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 | |____________________________________________________________________|