HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Goebbels' diaries reviewed by Irving??
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:26:06 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <ggm.711869560@brolga> ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (George Michaelson) writes:
>
>Secondly, I cannot but dislike the extent to which Irving seems to
>admire and like Goring. Perhaps Banks will disagree with my
>conclusions, but for myself, the book reeked of subdued admiration, and
>not just for the core of the man, but for the *whole*. Were it a work


I haven't read the Goering biography, so I can't agree or disagree.
I suppose if I am going to read more of Irving, the next thing to
read should be "Churchill's War" in which he blames Churchill for
losing the British Empire and thus was quite controversial (and
anti American, I understand).

>
>Irving succeeds in educating me about Goring. He was a complex character,
>clever and warped. Perhaps if I can read my own (preconceived, biased)
>desired message, even in a work so far removed from my political
>perspective, Irving deserves my admiration? I chose not to extend it.
>
Hitler was also a complex character, as was even Himmler, perhaps the
worst of them all.  Because we are so close to their deeds, the
tendancy is to demonize them and see them as totally black.
I think this does a disservice to history and may even be
dangerous.  Understanding that such deeds can spring from people
who are not simply and totally evil perhaps can make us more
wary toward evil tendancies in our own society, and in ourselves.
I wouldn't say Irving is deserving of admiration for 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." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky soc.history:6834 talk.politics.misc:36722 ca.politics:6186 rec.arts.books:13523 misc.legal:15253
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:27:51 GMT
	<STEINLY.92Jul20183207@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Jul23.163123.2447@island.COM>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: fester@island.COM's message of 23 Jul 92 16:31:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.163123.2447@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:



   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?

   Good question, but I'm afraid the answer would be rather disappointing. So
   far as I know, the USSR/Russia has never made the sort of surprise attack 
   we are talking about here.

I honestly don't think that is relevant. What matters was the US
public's and politician's perception. They'd been hit by a major
surprise attack that eliminated a significant fraction of their
armed forces (perceived) and there may have been a strong conscious
or subconscious imperative not to get caught again, by anyone,
presumably the Russians can learn from others lessons too?
Hence the large standing army, 24 hour alerts and incessant worry
about the two major scenarios presented to the public: the sudden
rain of missiles from the sky or the rapid massive thrust across
Europe (did anyone _seriously_ think the WP could reach Calais
in less than two weeks? or that the most likely scenario would not
be a "conventional" build-up of tension and a blunder to war?).

	There is less doubt in my mind that the USSR was even more
in fear of an attack and that was the main - not necessarily sole -
motivation for the WP and the occupation of Eastern Europe, but I
could be wrong.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
|steinly@helios.ucsc.edu|Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:17:32 GMT

In article <SMITTIE.92Jul20154745@lark.csulb.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
>I find it very difficult to compare tragic events to see which is more tragic.
>Seems to me that all of World War II was tragic. Seems to me that every man,
>women and child who was killed as a result of that war is tragic. I think that
>much of the 'they were worse than us' argument is largely an attempt to squelch
>one's own conscience.

>While I do not deny that Japan committed many atrocities during WWII I have a
>very hard time believing that America was the great benevolent good guy that is
>frequently portrayed (not necessarily here).

I have a difficult time seeing anything we did in that war to the Japanese
or Germans to provoke them, prior to 1941. We cut off oil shipments and 
froze Japanese assets in response to further Japanese incursions in Asia
(a unilateral embargo). For this, we were attacked. IMO, this attack was
completely unjustified. If you disagree, then we have a basic conflict in 
values.

>I have always believed that the only reason Pearl Harbor is 'the day that will
>go down in infamy' is because 'they' did it to 'us'. Had 'we' done it to 'them'
>it would have been hailed as one of the greatest military successes.

AS it wasn't much of a military success, this is doubtful. Our entire supply
of fuel for the Pacific Fleet was in Pearl Harbor; it was untouched. Not one
of our aircraft carriers was damaged. It mobilized one of the (actually THE)
major industrial powers and focused its anger. This was all done without 
declaration of war, against what was, after all, a neutral power. 

A few military "successes" like that will put a serious hurt on a country.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d 
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:01:05 GMT

In article <SMITTIE.92Jul27205930@beach.csulb.edu> smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
>>A successful attack and a military success are different; the purpose of the
>>attack was to cripple the US fleet, particularly the carriers, and force the
>>US to the negotiating table. It failed in both respects.
>
>Every book that I've read including "The Japanese Navy in World War II" (in
>which Yamamoto's right hand man in the planning of the Hawaii Operation) states
>clearly that the purpose of the attack on Pearl Harbor was to prevent or slow
>down America's effective entry into the Pacific War. The attack on Pearl Harbor
>was not to take place until the Japanese were sure that there was no hope of
>Negotiation.

In that case, it failed miserably (in fact though, the raid was designed to
force the US to the bargainning table). The Japanese were repulsed at Midway
and Guam less than half a year after Pearl, the Doolittle Raid was the
first successful attack ever by a foreign power on Japanese soil, and about
8 months after that, the US took the offensive at Guadalcanal and never
relinquished it. In that event, it hardly sounds like a military success. 

>>Also, I believe that Germany lost ALL of its colonies during/immediately after
>>WWI; if they were "active in China", it was with the Japanese.

>Uhm, you got that one a wee bit mixed 'round. Japan declared war on Germany in
>support of Britain. At the Paris Peace talks the allied nations sought to give
>the German territories, now spoils of war, back to China. At this point Japan
>threaten to walk out of the negotiations and boycott the newly formed League of
>Nations. It was the US who gave in to Japan's demands and supported Japanese
>claims to the German territories.

As you mentioned "Germany was also active in China at the time" and the time 
frame was WWII (or at least early 1930s) again HOW was Germany active in 
China at that time? BTW, as we were never a member, our "backing" probably
did not carry much weight with the League.

>>Whom were we invading at the time?
>
>We already had possession. We were quite busy exploiting our "little brown
>brothers" in the Philippines.

Right, gotten by us in a war against a European power, Spain.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d 
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Relativity of Pearl Harbor
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:06:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University

[Too many attributions for me to assign one precisely to this quote, sorry.]
>[1] It is precisely because of Japan's contact with the West that Imperial
>Naval factions insisted that a formal declaration of war be presented before
>any attack should commence against the US.  The Japanese Representatives Nomura
>and Kurusu was instructured by the Japanese Government to deliver the
>Declarationof War one hour before the attack was to commence.

I've been following this rather loosely, but this I HAVE to respond to.  What
Korusu and Nomura delivered was NOT a declaration of war. It broke off 
talks, but didn't explicitly declare war.

They still hadn't declared war after they had received the results of the
attack.  "Japan had started the war but had yet to declare it.  At a hurriedly
assembled Cabinet meeting an hour before dawn, Navy Minister Shigetaro 
Shimada calmly described the results of Pearl Harbor, cautioning his listeners
to make allowances for the exaggerations of bomber pilots.  Hastily an
imperial rescript declaring war was composed, signed and sent on to the Privy
Council."  The Rising Sun, John Toland, I-285.

Now if a declaration of war hadn't even been written yet, how could you say
that this was anything but a sneak attack?
-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN) jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu                         # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
Xref: sparky soc.history:6604 talk.politics.misc:35433 soc.culture.japan:6142
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: 22 Jul 92 17:05:03 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

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.
-- 
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.
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: The bomb and the Soviets (was Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:25:10 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <SMITTIE.92Jul20125833@beach.csulb.edu>, smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie) writes:
# Something that I've seen suggested (I'm not claiming it to be true, only
# throwing it out for consideration) is that the lines of communication were such
# that there was no way the Japanese high command could have known what kind of
# damage the first A-bomb caused when the second one was dropped. That is,
# bomb-damage-assessments could not have reached Tokyo in the three or four days
# between the two bombs.
# 
# I tend toward the 'Soviet factor' explanation of the second bomb but I am still
# mostly unconvinced either way.
# 
# smittie

Keep in mind that the Soviet Union didn't declare war on Japan until
the day Nagasaki was bombed -- in spite of repeated efforts by the
U.S. to get the SU to actively fight Japan.  I don't take the claims
of the "Soviet factor" very seriously for this reason.
-- 
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.
From: smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japanese atrocities)
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:51:51 GMT
	<SMITTIE.92Jul20154745@lark.csulb.edu>
	<1992Jul22.161732.2512@island.COM>
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

>We cut off oil shipments and froze Japanese assets in response to further
>Japanese incursions in Asia (a unilateral embargo). For this, we were
>attacked. IMO, this attack was completely unjustified.

While we cut off Japan, Britain was still active in China, Germany was active
in China, and many European nations had already grabbed up most of Asia. Why
did we single out Japan?

In a US Policy in Asia class that I took about a year ago we looked at the
rather ambiguous stance the US took with regard to imperialistic efforts in
Asia in general and in China specifically. Supporting the British one moment
and the Japanese the next in the name of the "Open Door" policy. Moveover, the
US had it's own imperialistic efforts underway in Asia. So while the unilateral
embargo might at first appear a rather noble effort to protect our "brown
brothers" I think it is reasonable to conclude that alterior motives might have
been at work.

This is not to say that it is all the US fault. Rather that the US was not as
squeaky clean as many high school and college history classes would have us
believe.

>As it wasn't much of a military success, this is doubtful. Our entire supply
>of fuel for the Pacific Fleet was in Pearl Harbor; it was untouched. Not one
>of our aircraft carriers was damaged. It mobilized one of the (actually THE)
>major industrial powers and focused its anger. This was all done without
>declaration of war, against what was, after all, a neutral power.

Japanese managed to catch ALL BUT the Aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor. Our
Battleship fleet was heavily damage and at the time Battleships were still
thought to be the better weapon, or at least there was still a serious debate
on the issue. The US forces were not able to launch but a handful of aircraft
to defend because most of them were destoryed on the ground. The Japanese
imposed a great deal of damage at very little cost. The Japanese then went on
to enjoy a long period of military success during the first part of the war due
at least in part to their successful attack on Pearl Harbor.

Stormin' Norm, of Gulf War fame, called the attack on Pearl Harbor a stroke of
military genius. He is among many military experts who consider Pearl Harbor an
extremely successful attack.

It is easy, with 20/20 hindsight, to list what the Japanese should have done. 

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: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Subject: Re: NATO/Warsaw Pact forces (was Re: Greatest Prez...)
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
	<JMC.92Jul21180301@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <54711@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:11:18 GMT

In theory, stabalized tanks and the significant fire control on the M1
were vastly superior to the T-72.  But, no one was really sure how
well things like reactive armor, etc, would work in combat.  

In practice, the M1 lived up to its potential.  Furthermore, from what
I've heard, maintenance wasn't a significant problem (and they put a
LOT of miles on that tank.)  Fuel was a problem, however.  There, the
problem is due more to lack of mobility/lack of fuel vehicles than
anything else.

By the end of the Carter-Reagan (Jimmy did start it, after all)
buildup, the U.S. conventional forces were clearly in great shape.
When I was on active duty (78-82), the Soviets had an edge in several
areas in conventional forces, including artillery (which they still
maintain, although we've done amazing things with our counterbattery
capabilities using the Q-36/Q-37 radars and MLRS) and infantry combat
vehicles (the Bradley outclasses the BMP, which was first introduced
in 1967.)  We've always had an edge with our C2 and airpower, but it's
not always been clear to me that (when I was on active duty) we could
make the best use of these advantages.  AirLand Battle solved many of
these C2 problems.  

				dave


				dave
Xref: sparky soc.history:6719 talk.politics.misc:36247 ca.politics:6072 rec.arts.books:13235 misc.legal:14970
From: smittie@beach.csulb.edu (Smittie)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Relativity of Pearl Harbor
Date: 31 Jul 92 07:20:51 GMT
	<1992Jul28.181126.11830@srg.srg.af.mil>
	<1992Jul30.162439.3156@island.COM>
Distribution: na
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

>The attack was launched from the Kuriles? Hardly. The Kuriles are north of
>the Japanese main islands.

>Your reading of the events here, however, seem somewhat suspect.

From what I've seen think you maybe ought to consider the possibility that it
is your reading of events that is suspect. Your understanding of the events and
political situation of the time is questionable.

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: seraphim@ais.org (Henry Hardy)
Subject: Re: How many Indians?
Followup-To: soc.history
Summary: Native populations of America were large in numbers
Keywords: Cahookia,Mesa Verde,Hopewell,Caribe,population,demographics
Organization: none
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:44:08 GMT

However, it is interesting to note that excavations at the city of Cahookia
in Iowa have led to population estimates in the neighborhood of 30,000 in
the year 1200 ACE. This is about 2-3 times the population of the City of
London at the same time. The extensive earthworks of the Hopewell and
Adena cultures during the early woodland period at around this same time
also must have required a populous and very organized society. These
very large earthworks are found throughout the Ohio river valley. Items
such as parrot skeletons etc. indicate that trade and commerce between
this culture and the societies of Central America also was occuring on
a not infrequent basis.

The Anasazi buildings at locations such as Mesa Verde also must have had
extensive populations based on the number of dwellings in each complex.

I believe that it has been estimated that the Caribe nations lost 500,000
people to slavery and disease during the first century after Columbus.
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.war,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.japan
Subject: Re: Taranto //WasRe: Relativity and Pearl Harbor (was: Japaneseatroc
Date: 22 Jul 92 09:49:21 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George) writes:
>> 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).

We've just had a weeks-long discussion on this list that showed that
surprise attacks have always been considered morally justifiable,
unless those considering were on the side that had just been hit.
Let's not start this all over again.

-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Why firebomb civilians?/WWII
Organization: sgi
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 21:13:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.155417.2114@island.COM>, fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
|> In article <nhvu2n4@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> >Pardon me?  What kind of "accuracy" are you talking about here?
|> 
|> You said my statement was too glib. It wasn't, nor was there any 
|> inaccuracy in it.

This is not an answer to the question: "What kind of accuracy are 
you talking about?".

|> 
|> >You equate "starting a war" with "justify bombing civilians",
|> >and then you say that this is "not inaccurate".
|> 
|> No, no. I equate 'starting a war" with "accepting the consequnces".

No, you are misquoting yourself.   You were asked "How does the 
attack on a military attack justify bombing civilians?" and you 
replied "I believe it's called 'starting a war'.   It involves 
provoking a power to use said power against you."  

This was in posting  <1992Jul15.232054.13899@island.COM> in case you 
need to look up what you wrote.

So, you specifically answered a question asking how bombing civilians
can be justified, and you just as clearly replied that the answer is
"starting a war".

|> 
|> >What I pointed out was that it has *become* the expected thing
|> >through a process of one side doing it, the other side retaliating,
|> >and so on.
|> 
|> It became the "expected" thing to do as soon as the technology to 
|> do it came into being. This seems to amaze you (why, I no idea).

Now you are misquoting me.   I said it had become expected.  I also
said that being expected does not mean that it's justified, only that
it had become what people do.  I also explained how it had become
the thing people do: by a process of retaliation.

If you don't understand that distinction, I don't know what to say,
except that this is one reason I call your position amoral and glib.

jon.