Re: Further costs of war (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:00:04 -0500
> From: Fabrice Planchon <fabrice@math.Princeton.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd)

> On Mon, Nov 24, 1997 at 01:30:37PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:

> To quote one of your examples,
> the production of the Me 262 was seriously delayed due to his obsession
> to make a bomber of it. Not that it would have changed the game, just
> made it more difficult for the allies.

True, but my reference had to do with what would have happened if the US had
NOT gotten into the conflict. Then such shortages as the 4-engine bomber
would not have been as critical to Germanys servival as early in the war.
The bottem line, had the US not entered the war Germany and Japan had enough
resources to reach their goal. Further, it is unreasonable given the nature
of Hitler, Mussolini, & Tojo to believe they would have left the US alone,
let alone stable long-term trade.

> > Such as? The situation in China at the time was that a variety of warlords
> > were spending more time fighting each other than the Japanese. China
> 
> Nothing better than a common enemy to help reconciliation...

It's unfortunate the Chinese didn't see it that way.

> Well, you want to stick to this issue of fighting battles between
> armies.

Actualy I am discussing the strategic and operational level, not tactical.
It isn't the result of a single battle but rather the management of a string
of battles that is important to winning. That takes understanding motives,
transportation, raw supplies, processing facilities, etc. The thesis was
that had the US not entered the war the result would have been a relatively
benign quad of the US, Germany, Italy, & Japan, supposedly moderated by
distance and economic dependancy. I challene that.

Consider the strategic interacion of 3 parties, easily extensible to more.
It is in each of the parties best long-term interest (assuming unrestricted
access to resources, theological supperiority, etc.) to pair with one of the
other parties and attack the 3rd, evenly splitting the spoils. The stablist
strategic form is binary or possibly unitary. I would further feel
historicaly supported to propose that given sufficient time, resources, and
planning this situation will develop *and* devlolve to either a binary or a
unitary form. A recent example was the Soviet Union. The interesting question
is whether the current apparent unitary position of the US will devlove into
a multi-party situation or whether it can actualy win over by some means the
other parties to willing cooperation.

> So I am ready to accept that they win all this battles. So what
> next ? next they have to deal with too many territories to take care
> of. Unless they can have local faction to deal with that for
> them. Doesn't work very well usually. That's simple constation from past
> history. That's all. They won't be able to put a japanese soldier in
> every household from the great wall to Rhode Island.

And once they had control of the basic infrastructure they wouldn't have to.
I challenge the thesis that the Japanese would have had to put a soldier in
every house. Consider the situation in Vichy France and it's relationship
with German occupiers. The Chinese could certainly have no higher level of
objectionable feelings. Yet the Vichy French as a rule were quite
cooperative in supporting German goals. Even to the point of firing on their
French brothers in North Africa.

> This Abyssinia adventure was one of the reasons Mussolini got in trouble
> with, let's say, the ONU of this time, the "Société des Nations", as you
> pointed out. Doesn't change anything to what I said, and can be checked,
> about the fact that Mussolini wasn't a great friend of Hitler at
> first. It came more as a necessity than anything else.

Why? The Tripartite Pact wasn't signed until Sept. 27, 1940. A considerable
time before this Churchill had been sending letters to Mussolini requesting
him to stand against Germany. That act on Mussolini's part would definitely
thrown a wrench in the Germans plan on the strategic and political level. He
chose to go with the Germans because he at some level felt they would win.

> > If the US had waited until Hitler began dropping bombs on New York and
> > firing V2's from submarines 20 miles off the coast while at the same time
> > Japan was doing the same sorts of things, with a nice base at Pearl Harbor,
> > *and* you claim the US could have stood the test then I can only say you
> > are confused at best.
> 
> I think they could have done it. Let's say 50/50 ;-)

Seriously? What would the US have used? The P-51 Mustang would most
certainly not have gotten the surge it did because Britian would have been
giving their hot-rod Merlins to the Germans to put in their 109's. The
impact of that simple act alone would have seriously crippled the US and
given a considerable lead to the Germans in engine technology. Consider also
that without the military load the ME-262, Komet, Blitz Bomber, V2, etc.
would have gotten farther quicker. The US got its first jet engine from
Whipple who was a Brit.



    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |    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      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|

[ok, there we go again... this will be my last post on the subject which
is way-off topic by now. If it wasn't for the reference to Vichy I
wouldn't answer on the list]

On lun 24 nov  1997 à 09:50:54PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> strategic form is binary or possibly unitary. I would further feel
> historicaly supported to propose that given sufficient time, resources, and
> planning this situation will develop *and* devlolve to either a binary or a
> unitary form. A recent example was the Soviet Union. The interesting question
> is whether the current apparent unitary position of the US will devlove into
> a multi-party situation or whether it can actualy win over by some means the
> other parties to willing cooperation.

That's where we disagree (and other too, I hope). For one thing, you say
yourself "the current unitary position". I don't think today you could
that easily invade Canada, in a remake of 1812 and get away with it that
easily. That, and the fact the concept of nations is dead, or soon to be
(insert here your favorite rant on crypto-anarchy).

> I challenge the thesis that the Japanese would have had to put a soldier in
> every house. Consider the situation in Vichy France and it's relationship
> with German occupiers. The Chinese could certainly have no higher level of
> objectionable feelings. Yet the Vichy French as a rule were quite
> cooperative in supporting German goals. Even to the point of firing on their
> French brothers in North Africa.

Reread my previous posts, I was careful enough to mention Vichy, knowing
that it would pop up later, as a cheap shot. So, I said something like
it works only if you get the approval of the locals, or at least their
indifference (example: Vichy). Discussions of why and how this was
possible is beyond the scope of the current argument, and I don't feel
particulary bound to defend the weakness of my fellow countrymen during
this period. I will just add that even if the population was generally
quiet, the resistance activity was still a constant nuisance. So,
slightly ahead from such a situation, you have, pick up the one you
like, Afghanistan, Tchetchenia (or whatever the english word is), former
Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Algeria (now and when the bad guys were the french)
were maintaining order is a PITA.
As for North Africa, I am not sure about what you are refering to, but
say when the americans arrived in 43, despite orders to resist there
weren't a lot of fights (certainly no fight would have been better but
tension accounts for a great part. Remember Mers-el-Kebir ?)

> Why? The Tripartite Pact wasn't signed until Sept. 27, 1940. A considerable
> time before this Churchill had been sending letters to Mussolini requesting

I never challenged any of these facts. I just gave you one, proving that
Mussolini position changed from hostility to friendship. That's
all. Check the facts I mentionned.

                       F.

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