From Mon May 19 21:56:11 1997
>X-Sender: tcrobi@pop.mindspring.com
>Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 23:59:11 -0500
>To: Dave Riddle
>From: Tom Robison
>Subject: Re: Mahan and LISTSERV
>
>Hi, Dave
>
>The intent of my message was not to fish for an offer to host our genealogy
>list… but secretly I was hoping you’d offer.
>
>Still, for future reference, is there any single site where one can go and
>see where the existing LISTSERV Servers are, and how to contact them?
>
> >We are looking at setting up another List Server on one of our UNIX boxes
> >and if we do so we will be likely be using listserv. We are also looking at
> >using a different list server on our NT machines that operates in much the
> >same way as LISTSERV (digest, etc.) but which comes with a web interface to
> >subscribe etc. I let you know – we will probably be doing something this
> >week and if we do I would be willing to host it for you.
>
> >Is there a need to
> >host a Riddle family surname list?
>
>I don’t know right off hand if there was a Riddle list before, I’ll look
>into it.
>
>Thanks much for your response, I look forward to hearing from you.
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>Tom Robison
>Ossian, Indiana
>tcrobi@mindspring.com

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed May 28 14:02:11 1997
>Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 12:55:18 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>Subject: USN surface ship ASW armament changes
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Corrections to recent and even current naval reference books:
>
>In the early 1990s the US Navy removed all ASW capability from former
>DLG/DLGN cruisers, at least other than (possibly) the =Virginia= (CGN
>38)
>class.
>
>ASRoc launchers were physically dismounted and ASRoc reloading hatches
>were welded closed. It seems less widely known that the Mk 32 torpedo
>tubes too were dismounted. Sonar domes presumably were left in place but
>all sonar electronic equipment was decommissioned. All sonar technicians
>(STG rating) were transferred from these ships.
>
>Many of these cruisers made their final deployments without ASW systems
>before the ships themselves were decommissioned in the mid-1990s.
>
>On USS =California= (CGN 36), the former torpedo room (which had fixed
>twin Mk 32 tubes mounted as in the =Knox= class frigates) now is a gym.
>The ship carries SLQ-25 anti-torpedo decoys as her only undersea warfare
>equipment.
>
>The Navy is still updating =Spruance=-class destroyers’ hull-mounted
>sonars to AN/SQS-53C. This upgrade reportedly had been cancelled, but
>either it wasn’t or it has been restored.
>
>–

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue May 20 13:30:21 1997
>Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 13:29:21 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: mahan@microworks.net
>Subject: Strategy or honor
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>MacArthur was fully aware from his service as US Army Chief of Staff in
>the early 1930s that any real defense of the Philippines was
>unaffordable. US strategy was to mobilize if and when war broke out, and
>then to drive across the central Pacific to defeat Japan by siege.
>Victory would liberate all Japanese-occupied areas.
>
>FDR thought MacArthur might lead a fascist movement in the US and wanted
>to keep him inside the tent. He had been retired for years before FDR
>recalled him. I don’t know about Marshall’s regard for MacArthur.
>
>Simply fighting per se didn’t help either the US or the Philippines, as
>US actions in 1941-42 at Bataan and Corregidor proved. Strategists must
>choose where to fight so as to attain strategic objectives and to avoid
>futile actions. Honor is nice and you need “some” for motivation. But
>fighting is costly, so that eventually fighting for the sake of honor
>becomes dangerously costly.
>
>MacArthur’s southwest Pacific front was almost irrelevant because action
>there contributed to US strategic objectives only to the degree that it
>diverted Japanese forces from the central Pacific front. MacArthur had
>more resources than his front required for defense, its only strategic
>mission. It would be interesting to analyze whether diverting Army
>resources from MacArthur’s front to Europe would have helped there.
>
>
> > >IMHO: MacArthur’s appointment was pure politics by FDR to keep the GOP’s
> > >right wing behind the war effort. His strategic contribution was minor,
> > >which was inevitable since his theater was almost irrelevant. He was
> > >there to keep him on the team in a position where he could not damage
> > >things too badly.
> >
> > Well, the theatre was only irrelevant if one feels that American national
> > honour isn’t worth preserving. The ONLY inhabited major American
> > possession occupied for a significant period of time during the War was the
> > Philippines. MacArthur argued that the recovery of these islands should be
> > our primary war aim, and argued this well. He had inadequate resources and
> > poor support from all but Marshall (who was terrified of MacArthur) and
> > Leahy.
> >
> > Still, he DID liberate the Philippines. And, for this, he is owed the
> > thanks of two nations.

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue May 20 13:48:05 1997
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>Subject: Re: MacArthur’s “fascist movement” ??
>To: mahan@microwrks.com, milhst-l@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu,
> consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk
>Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 15:45:47 -0500 (CDT)
>Cc: mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Louis R. Coatney),
> mfwda@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (William D. Anderson)
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Mike,
>
> I’ve been hearing these allegations … that MacArthur (and
>Patton! ?!) had been conspiring some sort of “fascist movement”/
>takeover … on other channels by leftish members.
>
> Is there *any* truth to this at *all*? Any sources??
>
> … or is this just another vicious anti-military rumor
>long overdue for squelching?
>
>Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue May 20 15:14:01 1997
>Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 15:05:49 -0700
>From: Mike Potter
>Reply-To: mike.potter@artecon.com
>Organization: Artecon, Inc.
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
>To: “Louis R. Coatney”
>Cc: mahan@microwrks.com, milhst-l@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu,
> consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk,
> “William D. Anderson”
>Subject: Re: MacArthur’s “fascist movement” ??
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>In my message I alluded to FDR’s concern about MacArthur, that he was
>”the most dangerous man in America.” As for sources, Eric Larrabee
>quoted FDR in =Commander in Chief=. I recall also William Manchester
>mentioned it in =American Caesar= (a poor book IMHO – ought to be
>re-titled =Gossip about MacArthur=). Such sources establish that the
>rumor existed – but not that truth was necessarily behind the rumor. My
>point was that FDR apparently proceeded on that assumption. I don’t know
>what, if anything, stimulated FDR to think that.
>
>Suppose: Some right-wing group discusses MacArthur as a potential leader
>and that filters back to FDR. FDR suspects MacArthur is involved and
>henceforth treats him that way. The rest is history. But MacArthur might
>have had no contact with, indeed no knowledge of, any such group. If so,
>his case would be similar to those of J. Robert Oppenheimer or Niccolò
>Machiavelli. It seems both came under suspicion for reasons not actually
>involving them.
>
>
>Louis R. Coatney wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > I’ve been hearing these allegations … that MacArthur (and
> > Patton! ?!) had been conspiring some sort of “fascist movement”/
> > takeover … on other channels by leftish members.
> >
> > Is there *any* truth to this at *all*? Any sources??
> >
> > … or is this just another vicious anti-military rumor
> > long overdue for squelching?
> >
> > Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue May 20 15:32:57 1997
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom7.ecn.bgu.edu: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 17:30:58 -0500 (CDT)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom7.ecn.bgu.edu
>To: Mike Potter
>cc: mahan@microwrks.com, milhst-l@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu,
> consim-l@listserv.uni-c.dk,
> “William D. Anderson” ,
> “Louis R. Coatney” , kerneks@ccmail.wiu.edu
>Subject: Re: MacArthur’s “fascist movement.” Fairy tale?
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>
>Mike,
>
> Thanks for your quick response. We’ll see if anyone has
>anything to add on the other channels. I heard this on (one of
>the) H-Net channels, but the member was mentioning it as though it
>were a reality, not a suspicion or rumor … and he mentioned
>Patton. Either the question I raised about that wasn’t posted or
>didn’t get a clear reply.
>
> As to Oppenheimer, I suppose you are aware of Sudoplatov’s
>allegation that O. knowingly included scientists with Sov. contacts
>on the Manhattan team and was aware of the “intelligence outflow.”
>Sudoplatov’s book has since been challenged intensively. You would
>think such activities would show up in the Venona intercepts, unless
>this was set up as a special project bypassing the Embassy. In any
>case, further corroboration is apparently necessary before Oppenheimer
>*is* implicated.
>
>Lou
> Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
>
>On Tue, 20 May 1997, Mike Potter wrote:
> > In my message I alluded to FDR’s concern about MacArthur, that he was
> > “the most dangerous man in America.” As for sources, Eric Larrabee
> > quoted FDR in =Commander in Chief=. I recall also William Manchester
> > mentioned it in =American Caesar= (a poor book IMHO – ought to be
> > re-titled =Gossip about MacArthur=). Such sources establish that the
> > rumor existed – but not that truth was necessarily behind the rumor. My
> > point was that FDR apparently proceeded on that assumption. I don’t know
> > what, if anything, stimulated FDR to think that.
>
> > Suppose: Some right-wing group discusses MacArthur as a potential leader
> > and that filters back to FDR. FDR suspects MacArthur is involved and
> > henceforth treats him that way. The rest is history. But MacArthur might
> > have had no contact with, indeed no knowledge of, any such group. If so,
> > his case would be similar to those of J. Robert Oppenheimer or Niccolò
> > Machiavelli. It seems both came under suspicion for reasons not actually
> > involving them.

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Tue May 20 21:15:48 1997
>X-Sender: tcrobi@pop.mindspring.com
>Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 23:16:59 -0500
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: Tom Robison
>Subject: Re: MacArthur’s “fascist movement” ??
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Lou wrote:
> >
> > I’ve been hearing these allegations … that MacArthur (and
> >Patton! ?!) had been conspiring some sort of “fascist movement”/
> >takeover … on other channels by leftish members.
> >
> > Is there *any* truth to this at *all*? Any sources??
> >
> > … or is this just another vicious anti-military rumor
> >long overdue for squelching?
>
> One fella I have studied pretty thoroughly is “Georgie” Patton, and I’ve
>never run across anything that would suggest that Patton had any fascist
>connections, or even tendencies. He had his own personal political agendas,
>for sure, but Georgie lived for the fight, on the field, and would have
>been a poor player in the political arena. I think he knew that.
>
>And I can’t imagine George Patton and “Dugout” Doug agreeing on anything.
>
>
>Tom Robison
>Ossian, Indiana
>tcrobi@mindspring.com

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed May 21 21:52:12 1997
>Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:52:25 -0600
>From: Brooks A Rowlett
>Reply-To: brooksar@indy.net
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>To: World War II Discussion List
>CC: “mahan@microwrks.com” ,
> Marine History Information Exchange Group
>Subject: Re: Soound Locators & Sound Powered Phones
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>(MarHist & Mahan: This was originally on the WWII list; I am
>crossposting)
>
>In response to the sound locators question, I am reaonably
>convinced that many of them relied entirely on the speaking
>tube principle and did not have nay form of electrical
>amplification, at least in the ‘tween-the-wars variants.
>
>On the sound-powered phone subject – on USN ships, the
>’ring’ of a sound powered phone is generated, iirc, by a
>couple of turns of a handle (not entirely the same purpose
>as the turn of the handle to charge battery/capacitor for
>land based hand-powered phone links). The ‘ring’ is actually a very
>distinctive growling rumble, and the sound-
>powered phone is apparently nicknamed ‘the growler’.
>
>My question is, does anyone have that sound sigitized
>somewhere on the WWW, or would someone be willing to record
>the sound, convert it to a file, and mail it to me? I want
>it for an alert sound…..
>
>Thanks,
>Brooks A Rowlett
>brooksar@indy.net

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Wed May 21 21:58:59 1997
>Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:58:59 -0600
>From: Brooks A Rowlett
>Reply-To: brooksar@indy.net
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
>To: World War II Discussion List ,
> “mahan@microwrks.com” ,
> Marine History Information Exchange Group
>Subject: Re: Soound Locators & Sound Powered Phones
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>Brooks A Rowlett (slippery-fingers, me) wrote:
> >
>
> > My question is, does anyone have that sound sigitized
> > somewhere on the WWW,
>
>
>That should, of course, be >D
> > Thanks,
> > Brooks A Rowlett
> > brooksar@indy.net

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous

From Thu May 22 00:24:27 1997
>X-Errors-To:
>Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 03:22:03 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: rickt@pop3.cris.com
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: rickt@cris.com (Eric Bergerud)
>Subject: QUERY: HMS Hood
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>
>I have taken the liberty of cross listing the below from H-War. I suspect
>some of you salts can help Mr. Foster out.
>
> >Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 17:46:52 -0400
> >From: “George H. Foster”
> >
> >Last night I was wandering in the vast wasteland of television and came
> >upon what turned out to be a very serious documentary on the German
> >Battleship Bismark. I got in late – at the time when the Bismark and the
> >Prince Eugene were about to begin Operation Rhine.
> >
> >This treatment was more detailed than the movie “Sink the Bismark” and the
> >Discovery Channel special on finding it on the bottom of the Atlantic.
> >
> >The Hood was destroyed in a rather spectacular way. Was the Hood an
> >oversized Battle Cruiser or an under-protected Battleship?
> >
> >I am aware that the Hood was built after Jutland – where Beatty had several
> >of his ships blown up in much the same way.
> >
> >Was this ship a special case under the Washington Naval Treaty in the early
> >1920’s? Was there a relationship in size/structure/armor with the
> >Lexington and Saratoga (before they became carriers)?
> >
> >George H. Foster
> >fostergh@ix.netcom.com
> >
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >
>Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous