Mr. Bat wrote an email to friends:
"I think it would be interesting to write a ghost story which is premised on the idea that all matter has some degree of consciousness. I think that there is consciousness in all things to some degree myself. An quark has an experience, but it's very small, very simple, I suspect. The atom has more consciousness, and the human has more still. The universe has a consciousness too. Consciousness is inherent in matter, I think. The reason I suspect this is because it seems impossible (maybe it's not, of course) to figure out why a human has subjective consciousness and aren't philosophical zombies. By saying that matter is conscious, you side step the problem, but then you have to face the problem that you're saying all matter is conscious.
"I think horror writers tend to be high in the personality trait of openness to experience, but also neuroticism. So the ghost story writer is interested in weird phenomena but also scared of it. So you get stories like those written by M.R. James or H.P. Lovecraft in which characters are drawn to strangeness but at great risk to themselves. Openness is curiosity essentially, and neuroticism is the ability to feel negatively about things. M.R. James had a story called 'A Warning to the Curious'.
"I was thinking about something--I suspect people don't really have much in the way of empathy. They don't really understand people that are different from them, and they don't really like people when they are different from them. So we only understand people like us, who speak or emotional language I suppose, or our psychological language, and we sympathize with them because they have the same values and ways of understanding things. Women sympathize with other women. Men sympathize with other men. Women and men don't understand each other or sympathize with each other's plight. Except in the sense that they are both humans--on that level they understand each other and sympathize.
"Anyway, thanks for reading my ramblings. Have a good day!
"Mr. Bat"
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Fictional Monolog: Percy on sticking with something until you're sick of it, as a general approach, with reference to US World War II foreign policy
Percy sent an email to his friends, of his musings.
"I'm fascinated by sticking to whatever you're doing as long as you can and the work is worth doing," Percy wrote. "So if you're cleaning up a part of your room, you would try to keep cleaning until the whole room is clean, or you expand the cleaning to other parts of the house. Or you might expand the cleaning of the room to other things being done in the room, like maybe you fix a door in the room that has been stuck by sanding its edges or something. There are more than one way of sticking to something until you're sick of it. I've come across this idea of sticking with something as long as you can from multiple places--I think the productivity/cleaning guru Don Aslett argued for something like this principle in his writings. And I know productivity guru Steve Pavlina has argued for something like this too. Tim Ferriss argues for time-batching, as have other productivity people I think, and probably others I am forgetting.
"Jackson was telling me about his ideas about using the computer science algorithm of Shortest Job First. Very interesting. He applied something like that algorithm to foreign policy in World War II--American foreign policy anyway. The quickest of the great powers to be dispatched with were focused on in Jackson's musings. I think if you adapted the 'stick with it till you're sick of it' approach (SWIT for short) to American foreign policy in World War II, the idea would be to focus on problems as much as you can until they are unpopular with the American people or they are not feasible anymore, or the job has been complete and the US can turn to something else. Aside from the main focus, the US would send minimal help in directions it absolutely had to to serve its ends, since the US would have to deal with more than one thing at a time.
"Anyway, I think possibly things might look this way. The US wanted to help curb Germany it seemed as they accrued power, and wanted to pass the buck to Britain and the Soviet Union in doing so. They wanted to keep these two powers in the war and so implemented Lend-Lease to keep Britain and Russia in the game. They would do this as long as possible. Then Japan struck the US in Pearl Harbor and the US declared war on Japan, which caused Germany to declare war on the US, since it was allied with Japan.
"I suppose you could say that the US could maintain sticking to Lend-Lease and not getting into a proper war with Japan or Germany at this point, if the US is going with a SWIT approach. I think at this point war with Japan was popular, and so you might say that Lend-Lease was something that the public mood had gotten sick of. So I think probably the US would turn in the direction of the most proximate fight, which was with Japan, and prosecute this battle until it was over, while continuing to supply Britain--but the main focus would be on Japan, which would be different than how things really happened, which was that the US shifted focus on Germany and Japan was a secondary concern, I think.
"So the US would keep supplying Britain and Russia while going after Japan. I think this would mean that Japan would have exited the war first instead of Italy, who was in reality knocked out by the Allies either in North Africa or in Italy depending on how you look at things. So the US would make a concerted effort to knocking out Japan, focusing most of its might on them, while supplying Britain and the USSR to keep them in the fight. I'm not sure if this would have worked in the case of the USSR--a major concern for invading Europe was to keep the Soviets from settling with the Axis. So it seems in this alternative view there would have been a greater chance of the USSR separately treating with the Germans and leaving the war, which would free up Germany to fight the British.
"In this alternative view it also seems likely that the Brits 'peripheral strategy' as it has been called by historians--would have been employed. The idea was to encircle Europe and launch small tough armored attacks amphibiously onto the continent, and to use these attacks would be used to stimulate guerrilla support against the occupying Nazis. This approach would be used anywhere possible--in France, Norway, Italy, and the Balkans.
"Anyway, the US would knock out Japan earlier all else being equal. Whether the USSR could or could not get a separate peace with Germany, I think it's probably unlikely that Germany could supply Japan with much help, and I doubt the Soviet Union would have helped the Japanese against the US, though I don't really know. So I'll just assume that the US knocks Japan out of the war quicker and then turns to knocking out Germany, or I suppose Italy as they are Axis partners. I'm guessing Italy and Germany are on more stable footing than they would have been had the US helped Britain and the USSR with an actual army. I think Italy would stick around in North Africa and there would be no invasion of Sicily or Italy on the scale that actually was the case, though Britain might have had more little attempts in line with the peripheral strategy and this might or might not have born some fruits in uprisings against the Axis.
"The US would have come into the battle and I suppose the easiest object might have been the Axis in North Africa--the US would have mobilized most of its strength against Japan and so would be in the Far East, but could not make its way towards Europe most directly through the Suez Canal, putting them in the Mediterranean Theater, and in proximity to Axis forces there. So the US might have moved its troops that way and launched attacks against the Axis from the East from British-controlled Egypt rather than as they did in real life by hopping on North Africa from the west and attacking Axis troops that way, while the Brits faced off against the Axis from the East.
"I think then the war would have moved roughly as it did from North Africa to Sicily, to Italy, and then I think probably would have lead to actions in the Balkans, which were easier to get to from Italy than say Southern France I think, and then Germany would perhaps be pushed back from combined USSR and US and British troops from the east.
"Would this have been a better approach than the one that happened? I don't know really. My instinct is to say probably not, since the actual planners were probably smarter than me and they were hashing out these ideas over years, while I am just tossing off something in many minutes. But it's fun to think about.
"But you see the basic application of SWIT to foreign policy tends to favor ideas or proximity and concentration. I think Robert Citino characterized what he called 'The German Way of War' as something like 'hit the closest enemy as fast and as hard as you can.' This is in the operational level of war. This idea seems similar to the SWIT approach to foreign policy."
"I'm fascinated by sticking to whatever you're doing as long as you can and the work is worth doing," Percy wrote. "So if you're cleaning up a part of your room, you would try to keep cleaning until the whole room is clean, or you expand the cleaning to other parts of the house. Or you might expand the cleaning of the room to other things being done in the room, like maybe you fix a door in the room that has been stuck by sanding its edges or something. There are more than one way of sticking to something until you're sick of it. I've come across this idea of sticking with something as long as you can from multiple places--I think the productivity/cleaning guru Don Aslett argued for something like this principle in his writings. And I know productivity guru Steve Pavlina has argued for something like this too. Tim Ferriss argues for time-batching, as have other productivity people I think, and probably others I am forgetting.
"Jackson was telling me about his ideas about using the computer science algorithm of Shortest Job First. Very interesting. He applied something like that algorithm to foreign policy in World War II--American foreign policy anyway. The quickest of the great powers to be dispatched with were focused on in Jackson's musings. I think if you adapted the 'stick with it till you're sick of it' approach (SWIT for short) to American foreign policy in World War II, the idea would be to focus on problems as much as you can until they are unpopular with the American people or they are not feasible anymore, or the job has been complete and the US can turn to something else. Aside from the main focus, the US would send minimal help in directions it absolutely had to to serve its ends, since the US would have to deal with more than one thing at a time.
"Anyway, I think possibly things might look this way. The US wanted to help curb Germany it seemed as they accrued power, and wanted to pass the buck to Britain and the Soviet Union in doing so. They wanted to keep these two powers in the war and so implemented Lend-Lease to keep Britain and Russia in the game. They would do this as long as possible. Then Japan struck the US in Pearl Harbor and the US declared war on Japan, which caused Germany to declare war on the US, since it was allied with Japan.
"I suppose you could say that the US could maintain sticking to Lend-Lease and not getting into a proper war with Japan or Germany at this point, if the US is going with a SWIT approach. I think at this point war with Japan was popular, and so you might say that Lend-Lease was something that the public mood had gotten sick of. So I think probably the US would turn in the direction of the most proximate fight, which was with Japan, and prosecute this battle until it was over, while continuing to supply Britain--but the main focus would be on Japan, which would be different than how things really happened, which was that the US shifted focus on Germany and Japan was a secondary concern, I think.
"So the US would keep supplying Britain and Russia while going after Japan. I think this would mean that Japan would have exited the war first instead of Italy, who was in reality knocked out by the Allies either in North Africa or in Italy depending on how you look at things. So the US would make a concerted effort to knocking out Japan, focusing most of its might on them, while supplying Britain and the USSR to keep them in the fight. I'm not sure if this would have worked in the case of the USSR--a major concern for invading Europe was to keep the Soviets from settling with the Axis. So it seems in this alternative view there would have been a greater chance of the USSR separately treating with the Germans and leaving the war, which would free up Germany to fight the British.
"In this alternative view it also seems likely that the Brits 'peripheral strategy' as it has been called by historians--would have been employed. The idea was to encircle Europe and launch small tough armored attacks amphibiously onto the continent, and to use these attacks would be used to stimulate guerrilla support against the occupying Nazis. This approach would be used anywhere possible--in France, Norway, Italy, and the Balkans.
"Anyway, the US would knock out Japan earlier all else being equal. Whether the USSR could or could not get a separate peace with Germany, I think it's probably unlikely that Germany could supply Japan with much help, and I doubt the Soviet Union would have helped the Japanese against the US, though I don't really know. So I'll just assume that the US knocks Japan out of the war quicker and then turns to knocking out Germany, or I suppose Italy as they are Axis partners. I'm guessing Italy and Germany are on more stable footing than they would have been had the US helped Britain and the USSR with an actual army. I think Italy would stick around in North Africa and there would be no invasion of Sicily or Italy on the scale that actually was the case, though Britain might have had more little attempts in line with the peripheral strategy and this might or might not have born some fruits in uprisings against the Axis.
"The US would have come into the battle and I suppose the easiest object might have been the Axis in North Africa--the US would have mobilized most of its strength against Japan and so would be in the Far East, but could not make its way towards Europe most directly through the Suez Canal, putting them in the Mediterranean Theater, and in proximity to Axis forces there. So the US might have moved its troops that way and launched attacks against the Axis from the East from British-controlled Egypt rather than as they did in real life by hopping on North Africa from the west and attacking Axis troops that way, while the Brits faced off against the Axis from the East.
"I think then the war would have moved roughly as it did from North Africa to Sicily, to Italy, and then I think probably would have lead to actions in the Balkans, which were easier to get to from Italy than say Southern France I think, and then Germany would perhaps be pushed back from combined USSR and US and British troops from the east.
"Would this have been a better approach than the one that happened? I don't know really. My instinct is to say probably not, since the actual planners were probably smarter than me and they were hashing out these ideas over years, while I am just tossing off something in many minutes. But it's fun to think about.
"But you see the basic application of SWIT to foreign policy tends to favor ideas or proximity and concentration. I think Robert Citino characterized what he called 'The German Way of War' as something like 'hit the closest enemy as fast and as hard as you can.' This is in the operational level of war. This idea seems similar to the SWIT approach to foreign policy."
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Fiction monologue: Grant imagines he is president, his interesting method for thriving in politics based on the improv rule of 'yes and', his fantasy about trying out some of his wild ideas about promoting his band
"I'm going to fantasize about things," Grant said. "What am I thinking? Well, I imagine that I am the president of the United States. Russia has conquered Crimea. What do I do? I write up a speech. I propose that Russia keep Crimea and Ukraine joins NATO and also enters into CSTO, Russia's version of NATO I guess. NATO and CSTO would have yearly meetings in Ukraine, conferring a high status on Ukraine. The idea of my foreign policy would be to essentially try to say yes to everyone (this is a generalization of the improv idea of "yes and" where you keep the improv going by saying "yes and"--also others have contemplated or experimented wit the idea of 'saying yes' to everything--the movie "Yes Man" and there was a book where a guy held himself to a rule of 'saying yes' to everything for a year, I think). The founding fathers wanted to avoid entangling alliances, and my approach would be to multiply entangling alliances so much that it's hard for any nation to do anything against any other nation because who knows who will come to their defense. Also, it's good to say yes--people like you when you say yes. And I think saying yes tends to allow you to find something like the median of the political spectrum. If you try to say yes to both Russia and to Ukraine then you find some middle ground between the two positions, and that is usually where negotiations end up. You always look like the guy who everyone ends up agreeing with because you tend to get to the middle point before others.
"My domestic policy would follow a similar pattern--I'd shoot for saying yes to both Republicans and Democrats. I'm from Massachusetts so I would have to run as a Democrat, though I don't have any real commitment to Democrats or Republicans.
"So I think on the big issues--well, what are the big issues--I guess domestically, maybe ObamaCare is still a big issue. Republicans want to get rid of it I think--I don't follow politics very closely so I'll just go with my gut feeling rather than doing research just for the sake of moving this fantasy forward. And Democrats want to keep it, and I am thinking they probably want to expand healthcare coverage backed by the government as far as they can get it. So I would say yes to less ObamaCare and yes to more ObamaCare--I know, you can't really say yes to opposing views--but what I mean by this is I say to both sides that sounds good, and look at two competing views and harmonize the two. So maybe I suggest that there are some ways for people to get out of having to deal with ObamaCare--maybe there is some special dispensation from ObamaCare regulations for people who don't want to be involved in it.
"Similarly, with minimum wage, Democrats want to raise it and I think Republicans generally don't. So I would shoot for having minimum wage but I would also want to expand the ability for businesses and other organizations to make some people interns who can be paid less than minimum wage, or who work for education. That way there is an increase in minimum wages while also allowing some flexibility for dealing with special cases.
"How about abortion? Republicans I think generally want to restrict it and Democrats want to preserve and perhaps expand the ease of getting an abortion. So my desire would be to give the Democrats what they want but link it to giving the Republicans what they want. Democrats might want to make it possible for a minor to have an abortion without parental notification because they think at some point a minor should be able to make that call, or some other reason, so I might favor it if we could also put more money into subsidizing adoption and outreach to pregnant women who are considering abortion to consider adoption, and to help fund the process with government money, or perhaps the government could help coordinate private money as Republicans might feel government subsidies might produce some moral hazard in the sexual arena.
"These might not be great ideas, but the general principle I think is sort of illustrates. By saying yes to both sides, you're looking to give them what they want, and harmonize their wants, rather than choosing sides.
"I guess I would have had to follow such an approach in a smaller realm in my climb to the presidency. In other words, in Massachusetts, I would have had to say yes to the voters and other stake holders in policy when running for office. As a Democrat I would have to focus on the voters in the primary, say, if I were running for US Senate. And then when I win that I would have to focus on saying yes to the general electorate, and hopefully by this process I am most likely to get to the majority I need to win, though of course it's not guaranteed.
"Let me fantasize about something else now. Hm. I have focused on the rule Scott Adams and others have suggested of 'prioritizing for energy'--I think that is how Adams put it. So I would have an eye to doing what gives me the most energy or drains it least of the available options I guess.
"So I guess...well, I focus on the things that energize me. I love writing so I think I would do a lot of that. I would also do more jamming with friends, as I love to play music with them. I think I would try to avoid having to do a lot of travelling as it seems to drain my battery. Or if I do travel I would try to build in a lot of downtime where I can just sit around. Or when I travel the main thing is eating at restaurants and drinking beer and hanging out with friends. Not a lot of walking around or shopping I guess. I would as much as possible sleep in. Weekend days must allow me to sleep in unless it's vital that I don't, I think.
"Let me think of some other fantasy idea...how about if I implemented lots of my weird ideas. Okay. One idea is booking music shows with venues where I fit two bands per hour on stage for five hours, so 10 bands play for the night. The bands share all the gear on the stage, so bands can just jump up and plug in, essentially. If you really need your own gear, well, you have 10 minutes to get it set up along with whatever other prep you need.
"Artists would cover the walls with their paintings--I'd try to get as many as I could, and each would contribute ideally just one or two of their paintings. Maybe I could get more artists involved. People could buy paintings.
"The artists would also be drawing tee shirts for people using sharpees. The bands would pay for cheapo tee shirts, plain, and the artists would just make minimalist shirts, with the band names on them.
"My band would play. We would do 1 minute songs, so we would be able to cover 20 songs in our 20 minute set, roughly. We would give away for free CDs I burned on my computer, which would be placed in plain white CD envelopes of cardboard that members of the band and I would decorate with art work. The album would have my phone number, email and website on it.
"I would also put the album in bathrooms. I would put a stack on top of toilets. I would put them in the bathroom at practice spaces for people to grab if they want.
"I'd try to set up as many of these packed bills as possible. I would put a post up on craigslist asking if bands wanted to join up. The shows I guess would go from 7-12 or 8-1am I guess. And as many artists as possible as well."
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Fiction Monologue: Jackson on World War II Foreign Policy with an Eye on the Computer Science Concept of 'Shortest Job First'
"I am fascinated by the shortest job first algorithm," Jackson said. "This algorithm prioritizes work according to which job can be done in the shortest period of time. If the US in World War II had used this priority to defeat its competitors, it might have supported the effort to knock off the competitor who could be dealt with quickest. World War II started in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. At the time I think the great powers were the US, the British Empire, France, Germany, the USSR, Italy and Japan--I think that is what I read according to Wikipedia. So in 1939 who was the easiest power to knock off for the US? Geographically Japan and the UK were closest I suppose, but very far away in absolute terms. The weakest of these great powers I would think was probably Italy, maybe the USSR and Germany might also be candidates. So perhaps the US would figure out a way of concentrating against Italy. This might mean just helping out enemies of Italy. In this case it was the British Empire, who was interested in protecting the Mediterranean to allow sea lanes to be open between Britain and its far eastern colonies, which they could access via the Suez Canal in their colony of Egypt. So the US might help the British weaken the Italians. In 1940, the Germans conquered France. This knocked out one great power unexpectedly. Now there was the US, the British Empire, Germany, Italy, the USSR and Japan as great powers remaining. Who could the US knock off quickest at this point? Italy and the USSR probably seemed weakest at this point. The US at this point might seek to continue helping Britain with the aim of weakening Italy in North Africa. The US could consider helping Japan against the USSR but it seems that any action Japan took against the USSR would not knock the USSR out, because the most valuable land in the USSR was in Europe, where a decisive blow would more likely come from. So the US would stick to helping the Brits knock out the Italians.
"Although perhaps the Brits were the weakest great power at this point. What if the US turned its attentions form knocking Italy out of the great power club and towards Britain as the Germans isolated the Brits? Actually, that is not implausible. Without the US help, it seems plausible the British might have collapsed as a great power and its empire would have fallen apart. But perhaps it would simply do as Winston Churchill had said, and fought on in the colonies. But perhaps Britain would be like France--a colonial power knocked out of the great power club by a knock to its homeland. I don't think France had as extensive a colonial system though. Britain had India.
"It seems plausible at least that Britain would not be a great power anymore if Britain was conquered by the Germans with the help of the US.
"Well, let's consider that as an alternative for the 'shortest job first' algorithm of US foreign policy priorities in knocking out great power competitors.
"Okay, so 1941--we're assuming the US has helped Britain with the aim of knocking out the perceived 'shortest job' of Italy. Germany has knocked out France and now turns to the USSR. Who is the weakest of the great powers now? The US, Britain, Germany, Italy, the USSR and Japan remain in the game. Britain looks weak, Italy looks weak, Germany looks strong, the USSR--it's a tough call--possibly, and Japan right now seems pretty strong I guess. Japan attacked the US in late 1941 too so the US is formally at war with them.
"Well, when Germany turns to USSR, people have argued, I think, that they had given up on the idea of knocking out Britain. If the US said they would help Germany after they had conquered France, possibly Britain could have been weakened, possibly it could still keep in the game by fighting from the colonies as Churchill argued--Britain had Canada, Australia, India, and probably other considerable holdings that could be mobilized. So one should be cautious about turning on Britain as they seem rather robust. Ditto the USSR as they have such a great strategic depth. Italy still seems rather favorable as the US can help Britain rather easily, and Italy doesn't have much strategic depth, and it's not a robust colonial power like Britain. Arguably also Germany is the weakest of the great powers because its fighting Britain and USSR--two powers with great strategic depth, one based on its considerable colonial holdings and the other because of its vast geographic size and resources and ability to mobilize industry--though at the onset of the German attack on the USSR, I don't know how clear it would be that the USSR could move its industry outside the grasp of Germany.
"So I think the best bet is to help Britain versus Italy and focus on knocking them out. They still seem like the weakest of the great powers. Okay, 1942. The great powers are the US, Britain, Germany, Italy, the USSR, and Japan. The weakest power--Germany has knocked out the USSR from the war, and is fighting Britain and the USSR. Italy is being propped up by Germany in North Africa against Britain who is being helped by the US. One interesting what-if is that if the US had focused on helping Britain but not the USSR, on the premise of focusing on the shortest job first and not spreading around help, then would the USSR have collapsed against Germany--in other words was US aid decisive in keeping the USSR in the war?
"Impossible to know, but another interesting possibility to consider. We'll assume the USSR was able to hang on without help. Also I think probably Italy will probably get knocked out quicker if the US is focusing on them. Anyway, Italy is still focused on I guess by the US in 1942 and Japan is just given enough attention to protect the US. The US continues to help Britain against Italy, either with lend-lease supplies or now that the US are into war and the Axis has declared war on the US, the US can just get on with attacking Italy with the Brits.
"1943 who is the 'shortest job'? The US, Britain, Italy, Germany, the USSR, and Japan are the great powers still in the game. Who's weakest? Germany is weakening and the USSR is strengthening with Stalingrad's outcome in early 1943. North Africa sees the Axis leave in 1943 as well. Italy is most threatened because they are a hop across the Mediterranean. I think Italy is still the weakest power. Germany is probably second. Third would be Japan. Fourth maybe Britain. Fifth USSR. So that would be the order with which the US would deal with great powers. 1943 sees Italy kicked out of the great powers as it loses North Africa and really, it had been propped up by Germany anyway in North Africa.
"1944, the great powers remaining are US, Britain, Germany, the USSR and Japan. Germany looks weakest. The US will help knock them out of the great power club this year.
"1945 Germany is knocked out of the great power club. The US then would turn against Japan I think. When Japan gets knocked out, then the US would turn against Great Britain, and then the USSR.
"So let me consider now the alternative possibilities--the US turns on the UK after Germany knocks France out of the war. Two salient possibilities--Britain ceases to be a great power, or it remains and fights from the colonies. I suspect the first option--I suspect that if the US sided with Germany, then the Us would seize Canada and also help Britain starve out the British Empire in the Battle of the Atlantic. Britain would have its other colonies but would be something like Vichy France at this point in terms of power.
"So at this point the remaining great powers would be the US, Germany, Italy, the USSR and Japan. The weakest of them at this point it seems would be either Italy or the USSR. Germany I think would likely then turn against the USSR, in which case it would be isolated against the Axis powers. From an alliance perspective the USSR would be weakest then, whereas Italy, the other candidate for weakest power had Germany as a powerful friend. Italy might be more powerful too as it might have gained land from the British Empire in North Africa with the defeat of Britain by Germany and the US.
"So I suspect the USSR was the weakest power remaining at this point, and so the US would bandwagon and help knock out the Soviet Union. After the Soviet Union collapsed, who would be the weakest of the remaining powers? Germany, Italy and Japan would remain along with the US. Japan is perhaps the easiest to get to, though Italy is also a candidate I suppose. Japan would probably have a harder time of getting help from its partners in Europe whereas if the US attacked Italy it could get help from Germany easily due to closeness.
"I'll guess that the US goes after Japan and picks them off in a war. I suspect also that Germany would side with the US in such a war for racist reasons. After Japan was subjugated, then the US I think would attack Italy. I suspect Germany would try to help Italy. Who know show that would go. And if the US knocked out Italy, then it would focus on Germany.
"The other interesting possibility was that the USSR without the help the US, who we imagined would be helping exclusively Britain against the weakest perceived great power who could be dispatched quickest, Italy, would collapse against Germany in 1941. If that happened then the remaining powers would be the US, Britain, Germany, Italy and Japan. I think the US would continue focusing on Italy to knock them out of the war, although perhaps this would mean essentially facing off against Germany who seems to be the strongest power at the moment--in other words, Italy might be weakest in isolation, but when considering its alliances and its proximity to its strong ally, Germany, one might consider Japan as a better candidate--Japan has Germany as a strong ally, but Germany is remote. On the other hand, Germany might be able to support Japan through Siberia as it has conquered the USSR in this scenario. Still, that's a long way, and arguably Germany would prefer the US to win over Japan for racist reasons.
"Well, let's say that the US thinks they can essentially knock Italy out of the great power group--when Germany becomes the main force the US is facing it'll back off, but Italy will have at this point become a Germany colony. Arguably this had sort of happened anyway when the British knocked back the Italians and Rommel was sent to North Africa.
"Well, let's say that the US turns against Japan as the easiest candidate for getting booted from the great power club. The US knocks Japan out in a war in the Pacific, with the help of Great Britain who has also been attacked by Japan.
"The remaining great powers then would be the US, Britain, Germany and Italy. I think the US would focus on knocking Italy out of the war and would essentially do so, with the help of Britain. They'd climb up the boot and push the Nazis more or less out of Italy.
"This is where things get very tricky--who know? The US, Britain and Germany remain as great powers. Who is weakest? I suspect actually Britain is--Germany seems like the greatest land power at this point, with the resources of Eurasia at its fingertips and its superior battle doctrine. Britain is a great sea power, but at this point, I would think the US is way up there too--I don't know but I would guess that the US is even greater as a sea power than Britain. So I think the US would turn against Britain and conquer it. Then it would face off against the remaining super power of Germany.
"I should add as I talked here I actually seemed to employ a 'Shortest Remaining Time' algorithm rather than a 'Shortest Job First' algorithm, meaning I was willing to have the US change its priorities before finishing off one great power, as the situation changed."
"Although perhaps the Brits were the weakest great power at this point. What if the US turned its attentions form knocking Italy out of the great power club and towards Britain as the Germans isolated the Brits? Actually, that is not implausible. Without the US help, it seems plausible the British might have collapsed as a great power and its empire would have fallen apart. But perhaps it would simply do as Winston Churchill had said, and fought on in the colonies. But perhaps Britain would be like France--a colonial power knocked out of the great power club by a knock to its homeland. I don't think France had as extensive a colonial system though. Britain had India.
"It seems plausible at least that Britain would not be a great power anymore if Britain was conquered by the Germans with the help of the US.
"Well, let's consider that as an alternative for the 'shortest job first' algorithm of US foreign policy priorities in knocking out great power competitors.
"Okay, so 1941--we're assuming the US has helped Britain with the aim of knocking out the perceived 'shortest job' of Italy. Germany has knocked out France and now turns to the USSR. Who is the weakest of the great powers now? The US, Britain, Germany, Italy, the USSR and Japan remain in the game. Britain looks weak, Italy looks weak, Germany looks strong, the USSR--it's a tough call--possibly, and Japan right now seems pretty strong I guess. Japan attacked the US in late 1941 too so the US is formally at war with them.
"Well, when Germany turns to USSR, people have argued, I think, that they had given up on the idea of knocking out Britain. If the US said they would help Germany after they had conquered France, possibly Britain could have been weakened, possibly it could still keep in the game by fighting from the colonies as Churchill argued--Britain had Canada, Australia, India, and probably other considerable holdings that could be mobilized. So one should be cautious about turning on Britain as they seem rather robust. Ditto the USSR as they have such a great strategic depth. Italy still seems rather favorable as the US can help Britain rather easily, and Italy doesn't have much strategic depth, and it's not a robust colonial power like Britain. Arguably also Germany is the weakest of the great powers because its fighting Britain and USSR--two powers with great strategic depth, one based on its considerable colonial holdings and the other because of its vast geographic size and resources and ability to mobilize industry--though at the onset of the German attack on the USSR, I don't know how clear it would be that the USSR could move its industry outside the grasp of Germany.
"So I think the best bet is to help Britain versus Italy and focus on knocking them out. They still seem like the weakest of the great powers. Okay, 1942. The great powers are the US, Britain, Germany, Italy, the USSR, and Japan. The weakest power--Germany has knocked out the USSR from the war, and is fighting Britain and the USSR. Italy is being propped up by Germany in North Africa against Britain who is being helped by the US. One interesting what-if is that if the US had focused on helping Britain but not the USSR, on the premise of focusing on the shortest job first and not spreading around help, then would the USSR have collapsed against Germany--in other words was US aid decisive in keeping the USSR in the war?
"Impossible to know, but another interesting possibility to consider. We'll assume the USSR was able to hang on without help. Also I think probably Italy will probably get knocked out quicker if the US is focusing on them. Anyway, Italy is still focused on I guess by the US in 1942 and Japan is just given enough attention to protect the US. The US continues to help Britain against Italy, either with lend-lease supplies or now that the US are into war and the Axis has declared war on the US, the US can just get on with attacking Italy with the Brits.
"1943 who is the 'shortest job'? The US, Britain, Italy, Germany, the USSR, and Japan are the great powers still in the game. Who's weakest? Germany is weakening and the USSR is strengthening with Stalingrad's outcome in early 1943. North Africa sees the Axis leave in 1943 as well. Italy is most threatened because they are a hop across the Mediterranean. I think Italy is still the weakest power. Germany is probably second. Third would be Japan. Fourth maybe Britain. Fifth USSR. So that would be the order with which the US would deal with great powers. 1943 sees Italy kicked out of the great powers as it loses North Africa and really, it had been propped up by Germany anyway in North Africa.
"1944, the great powers remaining are US, Britain, Germany, the USSR and Japan. Germany looks weakest. The US will help knock them out of the great power club this year.
"1945 Germany is knocked out of the great power club. The US then would turn against Japan I think. When Japan gets knocked out, then the US would turn against Great Britain, and then the USSR.
"So let me consider now the alternative possibilities--the US turns on the UK after Germany knocks France out of the war. Two salient possibilities--Britain ceases to be a great power, or it remains and fights from the colonies. I suspect the first option--I suspect that if the US sided with Germany, then the Us would seize Canada and also help Britain starve out the British Empire in the Battle of the Atlantic. Britain would have its other colonies but would be something like Vichy France at this point in terms of power.
"So at this point the remaining great powers would be the US, Germany, Italy, the USSR and Japan. The weakest of them at this point it seems would be either Italy or the USSR. Germany I think would likely then turn against the USSR, in which case it would be isolated against the Axis powers. From an alliance perspective the USSR would be weakest then, whereas Italy, the other candidate for weakest power had Germany as a powerful friend. Italy might be more powerful too as it might have gained land from the British Empire in North Africa with the defeat of Britain by Germany and the US.
"So I suspect the USSR was the weakest power remaining at this point, and so the US would bandwagon and help knock out the Soviet Union. After the Soviet Union collapsed, who would be the weakest of the remaining powers? Germany, Italy and Japan would remain along with the US. Japan is perhaps the easiest to get to, though Italy is also a candidate I suppose. Japan would probably have a harder time of getting help from its partners in Europe whereas if the US attacked Italy it could get help from Germany easily due to closeness.
"I'll guess that the US goes after Japan and picks them off in a war. I suspect also that Germany would side with the US in such a war for racist reasons. After Japan was subjugated, then the US I think would attack Italy. I suspect Germany would try to help Italy. Who know show that would go. And if the US knocked out Italy, then it would focus on Germany.
"The other interesting possibility was that the USSR without the help the US, who we imagined would be helping exclusively Britain against the weakest perceived great power who could be dispatched quickest, Italy, would collapse against Germany in 1941. If that happened then the remaining powers would be the US, Britain, Germany, Italy and Japan. I think the US would continue focusing on Italy to knock them out of the war, although perhaps this would mean essentially facing off against Germany who seems to be the strongest power at the moment--in other words, Italy might be weakest in isolation, but when considering its alliances and its proximity to its strong ally, Germany, one might consider Japan as a better candidate--Japan has Germany as a strong ally, but Germany is remote. On the other hand, Germany might be able to support Japan through Siberia as it has conquered the USSR in this scenario. Still, that's a long way, and arguably Germany would prefer the US to win over Japan for racist reasons.
"Well, let's say that the US thinks they can essentially knock Italy out of the great power group--when Germany becomes the main force the US is facing it'll back off, but Italy will have at this point become a Germany colony. Arguably this had sort of happened anyway when the British knocked back the Italians and Rommel was sent to North Africa.
"Well, let's say that the US turns against Japan as the easiest candidate for getting booted from the great power club. The US knocks Japan out in a war in the Pacific, with the help of Great Britain who has also been attacked by Japan.
"The remaining great powers then would be the US, Britain, Germany and Italy. I think the US would focus on knocking Italy out of the war and would essentially do so, with the help of Britain. They'd climb up the boot and push the Nazis more or less out of Italy.
"This is where things get very tricky--who know? The US, Britain and Germany remain as great powers. Who is weakest? I suspect actually Britain is--Germany seems like the greatest land power at this point, with the resources of Eurasia at its fingertips and its superior battle doctrine. Britain is a great sea power, but at this point, I would think the US is way up there too--I don't know but I would guess that the US is even greater as a sea power than Britain. So I think the US would turn against Britain and conquer it. Then it would face off against the remaining super power of Germany.
"I should add as I talked here I actually seemed to employ a 'Shortest Remaining Time' algorithm rather than a 'Shortest Job First' algorithm, meaning I was willing to have the US change its priorities before finishing off one great power, as the situation changed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)