Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Correct.... Currently, none of the potential "bad guys" has a stand-alone chance against the western order. Whether you calculate Iran and proxies, China, or Russia - none have the military structure to confront the US single handedly, or the US/NATO alliance collectively...
Ol' Pedo-Joe can't plagiarize, talk shít, kiss LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ azz, or sniff his way outta this one….Correct.
Unfortunately our current administration is inept from the top down. Such is commonly known worldwide.
So inept that Iran, China & Russia are making moves that could result in global conflict. They are banking on an inept administration either not reacting, or reacting dismally.
See Afghanistan withdrawal.
Great point!What constitutes a WW? Does Canada have to be involved?
I think our current administration has been inept in handling the Ukraine War, and a closer cooperation with European allies would have been much smarter and a better deterrent. BUT: the current chapter of the Ukraine War is the shot-in-the-arm the US and Europe needs to maintain a high level of operational capability, and weapons investment. Western preparedness and capabilities are going to get a nice boost out of the realization that Putin was perfectly capable of going full-Hitler on a European neighbor.Correct.
Unfortunately our current administration is inept from the top down. Such is commonly known worldwide.
So inept that Iran, China & Russia are making moves that could result in global conflict. They are banking on an inept administration either not reacting, or reacting dismally.
See Afghanistan withdrawal.
I would take issue with several of your statements. Firstly, I would say that your proposition that there have been 4 WWs is highly Eurocentric. One might as well go back to the Roman era, or better yet, Alexander the Great and start numbering. His war of conquest truly embraced all of the known world and its great powers, from a European point of view.The prior four "world wars" (yes, there have been four) Each came about when a power or combination of powers could calculate a perceived military advantage to risk a wider war.
Wasn't this an ad for MIRA Safety and all of their safely products they are selling? But other YouTube channels are talking about the same scenarios as well.
Secondly, I would propose that there were not 2 WWs, but only World War 1 Part 1 and World War 1 Part 2. WW2 would never have happened (at least the European portion) except for excessive penalties imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. It was largely to restore Germany to a pre-Versailles condition that WW1 Part 2 was fought.
Yep, that's where I found it but since I thought it to be concise and well written and they weren't directly plugging their gear I figured I'd share it.Wasn't this an ad for MIRA Safety and all of their safely products they are selling? But other YouTube channels are talking about the same scenarios as well.
You quote other European example(s), which does not negate the point. The fact the wars were indeed euro-centric, is not way doesn't make them less true. One would be better served asking why only European powers started world wars. Part of the answer is simply technological - only after 1600 was their the technology to make a conflict "global." No Roman or Grecian (also european) conflict could be construed as "global." It's not Eurocentric per se, it's technology-centric.I would take issue with several of your statements. Firstly, I would say that your proposition that there have been 4 WWs is highly Eurocentric. …
While there were big similarity in the line-ups on both sides, it was not inevitable. In 1932, Germany was on no inherently hostile path with other western powers. It was bent that way in the short interim by a smaller minority. I highly recommend "The Origins of the Second World War" by A.J.P. Taylor, which clearly and in a large consensus among historias, dispelled that line of thought a while ago.Secondly, I would propose that there were not 2 WWs, but only World War 1 Part 1 and World War 1 Part 2. ….
Germany had been calculating its force-ratio with England, and perfecting it's planned war with France, for about two decades prior to August, 1914. The naval spending programs and constant evolution of the von Schlieffen Plan. They had one month between events to contemplate action before green-lighting it by letting Austria attack Serbia. They knew the alliances and were it would lead; the Kaiser was painfully aware. I highly recommend a closer study of "The Guns of August" on this point. It's an older work, but imminently readable and covers this quite well.Lastly, I would challenge your statement that there was any calculation of risk by any of the powers involved in WW1. It began as a regional conflict (Austria vs. Serbia), triggered by what today would be considered a terrorist act, which accreted into a wider conflict as additional nations were dragged in by a complex web of alliances.
Yes the UK and Aussies were involved in the Pacific theater war. The UK had a lot of colonial territory taken. My first trip to Singapore back in the early 1990s we toured the Fort Siloso on Sentosa Island. It saw action in WWII but Singapore and other countries were invaded by the Japanese in WWII. I cannot imagine with the high tempeatures and high humidy the solders stationed in Fort Silose had to endure.I would consider your idea of WW I part 2 Western hemisphericocentric in that ignores the entire Pacific War fought by every major Allied power and considering Japan's war in China, cost millions of lives in its own right. Regardless of my creation of new words, World War Two was its own entity,. Started in its own time, after an extended period of peace (over 10 years at least) and fought by more countries over a vastly wider area.
That's a good point. Do you think the Pacific war would have been considered a world war had there been no war in Europe? Would there have been a war in the Pacific involving the European powers had FDR not provoked a Japanese attack as an excuse to get involved in Europe, or would it have remained a regional conflict between Japan and China?I would consider your idea of WW I part 2 Western hemisphericocentric in that ignores the entire Pacific War fought by every major Allied power and considering Japan's war in China, cost millions of lives in its own right. Regardless of my creation of new words, World War Two was its own entity,. Started in its own time, after an extended period of peace (over 10 years at least) and fought by more countries over a vastly wider area.
Given Japanese aspirations, I'd say yes war was indeed inevitable. Their war in China, which started back in 1931 was consuming resources at a prodigious rate and neither Japan nor their Korean or Chinese holdings had the oil, rubber or minerals necessary. Japan did not like being dependent on American scrap steel and oil and they saw expansion as their best option. The English had their holdings/colonies in Borneo, Burma and India, The French in Viet Nam and the Dutch in Borneo and Sumatra. And we had the Philippines. Japan wanted all of them to both boot out the colonists and set themselves up as the rulers of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. In short Japan was going to take these. Do you think the USA, UK and the others (Except France) wouldn't fight to keep their colonies and the riches they held. As to FDR provoking Japan by saying "Hey if you don't stop killing all those nice Chinese folks, not to mention shooting up one of our gunboats, we'll cut off your oil and money."... Japan's slaughtering of Chinese people (See "The Rape of Nanking" and other books on the subject) made a lot of Americans push Roosevelt to do something to stop them... Whether that fed into FDR's "plot" to get us into the war or an inevitable series of events that got us into WW II, I dunno. From what I've read, It was Japan's decisions and actions that brought us into the war.That's a good point. Do you think the Pacific war would have been considered a world war had there been no war in Europe? Would there have been a war in the Pacific involving the European powers had FDR not provoked a Japanese attack as an excuse to get involved in Europe, or would it have remained a regional conflict between Japan and China?