Re: Further costs of war (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:12:31 -0500
> From: Fabrice Planchon <fabrice@math.Princeton.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd)

> 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...

Considering the relationship between the Kwantung Army and the Emporer
faith and the Japanese are a clearly mis-matched combination.

> > 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.

Japan beat the shit out of Russia in 1903. Had it not been for Richard
Sorge's intelligence of the situation in 1938 around Chankufeng Hill at
Vladivostok indicating the Japanese governments committment to keep the
situation from becoming a declared war and Georgi Zukhov at Khalkin Gol in
1939 the Japs would have beaten them then as well. In both situations Stalin
was up against the wall. In 1938 there are clear indications that instead of
counter-attacking he might very well have sued for peace and in the process
lost the port at Vladivostok. Had the Japanese re-inforced their army they
could have beaten the Russian troops available. Considering the lack of
roads and rail in that part of Russia it is unrealistic to expect
reinforcements to have arrived from Russia in a meaningful time frame
without recognizing the contribution Japans hesitancy in getting into a
conflict with Russia and Richard Sorge's clandestine intelligence
contributed. Had either one of those not been present then Russia would have
been eaten in little gobbles from the east and west.

> 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...

Had it not been for the oil, food, and weapons we shipped Britian he would
have owned Europe in toto. It is clear from Hitlers earliest writings that
he had full intention of taking Russia. Had Stalin not had Sorge's
intelligence regarding the Japanese's intent not to attack Russia at that
time he would not have been able to pull troops from that front. Had those
troops not been pulled then both Moscow and Stalingrad *would* have fallen.
If Moscow fell Stalin fell. The Japanese also had intentions of taking
Russia but only if they could consolidate their hold in the western Pacific
Rim *and* keep America out of the conflict. China was beaten at the time.
The only thing keeping the Japanese from taking over the entire country was
two things. Their interest in expanding southward and eastward in the
Pacific to gain more oil and resource reserves (Manchuria's oil was critical
but no sufficient) and the fact that they simply didn't have enough men to
do both, expand north/west and south/east. The Japanese chose to go
south/east because they figured that with no chance of Russia attacking with
the Germans on their doorstep they could flesh out their co-prosperity sphere
and then come back once they had sufficient troops and resources *and* by
doing this in concert with the Germans there is little chance of Russia
surviving. It was also clear to many in Japan that there was no way America
could afford to stand by and watch the Pacific be taken by force. At the
time America was involved in its own expansion (ala Philipines & Guam) and
it is clear that both American and Japanese expansion in that area would not
work. The only clear path was to eliminate the American naval threat in the
Pacific. Should such a situation be achieved there was no way American could
afford to reduce the naval strength in the Atlantic by much, the Germans
were waging unrestricted submarine warfare sinking even American ships.

> > 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.

But this is a domino theory as well...there is one thing that studying
history and playing wargames teaches...all conflicts are a domino theory.

> 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,

Mussolini may not have been fond of Hitler but he certainly admired and
respected the man, or at least that is what Ciano's diaries indicate.
Mussolini's explorations in Africa were a result of an attempt on his part
to gain respect in Hitlers eyes. Mussolini's attack on France was a gambit
to buy a seat at the surrender equal to Hitler. Mussolini's invasion of
Greece over Hitlers protests were a measure of his equality. Unfortunately
for the Italians the French & Greeks were more than capable of beating the
Italian forces. Note that the Italians were not poor forces (examine the
history of the Ariete Division in N. Africa) but rather very poorly led and
supplied. It's further of some interest to note that Japan was very diligantly
trying to get Italy to declare war on the US as late as Dec. 3, 1941.

> > > 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.

The Japanese were certainly not bashful about taking Guam, Philipines,
Midway, the Aleutian Islands; all in their original plans. The Germans were
sinking ships as close as 20 miles off the easter seaboard. Bodies were
washing up on the beach on a regular basis all along the eastern US coast.

Keep in mind that from the tip of Siberia to the tip of Alaska is only
something like 90 miles. Now with that in mind and considering the state of
mind of Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, etc. how realistic is it to expect them to
have passed on such a plum?

> You see it as certain,

Absolutely, every indication is that Hitler and the Japanese had full
intention of involving the US. Neither could afford to let the resources and
peoples of north and south America sit untouched even if they hadn't planned
to get the US involved. Consider where the only two locations for platinum
are located and the impact of that metal on high-technology.* Further
consider, had Germany and Japan worked in concert a little closer they could
have had 90% of all the oil on the planet. You think the oil shortages of
the 70's were a bitch. In such a world the US would not have been the first
on the moon (I suspect we wouldn't even be in the running). We would not in
all probability have developed the atom bomb in time; Germany would have
inhereted all the work the British did and considering that at the time they
had all the heavy water on the planet they would have had a definite
advantage. Take that and put things such as the ME-262, the New York Blitz
Bomber, the V2, the Tri-partite signatories expansionistic dreams, the
picture becomes quite nasty.

And if you think for one minute that the US could have stood against Europe,
Asia, Africa, and Australia combined under some sort of combined assault
with the technological edge going to the tri-partites you are sorely
misinformed.


    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    |
   |    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      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|


*  Russia & S. Africa

This has little crypto relevance (unless someone drags in the fact that
some of the important ww2 naval battles were won by the us because they
broke jap codes).

Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> writes:
> Japan beat the shit out of Russia in 1903. Had it not been for Richard
> Sorge's intelligence of the situation in 1938 around Chankufeng Hill at
> Vladivostok indicating the Japanese governments committment to keep the
> situation from becoming a declared war and Georgi Zukhov at Khalkin Gol in
> 1939 the Japs would have beaten them then as well. In both situations Stalin
> was up against the wall.

In 1904/5 (what's a couple of years between punks) the japs beat the shit out
of the tzar, not Stalin, because of the tzarist army's supreme incompetence,
and also because of severe internal unrest in Russia (general strikes and
uprisings everywhere).

Prior to that, the japs effectively beat Russia in 1875(?). You may recall
that prior to the meiji revolution, the japs considered hokkaido a foreign
territory; there were no japs living there, and any jap who ventured there
was supposed to be put to death. Hokkaido, Sakhalin, and the Kuril islands
were inhabited by the Ainus (most of whom were baptized by Russian Orthodox
missionaries in 18th century), and a few cossack settlers and missionaries
from alaska. After the meiji revolution, the japs invaded Hokkaido and
massacred the ainus and the cossacks. In 1875 they told the Russians that
they consider all of {Hokkaido, Kurils, Sakhalin} to be a part of Japan and
not a "foreign land forbidden to japs". In order to avoid a war, the Russians
bent over and let the japs have Hokkaido and some of the Kurils, but held on
to Sakhalin and the northern Kurils.

By the treaty of Portsmouth in 1905, Russia further ceded to Japan the rest
of the Kurils, half of Sakhalin (south of the 50th parallel), and most of
Russian extensive interests in China and Korea. (Russia had serious influence
in Korea prior to the war; the Japs outright annexed in in 1910). Although
Russia was pretty much beaten militarily, it probably could have negotiated
better peace terms if it didn't have to deal with the severe unrest, forcing
it to stop the hostilities ASAP.

In general, Russia's attempts at Pacific expansionism in 19th century
were all failures. They got kicked out of northern california (fort ross);
sold (leased?) Alaska (seward's folly) to the US for almost nothing; tried
and failed to grab Hawaii and a chunk of New Guinea; and ended up with
no territories there, when every European country grabbed some.

The japs occupied big chunks of Russian Far East during the revolution and
civil war (1918-24). My recollection is that they went as far West as Chita
and Lake Baikal; and it took the Soviets until 1924 to convince them to leave
Vladivostok.

As for 1938, I tend to believe that there was some truth to Stalin's
assertion that Marshal Blyukher &co were plotting to sedede from the USSR and
to form an independent "Far Eastern Republic" (like the political entity
that got merged into the RSFSR in 1924 after the Japs left) and to invite
the japs to protect their sovereignty. Stalin sent Mekhlis to the Far
East, who executed Blyukher and _most of the Red Army commanders (officers)
in the region.

At lake Khasan (near the short Soviet-Korean border) the Japs demanded
(July/August, 1938) that the Soviets turn over some strategic hills, which
would have made a future attack on Vladivostok easier.  Then the japs
just sent some troops to occupy the hills; it took the Soviets almost 2
weeks to re-take them, which can be explained both by their incompetence
and by Blyukher working for the japs. Jap casualties were 650 dead and
2500 woulnded.

Jap casualties were much higher at Khalkhin Gol. Strategically, the Japs were
trying to occupy a chunk of Mongolia that would allow them to cut off the
only railroad linking the Soviet far east with the rest of Siberia (which
passes right next to the Chinese border). The japs were bombarding the
disputed area of Mongolia in January-April 1939; invaded in May, and were
kicked out by the Soviet troops, led by Zhukov (note the correct spelling)
in late August. Their casualties were 55K, 25K of which were killed.

Another little-known fact: during this timeframe, Stalin rounded up all
the ethnic chinese and koreans from the Soviet far east and resettled
them in Kazakhstan (as he did to many other etyhnic groups a few years
later).

> In 1938 there are clear indications that instead of
> counter-attacking he might very well have sued for peace and in the process
> lost the port at Vladivostok. Had the Japanese re-inforced their army they
> could have beaten the Russian troops available. Considering the lack of
> roads and rail in that part of Russia it is unrealistic to expect
> reinforcements to have arrived from Russia in a meaningful time frame
> without recognizing the contribution Japans hesitancy in getting into a
> conflict with Russia and Richard Sorge's clandestine intelligence
> contributed. Had either one of those not been present then Russia would have
> been eaten in little gobbles from the east and west.

That's why the japs tried so hard to cut off the railroad link in 1939...
They recognized that they could have occupied Vladivostok in 1938 if
they had really tried; but eventually Russian reinforcements would
come and there would be hell to pay. Stalin demonstrated that unlike the
tzars he was willing to put up a fight over this relatively worthless
real estate.

> Had it not been for the oil, food, and weapons we shipped Britian he would
> have owned Europe in toto. It is clear from Hitlers earliest writings that
> he had full intention of taking Russia. Had Stalin not had Sorge's
> intelligence regarding the Japanese's intent not to attack Russia at that
> time he would not have been able to pull troops from that front. Had those
> troops not been pulled then both Moscow and Stalingrad *would* have fallen.
> If Moscow fell Stalin fell.

Technically speaking, Moscow did fall. :-) By Oct 16, 1941, everyone and
everything were evacuated from Moscow, down to Lenin's mummy, and the Germans
could have walked in if they wanted to. The Germans chose not to march in
because they feared mines and booby traps they encountered earlier in Kiev
(probably correct, too). While they waffled, Russian reinforcements arrived
from Siberia and drove them off.

> Mussolini may not have been fond of Hitler but he certainly admired and
> respected the man, or at least that is what Ciano's diaries indicate.
> Mussolini's explorations in Africa were a result of an attempt on his part
> to gain respect in Hitlers eyes.

Mussolini's bloody invasion of Ethiopia was mostly a revenge for the
previous invasion by Italy which ended in a humiliating defeat.

I'd venture to say that other Hitler allies (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria)
viewed him as a lesser eveil and didn't like him at all.


---

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

On Sun, Nov 23, 1997 at 11:21:48PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> Japan beat the shit out of Russia in 1903. Had it not been for Richard

Reread what you quoted below, and you will see that I don't want to
debate over wether or not in a frontal clash between USSR and Japan the
japanese army wins or not. I will grant you they win the first
battle. The same way the germans won for a while... And even admittedly
if you destroy the organised forces from your enemy, it doesn't mean you
are done. You are only if you manage to get the population on your
side. Dimitri makes a very good point in his post, saying that the
germans fucked up in the west, as they could have taken great advantage
from being seen as liberators. As for "Moscow fall, Stalin  fall",
remember Napoleon ?

> > 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...
> 
> Had it not been for the oil, food, and weapons we shipped Britian he would
> have owned Europe in toto. It is clear from Hitlers earliest writings that
> he had full intention of taking Russia. Had Stalin not had Sorge's

Yeah, he was stupid. That's my point ;-)

> Rim *and* keep America out of the conflict. China was beaten at the time.
> The only thing keeping the Japanese from taking over the entire country was
> two things. Their interest in expanding southward and eastward in the
> Pacific to gain more oil and resource reserves (Manchuria's oil was critical
> but no sufficient) and the fact that they simply didn't have enough men to
> do both, expand north/west and south/east. The Japanese chose to go

Ultimatly this cost them the game. Not enough men. Had the situation
last a little longer, japanese occupation forces in China would have
faced some serious problems (they were already, actually).

> Mussolini may not have been fond of Hitler but he certainly admired and
> respected the man, or at least that is what Ciano's diaries indicate.

Well, in 34 it wasn't yet the case: when there were serious rumors that
Hitler might be tempted to invade Austria, Mussolini moved troops close
to his autrian border. He was a close friend of the austrian prime
minister of the time (later to be killed...). How Mussolini changed his
mind is a mix of his internal situation in Italy, and his rejection by
the rest of Europe...

> peoples of north and south America sit untouched even if they hadn't planned
> to get the US involved. Consider where the only two locations for platinum
> are located and the impact of that metal on high-technology.* Further
> consider, had Germany and Japan worked in concert a little closer they could
> have had 90% of all the oil on the planet. You think the oil shortages of
> the 70's were a bitch. In such a world the US would not have been the first
> on the moon (I suspect we wouldn't even be in the running). We would not in
> all probability have developed the atom bomb in time; Germany would have
> inhereted all the work the British did and considering that at the time they
> had all the heavy water on the planet they would have had a definite
> advantage. Take that and put things such as the ME-262, the New York Blitz
> Bomber, the V2, the Tri-partite signatories expansionistic dreams, the
> picture becomes quite nasty.
> 
> And if you think for one minute that the US could have stood against Europe,
> Asia, Africa, and Australia combined under some sort of combined assault
> with the technological edge going to the tri-partites you are sorely
> misinformed.

I think you are the one playing games, not me. Once again, I don't
disagree with you on the fact that the US made the right decision
anyway. But had they waited until Hitler was knocking on their door it
wouldn't probably have changed the issue by much. (I would be a native
german-speaker, perhaps...)

                         F.

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