their arty...

>However US forces
>stationed in Europe made up only one quarter of NATO forces stationed in 
>Europe in the mid eighties (West German forces making up one third and UK
>forces also accounting for one quarter).  Thus the numerical superiority
>of WP tanks in Europe to NATO tanks in Europe was on the order of 2.5 to 1.
>the 2.5 to 1 figure does not include French tanks or US tanks not stationed
>in Europe.  I do not know whether it includes UK tanks stationed in Britain.
>I also do not recall whether it includes Soviet tanks stationed in the USSR.

It didn't.  As to how quickly the remainder could have been transported
west for use, I don't recall. (A couple of days to get the first ones
in action, though.)

>Many WP tanks were more than 20 years old and were hopelessly outclassed by
>modern NATO tanks.

Not all American tanks in Europe were M1's, and until fairly recently,
the remainder weren't all M60A3's either.  Not all of NATO's tanks were the
most modern types, as far as that goes.

There was no absolute assurance that the French would have stepped in
should WP forces move over the border, or that U.S. tanks out of
theater could have been moved to Europe quickly enough to make any
difference.

Remember that an attacking force can pick where it's going to hit, while
the defender must spread out to cover likely attack points, which makes
for at least some local superiority of forces for the agressor at the
beginning.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher)
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Keywords: Cahookia,Mesa Verde,Hopewell,Caribe,population,demographics
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 16:29:26 GMT

Marginally related, but probably of interest to those reading this
thread -

Kevin Costner has announced plans to make a lengthy documentary 
concerning all the native peoples of North America to be shown on
one of the major American television networks.  The model is to
be Ken Burns' "Civil War" documentary series that was shown on PBS
two years ago.  Costner is apparently putting up $8 million of his
own money.  The series will run approximately 8 hours (presumably
with commercials).  The period to be covered is from the arrival
of Columbus to the Wounded Knee massacre.  Costner intends to rely
heavily upon both well-known scholars of the period and Native
Americans, in deciding the content of the series.  A stated goal
seems to be accuracy, unlike "Dances With Wolves", but another goal
is to present the native cultures of North America sympathetically.
Plans appear to be fairly advanced.  I don't think Costner will direct 
the series, himself.  Ken Burns has been consulted, but apparently is not 
closely associated with the series.  Mention was made of using computer 
graphics to show what certain ancient Indian  buildings that no longer
exist looked like, in their heyday.  I don't remember when the series 
would be shown, but I'd guess in the autumn of 1993.  Those who
prefer to get the genuine facts, rather than my possibly faulty
memories, should look at the Calendar section of the Los Angeles
Times of July 29.  (Unless my memory is failing me on that, too -
if it is, try the 28th.)

--
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu

Newsgroups: soc.history
From: d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Jan Sparrendahl)
Subject: Re: Warsaw Pact plans
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:06:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul16.164550.5918@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
|> In a previous article, krzystek@milton.u.washington.edu (Jerzy Krzystek) says:
|> >One good example were the so-called 'Coast Protection Troops', which were in
|> >fact elite troops in the Polish army. For some reason, they were 
|> >inevitably practicing launching amphibious assault operations. It was
|> >only recently unveiled that their role in the possible war activities
|> >was to attack Denmark and possibly Sweden from the sea.

|> I would like to learn more about it.  I think that it is right that the 
|> invasion of Denmark would be one of the first (if not THE first) operations
|> attempted by the WP in a mid to late 1980s conflict.  The forces involved
|> would be very strong amphibious elements transported by hovercraft as well
|> as the entire Polish Airborne. 

	I have heard that these plans were eventually abandoned as 
	impossible due to strong costal defense and due to the 
	difficult logistics.

Arthur
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
From: briand@anasaz (Brian Douglass)
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:24:39 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

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

It did affect military planning in toto.  That is, the Japanese
demonstrated that a sneak attack before a formal declaration of war had
been issued and therefore alert could be sent out, had devastated an enemy
(the US).  Regardless of the niceties of war, a pre-emptive attack on an
advesary had become military viable, and necessary due to electronic
communications.  The military conclusion, therefore, was that preparations
would have to be made in direct response to a potential adversaries ability
to launch a pre-emptive attack.

When it became possible for the USSR to launch a pre-emptive attack that
could theoretically decimate the land leg of the US triad, the US went from
a launch on attack to policy to that of launch on warning.  A direct
response to threat capability.  Now that genuine trust is being built
between the US and FUSSR (CIS) from on-site verification, forces have begun
to stand down.

It wasn't fear or psychological impact that Pearl Harbor created, but cold
military fact.
-- 
"Fifty years after Waterloo Napoleon was as much a hero to English school 
children as Wellington.  How do we know our grandchildren won't idolize Von 
Hindenburg? If only we could learn to look on evil AS evil, whether it's clothed
in filth, monotony or magnificence." F. Scott Fitzgerald, This Side of Paradise
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
From: carl@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Carl J.M. Alexander)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: soc.history, the looney bin
Date: 21 Jul 92 08:17:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: mintaka.1992Jul21.081708.14235
Organization: Organization???

In article <1992Jul20.232542.8237@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>
>I for one would be interested in how to set up a kill file for mutlu,
>please send me the information.
 
Okay; here are the first two lines of my kill file for soc.history.  
For those who don't know, an rn kill file needs to be called "KILL"
(that is, the caps are necessary).  The full pathname should 
generally be {username}/News/soc/history/KILL. 

/^From: han@anadolu/h:j
/^From: hbm@ddsw1/h:j
 
This will kill anything Mutlu posts (until he gets yet a thrid account).
My kill file is over 100 lines at this point; it kills about 80% of the 
traffic in soc.history.  Much (not most, unfortunately) of the remainder 
is worth reading.  I too would farour having a moderated group where 
we could actually talk about history.
 
Carl Alexander
carl@silver.lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: erics@sco.COM (eric smith)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:20:24 GMT


smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:

>Japanese managed to catch ALL BUT the Aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor.

Not completely true. It is true that all of the carriers were at sea, but
so were a number of battleships, destroyers, cruisers, etc. The great
majority of the fleet was in port however.

-----
Eric Smith	    | "My friends, no matter how rough the road may be,
erics@sco.com	    |	we can and we will, never, never surrender
erics@infoserv.com  |	to what is right."
CI$: 70262,3610	    |		- J. Danforth Quayle
 
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Roman Priesthoods (Flamen Dialis)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 25 Jul 92 20:15:50

Flamen Dialis includes in his signature:

     Technomad.  Portmanteau word from a novel I'm roughing out,
     about a nomadic culture in a "cyberpunk" dark future.

Here I thought it was an adjective used by the deep ecologists
to characterize people who favor nuclear reactors, the SCSC
and the genome projects.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky soc.history:6659 talk.politics.misc:35799 soc.culture.japan:6195
From: sethr@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (seth.r.rosenthal)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Taranto //WasRe: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japaneseatroc
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:27:11 GMT
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <11362@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> In article <9PN0NB2w164w@netlink.cts.com>, galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:
> # # # That we can even mention war and morality in the same breath is 
> # # # remarkable. 
> # # 
> # #   Which is to say that self defense (on a countries level) is not 
> # # moral? Uh, boy. (waiting for Russ Nelson any minute here...)
> # # -- 
> # # 
> # # 		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
> # 
> # The Japanese thught they were defending themselves, or at least tyheir 
> # interests, when they attacked us. Was that moral? Was Saddam Hussein
> # fighting a moral war because a coalition of nations attacked and 
> # partly invaded his? 
> # --
> # Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.
> 
> I see.  The rape victim who uses deadly force to defend herself is
> morally equivalent to the rapist.  A true liberal.

I didn't notice the article Clayton is responding to, let me add
my own response to Clayton's.

The WWII Japanese, much like Hitler had already helped themselves to
Manchuria, much of China, and saw Pearl Harbor and the US Navy
as the major obstacle to helping themselves to the Philipines,
Singapore, South-East Asia, etc.  This was no act of self-defence,
and no Japanese strategist considered it as such.
It was a pre-emptive attack to allow them to conquer most of Asia,
their version of Manifest Destiny.
They made the calculated risk that Americans were isolationist enough
or pacifistic enough so that the storm would blow over or at least
we would fight back
too late to prevent them from taking control over all of Asia.

Saddam's nation was not invaded, except if you call the encircling of
his army (stationed in someone else's country) an invasion.
Today that UN force is no longer in Southern Iraq, and is in
Northern Iraq only to prevent genocide against the Kurds.
Saddam has zero moral grounds from which to speak.  His human
rights record is without a doubt the worst in the world making
South Africa look like a utopia, and he has repeatedly committed
acts of aggression against his neighbors.  The much vaunted starvation
in Iraq has turned out to be a tool created by Saddam to weaken
the Kurdish and Shiite resistance to his rule.  If you are pro-Saddam
in Iraq you get plenty of food.


		Seth Rosenthal

Disclaimer: All opinions are my own not my employers'.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie)
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
	<23JUL199214120738@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Jul27.180117.3539@island.COM>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:08:48 GMT

>Lack of a declaration of war and full diplomatic relations DO seem to indicate
>'friendly" status, at elast as defined in the international scene.

The Japanese didn't consider the US their friend. Japan considered the US it's
number one enemy from about 1909 onward. And judging by the immigration
policies of the US regarding Japanese and the history of US/Japan relations
prior to 1941, I sincerely doubt that anyone thought there were nay feelings of
"friendliness" between Japan and the US. Where do you find this definition "in
the international scene" that you are drawing from?? No declaration of war and
full diplomatic relations IMPLIES status quo at best.

smittie
-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
GEnie, MCI, AOL:Smittie | If all of us were as smart as we think we are the
smittie@beach.csulb.edu |  current world problems would be yesterday's news.
________________________|___________________________________________________
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: The history of bathing and baths
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:59:49

This is a pretty minor event in world history, i know, but in the
interest of completeness:

King Haakon VII of Norway fell in the bathtub in 1955.  He was a
rather old man at the time, and so he hurt himself pretty badly.
The injuries ultimately caused his death two years on.

Also, i seem to remember some opera was written while the composer
soaked in a bathtub... lots of scented oils in the water to inspire
him... can anyone fill me in on the details, or am i hallucinating?
8-)

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway

Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.war,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.japan
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Organization: sgi
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:06:22 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul21145758@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
|> <In article <n8tanpg@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> <   In article <viking.711048113@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
|> <   |> In <n81cedo@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> <   |> 
|> <   |> >I'd put it slightly differently.  It's not so much that 
|> <   |> >Americans make a big deal out of Pearl Harbour; more that 
|> <   |> >they portray the surprise element as being of overwhelming 
|> <   |> >importance.
|> <   |> 
|> <   |> 	For the purposes of supplying a nation with a will to fight,
|> <   |> this is a very important aspect to remember.
|> 
|> <   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?

Please don't put word in my mouth.   I said nothing at all
about the Bataan Death March.

jon.