HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: korkiako@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Jorma Korkiakoski)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: The most decisive battle in history (Schlieffen Plan)?
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:19:18 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In <17sdu7INN3a3@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:

>I didn't include this on my list, because I believe the Schlieffen
>plan was sound, but the German generals screwed it up. So it wasn't
>the battle of the Marne that was decisive, but the incompetence of
>the German High Command, in my opinion.


	According to "War Gaming" by Andrew Wilson, the 'Schlieffen
	Plan' had some staggering oversights: the manpower available 
	was insufficient, the strategic values of railways had been 
	neglected ( Moltke was taken by surprise when in 1914 the
	French responded to the slow German left-wheel by switching
	reinforcements on their rail network ), failure to grasp the
	significance of new weapons and barbed wire, failure to
	understand the moral and political factors, such as the Belgian
	resistance, and, failure to consider the economic consequences
	of a long if if quick victory was not achieved. 

	"It is now known that Schlieffen himself had grave doubts
	about the matter. But instead of taking the honest course and
	warning the German government, he continued, even after 
	retirement, to find a justification for his impossible plan,
	reportedly expiring with the words 'It must come to a fight.
	Whatever happens, make the right wing strong.'"

	( page 31 )

-- 
/--+
+ Jorma Korkiakoski       + "[l{ panttaa s{mpyl{{s!" + 
+ korkiako@cc.helsinki.fi + - TKM -                  +
From: jac54@cas.org
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: The most decisive battles in history ?
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:26:05 GMT
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio


	The lessons of a battle may not be learned until many years later
	when the embryo of a new idea is first observed in a battle of
	many years before.

	A few opinions (not so much nominations as points for discussion):

	The tactical/strategic gem of all times remains the Mongol
	invasion of Waziristan.  A beautiful combination of deception
	coupled with speed and an operational efficiency unmatched
	until the advent of the German Generalstab.  Also, it gives
	me a chance to put in a plug for two nominees for greatest
	generals: the two Mongol generals Jebe and Subedai.


	A lesson never quite learned:

	The British expeditions into Afghanistan.  One survivor from
	two military adventures, the price of underestimating a local
	guerilla force.

	The price of stupidity:

	Isahndlwahna (Major spelling crisis too).

	The correct use of technology, training, and leadership:

	Rorke's Drift.

	The battle that most influenced the military standoff in the Cold
	War:

	Operation Goodwood (Normandy 1944), brilliant defense by the Germans.

	The most desperate:

	The Battle of the Atlantic (Stalingrad as the ugliest).

	The most fundamental change in thinking:

	Pearl Harbor and Midway.

	The best use of opportunity:

	The German Roadshow 1940.

	The best use of intellect:

	The Ultra-magic purple enigma.

	Just throw these in with the rest and see how the list shakes
	out.

	Alec
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: moonman@camelot.bradley.edu (Craig Levin)
Subject: Re: The most decisive battles in history ?
Organization: House of the Moss Rose
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:18:19 GMT

	How about the Battle of Tours, where the Moors were halted in
their attempt to conquer Europe?

--
Craig Levin                    Lt. Pedro Alcazar (RN Portugal, Ret'd.)
moonman@camelot.bradley.edu    House of the Moss Rose
moonman@buhub.bradley.edu      Barony of Illiton
			       Midrealm
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)
Subject: Re: The most decisive battle in history ?
Keywords: decisive battles
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:48:14 GMT

What about ...?

1)  First battle of Alamein - Rommel was stopped, and the Middle 
    East was probably saved from German occupation.  Not to mention
    the ultimate (albeit vague) plan to link up with the Eastern
    Front thru' the Caucasus.

2)  Operation Market Garden (Arnhem) - The failure of the 'short-cut'
    offensive probably prolonged the war, as well as in some small way
    stimulated the Ardennes offensive - further delaying the end of
    the war.  This probably enabled the Soviets to occupy more of 
    Eastern Europe (Yalta etc. notwithstanding).

More to follow (if I think of any :-)  )....

Gerald M
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: hvaisane@cs.joensuu.fi (H. Vaisanen)
Subject:  Refugees as a (political) weapon (in Estonia)?
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:31:26 GMT


27 Aug 1992 Finnish evening newspaper Ilta-Sanomat published an
article written by an Estonian, Mait Eelrand, which might be of
interest to alt.war readers.  Here are the tidbits...

"Every day dozens of Somalians, and recently Kurds form Iraq, try to
get to Finland and Sweden from Tallin. Many refugees have forged
Swedish passports."

"Estonian police sends the illegal aliens [who don't have valid
passports] back to the country where they have come from, generally
Russia."

"The commander-in-chief of the border guards in Tallin harbor, Viktor
Hansen, thinks that the refugees are sent to Estonia from Russia by an
organization which might have political motives [1]. This is his
personal opinion, but there is no doubt that in Russia forged
passports are sold to people who want to come to Nordic countries as
refugees."


[1] I am not quite sure whether he means 'political motives' against
Estonia, Nordic countries, or both.

Now, if we assume (for the sake of starting a good flame war :-) that
this organization exists, what political motives it might have?  I
can't think of any other than the destabilization of the target
country.
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Subject: Re: The most decisive battles in history ?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:56:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.144627.26705@nntp.hut.fi> c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Vil
janen) writes:
>
>Not a long time ago there was a thread about the greatest general for ever
>(and the worst ever). Since time has passed, it is now the time to ask
>which have been the most decisive battle/s in the history ?
[deletions]

First Marne (1914) -- Had the German Army won, Lenin would have died a
Russian exile in Switzerland, Hitler would have returned to Munich and
resumed his handtomouth existence, the U.S. would have been isolationistic,
and 20the century history would have been entirely different.

Note that decisive can have a few meanings: the Marne "decided" much of
the course of 20th century history, but was not in itself firmly "decided"
in that the German Army remained a cohesive fighting force. Tannenberg, on
the other hand, was itself decided by the destruction of the 2nd Russian
Army, but didn't have nearly the great effect on world history that Marne
did. Note however that some battles would have been more obviously decisive
had the other side one (Marne itself, for one).

Robert George
(speaking only for myself)

"The very essence of individual freedom is equal justice under a rule of
law, a law to which every man shall be subject and which no executive
can modify."
    Senator Robert Taft , March 11, 1944
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Whither the "No-fly zone?"
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:16:31 GMT


	The "No-Fly Zone" south of the 32nd. parallel in Iraq (covering
	the southern marshes and therefore making a nonsense of the
	name) goes into effect in a couple of hours.  The Ba'athists
	are looking to retaliate and they have begun to erode the U.N.
	presence in the Kurdish safe haven in the north and may be
	willing to replay the Agriculture Ministry confrontation with
	the next inspection team.

	The question is, who is going to blink first?  I can see that
	the next confrontation could take everybody over the edge and
	into another shooting war.  This time, perhaps leading to
	Western assaults from the northern and southern areas.

	Is this what Western leaders are looking for?  Have they
	decided that this is the only way to remove Sadaam?

	Questions? Opinions? Comments?

	Alec Chambers.

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: The most decisive battle in history ?
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 21:07:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Keywords: decisive battles

How about the Battle of Hastings?

Jon

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: erudnick@claudius.pica.army.mil (Edward J. Rudnicki )
Subject: Re: Gas = Stupidity
Originator: erudnick@claudius
Organization: U.S. Army  Armament Research Development & Engineering Center, Dover NJ
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:23:09 GMT

DanZ writes:
#   Gas is as close to militarily worthless as any weapon system could ever
#become. It cannot be used in any proximity to your own troops. In our modern
#army it can, but would require the use of stifling equipment. I have never
#heard anyone suggest that a unit can fight effectively in the gas suits our
#troops have.
#    The effect that a gas attack will have is very unpredictable. It may have
#no effect, or actually effect your own troops more severely depending on
#the wind.
#    I can't see any rational military use of gas.


Not true, Dan. Chemical weapons can be exceedingly effective under the right
circumstances; that's what makes them so tempting to folks like Saddam.

After the introduction of mustard during the Great War, chemical weapons
accounted for about one third of Allied casualties. Amos Fries, head of
the US Chemical Warfare Service during that war, considered mustard to
be one of the most useful munitions extant. This of course was so because
effective full-body protection was not available at the time.

Delivered by artillery or aircraft, nonpersistent agents pose little
hazard to one's own troops. These can be lethal or nonlethal as required.
Persistent agents like mustard can deny an area to the enemy without
requiring covering troops (as opposed to mines which must be covered by
own fire to be really effective for any period). Mustard was extensively
used by the Germans as a counterbattery weapon, requiring far less
expenditure of munitions than HE.

The requirement to use protective clothing is also a useful effect: Put
a couple of persistent vesicant or nerve agent projectiles into the
enemy's AO. They put on full protective gear. Heat casualties ensue just
a couple of hours later. This is the "deterrent" effect - "I can make
you just as miserable as you can make me".

Against unprotected troops with no retaliatory capability, mustard can be
devastating: Italians in Ethiopia and Iran-Iraq War.



Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil
Disclaimer - All my information on chemical weapons is derived from books
I found in my library at work. List supplied on request. All other
disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: The most decisive battles in history ?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:17:00 GMT

In <1992Aug27.144627.26705@nntp.hut.fi> c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen) writes:


>which have been the most decisive battle/s in the history ?

In no particular order:

Stalingrad
Midway
Hiroshima/Nagasaki (not really a battle)
Trafalgar
Waterloo
Bosworth Field
Marathon
Antioch (11th century)
Jericho
Vienna (raising the seige)
Brietenfeld
Agincourt
Saratoga
Princeton

These were decisive in terms of influencing the future history.  Battles
that were decisively won, but didn't influence the outcome of the war,
might include

Fredericksburg
Cannae
Bull Run
Shiloh
Mexico City (Mexican-American War)
New Orleans
Kuwait :->

--
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Gigabit Study Group 

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: P0LU000 <P0LU@UNB.CA>
Subject: Re: The most decisive battles in history ?
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:55:24 GMT


What about Pearl Harbor?

Reasons: Entry of U.S. in the war in the most aggressive way
         possible.
         Adaption of carrior tactics by the Americans (they had
         no choice.. The  Pacific battleship Navy no longer
         existed.)
         Change in the Average American's mind-set (isolationalism
         no longer seemed such a good idea).

The big question: could this be thought of as a battle?  It was
between two armed forces...although it was before war was
officially declared.

Leslie Mills

/#######################################\
| "Illness reminds us that we are not   |
|  going to live forever.  Pain reminds |
|  us that we wouldn't want to."        |
\#######################################/

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (Barone)
Subject: Re: The most decisive battles in history?
Organization: Raytheon Submarine Signal Division, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:33:56 GMT

	I would say that the Spanish Armada of 1588 was a decisive
point in history.  Had the Spanish won, the entire history of North
America would be very different.  I daresay that Spanish would be
spoken in nearly every part of the Western Hemisphere (barring French
possessions).  The history of England and Western Europe would also
be drastically different.
-- 
Joe Barone
m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com
Never get involved in a land war in Asia!
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: IT'S OFFICIAL: China to buy Soviet Carrier
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 14:16:34 GMT

I just recieved my September issue of _Proceedings_.  On page 123 of "World
Naval Developments" by Norman Friedman is the follow box article. Quote:

                          CHINESE BUY RUSSIAN CARRIER

The Chinese bought the incomplete Russian aircraft carrier "Varyag", sister
ship to the "Kuznetsov", in late July specifically **to help enforce their
claim to the Spratly Islands*** (emphasis my own), and their large oil
reserves; the deal also included 22 Su-27K carrier aircraft.  Because the ship
is incomplete, and because the Russian naval arms industry is in some disarray,
it is not clear whether the ship will be completed in quite the same form as 
the "Kuznetsov".  The sale may explain the sudden agreement between Russia and
Ukraine to operate the Black Sea Fleet jointly through 1995; the fate of the 
"Varyag" was the main issue of contention.  Part of the proceeds of the sale
will be used to finance Black Sea Fleet operations.

End of Quote.

Note: the "Kuznetsov" has an angled deck, a ski ramp on the front bow, and
traditional island superstructure.

Also news worthy was a article on the same page about a major purchase by Iran.
They are buying from Russia 12 Tu-22M Backfire bombers, 24 MiG-31s, 2 Mainstay
airborne radar-control aircraft (similar to the US's AWACS), 48 MiG-29s, and
24 MiG-27s plus several batteries of SA-5s, SA-11s, and SA-13s surface-to-
air missiles.  The price: 2.5 billion US dollars.  It is the first time that
Backfire bombers have been exported.  They poise a threat to any shipping in
the Gulf since they normally carry AS-6 anti-ship missiles and it is a *fast*
steep-diving missile that can be fired well outside of a battle group's 
antiaircraft envelope.  Thus, the Iranian Backfires can stay over Iran and
attack any ship in the Gulf.  No Gulf navy has anything remotely like the type
of anti-missile defense system that can defeat the AS-6.  It also appears
that spare parts and service is involved with this sale, including working on
the Iraqi jets that boogied to Iran from Desert Storm.

Don Palmrose




========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: sanet.talk.politics,alt.war
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: ICU2 INORGANIC GERM WARFARE UNIT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:19:59 GMT


   we don't usually get articles from South Africa on alt.war, but when
we do they are looloo's, aren't they?

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: The most decisive battle in history (Schlieffen Plan)?
Date: 31 Aug 1992 06:24:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: whistle.berkeley.edu

<20. The battle of Marne, 1914

<The German onslaught in the Western Front was stopped, and the war 
<degenerated into trench warfare. 

I didn't include this on my list, because I believe the Schlieffen
plan was sound, but the German generals screwed it up. So it wasn't
the battle of the Marne that was decisive, but the incompetence of
the German High Command, in my opinion.
From: korkiako@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Jorma Korkiakoski)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: The most decisive battle in history?
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:27:35 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In <1992Sep2.053225.25236@cs.joensuu.fi> hvaisane@cs.joensuu.fi (H. Vaisanen) writes:

>Because I can't decide what was the most important battle in Winter
>War (-:, I nominate the battle on the Karelian Isthmus, 9 June 1944
>through 16 July 1944, in which the Finnish army stopped the Russian
>invasion, as the most decisive battle in Finnish history.

>Had the Russians been able to break through Finnish positions,
>nowadays Finland would be recovering her independence like the Baltic
>states.

	Well, I would say that the last days of Winter War were much
	more significant ( and showed the genius of Mannerheim ). 
	Mannerheim told the troops not to withdraw despite their 
	being totally exhausted. He played all or nothing: had the
	troops withdrawn to the Soviets night have delayed the peace
	negotiations further on while attacking and the lines would 
        have collapsed, leading to the invasion of Finland. But the
        troops stuck till the very end, and the treaty was signed. 

	Note that the problem in Winter War was the lack of reserves
	and decent weaponry ( guns, planes, anything ). During the
	Continuation War the situation was much much better. The Finns
	retreated rather orderly and troops in front line were swapped
	regularly. 

	Naturally, an invasion would likely have ment a new, "progressive"
	rule.


-- 
/--+
+ Jorma Korkiakoski       + "[l{ panttaa s{mpyl{{s!" + 
+ korkiako@cc.helsinki.fi + - TKM -                  +
From: frode@ludd.luth.se (Frode Randers)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Great battles vs little Narvik.
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:06:08 GMT
Organization: Lule} H|gskolas datorf|rening ( Ludd )


As requested by c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen), concerning great
battles, I would like to make a contribution.

Battles like t.b.o. Midway and other WWII battles were of great importance
for the result of WWII, and compared to those the allied campaign towards
the, by Germany, occupied Narvik in april 1940, may appear to be less
important. But, this specific campaign resulted in the first defeat of the
German forces during WWII. Forces from Brittain, Yugoslavia (former ;-),
France, Poland and Norway (did i forget anyone?) successfully threw the
Germans off shore. During a couple of weeks there were no fights other than
those held in the region of Narvik. This changed dramatically when the Germans
attacked France and the allied attention were directed towards western Europe.
Nevertheless, Narvik was the first defeat for Hitler-Germany in WWII.

Oh, did I forget to mention that Narvik is my home town? ;-)

					Eder Frode Randers.
From: russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: What to see around Atlanta?
Date: 1 Sep 1992 23:42:42 -0500
Organization: Great Northern Hotel
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In Atlanta, you should certainly see the cyclorama and museum.
North of town is Kennesaw Mountain park, also well worth visiting.

Hopefully you have noncloudy weather when you drive to Chattanooga;
we didn't, and so we couldn't see much off of Lookout Mountain...

R
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Plantation Population
Date: 1 Sep 1992 03:13:09 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu

In article <BtvK8D.6H9@world.std.com> 
jmm@world.std.com (Jones M Murphy) writes:

>jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
>
>>Another interesting table in Campbell's book compares the age distribution
>>of the slave and the white populations.  The distributions are almost
>>identical, which indicates that the slaves had a life expectancy that was
>>just a little less than that of the white population.
>
>Beware of those numbers. My parents are the first black people in my lineage
>to have birth certificates(or to read, or whatever....) in the Americas. 
>They were born in '38 and '45, not that long ago.
>Recordkeeping has been extremely poor for Africans.

These tables were derived from the 1850 and 1860 Census Slave Schedules.
Presumably the information for the slaves was provided by the slaveholder.
Aside from family bibles etc., essentially no one in the southern states
(white or black) had any birth records in the ante-bellum period-- 
although Kentucky did have some birth registrations in the 1850's (I 
don't know if slaves were included).  But, my impression is that the 
slaveholders had a reasonably good knowledge of the slave's general age-- 
certainly I have seen where slaveholders kept records of slave births 
on plantations, and the age of the slave is usually given in deeds and 
in probate records.

So, yes, any age numbers from the 19th Century must be used with care. For
the purposes of the table referred to above, the age categories were rather
broad, so I doubt that the result is compromised too much by the admittedly
approximate ages that were used for most slaves and many whites.

--
Justin M. Sanders    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance"
Dept. of Physics        --last words of Gen. John Sedgwick
Kansas State Univ.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa