Are events leading to WWII a parallel to events leading to a WWIII ?

But it won't be a long war, it will be the quickest of all the world wars. Sadly it could be a limited nuclear war, as in 1 major city from each side gets hit.

Lets look at the history of Nazi Germany before WWII broke out. Aggressive leader annexing and invading countries that he feels are naturally his. On 7 March 1936, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, German troops marched into the Rhineland and other regions along the Rhine. German territory west of the Rhine had been off limits to the German military. This was the first of the aggressive military actions of Nazi Germany; Britain and France did not respond militarily, but moved toward appeasement.
Prior to the outbreak of World War 2:The Sudeten region(s) of Czechoslovakia (38)Austria (38) The rest of Bohemia and Moravia (39)

Poland was the line in the sand, when that was crossed, the powers of Europe said enough and WWII began.

So now we see Russia behaving the exact same way as Nazi Germany did with a bold leader. The West also has a line in the sand, which I believe to be Nato countries, no matter how small. If Putin attacks one of these it will be like when Hitler invaded Poland. I believe Georgia and now the Ukraine to Russia to be like Austria and the Rhineland was to Germany.
If Putin is just smart enough he won't cross that line, but if he gains victories, it might just embolden him to try to take back countries that are part of Nato now. And then that line will be crossed, and I personally believe Russia will come to it's end as a great regional power. The shocking part of all this China will side with the western powers in this.

Actually there is a bible verse that that actually says "he will come all the way to it's end, and there will be no helper for him".

originally posted by: jajaja
No.


.

You haven't been at ATS long enough to maybe understand we have a higher standard for posting here.
Just saying. Perhaps articulating why you say that would enhance your post.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

More than one city from opposing forces will be destroyed. If war breaks out and nuclear missiles are launched it will be at strategic targets and cities.
I see some of the resemblances to WW2, is Ukraine our generations Poland?

IF we're going to have WWIII happen, I think that Putin is smart and won't cross a line until he's ready for it to be a checkmate. So, basically, he'd both start and end the war with one action.

I don't find it very likely. The guy might be smart, but it doesn't sound like it's a possibility.

If he goes for it without being sure he'll win the war, then maybe I could see your scenario happening... honestly, though, I don't think we should worry too much about this. Then again, I often change my mind about it. If you ask me again tomorrow, I might be too busy looking for a place to hide.

I don't think so.

Russia hasn't attacked or invaded any nations yet. I'm not seeing where you're getting your comparisons.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I think a tactical strike on more then one city is more likely. One nuke will not do anything, now hitting several east/west coast cities along with some in the middle like ABQ, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Dallas and Denver will disrupt everything at once. More sensible if nuking a country is sensible to begin with.
I don't see similarities but I do see the signs, people are taking sides, money is an issue, resources, land... it's all happing now and unless calmer minds prevail I'll see you on the other side.

Did I mention how much I hate double posts!

It's like a computer version of stuttering and after each and every time it happens I feel less intelligent. Soon my IQ will be so bad from this I will be limited to 1 line posts and be forced into forum obscurity until the nukes in this op drop on my house.

a reply to: EA006

Well it might just be, if Putin tries to take ALL of Ukraine, maybe the West/Nato is prepared to let parts of Ukraine go, but not lose the entire country to Russia. And you know Poland wound never stand for it, and they are a Nato country.

I'm starting to think that Putin won't be the one from Russia to start a World War. Although he has ambitions for Russia, he's also a wise man and knows better than to start something this massive.

It's starting to feel like he's laying the groundwork for someone else. Whoever comes into power in Russia after him ... that may be the one to watch.

The only questions are who, and when?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Yes, they are.

The thing about conquering the whole world is despite the different eras, weapons and tactics, the geography of the earth has changed little. If you want to take all of europe and Russia you must travel down the same roads that Napolean and Hitler did.

They both failed by the way, a lesson from history that is apparently lost on the current stupids in charge.

Heres a map showing the expansion of NATO since that organization was formed. It leaves out Ukraine but they are not a member of NATO, just yet.

Map and Timeline

This map closely parallels in some ways the expansion of the German Reich in WWII. It must, the terrain hasn't changed.

originally posted by: kx12x
I don't think so.

Russia hasn't attacked or invaded any nations yet. I'm not seeing where you're getting your comparisons.

So I guess the Ukraine doesn't count because it part of the old Soviet Union?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Are events leading to WWII a parallel to events leading to a WWIII

Parallels could be made, but consequences for USA will be vastly different. For the first time not only several major cities will be erased, but people will run to Canada and Mexico seeking refuge from the chaos.

WIII will only happen if the West wants it to happen.

The arrogance of the West is what`s dangerous nowadays. So it`s totally different compared to WII in that matter.

Russia is going to walk a fine line that avoids war. No point in starting a war you can not win.

a reply to: intrptr

A very interesting reply and map, I get Russia wanting to get what it wants out the Ukraine before it signs up with Nato.
And maybe that's how this will end, Ukraine gets to be a part of Nato if it gives up some land to Russia. War averted.

Uh no..
You completely left out German history from your German history.
The German people were upset with the ending of ww1 and they should have been. I'm not going to go into detail about it. But basically the people were upset with the conditions they had to endure after a war they didn't feel they lost. That left an opening for a nut job to give the citizens something to focus their rage on and that allowed this nut job to take over. The Russian people dont have this rage.
Putin is just taking advantage of a weak US president and a Ukraine populous that is upset.

So I say no,,, but that's just my opinion..

What many people fail to realize is that there is no "winning" a modern war between superpowers, and that modern leaders, Putin included, are not apt to risk their entire nations on a war which they have very little chance of winning. If Putin invades one of these border countries, and the west responds militarily, will he back down? If he does, that means he was bluffing to a certain extent. If not, then he is prepared for war. So only one of two things will happen at this point. Either one army or the other will gain the upper hand. A war is not likely to go nuclear at this point. But whichever side begins to get pushed back will be on the defensive, and this is when the idea of nuclear war starts to gain traction. It still is not likely to happen at that point, but it depends on what occurs.

If Russia gets pushed back into their country, they can either continue fighting, in which case the western countries might continue the push into Russia. This is when nuclear war starts getting even more likely. Eventually, when one force has pushed far into another and is beating the other force, the losing force only has the nuclear option. Many things could happen that could avoid nuclear war, especially the signing of a treaty or agreement to end hostilities, but it all depends. It is much easier to justify a nuclear strike when you are at war in the first place, and especially if you are losing. But I contend that the possibility of nuclear war means that it is less likely that two nuclear nations will embroil themselves in conflict. I think that if Putin bluffs and is called, he will back down. But I don't think he will put himself in that position unless he is prepared for all out war, which I do not think he is. He doesn't want to invade a country, have the west respond, which forces him to escalate to maintain the appearance of strength...Which I think is important to him.

So the only way he wins is to avoid pushing the west into conflict. The only way to win is not to play. That is my take anyway, but we are in uncharted territory here. It is possible only to take the WWII comparisons so far, because they did not have the entire gamut of nuclear strategies to consider.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

War averted.

Unlikely. Thats the other thing about conquerers, they don't know when to quit.

When is enough enough? The answer lies in history. All empires have failed. Their expansion through waging aggressive war on their perceived "enemies" leaves to many real enemies in their wake. They eventually fail, from within.