Or is this WW-Zero? This war started long before WWI and WWII.
Posted on 09/17/2014 11:58:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
While recently commemorating the World War I centenary at an Italian military cemetery, Pope Francis declared: "Even today, after the second failure of another world war, perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought piecemeal, with crimes, massacres, destruction." The pope's observation begs the question: If World War III has already started, would we even know it? Or would it only be evident in the rearview mirror? Ask 10 people you know to identify the thunderclap that started World War II. The answer would vary, depending on the perceptiveness of the person being asked and their geographic location. Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was warning anyone who would listen about Nazism long before Hitler's rise to power in the early 1930s. America, by contrast, was only fully pulled into the war when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941.
Likewise, most people would probably say that the Cold War started in earnest around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. They likely wouldn't consider a much more discreet but equally significant event: the defection, on September 5, 1945, of Igor Gouzenko, a cipher clerk at the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa, Canada, who fled his post carrying 109 documents detailing Soviet infiltration of the West.
Did anyone who was alive in 1945 believe that the Cold War had already started? Well, history has effectively and retroactively determined that it had indeed begun by that point. The same could be of the events underpinning the multitude of dire warnings from Churchill long before history ever considered those events significant.
So has World War III already started? And if it has, does it fit the description offered by the pope?
A Third World War would be highly decentralized, complex, covert and tactically diverse, and it would transcend the state-vs.-state paradigm. Wars currently underway in the world are either ideological in a purely religious sense, or strictly economic with a view toward maximizing profits (as opposed to peddling communism or capitalism as ideologies). Both of these phenomena are occurring simultaneously.
The Islamic State terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Uighur extremists in China, and various other Islamic extremist groups throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East -- with recruitment efforts that reach into developed Western nations -- are belligerents in one type of conflict: religio-ideological. They're essentially guerrillas of widely varying backgrounds, pulled from all over the world to fight with groups largely lacking in hierarchy and organization.
The second set of belligerents is comprised of nation-states, engaged in similarly decentralized economic warfare that isn't strictly limited to their own geographic boundaries or any politico-ideological agenda. The emphasis on economics rather than on homeland perimeter defense or the defense of political ideology is what makes the current set of nation-state conflicts different from World War II and the Cold War.
China, for example, has been gobbling up resources in South American and African countries without firing a shot. It's this kind of warfare that explains why nation-states engage in economic intelligence activities from within their foreign embassies -- a fact that former NSA contractor Edward Snowden apparently found shocking enough to disclose publicly. The disclosure of such top-secret intelligence can cause grave harm to national interests by hampering a country's competitiveness. Whether an economic disadvantage ultimately translates into a national-security detriment is a matter of debate. But it's not a stretch to imagine that a country taking an economic hit would experience an overall decline in resources, including a decline in national security.
Both types of contemporary warfare -- religio-ideological and nation-state economic -- feature new tactics that we haven't seen before, most of which involve the leveraging of new technology for the purpose of psychological warfare. Two common examples are using social-media platforms to distribute information and propaganda, and using cyberattacks to gain publicity or evoke public fear.
Arguably, there are currently enough conflicts around the globe in both categories to retroactively constitute flashpoints in WWIII. What remains to be seen is whether the religio-ideological "hot" wars might somehow merge with the nation-state economic "cold" wars, taking us past a point of no return and toward the worst possible outcome.
The ideal scenario would be for the nation-state conflicts to cool and take a back seat until its players can figure out how to get a grip on religio-ideological warfare -- the solutions to which have continued to elude them all. Otherwise, religio-ideological conflict may go down in history as the lone fuse that ignited WWIII while the superpowers were all collectively distracted.
We have been infiltrated for years by commies, queers, mexicans, and new world order types. McCarthy had it right, he just did not know the extent of the virus.
If it’s the end-times war, then it starts at Jerusalem. Also ends there. If the “Palestinians” capture East Jerusalem and wrest it from Jewish control, then things go downhill from there sharply.
I think the conflict with radical Islam will prove to be more comparable to the Cold War. It will be long and drawn out with sporadic periods of conflict and calm interspersed throughout the duration. As with the Cold War, our adversaries will only be swayed by force, resolve, and purpose and will take advantage of any weakness and vacilation.
The fact that he was removed should have been exemplary of the virus’ extent.
When did WWII start? Many people would say 1939 but its more complicated than that. Other — earlier — dates could be cited.
Yes, this is WWIII. This is a religious war being fought with hate in place of tanks or planes. The problem with a religious war is that we have disarmed ourselves and can no longer engage the enemy on this front. Thus, it is impossible to see how this will turn out - but it doesn’t look good. We are totally unprepared.
Well the tanks got rolling on September 1, 1939 when the Third Reich invaded Poland.
Some might point to January 30,1933 when AH was appointed chancellor by President von Hindenberg.
Others might site British PM Chamberlain’s acquiescence to AH’s demands at Munich in 1938.
Some might even cite the collapse of the DJIA in October 1929 which lead to the Great Depression which in turn lead to the rise of extremist parties in Germany and the collapse of the Weimar Republic.
World War III was the Cold War, a vicious struggle in which countless served and many died.
Sad it’s already been forgotten.
We’re now involved in World War IV, a war of religions and races which the United States is losing - and badly.
World War III ?
NO
Just the next Crusade!
The Cold War was III, WOT is IV.
Or is this WW-Zero? This war started long before WWI and WWII.
Thank you--absolutely correct.
And honestly we might call this phase V, since WOT really started the first time they attacked the WTC, and we had a prolonged stretch there with minimal shooting that could be confused for peace.
If this is true it is because the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is a magnetic vortex. This is why so many are zombie like interested in Israel|Jewish vs Muslim conflicts
Nobody is going to ring a bell marking the beginning.
IMO, every war begins with the “end” of the previous war because all of it is prologue that builds to the main conflict when everybody recognizes there’s a war. Most historians I’ve read say WW2 was set up on the heels of WW1 when there was only an Armistice, not a surrender, and it was further cultivated by the Versailles Treaty punishments on Germany. Those items were the main logs on the fire that built a 20-year head of steam to blow up the pressure cooker that was Europe in 1939.
The “Cold War” was actually WW3 but is not generally acknowledged as such since it was generally fought by proxies without the two primary opponents ever coming to direct conflict. It was set up throughout WW2 as Stalin and his agents were pulling the wool over FDR’s eyes about the USSR’s ulterior motives. A weakened FDR at Yalta sealed the deal and Truman had no way to oppose the resulting disaster at Potsdam. Truman’s eyes were opened to reality when Stalin showed no surprise at being told what was done to Hiroshima.
impactplayer: Yes, this is WWIII. This is a religious war being fought with hate in place of tanks or planes. The problem with a religious war is that we have disarmed ourselves and can no longer engage the enemy on this front. Thus, it is impossible to see how this will turn out - but it doesn’t look good. We are totally unprepared.
view: http://www.barnhardt.biz/2014/09/14/octet/ Part 1
I forgot how to make this link active. Please excuse. It is a good read.
God help us,
TL
Absolutely false.
A good date would be 5 March 1946, when Sir Winston gave a speech in Fulton, Missouri. "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."
Then, of course, there was George Kennan's "long telegram" from the Moscow embassy to the State Department. That was on 22 February 1946.
Certainly, the Cold War was apparent to all with the advent of the Berlin Blockade in June 1948.
And all through the fifties, there was the nuclear arms race, Conelrad and "duck and cover", Khrushchev pounding his shoe.
The Cold war was old news by 1962!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.