World War 3 MegaThread.

[Agema]

The same thing would happen with Taiwan.

But it's not remotely the same.

The West did not have defence pact with Ukraine so Putin thought he would face no other military opposition. He could just roll the tanks into a weak opponent and leave the world with a fait accompli, ignoring any protests.

Taiwan however is explicitly protected by a military pact, so China knows it's facing a major adversary. If it want to take Taiwan, it's got to get past the USA. Does China think it can establish the air supremacy needed to get a fleet across to Taiwan? Quick answer, no. Nor any time soon.

 

[Thaluikhain]

A. Yes they had the biggest navy and had colonies(Note I think Colonies are inefficient except for recruiting foreign legion-style troops).

Biggest navy, yes, tiny army...and all the colonial powers had colonies.

EDIT: And in any case, in regards to the wider point, why now? We've not had a world war for nigh on 80 years. During the height of Soviet power, when their conventional forces greatly outnumbered those of NATO, and they had near technological parity, it was obviously a bad idea for them to try for the Fulda gap. Why is it more attractive now, when the US's enemies aren't in alignment and aren't as powerful?

 

[Agema]

B. No it was to challenge the status quo powers of which the UK is one.

To an extent.

The aim of Germany was to establish an empire, because German unification occurred after the other nations had split the rest of the world between them. (Ironically, of course, attempting to gain an empire at the point when it was becoming evident that colonial empires were unsustainable.)

In WWI, Germany certainly wanted to become a global player the equal of France or the UK, which necessitated going through one or both of them. In WW2, it was perhaps a little different. Germany was more motivated by a land empire - their "lebensraum", which was actually at the expense of Slavic nations. It did not particularly care about the UK as it was not looking for a far-flung empire: leave the UK to rule the seas, and Germany to rule the European continent. France didn't necessarily have to be a problem, except that there was revenge for WWI, and that Germany knew France would never accept Germany eclipsing it so comprehensively.

 

[Thaluikhain]

To an extent.

The aim of Germany was to establish an empire, because German unification occurred after the other nations had split the rest of the world between them. (Ironically, of course, attempting to gain an empire at the point when it was becoming evident that colonial empires were unsustainable.)

In WWI, Germany certainly wanted to become a global player the equal of France or the UK, which necessitated going through one or both of them. In WW2, it was perhaps a little different. Germany was more motivated by a land empire - their "lebensraum", which was actually at the expense of Slavic nations. It did not particularly care about the UK as it was not looking for a far-flung empire: leave the UK to rule the seas, and Germany to rule the European continent. France didn't necessarily have to be a problem, except that there was revenge for WWI, and that Germany knew France would never accept Germany eclipsing it so comprehensively.

Also, in both cases, the UK declared war on Germany, not the other way around. And as well in WW2, France declared war against Germany, not the other way around.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Also, in both cases, the UK declared war on Germany, not the other way around. And as well in WW2, France declared war against Germany, not the other way around.

True. It’s only upon retaliation that it’s officially a “war”, and Churchill knew this full well.

 

[Agema]

True. It’s only upon retaliation that it’s officially a “war”, and Churchill knew this full well.

That video is a weird sort of bollocks. It is completely misguided.

Once war was declared, both sides started limited tactical bombing of each other's territory, aiming for targets of military value. This meant that the Germans were bombing British facilities of military value, and likewise the British bombed German facilities of military value. In fact, the first German bombs to hit British territory occurred in 1939. Inevitably, some of these attacks on either side involved civilian casualties, and some were in or close to urban areas (e.g. ports). Both sides understood this for what it was.

After that the history book as that man reads from is basically accurate. The Germans - apparently accidentally, not that the British knew it was accidental - dropped a few bombs on civilian areas in London. So the British dropped a few bombs on Berlin. So Hitler decided to demolish British cities generally.

A particular weakness I think from that video is the bizarre Anglocentrism to think this is just UK v. Germany. Of course, in a technical sense it was for the Battle of Britain because the UK was the only country left fighting Germany. However, let's remember there were other countries involved in WW2. We can hardly forget that in early May Germany flattened Rotterdam. One can make a case for it being a military target, but it was nevertheless the overt devastation of a civilian centre, with a lot of civilians still in it. Inflicting severe damage to shock the Dutch into surrender was a clear intent of the Germans. They threatened to flatten Utrecht shortly after if the Netherlands continued fighting. Before even that, the Germans had pretty indiscriminately smashed several Polish towns and cities from the air in 1939.

So I don't really think there's any meaningful confusion who started bombing cities.

 

[Hades]

A) Was the UK the top dog in both world wars?

I'm not really sure they were. In terms of prestige they were likely the top dog, and no one can deny they had the most powerful navy. Still, Britain defeating Germany on their own in either world war would be unthinkable, which cast doubt on their position as the top dog.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

That video is a weird sort of bollocks. It is completely misguided.

Once war was declared, both sides started limited tactical bombing of each other's territory, aiming for targets of military value. This meant that the Germans were bombing British facilities of military value, and likewise the British bombed German facilities of military value. In fact, the first German bombs to hit British territory occurred in 1939. Inevitably, some of these attacks on either side involved civilian casualties, and some were in or close to urban areas (e.g. ports). Both sides understood this for what it was.

After that the history book as that man reads from is basically accurate. The Germans - apparently accidentally, not that the British knew it was accidental - dropped a few bombs on civilian areas in London. So the British dropped a few bombs on Berlin. So Hitler decided to demolish British cities generally.

A particular weakness I think from that video is the bizarre Anglocentrism to think this is just UK v. Germany. Of course, in a technical sense it was for the Battle of Britain because the UK was the only country left fighting Germany. However, let's remember there were other countries involved in WW2. We can hardly forget that in early May Germany flattened Rotterdam. One can make a case for it being a military target, but it was nevertheless the overt devastation of a civilian centre, with a lot of civilians still in it. Inflicting severe damage to shock the Dutch into surrender was a clear intent of the Germans. They threatened to flatten Utrecht shortly after if the Netherlands continued fighting. Before even that, the Germans had pretty indiscriminately smashed several Polish towns and cities from the air in 1939.

So I don't really think there's any meaningful confusion who started bombing cities.

Of course, it all basically started with Hitler wanting to reclaim Danzig, and Britain’s commitment to the defense of Poland. It was thought that after the Munich Agreement which saw Italy, Britain and France accepting Germany’s annexation of Sudetenland that Britain started to really consider the threat they might one day pose to their own empire. Chamberlain declared war on Germany following the invasion of Poland after the settlement to concede Danzig fell through.

On one hand there was Germany wanting an handful of old territories back to pre-Versailles maps, and on the other was Britain who’d previously conquered most of the world long before then and felt threatened by it. Churchill later, with an arguable warmonger rep among some of his own people as it was wasted little time showing them who’s boss.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm not really sure they were. In terms of prestige they were likely the top dog,

I would question even that. Now, pre-ww1 the might of the British navy was well known, and they'd had a empire for a while. But the Germany army was regarded by many as the best in the world.

Afterwards everyone was in a mess, I'm not so sure about how prestigious nations were. Nobody had fully recovered from the Depression.

 

[Agema]

I'm not really sure they were. In terms of prestige they were likely the top dog, and no one can deny they had the most powerful navy. Still, Britain defeating Germany on their own in either world war would be unthinkable, which cast doubt on their position as the top dog.

The UK's economy (GDP) had been surpassed by the USA in the late 19th century, and by Germany by the time of WWI. By WWI, the USA's economy was about twice that of the UK (it having slightly over twice the population of the UK, but a lower GDP/capita). It was however lower than the entire British Empire, as the UK was about 40-45% of the whole Empire's economy. By 1939, the USA had a larger economy than the entire British Empire.

The UK remained top dog to some extent in WW2, if we mean that the UK still had the largest navy and was very much dominant in world trade. However, the UK knew the gig was up as world leader after WWI, and it was always just a case of managing the decline. WW2 was the effective death-blow, as it forced the UK to concede a lot of the established power it had amassed and made the Empire clearly unsustainable.

 

[Gergar12]

We need to deter China by threatening to sink the Three Gorges Dam.

 

[Eacaraxe]

World War III isn't going to happen any time soon, it's not worth worrying about. There are flashpoints for potential major regional wars, but not a world war...

You do understand "world wars" are nothing more than major, simultaneous but independent, regional wars which happen to be waged by the same belligerents, right? That two of them -- as there have been more, and the spat between 1914-1918 wasn't even the first -- are subject to heavy romanticism is the biggest red herring in pop history.

But if you start considering them for what they were rather than how they're perceived by the cultural zeitgeist, you might begin seeing the context of those wars and the causal links between each. Otherwise, well, you're left with things like...

I don't really get this fascination people have with dreaming up World War III scenarios. It perhaps made sense in the Cold War, but the world has moved on.

...how you, without a shred of irony or self-awareness, cited as examples three regional flashpoints that exist specifically thanks to the Cold War and the world's outright refusal to move on from it, and go on to nakedly assert "the world has moved on" from the Cold War. That's some serious mental gymnastics, like straight "we've always been at war with Eastasia" shit, right there.

But I mean, it's not like the last few "world wars" were hallmarked with preoccupation with previous conflicts at cost of seeing the truth for what it is. Kind of like how in 1914, powers were preoccupied with preventing indecisive pitched battles, and ignored the impact of machine guns and contemporary artillery. Or how in 1939, powers were preoccupied with preventing trench warfare and ignored the impact of combined arms warfare and strategic bombing. Or how you're preoccupied with nuclear weapons, and ignoring the impact of asymmetric warfare as waged by non-state/state-sponsored actors.

 

[Silvanus]

You do understand "world wars" are nothing more than major, simultaneous but independent, regional wars which happen to be waged by the same belligerents, right?

Simultaneous and waged by the same belligerants-- so not really very independent, then.

That two of them -- as there have been more, and the spat between 1914-1918 wasn't even the first -- are subject to heavy romanticism is the biggest red herring in pop history.

In the last millennium, I guess you could make a case for the Mongol conquests and the Spanish conquests to count if you aggregated them, which would be a bit specious. And at a big stretch, the Napoleonic wars. But WW1 clearly eclipsed them in geographic scope and simultaneous involved parties.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Simultaneous and waged by the same belligerants-- so not really very independent, then.

When each individual theater has unique and specific casus belli, strategic goals, logistic dictates, doctrines and even armed forces branches participating, intended outcomes, and resolution strategies, then yes those conflicts can and should be considered distinct and independent from one another even when one or more of the same belligerents are parties to the conflict.

In the last millennium, I guess you could make a case for the Mongol conquests and the Spanish conquests to count if you aggregated them, which would be a bit specious. And at a big stretch, the Napoleonic wars. But WW1 clearly eclipsed them in geographic scope and simultaneous involved parties.

Actually I had the Seven Years' War in mind. The Napoleonic wars less so, but still applicable. Thirty Years' War as something of a prelude...if you consider the Dutch-Portuguese War interconnected.

 

[Silvanus]

When each individual theater has unique and specific casus belli, strategic goals, logistic dictates, doctrines and even armed forces branches participating, intended outcomes, and resolution strategies, then yes those conflicts can and should be considered distinct and independent from one another even when one or more of the same belligerents are parties to the conflict.

Other than casus belli, everything here also differs between different theatres in individual wars. And the casus belli in WW1 and 2 had enormous overlap.

Actually I had the Seven Years' War in mind. The Napoleonic wars less so, but still applicable. Thirty Years' War as something of a prelude...if you consider the Dutch-Portuguese War interconnected.

Thirty years war is massively stretching it. Seven years, perhaps in terms of geographic scope alone, but 'world war' implies something of scale as well-- and the scale is utterly incomparable between it and WW1.

 

[Hades]

Actually I had the Seven Years' War in mind. The Napoleonic wars less so, but still applicable. Thirty Years' War as something of a prelude...if you consider the Dutch-Portuguese War interconnected.

I'd argue the War of Spanish Succession and the Nine Years war which was almost immediately before it might be a better example than the Seven Years War and lasted longer to boot.

 

[Satinavian]

I'd argue the War of Spanish Succession and the Nine Years war which was almost immediately before it might be a better example than the Seven Years War and lasted longer to boot.

Nine Years war had no Sweden, no Prussia and no Russia, it was basically only France against its neighbors. That kinda hurts its claim to World War.

 

[Seanchaidh]

We need to deter China by threatening to sink the Three Gorges Dam.

or just stop meddling in the affairs of China and its outlying province.

 

[Hades]

Nine Years war had no Sweden, no Prussia and no Russia, it was basically only France against its neighbors. That kinda hurts its claim to World War.

Prussia didn't really exist at the time but Brandenburg which would turn into Prussia did partake in the war. Russia meanwhile was a backwater at the time. It did have the Dutch though which along with England, France and Spain had colonies all over the world. Their inclusion arguably increases the scope of a war more than the purely continental Sweden would.

Though you're right that the 9 years war in a vacum might have been smaller than the War of Spanish succession. My point was more that the three wars against Louix XIV should be seen as one big conflict, particularly the later two which were waged by mostly the same powers with only a very brief interbelum seperating the two.

 

[Satinavian]

We need to deter China by threatening to sink the Three Gorges Dam.

?

You really think trumpeting out into the world that war crimes and mass murder are your intended method of operating in a potential future war ? Not even Israel is that bold.

It would also cost you nearly all of your allies.