Subscription 790/year or 195/quarter

A third world war?

WAR / The fear of a third world war is becoming palpable. Last year, 59 armed conflicts were registered in the world, the highest number since the end of the previous world war. Can one today compare states at war with teenagers who have not yet developed the ability to think about consequences? Today, the possibility of nuclear war is undoubtedly present – with Norway linked to a nuclear-weapon dependent NATO.




(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)

"Excuse me, I have a question." We were starting a period on recent world history at school. I turned to the student, who continued: “Can't we also talk about World War III? What do you mean du – do you think it will break out soon?” It's rare for me to get dizzy while teaching, but now I had to hold on to the catheter. Third world war#? After a short pause for thought, I replied: "We can do that, but we must first talk about the two world wars, and the Cold War, so can we talk about a possible third world war.” And that is what one must do if one has ambitions to carry out a fairly reasonable reasoning about the notion and concept of 'World War Three' and to assess the probability that such a doomsday situation could play out in the real world.

In a recent Norwegian survey, 41 percent answered that they thought it likely that a third world war could break out in the next 10 years. 26 per cent also believed that there could be war on Norwegian territory.

Later I became increasingly aware that it was of course not just my students and I who had begun to think more about the possibilities of a new world war. In the autumn, the peace research institute slammed PRIO: in this respect an ominous finding: In a recent Norwegian survey, 41 percent answered that they thought it likely that a third world war could break out in the next 10 years. In addition, 55 per cent considered it likely that there will be more armed conflicts in Europe as well. Almost half of the respondents therefore believe that there will be a new one world War soon, and over half believe there will be more war in Europe. As many as 26 per cent believed that war could break out on Norwegian territory.

The fear of a third world war is therefore starting to become palpable, and the worst thing is that it is in no way unfounded: In its press release, PRIO also pointed out that people's perceptions are supported by increasingly gloomy statistics: Last year, 59 armed conflicts were registered in world, the highest number since the end of the previous world war. In the last decade, 300 more people died in war than in the previous decade. If we blink out individual wars, there is still a widespread fear and real possibility that warone in Ukraine could spread – Nato could end up at war with Russiaand Norway will in that case be dragged along. More and more experts, among them internationally leading historians such as Odd A. Westad, believe there is an increased danger of a hot (and not just a cold) war between the superpowers USA and China. And more and more people fear a major war in Middle East, which seems to have moved closer after Israel's repeated attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon. However, in order to make a sober assessment of whether these conflicts and wars can trigger a new world war, we must first ask: What is a world war, and how did the first and second world wars turn out? verdenscreaming?

 

The start of the First World War

The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm is known, among other things, for the term "the short twentieth century", from the book The age of extremism >(1994). For Hobsbawm the twentieth century began not with the turning of the calendar to 1900, but with the outbreak of the First World War. As is well known, the "shootings in Sarajevo" are often regarded as a trigger for the outbreak of the "Great War". However, the incident on 28 June 1914 only explains why a crisis arose between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, which culminated in the Empire declaring war on Serbia a month later. How several states joined the war can be explained by both the alliance systems, great power rivalry, nationalism, rearmament, militarism and the absence of democracy in the majority of the states involved. IN The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 (2012) Christopher Clark describes the outbreak of the war as follows: The great powers went to war as if they were sleepwalkers, blindly, almost unconsciously, with no thought other than that they should all win in a fairly short time. One can even compare the states with teenagers who have not yet developed the ability to think about consequences.

The great powers went to war as sleepwalkers, blindly, almost unconsciously, with no thought other than that they would all win in a fairly short time.

Not even with awareness of this causal complex can we explain how a war between European great powers turned into a world war. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a world war is "a war involving all or most of the world's leading nations". What leading means here can be debated, but the point is that you don't talk about a world war if only ten small states are fighting it.

The hostilities in Africa have primarily been a kind of proxy war between the European powers.

I The Great War. An Imperial History (2004) shows John H. Morrow how the main reason why the first world war became a world war was European imperialism and colonialism. Colonies in several parts of the world were commanded on behalf of the colonial masters, and some of the rivalry between the great powers concerned precisely the race for the colonies. It is in this context that "Germany wanted a place in the sun", as it has been formulated in so many textbooks. Japan, for its part, wanted to get its claws into German possessions in Southeast Asia and was therefore allied with states such as Great Britain, France and the United States, against Germany. In this way, a connection developed between the European and the Asian conflict, while the hostilities in Africa were primarily one of a kind proxy war between the European powers. Another factor that helped spread both the First and Second World Wars over several continents was the states of Russia (later the Soviet Union) and the United States. Russia was (and is) a geographical and geopolitical link between Europe and Asia. And as the United States entered the war on the side of the Triple Entente, the war became even more intercontinental.

version 1.0.0

The beginning of World War II

The reasons for the outbreak of the Second World War are easier to both grasp and summarize: In Europe, it was primarily the expanding aggressor Germany, with an aggressive but militarily far less effective Italy in tow, that pushed the continent towards the precipice of war. At the same time, any presentation of the causes of the Second World War must begin with Japan, which in Asia played a similar role of conqueror to Germany, with a similar ideology of lords and a pronounced desire for international or at least regional dominance. However, Eurocentrism often blinds us to the fact that the Second World War did not start with the German (and Soviet!) invasion of Poland, but with Japans brutal attack on Nanjing in 1937. This year, Japan attacked and occupied the Chinese capital (then Nanjing), part of a larger expansion plan. The attack, which in retrospect is best known for the mass rapes of Chinese women, is considered by historians to be the beginning of World War II.

World War II began not with the invasion of Poland, but with Japan's brutal attack on Nanjing in 1937.

The Second World War thus basically consisted of two different wars that broke out more or less independently of each other, but which were then linked together. The European and Asian wars really became two parts of the same war complex with the Japanese attack on it Pearl Harbor. The background was the rivalry between the United States and Japan in Pacific Ocean – which may be reminiscent of the current conflict between the United States and China in the same areas. The year before, the United States had sent significant parts of its navy to Pearl Harbor precisely to deter Japan from further expansion. The response from Japan was to get ahead of the US, and at the same time to buy time and arms by putting the US Pacific fleet out of action.

The European and Asian wars really became two parts of the same war complex with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

As is well known, the attack on Pearl Harbor led to the US going to war with Japan. It is perhaps less well known that the victorious Hitler also declared war on the USA in the wake of this incident. Historian Norman Davies terms this as Hitlers most ill-fated and short-sighted decision (next to Operation Barbarossa) and emphasizes that Hitler thereby sealed his and Germany's fate – the American participation also in the European war would undoubtedly decide the course of the war. It was also decisive for the course of the war Soviet Unions efforts, and the Soviet geographical and geopolitical gravitational force again helped to tie the European and Asian wars together.

Possibilities of a third world war

What does this tell us about the possibilities of a third world war? Three premises must be fulfilled: Firstly, the war in Ukraine must degenerate, so that NATO and the USA end up in direct war with Russia. In this scenario, Putin could conceivably attack a neighboring state that is a NATO-state, for example a Baltic state with a large Russian-speaking population, such as Estonia or Latvia. At the same time, this is unlikely all the time that Russia appears to be using its entire military capacity without being able to force Ukraine to its knees. Moreover, Western states are unlikely to be dragged along "like sleepwalkers" – the debate in countries such as Germany and Norway has, after all, revolved around precisely this risk.

Second, war must break out between the US and China, most likely by China invading Taiwan, and then more states must be dragged along. This is the most frightening scenario – that the world's two superpowers end up in direct war with each other. Despite the fact that the danger of war between the superpowers has increased, they probably still have too little to gain and too much to lose from a war, for the time being, and such harsh political realities can serve as a bit of comfort for anyone who fears that doomsday is now moves closer. At the same time, we must not forget that the great powers we see as possible actors in a possible world war are all nuclear powers. The possibility of nuclear war is undoubtedly present, with Norway linked to a nuclear-weapon dependent NATO.

For a world war to take place, there must, thirdly, be a connection between the above two scenarios – otherwise we are dealing with a European and an Asian war, or one of the two. So Russia and NATO must end up in war, and so must the United States China, and these two wars must be linked. It can happen through that USA will be involved on both fronts, as in World War II. In addition, it is conceivable that Russia and China enter into a more binding Eurasian alliance, so that China helps Russia in Eastern Europe and Russia assists China in East Asia.

However, it is this international linking of the two conflicts, which must first escalate sharply, which in my opinion appears less likely. That is not to say that the scenario is completely unthinkable. There are several armed conflicts in the world, and the conflicts between the world's major and superpowers appear to be more intense than in many years. The peaceful global coexistence of the 1990s, where China, the USA and Russia were more concerned with speeding up economic globalization, with more global cooperation as both premise and result, seems like a distant, beautiful memory from an innocent and promising youth.

The idea of ​​a third world war is perhaps rather a symptom of our digital age's penchant for conspiratorial thinking.

Yet the world does not steer inexorably and irrevocably towards one apocalyptic war precipice. The idea of ​​a third world war does not necessarily spring from political realities, but is perhaps rather a symptom of our digital age's penchant for conspiratorial thinking. Before a possible new world war breaks out, many opportunities are needed negotiation and tapering is wasted, many political bridges are burned, and interests and realpolitik assessments change. I also believe that we will have to prepare for more war in the coming years, but hardly a third world war.

My students, at least some of them, were reassured by this analysis.



Follow editor Truls Lie on X(twitter) or Telegram

Steingrimur Njalsson
Steingrímur Njálsson
Writer and associate professor at Oslo by Steinerskole

Related articles