Several works by Poul Anderson, including two of his future history series, begin in the aftermath of a nuclear war. I used to think that nuclear war and World War III were synonymous and that MAD prevented the latter. However, here is a suggestion from Andrea above the Old Pier Bookshop today. Are we already in World War III? World War II took a couple of years to grow from local and regional wars into a world war. Are we at that stage with WWIII?
Here is another Andrean thought, this time drawing on history. The Hundred Years War was the real World War I, the Napoleonic Wars were the real WWII and subsequent global conflicts should be renumbered accordingly. Now that such conflicts are numbered, they need not be periodically renamed.
I think that we can agree that our Italian Fascist (former or otherwise) friend above his brother's Old Pier Bookshop has not let us down and I don't feel like exercising any more grey cells for the rest of this evening. Van Rijn can come in and sound off if he likes.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I dunno, the Hundred Years War was not literally a continuous struggle lasting a century. There were long intervals of truce or even attempts by England and France at making peace. And the wars after the downfall of Napoleon in 1815 tended to be short (before 1914), with the Crimean War of 1852-55 being the longest conflict. And none of these became desperate, life and death struggles fought to the bitter end. Cabinet wars with only limited ends, gains, losses in mind.
Ad astra! Sean
Andrea would be able to argue his case but I am far from thinking that he is right about everything.
Both the World Wars were about German strategic mistakes.
Of the two, the first was the worst because there hadn't been any major wars between advanced powers for 40 years, and military theory had gotten increasingly divorced from reality and poisoned with wishful thinking.
Even the lessons of the Boer War and the Russo-Japanese war were disregarded and misinterpreted.
The Germans thought they could knock France out quickly and then turn on the Russians. Close, but no cigar -- Joffre woke up to what the Germans were doing -just- in time to shuttle his forces to the left flank in time to defeat the German turning movement.
World War Two wasn't what Hitler wanted.
He wanted a series of short, sharp campaigns and then an agreement with Britain, in which he got a free hand in Europe and Germany gave Britain a free hand outside Europe. He wasn't planning on conquering the world, just Europe -- his successors would take over the world.
That would have used Britain as a buffer to keep the USA out of European politics, while he attacked the USSR.
Up until the summer of 1940, Hitler got what he wanted. He disposed of Poland, turned the rest of eastern Europe into German satellites, and knocked out France.
Then he ran into Churchill. If Churchill hadn't been PM, Halifax would have -- and Halifax wanted a deal with Hitler, and advocated it in the Cabinet until Churchill slapped him down.
If Halifax had been PM -- Churchill nearly died a dozen times from 1917 on -- Hitler would have gotten his deal, and would probably have succeeded in conquering the USSR.
That was a close-run thing in 1941-42, and if he hadn't been distracted by the war with Britain and after December 1941 with the US, he'd probably have pulled it off.
Nuclear weapons are almost certainly the reason we didn't have WW3 in the 1950's or 60's. Mutual Assured Destruction deterred the Soviet Union.
However, that isn't an eternal guarantee. The Soviet leadership was marginally rational about that sort of thing. Other people may not be, or may be deluded by wishful thinking.
Thank you for this summary.
Thinking that you can knock out a particular opponent quickly seems to be a regular mistake.
It is an indictment of our rulers that, even after the lessons of two World Wars, only MAD stopped them from waging a Third.
To qualify as a *world* war, a conflict has to include fighting in a large fraction of the world. The earliest conflict that might qualify on that point is the wars in which Spain was in conflict with other European powers which included fighting in the Americas. Eg: the raids by Drake on the Spanish colonies & shipping along the Pacific (ironic name noted) coast of S. America. The French/English conflicts in the 1700s with fighting in the Americas & India are probably closer to being a *world* war.
Without nuclear weapons, it would have continued until only one Great Power was left standing.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Jim!
Mr. Stirling: Just a few, rather meandering thoughts.
That's one of the disadvantages of relatively long periods of peace, strategic thinking divorced from reality and tainted by wishful thinking and confirmation bias.
Besides what you said about Joffre waking up to the danger the French armies were in, I read the Germans allowed their nerve to be shaken by the sooner than expected Russian invasion of East Prussia and transferring two entire corps from the western to the eastern front--at a time when they just might have enough to ensure victory in the west. And that the German Crown Prince protested at these corps being taken from the army he commanded for exactly that reason, but was overruled.
IIRC before WW II started the German General Staff advised Hitler Germany would not truly be ready for war before 1943, and favored caution and restraint. Which Hitler overruled.
Yes, Hitler hoped to make a deal with the UK along the lines outlined. IIRC Halifax feared a long war would bankrupt the UK and break the British Empire, which was why he wanted that deal with Germany. Churchill was just as determined to preserve the Empire, but he rightly decided a long lasting Nazi was too existential a threat to the UK to be tolerated.
I have wondered what might have happened if Hitler had postponed OPERATION BARBAROSSA till he was disentangled from the war in the west. He didn't have to invade the USSR in 1941--Stalin was his ally and doing everything he could to help Germany, BARBAROSSA could have waited.
Another blunder Hitler made was declaring war on the US after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The last thing he needed was the US mobilizing its immense resources to fighting Germany as well as Japan. The longer the US focused on Japan and the Pacific, and not Germany as well, the better for Hitler. Japan was his ally, but there wasn't much they could to help each other, so it made sense not to declare war on the US. Churchill was deadly afraid that would happen!
I agree, the grim men in the Soviet Politburo retained enough caution not to push their luck and attempt a nuclear war with the US. A big problem being lunatic regimes hopped up on ideological fanaticism or sheer recklessness might use nukes.
Jim: I basically agree, beginning with the war of the League of Augsburg and the war of the Spanish Succession, France and the UK began fighting a series of wars spreading to the Americas and India, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment