Prevention of War

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Tim May wrote:
>At 1:43 PM -0700 11/23/97, Jim Choate wrote:
>...
>>Any particular methodology you might care to share on stopping WWII?
>>Being an avid amateur historian concerning WWII I am very much
>>interested in any insight you might have.

It looks like some context was lost.  My comments on preventing war
were part of an ongoing discussion on the effect cypherpunkly tools
may have on wars.  So, the particular "methodology" I had in mind was
that the development of extensive cross border relationships would
make wars harder to prosecute.

Imagine that in 1938 Germany that half the relationships people had
happened to cross borders.  This would mean that it would have been
far easier for many people to simply flee Germany because they would
have more couches to sleep on abroad, more people who would maybe lend
money to make it possible, and more world wide sympathy for refugees.

Also, imagine that assets were easily moved around the world and that
the German government would have been unable to control this.  This
would have made it easier for refugees to simply move what assets they
had out of the country.  But, they would probably only commit a
portion of their assets to German control, anyway, which would mean no
movement would even be necessary.

The net result of Nazi policies would have been large numbers of
people fleeing and depriving Germany of their talents and
relationships.

I do not just mean Jewish people.  Alex Le Heux mentioned that he felt
sorry for the conscripts in the Germany army who were forced to invade
other countries.  The reason people are conscripted is because they
would not otherwise volunteer.  If it was a relatively simple matter
to avoid military service, how many would fail to do so?  (And
remember that when half your friends do not have your nationality,
appeals to patriotism are less powerful.)

It is not clear that people in Germany who held substantial wealth
were all that sympathetic to Hitler.  Unfortunately, Hitler seemed to
provide a way for them to protect their wealth from other worse
people.  Later, they had to cooperate with the German government in
order to keep their wealth.  (See, for instance, the extensive
negotiations during the War to ensure that the oldest son of the Krupp
family would, in fact, inherit the firm.)

However, if the wealthy had their assets distributed through a number
of countries, this problem would have been mitigated.

The result of the policies of the German government would have been
simply to alienate and expatriate the most useful elements of German
society and deprive it of the ability to credibly wage war.

However, leaving cypherpunk issues aside, it is possible that the
necessity of World War II has been exaggerated.

Tim May wrote:
>Not entering the war. There's ample evidence that the U.S. provoked
>the Japanese in various ways.

The Japanese in 1941 were somewhat dependent on oil from the
Phillipines.  The last straw was when the U.S. embargoed this oil.
That may have been good policy, but it provoked the War.

Another little item which is usually given a strange spin is that
Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.
Perhaps that was good policy, but it is important to remember who
attacked whom.

There is a lot to be said for delaying the start of a war because
unexpected developments may later make a peace possible.

>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.
>
>As for Europe, this was even less our war than the Pacific war.
>
>In a sense, so _what_ if some army from some nation was rolling over
>other armies?
>
>(The "evilness" of Hitler is not the issue, either. Else Stalin and
>Mao would have been cause enough to go to war.)

It's worth noting that Hitler's most evil activities didn't occur
until the war really got going in a big way.  This made it much harder
for people to question or even know the policies their government was
carrying out.  ("What are you, a traitor?")

Also, it is clear that the Allied governments had not entered the War
for altruistic reasons.  Few Jewish refugees were accepted during the
1930s even though they were clearly being mistreated and had every
reason to flee Germany.  Allied knowledge of the Holocaust was
*suppressed* expressly to avoid popular support for admitting
refugees!

After the War the U.S. even smuggled large numbers of Nazis, including
many war criminals, out of Germany and into South America.

Any American who wanted to do the right thing for the human race
during World War II would have been wise to stay out of the Army and
spend time and effort just finding out what was going on.  A
relatively small number of people dedicated to exposing the Holocaust
would have done more good for the world than many thousands of
soldiers.  Ironically, these people would probably have had to outwit
both the American and German governments in finding the facts and
publicizing them.

>And certainly the monarchic alliances which led to the First World
>War--a war fought over the Hapsburg Dynasty and assorted
>intrigues==were completely absurd.

The links between the two World Wars are strong.  Had World War I been
avoided - and it could have been - many of the issues I have discussed
regarding World War II would not even have occurred.

> As for the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem...not my war.

This was not a pretext for the war because it hadn't occurred yet!
The War itself made the Holocaust feasible.

Countries rarely invade other countries for altruistic reasons, but
they have be dressed up this way for popular consumption.

>If the U.S. had not become "policeman to the world" in the early part
>of this century...

And let us note that this was not an elected position.  The other
countries (and people!) in the world did not get together and ask the
U.S. government to play this role.  Probably it's most accurate to
describe this as a propaganda technique to get American popular
support for policies designed to promote American hegemony.

Monty Cantsin
Editor in Chief
Smile Magazine
http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html
http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBNHmrZpaWtjSmRH/5AQFi8Af+K3M4ldq4cfti/AZLliQVxPFdxfx9Oz4H
vZwXUvMYPbUpux/O3hydfUaEjPgRcbHNpONNSDyYM6aot4pi17EkKFASbFRmj+5X
A8ixUVHqWhaDMdA3Lv/3CZ5XGR+Seh/SDojd4ippXytClBNCYDkmXc9r4RHz+/Dh
5E7dU5BjFAiBESX6pxLFBWMeqULspsBdlp1RkzF8Cus5w3kd70xqP/xsIaW42cC4
1M31j4rOE3+T/fReoewGdJOMwxKGw57n9He7RXth60VSAy4U+EGFMd/Bixke1vv4
YOVToP9PE/UZp7KecGYcsk5w1miYBh1ypipPBvTeMx4SHeb2qtOYqQ==
=gcJh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----