Re: Further costs of war (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:12:02 -0700
> From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
> Subject: Re: Further costs of war
> 
> At 1:43 PM -0700 11/23/97, Jim Choate wrote:
> ...
> >Any particular methodology you might care to share on stopping WWII?
> >Being an avid amateur historian concerning WWII I am very much interested in
> >any insight you might have.
> 
> Not entering the war.

Do you have a particular method in mind?

> There's ample evidence that the U.S. provoked the
> Japanese in various ways.

Such as?

> (I'm not saying the Japanese were blameless, or
> lily-white, or"nice," etc., only that most historians agree--and Japanese
> archives support--that the Japanese were motivated to attack Pearl Harbor
> in the hope that a devastating first blow would sink enough ships, etc., to
> cause America to back off in its actions in the ironically named Pacific.)

So how does Tojo and his out of control Kwantung Army figure into this? Do
you feel that Japans Co-prosperity Sphere was a benign goal? How do you
consign your position that we provoked Japan with their behaviour in such
situations as Nanking?

> Had the U.S. concentrated on its own affairs, on just trade, it is unlikely
> that what the Japanese were doing in Malaysia, Manchuria, Korea, Indochina,
> and the Phillipines would have had any major interest for us.

The Phillipines at the time were a US protectorate, is your position that we
should have simply turned them over without a fight? Korea was ceeded to
Japan as a result of the 1903 defeat of Russia, how is this relevant to your
position? Let's assume for a moment that the US hadn't gotten involved. The
Japanese would have eventualy gotten to Australia. Once there what would have
kept them from expanding their co-prosperity sphere eastward in order to
better stabalize their resources. When they knocked on Guam or Midway's door
should we have let them go like the Phillipines? How about the Japanese's
eventual expansion into the Allutians? Should we have simply given Alaska to
them as well? Is your position that once they had the western half of the
pacific rim they would have no pretentions on the eastern half? What do you
base this on?

> As for Europe, this was even less our war than the Pacific war.

Really? How so? Is your position that Germany would have benignly left the
US alone once they had defeated Britian (I am assuming of course the US
hadn't shipped resources such as oil and fuel to them)? Had the US not
gotten into the war the resources available to Germany and Japan were such
they could realisticaly have beaten the Russian. One of the reasons that
Russia had the resources to reinforce the eastern front was their ability to
remove troops from the Chinese border based on Richard Sorge's intelligence.

> In a sense, so _what_ if some army from some nation was rolling over other
> armies?

That depends on where they stop their rolling. Is your position that if we
had refused to support conflicts against Japan and Germany all would have
been well? Are you proposing that Germany would not have advanced with their
atomic research? Completed development on their jet-based New York Bomber?

> Those who wanted to liberate the death camps, or to push Hitler back into
> Gerrmany, or to kick the Emperor's butt could, of course, simply go over
> and volunteer. In a free society, mercenaries are legal.

Volunteer to who?

> The last justifiable war the American states were involved in was,
> arguably, the War of 1812. Every war since then has been unjustified.

Justifiable war? How is the invasion of the US by British troops
significantly different than the invasion by German or Japanese troops?


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |    The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there   |
   |    be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.       |
   |                                                                    |
   |                                       -Alan Greenspan-             |
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|

On Sun, Nov 23, 1997 at 09:15:20PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> > Had the U.S. concentrated on its own affairs, on just trade, it is unlikely
> > that what the Japanese were doing in Malaysia, Manchuria, Korea, Indochina,
> > and the Phillipines would have had any major interest for us.
> 
> The Phillipines at the time were a US protectorate, is your position that we
> should have simply turned them over without a fight? Korea was ceeded to
> Japan as a result of the 1903 defeat of Russia, how is this relevant to your
> position? Let's assume for a moment that the US hadn't gotten involved. The
> Japanese would have eventualy gotten to Australia. Once there what would have
> kept them from expanding their co-prosperity sphere eastward in order to
> better stabalize their resources. When they knocked on Guam or Midway's door
> should we have let them go like the Phillipines? How about the Japanese's
> eventual expansion into the Allutians? Should we have simply given Alaska to

I guess what Tim means is at some point a equilibrium is reached, such
as in this case 2 dominant players (Japan and USA) face each other and
rather coexist than fight, because trading is more beneficial to them
than war. The problem with such a theory is that it supposes both actors
are intelligent enough to figure out when war isn't the best
solution. In that particular case, I have little to no faith in the
japanese side...

> Really? How so? Is your position that Germany would have benignly left the
> US alone once they had defeated Britian (I am assuming of course the US
> hadn't shipped resources such as oil and fuel to them)? Had the US not
> gotten into the war the resources available to Germany and Japan were such
> they could realisticaly have beaten the Russian. One of the reasons that

Hum hum. I frankly doubt that. Somehow your ability to expand durably
depends on your ability to keep your new possessions. While occupying
France, using a satellite gouvernment, isn't that hard, occupying Russia
(for the germans) and China (for the japanese) is another, quite
impossible, task if you don't get the population support (or, at least,
indifference). So, if Hitler had known better, he would have stuck to
western europe...

> That depends on where they stop their rolling. Is your position that if we
> had refused to support conflicts against Japan and Germany all would have
> been well? Are you proposing that Germany would not have advanced with their
> atomic research? Completed development on their jet-based New York Bomber?

This is a better argument than the domino theory you were suggesting for
the Pacific front. If countries like France, England (and Italy, as
Mussolini wasn't particulary fond of Hitler in the beginning of the
30's) had been smarter, they could have dealt with Hitler differently
when he successively invaded his smallest "german speaking"
neighbours. Of course, if you go that way, you may as well rewrite the
Versailles treaty to avoid what happened in Germany latter. Always easy
to rewrite history when you know what happened....

> > The last justifiable war the American states were involved in was,
> > arguably, the War of 1812. Every war since then has been unjustified.

Justifiable as "we (the states of the Union) were invaded by the British
?". Actually, don't you think you deserved that one as the same states
tried to invade (then british) Canada, hoping GB was to busy dealing
with Napoleon ? Or correct me if I am wrong ? if you take that path, the
last justifiable war is the independence one.

> Justifiable war? How is the invasion of the US by British troops
> significantly different than the invasion by German or Japanese troops?

Once again, if 1812 the invasion actually occured, when during WWII it
was merely a possibility. You see it as certain, Time probably doesn't,
and it's a matter of opinions more than anything. Being born in Paris I
am personnally rather glad the US decided to come over ;-)

                            F.

-- 
Fabrice Planchon                                          (ph) 609/258-6495
Applied Math Program, 210 Fine Hall                      (fax) 609/258-1735

Fabrice Planchon <fabrice@math.Princeton.EDU> writes:

>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 1997 at 09:15:20PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> >
> > > Had the U.S. concentrated on its own affairs, on just trade, it is unlike
> > > that what the Japanese were doing in Malaysia, Manchuria, Korea, Indochin
> > > and the Phillipines would have had any major interest for us.
> >
> > The Phillipines at the time were a US protectorate, is your position that w
> > should have simply turned them over without a fight? Korea was ceeded to
> > Japan as a result of the 1903 defeat of Russia, how is this relevant to you
> > position? Let's assume for a moment that the US hadn't gotten involved. The
> > Japanese would have eventualy gotten to Australia. Once there what would ha
> > kept them from expanding their co-prosperity sphere eastward in order to
> > better stabalize their resources. When they knocked on Guam or Midway's doo
> > should we have let them go like the Phillipines? How about the Japanese's
> > eventual expansion into the Allutians? Should we have simply given Alaska t
>
> I guess what Tim means is at some point a equilibrium is reached, such
> as in this case 2 dominant players (Japan and USA) face each other and
> rather coexist than fight, because trading is more beneficial to them
> than war. The problem with such a theory is that it supposes both actors
> are intelligent enough to figure out when war isn't the best
> solution. In that particular case, I have little to no faith in the
> japanese side...

While I have no love for the japs, I mus point out in all fairness that
FDR was attacking them on all fronts for years: 1) stopping the japs
from immigrating into the us, 2) cutting off their supplies of raw
materials (and therefore pushing the japs to conquer the territories
that would assure the supply). In particular, right before the japs
attacked pearl harbor, the US embargoed oil shipments to the japs.
The japs had said previously that they'd consider such an embargo
as a declaration of war. In particular, their line about p.h. was
that it wasn't a "sulplise attack", and that the US had previously
declared war on the japs by imposing the embargo.

> > Really? How so? Is your position that Germany would have benignly left the
> > US alone once they had defeated Britian (I am assuming of course the US
> > hadn't shipped resources such as oil and fuel to them)? Had the US not
> > gotten into the war the resources available to Germany and Japan were such
> > they could realisticaly have beaten the Russian. One of the reasons that
>
> Hum hum. I frankly doubt that. Somehow your ability to expand durably
> depends on your ability to keep your new possessions. While occupying
> France, using a satellite gouvernment, isn't that hard, occupying Russia
> (for the germans) and China (for the japanese) is another, quite
> impossible, task if you don't get the population support (or, at least,
> indifference). So, if Hitler had known better, he would have stuck to
> western europe...

My recollection is that Hitler's generla staff was busily designing the
plans for invading the US, to be implemented after he  was done with
the GB and the USSR. They involved invading via his latin american
allies (notably mexico) and possibly canada. However there was no
way to sell the war against germany to the american public, except
as part of a package deal with the war on japs.

Hitler probably made a mistake by attacking the USSR before he was finished
with the GB.  On the other hand, there's good evidence that Stalin was
hoping to attack Germany in the summer of 1941 while it was busy invading
the british isles. He made another mistake by pissing off the population,
which initially was very supportive of him, viewing him as the liberator
from the communists.

By the way, the Nazis and the Japs were never very close. Recall that the
japs became friendly with the soviets after several skirmishes in the 1930's;
the japs never joined hitler in his attack on the USSR (which would have
surely fallen had they attacked from the east); and the soviets kept trading
with the japs (at war with their british and us allies) all the way until 1945,
when they finally attacked the japs.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps