On Sun, Nov 23, 1997 at 09:15:20PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
Had the U.S. concentrated on its own affairs, on just trade, it is unlikely that what the Japanese were doing in Malaysia, Manchuria, Korea, Indochina, and the Phillipines would have had any major interest for us.
The Phillipines at the time were a US protectorate, is your position that we should have simply turned them over without a fight? Korea was ceeded to Japan as a result of the 1903 defeat of Russia, how is this relevant to your position? Let's assume for a moment that the US hadn't gotten involved. The Japanese would have eventualy gotten to Australia. Once there what would have kept them from expanding their co-prosperity sphere eastward in order to better stabalize their resources. When they knocked on Guam or Midway's door should we have let them go like the Phillipines? How about the Japanese's eventual expansion into the Allutians? Should we have simply given Alaska to
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...
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. 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...
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. 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, they could have dealt with Hitler differently when he successively invaded his smallest "german speaking" neighbours. Of course, if you go that way, you may as well rewrite the Versailles treaty to avoid what happened in Germany latter. Always easy to rewrite history when you know what happened....
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. You see it as certain, Time probably doesn't, and it's a matter of opinions more than anything. Being born in Paris I am personnally rather glad the US decided to come over ;-) F. -- Fabrice Planchon (ph) 609/258-6495 Applied Math Program, 210 Fine Hall (fax) 609/258-1735