From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:38:16 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Japan & bombing the US (fwd)
Message-ID: <199706250209.VAA28146@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 18:20:17 -0700
> From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
> Subject: Re: Japan & bombing the US

> No, this is incorrectly paraphrasing what I wrote. What I said, very
> precisely, was "as there has been no credible threat of attack or invasion
> of the states in America in at least 170 years." I was careful to say
> "states in America."

Distinction noted. I suppose the fact that American laws govern these areas,
and they pay taxes, and can be drafted into our military, get citizenship at
birth, etc. are totaly and completely irrelevant and completely unrelated to
issues such as these. Thinking like yours is why McArthur got such support
when he promised to return to the Phillipines when even his bosses were ready
to write it off. It's why the Japanese have such a high regard for him
respecting his tenure as military dictator of Japan during their rebuild.
If you haven't read it you might consider reading his biography American
Ceaser for its insight into the politics of these two periods.

> And I also limited my comments to the events leading up to wars...my
> context was clear: that had the U.S. not chosen to enter wars, no states
> would have been attacked even later. That the U.S. has entered wars and had
> states attacked hardly disputes my point.

The US didn't choose to enter the war however, that is the issue not your
nit-picking over some irrelevant boundary distinction.

One thing is clear to anyone who lived in that period as an adult or studies
it carefuly, the distinctions that Tim is claiming to be relevant were not
important to the people living at the time. When it came to shooting
'Americans' (not Americans in a state, or not on vacation, etc. noise) it
was the shooting of Americans that was at issue and not whether Alaska or
Hawaii really would become a state in 1959. It is not reasonable to expect
the United States of America could have 'sat out' the war. It was and is
clear that American MUST enter the war at some point. The British were down 
to their last $750M in a S. African bank that went walkaround on an American
transport to pay outstanding bills. Because of the economic and social ties
between American and Britian any thesis claiming America could (let alone
should) have remained neutral is pure meta-history. Consider the
unrestricted German submarine warfare occuring as close as 30 miles from
the Eastern seaboard. How long would people put up with bodies washing up
on their beaches regularly? What would have been the impact of doing
business with Europe under the German helm in the US (which couldn't exist
at anything close to todays tech/social level without strong economic
markets)? The Germans and Russians managed to arrive at a commen goal in the
invasion of Poland. Without the drain of the African and Cicilian campaigns
(which required the support of the US on a military footing to succeed) it
is just possible that Russia could sue for peace with Germany causing at
least a temporary breathing spell for the marshalling of forces. It is also
clear at this point that Germany had a much larger technology lead over the
Russians (research where the tubes for Russian radios came from) and such
weapons as the ME-262, V1, V2, etc. Under this light it is clear that
given a breathing space Germany allied with Japan (assuming the successful
invasion of Australia, with no Britian and no US how long would they last?)
would pose a real threat to the US, including the direct assault on the
continental US. If we can do it in Europe and Africa what in the world makes
you think somebody else can't do it? Without US intervention in the war
Italy would own Africa now.

Those folks were predators, they didn't back down. The Japanese would have
gone for the west coast. The Russians would look at the Alaskan peninsula
(bought from Russia in the 1800's) and lick their chops. The South American
continent would have been Germanic/Japanese without US intervention. The 
influx of Germans into Argentina and Japanese to Peru started in the 20's
and not the 50's. Germany was building a bomber to hit New York and long
range fast transport subs, their intent was clear.

Why the United States entered WWII can't be attributed to ANY single
simplistic thesis such as this. It is also clear that the Japanese and
German decision making processes were not motived this simply either.

    ____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                    | 
   |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
   |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
   |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http:// www.ssz.com/  |
   |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
   |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
   |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
   |                                                  512-451-7087      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|


ps legaly US military bases are US soil in the same class as DC, clearly
   a part of the United States. An attack upon such is treated legaly
   as an attack upon one of the 48 states.