From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:19:39 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
Message-ID: <199711240521.XAA10697@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



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