The issue is not GIVING GUAM to Japan, rather moving U.S. troops located in Okinawa Japan to Guam, and the U.S.'s desire to have Japan pay 75% of the estimate $10Billion it would cost to make this move quickly.
However you read this one wrong needs to be examined. Drinking before lunch should be something you look into cutting back on at least for the time being!
WWII? Perhaps yuou had better look at the outcome of WII--it explains why the US maintains close to 70K military personnel throughout Japan--Yokota, Misawa, Yokuska, Sasebo, Iwakuni, Kadena, Naha, etc--and not the other way around.
Oki is approx 350mi from downtown Taipei; Guam is about 900mi from downtown Tokyo. These distances are approx based on the limits of my Natl Geograph World Map. Moreover, Guam claims a 200-mi limit in terms of the surrounding ocean.
The claims in this newspaper appear spurious at best.
From what I understand, the US is building (or was entertaining the idea of building) an airbase in the smaller islands further south of Oki. I can't recall the name of the island but there is a cluster of islands owned by Japan that are located maybe 150-200mi from downtown Taipei.
Guam is sufficiently distant from Taiwan as to compel the use of carrier- based aircraft in any conflict in the Taiwan Strait. Oki allows the utility of land-based a/c w/ flight time of approx 40min. Guam is substantially farther from Taiwan.
As China becomes more belligerent esp toward Japan, it would appear that the hosting of US combat forces by Japan would become a much more cost-effective alternative to spending the smack necessary to upgrade Japan's antiquated air and missile forces (they still fly F-4s) en masse. Japan's attempts at the all-Japanese FX fighter a/c appear to have failed. Last I heard, they were having great difficulties w/ the propulsion system. That was yrs ago however. Buy American!