considering the current state of the world and things like the resurgence of fascism and other authoritarian ideologies, do you think there is still a chance to avoid a new world war or now is unavoidable?
You know it’s bad when far right extremism is on the rise again in Germany…
And who will they pick to fight? The World!
A Norm reference made this much less depressing, thank you.
Third time’s the charm! /s
considering we have a record of over 6000 years of overlapping armed conflicts and wars, yes absolutely.
there has not been a single worldwide peaceful day for thousands of years.
it’s not 100% sure the ones currently going on will be called world wars. maybe it will be a new one. there’s always another war, unfortunately.
It’s always avoidable. It’s also still quite possible
I thought this was an interesting perspective:
We’re already in it. There are currently 57 conflicts in the world, of which several are international. Things will escalate. World tension is rising, the far right is on the rise, it’s the 1930’s all over again. Or at least, in some parts of the world. In other parts it’s already the 1940’s, with totalitarian regimes, genocide and concentration camps.
The term “world war” is a propaganda term. First, the only reason the world was involved was because the world was mostly colonies of the belligerents. In reality it was a European war, and European holdings were involved due to their economics.
In the second one, there were 2 distinct wars where the belligerents were allied for strategic reasons. The US was at war with Japan and Europe was at war.
Since the end, peace has been held with a bunch of strategic alliances, so in any real war, all countries take sides. But with the current 2 notable wars going on, it appears that that alliance structure is breaking down. Alliances are not in line with the economic realities of these countries. The more real things get the less these alliances will hold. This is probably a good thing, as it prevents everything from getting out of hand.
The term “world war” is a propaganda term
Why is it propaganda and not just a misnomer?
Because it was deliberately designed to instill a certain sense about history.
Yes and totally had nothing to do with the fact the belligerents were on all continents except Antartica. Total propaganda with no basis in accuracy whatsoever.
no, nobody’s stupid enough to take on NATO
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.
— Albert Einstein
true but anyone stupid enough to take on a NATO ally is going to be surprised how quickly that “world war” is over
A big part of the alliance is credibility. Far right political parties have called into question weather NATO is worth it. Even if we are a strong alliance the mere appearance of questioning can cause an opponent to misread and attack.
agreed thankfully the far right is still small and with a bit of immigration reform should be wiped out
Hopefully NATO isn’t stupid enough to take on anyone either
NATO has only ever started a war in Bosnia/Kosovo so I too hope they keep their cool
Didn’t they start wars in Iraq and Libya too?
Iraq was led by the US with few partners and was a huge mistake.
Libya was a UN sponsored brief air/missile strikes to try to stem a horrible civil war but yeah that was NATO and didn’t end well either. Probably should have been a larger operation with peace keepers.
Okay so NATO waits until a NATO member or members start something, then they join?
usually, but if the UN approves they will get involved
The biggest issue is extremism on both sides of the political spectrum. Division and hate are extremely easy to stoke and the left is at least as complicit. Unless people change their mindset to and remove the barriers they put up between people, conflict will be inevitable.
The right: “I think we should deport anyone with brown skin, incarcerate the LGBT community until they learn to stay closeted, execute black people without trial and force raped children to give birth, all the while gutting environmental protections, welfare and anything else that might cost my rich friends money”
The left: “Then you’re a cunt”
You: Both sides so divisive!
You’re part of the problem till you can step back and understand others opinions. Generally people mean well.
The worst people you know vote and have social media.
So what opinion does the right have that is worth taking seriously?
Oddly they have some arguments that the hard left would agree with normally if it wasnt so polarised.
For example critical race theory would say institutional racism caused disparity right? So is institutional racism bad? Or just bad if it preferences a race you prefer?
Yep, you’ve outed yourself. Better luck next time.
Empathy, trying to understand others, reasonable discourse…look into them mate 👍
Oh I understand those far-right “others” just fine. They’re all the abusive partners, parents and bullys we’ve all known. The ones who will torture their own family members for doing something, anything, without their unpredictable stamp of approval. The ones who eagerly twist and lie and manipulate people to get what they want, saying vapid shit about “empathy and understanding” that they have no intention of following themselves.
The Republican party is indefensible and by extension, so are those that support them, from Fox News all the way down to fuckstains at the local bar. They’ve made themselves a shining beacon for the worst people in America and I’m comfortable writing every single one of them off.
Because if they were actually capable of empathy, understanding or reasonable discourse, they wouldn’t be far-right in the first place.
Damn those libs, fighting for the right to live and love!
Excellent example
Can you describe the extremism left of spectrum?
Honest question, not JAQing off, and I won’t jump down your throat no matter what you say.
Hmmm can you describe the extremism of the right? Perhaps you’d characterise it by racism, violence, and repression of certain people?
The hard left wants exactly the same thing, with the same violent methods, just slightly changed racism and repression.
Have a laugh at this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://m.piped.video/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Umm… What?
The term “world war” is a propaganda term. First, the only reason the world was involved was because the world was mostly colonies of the belligerents. In reality it was a European war, and European holdings were involved due to their economics.
In the second one, there were 2 distinct wars where the belligerents were allied for strategic reasons. The US was at war with Japan and Europe was at war.
Since the end, peace has been held with a bunch of strategic alliances, so in any real war, all countries take sides. But with the current 2 notable wars going on, it appears that that alliance structure is breaking down. Alliances are not in line with the economic realities of these countries. The more real things get the less these alliances will hold. This is probably a good thing, as it prevents everything from getting out of hand.
You forget the pacific theatre totally if you think it was an America Russia war exclusively. That’s a very European centric view for someone calling it a European centric view for those who call it a world war.
Yeah it’s a ridiculous stance to take, particularly for WWII. Of the 6/7 continents (Antarctica not included) only Africa and Australia were colonial participants. US, UK, France, Japan, Germany, China, Russia all were not colonies. Direct conflict occurred on Africa by Germany and Japan bombed Australia. Thus to say ‘WWII’ is a propaganda title to make it sound bigger than it was is at best a pedantic argument as all continents (except Antarctica) were affected by a non-colonial belligerent.
-
I didn’t call it an america Russia war,
-
I mentioned Japan.
You’re talking about world war 2 right?
-
I’d say that two wars is also oversimplification. There were 3 in Finland alone with two different sets of belligerents.
