ha. nice. but the main difference there was that germany lacked the logistics and leadership to carry itself through, and was leading the axis powers which was made up of an understrength Italy and Japan, which was on the other end of the planet and was dealing with its own fight. it was fighting on two fronts, which is never a good idea even in the best of circumstances.
here, it’s the russians lacking the logistics and the leadership, no notable allie’s, and fighting a war on multiple fronts, if you count the economic sanctions and embargo’s as a front by itself. the only major failing here is Germany’s reliance on russia’s natural gas due to its “progressive environmental” policies that resulted in shutting down their nuclear energy program which offered a significant, if incomplete, alternative, which admittedly is a result of shit leadership.
I do agree that Germany being 0 for 2 in world wars isn’t necessarily relevant. The club is under new management and the entire franchise has fresh faces so next season could be their time to finally get a w In the WW column. Of course- I think there are larger issues than simply their reliance on Russian fuel. Germany isn’t really geared up for battle even if they’ve recently decided to start spending more on being ready. A serious global question has to do with supply chain and wether many countries including Germany would be able to pivot quickly and maintain effectiveness if a world war disrupted supplies. As for Russia…. It’s hard to say. The Soviet war machine was a mess too- but timing, conditions, and other factors brought them great success. It is yet to be seen what exactly China would do in a Third World War or a major Russian conflict with the west. China is prudent so they probably wouldn’t jump to Russian aid on just principle without thinking the odds to win were good..
But being prudent China is likely acutely aware that they are, for historical, racial/cultural, ideological, economic and political reasons an “outsider” in western spheres. Not “one of the pals” like Western Europe and many of its former colonies etc. The history is for the west to try diplomacy with Asian countries less as equals and more as assets. If Russia was subjugated by western powers, there would be one less giant “boogie man” to take western attentions and act as a bulwark and buffer to Chinese global ambitions and sovereignty. China and Russia have vast resources, production capabilities, and populations. Even if mostly isolated from the world the two nations could largely function, and with nuclear weapons likely enforce stalemate, to simply be able to exist and do fine overall if they are aligned. There aren’t really any other allies of such strategic importance for either to turn to if the world is against them unless one of them decided to “step in line” to the west..
.. or the west was pushed into a position where it required their help. That’s essentially how the Soviet Union was able to survive and thrive for a time after their revolution as globalization kicked in. They weren’t ideological Allie’s to the west and were quite literally fundamentally incompatible- but the only way to effectively end a world war and not prolong it into decades or risk nuclear war was to play on the same team. Once the mutual enemy was gone- well… we know what happened. We are here. So China could join a fight against Russia simply to buy themselves a place at the table so to speak- a badge as heroes of the 3rd world war. There are other benefits. Right now if China builds an aircraft carry the west has an aneurism- if we were in the midst of a global conflict and allied to China, much like with the Russians or other conflicts- we’d probably take a more “worry about it later” approach and not interfere with China building and modernizing their military to help the…
.. war effort. Whatever treaties etc. took place after the war, it would be up to each country to decide how or if they wanted to scale down. Having a battle hardened and massive modern military backed by nuclear weapons wouldn’t hurt their leverage in post WW2 global affairs. Territory is another factor. If we look at what territories and where they are that China might be able to occupy or hold after a world war, it changes based on what side they are on. As an ally to the west they might be able to be “seeded” Taiwan without much issue perhaps or perhaps not. As an antagonist they could likely take it if conditions allowed. Fighting against Russia could allow them to extend their borders directly towards Europe and seize resources and military assets like nuclear weapons in Russia. Siding with Russia the strategic value of what they might gain would depend on the global battle lines, but there would most likely be the potential to weaken or even eliminate western powers from…
.. being able to interfere in Chinese global ambitions and internal affairs. Of course- all that assumes that WW3 would see NATO countries against Russia at all. It seems most likely- for maybe 80 or so years it’s seemed the most likely case of global war would involve Russia and either and America or European powers/allies- but maybe it isn’t so simple. Russia could be heading for change or even revolution. Odds favor a more hardline stance against the west going forward, but it could go the other way too. We also have climate change and water and food shortages threatening much of the globe- especially some population dense nations. The next world war could look very different than past ones. There are nuclear weapons and stages set for conflict in parts of Asia, Pakistan and India might not resort to war over their various political and ideological conflicts…
But with global famine and drought being indicated presently and predicted on unprecedented scales- riots, unrest, threats to the very existence of entire nations from “natural causes” could be a new reality. These last few decades have shown that world governments and populations are already struggling to deal with refugees from current crises. The impact of large scale global crises going forward could push things to a brink if not carefully managed, and where there is scarcity there is often conflict. So there are a few ways this can all go and it is too early to say what the next world war would look like. These things can get complicated as they aren’t simply predicted on ideologies or even necessarily historical allegiances as much as what is going on in the present and what each nation wants or needs and the best way to get it. So I agree that we can’t rule Germany out in a world war but I might disagree or question some specifics.
here, it’s the russians lacking the logistics and the leadership, no notable allie’s, and fighting a war on multiple fronts, if you count the economic sanctions and embargo’s as a front by itself. the only major failing here is Germany’s reliance on russia’s natural gas due to its “progressive environmental” policies that resulted in shutting down their nuclear energy program which offered a significant, if incomplete, alternative, which admittedly is a result of shit leadership.