I came across this video and thought it raised some interesting questions.

The video doesn't say anything about parallels between then and now, that is just me thinking of the George Santayana quote, and asking what can we learn from history, and are we repeating some of the same mistakes now?

Prior to outbreak of War in 1914, there was an escalation of small events, there were alliances between small nations and super powers, and there were many backdoor attempts at de-escalation. It's a little long, but moves along at a good pace and is very well done, I thought.

Some of you are probably familiar with facts and theories in the video, but some either were new to me, or have been long forgotten.



Would be curious to hear others takes on this, first as pure history and how it all went down, and second, parallels with things we are seeing unfold now.

Absolutely,

Even scarier since our elites are so much more craven and out of touch than elites were in 1914



PS

Might sound a little strange but I personally don't think a great war will break out because of demographic issues.

"Germany's fertility rate was around 5 children per woman in 1900"

France was considered to have a very low fertility rate at the time of 2.6 in 1910

There were thus a lot of young men to throw into battle if it came to war. All the sides at the time felt they had lots of soldiers and could decide things on the battlefield

Today of course not a single North American, European, or East Asian country even has a replacement level fertility rate.

Our elites have to know that they just don't have enough young men to fight wars like they used to

Redbrickbear said:

---

Absolutely,

Even scarier since our elites are so much more craven and out of touch than elites were in 1914



PS

Might sound a little strange but I personally don't think a great war will break out because of demographic issues.

"Germany's fertility rate was around 5 children per woman in 1900"

France was considered to have a very low fertility rate at the time of 2.6 in 1910

There were thus a lot of young men to throw into battle if it came to war. All the sides at the time felt they had lots of soldiers and could decide things on the battlefield

Today of course not a single North American, European, or East Asian country even has a replacement level fertility rate.

Our elites have to know that they just don't have enough young men to fight wars like they used to

---

China though has a massive male problem and the Middle East has no problem tossing men jnto the wood chipper

I'm not convinced a series of small chain reactions can still cause another World War. There is almost nothing that couldn't be stopped by China and the US agreeing to stop it. As a consequence I think WW3 starts when China and US decide it is time

ron.reagan said:

---

I'm not convinced a series of small chain reactions can still cause another World War. There is almost nothing that couldn't be stopped by China and the US agreeing to stop it. As a consequence I think WW3 starts when China and US decide it is time

---

Agree

Not to mention that China is loosing 800,000 people a year (deaths over births) and that pace is accelerating.

They will have lost half of their entire population by the end of the century.

It's going to be hard for them to even maintain their country much less fight a war

By 2070 they will have more people over the age of 65 than they will in the entire rest of the population combined

Fre3dombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Absolutely,

Even scarier since our elites are so much more craven and out of touch than elites were in 1914



PS

Might sound a little strange but I personally don't think a great war will break out because of demographic issues.

"Germany's fertility rate was around 5 children per woman in 1900"

France was considered to have a very low fertility rate at the time of 2.6 in 1910

There were thus a lot of young men to throw into battle if it came to war. All the sides at the time felt they had lots of soldiers and could decide things on the battlefield

Today of course not a single North American, European, or East Asian country even has a replacement level fertility rate.

Our elites have to know that they just don't have enough young men to fight wars like they used to

---

China though has a massive male problem and the Middle East has no problem tossing men jnto the wood chipper

---

MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) is down to 2.5 fertility rate

They will soon be below replacement rate.

Iran for instance is already at 1.7

They are running out of kids as well….no kids…no soldiers

There’s a hyper autistic fascination with the 30s and 40s. It has to stop. It’s the Marvel Cinematic Universe for boomers.

— Heritage American (@HeritageAmeric6) April 20, 2024

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Could say the exact same thing about WW2.

China goes communist.

Stalin dominates much of Eastern and southeastern Europe .

US buries over half a million men.

---

Respectfully disagree.

World War II started over a legitimate threat to Europe. So granted, no one anticipated atomic bombs...

---

That legitimate threat to Europe was the USSR working with Nazi Germany to annihilate Poland.

And yet for some strange reason Britain and France only declared war on Germany.

Another of the strange things about that war.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearN said:

---

I came across this video and thought it raised some interesting questions.

The video doesn't say anything about parallels between then and now, that is just me thinking of the George Santayana quote, and asking what can we learn from history, and are we repeating some of the same mistakes now?

Prior to outbreak of War in 1914, there was an escalation of small events, there were alliances between small nations and super powers, and there were many backdoor attempts at de-escalation. It's a little long, but moves along at a good pace and is very well done, I thought.

Some of you are probably familiar with facts and theories in the video, but some either were new to me, or have been long forgotten.



Would be curious to hear others takes on this, first as pure history and how it all went down, and second, parallels with things we are seeing unfold now.

---

There are obvious parallels.


As by 1938 the American people overwhelmingly believed fighting in WW1 was a mistake and wanted no part in doing it again.

Roosevelt had other ideas.

---

Japan?

---

Exactly. Good ole FDR let Pearl Harbor happen so he had an excuse.

Eisenhower was right.

---

Have never read of any evidence that FDR knew in advance .

And he didn't need Pearl Harbor to be attacked as it was totally expected that the Japanese would attack the Philippines and Guam in any case .

KaiBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearN said:

---

I came across this video and thought it raised some interesting questions.

The video doesn't say anything about parallels between then and now, that is just me thinking of the George Santayana quote, and asking what can we learn from history, and are we repeating some of the same mistakes now?

Prior to outbreak of War in 1914, there was an escalation of small events, there were alliances between small nations and super powers, and there were many backdoor attempts at de-escalation. It's a little long, but moves along at a good pace and is very well done, I thought.

Some of you are probably familiar with facts and theories in the video, but some either were new to me, or have been long forgotten.



Would be curious to hear others takes on this, first as pure history and how it all went down, and second, parallels with things we are seeing unfold now.

---

There are obvious parallels.


As by 1938 the American people overwhelmingly believed fighting in WW1 was a mistake and wanted no part in doing it again.

Roosevelt had other ideas.

---

Japan?

---

Exactly. Good ole FDR let Pearl Harbor happen so he had an excuse.

Eisenhower was right.

---

Have never read of any evidence that FDR knew in advance .

---

Probably not but he was certainly hoping for some kind of provocation.

He wanted to get into WWII

The Japanese obliged him

KaiBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BearN said:

---

I came across this video and thought it raised some interesting questions.

The video doesn't say anything about parallels between then and now, that is just me thinking of the George Santayana quote, and asking what can we learn from history, and are we repeating some of the same mistakes now?

Prior to outbreak of War in 1914, there was an escalation of small events, there were alliances between small nations and super powers, and there were many backdoor attempts at de-escalation. It's a little long, but moves along at a good pace and is very well done, I thought.

Some of you are probably familiar with facts and theories in the video, but some either were new to me, or have been long forgotten.



Would be curious to hear others takes on this, first as pure history and how it all went down, and second, parallels with things we are seeing unfold now.

---

There are obvious parallels.


As by 1938 the American people overwhelmingly believed fighting in WW1 was a mistake and wanted no part in doing it again.

Roosevelt had other ideas.

---

Japan?

---

Exactly. Good ole FDR let Pearl Harbor happen so he had an excuse.

Eisenhower was right.

---

Have never read of any evidence that FDR knew in advance .

And he didn't need Pearl Harbor to be attacked as it was totally expected that the Japanese would attack the Philippines and Guam in any case .

---

Been any open question for a while - decent amount of evidence he knew and allowed it so the American people would support entering the war. However, given the Orwellian nature of history and the Academy these days, pretty impossible to prove out even if evidence was there it would be Fauci'd.

ron.reagan said:

---

I'm not convinced a series of small chain reactions can still cause another World War. There is almost nothing that couldn't be stopped by China and the US agreeing to stop it. As a consequence I think WW3 starts when China and US decide it is time

---

Exactly. For over 50 years the small skirmishes were the circuit breakers for big wars. It's the reason defense alliances exist to even prevent those. China will be the circuit breaker, or failure of one with Russia. It is believed they are already pushing for a conclusion due to economic impact to them. They are being deft in playing both sides, but have always favored relative stability to chaos. China believes they can compete head to head with us for dominance without significant military conflict. They know that military and currency are our biggest advantages.

You guys are in the weeds. The warmongers have been planning wars for centuries. The current wars are economic. Wars always were, but with modern finances they can be fought over the dollar.

Population growth rate is a problem for a new generation, though if you could convince America to have 3 child households you would sure win a few next gen fights.

Is it that hard? Ivanka touched on a big theme, maternity/paternity leave.

It is only a 4 or 8 year cycle for the GOP to convince everyone reproduction is the next big war. And it is.

Today's wars are fought over money and oil, Russia excepted, but tomorrow's will be to control the future of the planet.

Guns of August

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Could say the exact same thing about WW2.

China goes communist.

Stalin dominates much of Eastern and southeastern Europe .

US buries over half a million men.

---

World War I started over paranoia and miscommunication.

---

This, and complacency in the belief that it would never happen. Two very definite parallels with today.

---

100%. Blanking on the name, but there was a famous book that came out I believe around 1912-13 that basically postulated war would never occur again because Europe was too financially intertwined, and many believed this to be accurate. Basically, no one would go to war because it would be economically disastrous. Unfortunately for world history, Europe happened to be led by a group of particularly incompetent monarchs in 1914 especially in Germany and Russia.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Could say the exact same thing about WW2.

China goes communist.

Stalin dominates much of Eastern and southeastern Europe .

US buries over half a million men.

---

World War I started over paranoia and miscommunication.

---

This, and complacency in the belief that it would never happen. Two very definite parallels with today.

---

100%. Blanking on the name, but there was a famous book that came out I believe around 1912-13 that basically postulated war would never occur again because Europe was too financially intertwined, and many believed this to be accurate. Basically, no one would go to war because it would be economically disastrous. Unfortunately for world history, Europe happened to be led by a group of particularly incompetent monarchs in 1914 especially in Germany and Russia.

---

Yea, there was a influential school of though that Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia should form an alliance.

This would have been interesting...almost certainly had it continued it would have kept Eastern Europe a peace.

Could have been Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia vs UK, France, Ottoman Empire....a strategic truce

[The country's third and last emperor, Wilhelm II, abandoned Bismarck's balance of power policies in favor of expansionism. He fired the "Iron Chancellor" and failed to renew the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia that had guaranteed neutrality in case either side would engage in a war with a third party. Like Hitler later, Wilhelm favored an alliance with Britain instead to prepare for a civilization struggle he foresaw between Teutons and Slavs...

These theories informed the ethnic and foreign policies of Adolf Hitler's National Socialists. Hitler saw little value in urban industry and trade which would have required a maritime orientation. Rather he foresaw the acquisition of vast agricultural lands in Eastern Europe to satisfy the needs of an autarkic and expansive Germany. The reintegration of ethnic Germans living there a policy called Heim ins Reich was, for the Nazis, not the end goal, as it had been for many pan-Germanists during the interwar period, but the beginning of a struggle for Eurasian domination that should have produced a Greater German Empire stretching from the Netherlands into the Ural Mountains.]

If you want to read history of WW2 that has alternative viewpoints from the mainstream narrative, you can look at Pat Buchanan's Unnecessary War. Even better - European Civil War by Nolte if you can find it. Generally be wary of people using WW2 to score political points today.

— FischerKing (@FischerKing64) April 20, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Could say the exact same thing about WW2.

China goes communist.

Stalin dominates much of Eastern and southeastern Europe .

US buries over half a million men.

---

World War I started over paranoia and miscommunication.

---

This, and complacency in the belief that it would never happen. Two very definite parallels with today.

---

100%. Blanking on the name, but there was a famous book that came out I believe around 1912-13 that basically postulated war would never occur again because Europe was too financially intertwined, and many believed this to be accurate. Basically, no one would go to war because it would be economically disastrous. Unfortunately for world history, Europe happened to be led by a group of particularly incompetent monarchs in 1914 especially in Germany and Russia.

---

The Great Illusion?

---

Thanks - that's it.

The Nazis' invasion of Poland supposedly proves forever that every territorial dispute everywhere warrants a preemptive declaration of war by the US.

But Americans at the time did not support this.

Were they cowards? They are the only Americans who actually fought Nazis!

— J. Respectful Clark (@JReubenCIark) April 24, 2024