From: Fabrice Planchon <fabrice@math.Princeton.EDU>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 14:50:23 +0800
To: Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer <cypherpunks@ssz.com>
Subject: Re: Further costs of war (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199711250350.VAA16081@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <19971125013501.07371@math.princeton.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



[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