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

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
I agree the Germans got a raw deal for losing WW1, but so did the Soviet Union for losing the cold war.
Not as bad, but still they lost a lot of land just like Germany did. I guess when you watch this map you realize borders will always change with smaller regional conflicts, the smaller the conflict the smaller the change the bigger the conflict the bigger the change.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Can you provide any proof? Real proof, not speculative articles that say "believed to be" or "may be" with nothing to back it up.

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Quote by: Hermann Goering

But now the internet gives the people a louder voice.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

That is a rather myopic, ethnocentric viewpoint.
In reality, the US has been the primary aggressor nation in my lifetime.
Therefor the premise is a particularly shaky one to build upon.

originally posted by: jajaja
No.


.

" Brevity tis the soul of wit" W.S.

So where does Japan figure into your history lesson? Who is the modern day equivalent to them? To truly understand Germany’s situation one must look at the Weimar republic of the 20’s.
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: pirhanna
That is a rather myopic, ethnocentric viewpoint.
In reality, the US has been the primary aggressor nation in my lifetime.
Therefor the premise is a particularly shaky one to build upon.

ditto

exacto mundo

nailed it

originally posted by: AnteBellum
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.

Never, Cities are off limits till all military targets are hit with nukes. No leader in his right mind will target a city. Islamic leaders cause they are insane already but Russia would never because they know they would lose every city they have if they hit one of ours.

If Nukes do fly they will be for tactical only at a carrier task force from a nuclear torpedo or a large group of army massing via cruise missile. ICMBs are too easy to shoot down unless there are a lot of them coming down. If the shooting starts I think we will lose one carrier but Russia will pull back after losing a few very important bases to our Stealth strike aircraft. They have no hope in defending against our hyper sonic bombers and they will learn that real quick.

One only needs to look at biblical prophecy to see what Israel does to Russia's invading army in the Gog-Magog war. Russia will lose 2/3rds of its whole army and Damascus will be wiped out completely never mind Iran and Iraq will be glowing for the next 100 years after much of it is wiped out.

Damascus has never been even remotely destroyed since it was first built, that is why everyone knows this is a future war. It sure looks to be happening sooner rather than later.

a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

Why did we nuke the cities we chose in WW2?
Military industrial complex, factories, etc. Tokyo was next on the list.

To win WW3 they will need to destroy the financial/political institutions our country has based in cities(NY, DC, LA) in conjunction with the military industrial complex(ABQ, Silicon Valley), satellites and military bases all at the same time. Everyone knows about MAD simulations, you only get one chance for attack when the s**t starts to fly that's it. Once the choice is made to abandon conventional weapons there is no turning back.
Communications after an attack will be sketchy and we've been watching each other for @70 years, they know all our targets like we know theirs.
I will say they will probably try to quell civilian deaths by ground triggered nukes rather then air bursted above. This will localize targeted areas and civilian casualties.
It's going to be a bad day no matter where though because the fallout will eventually migrate everywhere and at that point I will dress up as a female mad max, spray paint my Audi flat black and roam the earth in search of fuel and food.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
I agree the Germans got a raw deal for losing WW1, but so did the Soviet Union for losing the cold war.
Not as bad, but still they lost a lot of land just like Germany did. I guess when you watch this map you realize borders will always change with smaller regional conflicts, the smaller the conflict the smaller the change the bigger the conflict the bigger the change.

Since September we have seen the price of oil plummet to near $50 a barrel.
Christophe de Margerie the CEO of French oil giant Total died in a mysterious plane crash.
Russia has raised its key lending rate to 17% to counter inflation of 9%!
Talk about cognitive dissonance..

Proxy wars forever. Bet that up.

Hate to be that guy with truth and stuff but Germany was surrounded before WW2. Not only that but Germany and the allies signed a treaty to disarm, which Hitler did only to find out the allies were building up a stupid amount of weapons. The truth will set you free.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Few big diffrences.

The only major super power in a place to contend with Germany was the UK and it was broke and over strecthed.

Plus in many areas Germany had tec on par with the UK.

Russia was in choas due to Stalin purges.

USA military wise was extremy understreanth at as weak as a kitten useing in many cases old WWI equipment.

Not much stood in hitlers way between 1933-1939


Today its vastly diffrent.

In opposition of Russia

USA spends vastly more than Russia and China combined and is decades ahead tec wise and has battle ecperiance.

UK and france that have up to resently spent the same amount as Russia and are at this time ahead in the tec game along with shareing US assets.


Nukes.......MAD means Russia cant march into a country with Nukes so even if NATO turns out to be impotent and marches across poland, they will end up stuck at the french border as france has nukes to level Russia.

There won't be no shooting WWIII war until there is a absolute defence deterrent to ICBMs, with lasers getting better by the hour that's not to far away

However WWIII has long started


The financial war
The resources war
The propaganda /information war

WWIII is fought between two allied factions

Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Argentina, Venuzwaila, Cuba,

Let's just call them the RED team, they're fighting against western dominance and there allies and friends in a bid to slow down its growth, with and end game to destroy and rival and to eventually dominate themselves... they're a alliance born from post WWII and bonded with communist foundations and other friendships founded on control of resources

VS

US, EU & Eastern Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, UAE, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea,

Let's just call them the BLUE team, They're attempting to maintain there NWO born from the ashes of WWII against the challenging RED team and to consume all of the globe into order

There alliance was born from mutual political and democratic goals, shared values and defence pacts



It's not hard to see serious gains and won battles/proxies for the western alliance

Iraq: control of resources, or if you like taking a chess piece of the board to deny the REDs

Afghanistan: again a chess peice of the board, control of resources

Libya: again much of the same, also taking out another potential Allie of the REDs

Syria: removing a RED team member and replacing it with a new BLUE



Losses for the BLUE

Argentina: otherwise a neutral now certainly a RED


Other neutrals

India: although India has great relations with both Russia and the west India certainly doesn't see eye to eye with China

Brazil: better ties with the western alliance however will likely remain on the fence


New BLUE allies

Cuba: Cuba seem reluctant and poised to change sides with resent landmark talk with the US

Ukraine: Ukraine finally broke free of the Soviet Union and now Russia altogether, and has joined the western alliance with the rest of easten block country once ruled by the soviets and Russian empire


The game is shaping up nicely and as it stands the RED team are falling apart and FAST, it maybe that the RED & BLUES never get to fire a single shot before it's all over

Is the buildup similar between ww2 and this the next ww..........ummmm

Well first of all Poland declared war on Germany in 1933, just as Ukraine announced it was at war with Russia

Poland then began ethnically cleansing Poland of Germans, raping, pillaging, mutilating, killing......just like Ukraine is doing to Eastern Ukraine

The world banks and Rothschild empire tried to bankrupt Germany hence the creation of the Reichmark, just like the World banks are trying to bankrupt Russia

Hitler was backed into a corner just as Putin is being backed into a corner

Germany had built itself up from complete collapse after the First World War just as Russia has built itself back up after the collapse of the USSR

So yes events mirror each other alarmingly.


The difference now is this is a global war between East and West. Once this starts it is to the death. Russia, China, India, Iran etc will not concede they won't surrender.

The worse thing is the East know this is our governments and not the population of the West that pushing this agenda, but the west government seem intent on destroying or appear to detest the populations of the East. Why.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33


Back to the 2 citys idea.

Since it would be unlikely either side would want to initially nuke a nuclear states city's for fear of direct retaliation.

That leaves the non nuclear aligned country's city's.

I would be interested to hear peoples speculation on what two city's would get hit first.

And why they would be chosen over others.

ohh putin annexed Crimea. but lets all just forget that the EU is in the process of annexing the whole of Ukraine.