The Only Numbers that Matter

Chris wrote:
>>> In retrospect, sure it's easy to look at that and see how it would be
>>> tough to maintain an empire that big with so much ocean between
>>> 'colonies', and Japan had no realistic oil resources anywhere near
>>> its' shores.
>> If they could have held Indonesia, they would have more than enough oil
>> to sustain themselves.
>
> Easier said than done, given Indonesia is a really long way away from
> Japan, and across an ocean no less.

Look at a map, Chris. Hong Kong is about halfway from Tokyo to
Indonesia. The Philippines are no further away than Hong Kong, and there
is no ocean between Japan and either Indonesia or the Philippines.

There is *some* ocean between the two, but there is also *some* ocean
between San Francisco and Oakland. But there is not *an* ocean between
either.

> That was dicey, no matter how you
> slice it.

Not really. Japan was close enough to rule either of them rather easily.

> Germany had a much better chance of keeping the Ploesti oil
> fields in Romania than Japan ever had with the oil in Indonesia.

It's not like Indonesia and the Philippines haven't been conquered again
and again and again over time. It's not like there was much of a fight
put up when the US annexed the Philippines, and they didn't want to be
annexed in the first place.

>
>
>>> Yeah, it's funny watching you guys go back and forth over this.
>>> America is great for Canada, and Canada is great for America. For
>>> different reasons, perhaps. But the end result is the same.
>> Canadia is irrelevant to the US.
>
> That's absolutely not true. If the US had to extensively guard that
> border like many countries in the world have to guard their borders,
> that would significantly change the US economy, foreign policy, and
> even culture, to a certain extent.

And if my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt. He doesn't, and Canadia
presents absolutely no threat to us whatsoever. Canadia would have a
hard time invading Greenland, for crying out loud.

And the US *should* extensively guard that border. Canadia just loves to
allow immigrants from the Middle East and elsewhere to flow over our
borders. Mexico should obviously be the first priority, but we certainly
need to guard the border with Canadia better, since they aren't doing
anything to keep them out in the first place.

-Thomas

Chris wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:12:01 -0400, Thomas <noneman.RemoveThis@none.man> wrote:
>
>> Chris wrote:
>>>>> But, while the Soviets took the brunt of the German army's aggression
>>>>> and beat them, who was it who armed them to do it? No way would the
>>>>> Soviets had won that thing without American materiel.
>>>> Chris, this is a common position of Americans as well but it is also
>>>> exaggerated.
>>> As an aside, having read several hundred books on WWII, I can tell you
>>> that a lot of the western literature (i.e. American, British, etc.)
>>> is....shall we say, slanted towards the Allies in many respects.
>> Just like the majority of the writings on the Civil War are undeniably
>> rabidly pro-Union.
>>
>> Difference is in the level to which liberties are taken with regards to
>> historical fact.
>
> Historical fact is always slanted somewhat by one's perspective.
> Certainly the actions leading to the irrefutable results are. My
> previous comment is pointed towards getting that alternative
> perspective.

Right. But Americans are all about getting the "alternative perspective"
when it comes to WWII, but not at all interested in an "alternate
perspective" when it comes to the Civil War.

-Thomas