World War III? [Archive] - Tactics Arena Community Forums

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 05:20 AM

I tried to, but it's too long. Ah what the hell, I'll post it here as well.. It is going to take a few posts though.

Article:

Sinking Globalization
From: Foreign Affars, Decembre 2005 – WTO Special Edition
By: Niall Ferguson

Niall Ferguson is Professor of History at Harvard University, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, University of Oxford. Copyright (c)2005 by Niall Ferguson.

Torpedoed

Ninety years ago this May, the German submarine U-20 sank the Cunard liner Lusitania off the southern coast of Ireland. Nearly 1,200 people, including 128 Americans, lost their lives. Usually remembered for the damage it did to the image of imperial Germany in the United States, the sinking of the Lusitania also symbolized the end of the first age of globalization.
From around 1870 until World War I, the world economy thrived in ways that look familiar today. The mobility of commodities, capital, and labor reached record levels; the sea-lanes and telegraphs across the Atlantic had never been busier, as capital and migrants traveled west and raw materials and manufactures traveled east. In relation to output, exports of both merchandise and capital reached volumes not seen again until the 1980s. Total emigration from Europe between 1880 and 1910 was in excess of 25 million. People spoke euphorically of "the annihilation of distance."

Then, between 1914 and 1918, a horrendous war stopped all of this, sinking globalization. Nearly 13 million tons of shipping were sent to the bottom of the ocean by German submarine attacks. International trade, investment, and migration all collapsed. Moreover, the attempt to resuscitate the world economy after the war's end failed. The global economy effectively disintegrated with the onset of the Great Depression and, after that, with an even bigger world war, in which astonishingly high proportions of production went toward perpetrating destruction.

It may seem excessively pessimistic to worry that this scenario could somehow repeat itself--that our age of globalization could collapse just as our grandparents' did. But it is worth bearing in mind that, despite numerous warnings issued in the early twentieth century about the catastrophic consequences of a war among the European great powers, many people--not least investors, a generally well-informed class--were taken completely by surprise by the outbreak of World War I.
The possibility is as real today as it was in 1915 that globalization, like the Lusitania, could be sunk.

Back to the Future

The last age of globalization resembled the current one in numerous ways. It was characterized by relatively free trade, limited restrictions on migration, and hardly any regulation of capital flows. Inflation was low. A wave of technological innovation was revolutionizing the communications and energy sectors; the world first discovered the joys of the telephone, the radio, the internal combustion engine, and paved roads. The U.S. economy was the biggest in the world, and the development of its massive internal market had become the principal source of business innovation. China was opening up, raising all kinds of expectations in the West, and Russia was growing rapidly.

World War I wrecked all of this. Global markets were disrupted and disconnected, first by economic warfare, then by postwar protectionism. Prices went haywire: a number of major economies (Germany's among them) suffered from both hyperinflation and steep deflation in the space of a decade. The technological advances of the 1900s petered out: innovation hit a plateau, and stagnating consumption discouraged the development of even existing technologies such as the automobile. After faltering during the war, overheating in the 1920s, and languishing throughout the 1930s in the doldrums of depression, the U.S. economy ceased to be the most dynamic in the world. China succumbed to civil war and foreign invasion, defaulting on its debts and disappointing optimists in the West. Russia suffered revolution, civil war, tyranny, and foreign invasion. Both these giants responded to the crisis by donning the constricting armor of state socialism. They were not alone. By the end of the 1940s, most states in the world, including those that retained political freedoms, had imposed restrictions on trade, migration, and investment as a matter of course. Some achieved autarky, the ideal of a deglobalized society. Consciously or unconsciously, all governments applied in peacetime the economic restrictions that had first been imposed between 1914 and 1918.

The end of globalization after 1914 was not unforeseeable. There was no shortage of voices prophesying Armageddon in the prewar decades. Many popular writers earned a living by predicting a cataclysmic European war. Solemn Marxists had long foretold the collapse of capitalism and imperialism. And Social Darwinists had looked forward eagerly to a conflagration that would weed out the weak and fortify the strong.

Yet most investors were completely caught off guard when the crisis came. Not until the last week of July 1914 was there a desperate dash for liquidity; it happened so suddenly and on such a large scale that the world's major stock markets, New York's included, closed down for the rest of the year. As The Economist put it at the time, investors and financial institutions "saw in a flash the meaning of war." The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by about 25 percent between January 1910 and December 1913 and remained flat through the first half of 1914. European bond markets, which had held up throughout the diplomatic crises of the 1900s, crashed only at the 11th hour, as the lights went out all over Europe.
Some economic historians detect the origins of the deglobalization that followed World War I in the prewar decades. They point, variously, to rising tariffs and restrictions on migration, a slight uptick in inflation starting around 1896, and the chronic vulnerability of the U.S. economy to banking crises. To this list, it might be added that the risk of further Russian and Chinese revolutions should have been fairly apparent after those of 1905 and 1911, respectively.

The trouble is that none of these problems can be said to have caused the great conflagration that was World War I. To be sure, the prewar world was marked by all kinds of economic rivalries--not least between British and German manufacturers--but these did not suffice to cause a disaster. On the contrary, businessmen on both sides agreed that a major war would be an economic calamity. The point seemed so obvious that war came to be seen by some optimistic commentators as all but impossible--a "great illusion," in the famous phrase of the author Norman Angell. Even when the war broke out, many people optimistically clung to the illusion that it would soon be over. Economist John Maynard Keynes said that it "could not last more than a year."

With the benefit of hindsight, however, five factors can be seen to have precipitated the global explosion of 1914-18. The first cause was imperial overstretch. By 1914, the British Empire was showing signs of being a "weary Titan," in the words of the poet Matthew Arnold. It lacked the will to build up an army capable of deterring Germany from staging a rival bid for European hegemony (if not world power). As the world's policeman, distracted by old and new commitments in Asia and Africa, the United Kingdom's beat had simply become too big.
Great-power rivalry was another principal cause of the catastrophe. The problem was not so much Anglo-German rivalry at sea as it was Russo-German rivalry on land. Fear of a Russian arms buildup convinced the German general staff to fight in 1914 rather than risk waiting any longer.

The third fatal factor was an unstable alliance system. Alliances existed in abundance, but they were shaky. The Germans did not trust the Austrians to stand by them in a crisis, and the Russians worried that the French might lose their nerve. The United Kingdom's actions were impossible to predict because its ententes with France and Russia made no explicit provisions for the eventuality of war in Europe. The associated insecurities encouraged risk-taking diplomacy. In 1908, for example, Austria-Hungary brusquely annexed Bosnia. Three years later, the German government sent the gunboat Panther to Agadir to challenge French claims to predominance in Morocco.

The presence of a rogue regime sponsoring terror was a fourth source of instability. The chain of events leading to war, as every schoolchild used to know, began with the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo by a Bosnian Serb, Gavrilo Princip. There were shady links between the assassin's organization and the Serbian government, which had itself come to power not long before in a bloody palace coup.
Finally, the rise of a revolutionary terrorist organization hostile to capitalism turned an international crisis into a backlash against the global free market. The Bolsheviks, who emerged from the 1903 split in the Russian Social Democratic Party, had already established their credentials as a fanatical organization committed to using violence to bring about world revolution. By straining the tsarist system to the breaking point, the war gave Lenin and his confederates their opportunity. They seized it and used the most ruthless terrorist tactics to win the ensuing civil war.

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 05:20 AM

Parallel Universe

There are obvious economic parallels between the first age of globalization and the current one. Today, as in the period before 1914, protectionism periodically challenges the free-trade orthodoxy. By the standards of the pre-1914 United Kingdom, in fact, the major economies are already shamelessly protectionist when it comes to agriculture. Then, the United Kingdom imposed no tariffs on imported agricultural goods, whereas now the United States, the European Union, and Japan all use tariffs and subsidies to protect their farmers from foreign competition.

Today, no one can be sure how stable the international monetary system is, but one thing is certain: it is no more stable than the system that preceded World War I. Although gold is no longer the basis of the monetary system, there are pegged exchange rates, just as there were in 1914. In Europe, there is a monetary union--essentially a deutsche mark zone. In eastern Asia, there is a dollar standard. Both systems, however, are based on fiat currencies. Unlike before 1914, the core central banks in New York and Frankfurt determine the volume of currency produced, and they do so on the basis of an opaque mixture of rules and discretion.
Today, technological innovation shows no sign of slackening. From nanocomputers the size of a pinhead to scramjets that can cross the Atlantic in an hour, there seems no limit to human ingenuity, given sufficient funding of research and development. That is the good news. The bad news is that now technology also helps the enemies of globalization. Before 1914, terrorists had to pursue their bloody trade with Browning revolvers and primitive bombs. These days, an entire city could be obliterated with a single nuclear device.

Today, as before 1914, the U.S. economy is the world's biggest, but it is now much more important as a market for the rest of the world than it was then. Although the United States may enjoy great influence as the "consumer of first resort," this role depends on the willingness of foreigners to fund a widening current account deficit. A rising proportion of Americans may consider themselves to have been "saved" in the Evangelical sense, but they are less good at saving in the economic sense. The personal savings rate among Americans stood at just 0.2 percent of disposable personal income in September 2004, compared with 7.7 percent less than 15 years ago. Whether to finance domestic investment (in the late 1990s) or government borrowing (after 2000), the United States has come to rely increasingly on foreign lending. As the current account deficit has widened (it is now approaching 6 percent of GDP), U.S. net overseas liabilities have risen steeply to around 25 percent of GDP. Half of the publicly held federal debt is now in foreign hands; at the end of August 2004, the combined U.S. Treasury holdings of China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan were $1.1 trillion, up by 22 percent from the end of 2003. A large proportion of this increase is a result of immense purchases by eastern Asian monetary authorities, designed to prevent their currencies from appreciating relative to the dollar.

This deficit is the biggest difference between globalization past and globalization present. A hundred years ago, the global hegemon--the United Kingdom--was a net exporter of capital, channeling a high proportion of its savings overseas to finance the construction of infrastructure such as railways and ports in the Americas, Asia, Australasia, and Africa. Today, its successor as an Anglophone empire plays the diametrically opposite role--as the world's debtor rather than the world's creditor, absorbing around three-quarters of the rest of the world's surplus savings.

Does this departure matter? Some claim it does not--that it just reflects the rest of the world's desire to have a piece of the U.S. economic action, whether as owners of low-risk securities or sellers of underpriced exports. This is how Harvard economist Richard Cooper sees it. Assuming that the U.S. economy has a trend rate of growth of 5 percent a year, he argues that a sustained current account deficit of $500 billion per year would translate into external liabilities of 46 percent of GDP after 15 years, but that then U.S. foreign debt would "decline indefinitely."

Well, maybe. But what if those assumptions are wrong? According to the hsbc Group, the current account deficit could reach 8 percent of GDP by the end of the decade. That could push the United States' net external liabilities as high as 90 percent of GDP. When the United Kingdom accumulated net foreign debts of less than half this percentage, it was fighting World War II. In the war's aftermath, the resulting "sterling balances" owned by the rest of the world were one of the reasons the pound declined and lost its reserve currency status.
A sharp depreciation of the dollar relative to Asian currencies might not worry the majority of Americans, whose liabilities are all dollar-denominated. But its effect on Asia would be profound. Asian holders of dollar assets would suffer heavy capital losses in terms of their own currencies, and Asian exporters would lose some of their competitive advantage in the U.S. market. According to Michael Mussa of the Institute for International Economics, lowering the U.S. deficit to 2 percent of GDP over the next few years would require a further 20 percent decline in the dollar. The economists Maurice Obstfeld and Kenneth Rogoff estimate that the fall could be as much as 40 percent. And the University of California at Berkeley's Brad de Long has pointed out that,

if the private market--which knows that with high probability the dollar is going down someday--decides that that someday has come and that the dollar is going down now, then all the Asian central banks in the world cannot stop it.

That day may be fast approaching. In the words of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan last November, "the desire of investors to add dollar claims to their portfolios" must have a limit; a "continued financing even of today's current account deficits ... doubtless will, at some future point, increase shares of dollar claims in investor portfolios to levels that imply an unacceptable amount of concentration risk."

The domestic effects of a dollar crash would be felt most sharply by the growing numbers of Americans with large mortgage debts who would suddenly face a rise in interest rates. The growth in the share of variable-rate mortgages in the volume of total household debt is seen by some as a sign that the U.S. mortgage market is growing more sophisticated. But it also increases the sensitivity of many American families to rises in the rates. The federal government has a pretty large variable-rate debt, too, given the very short maturities of a large proportion of federal bonds and notes. That fact means that higher rates could quickly affect the deficit itself, creating a dangerous feedback loop. And, of course, higher rates would be likely to lower growth and hence reduce tax revenues. In short, today's international fiat-money system is significantly, and dangerously, crisis-prone.
Another cause for concern is the fragility of China's financial system. This Asian miracle is unlikely to avoid the kind of crisis that marked the Asian miracles of the past. To get a sense of the dangers, consider China's Soviet-style domestic banking system and its puny domestic stock market: how can such rapid growth in manufacturing possibly be sustained with such inadequate financial institutions?

Pre-1914 globalization was remarkably susceptible to the international transmission of crises--what economists call "contagion." So is globalization nowadays. As Andrew Large of the Bank of England pointed out last November, the "search for yield" in an environment of low interest rates is encouraging investors, banks, and hedge funds to converge on similar trading strategies, raising "the prospect of one-way markets developing and market liquidity evaporating in response to a shock."

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 05:23 AM

Ghosts from the Past

As the economic parallels with 1914 suggest, today's globalization shows at least some signs of reversibility. The risks increase when one considers the present political situation, which has the same five flaws as the pre-1914 international order: imperial overstretch, great-power rivalry, an unstable alliance system, rogue regimes sponsoring terror, and the rise of a revolutionary terrorist organization hostile to capitalism.

The United States--an empire in all but name--is manifestly overstretched. Not only is its current account deficit large and growing larger, but the fiscal deficit that lurks behind it also is set to surge as the baby boomers retire and start to claim Social Security and Medicare benefits. The Congressional Budget Office (cbo) projects that over the next four decades, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare spending will rise to consume at least an additional 12 percent of GDP per year. The cbo also estimates that the transition costs of President George W. Bush's planned Social Security reform, if enacted, could create a budget shortfall of up to two percent of GDP a year for ten years. Add that to the fiscal consequences of making the president's first-term tax cuts permanent, and it becomes hard to imagine how the country will manage to stem the rising tide of red ink.

The U.S. empire also suffers from a personnel deficit: 500,000 troops is the maximum number that Washington can deploy overseas, and this number is simply not sufficient to win all the small wars the United States currently has (or might have) to wage. Of the 137,000 American troops currently in Iraq, 43 percent are drawn from the reserves or the National Guard. Even just to maintain the U.S. presence in Iraq, the Army is extending tours of duty and retaining personnel due to be discharged. Such measures seem certain to hurt re-enlistment rates.
Above all, the U.S. empire suffers from an attention deficit. Iraq is not a very big war.

As one Marine told his parents in a letter home, compared to the wars of the past, this is nothing. We're not standing on line in the open--facing German machine guns like the Marines at Belleau Wood or trying to wade ashore in chest-deep water at Tarawa. We're not facing hordes of screaming men at the frozen Chosun Reservoir in Korea or the clever ambushes of Vietcong. We deal with potshots and I.E.D.'s [improvised explosive devices].

He was right; the Iraq war is more like the colonial warfare the British waged 100 years ago. It is dangerous--the author of that letter was killed three weeks after he wrote it--but it is not Vietnam or Korea, much less the Pacific theater in World War II. Yet the Iraq war has become very unpopular very quickly, after relatively few casualties. According to several polls, fewer than half of American voters now support it. And virtually no one seems to want to face the fact that the U.S. presence in Iraq--and the low-intensity conflict that goes with imperial policing--may have to endure for ten years or more if that country is to stand any chance of economic and political stabilization.

Then there is the second problem: great-power rivalry. It is true that the Chinese have no obvious incentive to pick a fight with the United States. But China's ambitions with respect to Taiwan are not about to disappear just because Beijing owns a stack of U.S. Treasury bonds. On the contrary, in the event of an economic crisis, China might be sorely tempted to play the nationalist card by threatening to take over its errant province. Would the United States really be willing to fight China over Taiwan, as it has pledged in the past to do? And what would happen if the Chinese authorities flexed their new financial muscles by dumping U.S. bonds on the world market? To the historian, Taiwan looks somewhat like the Belgium of old: a seemingly inconsequential country over which empires end up fighting to the death. And one should not forget Asia's most dangerous rogue regime, North Korea, which is a little like pre-1914 Serbia with nuclear weapons.

As for Europe, one must not underestimate the extent to which the recent diplomatic "widening of the Atlantic" reflects profound changes in Europe, rather than an alteration in U.S. foreign policy. The combination of economic sclerosis and social senescence means that Europe is bound to stagnate, if not decline. Meanwhile, Muslim immigration and the prospect of Turkey's accession to the European Union are changing the very character of Europe. And the division between Americans and Europeans on Middle Eastern questions is only going to get wider--for example, if the United States dismisses the European attempt to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions by diplomatic means and presses instead for military countermeasures.

These rivalries are one reason the world today also has an unstable alliance system (problem number three). Nato's purpose is no longer clear. Is it just an irrelevant club for the winners of the Cold War, which former Soviet satellites are encouraged to join for primarily symbolic reasons? Have divisions over Iraq rendered it obsolete? To say the least, "coalitions of the willing" are a poor substitute.

None of these problems would necessarily be fatal were it not for the fourth and fifth parallels between 1914 and today: the existence of rogue regimes sponsoring terror--Iran and Syria top the list--and of revolutionary terrorist organizations. It is a big mistake to think of al Qaeda as "Islamo-fascist" (as the journalist Christopher Hitchens and many others called the group after the September 11, 2001, attacks). Al Qaeda's members are much more like "Islamo-Bolshevists," committed to revolution and a reordering of the world along anti-capitalist lines.

Like the Bolsheviks in 1914, these Islamist extremists are part of an underground sect, struggling to land more than the occasional big punch on the enemy. But what if they were to get control of a wealthy state, the way Lenin, Trotsky, and company did in 1917? How would the world look if there were an October Revolution in Saudi Arabia? True, some recent survey data suggest that ordinary Saudis are relatively moderate people by the standards of the Arab world. And high oil prices mean more shopping and fewer disgruntled youths. On the other hand, after what happened in Tehran in 1979, no one can rule out a second Islamist revolution. The Saudi royal family does not look like the kind of regime that will still be in business ten years from now. The only monarchies that survive in modern times are those that give power away.

But is Osama bin Laden really a modern-day Lenin? The comparison is less far-fetched than it seems ("Hereditary Nobleman Vladimir Ulyanov" also came from a wealthy family). In a proclamation to the world before the recent U.S. presidential election, bin Laden declared that his "policy [was] bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." As he explained, "al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the [September 11 attacks], while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost--according to the lowest estimate--more than $500 billion. Meaning that every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah." Bin Laden went on to talk about the U.S. "economic deficit ... estimated to total more than a trillion dollars" and to make a somewhat uncharacteristic joke:

[T]hose who say that al Qaeda has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinizes the results, one cannot say that al Qaeda is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains. Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations--whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction--has helped al Qaeda to achieve these enormous results.

Two things are noteworthy about bin Laden's quip: one, the classically Marxist assertion that the war in Iraq was motivated by capitalist economic interests; and two, the rather shrewd--and unfortunately accurate--argument that bin Laden has been getting help in "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy" from the Bush administration's fiscal policy.

Apocalypse when?

A doomsday scenario is plausible. But is it probable? The difficult thing--indeed the nearly impossible thing--is to predict a cataclysm. Doing so was the challenge investors faced in the first age of globalization. They knew there could be a world war. They knew such a war would have devastating financial consequences (although few anticipated how destructive it would be). But they had no way of knowing when exactly it would happen.

The same problem exists today. We all know that another, bigger September 11 is quite likely; it is, indeed, bin Laden's stated objective. We all know--or should know--that a crisis over Taiwan would send huge shockwaves through the international system; it could even lead to a great-power war. We all know that revolutionary regime change in Saudi Arabia would shake the world even more than the 1917 Bolshevik coup in Russia. We all know that the detonation of a nuclear device in London would dwarf the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand as an act of terrorism.

But what exactly can we do about such contingencies, if, as with the Asian tsunami, we cannot say even approximately when they might occur? The opportunity cost of liquidating our portfolios and inhabiting a subterranean bunker looks too high, even if Armageddon could come tomorrow. In that sense, we seem no better prepared for the worst-case scenario than were the beneficiaries of the last age of globalization, 90 years ago. Like the passengers who boarded the Lusitania, all we know is that we may conceivably sink. Still we sail.

Realist

02-15-2006, 06:00 AM

Ok, I d/led and read all of it. Interesting, but fairly simplistic. Also, he seems to be making two disparate arguments at the same time, which is pretty confusing--he never states that economic globalizatoin caused WWI, just that it was severely harmed by WWI. So what is the relevence of our comparable globalization today to a consideration of whether a new war will occur? It feels like a disjointed paper.

There is one alarming concept missing from his paper--nuclear weapons. Has everyone forgotten the cold war already? Great powers absolutely cannot fight anymore due to muturally assured destruction. There is never going to be a major war in which human military is the prime determininant of one's power.

His alliance argument is similarly unconvincing. By WWI standards, ALL powerful states are allied with one another.

These rivalries are one reason the world today also has an unstable alliance system (problem number three). Nato's purpose is no longer clear. Is it just an irrelevant club for the winners of the Cold War, which former Soviet satellites are encouraged to join for primarily symbolic reasons?

"Unstable alliance system" in WWI terms meant that there were six or so great powers, and each one wanted to ally with a few others to keep up the balance of power (high school history). "Unstable alliance system" in NATO terms means that the US is so powerful and the other powers see no reason to challenge this power militarily, so alliances are irrelevent and ambiguous. Even China spends a tiny amount of its GDP on military compared to the US.

The reason we no longer care about alliances is because we have no more enemies of comparable military power, and because if any enemy of power opposed us, nukes would prevent major military confrontation (the lesson of the cold war.) There is absolutely no comparison to WWI!

As for anti-capitalist terrorists, again, nukes are a key component. If terrorists don't get nukes, they are irrelevent. If they do, and they bomb a city or so, there goes a lot of money--but does it destroy globalization and capitalism? Almost certaintly not. Why would it? There are no submarines sinking ships; terrorists operate on a much more specific-target basis. Nor is there need for a huge amount of production to be moved to war-related goods, as fighting terrorists is not helped by having huge armies (as was shown by the war in Iraq). I'm not sure what his point was with Lenin comparisons, either; Lenin was neither the cause of WWI nor the one who prevented reglobalization after.

Now, a global financial crisis is entirely possible, almost probable, for the reasons this guy stated and hundreds of others have stated before him--but it won't be caused by silly things like alliances or terrorism. It may be caused by the unsustainability of American debt. And, while such a crisis might lead to a lull in globalization, it seems much more likely that it will merely lead to a reorganization and rebalance of globalization. The truth is, globalization has too much economic benefit for all participants to be abandoned by any of them.

I could dissect the rest of this guy's almost juvenile argument piece by piece, but I'd rather just say this--noticing a few parallels does not mean that there will be parallel outcomes. Life works on a cause and effect basis--that is, if there isn't any cause for something to happen, it doesn't happen. Just because people before WWI didn't see what was coming doesn't mean that we today don't have valid and correct reasons to not see a WWIII coming. Rather than just noticing similarities between now and then, it would be more useful to look at today and analyze the possibilities of what will occur in the future, perhaps keeping the lessons of the past in mind, but staying squarely in the present.

Office_Shredder

02-15-2006, 06:38 AM

The North Korea parallel, the one point I saw that sounded like a good point, also has a major hole. In 1914, the powers used the assassination as an excuse to go to war. However, in 2006 everyone pisses their pants over the chance of a nuclear war. If you threaten to use nukes, you have the whole world turned against you. If North Korea decided to kill a president, or nuke a city, he would have NATO AND China all over its ass. As much as China may want to "flex its muscles" so to speak, it also NEEDS stability in order to ensure economic growth; a war would not serve its purpose (why do you think they buy up all those US bonds? For fun? It really does help them).

sayter

02-15-2006, 08:59 AM

an interesting essay, though I am with Realist completely.

However, I do think that our global reality is slowly crumbling around us. There are simply too many factors contributing to the growing problems, and (sorrt to say it) the issues between america and the muslim nations are the heart of it.

Now we have Iran potentially building nukes, Palestine flat out refusing to create a logical government which will certainly not help their position on the world stage...plus the current crises in Iraq. There are countless other factors, but I suspect that in the end it will become some blood-soaked drama in which few of us have any ability to contribute towards a peaceful resolution.

And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in the next ten years...maybe less. I won't go into essay length discussion since this horse has already been flogged to death and anyone reading through this entire post so far likely already is aware of the issues at hand.

One thing I find humorous though (and no offense to non-fundamentalist muslims here) is the muslim nations reactions to a few cartoons in a newspaper. We have mass chaos and carnage all over the world, massive protests and even a "rival" contest to see who can make jokes or cartoons abotu the freakin holocaust that are "funniest". The fundamentalist reaction is , in my view, simply an attempt to push their own agenda on the rest of the world.
And they somehow think it serves them WELL to behave in this manner. Yes, the world clearly will think more of your holy prophet if you blow even MORE stuff up over silly cartoons.
And what kind of buffoon thinks its even in the slightest "good taste" to challenge people to make holocaust cartoons? We are talking about the mockery of millions of dead people who were tortured and played with before their untimely demise at the hands of a brutal regime that had absolutely no right to do what they did.
Now, its not exactly "okay" to mock a holy figure either. But ive seen the cartoons. They really werent THAT bad. Had they depicted mohommad raping a horde of schoolchildren while singing the macarena...that i could see being a problem. OVerreaction, anyone?
IF world war 3 began over a few cartoons, wouldnt that just beat all?

All in all, a very good post topic however. Anyone have differing opinions on the middleeast/western conflict or the "cartoon dilemma"?

sayter

02-15-2006, 09:03 AM

Office_Shredder:

Agreed. That, and anyone dumb enough to get CHINA on their ass has issues. The sheer enormity of their infantry groudn forces would overwhelm most civilzed nations. Heck, america coudl invade and be utterly unsuccessful on the ground war simple due to advantage of numbers.

The Chinese would NOT lay down and let ANYONE do what they don't like, either next door or in their own backyard. The Korea Crisis is not yet a serious issue in any case, since I doubt they are that STUPID.

But their economy might suffer. True. Most of their income comes from import/export and war would choke those supply lines off more or less indefinitely (at least to the east, and western trade routes would likely suffer through western asia. Air traffic would be severely limited due to the whole "rocket launchers and SAMS + airplane= uh oh thing).

The real question is, in the event of War, would China care about the financial burden? Lord knows the US doesnt.

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 09:19 AM

First of all, I'm glad I at least got some responses, but I figured at least Realist would show. :)

Second of all, let me make clear that the stance my partner and I took is somewhat provoking because we wanted a decent discussion. True, it will be difficult to defend, but fun nonetheless.

And since I'll have to do this in school as well, let me respond to a few things.

Interesting, but fairly simplistic.
True.

Also, he seems to be making two disparate arguments at the same time, which is pretty confusing--he never states that economic globalizatoin caused WWI, just that it was severely harmed by WWI. True

So what is the relevence of our comparable globalization today to a consideration of whether a new war will occur? It feels like a disjointed paper.
Not so much as to whether a new war will occur, but he describes a similarity between then and now. This shows that even though we're quite dependent of eachother, it doesn't rule out a massive war.

There is one alarming concept missing from his paper--nuclear weapons. Has everyone forgotten the cold war already? Great powers absolutely cannot fight anymore due to muturally assured destruction. There is never going to be a major war in which human military is the prime determininant of one's power.

This is definitely one of the problems I'm going to have to face next tuesday, because it's a hard one to debate, especially since I just wrote an essay about how increasing dependence and advancing technology were key aspects of why Robert Gilpin and his theory war and change in world politics were wrong, or not sufficient :)

However, these are certainly not the same times as back then. First of all, MAD doesn't hold up between every country like it did between the Sovjet and the US. The US doesn't necessarily has to be the the target in a war. Israel is way more likely to be attacked. Israel does not have enough military power for MAD.

Though nukes are a very good point, which is why I added "or several, rapidly succeeding, relatively small wars" to our stance. Since one enormous war is less likely. Relatively small wars are definitely possible, since nukes will not be used.

His alliance argument is similarly unconvincing. By WWI standards, ALL powerful states are allied with one another.

"Unstable alliance system" in WWI terms meant that there were six or so great powers, and each one wanted to ally with a few others to keep up the balance of power (high school history). "Unstable alliance system" in NATO terms means that the US is so powerful and the other powers see no reason to challenge this power militarily, so alliances are irrelevent and ambiguous. Even China spends a tiny amount of its GDP on military compared to the US.

The reason we no longer care about alliances is because we have no more enemies of comparable military power, and because if any enemy of power opposed us, nukes would prevent major military confrontation (the lesson of the cold war.) There is absolutely no comparison to WWI!

The US carries the alliances, the UN and NATO are unthinkable without the presence of America. Korea, The first Gulf War were all completely based on America's military presence. Why this will be a problem, I'll explain later.

As for anti-capitalist terrorists, again, nukes are a key component. If terrorists don't get nukes, they are irrelevent.

This I do not understand. Terrorists without nukes are irrelevant? Did we not go to war with Afghanistan because of terrorists (without nukes)?

Fact is, terrorist do matter, terrorist destabilize (and already have) the international system. Terrorists are at the moment the only way to fight the West. Terrorism target innocent people. As a reaction a targeted country will fight back, often causing the death of a lot of innocent people (see Iraq).

This creates more terrorism and more dislike towards the responding (western) country. It's a worsening process. We started with crapping on the Middle-East, they chose the way of terrorism because politics did not work (or didn't work good enough for them). They hurt us with their terrorism and we hit back, creating even more terrorism.

If they do, and they bomb a city or so, there goes a lot of money--but does it destroy globalization and capitalism? Almost certaintly not. Why would it? There are no submarines sinking ships; terrorists operate on a much more specific-target basis. Nor is there need for a huge amount of production to be moved to war-related goods, as fighting terrorists is not helped by having huge armies (as was shown by the war in Iraq).

I think you're underestimating the impact this can make on the international system, or on a country. The biggest problem I see is that you deal with every aspect separately instead of arguing with it as a whole. I'll get back to this later.

I'm not sure what his point was with Lenin comparisons, either; Lenin was neither the cause of WWI nor the one who prevented reglobalization after.

First of all, Lenin broke off the alliance with the Western Europe, making peace with Germany (and losing a lot of land and money) and by that crapping on Europe. Lenin then also started with SU, and mostly definitely didn't want to have to do anything with the West. Am I mistaken here? Was complete protectionism not very long a key aspect in the SU?

Now, a global financial crisis is entirely possible, almost probable, for the reasons this guy stated and hundreds of others have stated before him--but it won't be caused by silly things like alliances or terrorism. It may be caused by the unsustainability of American debt. And, while such a crisis might lead to a lull in globalization, it seems much more likely that it will merely lead to a reorganization and rebalance of globalization. The truth is, globalization has too much economic benefit for all participants to be abandoned by any of them.

I think you're underestimating the impact of this collapse again. And here is where (I think) I disagree with the writer. The writer claims that a financial crisis will occur because of an enormous war. I will claim that an enormous, or several relatively small wars, will occur because of the Financial crisis.

America carries alliances, prevents terrorist-bombing, prevents China from taking over Taiwan, prevents many things, because of threat that America will step up. This will end, however. America will not be able to keep this going, like the article states.

Then Robert Gilpin's theory comes to mind, who claims that instability in the International political system (in this case created by the instability in the financial system), will most probably be solved by war.

Because of the American "collapse", which is probable, America will not stay Hegemon. America will have to cut back on many things, and will probably use a protectionist policy, concentrating on internal problems.

This will give the opportunity for many things, like the downfall of instable alliances, terrorist-bombings and even the use of nukes, (terrorists the West created themselves), maybe even the conquering of Taiwan. This will create an opportunity for many disruptions, probably even wars.

There are many theories that state that during the period that the hegemon "collapses" or "disappears" and new powers try to become hegemon, there is much more chance on wars.

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 09:27 AM

I could dissect the rest of this guy's almost juvenile argument piece by piece

Not a very nice thing to say about a Harvard Professor ;)

Edit: I'll be right back to respond on Sayter.

the bird

02-15-2006, 10:06 AM

dang that is way to much for me to read right now. i will read it tonight. i love history :). it sucks since i'm at school working on a big time english project.

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 11:39 AM

an interesting essay, though I am with Realist completely.
However, I do think that our global reality is slowly crumbling around us. There are simply too many factors contributing to the growing problems, and (sorrt to say it) the issues between america and the muslim nations are the heart of it.

Now we have Iran potentially building nukes, Palestine flat out refusing to create a logical government which will certainly not help their position on the world stage...plus the current crises in Iraq. There are countless other factors, but I suspect that in the end it will become some blood-soaked drama in which few of us have any ability to contribute towards a peaceful resolution.

I agree, and this has a very good chance of escalating when the international financial system collapses due to reasons described above.

And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in the next ten years...maybe less. I won't go into essay length discussion since this horse has already been flogged to death and anyone reading through this entire post so far likely already is aware of the issues at hand.

One thing I find humorous though (and no offense to non-fundamentalist muslims here) is the muslim nations reactions to a few cartoons in a newspaper. We have mass chaos and carnage all over the world, massive protests and even a "rival" contest to see who can make jokes or cartoons abotu the freakin holocaust that are "funniest". The fundamentalist reaction is , in my view, simply an attempt to push their own agenda on the rest of the world.
And they somehow think it serves them WELL to behave in this manner. Yes, the world clearly will think more of your holy prophet if you blow even MORE stuff up over silly cartoons.
And what kind of buffoon thinks its even in the slightest "good taste" to challenge people to make holocaust cartoons? We are talking about the mockery of millions of dead people who were tortured and played with before their untimely demise at the hands of a brutal regime that had absolutely no right to do what they did.
Now, its not exactly "okay" to mock a holy figure either. But ive seen the cartoons. They really werent THAT bad. Had they depicted mohommad raping a horde of schoolchildren while singing the macarena...that i could see being a problem. OVerreaction, anyone?
IF world war 3 began over a few cartoons, wouldnt that just beat all?

All in all, a very good post topic however. Anyone have differing opinions on the middleeast/western conflict or the "cartoon dilemma"?

Though there is a separate thread for the Denmark-Dilemma (by Office_Shredder), I'll respond briefly to it.

It's not so much that the cartoons are the direct reason for recent demonstrations and violence. It's more the attitude the West shows Middle-East, in their opinion. (I guess they generalize just as much as we do).
The cartoons are very offensive to Muslims, so when ambassadors in Denmark asked the Prime-Minister for an explanation and the Prime-Minister ignored this request several times, things escalated.
The Ambassadors reported back to the Middle-East, and politicians started rallying the people to show their dislike towards the attitude of the West.

It was more ANOTHER event where the West "disrespects" the Middle-East, this is what triggered most demonstrating muslims, not just the cartoons.

.Vash.

02-15-2006, 01:04 PM

I have noticed something as of late, can someone please answer why everyone is talking about world war 3?

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 01:09 PM

Uhm, there is another thread about World War 3? You might showing it to me?

Or are you talking about people in real life? I actually don't hear much about a possible World War 3.

.Vash.

02-15-2006, 01:12 PM

Im talking about real life, I mean alot of people I talk to are talking about world war 3 for some odd reason, I understand it was a very important war, but it has been comeing up alot I suppose becuase of the war now. idk....

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 01:17 PM

You think World War 3 was a very important war?

Interesting.

.Vash.

02-15-2006, 01:21 PM

Well I think all the wars have been important they have all helped in one way or another.

sayter

02-15-2006, 01:23 PM

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 01:34 PM

Well I think all the wars have been important they have all helped in one way or another.

There hasn't been a World War 3 yet, Vash.

.Vash.

02-15-2006, 01:36 PM

Ok then maybe I was thinking of world war 2? But if there was a world war 3, we would win, I think america has really shown that they can come from no where and win a war.

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 01:41 PM

interesting poitn ackhead

however, im not giving a free-pass to the West for theirr attitude towards muslim nations.

What I am saying is it is cause and effect. They take thigns to the extreme, these fundies, while the other muslims say "dude, its rude , those cartoons, but RELAX" , and the fundies woudl rather burrn things down and explode innocents :) Which certainly does NOTHIGN to IMPROVE their position on the world map

And that's a problem I think.

We constantly ask them to adjust to our habits, to our culture, while we're the ones messing with theirs.

They feel we need to adjust to them, but that's rather hard for us to understand since we always played boss and everyone always adjusted to us.

EatMine

02-15-2006, 01:57 PM

Interesting article, of course it is kept simplistic. The author imo just wants to make this point:
"it's worth keeping in mind" that there ARE some similarities today in comparison to the WWI-scenario.
You know, "learning lessons of the past"-stuff ...

I don't agree with some of what was said here:
Realist: Great powers absolutely cannot fight anymore due to muturally assured destruction.
Wack: nukes will not be used
O_S: If you threaten to use nukes, you have the whole world turned against you.Good, i feel really safe now, when three 20-year-old kids agree on this :)
Nah, seriously, nobody knows that and as long as these weapons exist, all it needs for the nuke is a single misdirected mind to push the button. With more and more countries having access to this button, imo the chance increases, not decreases ...
And by the way, if the whole world is already against you, what do you have to lose?

Just because people before WWI didn't see what was coming doesn't mean that we today don't have valid and correct reasons to not see a WWIII coming.Sorry, but that's too smart. E.g. nobody saw 9/11 coming and look what impact it had on the world. NOBODY wants a war, that's why it is inherent in them that nobody sees them coming ...

... muslim nations ...
Sorry, don't take it personal, but i won't go into details on how your view on this is completely biased ...

About the article:
There is a lot of stuff which i'd like to comment, but for now i'll start with this:
the classically Marxist assertion that the war in Iraq was motivated by capitalist economic interestsI don't consider myself being a marxist, so somebody please enlighten me: what was the "real" reason for this war?

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 02:04 PM

I don't consider myself being a marxist, so somebody please enlighten me: what was the "real" reason for this war?

One of the things nobody knows except for a certain selection of people, I think.

I've heard reasons going from freeing the people of Iraq to Bush junior taking revenge on Iraq for his father, and from Oil interest to Political move to get re-elected (since apparently no American president ever lost an election during a war) from finding WMDs to hunting down Terrorists, Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

Anyone else knows other reasons?

Warcow

02-15-2006, 02:17 PM

Ok then maybe I was thinking of world war 2? But if there was a world war 3, we would win, I think america has really shown that they can come from no where and win a war.

Actually . . . The U.S. got wtfpwnzored in Vietnam. If World war III (If there is one) involves geurilla warfare, the organized army will invevitably lose. You can't beat geurilla warfare.

Office_Shredder

02-15-2006, 03:22 PM

Actually . . . The U.S. got wtfpwnzored in Vietnam. If World war III (If there is one) involves geurilla warfare, the organized army will invevitably lose. You can't beat geurilla warfare.

If WWIII involves guerilla warfare, it's not WWIII. Guerilla warfare is only useful in forcing an occupying an army out of territory, not claiming territory yourself. Not exactly a global conflict.

Nah, seriously, nobody knows that and as long as these weapons exist, all it needs for the nuke is a single misdirected mind to push the button. With more and more countries having access to this button, imo the chance increases, not decreases ...
And by the way, if the whole world is already against you, what do you have to lose?

All it takes is a single misdirected mind? The only people who would use nukes are terrorists or revolutionists... any leader in power wants to stay in power. You can't do that when you and your nation get blown up. Besides, even if the whole world is against you, they still won't invade your nation, because you have nukes that you can use. Again, a stalemate.

Not a very nice thing to say about a Harvard Professor

This is disappointing coming from a Harvard professor

If a huge war comes up, America won't have to worry about whether it can afford it. We'll just default on our international debt (we're fighting you, why would we keep paying you money? :rolleyes: ), and start cracking on building weapons. THAT'S the real problem. America's manufacturing base has given way to more innovative corporations, involved in telecommunications and biotech industry. This means that mass production becomes impossible, despite large quantities of money that could be spent on it.

Agreed. That, and anyone dumb enough to get CHINA on their ass has issues. The sheer enormity of their infantry groudn forces would overwhelm most civilzed nations. Heck, america coudl invade and be utterly unsuccessful on the ground war simple due to advantage of numbers.

If America invaded China, it wouldn't be on the ground war. We'd just bomb the shit out of them and wait for them to surrender. My dad once pointed out why America doesn't need a large ground force: why do you need soldiers when nobody can reach you? We can take China on the sea and in the air (in fact, this has been explicit military policy for the past decade+), so we don't need to worry about troop superiority. Unfortunately for Korea, though, they happen to be right next door

But their economy might suffer. True. Most of their income comes from import/export and war would choke those supply lines off more or less indefinitely (at least to the east, and western trade routes would likely suffer through western asia. Air traffic would be severely limited due to the whole "rocket launchers and SAMS + airplane= uh oh thing).

I think you missed it. China's economy is great because it buys up US debt, and keeps their currency undervalued. In the case of a war, the US would probably just default on their debt, the Chinese currency would inflate like a hot air balloon, and they would have a severe economic crisis on their hands.

The real question is, in the event of War, would China care about the financial burden? Lord knows the US doesnt.

If it came right down to it, no. But they would rather hold war off for a while until their economy can stand toe to toe with the US's.

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 03:30 PM

.All it takes is a single misdirected mind? The only people who would use nukes are terrorists or revolutionists...

Of who we got plenty nowadays and will have even more after the international system breaking down.

Office_Shredder

02-15-2006, 03:34 PM

Of who we got plenty nowadays and will have even more after the international system breaking down.

How are they going to get one? Besides, even the major terror organizations probably know that nuking a city would lose them a lot of the more moderate support they currently have. Because I'll be damned if everyone wouldn't realize that America just got a reason to kick some serious ass all over the world

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 03:38 PM

How are terrorists going to get one? I don't think that's an unthinkable scenario actually. (Besides, don't you watch movies! They've come so close so many times!!)

Anyway, you must understand that allthough America kicks ass right now, it won't be able to keep that up. Read the article, many professors and intellectuals agree that America is going to have some serious problems. These problems might even be worse for other countries. Read my last post what that could mean for the World.

EatMine

02-15-2006, 03:47 PM

If America invaded China, it wouldn't be on the ground war. We'd just bomb the shit out of them and wait for them to surrender.Ah, ok, i see. So China would patiently wait for the ships to come and bomb them and NOT use their HUGE (nuclear) armory :rolleyes:
You're saying it yourself: America CAN'T invade China - because of troop superiority! And then you say nobody would use nuclear weapons? Kinda contradictory, isn't it?

China's economy is great because it buys up US debt, and keeps their currency undervalued. In the case of a war, the US would probably just default on their debt, the Chinese currency would inflate like a hot air balloon, and they would have a severe economic crisis on their hands.Hehe, i suggest you stay with math, not economics ;) China's economy is great because they have masses of people who buy lots of stuff - they are in no way dependent on American money ... it's the other way round like stated in the article

Office_Shredder

02-15-2006, 03:56 PM

Ah, ok, i see. So China would patiently wait for the ships to come and bomb them and NOT use their HUGE (nuclear) armory :rolleyes:
You're saying it yourself: America CAN'T invade China - because of troop superiority! And then you say nobody would use nuclear weapons? Kinda contradictory, isn't it?

American can't win a land war.... but America doesn't need to. America has better ways to win the war (like through the air and sea)

China wouldn't use its nuclear armory because of MAD. We've already discussed this I think... maybe some idiot small time dictator MIIIIIIGGGHHT use a nuke, but not China. WAAY too much to lose there.

Hehe, i suggest you stay with math, not economics ;) China's economy is great because they have masses of people who buy lots of stuff - they are in no way dependent on American money ... it's the other way round like stated in the article

China's economy is great because they have lots of people to buy stuff, and they practically ban importing stuff to China (or at least they did awhile ago... they can afford to loosen the rules now that so much is manufactured there). They ARE dependent on American money, and intentionally buy our debt to keep their currency low. America is also dependent on China to keep our currency strong, because China buys our debt. Essentially, we export stability to China. If this ends, America would just default on all debt, which would suck for everyone, but China's currency would fluctuate a lot, which is also not at all good. Like I said, China needs to wait for its economy to finish growing, so their currency stabilizes on its own.

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 03:58 PM

China's economy is great because they have lots of people to buy stuff, and they practically ban importing stuff to China (or at least they did awhile ago... they can afford to loosen the rules now that so much is manufactured there). They ARE dependent on American money, and intentionally buy our debt to keep their currency low. America is also dependent on China to keep our currency strong, because China buys our debt. Essentially, we export stability to China. If this ends, America would just default on all debt, which would suck for everyone, but China's currency would fluctuate a lot, which is also not at all good. Like I said, China needs to wait for its economy to finish growing, so their currency stabilizes on its own.

How exactly would this not contribute to increasing international instability, creating many, many problems like invading Taiwan?

Office_Shredder

02-15-2006, 04:02 PM

How exactly would this not contribute to increasing international instability, creating many, many problems like invading Taiwan?

Because neither side can afford to piss off the other side

WaCk-HeAd

02-15-2006, 04:04 PM

Because neither side can afford to piss off the other side

It's not always up to whether they want to or not

sayter

02-16-2006, 06:55 AM

Office_Shredder:

Great point about the ground war with China. The problem is, that no war is won without infantry. I doubt this policy will change anytime soon. While the US has a definite tech advantage, the sheer number of people in china would pose a problem. This is the same of any major power, however, but China simply has the advantage of numbers.

CRATER

02-16-2006, 09:41 AM

All this talk about military might and yet the real issue at hand is missing.

Money. That’s what is the key interest in all of this.

The western world is bent on capitalistic domination and consumerism and when those things are touched it starts to break down.

Example 1 – 9/11 brought the world market to their knees and people lost a lot of money.
The article also goes on to explain the post-event cost to the US in their retaliation.

Example 2 – Hurricane Katrina landed in the midst of the US’s Oil hub which created a public panic when prices started to soar.

Now put example 1 and 2 together and add a sustained presents of such events and you have the destabilization of an entire country and its partner countries.

In a society where money is the focus and the standard on which it is founded, taking away that security is all that is needed to make it obsolete.

Take what the article said about the Mid-east oil rich countries not surviving the next decade (possibly meaning increased oil prices), unrest in Iraq, Israel/Palestinian conflict,
“rogue” nations with nuclear capability and the US’s growing deficit and the bleak out look of not a world war, but, targeted decapitation of specific countries looks inevitable.

Military intervention will prove useless against this sort of attack but will play a major role in instigating further attacks.

sayter

02-16-2006, 10:59 AM

Crater: abso-freakin-lutely :) nuff said.

Hoolwath

02-16-2006, 11:03 AM

Haha, many people here are horribly wrong and Vash horribly funny and redundant in this thread. You view WWI as UNEXPECTED and you think that U.S. had a lot to do with it?! World wars are my secret love. I know terrible stuff about both of them and I prefer discussing WWII more nowadays. Well, lets go back to the past.

Everyone expected the WorldW I to start, it was only a matter of time. And "when" was more of a question. When Germany had enough of waiting, they even made it erupt and provoked other states.

What was the main reason of the start of WW I and the reason by every non-layman expected it to come was the fact that 2 large blocs were created beforehand.

1879- Germany + Austria-Hungarian empire (I dunno how english-speakers call it)
1882- Italy joined them. That is the year when the Associaton of Three (or whatever you call it) was created.

As an opposition:

1892- France + Russia made an agreement.
1904- France + Great Britain made a cordial agreemnet (or whatever you all it)
1907- Russia + Breat Britain. The year when the Agreement of three was created.

The goals of the powers:

Germany- Second most developed country of the world (after US). They wanted new colonies, even those which were taken, they wanted to control whole Europe and they wanted expansionary politics. Some of these goals were clear right after the unification of Germany in 1871

Great Britain- They did not want to expand. They wanted to keep their colonies(mainly in asia) and the Hegemony of the seas. The were untouchables on the sea. (The hegemony could be seen from the past, thanks to Nelson and no lost fight against Napoleon and stuff.)

France- They wanted to keep their colonies(mainly in Africa, although Germans wanted them too(Morocco)). They wanted Alsasia and Lotrinia.

Russia- They wanted to occupy strategical points like strait of Bospor and Dardaneli and strenghten their influence in close east.

Austria-Hungary-Weakest power, lot of problems inside the state. They wanted the Balkans only.

It was The Balkans were it was boiling. The Balkans wars and the fact that Germany wanted Balkans first helped it a lot.

And this is how the war started:
Wilhelm the second - emperor of Germany said that they are ready for a war. The sooner it starts the bigger chance to win they have. That was on the turn of the centuries. He started looking for a pretext(cover), because he did not want to look as the aggressor - Not all poloticians state agreed on the commence of the war and he was affraid of the opinion of the public. So he had to wait.

It was the June 1914 when he could not take it anymore. He thought that the manoeuvres(the were trying out their guns and marching) of his(and A-H's) army on border between A-H and Serbia(A-H already annexed Bosnia in 1908) the will provoke them. It did not help.

Luckily, the successor of Wilhelm, F.F D' Este was on a festive tour of Sarajevo (Bosnia's capital) and he was killed there by a member of two organisations- Young Bosnia(Bosnian organization) and Black Hand(SERBIAN organization). His name was Gavrilo Princip - VEERY FUNNY STORY how he wanted to kill him! (In short: Two groups were to kill him. His car did not go through the road they expected it would go and grenades bombed for nothing, so Gavrilo ran a bloc and killed his wife(who was found to be pregnant) and D'Este with his gun. He then tried to shoot himself, but they took the gun away from him, so then he wanted to swallow a pill that would kill him, but the pill was too old and did not work. He wanted to kill the guy because he had a disease and would die anyway, but since he did not kill himself, he died in a painful death in Terezin.) Thats how most of the assassinations worked back then.

Since he was a member of Black Hand - Serbian organization - they took it as an exuse and gave Serbia a long ultimatum of demands. They gretified all of them except from one: They did not want to allow A-H let their policemen to investigate - That was something horrible back then and would cause them to lose their suverenity - although they said that their policemen will investigate it.

That was not enough for A-H and Germany, so a month after the assassination - 28.7. 1914 German and A-H's army crossed Serbian Borders, Since russian soldiers were on the borders, 1.8 1914 declared a war with Russia 3.8. France and 4.8. GB declared war on(or with? dunno now) Germany, becuase they did not attack France through their own border (because there was the best defence in those times (Maginots line or something)).

THAT IS HOW THE WAR STARTED! NOTHING DIFFERENT!

USA came in to the war in 1917, because of the German's attack on Luisithania. USA was the country which prospered the most from the war and wanted to make WW II the same bussiness after it started, because they were seceretly smuggling weapons to GB and France. When Germany found out what are they doing, they said they will bomb every US ship which does that. So USA started to smuggle weapons on the ships which should carry passengers. And when they found out again, and noticed Luisithania - a huge ship for passangers, they thought they are smuggling weapons again. And they were right as the researches proved recently. Luisthania could not be send to the bottom of the sea that easily(just by one torpedo), it was the weapons inside that exploded and sent the ship down. USA took that as an excue and help France on their front.

Connection between WW I and WW III:

Where can you see the two massive blocs? USA against all of the world? There are about 40 states who are known to have an A-Bomb. Hell, even India has one. USA would lose that for sure.

That is the main point, who would fight in the World War and against whom? If USA would stop every power who wants to commence a war on their own and USA itself would lose if they had no allie. Currently there are no power-thirsty leaders, maybe with an exception of Castro :bigsmile:.

I do not have time now, I will get to ya later. I must admit, I have not read the whole article. I skimmed through it and agreed on almost nothing.

_Thunder_

02-16-2006, 11:07 AM

Oogady Boogady Digger!

Hoolwath

02-16-2006, 11:14 AM

Ok then maybe I was thinking of world war 2? But if there was a world war 3, we would win, I think america has really shown that they can come from no where and win a war.

Come from no where and win a war? Hahahahahaha

What war are you talking about. Vietnam? WW II?

Vietnam... Yea Americans have nightmares because of it, because they just came there and shot all the Vietnam asses, right? Do you read and watch films?

WW II... That was definitely not from "no where" and they did not "win the war". The Japan-USA was just one of the fronts. It was not from no where, because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Only 2 ships escaped that massacre. So the dropped two A-Bombs on Japan (Hirosima, Nagasaki. One from Uranus and the second one from Plutonium.)I dont have time to talk about ti now. Their help in Europe was not that huge and they had big words only because they were the only ones to have the A-Bomb, which they had tried in Nevada, 2 days before a conference where they did not want to discuss, they just said what they wanted and showed videos of what can A-Bomb do. Their only help was the debarkation in Normandy and that was a massacre because they did not plan it correctly, although it was the breaking point, Germany could have fought it off easily though, thanks to Romel one of the greatest German generals. Hitler was asleep when the action happened. :)

sayter

02-16-2006, 11:16 AM

Castro is power hungry? Hardly. He has enough issues governing his own nation with the current trade embargo palced against them from the states. Due to close proximity this has been an issue since the missile crisis and the ensuing political strife between the two powers.

I would consider Kwai of korea to be vastly more power-hungry. As well as George Bush, Steven Harper, and to an extent, numerous other nations. But not Cuba. Seriously.....

your other data is interesting , however. Goes to show how differently "history" is taught in different nations. I shall have to research some of this data myself sometime.

Office_Shredder

02-16-2006, 12:10 PM

Where can you see the two massive blocs? USA against all of the world? There are about 40 states who are known to have an A-Bomb. Hell, even India has one. USA would lose that for sure.

America has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined.... no problems there

That is the main point, who would fight in the World War and against whom? If USA would stop every power who wants to commence a war on their own and USA itself would lose if they had no allie. Currently there are no power-thirsty leaders, maybe with an exception of Castro :bigsmile:.

No power-thirsty leaders? What about North Korea and Iran

WW II... That was definitely not from "no where" and they did not "win the war". The Japan-USA was just one of the fronts. It was not from no where, because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Only 2 ships escaped that massacre.

I think you misunderstand the phrase "from nowhere". If a country comes out of nowhere and does something, it means that the country did something unexpected and incredibly successful... for example, beating the Japanese after they sunk your Pacific fleet. In that context, it could be considered accurate.

Their only help was the debarkation in Normandy and that was a massacre because they did not plan it correctly, although it was the breaking point, Germany could have fought it off easily though, thanks to Romel one of the greatest German generals. Hitler was asleep when the action happened.

Rommel was so great a general he lost Africa.... why would Normandy be any different? Normandy was more a finishing blow than the turning point.... before then, Rommel had already lost Africa, and forces were pushing in from the south through Sicily. Which, by the way, was as much an American force as it was a British one.

CRATER

02-16-2006, 01:14 PM

Hmmmm, it seems that what "they" say is true - History is written by the winners.

Do the technicalities of who did what really matter? Death rates were staggering on both sides, atrocities were committed by all players, human rights abuses happened in all the wars just like in the past and yet, we, as human beings, can't seem to learn from our mistakes.

Wouldn't it be better to dwell on the prevention of wars and how that works rather than getting into them and harming others?

And no, pre-emptive attacks are not prevention :mad:

So, returning to the point of this thread.
Are we at the cross roads of another major world war?

sayter

02-16-2006, 01:35 PM

I would say yes, we are at a crossroads. There are two factors here that are pushing this:

1. Politics, as always.

2. Population - We are so overpopulated in almost every nation on earth, and have had no means with which to comabt this growing problem, that it is inevitable. Either we have a global pandemic soon, or SOMETHING needs to happen to control the population. It is natures way. A few thousand deaths from a natural disaster is nothing....without MILLIONS of deaths, it means nothing.

not that I am Advocating death by millions. It would be horrible. But sadly, it is a vitual necessity for the continuation of our species. Sooner or later something has to happen to put things in check.

sayter

02-16-2006, 01:37 PM

Office Shredder: and dont forget the canadian forces efforts as well. Back then we actually HAD a military, and it was actualyl useful and did more than pass out cotton candy to children.

green97sierra

02-16-2006, 03:03 PM

Their help in Europe was not that huge
my only problem with just about anything you've said. didnt help in europe? are you saying that russia conquered the entire western front themselves? you surely aren't suggesting that the already conquered french hitched up their socks and started to help out. and i KNOW you aren't letting on that the shell-shocked britans could have a large thing to do with that whole deal either. maybe you forget about general Patton's march across... well... europe. the reason we COULD do it was simply because we were out of it for so long. should i remind you of D-day? the largest sea-to-land infiltration in history? to say that the US did not help in Europe is the same as saying that the US did not single-handedly destroy japan during WWII (ok, we had a LITTLE help, but that was McArthur's deal. no one else can claim the pacific front).

green97sierra

02-16-2006, 03:08 PM

No power-thirsty leaders? What about North Korea and Iran

yes they are power hungry, but they do not have the means with which to wage a war. very little capital, comparitavely small man-power if compared to... say... china, or even the US. and then again, even if they DID want to start getting stupid and conquering lands, where would they go? north korea invade china? yeah.. that would be as stupid as when the germans decided to piss off russa during WWII. Iran has a few placed they could go, but everyone hates them. why make them even MORE upset? i say we just blow the crap out of iran and the cradle of civilization and start over again. or make a big ocean out of it all. but then again, thats just me.

Office_Shredder

02-16-2006, 03:10 PM

even if they DID want to start getting stupid and conquering lands, where would they go? north korea invade china?

I was thinking more like south korea. Technically they're still at war

On Castro: The guy's fricking 90 or something. He's really getting too old to worry about being power hungry

green97sierra

02-16-2006, 03:19 PM

I was thinking more like south korea. Technically they're still at war
this i know... but once they take over south korea... then what? start with the atlantic ocean and see how far they can swim? their area of influcence is EXTREEMLEY small. besides, with the our and the other's ears so close to the ground and our own self-intrests in mind, we would never allow the conquering of another country by any country with the use of force. like they saying goes, the enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't know (which is why castro is still in power. we know he's nutzo, but we know he won't do anything that would suprise us and take us un-awares)

Office_Shredder

02-16-2006, 03:38 PM

this i know... but once they take over south korea... then what? start with the atlantic ocean and see how far they can swim? their area of influcence is EXTREEMLEY small. besides, with the our and the other's ears so close to the ground and our own self-intrests in mind, we would never allow the conquering of another country by any country with the use of force

Wait, what? Did you say Iraq?

If North Korea took South Korea, they could move on to Japan. Bush would probably start a jerk circle with his friends over the sudden end of Japanese equipment, leaving a hole for someone to fill withAmerican technology and get even richer

green97sierra

02-16-2006, 04:14 PM

yes, i know the japenese do not have lazer swords and impenetrable body armor thats all shiny and chrome-ish and all, but they are one of the manufacturing powerhouses of the world (just take a look at their automobile factories). i think they could quickly convert to make a tank or 25000 and just run the north koreans over. like i said, north korea doesnt have any kind of capital to start a war, whether it is financial capital or physical capital. hell, they don't even have that much HUMAN capital come to think of it. nothing cool ever came from north korea.

Office_Shredder

02-16-2006, 04:27 PM

green97sierra

02-16-2006, 04:46 PM

well, they still have evo's and wrx's. get some guys flyin' around in those with some automatic weapons pointed out the windows and they can take on any de-woo or kia that the koreans could throw at them!

Hoolwath

02-17-2006, 07:53 AM

America has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined.... no problems there

Right. Where did you get the information from? You would know that if you worked for goverments all over the world and you still would have to be specialised for that line of work. These kinds of things are not even on a paper, not even internet, so you can be as much of a haxor as you want. :) Of course, you can be a part of the misinformed public or a guy who makes the gossips himself. Rock on.

No power-thirsty leaders? What about North Korea and Iran

Well, I was talking about leaders of powers. And you have to agree that Iran is nowhere close to being a power. And North Korea... Not much of a power either... We might just have a different definition of the word "power". Oh well.

I think you misunderstand the phrase "from nowhere". If a country comes out of nowhere and does something, it means that the country did something unexpected and incredibly successful... for example, beating the Japanese after they sunk your Pacific fleet. In that context, it could be considered accurate.

I doubt I understand this completely... So you are saying, that the attack of USA on Japan was unexpected? Hmmmm. One would say, you expect your enemy to attack back when you just thrashed their Pacific fleet. I dont see USA saying: "Mr. President, Japans just completely erased our base Pearl Harbor!" President: "Oh well, whatever, anything else?"

The point here was, that Japans could decode American codes. The attack that happened 7.12. 1941... that could be called from nowhere. Japanese jets flying low enough not to be noted by the radars and attacking during the only time when US soldiers had a free while.. Sunday afternoon. That was planned and that was from nowhere. US soldiers were even warned that Japanese planes will soon destroy them, although the radars did not say so, they just did not pay any attention to it. The fleet was completely erased and they could thank god that the two huge ships survived.

Americans where smart, though. They soon realised that Japans can decode their codes, so they sent a false message and Japan fleet went for it. That is why they beat them. That was the fight for Midvay Islands

Rommel was so great a general he lost Africa.... why would Normandy be any different? Normandy was more a finishing blow than the turning point.... before then, Rommel had already lost Africa, and forces were pushing in from the south through Sicily. Which, by the way, was as much an American force as it was a British one.

You are talking about Rommel. The Africa thing was different. Yes, it was a mistake, but not Rommel's. When the things in Africa happened, Rommel was already in France, making the defence against the Allies. He was not in Africa, although he is mostly thought to be there. Notice though, the capitulation of France was on 22.6. 1940 (I think it is 22nd because that is also when Germans attacked Russia). And Rommel was called to go there right after that. The army went on, but without him and they were attacked from behind.

Normandy WAS the turning point. If Germans won the fight, they would gain more time, the war would last longer and that is what they needed. And the forces were not pushing in through Sicily, it was from Italy. They only started on Sicily and freed it first, but then used freed Italy and went on from there. Mussolini was imprisoned. Again - superb story how Hitlers overpowered 12 James Bonds saved him from there... Russians who were coming from the East already had a few close shaves and they had NO generals, hell, they had only few captians left to lead the army, after Stalin killed them all. They had huge casualties everywhere. If Germans had the time they needed, they would win the war, thanks to the new inventions. The issiles V1 and V2, which were used only for a short time before the war ended and caused huge losses in London... Those losses were the most redundant in the war. :( They had A-Bomb few days after America used it, new Tiger Tanks, new jets. Much more developed than others, they just did not have enough time to use it all. I will talk about the D-day (Normandy or also known as operation Overlord) later.

Office_Shredder

02-17-2006, 08:09 AM

Right. Where did you get the information from? You would know that if you worked for goverments all over the world and you still would have to be specialised for that line of work. These kinds of things are not even on a paper, not even internet, so you can be as much of a haxor as you want. :) Of course, you can be a part of the misinformed public or a guy who makes the gossips himself. Rock on.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9708/26/nuclear.states/

Too bad there isn't a cnn article in which they tried to make a good estimate :rolleyes:

It's an older article (from 1997), but the point is it's not impossible for people to make good guesses

Or even better:
http://umsis.miami.edu/~tking2/Final.html

"won’t really affect the United States with an estimated 8,646 nuclear warheads."

For the record, that's a lot of missles

Well, I was talking about leaders of powers. And you have to agree that Iran is nowhere close to being a power. And North Korea... Not much of a power either... We might just have a different definition of the word "power". Oh well.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm

"approximately 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks, is postured within 90 miles of the Demilitarized Zone"

The US army has a current size of 1.5 million (not entirely sure on that figure, but it's definitely not higher).

So the North Korean army isn't exactly small

I doubt I understand this completely... So you are saying, that the attack of USA on Japan was unexpected? Hmmmm. One would say, you expect your enemy to attack back when you just thrashed their Pacific fleet. I dont see USA saying: "Mr. President, Japans just completely erased our base Pearl Harbor!" President: "Oh well, whatever, anything else?"

No.... imagine a soccer game. In the first half, team A scores four goals. In the second half, team B scores six goals to win. That would be coming out of nowhere

I have to go, I'll post more later

Hoolwath

02-17-2006, 08:20 AM

my only problem with just about anything you've said. didnt help in europe? are you saying that russia conquered the entire western front themselves? you surely aren't suggesting that the already conquered french hitched up their socks and started to help out. and i KNOW you aren't letting on that the shell-shocked britans could have a large thing to do with that whole deal either. maybe you forget about general Patton's march across... well... europe. the reason we COULD do it was simply because we were out of it for so long. should i remind you of D-day? the largest sea-to-land infiltration in history? to say that the US did not help in Europe is the same as saying that the US did not single-handedly destroy japan during WWII (ok, we had a LITTLE help, but that was McArthur's deal. no one else can claim the pacific front).

Yes, they did help in Europe. It was not that huge of a help though. Russia definitely did more than USA in the WW II.

The D-day, operation Overlord, Normandy. This is what I know are facts. Maybe a small mistake in dates will happen, since I am not using notes or encyclopedy.

USA attacked along with Great Britain. They attacked from where they were not as expected, that is why Rommel (very unfortunate man, he totally missed this infiltration he flew home to congratulate his wife on her Birthday two days before) thought that it is just a small infiltration to distract the German forces. It looked bad for USA. Although it was not mined as much as the west coast, it was a minefield, more mines you could imagine, one on another, even British minesweepers had no chance against that. The first few waves were a massacre, thousands of dead USA soldiers compared to Almost none German losses. US forces were naivly debarkating behind objects they thought would serve as cover, Rommel ordered to give them there, though. Those objects, which seemed as hills were loaded with bombs. While the ships were under heavy fire from the land. British Royal Air Forces saved the US butt here, they kept bombarding the batteries. German Luftwaffe took a huge hit from RAF in this part of war. This happened on Omaha, other beaches were not as defended.

Even the date of the debarkation was messed up. Americans needed a full moon night, but the moon had to come out later than normally. The weather must have been good and only a small wind could be blowing. Army did not have exact orders when to attack and soldiers were starting to be impatient. The debarkation should start on the 4th and then on the 5th. But it did not due to the weather. 6th was the final annoucement. 6.6 1944.

And of course, it was messed up. The wind was not as good as they expected. The paratroopers (the most paratroopers were used in this war - more than 13000) should mark a place for next plane, but due to the wind, some did not, and some did but they marked bad places, not the ones they agreed on. Some of the paratroopers even survived because of that. :)

Notice. Germany took the Overlord only as a distraction from in the beggining. Rommel was asked by the generals on the west, if he wanted their tanks. He said that situation is under control and he said he does not need them. That was a mistake, Normandy would be a failure if he said yes to the back-up.

Rommel thought that two divisions of tanks, which were saved for the EXPECTED attack already left bases and were on their way to the beaches, Germans, since they thought it is just a distraction, did not send them. That is why they lost in the end. When Rommel saw they are going to lose he even tried to assasinate Hitler. VERY FUNNY STORY! ( again)

The suitcase with the bomb was near Hitler, Himler and Goebels (Hess was dead already) but a soldier moved the suitcase under the middle of the table which was a HUGE wooden table 30cms thick. And the windows were left open in the room. So all it did was, that it burned their trousers and the pieces of the table killed few unknown soldiers.

I have to go now, I will check the thread later.

Oh and yea, I think that you can say that USA defeated Japan on their own (the help from Russia was just a cent). But all the Japan did in WW II was, that they destroyed Pearl Harbor and took over Thai, Korea and most of the islands in pacific. Nothing huge. :)

Gah O_S! I dont have time to reply now. Just noticed your post. Be back later.

green97sierra

02-17-2006, 02:23 PM

still insisting that the US did not do much in Europe
hey jackass, how do you think the pincer movement worked? russia didn't exactly out-flank the entire german army by an entire CONTINENT!!! it was the united states that decided to come in from the west, after over-taking the beaches of normandy, that closed in that half of the front. if you think the russians could have defeated the germans on their own, you are sadly mistaken.

the fact that the russians were as successful as they were is that their country is they practiced a form of warfare called "stripped earth" or something like that. the germans were beating the crap out of them, and they knew it. so, just like when naopleon was trying to conquer the world, the russians retreated into their country. but they didn't just run, they took EVERYTHING with them, leaving no resource behind. the german supply lines couldnt reach the troops that were too far into enemy territory and the froze thier little toes-ies off in the russian winter, just like what happened with napoleon's troops. that, if nothing else, should be known by anybody who wants to invade russia. DONT DO IT DURING THE WINTER! YOU'LL DIE!

i will place any wager on this that i have. my car, my job, my life, my family, ect. if it were not for the United States' stepping up in Europe during WWII, a few things would have happened. A) most of europe and northern africa would be speaking german. this includes france, spain, portugal, italy (because you can only let your allies down once during war-time and get away with it), poland, and a large chunk of russia, but not all of it because it's so god damn big. B) the cultural genocide of Europe would have escalated to catostrophic proportions. this includes the destruction of muslims, jews, gypsies, black/african people in mainly 'white' populated areas, i mean hell, the nazi's hated EVERYBODY.

all of that probalby would have happened if japan would have just left us alone. it would have been bad, but at the time we were worried about the depression and an incredibly declining economy. we couldn't be bothered with things happeneing thousands of miles away on the other side of an ocean. But when japan got dumb, we proved yet again that, when our military leaders are left to fight their own fight and the dumbass politicians stay the hell out of their way, we can defeat anybody, even on their own soil.

yes, i realize we never invaded japan, but that was because of the japanese troops mindset. they would not surrender. they would not quit. they would do whatever it took to ensure that their family would not be disgraced by their cowerdence (kamakazee anybody?). knowing this, and wanting to ensure as little american casualties as possible, we just blew the crap out of them and called it a day. after having your two biggest war-producing citys wiped off of the face of the planet, i'm sure you would have made the same deciscion. that's what the US was banking on.

Hoolwath

02-17-2006, 04:25 PM

hey jackass, how do you think the pincer movement worked? russia didn't exactly out-flank the entire german army by an entire CONTINENT!!! it was the united states that decided to come in from the west, after over-taking the beaches of normandy, that closed in that half of the front. if you think the russians could have defeated the germans on their own, you are sadly mistaken.

We definitely are not on the subject of the thread now, but I like this conversation. By reading your last post, I do not think you understand Russia in the WW II as much. I already said, it was the turning point of the war, but they did not WIN the war. They helped, though. And I think that Europe would indeed defeat Germany by themselves, if USA did not exist.

the fact that the russians were as successful as they were is that their country is they practiced a form of warfare called "stripped earth" or something like that. the germans were beating the crap out of them, and they knew it. so, just like when naopleon was trying to conquer the world, the russians retreated into their country. but they didn't just run, they took EVERYTHING with them, leaving no resource behind. the german supply lines couldnt reach the troops that were too far into enemy territory and the froze thier little toes-ies off in the russian winter, just like what happened with napoleon's troops. that, if nothing else, should be known by anybody who wants to invade russia. DONT DO IT DURING THE WINTER! YOU'LL DIE!

Yes, in the times of Napoleon, they did retreat and took everything with them, not in WW II, though. The fact is, that Russia did not expect German to attack, because of he pact of non-fighting(or whatever you call that in USA) on 23.8 1939. Ribbentrop and Molotov signed it and Russians thought they do not need to worry about Germany.

One thing I really do not understand. Hitler wrote a book called "Mein Kampf". He wrote an EXACT STRATEGY of how he will take over the world. First, tidy up in Europe, then Russia, then Australia and Asia and then attack USA from both sides.

And Russians still did not expect them to attack. And when they did attack, it was from three points. Note, Russians were not even ready for a war and Germany sent in 152 divisions. There was nothing they could do. The problem was they had no generals or leaders of the army. Stalin kept sending people to Hitler, telling him that he can take the Baltic states and Finland. Hitler did not react, he wanted the whole Russia. At first he was doing 100-150 kms a day. That was horrible tempo. Russians had no time to take everything with them. They simply died and died. And the people of Russia knew it was bad with the state. And they helped a lot. Every boy from TEN YEARS to nearly SIXTY enlisted. And they were the first Kamikaze people, although they did not call themseves like that. They screamed "For Stalin" or "For mother Russia" and threw themselves under German tanks one by one. Awesome. This happened on the front near Moscow. Everything was in the bet. They were fighting 40kms infront of Moscow, they knew they could not lose. I think it was on 8.12.1941 when Hitler gave his first announcement to retreat here. They were winning from then on.

Leningrad was a bit worse, they had a 900 days blocade and they even ate themselves, when they ate all the dogs. Only 200000 out of 3000000 people survived and died shortly. Quite depressing.

AND IT WAS STALINGRAD that was the strategical point. If Russia lost Stalingrad, they would lose all of their Oil and coal and resources in general. That was the turning point. Hitler did not allow his army to fall back. Pavlov was another great general and he was leading it. Since they could not fall back, Russians attacked them from two sides and captured 300000 men. From then on, Russians were winning on all fronts, they freed themselves and they started with freeing the Europe.

i will place any wager on this that i have. my car, my job, my life, my family, ect. if it were not for the United States' stepping up in Europe during WWII, a few things would have happened. A) most of europe and northern africa would be speaking german. this includes france, spain, portugal, italy (because you can only let your allies down once during war-time and get away with it), poland, and a large chunk of russia, but not all of it because it's so god damn big. B) the cultural genocide of Europe would have escalated to catostrophic proportions. this includes the destruction of muslims, jews, gypsies, black/african people in mainly 'white' populated areas, i mean hell, the nazi's hated EVERYBODY.

I already mentioned why I disagree. If it was not for USA, Germans would not have thought of the A-Bomb. Russians were still strong, Great Britain was undefeatable. And even if they did defeat them all. America would be speaking German too. :)

all of that probalby would have happened if japan would have just left us alone. it would have been bad, but at the time we were worried about the depression and an incredibly declining economy. we couldn't be bothered with things happeneing thousands of miles away on the other side of an ocean. But when japan got dumb, we proved yet again that, when our military leaders are left to fight their own fight and the dumbass politicians stay the hell out of their way, we can defeat anybody, even on their own soil

If that was true, America would not have signed the Atlantic charter. That is how they got in the war. This is how they got in the war. It happened 14.8. 1941 and the attack on Pearl Harbor was on 7.12 1941. They promised weapons and economic help to Russia and Great Britain. Thats why Japan attacked.

I agree with the last paragraph, almost completely. I doubt Japan would have surrendered if German and Italy were still in bussiness. The Little Boy and the other bomb were shot at Japan on 6.8 1945 and 9.8. 1945. Japans surrendered MONTH after that 2.9. 1945.

Hoolwath

02-17-2006, 04:42 PM

http://www.cnn.com/US/9708/26/nuclear.states/

Too bad there isn't a cnn article in which they tried to make a good estimate :rolleyes:

It's an older article (from 1997), but the point is it's not impossible for people to make good guesses

Or even better:
http://umsis.miami.edu/~tking2/Final.html

"won’t really affect the United States with an estimated 8,646 nuclear warheads."

For the record, that's a lot of missles

I do not have enough time and will to read the first article. What I know is, that anyone who is not specialised for the esact amount of fire power will get to the information. So US CNN can guess whatever they want.

And the second article mentioned US gear only, not gear of Germany, England, France, Spain, Italy, Iran, Pakistan, India, Japan or China. Trust me, all of these powers fire power combined would exceed USA by a lot.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm

"approximately 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks, is postured within 90 miles of the Demilitarized Zone"

The US army has a current size of 1.5 million (not entirely sure on that figure, but it's definitely not higher).

So the North Korean army isn't exactly small

That is an average compared to European countries. And the problem of North Korea is, that they are small in a continental way. Couple of bombs would cover all of its surface and would, therefore, most of the weapons and army before usage

No.... imagine a soccer game. In the first half, team A scores four goals. In the second half, team B scores six goals to win. That would be coming out of nowhere

I have to go, I'll post more later

Japan did not score 4 gouls, maybe one or one and half. And USA did not have enough time to score more than 3 goals in the second half.

The loss of Pearl Harbor was not that much of a loss. I am quite mad at the film, it made it look how it did not really happen. Eventhough some of the US fleet was destroyed, it was only a small amount of what they had together.

Germans who survived the Overlord remember how they looked on one side of the sea and saw unendind line of ships, looked at other side to see the same, and thaw was only the Vanguard. :cool:

green97sierra

02-17-2006, 11:43 PM

did you really say that britian was strong in WWII? after the germand conquered france, they proceded to bomb the crap out of england. thats why i reffered to them as the shell shocked brit's. even ask bottle. i GUARENTEE you that he'll agree with me on this one. i am not saying that churchill wasnt an influenece and an impact. i am not sayin that once they got their footholds in the ground that the brit's didnt kick much ass. what i am sayin is that no one expected a complete radical to not only take complete control of an entire nation and their army, but that same radical to begin taking over the world in the world of the 1940's. emperialism was at it's decline, and everything was beginning to settle down. then germany gets all crazy, takes poland, france, and other various european countries before britan can bat an eyelash, then launches a DEVESTATING air-attack across the english channel that left the brit's dumbfounded. once the U.S. had the germans attention diverted, the brit's then could get their feet on the ground to step up and help.

and... HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR WASN'T DEVASTATING!!!! the japanese managed to destroy/damage nearly beyond repair about 98% of every single U.S. gun-ship in existance. not just one or two, but nearly ALL of them. our only saving grace was the fact that the cruisers were out on war-game menauvers. then the americans did what we do best once push comes to shove. we used what he had and developed a very effective way of using our forces.

S_K_O_F

02-17-2006, 11:54 PM

America has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined.... no problems there

Um...I don't know who told you this, but it isn't close to being true. Russia actually has more nukes than the rest of the world combined. Somewhere around 22,000 warheads. The US has around 14,000 warheads.

Now, is Russia capable of launching all of their arsenal? Maybe, Maybe not. It is a known fact, though, that Russia was trying to disassemble a part of its Nuclear arsenal, but does not have the funding to do so. The US has actually provided money to Russia to help them get rid of some of their Nukes. At the peak of the Cold War, Russia actually had closer to 28,000 warheads and we were closer to 20,000.

green97sierra

02-17-2006, 11:59 PM

what would you need over... 100 nukes for? and that IS taking into consideration that 50 of them might mal-function, which is a WAY high defect rate. i mean.. you can only blow something up so many times till you get to the point where you're only turning rubble into more rubble...

S_K_O_F

02-18-2006, 12:02 AM

green97sierra

02-18-2006, 12:05 AM

even if i has 2352435264 nukes and someone else had 23423 nukes, its still a STUPID amount of unneccisary ka-blewy things. one of my favorite quotes out of a movie.

from the peacemaker, "I'm not afraid of the man who has 10 nukes. No, I'm terrified of the man who only want's one."

Office_Shredder

02-18-2006, 12:06 AM

And the second article mentioned US gear only, not gear of Germany, England, France, Spain, Italy, Iran, Pakistan, India, Japan or China. Trust me, all of these powers fire power combined would exceed USA by a lot.

A small problem. Germany, Spain, Italy, and Japan don't have nuclear weapons. Iran, Pakistan and India definitely don't have more than one hundred (we don't even know if Iran has one). Other than that, I suppose you could be right :rolleyes:

SKOF, I checked, and your numbers are a bit high, but essentially you're right. My bad.

Wikipedia comes in handy here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

I agree with the last paragraph, almost completely. I doubt Japan would have surrendered if German and Italy were still in bussiness. The Little Boy and the other bomb were shot at Japan on 6.8 1945 and 9.8. 1945. Japans surrendered MONTH after that 2.9. 1945.

If Germany was still in the war, it would have been nuked first. In fact, based on the pilot's training program it has been theorized by some that the military was preparing them for a bombing run on Germany if the bomb was ready by then

They had A-Bomb few days after America used it, new Tiger Tanks, new jets. Much more developed than others, they just did not have enough time to use it all. I will talk about the D-day (Normandy or also known as operation Overlord) later.

Shows a blatant lack of information on a critical part of the war. Germany had actually abandoned its atomic weapons program, and was nowhere near actually building an atomic bomb. Additionally, Hitler had already hamstringed his own air force in his outrage over the bombing of German cities... instead of building powerful jet fighters capable of retaking the skies, he had them all converted to bombers, which were mostly useless for the actual war

what would you need over... 100 nukes for? and that IS taking into consideration that 50 of them might mal-function, which is a WAY high defect rate. i mean.. you can only blow something up so many times till you get to the point where you're only turning rubble into more rubble...

Two reasons:
A.) Breaking a missle defense shield. Missle defense shields, even today, are not capable of stopping over 10,000 missles at the same time.

B.) Sabotage. If you have 100 missles, you don't want 90 of them being destroyed by covert operatives from an enemy nation. 10 missiles isn't enough to defend against all possible threats