During the 1930s, Adolf Hitler made a habit of making Europe nervous with his increasingly demonstrative speeches regarding his view of Germany's place in the world. The speeches were popular with Germans, as they had recently gone through a devastating war, followed by an economic collapse. Hitler provided a much-welcomed image of Germans as a proud and ethnically superior people and Germany as a country that had a manifest destiny to take its place as a world leader, if not the world leader.
Amongst Hitler's ambitions for Germany's destiny was a claim that lands that had been lost to Poland in the Treaty of Versailles should be returned. He spoke publicly that he wished to “liberate” these lands, and, not surprisingly, the majority of Germans supported his view, in spite of the treaty.
Predictably, Hitler's speeches made the leaders in other European nations a bit nervous. Some, notably the UK, hoped to placate Germany by arranging concessions from Poland. Understandably, Poland felt that they were being bullied and resisted the concessions. (After all, they were getting nothing out of the deal.)
As the situation heated up, the UK and France feared military action from Germany, and provided a guarantee to Poland that they would side with them, should Germany opt for a non-diplomatic solution.
False Flag Attack
On the night of 31st August,1939, German troops, dressed as Polish soldiers, attacked the Gleiwitz Radio Station in Germany. A few hours later, German troops (dressed as such) invaded Poland in “retaliation,” and World War Two was on.
Fast Forward to 2012
Today the US is in serious economic trouble. Its dollar has been the world's default currency since the end of World War Two, and that status is now in danger of coming to an end. Several years ago, Saddam Hussein threatened to cease using the dollar exclusively for oil trading, and the US successfully quashed his efforts by invading Iraq and deposing him. Other countries in the Middle East have registered their own interests in eliminating the dollar's exclusivity.
Recently, Iran worked out a deal with India to bypass the dollar. The US threatened economic sanctions against Iran if they went through with the deal. Other countries, notably China and Russia, expressed their support for India and Iran if the US launched an economic attack against Iran.
Around this time, some (myself included) speculated that, as history appeared to be repeating itself, a false-flag attack should not come as a surprise (a dust-up at the Strait of Hormuz?), but this has not taken place…at least, not yet. Instead, the US launched its attack economically by removing Iran from the SWIFT system, stopping bank transfers in and out of Iran.
Again, those defending Iran's right to free trade stated their support for Iran and awaited a response from the US.
This is the point in the narrative when, if there is any sanity in the world, the referee trots out onto the field and indicates the signal for “time out.” Then, the various countries would sit around a conference table somewhere and talk things over.
This could be 1939 all over again, and we are now at the point at which an attack has occurred. The next step is the one where everyone takes up sides. The following step would be the one where everyone makes threats to the opposing side if the situation is not reversed.
No “Time Out”
But, as yet, there has been no “time out.” What has happened is that the US has shown further aggression by stating that, if India does not stand aside and accept the economic attack against Iran, sanctions may be taken against India as well. (Oh-oh.)
And so, we collectively step back, take a deep breath, and ask ourselves how this is likely to play itself out. Certainly, the US government has done a good job of convincing its people that Iran is a country of madmen, religious fanatics and terrorists. Through the prompting provided in the news media, the American public seem more favourable to warfare than they were at the beginning of World War Two. Even the US president, considered by many to be a Leftist, states that he agrees with the Right that, if the US is “pushed,” military action must be used.
In the meantime, not a single news programme is speculating on what sort of reaction may be expected from “the other side.” The major Middle Eastern and Asian countries most certainly understand that the US economic system is on the ropes, and that the attack on Iran is a last-ditch effort to try to hold onto its position of top doggie. They are also aware that they are on the economic upswing in terms of production and may well be in a better position economically to wage an actual war than is the US.
World War III?
The following concept is one that I often make use of when considering the likely outcome of any war:
“Any country that is considering waging war against another country should first
consider that the loser is almost always the country that runs out of money first.”
The trouble with waging war is that those who provoke it almost invariably fail to think through the likely developments in their entirety. National leaders tend to think either in terms of their immediate goals, or, if they do consider the likely first response by their adversaries, tend to forge ahead anyway in the belief that the first response can be contained. It would seem that those who pull the strings in the US have taken the egotistical (and, arguably, very unrealistic) view that, if they show enough bravado, the world will cave to their wishes.
I believe that they are dead wrong.
Is the world on the precipice of World War Three? It is not too late to avoid this eventuality; however, it does seem as though the US, much like Germany in 1939, is plunging headlong in a direction that is quite likely to result in such a war.
Like Germany in 1939, the US is also clearly setting itself up for a war at home. The rights of citizens are being removed on a massive scale, and the US is clearly gearing itself up to function as a police state. As in Germany, some people are seeing the handwriting on the wall and are voting with their feet, but the vast majority are just looking a bit more worried and seem to be hoping that, whatever happens, it will not be too bad.
Under the present circumstances, “wait and see” may not be the best plan. If the reader is in a situation that exposes him either physically or economically to the above situation, he may wish to consider a change.