It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WW3 is not actually WW3. History written by winners.

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Lets break it down here.

The First World war was actually colonization age where Britain and other Europeans invades all over the place include takeover of America. This the true WW1. You have Asia fighting in Asia. Brits fighting in America against other Europeans and Natives. Europeans against Europeans and Middle East was being conquered. The Brits even went all the way to India.

2nd World war is Napoleon Era. This include US war against Canada 1812. Brits alliance and French alliance were fighting all over the place.
en.wikipedia.org...

3rd World War was the 19th century. Where US and British was competing. This also includes the 8 nation alliance against China. US conquering Philippines, etc(Spanish-American war). 2nd Boer War.
en.wikipedia.org...

4th WW is actually WW1

5th is WW2.

So this makes it the 6th World War or 6WW.


edit on 13-9-2017 by makemap because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: makemap




So this makes it the 6th World War or 6WW.


So the bitcoin/Social Media/Meme wars are WW6? Dang... total mind blower!!!!



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: makemap
Lets break it down here.

The First World war was actually colonization age where Britain and other Europeans invades all over the place include takeover of America. This the true WW1. You have Asia fighting in Asia. Brits fighting in America against other Europeans and Natives. Europeans against Europeans and Middle East was being conquered. The Brits even went all the way to India.

2nd World war is Napoleon Era. This include US war against Canada 1812. Brits alliance and French alliance were fighting all over the place.
en.wikipedia.org...

3rd World War was the 19th century. Where US and British was competing. This also includes the 8 nation alliance against China. US conquering Philippines, etc(Spanish-American war). 2nd Boer War.
en.wikipedia.org...

4th WW is actually WW1

5th is WW2.

So this makes it the 6th World War or 6WW.



The wars you labeled as WW 4,5 and 6 are actually WW1, WW2 and WW3.

None of the prior wars had corporate sponsors. Time-Life Books locked up those rights years ago.
edit on 13-9-2017 by madmac5150 because: You know I am right...



posted on Sep, 13 2017 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Your premise is based on your own whims

Why were the others WORLD wars in your opinion

The second world war was global, the rest not so much



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: makemap

The world is losing its boundaries. Wars with two armies facing each other in the field with flags and uniforms seems to be over. The world is a different place nowadays where everyone in every country is connected to everyone else.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 07:54 AM
link   
World War is not a bunch of unconnected conflicts. If that was so then WW1 could have been started at any time going back to the dawn of time. We would be on World War 4,786 by now!

The fact is that World War as a concept relates to the modern era when nations across the world are focussed on a common cause, with entire economies devoted to the task.

EDIT to add that in the liberal West history is written by historians. This is why the negative part of history - even the losing - is publicly available, and debated. In China history is written by the Communist Party.
edit on 14/9/2017 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi
Right now ISIS is the common excuse cause being engaged globally on multiple continents by at least 80 different nations, including all of NATO minus Estonia, the African union, the Gulf Cooperation Council and many of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization states. ISIS was created because Russia finally started biting back at NATO encroachment in Georgia.

Since 2009, we have seen Russia and NATO states in direct engagements, which was followed by a deescalation and passing the fighting on to the proxy forces on the ground. Mainly the NATO and GCC back Free Syrian Army and Al-Nusra.
The GCC operates primarily in the Middle East and to an extent the African continent. NATO is operating on the African Continent, the Middle East, and some of its members in the Pacific. The SCO states involved are primarily fighting in the Middle East and gearing up in the Pacific.

This world war has also seen the destruction of entire societies, the deployment of WMD's, and some of the worst genocide/ethnic cleansing/crimes against humanity this century has ever seen. And it is not even over.

Both of the wars traditionally though of as our World Wars all started in a similar manner. A few players started fighting in the beginning. As the years progressed more states became involved and the front lines continued to expand and suck in more societies to destroy.

In this regard, our current world war 3 follows the EXACT SAME PATTERNS as the previous two acknowledged world wars.

NATO has gained about 18% of Syria through its backing of Rojava and the Syrian Defense Forces comprised primarily of the Kurdish enclave. It will be nurtured and funded through its eventual independence much as Israel was after the second world war. North Korea is being gang raped into starting a war by much the same methods that conspired to successfully bait Germany into war in World War 1.

Libya looks like it may be split between NATO and Russia, but it is too soon to tell. They may just find a way to reconcile their differences, and that rarely if ever happens under a NATO hegemony so it will likely go to Russia and the SCO in the end.

Te majority of these operations share a common link. Either ISIS by way of Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve, or North Korea.

Kind of like Germany and Japan being the focal points of WW2 right?? Nope, not kind of, EXACTLY like. But technology, propaganda methods, information flow, and trade agreements have changed drastically since the last century. So it becomes easier to say it is not a world war even if many refuse to accept it.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
Since 2009, we have seen Russia and NATO states in direct engagements, which was followed by a deescalation and passing the fighting on to the proxy forces on the ground. Mainly the NATO and GCC back Free Syrian Army and Al-Nusra.


Apart from Russian state-run cyber crime and Turkey shooting down a Russian jet, what are the "direct engagements" between Russia and NATO? Yes, Russia's invaded Georgia and Ukraine and meddled and interfered, but these were not NATO countries.

The use of proxy forces is part of the rule-book, with Syria and Iran part of Russia's efforts to restart the Cold War. ISIS and the whole bucket of different militias, terrorists and sects have spent - in different guises - the last few hundred years brutalising and killing each other. Just the continuation of violence, and if the West was not there they would still be doing it.

Nope not World War. The West has barely lifted a finger of their collective military capability since 1945.



posted on Sep, 14 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi



The West has barely lifted a finger of their collective military capability since 1945.

No not quite. In fact, they have utilized quite a lot of it in the last 80 years conquering the markets and purchasing the leadership and resources of smaller lesser societies since the beginning of the Cold War. So much so that every week we are losing more and more of it due to "technical malfunctions and glitches" than ever before.


The Russian/Turkish fiasco and cyber attacks are exactly what I am referring. That was the breaking point where one side realized the other was not going to back down. So they got together and agreed to allow the proxies to finish it off as they negotiate the new territory acquisitions and border changes.

Come on man, you know how this all works. I mean, an educated person knows World War two was not fought over Holocaust victims or ideological differences. Rarely if ever are wars between major powers in any way related to ideological differences except in the propaganda. It all boils down to the wealthy negotiation the rights to resources and territory and the ownership of markets. Sometimes negotiations become aggressive and the conflict becomes a global confrontation.

I think we still made out good in the Middle East/North Africa. We took a nice chunk of Syria and will be able to make the world feel good about it over the next decade as an Israel 2.0 . We still control Iraq's skies. Yemen stung us like a hive we had no business poking. The Europeans invested more into Libya than us, but we neither of us really had anything there so even a marginal province or enclave as an autonomous region is still in the positive territory.

All parties are still working on Somalia, but Britain has been getting their oil since 2013 so its a plus there. Albeit, it has been happening with some Russian money, so I am not sure who is benefiting there.

Now Israel is getting poised for war. You know they cannot go so many years with a fight with either Hezbollah or Hamas, and Hamas seems to have learned to heel a bit, so they gunning for the Hez, another Russian ally. Lebanon will soon be ruled by the Hez officially due to popular support from their victories in Syria and the fact they have increased their weapons stockpile ten fold and their man-power has gained as well. Battle of the bulge comes to mind?? Israel will hurt if it antagonizes another conflict, the logistics for a sustained bombardment onto their territory is in place to keep it going as long as Israel can take it.

We really just waiting to see if the right leadership is in place to finally engage NK. I think it will happen to a limited exchange. Seoul will not be destroyed as is over hyped. But I feel there should and may well be a confrontation soon, starting with shooting down any missiles traveling East.

In thirty years or so post all this being over with, it will be written either as WW3, or Cold War 2. I don't see how either can be considered Cold considering how much ordnance was spent and lives lost. But thts how it eventually gets written.

But I agree with the OP, when measured from that perspective, I suppose this could be the West's WW6. Every European empire and the US post gun powder are really just remixes of Rome anyhow. Still trying in vein to push East and conquer on an age old formula.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Rome is still alive because the language is still alive. US isn't Rome but, trying to be Rome. This is a big mistake. Those who want another roman empire in the US needs to be shot. This is why US is screwing with everyone in a barbaric way after the first cold war. Huge Propaganda like Gladiator. Don't you dare call US Greek(300 movie). It has nothing to do with Greece let alone has the same system or ideal. If anything the Greeks do not approve of invading the Far East which US is doing right now.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join