@@TheTruepanther you kind of missed the point that the greatest defence against some crazed leader hitting the nuke button is that the people under them are well educated enough to not go through with it.
@@HappyGuy-cn9po It's funny that you mentioned Pakistan that our military is basically in bed with their military... but you fell to mentioned i$ra!l that doesn't listen to our military but only listen to s a t a n !
@@Osprey980 I don't think they meant literally. Atleast, that's what I've read from people with a similar view. You're completely right though. The war did come to an official close so they are 100% separate wars.
Vasili Arkhipov was one of the commanding officers of that sub bombarded by practice depth-charges from a U.S. Navy ship trying to get the Soviet submarine to surface. He was the only one of three officers on board that refused to insert his key into the launch mechanism, which would have launched a nuclear weapon from that Soviet sub.
@chetpomeroy1399 yes, precisely what I had read. The capt and political commissar said "da", he said "nyet". Didn't go down too well with the comrades in Mockba.
Everyone does, and it is almost a 1:1 for the West. They could have stopped Hitler right there, or curbed a lot of the early war. As the Allies were suffering a material/production shortages. If they started just pumping out aid and supplying Spain... It looks completely different.
Ethiopian war by Italy, emboldened dictators to start invading. Spanish civil war was basically a testing ground of who’s weapons, support and political power would influence the most and give best prospects of winning the civil war (and other future conflicts) War in Ukraine is basically a invasion of Ethiopia + Spanish civil war in one
@@richarddillinger8768 germany didnt save franco dont talk unless you know the color brigade fought both communists and nazis on behalf of the democratic government of spain. also dont pretend the communists in spain werent committing horrendous acts the massacring of priests being a prominent one. franco did nothing wrong and btw he stayed neutral in ww2.
The debate in whether or not this will lead to WW3 is largely pointless in this capacity. WW3 simply cannot "look" like WW2 for a plethora of reasons, from population demographics, global informational access, military advantages & alliances and finally, nuclear weapons. Russia cannot possibly hope to defeat something like NATO (even without the US) in conventional warfare and the Ukraine war is a perfect example of that. The days where a country like Germany could move into Austria, Poland, etc are gone, and what has replaced it is an allied network of military technology and intelligence sharing. WW3 would likely look like seemingly large but isolated conflicts, like Russia vs Ukraine, Iran vs Israel, China vs Taiwan where competing blocks are essentially fighting directly but with one in a support fashion to not fully get themselves directly at risk of nuclear escalations. If it expands beyond that we are in the territory Sarah describes but for that reason, it's why you would be incredibly unlikely to see something like the US striking into mainland China in the case of a China vs Taiwan conflict. They would likely only target military assets crossing the Taiwan straight to avoid the Chinese government fearing that risk of "losing" meaning the end of their regime. The same way that even though Ukraine is now hitting military and infrastructure targets within Russia, that the US and Europe has set use restrictions on the weapons they provide as to not actually allow Russia to have "existential" concerns.
You say "conventional warfare", well Russia are engaged in so called "hybrid warfare": Propaganda combined with conventional arms. Look at US aid to Ukraine which has stalled due to Russian propaganda influencing US politics. Due to this Russia are probably going to win in Ukraine.
Talking about Russians, you should exclude logic. When Putin dies, power will move from the FSB/KGB to the military. I am not sure if Russia will start a war on itself or if it will be used by China similarly to NR. But I believe war is inevitable in the current conditions, and it is a matter of time only. Usually, when the time comes, the US will be in a very weak military position due to political changes. For example, the election will be won by a president who is hostile to the military or who is cutting military funds due to social programs. They already generated plans to invade Europe if only states were excluded from the game. Such a decision can be made by pure degradant, but looking at the state of the Russian government - everything is possible.
@@TheModeler99 We already are in a sorta cold war 2, we've already been in one for a while it's just heating up now An example I'd use is Syrian civil war as we've been backing one side, and Russia has been backing the other side for a while now I wouldn't count Korea, as that's more of a remnant of the previous cold war rather than this new one It's definitely been heating up more with our adamant support of ukraine, and the creation of the pacific sort of mini-nato build around the defense of taiwan We won't see nukes fly, or a war between major powers, it's just be proxy wars, and trade wars
@@nattha_ww3088it invaded the Donbas region because 14 thousand ethnic Russians were killed during the civil war in Ukraine and by Ukrainian troops and Crimea wanted to be a part of Russia they weren’t annexed illegally.
@@asura3967 If what you said was true. Russia and Donbas people can file a petition to ICJ. But why did Russia avoid the process which provides a formal investigation? Russia also support the violence rebellion which also killed many Ukraine people and soldier. The peace in Donbas has gone because of Russia.
@nattha_ww3088 if you did your research, you would be informed that Russia has been attempting diplomacy for 10 years. DOD has admitted to the very biological labs Russia accused near its borders. The civil war in Ukraine was triggered by mercenaries hired by CIA on behalf of Obama.
One great difference between now and the 1930's and now is the the leadership of the former allied nations were all quite hesitant to fight another general war to the point of being pacifist. The atmosphere now is more similar to 1914 when due to jingosm generated by imperialism and the economic competition of the first global age,and false courage generated by the various entangling alliences, the idea of war seemed like a tension release and a welcomed distraction from the growing social problems capitalism and nationalism of the various ethnic groups in Europe and else.
The population in the west is entirely mentally unprepared for a war like we are seeing in Ukraine. The bravery and determination of both sides to endure the horror of this conflict is entirely absent in the west.
@@tadhgcronin175 I think a lot of the support of Ukraine war comes is because it is a diversion from the divisive and quarrelsome nature of domestic politucs.
We think of 1931 separately because we see 1937 invasion as the start of Second Sino-Japanese War and thus de facto of WWII. 2014 and 2022 were also quite apart.
That's not part of World War 2. Also you got your years wrong. There was no war in Ethiopia in the 1920s. The Dervish war ended in 1920. They were at peace until 1935.
I mean, not really. We kind of separate the Manchurian War and China invasion from WW2. I mean, it eventually became part of it, since it was still going on, but few actually see WW2 as TRULY starting in 1931. Just a run up like the Spanish Civil War was.
I disagree. The two start dates are only separated if you look at it from the lens of the past. But in hindsight, the events were sparks in the same tinder that ignited the world in flames. That is the key part, not that they were directly correlated, but that they were towards the same ends. Both Japan & Germany prepared for war with the eventually Allies, long before 1931 & 1939. Japan invading Manchuria & the Spanish Civil war were just the opening acts, and the following global war was the apex of it all. To say they were separate is disingenuous.
I don't know what these 2 guys above are smoking but nobody thinks ww2 started before 1939, I mean just Google the start date of ww2. I could make a stronger case for ww2 starting immediately after ww1 than it starting with Japan invading modern day China.
@@BAPK1602 So are the Balkan wars considered part of ww1? Or according to this, ww1 can be considered as part of ww2, because the treaties ending the first were a major cause of the second. Hm?
If you use this analogy one of the contributing reasons for ww2 was US turning its back on Europe after ww1. The power balance between East and West during the Cold war contributed to the abscence of major conflicts. As well as US/NATO trying to keep this balance after the Cold war. If US decide to turn its back on Europe things can escalate into something like ww3.
It broke the balance after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and subsequent agression on Yugoslavia/Serbia and spreading revolutions through the Post-Soviet countries. Not to mention meddling in affairs of the Middle Eastern countries.
The role of the United States as world policeman was a disaster. WW2 was caused by a desire of the Germans to conquer for resources. The conflict in Ukraine is about Russia protecting its resources. Russia doesn't need resources it has everything it needs and more. What we are witnessing is Russia applying a Munroe doctrine in Ukraine. Not on our patch buddy, clear off.
Considering the shit show Russia's invasion has been, and they haven't even used a small tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine - which suggests they understand the risks such a decision would mean. Russia is all about posturing and propaganda - and nukes are their most useful tool in that regard. Actually using them isn't the point. The only way I think that happens is if either A. Ukraine started invading Russia or B. someone did something stupid and hit a NATO asset by accident. Using them preemptively would potentially jeopardise their relationships with the few countries that support them, like India and China, and galvanise the West into further supporting Ukraine. Also, Russia has been continually notifying the West about movements of its nuclear assets since this invasion begun, because behind closed doors they understand how such actions could be perceived as a genuine threat. 90% of what Russia does is not for politicians to see - it's for the people whose taxes they need to support Ukraine. Scare them, defund Ukraine.
Exactly. Plus many rich Russians still have their children attend schools in the bad, bad, degenerate evil West. The oligarchs would not allow nuclear action to take place.
There is another factor in why Russia hasn't tried to use nukes yet: the consequences of a failed attempt. One of the things we've seen with both Russia and China is a failure to maintain integrity and custody of their military hardware. In Russia's case, it was maintenance logs on military equipment being filled out, but nobody following up to make sure that the work was actually done, resulting in things like rotting tires, non-functioning weapons systems, or inventories being done, but nobody following up to make sure that somebody didn't just part out the assets they were responsible for and sell it. In China's case, it was finding out that an unscrupulous contractor had filled many of their warheads with water rather than the expensive 'splody bits. In both cases, they look dangerous on paper but don't hold up to the rigors of reality. Now, knowing what we know about Russian QA practices, there's a decent chance that many of their warheads are now duds due to lack of maintenance or corruption. What would happen to Russia if they TRIED to nuke somebody and it was a dud? They would not get a chance to try again is what would happen, and it isn't worth Moscow being glassed for them to make the attempt.
@@themightydropbear And this is one of the most low brainpower takes ive seen. I wpuldnt he implying such, Nobody alive today even knows what the inside of aminuteman rocket looks like.
Hitler and Stalin planned the invasion of Poland together, and they invaded Poland tougher in September 1939. Then they together celebrated the victory in the joint parade in town of Brest.
Germany and Russia started the war in Europe ….germany struck first but you don’t move 300,000 men and supplies around in a day ….it takes many weeks to provide and equip a army …the joint invasion of Poland was agreed between molokov and Ribbentrop when there none aggression plan was signed months before .
Or rather with splitting Czechoslovakia between Germany, Poland and Hungary a year prior. And Poland not letting USSR forces to pass through to aid people of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
@@akztar No suprise there, since Czechoslovakians did the same to Poland when Soviets were marching towards Warsaw. Took Zaolzie and blockade help from Hungary.
@@nimmha6708hitler said he only wanted Sutherland, then moved on to Austria, and then continued to push the bar until someone confronted him. Dictators don’t just stop at the first goal, they will always want more. Putin said he wants all of Ukraine and he won’t stop there. Most of russias tactics have followed hurlers ww2 strategies
@@OakInchUkraine was a “founding member” inasmuch as it was conquered by the Bolsheviks 20 years earlier. As has repeatedly been shown, most Ukrainians had little desire to belong to that “prison of nations”.
@@mebsrea Ukr was a founding member of the USSR. It was literally founded by the Bolsheviks after WW1. Ukr was part of the Russian empire before that. It didn't even exist as a country before the Bolsheviks created it. It was a region with that multiple countries owned various parts of at various times. The rest of Russia was also conquered by the Bolsheviks. If you are giving Ukr a free pass on what they participated in under the Bolsheviks, then you must do the same for the rest Russia. It is about not having double standards and knowing history.
Bullshit. Ukraine was conquered by Russia and partly Russified, then sought independence at the first opportunity in 1918. It was then invaded by Soviet troops and its independence extinguished in 1921. (And yes, I’m aware that this is a simplified version of events given the multisided civil war and foreign interventions going on at the same time.) Within ten years, while Ukraine was part of the USSR, Stalin intentionally provoked a genocide in Ukraine, starving millions to death. Some Ukrainians were certainly committed Bolsheviks, but the overall picture, as it has been for centuries and as Russia is trying to reimpose now, is a Ukraine subject to rule from Moscow, regardless of what its people want. When given the chance to freely express their will, the verdict has been clear: Ukrainians want freedom and independence from Moscow’s predatory rule.
the bigger Problem is Nato instantly supporting Ukraine. to prevent a world war, Ukraine should accept russias terms, because Ukraine WILL LOSE, and if they dont accept now, they wont exist later.
@@qbert8695I must have missed the part where Iraq was a democratic country and not an aggressive dictatorship, and where the Americans kidnapped Iraqi children, tried to extinguish Iraqi culture, claimed that Iraq had always been part of America, and asserted that the existence of Iraq was a historical mistake.
@@mebsrea is that enough of a justification of invading sovereign nation? You must be thinking that's right only because the USA is doing this? And yeah, where the hell did you see Putin tries to wipe out Ukrainian culture? I can only see Ukraine itself is doing that towards Russian culture ever since 2014 by destroying monuments, shaming anybody, who speaks the Russian language, etc. If you miss that part, please explain to me, how it's my fault.,
@@mebsreaMost of what you said applies to the Ukrainian government and what they did to the ethnic Russians in the donbass. Make sure you have the same animosity for the US illegal occupation of oil fields in Syria. Stealing oil and sending it to the Jews in Israel who were behind the war in the first place.
In one of my classes, a scientist working at Los Alamos National Labs, where the US does nuclear research, gave a presentation. He argued that nuclear weaponry has been more of a guaranteer of peace than anything else. Not only do I think that history disagrees; I also think that he's forgetting about a serious problem, which is that low probability iterated over many years issue. We've tried the mutually assured destruction path to peace before, multiple times. Eventually, someone will decide that destruction is not mutual or that it is not assured, and they will trigger a war. This happened with both world wars. A third world war involving nuclear weaponry just needs one nation deciding that it can get away with it, regardless of how correct that assumption is. Nuclear weapons gave us time to learn how to resolve international conflicts without war. The dozens of armed conflicts around the globe, including ones involving major powers like Russia or Israel, show that we squandered that time and are now paying the price.
I like to imagine her HoI4 matches are these impressive and elaborate long form matches that result in insane fictional events that make too much sense xD
If we didnt have them, wed already be killing each other full speed. The hope for a just peace is the only deterrent to war. Take away that hope and your basically already in conflict whether the bullets are flying or not
I don’t know how they would (just have a few theories) but I am certain that after 80 years of having access to them, most nations especially ones with larger budgets would have invented some kind of anti nuke. Either disabling or destroying the warheads before they can reach their targets. It’s been far too long to have not developed something
@@dingus6317 How dare Ukraine defend itself against foreign invasion, and how dare other countries support an invaded country against a foreign invader. Remember when France and the UK started WW2 by declaring war on Germany, just because Poland cried foul?
@@HungryLoki Lol as if Ukraine was just minding its own business and not shelling the East for the past ten years and as if they didn’t get a western puppet as a president who was hell bent on joining NATO after they specifically said they would remain neutral. Remember when Poland massacred Germans in Danzig?
Yes it can same with the Israel Hamas war. As the world seems to not want a true winner in either case they want a surrender from the one who has been pulling their punches by a 50% .
US could have ended the war on day 1 by telling qatar to arrest all hamas operatives until all kidnapped americans were released. Instead, US transferred $10 billion to Iran and $100 million to Hamas via UNRWA
They just want an end to the Apartheid and the recognition of Palestinians as rightful citizens of a joint jewish/muslim state of Israel. Yeah, obviously write into your constitution that any religious intolerance will not be tolerated. There, I just solved the middle east for you, now if only the Israeli establishment wanted to solve the problem, instead of keeping a convenient scapegoat around to distract their very gullible population.
they just need to share it 50/50. nobody wants to point out that that 10%disjointed sliver of land isnt a proper country for palestine and until then two state solution is a silly meaningless term
They want a return to status quo. But eventually, by preventing these smaller adjustments to the status quo (i.e. removing Hamas), the status quo becomes more untenable and eventually spills into world war. Again.
It did. Actually Ukraine cascaded from earlier conflicts. But obviously American analysts need some time to climbed over the hurdles of American greatness in order to be able to see such things.
@@nimmha6708It started with the dissolution of the USSR. Most of the tension in Eastern Europe today originated from the dissatisfaction of the post-Soviet borders. Take the Ukraine war for example, in 1991 Russia (previously the USSR) lost much of its historical heartland, along with the basic loss of its most important harbor - Sevastopol. This loss was inconceivable to the Russians and once they’ve recovered economically and militarily, they immediately moved to retake Crimea. Today’s war is also just the continuation of that, a reaction to a perceived existential threat. One key difference between the USSR and Russia is that the former had strong ideological ambitions and the latter is highly nationalistic. The USSR wanted to create a bloc of communist states and Russia is trying to be… Russia. It is vital to recognize the differences in their goals and understand them accordingly.
@@andrewwebster4348I guess in this context it means leader class? Which is honestly not that far fetched. Rhetorics have been changing in media last two years.
Yes, the NATO false claims that Russia want to restore the former USSR are needed to justify the false NATO claims that war is coming and it may be nuclear. Russia just wants to trade, it has plenty of land and resources unlike it's neighbours, especially in the Baltic states, Poland, Finland, etc. As Col Mcgregor noted, what part of neutrality did not work for Sweden? European people do not support NATO expanding eastwards, as Hitler outlined in Mein Kampf. NATO is following Hitler's plan IMHO. Let's trade.
even if just half or a quarter of those nukes actually work itd still be devastating, although yeah a lot of their silos are just filling with water and are completely unkempt, although a lot of ours are like that too
Even if one is charitable and believes our leaders have the best of intentions, they absolutely do not have the competence to prevent it from spiraling out of control. We are not sending our best. But a lot are probably evil too.
Did she just say our leaders are trying to prevent global conflict?? Everything she says is invalid if that is her position. Who is this lady? She must work for the government.
She's right about that. The reason America fights regional wars is to stop another world war from happening. We've gone almost eighty years since the last World War so the theory seems to hold up
@@EndwankeryNo.. Overthrowing countries for your own purpose is not democracy, not stable. We have not gone that long without "global war" the U.S. has just been better at revision.
@@EndwankeryIf you refer to the US war history , it has waged war 98 percent of the time since it's founded as a nation , based on it's own history. No country or empire has such warmongering record.
Russia said 14 years ago that nato expanding into Ukraine was a red line, they have been saying this consistently since that time, but the west ignored it and just pushed and pushed and pushed. What did they except? Russia means what it says.
Russia has absolutely zero say about what Ukraine or any other country does or doesn't. If Ukraine wants to join an international organisation like Nato, that's between Ukraine and Nato, Russia can go kick rocks! If Georgia wants to join Nato, that's between Georgia and Nato, Russia can go kick rocks! If Belarus wants to join NATO, that's between Belarus and Nato, Russia can go kick rocks!
To be honest, during wwii Russia had a much more powerful economy which meant it eventually got it’s shit together in the military side of things. It also had a huge population from all the soviet states which it no longer has
She is disingenuous: "People are working to prevent [nuclear war] from happening." The U.S. undermined the signed Minsk agreement and scuttled negotiations in Turkey in 2022 to settle the Donbass matter, both of which increased the risk of nuclear war. Moreover, Blinken still advocates Ukraine becoming a NATO member which Russia has long stated is a non-negotiable red line. This would raise the risk of nuclear war dramatically. Her characterization of "working to prevent" is risible tosh.
@@bagalao77 “we’re the good guys trying to stop bad Putin“. Negotiations in bad faith are all that has happened because Putin is “evil” and everyone else is “good” 😂
I can't believe you buy that when The Russo-Ukraine war has been the greatest endorsement NATO has ever got and has meant the total end of Finlandization.
This red line does not matter. Russia has exactly zero say in what Ukraine does and doesn't do. If Ukraine wants to join Nato, and Nato want them to join, that's between Ukraine and Nato, Russia can go kick rocks!
I think the conversation about using nuclear weapons is high greater than them actually doing it I feel people want to believe that it will happen more than it actually will happen
She would have told you that they had ambitions to unite the German people, they wanted living space & were annoyed at the fact that they had to repay ww1.
@@JoeeyTheeKangaroo Yes. I was wondering if she would have mentioned the germans, tatars, slowaks and czech people in Poland and what happend to them. Which was THE MAIN reason for military conflict.
@@blackhawkgaming2965 The heavy investment into atomic energy used as a weapon was the reason it was used; to see how it really worked. Yes, Japan would fight hard in a mainlamd assault by US troops but the US had destroyed Japan as a militatry force by that stage of the war, and no infrastructure existed to support the Japanese army or military complex. US reports on Japan written after the war confirm the fact Japan was out for the count.
That’s as ignorant as it gets. An enemy is defeated until it has surrendered and is disarmed. Ask any family of a soldier that was killed by surrendering troops that had hidden grenades or suicide vests on. Until Japan surrendered and disarmed they were not defeated. By mid 1942 there was no doubt in that they could not win but they fought on.
@@JaneJetsin Calm down! Don't be so emotional. Read the US strategic reports on the state of Japan in 1945. Hand grenades are less lethal that atomic bombs on civilian populations.
@@blackhawkgaming2965There are many reasons and benefits as well as consequences. - Once it was created since Japan did not surrender when they were warned it had to be used or Americans would have been outraged it was not once they realized we had it. How would you feel if your father or brother died fighting in the year or two after they could have used them? - At that point was no doubt for 2 to 2.5 years that Japan could not win yet American and Japanese casualties were increasing the close we came to Japan. Just in 1945 on Iwo Jima America suffered 6,821 killed and 19,217 wounded. Japan lost all but a few hundred of the 20,000-troops there. About 90,000 Japanese combatants died in the fighting, but deaths among Okinawan civilians may have reached 150,000. Okinawa cost more than 49,000 American casualties, including about 12,000 deaths. - There was mass starvation all over the pacific islands due to the war and no commercial shipping and resources going into the war. In Japan over a million people a year were starving to death including allied pows in Japan, Burma and china. - It was estimated that 1 to 1.5 million Americans would be casualties invading the home islands of Japan and ten times that many Japanese. - The alternative to invading was a naval blockade to completely isolate and starve Japan literally to death women and children included. That is a war crime. In the end 50 million or so lives were saved by the two bombings as well as several years of cruel unnecessary suffering.
Why 6 months before I saw US and UK military advisors in Ukraina?. Why the extremists of the Azov voluntary were killing Russians in d Dombass region but thousands?. Could be that Black Rock and UK signed and explo mines agreement?.
The one human being that could be said to have singlehandedly saved the world was a Soviet officer. There was a missile launch from America and he was ordered to reply but he refused. Some big shot American was visiting Russia and he couldn't imagine us nuking them but also it was so few missiles it didn't make sense. It was geese but if he launched it would have been over. He was disciplined.
Yeah Mark, I certainly agree but unfortunately we have some stupid leadership now just as in the last two World Wars. Praying they agree with you and I!
USA was the only one with nukes for a few short years. And boy did they abuse that position in WW2, big time. That changed fast. Ever since the USSR got it's first nukes in the early 1950s all of the fun for the USA was ruined. Then France, China, UK, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel all got the nukes. South Africa gave them away tho.
Japan was grabbing up formerly european colonies all throughout the interim between WWI and WWII, they never really stopped being at war in the Pacific, they just happened to coincide with a war in Europe and had common enemies for a few years.
As she pointed out, the Manchurian conflict was about economics unconnected to global war. Today, we are watching another run-up to a kinetic conflict between the authoritarian impulse and the democratic movement of history. Looking at the world today, it is hard to miss it.
I mean both Germany and Japan devolved into their own forms of fascism, then by the time it was "officially WW2" they joined forces for global domination
What makes me nervous is this one more roll of the die thing. I think it was here on YT, something about Russian TV last year, they sounded like suicide bombers. Something along the lines of “oh well, if this turns nuclear we (the Russians) will all go to heaven and everyone else will go to hell.”
![อาจารย์ยอด : เรื่องแปลกจากท้องนา [ผี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8PxYzVOjmK8/mqdefault.jpg)
She would be an interesting player in a Diplomacy Game
what's her WebDiplomacy handle? 😊😊😊
Out of all the things you could've, this is what u took from her information? No wonder society is doomed
@@Somereasonstolive the fuck are we supposed to do about it? It doesn't matter whether we understand or not, nothing changes.
@@TheTruepanther ikr 😂
@@TheTruepanther you kind of missed the point that the greatest defence against some crazed leader hitting the nuke button is that the people under them are well educated enough to not go through with it.
Not to mention non-state actors with random strays.
Especially when theirs nukes out there not accounted for.
Fission bombs are fairly stable, but the tridium decays rapidly
@@Vestolord Like the ones that may be out there if Pakistan falls apart.
When we don't know how many Israel has, they won't sign anything or make it official... That's a lot of unknown
@@HappyGuy-cn9po
It's funny that you mentioned Pakistan that our military is basically in bed with their military... but you fell to mentioned i$ra!l that doesn't listen to our military but only listen to s a t a n !
So in essence, WW3 may have already started?
Propably. Ww2 Was basically a continuation of ww1. There was never an interbellum periode as it is depicted. There was constant war
@@deviousalemanni4235There was a treaty signed at the end of ww1 so they would be different wars.
Edit : grammar
Yes. The prelude if you will.
We had a global pandemic followed by a global economic downturn. If history is anything to go by, WW3 is next
@@Osprey980 I don't think they meant literally. Atleast, that's what I've read from people with a similar view. You're completely right though. The war did come to an official close so they are 100% separate wars.
Thinking of the time that the Cuban Missile Crisis almost went nuclear save for one Soviet admiral refusing to launch a nuke without orders ....
If US hadnt stationed jupiter missiles in turkey, no cuban missile crisis.
If US didnt seize crimea from russia, no ukraine war
Wasn't he the first officer on a submarine?
Vasili Arkhipov was one of the commanding officers of that sub bombarded by practice depth-charges from a U.S. Navy ship trying to get the Soviet submarine to surface. He was the only one of three officers on board that refused to insert his key into the launch mechanism, which would have launched a nuclear weapon from that Soviet sub.
@chetpomeroy1399 yes, precisely what I had read. The capt and political commissar said "da", he said "nyet". Didn't go down too well with the comrades in Mockba.
the cuban missile crisis caused by john f kennedy
but all he gets credit for is "solving it"
Don't forget the Spanish civil war
Yes, Germany’s roll in saving Franco and getting field tested at the same time
Everyone does, and it is almost a 1:1 for the West.
They could have stopped Hitler right there, or curbed a lot of the early war. As the Allies were suffering a material/production shortages.
If they started just pumping out aid and supplying Spain... It looks completely different.
Ethiopian war by Italy, emboldened dictators to start invading.
Spanish civil war was basically a testing ground of who’s weapons, support and political power would influence the most and give best prospects of winning the civil war (and other future conflicts)
War in Ukraine is basically a invasion of Ethiopia + Spanish civil war in one
You mean that nobody expected the Spanish inquisition?
@@richarddillinger8768 germany didnt save franco
dont talk unless you know
the color brigade fought both communists and nazis on behalf of the democratic government of spain.
also dont pretend the communists in spain werent committing horrendous acts
the massacring of priests being a prominent one.
franco did nothing wrong
and btw
he stayed neutral in ww2.
The debate in whether or not this will lead to WW3 is largely pointless in this capacity. WW3 simply cannot "look" like WW2 for a plethora of reasons, from population demographics, global informational access, military advantages & alliances and finally, nuclear weapons.
Russia cannot possibly hope to defeat something like NATO (even without the US) in conventional warfare and the Ukraine war is a perfect example of that. The days where a country like Germany could move into Austria, Poland, etc are gone, and what has replaced it is an allied network of military technology and intelligence sharing.
WW3 would likely look like seemingly large but isolated conflicts, like Russia vs Ukraine, Iran vs Israel, China vs Taiwan where competing blocks are essentially fighting directly but with one in a support fashion to not fully get themselves directly at risk of nuclear escalations.
If it expands beyond that we are in the territory Sarah describes but for that reason, it's why you would be incredibly unlikely to see something like the US striking into mainland China in the case of a China vs Taiwan conflict. They would likely only target military assets crossing the Taiwan straight to avoid the Chinese government fearing that risk of "losing" meaning the end of their regime. The same way that even though Ukraine is now hitting military and infrastructure targets within Russia, that the US and Europe has set use restrictions on the weapons they provide as to not actually allow Russia to have "existential" concerns.
You say "conventional warfare", well Russia are engaged in so called "hybrid warfare": Propaganda combined with conventional arms.
Look at US aid to Ukraine which has stalled due to Russian propaganda influencing US politics. Due to this Russia are probably going to win in Ukraine.
Talking about Russians, you should exclude logic. When Putin dies, power will move from the FSB/KGB to the military. I am not sure if Russia will start a war on itself or if it will be used by China similarly to NR. But I believe war is inevitable in the current conditions, and it is a matter of time only. Usually, when the time comes, the US will be in a very weak military position due to political changes. For example, the election will be won by a president who is hostile to the military or who is cutting military funds due to social programs. They already generated plans to invade Europe if only states were excluded from the game. Such a decision can be made by pure degradant, but looking at the state of the Russian government - everything is possible.
I personally consider the entirety of the cold war as ww3, as it’s very interconnected and sort of like one interconnected war, a cold war…
So basically Cold War 2. Localized conflicts are on the rise everywhere, with both sides getting support from the big players
@@TheModeler99 We already are in a sorta cold war 2, we've already been in one for a while it's just heating up now
An example I'd use is Syrian civil war as we've been backing one side, and Russia has been backing the other side for a while now
I wouldn't count Korea, as that's more of a remnant of the previous cold war rather than this new one
It's definitely been heating up more with our adamant support of ukraine, and the creation of the pacific sort of mini-nato build around the defense of taiwan
We won't see nukes fly, or a war between major powers, it's just be proxy wars, and trade wars
Missed the tipping point in 2014.
Which Russia invaded Ukraine and siezed Crimea illegally.
@@nattha_ww3088 it was very legally!
Only we grab other countries territories illegaly.
@@nattha_ww3088it invaded the Donbas region because 14 thousand ethnic Russians were killed during the civil war in Ukraine and by Ukrainian troops and Crimea wanted to be a part of Russia they weren’t annexed illegally.
@@asura3967 If what you said was true. Russia and Donbas people can file a petition to ICJ. But why did Russia avoid the process which provides a formal investigation? Russia also support the violence rebellion which also killed many Ukraine people and soldier. The peace in Donbas has gone because of Russia.
@nattha_ww3088 if you did your research, you would be informed that Russia has been attempting diplomacy for 10 years.
DOD has admitted to the very biological labs Russia accused near its borders.
The civil war in Ukraine was triggered by mercenaries hired by CIA on behalf of Obama.
Sarah C. M. Paine She has some lectures on the Naval War College channel.
Thanks she rocks!
@@xxyyzzplants131
No, she doesn't.
One great difference between now and the 1930's and now is the the leadership of the former allied nations were all quite hesitant to fight another general war to the point of being pacifist. The atmosphere now is more similar to 1914 when due to jingosm generated by imperialism and the economic competition of the first global age,and false courage generated by the various entangling alliences, the idea of war seemed like a tension release and a welcomed distraction from the growing social problems capitalism and nationalism of the various ethnic groups in Europe and else.
The population in the west is entirely mentally unprepared for a war like we are seeing in Ukraine. The bravery and determination of both sides to endure the horror of this conflict is entirely absent in the west.
@@tadhgcronin175 I think a lot of the support of Ukraine war comes is because it is a diversion from the divisive and quarrelsome nature of domestic politucs.
@@tadhgcronin175 Exactly the same thing was said about men in my country before WW1. This "soft" men died by million in the trenches.
We think of 1931 separately because we see 1937 invasion as the start of Second Sino-Japanese War and thus de facto of WWII.
2014 and 2022 were also quite apart.
This woman is brilliant! I CAN LISTEN TO HER ALL DAY.
Enjoy your brainwashing sessions
He left out Italy into Ethiopia 1920s.
That's not part of World War 2. Also you got your years wrong. There was no war in Ethiopia in the 1920s. The Dervish war ended in 1920. They were at peace until 1935.
1935, more seriously though I'd argue the second sinojapanese war in 1937 was the start of world war 2
I mean, not really. We kind of separate the Manchurian War and China invasion from WW2. I mean, it eventually became part of it, since it was still going on, but few actually see WW2 as TRULY starting in 1931. Just a run up like the Spanish Civil War was.
I disagree. The two start dates are only separated if you look at it from the lens of the past. But in hindsight, the events were sparks in the same tinder that ignited the world in flames.
That is the key part, not that they were directly correlated, but that they were towards the same ends. Both Japan & Germany prepared for war with the eventually Allies, long before 1931 & 1939. Japan invading Manchuria & the Spanish Civil war were just the opening acts, and the following global war was the apex of it all. To say they were separate is disingenuous.
Japan invaded china by occupying "Manchuria" and set-up a puppet state !
It actually dépend who you ask
I don't know what these 2 guys above are smoking but nobody thinks ww2 started before 1939, I mean just Google the start date of ww2. I could make a stronger case for ww2 starting immediately after ww1 than it starting with Japan invading modern day China.
@@BAPK1602 So are the Balkan wars considered part of ww1? Or according to this, ww1 can be considered as part of ww2, because the treaties ending the first were a major cause of the second. Hm?
I love this analyst.
As time goes by, the actual effects of a nuclear bomb dropped is getting diluted.. I dont think people fully understand the damage that will occur..
This is load of bullshit
Who is she?
Agreed......@@romanz9342
@@romanz9342maybe you could show us that you are a genius, sharing your deep thoughts about the question she answered in the video.
If you use this analogy one of the contributing reasons for ww2 was US turning its back on Europe after ww1. The power balance between East and West during the Cold war contributed to the abscence of major conflicts. As well as US/NATO trying to keep this balance after the Cold war. If US decide to turn its back on Europe things can escalate into something like ww3.
It broke the balance after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and subsequent agression on Yugoslavia/Serbia and spreading revolutions through the Post-Soviet countries. Not to mention meddling in affairs of the Middle Eastern countries.
The role of the United States as world policeman was a disaster. WW2 was caused by a desire of the Germans to conquer for resources. The conflict in Ukraine is about Russia protecting its resources. Russia doesn't need resources it has everything it needs and more. What we are witnessing is Russia applying a Munroe doctrine in Ukraine. Not on our patch buddy, clear off.
How have I never heard of Sarah Paine until a few days ago?
Considering the shit show Russia's invasion has been, and they haven't even used a small tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine - which suggests they understand the risks such a decision would mean. Russia is all about posturing and propaganda - and nukes are their most useful tool in that regard. Actually using them isn't the point. The only way I think that happens is if either A. Ukraine started invading Russia or B. someone did something stupid and hit a NATO asset by accident. Using them preemptively would potentially jeopardise their relationships with the few countries that support them, like India and China, and galvanise the West into further supporting Ukraine. Also, Russia has been continually notifying the West about movements of its nuclear assets since this invasion begun, because behind closed doors they understand how such actions could be perceived as a genuine threat. 90% of what Russia does is not for politicians to see - it's for the people whose taxes they need to support Ukraine. Scare them, defund Ukraine.
Exactly. Plus many rich Russians still have their children attend schools in the bad, bad, degenerate evil West. The oligarchs would not allow nuclear action to take place.
This is the most sober and down to earth analysis ive seen on the conflict so far. congrats.
There is another factor in why Russia hasn't tried to use nukes yet: the consequences of a failed attempt. One of the things we've seen with both Russia and China is a failure to maintain integrity and custody of their military hardware. In Russia's case, it was maintenance logs on military equipment being filled out, but nobody following up to make sure that the work was actually done, resulting in things like rotting tires, non-functioning weapons systems, or inventories being done, but nobody following up to make sure that somebody didn't just part out the assets they were responsible for and sell it. In China's case, it was finding out that an unscrupulous contractor had filled many of their warheads with water rather than the expensive 'splody bits. In both cases, they look dangerous on paper but don't hold up to the rigors of reality. Now, knowing what we know about Russian QA practices, there's a decent chance that many of their warheads are now duds due to lack of maintenance or corruption. What would happen to Russia if they TRIED to nuke somebody and it was a dud?
They would not get a chance to try again is what would happen, and it isn't worth Moscow being glassed for them to make the attempt.
@@themightydropbear And this is one of the most low brainpower takes ive seen.
I wpuldnt he implying such, Nobody alive today even knows what the inside of aminuteman rocket looks like.
@@Cotac_Rastic Really?. Are you a Missile Expert?
Hitler and Stalin planned the invasion of Poland together, and they invaded Poland tougher in September 1939. Then they together celebrated the victory in the joint parade in town of Brest.
I always enjoyed Sally's lectures at the NWC. She always had a very direct way at looking at issues, quite refreshing.
“You gotta always NOT use nuclear weapons” is a banger
Germany and Russia started the war in Europe ….germany struck first but you don’t move 300,000 men and supplies around in a day ….it takes many weeks to provide and equip a army …the joint invasion of Poland was agreed between molokov and Ribbentrop when there none aggression plan was signed months before .
Or rather with splitting Czechoslovakia between Germany, Poland and Hungary a year prior. And Poland not letting USSR forces to pass through to aid people of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
@@akztar No suprise there, since Czechoslovakians did the same to Poland when Soviets were marching towards Warsaw. Took Zaolzie and blockade help from Hungary.
@@akztarusing the word aid in regards to the soviets is a misnomer.
No@@george2113
@@george2113 or rather using aid to US...
Start saving your bottle caps, fellow ghouls
That's correct. WW2 started in 1931
This has been a great interview series.
This lady is fascinating, does she have a podcast? (Already subscribed to Dr Patel)
Germany 1939, "We just Poland, that's it " Putin modern day, "We just want Ukraine."
Germany didn't say that. And Putin also didn't say that.
@@nimmha6708hitler said he only wanted Sutherland, then moved on to Austria, and then continued to push the bar until someone confronted him. Dictators don’t just stop at the first goal, they will always want more. Putin said he wants all of Ukraine and he won’t stop there. Most of russias tactics have followed hurlers ww2 strategies
@@casey2124surely you have a reference for when Putin said what you claim he said.
@@nunyabizznez2805 - It must of been on the "News" we all know how big of Liars the "News" is.
More like
NATO: we just want Ukraine.
Pandora's box also contained HOPE
"Democracy is non-negotiable." I know we will not hesitate to defend our constitutional republic.
No mention of Russia also invading Poland in 1939 - especially as Ukraine was used in the question
It was the USSR that invaded Poland. Ukraine was a founding member of the USSR and participated in the invasion.
Then remember that Poland has invaded Czechoslovakia with their German allies at the time in 1938.
@@OakInchUkraine was a “founding member” inasmuch as it was conquered by the Bolsheviks 20 years earlier. As has repeatedly been shown, most Ukrainians had little desire to belong to that “prison of nations”.
@@mebsrea Ukr was a founding member of the USSR. It was literally founded by the Bolsheviks after WW1. Ukr was part of the Russian empire before that. It didn't even exist as a country before the Bolsheviks created it. It was a region with that multiple countries owned various parts of at various times. The rest of Russia was also conquered by the Bolsheviks. If you are giving Ukr a free pass on what they participated in under the Bolsheviks, then you must do the same for the rest Russia. It is about not having double standards and knowing history.
Bullshit. Ukraine was conquered by Russia and partly Russified, then sought independence at the first opportunity in 1918. It was then invaded by Soviet troops and its independence extinguished in 1921. (And yes, I’m aware that this is a simplified version of events given the multisided civil war and foreign interventions going on at the same time.) Within ten years, while Ukraine was part of the USSR, Stalin intentionally provoked a genocide in Ukraine, starving millions to death. Some Ukrainians were certainly committed Bolsheviks, but the overall picture, as it has been for centuries and as Russia is trying to reimpose now, is a Ukraine subject to rule from Moscow, regardless of what its people want. When given the chance to freely express their will, the verdict has been clear: Ukrainians want freedom and independence from Moscow’s predatory rule.
Maybe Russia should have thought about this before they invaded a sovereign nation.
the bigger Problem is Nato instantly supporting Ukraine. to prevent a world war, Ukraine should accept russias terms, because Ukraine WILL LOSE, and if they dont accept now, they wont exist later.
Why should they? I mean the USA and the UK both made it clear multiple times that invasion is zero problem
@@qbert8695I must have missed the part where Iraq was a democratic country and not an aggressive dictatorship, and where the Americans kidnapped Iraqi children, tried to extinguish Iraqi culture, claimed that Iraq had always been part of America, and asserted that the existence of Iraq was a historical mistake.
@@mebsrea is that enough of a justification of invading sovereign nation? You must be thinking that's right only because the USA is doing this?
And yeah, where the hell did you see Putin tries to wipe out Ukrainian culture? I can only see Ukraine itself is doing that towards Russian culture ever since 2014 by destroying monuments, shaming anybody, who speaks the Russian language, etc. If you miss that part, please explain to me, how it's my fault.,
@@mebsreaMost of what you said applies to the Ukrainian government and what they did to the ethnic Russians in the donbass. Make sure you have the same animosity for the US illegal occupation of oil fields in Syria. Stealing oil and sending it to the Jews in Israel who were behind the war in the first place.
In one of my classes, a scientist working at Los Alamos National Labs, where the US does nuclear research, gave a presentation. He argued that nuclear weaponry has been more of a guaranteer of peace than anything else. Not only do I think that history disagrees; I also think that he's forgetting about a serious problem, which is that low probability iterated over many years issue. We've tried the mutually assured destruction path to peace before, multiple times. Eventually, someone will decide that destruction is not mutual or that it is not assured, and they will trigger a war. This happened with both world wars. A third world war involving nuclear weaponry just needs one nation deciding that it can get away with it, regardless of how correct that assumption is. Nuclear weapons gave us time to learn how to resolve international conflicts without war. The dozens of armed conflicts around the globe, including ones involving major powers like Russia or Israel, show that we squandered that time and are now paying the price.
I like to imagine her HoI4 matches are these impressive and elaborate long form matches that result in insane fictional events that make too much sense xD
It was called the AXIS powers
What leads anyone to presuppose that the meetings are to prevent war?
If we didnt have them, wed already be killing each other full speed. The hope for a just peace is the only deterrent to war. Take away that hope and your basically already in conflict whether the bullets are flying or not
This 2 hr vid is well worth the watch.
I don’t know how they would (just have a few theories) but I am certain that after 80 years of having access to them, most nations especially ones with larger budgets would have invented some kind of anti nuke. Either disabling or destroying the warheads before they can reach their targets. It’s been far too long to have not developed something
Slavi Ukrani
Слава Украина
Heroiam slava
Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine 🇸🇪❤🇺🇦
they need you pal, shut up talking an get over there.
To the last Ukrainian.. .. you are a clown..
This is why the US must put its weight into supporting Ukraine. The expense is terrible, but the consequences of not helping are far worse.
The "terrible expense" would be less than 1% of the US defense budget.
What consequences?
Supporting Ukraine is what is causing the world's tensions
@@dingus6317 How dare Ukraine defend itself against foreign invasion, and how dare other countries support an invaded country against a foreign invader.
Remember when France and the UK started WW2 by declaring war on Germany, just because Poland cried foul?
@@HungryLoki Lol as if Ukraine was just minding its own business and not shelling the East for the past ten years and as if they didn’t get a western puppet as a president who was hell bent on joining NATO after they specifically said they would remain neutral. Remember when Poland massacred Germans in Danzig?
If Putin says "Launch"....will they push the button for him?
If Biden says "Launch"... will they push the button the him?
No, like 90% of them won't and you need a majority
To their credit, a number of Soviet officers have turned down the nuclear option, quite often at great personal risk, over the last several decades.
Yes it can same with the Israel Hamas war. As the world seems to not want a true winner in either case they want a surrender from the one who has been pulling their punches by a 50% .
US could have ended the war on day 1 by telling qatar to arrest all hamas operatives until all kidnapped americans were released. Instead, US transferred $10 billion to Iran and $100 million to Hamas via UNRWA
They just want an end to the Apartheid and the recognition of Palestinians as rightful citizens of a joint jewish/muslim state of Israel.
Yeah, obviously write into your constitution that any religious intolerance will not be tolerated.
There, I just solved the middle east for you, now if only the Israeli establishment wanted to solve the problem, instead of keeping a convenient scapegoat around to distract their very gullible population.
they just need to share it 50/50. nobody wants to point out that that 10%disjointed sliver of land isnt a proper country for palestine and until then two state solution is a silly meaningless term
They want a return to status quo. But eventually, by preventing these smaller adjustments to the status quo (i.e. removing Hamas), the status quo becomes more untenable and eventually spills into world war. Again.
It did. Actually Ukraine cascaded from earlier conflicts. But obviously American analysts need some time to climbed over the hurdles of American greatness in order to be able to see such things.
Nonsense
@@mosienko1983 good point. 👍
Which earlier conflicts? The other ones started by Russia?
@@nimmha6708It started with the dissolution of the USSR. Most of the tension in Eastern Europe today originated from the dissatisfaction of the post-Soviet borders. Take the Ukraine war for example, in 1991 Russia (previously the USSR) lost much of its historical heartland, along with the basic loss of its most important harbor - Sevastopol. This loss was inconceivable to the Russians and once they’ve recovered economically and militarily, they immediately moved to retake Crimea. Today’s war is also just the continuation of that, a reaction to a perceived existential threat.
One key difference between the USSR and Russia is that the former had strong ideological ambitions and the latter is highly nationalistic. The USSR wanted to create a bloc of communist states and Russia is trying to be… Russia. It is vital to recognize the differences in their goals and understand them accordingly.
@@nimmha6708 Not only. But also Syria, Kosovo, Sahel Africa. Just to name a few.
"You've always got to, not use nuclear weapons." 🙏 Amen.
All I see are people who are working hard to make WW3 happen.
Yep - take a bow Victoria Nuland
Russian bot spotted!
@@mebsrea yes, you got me, 50% of other Ukrainians are Russians too, btw.
@@mebsrea please stop destroying our country!
@@mebsrea - Who be the bot, me or the orig posterer? Or is it you, trying to get some cred for trying to out a bot?
The two bombs dropped in 1945 saved a LOT of lives. WW2 goes on for a long time if not for the use of those weapons.
Cope
Irrelevant. What’s your point?
@@Loooam They were atomic bombs is the point.
@@christownsend3979 Non sequitur
You def support israel then rofl
We live in a world where all players of power are rogue.
This video has cuts mid-sentence on the part of the 'reporter'. Difficult to trust anything so heavily edited.
Btw - they are preparing us for a war
"They." Who is they? How about just forming a complete sentence for once.
I can tell just from those few words that you are a conspiracy theorist
@@andrewwebster4348I guess in this context it means leader class? Which is honestly not that far fetched. Rhetorics have been changing in media last two years.
Yes, the NATO false claims that Russia want to restore the former USSR are needed to justify the false NATO claims that war is coming and it may be nuclear. Russia just wants to trade, it has plenty of land and resources unlike it's neighbours, especially in the Baltic states, Poland, Finland, etc. As Col Mcgregor noted, what part of neutrality did not work for Sweden? European people do not support NATO expanding eastwards, as Hitler outlined in Mein Kampf. NATO is following Hitler's plan IMHO. Let's trade.
Public opinion can change in a short span. Plus once the war starts regular folks don't have a lot of choices left.
She's good, but if Russia's nuclear program is anything like their air defense i wouldn't be too worried.
even if just half or a quarter of those nukes actually work itd still be devastating, although yeah a lot of their silos are just filling with water and are completely unkempt, although a lot of ours are like that too
Cringing. russia has good air defence 🙄
You may as well find out soon enough. When you feel your face melting.
@@dmytrandr Thats why they are getting hit 750km within their borders.
@@ohnoes3084 Our continental based nukes are a redundancy. US nuclear strength comes from subs.
I have never heard that Russo-Japanese war was part of WW2.
unfortunately Russia doesn’t always have organic hands over the red button
Here's hoping they didn't program ideology and make Bolshevik Skynet lmao.
Wrong, most leaders are doing every thing to escalate
Even if one is charitable and believes our leaders have the best of intentions, they absolutely do not have the competence to prevent it from spiraling out of control. We are not sending our best. But a lot are probably evil too.
Did she just say our leaders are trying to prevent global conflict?? Everything she says is invalid if that is her position. Who is this lady? She must work for the government.
She's right about that. The reason America fights regional wars is to stop another world war from happening. We've gone almost eighty years since the last World War so the theory seems to hold up
@@EndwankeryNo.. Overthrowing countries for your own purpose is not democracy, not stable. We have not gone that long without "global war" the U.S. has just been better at revision.
@@Endwankeryand helping (selling weapons, buying goods, doing business) all parties in big conflict : Iran-irak, Germany-russian, etc...
@@icecamaroes I'm not so fond of that aspect of it, got to admit
@@EndwankeryIf you refer to the US war history , it has waged war 98 percent of the time since it's founded as a nation , based on it's own history. No country or empire has such warmongering record.
WWI they were all meeting too…the meetings didn’t go well…
Wish yhey would have said something about the other 3++++ wars going on at this point in.
Russia said 14 years ago that nato expanding into Ukraine was a red line, they have been saying this consistently since that time, but the west ignored it and just pushed and pushed and pushed. What did they except? Russia means what it says.
Ukraine only asked to join Nato after Russia already invaded and off Russias allies in Nato are slowing down the process of acceptance.
Russia has absolutely zero say about what Ukraine or any other country does or doesn't.
If Ukraine wants to join an international organisation like Nato, that's between Ukraine and Nato, Russia can go kick rocks!
If Georgia wants to join Nato, that's between Georgia and Nato, Russia can go kick rocks!
If Belarus wants to join NATO, that's between Belarus and Nato, Russia can go kick rocks!
The red line should be the law, not the warning from the criminal.
@@asambi69 wrong in fact.
@@nattha_ww3088 red line is the red line, cross it and get smacked - they did, and they got smacked.
The question is why provoke a country into using nukes.
Who is provoking who? Ukraine has no nukes.
@@johnmonrow9981 NATO wants to put Ukraine into NATO and put nukes, that is like when USSR put nukes on Cuba
I guess we should just let a country with nukes do absolutely whatever they want?
WW1 and WW2 were the same war with a break for a while
Dont forget about the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan being part of the great war.
She is very proficient in outdated thinking.
No, theyre not going to start ww3 lmfao, our country is trying to start it. Lmfao 😂
When you play too much hoi4
To be honest, during wwii Russia had a much more powerful economy which meant it eventually got it’s shit together in the military side of things. It also had a huge population from all the soviet states which it no longer has
She is disingenuous: "People are working to prevent [nuclear war] from happening." The U.S. undermined the signed Minsk agreement and scuttled negotiations in Turkey in 2022 to settle the Donbass matter, both of which increased the risk of nuclear war. Moreover, Blinken still advocates Ukraine becoming a NATO member which Russia has long stated is a non-negotiable red line. This would raise the risk of nuclear war dramatically. Her characterization of "working to prevent" is risible tosh.
This kind of thought that raised hitzer
@@bagalao77 “we’re the good guys trying to stop bad Putin“. Negotiations in bad faith are all that has happened because Putin is “evil” and everyone else is “good” 😂
I can't believe you buy that when The Russo-Ukraine war has been the greatest endorsement NATO has ever got and has meant the total end of Finlandization.
This red line does not matter.
Russia has exactly zero say in what Ukraine does and doesn't do. If Ukraine wants to join Nato, and Nato want them to join, that's between Ukraine and Nato, Russia can go kick rocks!
@@80sheavymetalguitar45 in the 30' were the good guys NOT trying to stop hitzer, as all negotiations were in good faith...shitz repeats itself
Nato could back off that will be a good idea.
Simply backing off doesn't always work it's what they tried with hitler in ww2 and let him take countries like Austria and recapture territory.
That would be extremely convenient for a country that is trying to invade a neighbor and openly condones the destruction the the neighbors culture.
I think the conversation about using nuclear weapons is high greater than them actually doing it I feel people want to believe that it will happen more than it actually will happen
I wish you asked her why Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
She would have told you that they had ambitions to unite the German people, they wanted living space & were annoyed at the fact that they had to repay ww1.
@@JoeeyTheeKangaroo Yes.
I was wondering if she would have mentioned the germans, tatars, slowaks and czech people in Poland and what happend to them.
Which was THE MAIN reason for military conflict.
America used atomic bombs against an already defeated Japan.
If you don't understand why we did so you should look into that...
@@blackhawkgaming2965 The heavy investment into atomic energy used as a weapon was the reason it was used; to see how it really worked. Yes, Japan would fight hard in a mainlamd assault by US troops but the US had destroyed Japan as a militatry force by that stage of the war, and no infrastructure existed to support the Japanese army or military complex. US reports on Japan written after the war confirm the fact Japan was out for the count.
That’s as ignorant as it gets. An enemy is defeated until it has surrendered and is disarmed. Ask any family of a soldier that was killed by surrendering troops that had hidden grenades or suicide vests on.
Until Japan surrendered and disarmed they were not defeated. By mid 1942 there was no doubt in that they could not win but they fought on.
@@JaneJetsin Calm down! Don't be so emotional. Read the US strategic reports on the state of Japan in 1945. Hand grenades are less lethal that atomic bombs on civilian populations.
@@blackhawkgaming2965There are many reasons and benefits as well as consequences.
- Once it was created since Japan did not surrender when they were warned it had to be used or Americans would have been outraged it was not once they realized we had it. How would you feel if your father or brother died fighting in the year or two after they could have used them?
- At that point was no doubt for 2 to 2.5 years that Japan could not win yet American and Japanese casualties were increasing the close we came to Japan. Just in 1945 on Iwo Jima America suffered 6,821 killed and 19,217 wounded. Japan lost all but a few hundred of the 20,000-troops there. About 90,000 Japanese combatants died in the fighting, but deaths among Okinawan civilians may have reached 150,000.
Okinawa cost more than 49,000 American casualties, including about 12,000 deaths.
- There was mass starvation all over the pacific islands due to the war and no commercial shipping and resources going into the war. In Japan over a million people a year were starving to death including allied pows in Japan, Burma and china.
- It was estimated that 1 to 1.5 million Americans would be casualties invading the home islands of Japan and ten times that many Japanese.
- The alternative to invading was a naval blockade to completely isolate and starve Japan literally to death women and children included. That is a war crime.
In the end 50 million or so lives were saved by the two bombings as well as several years of cruel unnecessary suffering.
Why 6 months before I saw US and UK military advisors in Ukraina?. Why the extremists of the Azov voluntary were killing Russians in d Dombass region but thousands?. Could be that Black Rock and UK signed and explo mines agreement?.
why were russians in ukraine??
@@victorhopper6774 because they lived there longer than Ukraine exists. Ukraine is a russian word
@@victorhopper6774 Why are Mexicans in USA ?
@McHallel but russia was created after the fall of Soviet Union. How come?
What is "dombass"? Is it somewhere in United States of America?
Proxy wars are more profitable than all out wars.
The one human being that could be said to have singlehandedly saved the world was a Soviet officer. There was a missile launch from America and he was ordered to reply but he refused. Some big shot American was visiting Russia and he couldn't imagine us nuking them but also it was so few missiles it didn't make sense. It was geese but if he launched it would have been over.
He was disciplined.
Allowing Ukraine into nato is stupid.
Yeah Mark, I certainly agree but unfortunately we have some stupid leadership now just as in the last two World Wars. Praying they agree with you and I!
They totally hooked up after the interview.
It's hard to focus on the content if the guy who is presenting it is so damn good looking.
Like many people are saying these days, WW3 has already started the main players just haven't logged in yet.
Skipping over the warmongers in the West who have been pushing this so hard....
Warmongers in the West? Who decided it was time to invade Ukraine in 2014?
Western Historian making sense in her own western understanding. PROPAGANDA CLIP ALERT.
Bot
Still better than complete revision of history coming from muscovites 😂
@@Millzy177 hi Bot
@@goldy6674 from your western point of view yes.
What if this is why we are seeing so much stuff about aliens? They are here for the series finale!
This is all about keeping the military industrial complex fat and happy.
I love how it's always "NEVER TO BE USED" as if the USA hasn't done so already, twice..
USA was the only one with nukes for a few short years. And boy did they abuse that position in WW2, big time. That changed fast. Ever since the USSR got it's first nukes in the early 1950s all of the fun for the USA was ruined. Then France, China, UK, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel all got the nukes. South Africa gave them away tho.
last couple days videos of her filled my suggested video section. I dare she's one of the intellectual pearl of today.
Was getting my hopes up for Civilization
Dude, Japan invaded China. Manchuria was not a country until Japanese claimed it.
Japan was grabbing up formerly european colonies all throughout the interim between WWI and WWII, they never really stopped being at war in the Pacific, they just happened to coincide with a war in Europe and had common enemies for a few years.
My dad is 73 years old and you're telling me Pandora's Box was open before he was even born??? How much time do we have left then.. Jesus Christ lol
Just realized I’ve read her books in my WW2 in china class! Seen her videos and never realized to read the name.
As she pointed out, the Manchurian conflict was about economics unconnected to global war. Today, we are watching another run-up to a kinetic conflict between the authoritarian impulse and the democratic movement of history. Looking at the world today, it is hard to miss it.
I personally embrace my future as a Fallout 3 ghoul
Are we forgetting Stanislav Petrov and Vasily Arkhipov, both Russians who saved the world from Nuclear Annihilation on 2 seperate events.
The best nuclear strategy is to not using nuclear weapons. It is indeed a unique psychological weapon
Imagine following orders to blow up the earth, knowing there won't be another tomorrow.
I mean both Germany and Japan devolved into their own forms of fascism, then by the time it was "officially WW2" they joined forces for global domination
In another part of the interview she justifies the use of nuclear weapons in Japan.
What makes me nervous is this one more roll of the die thing. I think it was here on YT, something about Russian TV last year, they sounded like suicide bombers. Something along the lines of “oh well, if this turns nuclear we (the Russians) will all go to heaven and everyone else will go to hell.”
I've never understood why they don't gauge the beginning of world war two with japan's invasion of china
The more often a stupidity is repeated the more it has the appearance of wisdom.
the pandora box opening is America using nukes on Japan twice
Judea declares War to Germany in 1930. The War started with The "French Revolution"
I have enjoyed listening and learning from this obviously very bright lady. I then read her bio. Quite impressive!
Everyday I wake up and remind myself not to use nuclear weapons today.