HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham)
Subject: Re: Use of Pre-Civil War Railroads in Warfare
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 16:54:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.131944.13168@panix.com> spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
>turrell@violet.berkeley.edu (David Turrell) writes:
>
>>townsend@capitol.com (Dave Townsend) writes:
>
>>>	OK, who first (period!) used railroads in war?  Napoleon III?
>>>	Any references appreciated.
>
>>There could hardly have been large scale use of railroads in warfare
>>before the Civil War. The first passenger line opened in 1818, in England,
>>so that leaves out anything to do with the first Napoleon. The Crimea
>>would hardly have had extensive rail service in the 1850's.
>
>The Paris Revolution of 1834, the Revolution of 1848 and the periodic
>Paris insurrections of the 19th century were put down with troops
>brought by rail from the countryside to the cities. This had an
>important effect on European thinking about the military use of
>railroads.

It would also be worth looking at the 1859 war between Austria-Hungary,
France, and Sardinia. If I remember correctly, the French infantry and
artillery was redeployed from the Rhine frontier to Northern Italy by
railroad.
-- 
Stephen Graham
graham@cs.washington.edu	 uw-beaver!june!graham
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: the taj mahal is a hindu
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:38:12 GMT
Distribution: soc
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1993Jan3.4937.13206@dosgate> "david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com> writes:
>CG>************* THE TAJ MAHAL IS A HINDU TEMPLE **************
>
>CG>                     By Shri P. N. Oak
>  >                        (Copyright)
>
>[six `articles' of revisionist `history' omitted for the sake of 
>brevity and good taste]
>
>So what? Hagia Sophia is a Christian Church, but Christians don't 
>waste others' valuable computer time yakking about it.
>---
> ~ 1st 1.02b #813 ~ Stercus longe aufer, ne malum habeas -- CIL 6.31615
>--
>Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
>World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

Why the hostility to those posts on the Taj Mahal?  Isn't it a legitimate
historical issue?  There may be religious and cultural issues to it, but
it is fascinating from a historical point of view that the building might
be much older than historians allow and that it was originally a Hindu
shrine.  There are those, of course, for whom any challenge to the consensus
of orthodox scholarship is to be regarded with scorn.

Do you think perhaps that the poster believes that the Taj Mahal was originally
used as a landing pad for UFOs?  Or perhaps you believe that this is really
a sinister theory whose hidden agenda is to promote creationism?  Must nip
it in the bud, you know.

As for the fact that the articles are written from a particular cultural/religious 
point of view, does that in itself render null and unworthy of consideration
the factual evidence and reasoned arguments they cpresent?  In that case then
most of the literature about the history of the Jews in modern times would 
also be considered a waste of your "valuable computer time", according to your
standards.

Anti-revisionists notwithstanding, if the hypothesis is true, then it should
be of interest both from a historical and an artistic/architectural point
of view.  The architectural history of any great building is worthy of
consideration - including the Hagia Sophia, Chartres Cathedral, the Pyramids
(gasp), and, indeed, the Taj Mahal.  I for one find the arguments, given
in summary form as they are, forceful and persuasive, and at least worth
looking further.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: dxb105@huxley.anu.edu.au (David Bofinger)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Collaborators with the Wehrmacht
Date: 13 Jan 1993 02:54:24 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.3.32

Staggeringly, an interesting question (well, relatively, at least)
derived from a Serdar Argic post.

In article <visser.726876692@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com
(Lance Visser) writes:
> There were collaborators with the germans in every european
> country and in places like Iraq, Egypt and Iran as well.  They
> collaborated with the germans for various reasons.

I'd be interested in any list people had (or knew the location of) of
the number of collaborators the Wehrmacht managed to get to fight on
its side from various countries. There's plenty of info on allies,
(Finland, for instance), but I'm interested in puppet governments
established in conquered countries (Slovakia), neutral but sympathetic
countries (Spain), loonie local fascist organisations (Belgium) and
German (Alsace) or other ethnic (Armenia) minorities. Oh, and don't
forget the Russian army that got along without a commander. :-) I
realise none of these contributions was particularly large, but I'm
curious about totals. It would also be nice if the list made a
distinction between troops used to garrison occupied countries and
those sent to Russia, etc..
_______________________________________________________________________
David Bofinger                                   dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au
From: lindam@tardigrade.Eng.Sun.COM (Linda McAllister)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Johns through History
Date: 13 Jan 1993 00:34:20 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: tardigrade
Keywords: John, Jon, Johnny, Jonathan

In article <45075@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jmcd@cea.berkeley.edu (John McDonald) writes:
>
>There were a lot of people named John throughout
>history.  Please send me your own list of prominent
>Johns throughout history, i am interested in compiling
>such a master list.

And least but probably not last
	John Q. Public
	John Doe


lm
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: mathers@sibelius.trl.OZ.AU (Steven Mathers)
Subject: Rebellion&disturbance in an empire
Reply-To: s.mathers@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:26:38 GMT

Im trying to model problems that might beset the government of an
empire.  As a simple model, I am categorising these problems
broadly, and listing the factors that may influence them either way.

Specifically, my area of interest would be ancient empires such
as Rome (of course), but given the broadness of my approach,
other periods will probably be applicable.

Here is what I have come up with so far -

1)  Foreign revolt:  A province/country breaks away from the empire.

inf  :  Clash in culture/religion. (encourage)
		  Presence of Imperial troops. (discourage)
        Surrounds. (independent neighbors encourage revolt)

2)  Popular revolt:  People overthrow government.

inf  :  Famine
		  Taxes
		  Mismanagement (economy etc...)

3)  Military Coup:  Military leader/troops take over

inf  :  Popular military leader (wins war etc...)
		  Government stands down or underfunds military

Question:  Would the size of the army(ies) have any effect on the
			  possibility of a coup?

			  Would the nature of the military have any effect on the
			  possibility of a coup? (ie: regular or irregular/barbarian
			  army)

4)  Civil War:  Warring factions battle for control

inf  :  Empire at war with others of same or different religion?

Question:  Would a state religion have any effect on possibilities
			  of civil war?  (Or any of the other categories I have
			  mentioned above?)    


Any comments? suggestions?

Thanks.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: Suzanne-lucia.Demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu (Suzanne-lucia Demitrio)
Subject: Sierra Leone (Re: Quiz question)
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:23:44 GMT

In article <726155135.28131@minster.york.ac.uk> 
sjbuckle@minster.york.ac.uk writes:

>   Who established Sierra Leone as a colony ?
>
>I think the actual name of a person is required, rather than the colonising
>country, 

Granville Sharp, a British anti-slavery activist, founded the colony in
1787.  He was soon supported by a coalition of abolitionist groups, the
Sierra Leone Company, based in London.  Most of the settlers were, of
course, freed slaves.  Britain adopted the colony in 1807; it became an
independent Commonwealth state in 1961.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suzanne Lucia                    suzanne-lucia.demitrio@launchpad.unc.edu
--
   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: soc.history
From: aavso@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Tom Quesinberry)
Subject: January 8th, 1815
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Lewis Research Center/NASA
Date:  8 Jan 1993 08:21 EST  

It was 178 years ago today, January 8th, 1815, that Andrew Jackson's
forces defeated British Troops at the Battle of New Orleans.
The battle was fought after a peace treaty was signed, but word
had not reached the armies.

				Tom Q.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Tom Quesinberry                 | E-MAIL: aavso@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov
  Research Analysis Center/CSD    | PBX:    (216) 433-5130
  Lewis Research Center/NASA      | LIFE:   I would rather see starlight
  Cleveland, Ohio 44135           |             than streetlights.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
            * Earth Is My Country. Science Is My Religion.
                     * Next Stop----------> Mars
Xref: sparky soc.history:10653 alt.war.civil.usa:1820
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Use of Pre-Civil War Railroads in Warfare
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:56:46 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan11.171601.2724@leland.Stanford.EDU>, disraeli@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jamie Lara Bronstein) writes:
> If the nearest railhead to the Crimea was 400 miles away, how was it that
> the front was able to send news to England quickly via telegraph?
> I was under the impression that telegraph lines were usually strung
> along the railroad tracks, so that stations could communicate
> with each other.
> 
> Jamie Bronstein
> History Department
> Stanford University
> disraeli@leland.stanford.edu

It was generally true that telegraph lines followed rail lines, but that
does not mean there were no telegraphs where there were no railroads. 
The first telegraph line from California to the East Coast became operational
around 1863, about 5 years before the first coast-to-coast rail line.

-- 
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: soc.history
From: emery@goldfinger.mitre.org (David Emery)
Subject: Re: _Target Hitler_ a book review
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
	<vzhivov.726381282@cunews> <1993Jan7.191800.4471@island.COM>
	<vzhivov.726437511@cunews> <EMERY.93Jan7182621@goldfinger.mitre.org>
	<vzhivov.726469142@cunews>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:01:12 GMT

I'd recommend "Hitler's Panzers East", by Stolfi.  This is a
revisionist book, and I don't agree with many of his conclusions, but
he makes the case that the Soviet troop dispositions make no sense
from a defensive perspective, but would make quite good military sense
if the Soviets were contemplating an opportunistic advance,
particularly in the south (into Romania, for instance).  I've seen
this thread picked up elsewhere, but that's probably the best single
reference.  

In some respects, it makes sense.  Despite the decapitation of the
Soviet military (Tuvachevsky (sp?) et al), the Soviets weren't
complete fools, militarily.  Stalin showed himself to be quite willing
to take advantage of situations, e.g. Poland in '39.  

				dave
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Johns through History
Keywords: John, Jon, Johnny, Jonathan
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:16:16 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

Some Johns:
 Jonathan (David's friend)

 The Evangelist
 Chrysostum
 of the Cross
 de Mollay (Jacques)
 Prester John (Grail legend)
 I (King of England, you know, Magna Charta etc.)
 of Gaunt
 Tauler (Johannes - mystic)
 
 Tetzel (enemy of Martin Luther)
 Don (Giovani, Juan)
 the Terrible (Ivan IV)
 Sebastian Bach
 Christian Bach etc. (J. S. Bach sons)
 Hummel (Also composer)
 Brahms
 Bocherinni (Giovanni)
 Ibert (Jacques)
 Pissaro (Juan)
 Christian Anderson (Hans)
 Gretel's brother (Hansel)

 Chapman (Appleseed)
 Jacob Astor
 Paul Sartre
 Flemming (Ian - James Bond author)
 Cousteau (Jacques)

 Valdez (Juan - picks coffee beans one by one)
 Akers (CEO of IBM, whose employees are as productive as John Valdez)


Re: Jacques and Joseph. Jacques should count but not Joseph.  
I believe joseph is a entirely different name.

How about Joan, Joanne, Johanna, Jane, Juana, Jeanne, 
Yvonne, etc.  e.g. Ivana Trump.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Use of Pre-Civil War Railroads in Warfare
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 19:07:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.171601.2724@leland.Stanford.EDU> disraeli@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jamie Lara Bronstein) writes:
>If the nearest railhead to the Crimea was 400 miles away, how was it that
>the front was able to send news to England quickly via telegraph?
>I was under the impression that telegraph lines were usually strung
>along the railroad tracks, so that stations could communicate
>with each other.
>
Usually, but this was done for convenience rather than necessity. Both the
railroad and the telegraph line had to be guarded against raids and guerrila
activity, and both had to run between the army and its rear area bases. If
they were in the same place, the same unit could guard both of them. There
was no technological reason why they had to be together, that I am aware
of.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.war.civil.usa
From: gardner_c@apollo.hp.com (Cal Gardner)
Subject: Re: Use of Pre-Civil War Railroads in Warfare
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:20:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <STONE.93Jan11154632@gershwin.cs.unc.edu> stone@gershwin.cs.unc.edu (Donald Stone) writes:
>
>In article <visser.726780606@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>
>   From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
>
>	   There is no reason that Telegraph lines have to built at the
>   same time as railroads though.  Obviously the English could not have
>   had direct telegraph contact from the Crimea.  Its possible that there
>   was a telegraph link to somewhere at Constantinople (or Istambul if you
>   perfer).
>	   But at the same time, how "quickly" is quickly with regard to
>   news reaching England.  News might have been transported back to france
>   or Italy by ship and then telegraphed back to England.
>
>When was undersea cabling technology invented?  I've always been curious about
>the development of telegraph technology, particularly about how/when/etc it
>was extended across the Atlantic.
>
>Part of my interest stems from the beginning of Tuchman's "The Zimmerman
>Telegram" where she describes the first naval events of the First World War
>... the cutting of several Trans-Atlantic cables.
>
>Anybody know of any good books on the subject?
>
>--
>Donald Stone (stone@cs.unc.edu)

From my youthful stamp collecting days, I recall that the US issued a comm in either
the late 40's or more likely th 50's to honor some cable laying operation.  The first
attempts at a trans-Atlantic cable date back to around 1850 or so.  It seems likely
that an easier task was first attempted, but it would have to be after the 'invention'
of loading coils which were also needed for long lines on land.

Cal gardner_c@apollo.hp.com
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: The dead sea scrolls deception.
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:29:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1iuonhINNdq6@galapagos.Warren.MENTORG.COM> tomd@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom David) writes:
> 	I read a very interesting book (I'd recommend it to anyone
> 	interested in the historical correctness of the bible)
> 	over the weekend...The title of the book was " The dead sea scrolls 
> 	deception " By Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh...Does anyone 
> 	know who these authors are (i.e. how credible are they ?)

Baigent and Leigh also wrote HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL, in which they claim that
Jesus wasn't taken up into Heaven, but moved to France, married, and raised a
family, and that his descendents are still members of a secret society that
controls Europe.

But I really couldn't say how credible they are.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle
From: velde2@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Francois Velde)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Johns through History
Date: 12 Jan 1993 17:39:37 -0500
Organization: Homewood Academic Computing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
Keywords: John, Jon, Johnny, Jonathan

In article <1993Jan12.181616.27386@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>Some Johns:
> de Mollay (Jacques)
> Ibert (Jacques)
> Jacob Astor
> Cousteau (Jacques)
They don't count.

>Re: Jacques and Joseph. Jacques should count but not Joseph.  
>I believe joseph is a entirely different name.

Joseph is an entirely different name, so is Jacques. Jacques comes from
Yakob (e.g. the son of Isaac), via Latin Jacobaeus; compare the German
Jakob, Italian Giacomo, Spanish Jaime. (note that there is a trace of 
the Jacob origin in the phrase Santiago=Saint James the Apostle, patron saint
of Spain). And the correct English translation is James.
Example: the adjective that characterizes the reign of James I of England 
is jacobean. It is also the adjective for things pertaining to James the
apostle. In contradistinction, a disciple of St John the Baptist is 
called a Johannite; things pertaining to John the Apostle are johannine
(from Hebrew Yohanan; cf. German Johannes, Italian Giovanni, Spanish
Juan, Dutch Ian, Russian Ivan, etc). 

For some unknown reason, a synonym of John in English a is Jack, hence the
confusion; but that does not translate into Jacques.

the French equivalent of John is Jean:
Jean Sans Peur
Jean Valjean
Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The feminine form is Jeanne:
Jeanne d'Arc (Joan of Arc)

>How about Joan, Joanne, Johanna, Jane, Juana, Jeanne, 
>Yvonne, etc.  e.g. Ivana Trump.
 ^^^^^^
Yvonne is the feminine form of Yves, which has nothing to do with John either.

-- 

	Francois Velde

Newsgroups: soc.history
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: _Target Hitler_ a book review
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:12:11 GMT

In article <13767@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>
>_Target Hitler: The Plots to Kill Adolf Hitler_, 
>by James P. Duffy & Vincent L. Ricci
>(Praeger, Westport Connecticut: 1992)
>
>Duffy & Ricci also demonstrate that, contrary to the view
>taken by some other historians, the General's Plot was *not*
>simply the result of the German officer corps attempting to
>save their own necks once the war was lost, but the last in a
>long series of efforts made before the war to remove Hitler from
>power, out of opposition to the immorality of National Socialist
>Party rule.  Much of the opposition was founded on the belief
>that Hitler's actions in provoking wars, passing of the Nuremburg
>laws, and other such actions against the Jews, were contrary to
>Christianity.  Especially among the military and diplomatic
>opposition, this Christian basis to opposition to Hitler created
>a serious problem, because of a profound reluctance to commit
>murder, even of someone such as Hitler.  Eventually, as the
>nature of the brutality of the Nazi policies became impossible
>to miss, the major plotters, such as von Stauffenberg, overcame
>their reluctance.  The plot to depose Hitler became a plot to
>assassinate.

Issues of morality aside for the moment, the roundup of East Europeans, part- 
ticularly of Soviet peasants was a military disaster. When the German troops 
first entered Russia, they were welcomed as liberators (remember, these people 
had just barely survived Stalin), and many of the people would probably have 
taken up arms against their own government, had the Nazis done nothing more thandelay their "Lebensraum" plans. At the very least, they would have actively or 
passively aided the Germans in the war effort, and the advancing German army 
would not have had to contend with as spirited a defense.  
 
Also, when the war was winding down (read: it was clear the Germans were going 
to get their tails kicked), Hitler insisted on providing all necessary supplies for his death-camps, even at the expense of the war effort. Surely, this cannot have been lost on the generals. 
 
Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opinions are not so much opinions, as pearls of wisdom. Any-
one disagreeing is obviously either a) a snivelling, whining, mentally-
deficient, weak-willed, inconsequential, namby-pamby tool of some vague but
conveniently defined conspiracy, or b) my wife.
Xref: sparky soc.history:10545 talk.politics.misc:66247 rec.arts.books:23871
From: kamorgan@athena.mit.edu (Keith Morgan)
Subject: Re: _Target Hitler_ a book review
Followup-To: rec.arts.books
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:12:11 GMT


Clayton Cramer posts a very interesting book review:

This book interests me and I now plan to read it. As an aside, this
week on PBS there was a documentary called "A Matter of Conscience"
that dealt with the General's plot. I found parts of it to be quite
powerful, particularly some of the interviews. One elderly man, who
was a junior officer in the Germany Army relates coming upon the SS
exterminating  truckloads of people in an open pit. Horrified, he went
and got his senior officer and brought him back to the site. The other
man was just as horrified but when asked what they should do, replied
that if they said anything they would simply join the others in the
pit. At this point the man in the interview begins to break down.
Still, it was witnessing this atrocity that made him join in the plot.


Keith
--

Keith Morgan kamorgan@athena.mit.edu
In the end nothing could be said of his work except that it was
preposterous and true and totally unacceptable. Edward Whittemore