Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Generational Dynamics World View
** 28-Aug-2019 World View: World War III Scenario

CH86 Wrote:> OK then, you stated your conception regarding US
> stability. Regarding an international ww3. Would would happen IF
> the war begins someplace unexpected. Example if world War III
> begins but it begins in some place like kashmir, eastern
> europe/balkans or in central Asia? What would happen then?

The war is almost certain to start "in some place like kashmir,
eastern europe/balkans or in central Asia?" As I've said, a world war
begins with a small incident somewhere that expands into a regional
war and then a world war over a period of months or years.

America today does not want fight in another war, just as America
didn't want to fight in another war in the late 1930s, until forced to
do so by the Regeneracy, the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Bataan
Death March.

World War II actually began in 1937, with the Macro Polo Bridge
incident, and it's forgotten today that Japan bombed and sank an
American ship four years before Pearl Harbor.

The sequence of steps that led from the beginning of WW II to American
involvement could serve as a kind of template for what might happen
today with China. Here are some paragraphs from my book:

Quote: "America's long-standing friendship with China,
combined with concern about Japan's militarism and invasions of
Manchuria and northern China, caused America to side with China in
the Sino-Japan war. However, America also had a policy of
non-interference, and had no vital interests in China, and so had
little desire to go to war with Japan -- or with Germany in
Europe, for that matter.

America did not even enter the Sino-Japan war when Japan's
warplanes bombed and sank the USS Panay on the Yangtze River on
December 12, 1937, as it was evacuating Americans from Nanking
during the Battle of Nanking (which became known as Japan's "Rape
of Nanking"). This is notable because it was the first Japanese
attack on an American naval vessel, and it was four years prior to
the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Three men on the USS Panay were killed, and 27 injured. The
Japanese claimed that the attack was a mistake, but few people
believe that. A newsreel of the Japanese warplanes sinking the
ship "went viral" in America and shocked the public, especially
because America was neutral in the war. Rather than risk America
entering the war on the side of China, the Japanese apologized and
paid compensation.

The Japanese massacre of Nanking and the sinking of the USS Panay
were shocks to the American public, but not shocking enough to
change American opinion against being drawn into the war,
especially after the apology.

When war broke out in Europe in September 1939, President Franklin
D. Roosevelt declared that while the United States would remain
neutral in law, he could "not ask that every American remain
neutral in thought as well." Because the American public was
strongly against entering the war, Roosevelt began supplying
weapons to Britain in exchange for leases on territory, and later
on deferred payment terms known as "The Lend-Lease program," which
would not require payment until after the war.

Over the course of the war, the United States contracted
Lend-Lease agreements with more than 30 countries, dispensing some
$50 billion in assistance. Although British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill later referred to the initiative as "the most unsordid
act" one nation had ever done for another, Roosevelt's primary
motivation was not altruism or disinterested generosity.

The Lend-Lease program didn't originally apply to China, but in
1940-41, Roosevelt formalized U.S. aid to China. The U.S. extended
credits to the Chinese Government for the purchase of war
supplies, as it slowly began to tighten restrictions on Japan.

The United States had been the main supplier of the oil, steel,
iron, and other commodities needed by the Japanese military in
China. But in January, 1940, Japan abrogated the existing treaty
of commerce with the United States. This abrogation gave
Roosevelt the ability to cut off or restrict the flow of military
supplies into Japan. After January 1940, the United States
combined a strategy of increasing aid to China through larger
credits and the Lend-Lease program with a gradual move towards an
embargo on the trade of all militarily useful items with Japan.

In 1940, Japan announced the intention to drive the Western
imperialist nations from Asia. On September 27, 1940, Japan
signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, making China an
ally of the West. Then in mid-1941, Japan signed a Neutrality
Pact with the Soviet Union, freeing Japan's military to move into
Southeast Asia. A third agreement with Vichy France enabled
Japanese forces to move into French Indochina and begin their
Southern Advance.

Although negotiations restarted after the United States
increasingly enforced an embargo against Japan, they made little
headway. Diplomats in Washington came close to agreements on a
couple of occasions, but pro-Chinese sentiments in the United
States made it difficult to reach any resolution that would not
involve a Japanese withdrawal from China, and such a condition was
unacceptable to Japan's military leaders. Faced with serious
shortages as a result of the embargo, unable to retreat, and
convinced that the U.S. officials opposed further negotiations,
Japan's leaders came to the conclusion that they had to act
swiftly. For their part, U.S. leaders had not given up on a
negotiated settlement, and also doubted that Japan had the
military strength to attack the U.S. territory. Therefore they
were stunned when the unthinkable happened and Japanese planes
bombed the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The
following day, the United States declared war on Japan, and it
soon entered into a military alliance with China. When Germany
stood by its ally and declared war on the United States, the
Roosevelt Administration faced war in both Europe and
Asia."

Note that when Japan bombed and sank the USS Panay, America stayed
neutral because the people didn't want to fight. And then when the
war in Europe began, America stayed neutral because the people didn't
want to fight. But the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death
March caused the "Regeneracy," the political battles were put aside
(despite the fact that FDR was even more divisive than Trump is
today), and the country united behind FDR to fight the Japanese.

Note also how heavily a "trade war" was part of this scenario.

So a possible scenario today is that China will be in a ground war in
Central Asia and, at some point, they decide they've run out of time.
At that point they attack Japan and Taiwan, and also attack the US
because they know that we'll defend Japan and Taiwan. That's one
possible scenario for a Regeneracy today. But there's no path at all
to a new American Civil War.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by radind - 05-14-2016, 03:21 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by radind - 05-23-2016, 10:31 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by radind - 08-11-2016, 08:59 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by SomeGuy - 01-18-2017, 09:23 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 02-04-2017, 10:08 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 03-13-2017, 03:33 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by SomeGuy - 03-15-2017, 02:56 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by SomeGuy - 03-15-2017, 03:13 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 05-30-2017, 01:04 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 07-08-2017, 01:34 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 08-09-2017, 11:07 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 08-10-2017, 02:38 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 10-25-2017, 03:07 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by rds - 10-31-2017, 03:35 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by rds - 10-31-2017, 06:33 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by noway2 - 11-20-2017, 04:31 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 12-28-2017, 11:00 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 12-31-2017, 11:14 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 06-22-2018, 02:54 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-11-2018, 01:42 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-11-2018, 01:54 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-19-2018, 12:43 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-25-2018, 02:18 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-11-2018, 01:58 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 08-18-2018, 03:42 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 08-19-2018, 04:39 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by John J. Xenakis - 08-28-2019, 07:19 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 09-25-2019, 11:12 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 03-09-2020, 02:11 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Camz - 03-10-2020, 10:10 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 03-12-2020, 11:11 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 03-16-2020, 03:21 PM
RE: 58 year rule - by Tim Randal Walker - 04-01-2020, 11:17 AM
RE: 58 year rule - by John J. Xenakis - 04-02-2020, 12:25 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Isoko - 05-04-2020, 02:51 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 01-04-2021, 12:13 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by CH86 - 01-05-2021, 11:17 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-10-2021, 06:16 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-11-2021, 09:06 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-12-2021, 02:53 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-13-2021, 03:58 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-13-2021, 04:16 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-15-2021, 03:36 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 08-19-2021, 03:03 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 08-21-2021, 01:41 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-27-2022, 06:06 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-27-2022, 10:42 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-28-2022, 12:26 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-28-2022, 04:08 PM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why the social dynamics viewpoint to the Strauss-Howe generational theory is wrong Ldr 5 4,826 06-05-2020, 10:55 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Theory: cyclical generational hormone levels behind the four turnings and archetypes Ldr 2 3,408 03-16-2020, 06:17 AM
Last Post: Ldr
  The Fall of Cities of the Ancient World (42 Years) The Sacred Name of God 42 Letters Mark40 5 4,692 01-08-2020, 08:37 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Generational cycle research Mikebert 15 16,282 02-08-2018, 10:06 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
Video Styxhexenhammer666 and his view of historical cycles. Kinser79 0 3,340 08-27-2017, 06:31 PM
Last Post: Kinser79

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)