Will the USA allow to China to become more powerful

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
you tell me why they would have both stopped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, cuz they had zero chance of succeeding?

Note that the way I originally put it was carefully limited. I said neither could conquer and occupy the US mainland. That leaves open all sorts of possible wars over world influence.

I know that it is a common belief that we would be speaking German or Japanese without victory in 1945. But I have never heard of a German or Japanese source suggesting their militaries ever even floated the idea of an occupation. Invading a contiguous country, and one across the ocean, is pretty different.

How could it be physically possible? How many divisions would it take, ships to supply them, and how many did Germany or Japan have?

Consider the tremendous difficulty of occupying the overseas territory of Iraq or Vietnam. The US has VASTLY greater resources today than Germany and Japan put together. If we tried a Hitler today, could we possibly occupy Europe, Africa, and most of Asia,at the same time??

Stop your knee from jerking, slow down and think it through.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe you or anyone else alive today knows what Japan or Germany would have done had they won the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what they physically could not do, and that's pick the mayor of Bismarck, South Dakota.

This does not mean the US would not be attacked, eventually nuked, bottled up, neutered, etc. It just means there are some things armies cannot do, like occupy the whole world.

Personally, I'm very glad fascism was defeated. The idea of reckless aggressors coming out on top at the onset of the nuclear age is chilling. But these wars were about who would control East Asia, and Eurasia, and occupying the Western hemisphere is just preposterous.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you tell me why they would have both stopped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, cuz they had zero chance of succeeding?

Note that the way I originally put it was carefully limited. I said neither could conquer and occupy the US mainland. That leaves open all sorts of possible wars over world influence.

I know that it is a common belief that we would be speaking German or Japanese without victory in 1945. But I have never heard of a German or Japanese source suggesting their militaries ever even floated the idea of an occupation. Invading a contiguous country, and one across the ocean, is pretty different.

How could it be physically possible? How many divisions would it take, ships to supply them, and how many did Germany or Japan have?

Consider the tremendous difficulty of occupying the overseas territory of Iraq or Vietnam. The US has VASTLY greater resources today than Germany and Japan put together. If we tried a Hitler today, could we possibly occupy Europe, Africa, and most of Asia,at the same time??

Stop your knee from jerking, slow down and think it through.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe you or anyone else alive today knows what Japan or Germany would have done had they won the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what they physically could not do, and that's pick the mayor of Bismarck, South Dakota.

This does not mean the US would not be attacked, eventually nuked, bottled up, neutered, etc. It just means there are some things armies cannot do, like occupy the whole world.

Personally, I'm very glad fascism was defeated. The idea of reckless aggressors coming out on top at the onset of the nuclear age is chilling. But these wars were about who would control East Asia, and Eurasia, and occupying the Western hemisphere is just preposterous.

[/ QUOTE ]

They wouldn't have to worry nearly so about the travails of "occupation" if they had won the war and then proceeded to slaughter most of the survivors, the way Hitler shot and gassed millions of Poles and Jews.

By the way, that's how the USA could "win" the Iraq war now, by committing an enormous genocide-- except that, thankfully, the USA won't do that. Given Hitler's displayed propensity for mass systematic slaughter, I wouldn't have put it past the Nazis to simply exterminate nearly everyone in conquered lands so they could have those lands to themselves and their vision of the "master race". The fanatical Japanese at the time, inflamed with a die-hard supremacist outlook and supported by the utmost religious nationalism and fervor, might have been capable of doing something similar.

The truth is, we just don't know what the Axis would have done had they won the war. Just because the USA (thankfully) won't commit genocide in Iraq DOES NOT mean Hitler wouldn't have committed even greater genocides had he won the war - and perhaps even genocide against America. It's not that hard a trick to occupy a country after you've systematically shot and gassed nearly the entire opposition.

One of Hitler's knotty problems was that it took sooooooo many bullets to execute all those Poles and Jews. So, the gas chambers were devised to make the slaughters much more cost-effective.

Hitler didn't get the chance to try that out in America, but it would be beyond the pale, IMO, for anyone to assert that he wouldn't have done so, had he won the war and been given that opportunity. He might have or he might not have, and we'll just never know.

We can't apply our standards or our rationales to the enemy's ways of thinking (just as in poker, you can't securely base your estimate of what your opponent will do by what you would do were you in his shoes).

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
We can't apply our standards or our rationales to the enemy's ways of thinking

[/ QUOTE ]

I base my conclusion on their capabilities and the size and isolation of the US, not what they thought. I'm sure they wanted to destroy the US's ability to interfere with their international villainy, but an occupation just doesn't enter my world.

I wish this didn't sound condescending, but can you point to any specialist who thinks this was remotely possible?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We can't apply our standards or our rationales to the enemy's ways of thinking

[/ QUOTE ]

I base my conclusion on their capabilities and the size and isolation of the US, not what they thought. I'm sure they wanted to destroy the US's ability to interfere with their international villainy, but an occupation just doesn't enter my world.

I wish this didn't sound condescending, but can you point to any specialist who thinks this was remotely possible?

[/ QUOTE ]
If they had won the war they could have done pretty much what they wanted, couldn't they? What if Germany had developed the A-bomb before the USA did? What if the Axis had won the war, then consolidated their hold on Europe over several years, then proceeded to attack and slaughter the USA? I don't see why you think that would be impossible. The USA got an awful lot of troops to the other side of trhe ocean during the war; why couldn't Hitler have done similarly if he had won the war and consolidated first in Europe?

I think one reason you and Kaj and I don't see eye-to-eye on some of these things is that you somehow don't think our worst enemies are willing to be greatly evil and capable of doing that much harm. Well they were certainly willing to do immense evil, as history shows. If the Axis had won the war there is no telling what might have transpired.

I think it makes less sense in analysis to rule such things out than it does to allow the possibilities. A defeated USA and Allied Europe - a victorious, consolidated, growing Axis Europe - with Japan to help them - couldn't use that as a springboard to attack the USA? That doesn't even make sense to me. If Europe were more powerful than the USA (as would developed under such a scenario), of course Europe could have attacked the USA especially if it had no qualms about killing as many as possible. It might have been a long nasty fight or it might have been over fairly quickly had Germany first mastered the A-bomb.

edit: also, Hitler (probably stupidly) attacked Russia. What chance did he have of really succeeding there? That's a heck of a country to try to occupy, for sure. Bad judgment, wasn't it? So if he was capable of that bad judgment, why couldn't he have been capable of the bad judgment of attacking mainland USA, especially if the war had appeared to be going more his way? This is what I mean when I say you can't securely surmise your opponent's actions based on what you would do in his place. Just because YOU might think Germany would have no chance of occupying the USA DOES NOT mean that's what Hitler would have thought. If everyone weighed things up the same, there would have been far fewer wars in history than actually transpired.

Your opponent doesn't have to be as rational or analytical as you are. Likewise, he may have access to information that you don't, and vice versa.

Thanks for reading.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
you somehow don't think our worst enemies are willing to be greatly evil and capable of doing that much harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a Holocaust denier, therefore I think I'm fully cognizant of Nazi evil.

Yes, I think a Nazi nuclear attack on the US one day would be a distinct possibility, and a good reason for fighting them. But I don't think that translates into an occupation.

You have to base your analysis on what information and abilities were available at the time, and the Nazis were no where near a bomb. According to Albert Spear's memoir, he abandoned work on a bomb out of the judgment that the war would be decided well before one was finished. So a pounding followed by occupation was off the table.

I think your argument that we can't be sure of an opponent's rationality, especially considering the blunder of invading the USSR, is a good one. I'll concede there's no way of being certain Hitler wouldn't have attempted an invasion. But succeed? I just can't see it. With the USSR, he could count on considerable hatred of the Bolsheviks, as well as the shared border. He recruited I think a whole division of Soviet haters. The U.S. would be 100% united, the Nazis could not recruit local allies to control the US -- which I think is the only imaginable scenario.

I'll concede that in the sweet by-and-by if things changed so much in the US that the Nazis would no longer face an aroused and united opposition, then maybe they could achieve some sort of hegemony over the US proper. (Wait, I shouldn't be coming up with scenarios for your argument.) But there was nothing remotely like that in the world of mid-century. If infectious psychosis led the Wehrmacht to obey orders to land at Yorktown, it would fail. I'm from a small town in Wisconsin. No occupation can extend down to main street. It couldn't work.

And Japan -- even less of a chance.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
The way many commentators are talking about China, they seem desperate for an enemy. China's military spending is a sliver of the U.S. 2005, U.S. military budget was seven times China's.

[/ QUOTE ]

The U.S. has to spend $1.00 for every $3.00 that China spends to keep up.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are all wrong. The US will attack China in less than 20 years. The planning is already in the works and the indoctrination of "China must be stopped" is pervasive through the military.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without nukes? How? If Russia & the U.S. were to go to war (conventional) our aircraft carriers would last 2 days. In 20 years China will have enough subs to knock them out just as quickly.

I am blessed that I lived my 20's 30's & 40's in the 70's 80's and 90's and don't have to worry about what those of you clinging to your IPods and earphones should be worrying about.

[Leaky Eye]

Economies are too intertwined for war. As long as both remain healthy there is no chance.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Case in point, you seem to believe Japan wanted to conquer the U.S. But there was never a thought of a land occupation of California. The attack was entirely to drive the US out of East Asia, where Japan wanted exclusive domination. The U.S. entered both WWI and WWII to protect/extend influence on world affairs and politics. We could have sat out both wars, especially WWI, if we chose to, without threat of being occupied. There would be all kinds other consequences, and I'm not arguing against participation in WWII, but the issue was world influence, not protection from foreign invasion.

Think about it. By what scenario could a huge amphibious invasion of the US succeed, and what would possibly make it worth it? And even if they reached our shores, they could never control the territory. The U.S. killed around 3 million from tiny Vietnam, and never had a chance of controlling the populace.

Sure, there can be some sniping and terrorism against the US, but only we can revoke freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! Historical revison FTW!

So when The Nazis had control of all europe and Africa, and there Japanese allies friends all of Asia and the western Pacific they would have just Stopped RIGHT there? Because, well, because, well., [censored], it's your theory, you tell me why they would have both stopped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course. To think Hitler or Japan wanted to invade America is the real revisionism.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK so using your awesome straw, ad hominen logic we'll just add
[*] Japanese atrocity and agression apologist[*] Nazi atrocity and aggression apologist

to your list of brilliant intelectual contributions
[*] Radical Islamic terror apologist[*] Any American targeting terrorists apologist[*] Iran for the big bomb apologist[*] Hate any and all things American strongest supporter.


weeeeeeeeeeee! Let's play the Haj gimmick sniper game!

[/ QUOTE ]

0 for 6.

[OtherAcctBanned]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys are all wrong. The US will attack China in less than 20 years. The planning is already in the works and the indoctrination of "China must be stopped" is pervasive through the military.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without nukes? How? If Russia & the U.S. were to go to war (conventional) our aircraft carriers would last 2 days. In 20 years China will have enough subs to knock them out just as quickly.

I am blessed that I lived my 20's 30's & 40's in the 70's 80's and 90's and don't have to worry about what those of you clinging to your IPods and earphones should be worrying about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US has many more subs than China, and they still struggle to get the cutting edge sub technology possessed by the US for example. Russia's navy, and military in general is kind of a nightmare. to simply assume that they'd wipe out our carrier groups in 2 days is pretty stupid IMO (I'm sure we'd just leave them sitting there to get torpedoed). In a conventional war against any one country in the world the United States would completely rampage any comer. If you say otherwise you're just not paying attention.

It seems that it has become fashionable to downplay just how strong our military actually is in favor of some 2nd tier militaries like Russia and China, which I don't quite understand