HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:43:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul29.151205.1557@island.COM>, fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
> In article <SMITTIE.92Jul27210844@beach.csulb.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
# ##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
# 
# From 1909, we were enemy #1? Hardly. As they "went to war" with Germany, and
# not us, it is rather doubtful we were high on their list until about, oh,
# 1935. 

I don't know if we were enemy #1, but Hans Schmidt's excellent biography
of Major General Smedley Butler (_Maverick Marine_, University Press of
Kentucky, 1987) mentions the U.S. building fortifications in the 
Philippines around 1907 specifically because war with Japan was feared.

# Mike
-- 
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: cooper@cos.com (Gary Cooper)
Subject: no mo mutlu!
Summary: help kill mutlu
Keywords: Kill
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:05:32 GMT

Kill file that is - any other historians out there who
can help me set up a kill file so I don't have to trudge
through his crap anymore

thanks
-- 
Gary Cooper (not the dead one)    personal responses - cooper@cos.com
* * * * * * *  Standard Disclaimers Apply, Of Course * * * * * * * * *
      "Sir Ranald, in my domain, never tell me ... always ask." 
                        - Sheriff of Nottingham  _Robin and Marian_
From: d0mof@dtek.chalmers.se (Marcus Gustavsson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Date: 22 Jul 92 04:34:16 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <dusek.711746860@shale> dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:

>	It was the British who dropped on civilians first. During a 
>night attack some RAF bombers let go on German Homes by accident. They
>were aiming for a factory. The Germans were outraged, and hit British
>civilians to retaliate. Than the british were outraged and hit German
>civilians, and so on. Civilan bombing was started by a mistake. At the
>time neither side knew what had happened, therefore it continued.
>
>					James Dusek

	I don't know about the above events, but I would like to say
that I don't think civilian bombing started as a mistake. In fact
I think that it was a standard tactic used by every nation. The reasons
behind it was that airforce chauvinists in the '20-ies and '30-ies
developed a theory that said that the future wars were going to be won
by the side who first could make a massive air attack against the
enemy capital.

	Sounds silly, doesn't it? Well remember that the airforce would
love such a scenario, that it was a splendid reason for their existance
as a separate weapon of arms and that noone really knew how those
bombed would react.

	At that time there didn't exist any airforce with the capability
of ending a war, but that didn't stop airforces from all over the world
to try. So great was the confidence in the bombers that darkened the sky,
that the sentence "The bombers will always get through" was minted.
The allies quickly changed it to a more realistic "Some bombers will
make it back", when they understood how difficult an air offensive was.
Another aspect of the sentence above was that fighter development had
very low priority.

	It is also good to know that the sighting equipment of that
time was so bad that cities was a target that could be hit, but
specific targets within a city, not so. After some thinking the
strategists came to the conclusion that it was ok to harass the plant
workers in their homes. After all, once it was right to kill them, the
location couldn't matter much. It is however noteworthy that Winston
Churchill said about the British bombings something to the effect that
they had to stop because they were giving Britain such a bad name.

	Finally, the earliest report of a somewhat modern like
bombing I could find, was one commited by Japan against a Manchurian
town on the 8:th of October 1931.

	May noone bomb you in your bed tonight,
	Marcus "mof" Gustafsson

--
  Chalmers  |	Rock'n'roll is an outlet for what hurts most
 University |	No money, no women, no alcohol or whatever
     of     |	Rock'n'roll is our channel to give vent to our frustrations
 Technology |	Our music comes straight from the heart		-Bon Scott
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:11:53 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul28.111718.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
> In article <CB.92Jul28110837@tamarack13.timbuk>, cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
# # Lowie's text "Indians of the Plains" gives population estimates for the
# # various tribes of the Plains, such as the Mandan, Lakota, and Pawnee
# # tribes.  What's striking, by comparison with modern society, is how
# # small the numbers are.  A typical tribe had 2000 to 5000 people in its
# # heyday, including tribes whose names are very familiar to us today.  It
# # stands to reason that a tribe in the northern plains would be limited in
# # numbers, since the same land supports relatively few people even today.
# # But I find it interesting that our intense study of early "cultures" can
# # be based on such small societies.  Does anyone have any basis for
# # disputing Lowie's numbers?
# # 
# # Chris Brewster
# # cb@cray.com
# 
# 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

I've seen estimates that Rome had perhaps as many as 700,000 during the
late Empire period.  Remember, Rome had multistory apartment buildings
over a substantial area of land, and current notions of crowding would
not have seemed crowded then.
-- 
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: edgarm@rs6123.ecs.rpi.edu (Marc Edgar)
Subject: Geneaology
Keywords: geneaology,programs
Reply-To: edgarm@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:24:41 GMT

Greetings,

I hope I am not taking up to much bandwidth here but this seemed
like the most reasonable place to ask these questions.

I am doing some family history research and would to find
out a couple of things,
1) Are there any news groups where geneaology is discussed regularly?
2) For those familiar with the programs for preparing family trees:
   Which shareware programs, such as those at simtel, would you
   recommend or not recommend?

Thanks in advance.

Marc Edgar
edgarm@rpi.edu

PS - Please reply to me directly and I'll repost to the newsgroup.
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Goebbels' diaries reviewed by Irving??
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:00:39 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <ggm.711615324@brolga> ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (George Michaelson) writes:

>
>How to be a "real" historian.... NOT!
>

What is a *real* historian?  Did you read "Hitler's War"?  Despite
his theory that Hitler didn't order the holocaust, Irving's book
is truly a work of history and very well documented.  I haven't
read anything better on the war from the German perspective.
John Keegan (is *he* a real historian) shares that view, and
said so publically.  Despite the distaste for Irving's opinions,
I think it might be better to try to be objective about the
work, although I know that might be impossible for those who
lost their families in the holocaust.  I haven't found Irving's
works to be what those who haven't read them say they are.
Read them and see.  They don't deny the holocaust, but support it.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,rec.arts.books,misc.legal
Subject: Re: _A Constitutional History of the United States_
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:40:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Jul29.152300.3151@aero.org>, foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
> 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:
# ## 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

It was intended as an insult to those college students who consider
reading to be a low priority task, relative to watching TV and 
getting drunk.

I am one of the college students of today.
-- 
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: m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (Barone)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Organization: Raytheon Submarine Signal Division, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:35:58 GMT

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?

	Probably to the same extent that the Soviets would never let
another Barbarossa happen to them.  And the best way to ensure that
was to have buffer zones (Eastern Europe).  One cannot very well invade
(invade not bomb nuclearly) the USSR from Western Europe without trashing
real estate that doesn't belong to them before getting to the Soviets.
Look at Israel and the Golan Heights as another example.

	The PBS series, "War and Peace in the Nuclear Age", which aired
about two years ago, goes into detail on this topic.  The series contended
that the Soviets would have been happy with parity (share the top dog
position) while the US had to be Number One (which led to escalation).
-- 
Joe Barone
m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com
He blew out the brains of an apparent civilian on TV.  He was thus guilty
of the one truly unpardonable crime in modern society...  Bad Taste.
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:50:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

In article <1992Jul30.153127.1@acad2.alaska.edu> fsars@acad2.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>Didn't they have park and ride?  I understand that Rome was in the
>forefront of urban planning at the time.  Mass transist must have been
>a consideration.  === Al

Mass transit won't be needed until the city becomes Christian.  Or maybe
after the Vatican is finihed.

-- 
#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.   #
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: seraphim@ais.org (Henry Hardy)
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Keywords: Rome,population,demographics,Hippodrome
Organization: none
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:10:07 GMT

In a previous article, hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) wrote:
>In article <11478@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

[material deleted]
>
>Also, the events in the coliseum must have been lightly attended, since
>it has 40,000 seats.

And the Hippodrome, which is far larger, is estimated to have held 150,000
spectators or more. Some ancient authorities cite the capacity as 450,000
as I recall.

see: Lanciani.


Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul31.162926.14037@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:30:28

The intention to end American Indian history with Wounded Knee
already suggest that it will be lawyers's science.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: smpod@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:12:00 GMT
Organization: who knows
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

and.COM (Mike Fester) writes...
>smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
>>fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes...
> 
>>>BTW, said state did not exist, so so far as 
>>>convention is concerned, the attack on Pearl Harbor was against a friendly
>>>power (and BTW, it DID entail the bombing/killing of civilians).
> 
>>You seem to be enamoured with legalese.   What do you mean by 'said state'?
>>Are you saying that the U.S. was friendly with Japan?
> 
>Uh, well, yeah. We WERE negotiating with them at the time regarding their
>incursions into China and SE Asia.

Negotiationg with a country does not make it a friendly country.

>>>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?

>Really, if all this is confusing, why don't you follow soc.culture.japan? It
>HAS been discussed rather thoroughly there.

The confusion lies elsewhere ;-)
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jacek@tut.fi (Nieweglowski Jacek)
Subject: Re: Warsaw Pact plans
Organization: Finnish University and Research Network FUNET
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:43:58 GMT


Ross Starkey writes about WP plans of invasion of Danemark

>Does anyone know what NATO responses to the Soviet invasion of Denmark may
>have been?


I am not sure if it is a recommendable source for experts :-)
but ....
Several years ago I read a book by Sir Gen. John Hackett
(yeah ... the one who was with British 1'st Airborne in
Arnhem) "The Third World War".

In Hacketts version Polish troops including two armoured 
divisions and the 6'th Airborne took Danemark.
Unfortunately I don't recall more facts. 

Jacek Nieweglowski
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Organization: sgi
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:08:39 GMT

In article <dusek.711746860@shale>, dusek@rtsg.mot.com (James Dusek) writes:
|> smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes:
|> >visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes...
|> >>	In the case of the british, there was a fair amount of desire for
|> >>"payback" in the bombing.  This has nothing to do with who started the
|> >>war and everything to do with the actions of the German air force during
|> >>1940-1941 over England.  London and Coventry created deep anger in England
|> >>which was bound to be shown at some point.
|> >It is debatable wether who started bombing civilians deliberately.
|> 
|> 	It was the British who dropped on civilians first. During a 
|> night attack some RAF bombers let go on German Homes by accident. They
|> were aiming for a factory. The Germans were outraged, and hit British
|> civilians to retaliate. Than the british were outraged and hit German
|> civilians, and so on. Civilan bombing was started by a mistake. At the
|> time neither side knew what had happened, therefore it continued

As has been pointed out several times already, Germany bombed
civilians in Poland several months before the events referred
to here.

jon.
Xref: sparky soc.history:6753 soc.culture.latin-america:2768
From: tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: How many Indians? (land prices, retrograde analysis)
Date: 29 Jul 1992 12:00:16 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: whistle.berkeley.edu

My understanding is that there is some debate about how many
Indians were here before the conquest. Land prices seem to have
dropped roughly 90% over the first century or so, which seems
to indicate massive loss of population. It might make an
interesting research project for someone knowledgeable in
economics and statistics to try to work backwards from known
population figures, taking into account the drop in land
prices, and make an estimate of the pre-conquest population
numbers.

-- 
"An army is composed of idle and inactive men. Unless the general has a constant
eye on them this artificial machine will fall to pieces. If my soldiers began to
think, not one would remain. All that can be done is give them 'esprit de corps'
and keep them more afraid of their officers than the enemy" -Frederick the Great
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster)
Subject: Lincoln revisionism revised
Organization: pubs
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:55:05 CDT


Hot Young Star writes (in politics.misc):

   > I wonder how many people know that Abraham Lincoln, widely considered
   > to be the liberator of the black race, was actually a segregationist
   > who once proposed sending back all of the liberated slaves to Africa?

This is part of a half-baked interpretation of Lincoln that has
unfortunately gained currency (though Hot Young Star may not subscribe
to this interpretation).  People should read the history of the prewar
period--the country was wracked by the slavery issue and was looking for
solutions.  The idea of sending blacks back to Africa was, at the time,
motivated by a humanitarian impulse, and was meant to be helpful.  Don't
confuse it with the way "send 'em back to Africa" sounds today.  Lincoln
sometimes allowed that blacks might be "inferior" but this was in the
context of debates in which he was trying to say "but that sure doesn't
justify slavery".

And, by the way, he's not just "widely considered" the liberator of
blacks, he *was* the liberator.  Certain commentators seem to believe he
should have done more for blacks than liberate them from slavery.  I've
heard people say that he issued the Emanc. Proc. for political rather
than moral reasons, or that he didn't originally intend to end slavery.
Again, this was in the political context: at the outset, he wanted to
hold the country together and was willing to merely *contain* slavery
and deal with getting rid of it later; but he was always an
abolitionist, which is clear from his writings.

I also object to the argument that the job wasn't completed (which, in
any case, Lincoln was prevented from doing by being murdered).  I'd
rather be the lowliest sharecropper, c. 1890, than a slave: no one is
going to sell my children, no one is going to flog me, and I can start
walking west to see if I can improve my lot.  (I may not succeed, but I
won't be considered "contraband" if someone sees me walking along.)
Sorry for my irritated tone, but I think the carping about Lincoln is
one of the lamest current attitudes.

Chris Brewster
cb@cray.com
From: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: NATO/Warsaw Pact forces (was Re: Greatest Prez...)
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:17:52 GMT
Reply-To: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann) says:


>	The WP is a "defense against NATO" was always propaganda.  NATO never
>had the logistics support for offensive operations in E. Europe.
>
>	Besides, parity is good for defense.  Why did the Soviet-led WP need
>5-1 and 10-1 superiority for "defense"? :)
>
>Brett--------------------------------------------------------------------------


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.  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.
(additional info would be greatly appreciated)

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

cheerio

-- 
Whom first, whom later         No one is fool enough to choose war instead of
did you kill in battle,        peace - in peace sons bury fathers, but in war
Patroklos, when the gods       fathers bury sons.  It must have been heaven's
were calling deathward? HOMER  will that this should happen...      HERODOTUS
Xref: sparky soc.history:6608 alt.war:1534 talk.politics.misc:35455 soc.culture.japan:6148