"China mulls holidays marking Japanese defeat and Nanjing massacre"

“The plan, now submitted to parliament, is to mark the formal surrender of Japan in 1945 and the anniversary of the Nanjing massacre in 1937.”


This would basically be “FU, Japan Day”.

It’s about time something happened.

Abe is practically reclaiming Japanese imperialism.

The Chinese and Japanese are ramping up tensions, Germany is at odds with much of Europe. Russia and the West are potentially going to divide Ukraine.

Is this 1935? 1936?

A holiday ? Would this cause a delay in iPhone shipments?


Regiments of British and American armies are stationed in Germany with consent.

A large population of a major country in the ‘Russian Empire’ have decided that democracy and transparency is more important to them than concessions from Putin.

Another disciple of Lenin bites the dust.

The internet has come along and is capable of getting peope on the streets in an instant to protest an injustice. We haven’t seen stuff like this since the fall of the berlin wall.

While Syria still has huge question marks over it, what we’ve seen is indeed an arab renaissance.

Free markets are being adopted by more and more countries world over. The world is more linked than ever before. While free movement of labor still remains a distant dream, at least baby steps are being taken in that direction.

Population growth a constant theme is finally coming to an end soon. Lots of challenges but this is 2014. There will be no major war and the future can be quite bright.

No war?? Tbh, there will always be war.

Similar thoughts about democracy and the League of Nations were bounced around prior to WWII as well. It’s all peaceful and happy and everyone will continue to get along. I’m not saying we’re heading down that path, but I think it’s foolish to think it could never happen.

And yeah, the Germany comment was more just a reference point. I don’t think the Germans are about to get into conflict with Europe.

I imagine that it would be much harder now to initiate a world war compared to 80-100 years ago. There are more global and political organizations, like NATO and the UN, which would pressure its members to oppose an openly antagonistic country. We also have nuclear bombs now, which serve as a deterrent against invading many countries. Also, since we have better airplanes, aircraft carriers, sattelite communications, and other technology like, it would be harder for an aggressor country to act without fear of instant global response.

On the other hand, there is a big concentration of power in countries that support this new order. We also have superpower countries, and emerging ones, that did not exist in the 1940s and earlier. These countries can, or will be able to, more or less do whatever they want. No one can do anything if, for instance, Russia decides tomorrow to invade Ukraine, just like everyone pretty much bent over when the US invaded Iraq.

If you were a nutjob country, do you really fear the “global response” anymore? Syria, Iran and North Korea have proved it, there are no consequences for rogue nations. So far this has been limited to internal violence but there is no reason to think that this couldn’t spill over.

The west has no interest in dealing with conflict right now unless it directly threatens them. No different than the passive approach taken in 1938 and 1939 to German expansionism. Oh well, it’s just Poland. Oh well, it’s just Czech Republic. Oh, Austria too. Well, it’s not the UK or France so lets all just chill, no one wants war.


If Putin were to make a grab for the Ukraine or Georgia, like you said, the US won’t become involved with military force. How about if Iran annexed Syria? Lebanon? I could see the US coming to the aid of South Korea or Japan, but it would be relucantly.

The thing is these conflicts devolve quickly and subtle actions, like in the Ukraine, can become a wider issue very quickly.

There has to be a world war soon. How else will the millions of young unemployed be useful to society?

But Syria, North Korea, and Iran have not actually taken any hostile actions against other countries. North Korea has only fired some missiles into the ocean (not actually at South Korea), Iran’s former President said some weird things and was replaced by a more reasonable person, and Syria’s problems are mostly domestic. All these little countries make a lot of noise, but they know they can’t actually do anything to threaten the world order, or they will find an aircraft carrier off their shores.

Big countries - the US, Russia and China - are exceptions, but even they are not going to engage one another. The US can push around Iran and Iraq, Russia has Poland, Ukraine, etc. and China can do what it wants with Mongolia or even North Korea. However, for the most part, they know to leave each other alone.

Still, the problem is these things can quickly escalate. Like you said, in the 30’s Europe didn’t care if Germany pushed around Austria, Czech and whatnot. Hey Italy, you can have Ethiopia. Etc. Then Poland became some kind of line in the sand (though the Germans tried to play that off as a acting in self-defense). It just takes one of these states stepping a little too far across the line. I think Poland would again be that line in the sand with the Russians today… the US won’t allow that country to fall under Russian influence (and Poland is an EU state).

In Asia it is a little less clear and the picture much more complex.

On the nuclear front, I don’t think this really acts as a deterrent anymore. I think most countries know that Western governments would face enormous political heat using WMD for anything other than desperate self-defense. In other words, the US will not use strategic weapons if China clashed with Japan. There is no way the US people would be ok with that.

As long as none of the major powers are directly threatened, I don’t see nuclear being a deterrent.

Lil Kim from the dirty NK is playing w missiles again today.

You greatly underestimate the power of people Geo.

Also, Iran really shouldn’t be mentioned along with Syria and North Korea.

And despite the hype about N.Korea it is pretty much a non-entity considering the tech they’re using.

The point was not that war is impossible - it’s that a world war is much less likely today, due to changes in politics, technology, and economics, compared to in the early 20th century.

People are at the heart of these issues. We have hooligan protestors unseating democratically elected governments. Thankfully, for now, these protestors have been on “our side.” Just wait until they’re not.

In any event, you greatly overestimate the power of people. Nations stood by for years in the 1930’s. Heck, Berlin hosted the Olympics in 1936! Japan was scheduled to in 1940! People don’t care unless it directly affects them. Not enough to do something about it.

“We should cut CO2 emissions to save the world.”

“Ok, we’ll bring in a $1.00/litre gas tax.”

“Screw that man!”

That attitude exists for all problems.

Name one. A proper democratic government that is, not one that has been elected and then decided to do away with things like human rights and transparency and rig the next few elections because they think they’ve won it once it’s enough.

The way countries dispose of democratically elected leaders is the next election. It’s a cornerstone principal of democracy. And I’m getting distrubed that we in the west continue to support these coups. Ukraine had, by what international observers said, relatively fair elections that were within international guidelines. Like the guy or not, he was elected President of Ukraine fair and square.

You and a group of hooligan buddies don’t get to decide when a government isn’t functioning anymore. The people do, at election time. I have sympathy for those oppressed in these countries, but it’s not as though we’re reaching optimal solutions in any regard. It’s just one group oppressing the other, and then the other group gets some critical mass and a shout out from Obama and they become the oppressor.

Why do you think the Russian minority is so concerned with this?

Are we speaking only about Ukraine? Maybe the Russians here can help but from what i understand Russia has always seen Ukraine as part of it’s empire and Ukraine never really had a say. During the soviet union period Ukraine was basically run by secret police from Russia i.e a foreign country.

Now what you say is true but you have to understand the eurasian union or Putins pet project is scheduled to come into existance by 2015. Yanukovych wanted Ukraine to enter that union. Do you think that Yanukovych a confirmed follower of lenin and by this point putins bitch would really have sanctioned free and fair elections. And even if he wanted to would putin have allowed him? Heaven forbid what his own people would demand back home then.

But no problem, lets give him the benefit of doubt. Now after Yanukovych confirmed his desire to enter the eurasian union students turned up in protest. They were not armed, they were not dangerous. It’s no biggie, it happens in free societies world over regularly. Did Yanukovych address these concerns or go back to parliament to discuss again in face of such overwhelming opposition.

No, he did what all dictators do and he blinked first.

It is only after this that things gor ugly, the far right turned up and we saw the headlines “100 dead”, but yanukovych was a dictator even if he happened to be democratically elected and maybe ukranians thought they’d rather give it a fight now when the west still has legal grounds for mediation rather than when they were under putin and would almost certainly be faced with russian police if they dared open their mouth.

And just for kicks this is how Yanukovych lived on taxpayers money.