World wars are so called because they aren’t fought one on one. Hence it’s not necessarily the stronger army that wins, but the stronger alliance.
That means that the ability to recruit and mobilise one’s allies is at least as important as the ability to recruit and mobilise one’s own population. Just look at the Second World War.
Stalin entered it as Hitler’s ally by attacking Poland on 17 September, 1939. He then grabbed the three Baltic republics, along with large portions of Poland, Romania and Finland.
Yet the alliance with Hitler was unreliable, which point was made on 22 June, 1941, when Germany attacked the Soviet Union. Each side had to seek new allies, and Stalin did so immeasurably better.
Coming to his defence was the British Empire with all her colonies, and in those days the Empire still packed a mighty punch. Britain had already been fighting the Nazis for two years, and the Germans had to commit massive resources, including some 60 per cent of the Luftwaffe, to protecting their western flank.
Above all, the vast bulk of America rose behind Stalin, throwing his way a practically unlimited supply of armaments and strategic materials – this even before America took an active part in the hostilities. Later, after victory had been won, Stalin frankly admitted that, without the Lend-Lease supplies, the Soviet Union would have lost the war.
Britain too did her best to provide a steady flow of supplies to her eastern ally, in addition to fighting the Nazis at sea, on the ground and in the air. Throughout, Allied air raids were reducing German cities to rubble and German war factories to small workshops.
And what about Hitler’s allies? They were way more trouble than they were worth. Japan and Italy were happy to form the Axis with the Nazis, but it could be argued that they did them more harm than good.
Resisting Hitler’s entreaties, Japan refused to attack the Soviet Union from the rear, which enabled Stalin to throw his Far Eastern divisions into the battle of Moscow, where the Soviets finally stopped the Nazi blitzkrieg. Had the Japanese invaded the Russian Far East, the war would have ended in 1941.
Instead, on 7 December, 1941, they launched a raid on Pearl Harbour, which instantly got the US into the war and made Hitler’s position strategically untenable. Until then, the US had had to supply Britain and Russia surreptitiously, and it wasn’t a far-gone conclusion that she’d be able to overcome the isolationist pressures at home and enter the war without Japan’s invitation.
The other member of the Axis, Italy, fought the war in North Africa so ineptly that the Germans had to commit significant resources to that region. And in general, the memoirs of every German general I’ve read state that the net effect of Italy’s involvement was negative: it took the Nazis more effort to reinforce Italian troops than it would have taken to fight on their own.
I’m citing this little history primer not out of general interest, but to turn history into what it’s supposed to be: a teacher. The past always provides a valuable lesson, and the present ignores it at its peril.
The world currently stands on the threshold of a world war. In fact, one could argue persuasively that the threshold has already been crossed, and the Third World War has already begun. We may not realise this, but then we were similarly blind on 1 September, 1939. No one saw the war between Germany and Poland as the first act of a world war. The conflict was seen as strictly local.
The other day German intelligence leaked a scenario for the Third World War to begin. You are welcome to read about it on your own: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12966377/Germanys-fears-Putin-start-WW3-justified-Vladimir-unthinkable-feels-NATO-unprepared-Former-commander-forces-Europe-warns-Berlins-secret-plans-tackle-Russian-attack-revealed.html
My subject today is the critical importance of sturdy alliances in any world war. The stronger they are, the greater the possibility of victory – this should be taken as read.
Even as we speak, Russia is attacking the Ukraine with Iranian Shaheed drones and North Korean shells and missiles. Both countries are stepping up their production of armaments for Russia and busily expanding their industrial base.
China is acting behind the scenes, with no one quite sure how much of anything she supplies to Russia. What is in absolutely no doubt is that China is Russia’s ally and not ours. Xi is merely waiting for a propitious moment to come out into the open.
Meanwhile, he is gearing up for an invasion of Taiwan, which could well be coordinated with a declaration of unequivocal alliance with Russia and Iran. America, and NATO in general, would be spread gossamer thin in that case.
At the same time Iran is ratcheting up its proxy war against the West’s allies in the Middle East and Asia, not just Israel but also Pakistan. There is every indication that the four evil powers, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, act in concert, trying to form a cohesive, fully committed alliance.
Should they win the Third World War, the West would be plunged into a Dark Age for centuries. The evil powers would provide a tangible proof of how fragile are the things that we’ve been taking for granted. Prosperity, civil liberties, the rule of law, social tranquillity would all become fond memories within days.
Our enemies have the will, determination and commitment to defeat the West and destroy the world as we know it. Do they have the means?
Provided we can match their will, determination and commitment, no, I don’t think so. The combined resources of the West should be sufficient for us to emerge victorious in any such confrontation, and not just because of the technological advantage we possess. When sufficiently motivated, free people are much better fighters than slaves, which has been demonstrated throughout history.
But note the conditional clause at the beginning of the previous paragraph. That is a vital proviso, more important than the relative numerical strength or the number of planes, tanks and missiles. Can the West match the will and cohesion of its enemies?
One is justified to have doubts on that score. The West is currently fighting two proxy wars against evil powers, one in the Ukraine, the other in the Middle East. And in both cases, one can detect a certain amount of fatigue and erosion of will.
The West has been drip-feeding supplies to the Ukraine, enough to keep Ukrainians fighting and dying for their freedom and ours, but not enough to enable them to win. Western support for Israel is also waning, with each dead Arab and each pro-Hamas demonstration in Western capitals.
Western allies, even NATO members, clearly don’t see eye to eye on defence policy. Their wishy-washy leaders make all the right pronouncements, but do less and less. Should Trump find himself in the White House, Le Pen in the Élysée Palace and Starmer at 10 Downing Street, any kind of Western alliance against evil will become a figure of speech, not a matter of fact.
The ancestors of today’s Western politicians knew they had to hang together not to hang separately. This knowledge seems to be extinct now, and I dearly hope I am wrong.
Absolutely correct, Mr Boot! Having lived through the last global war (born 1933) I can testify to the correctness and percipience of your analysis here. Not a jot wrong.
Are the politicians listening to the same noises that you and I hear? If not, we are going to be in real trouble.
You and I will not live to see the end of it, but we probably will see its beginning, alas!
On the surface I would say you are correct. Advocates for Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and the whole alphabet soup of sexual perversions make no secret of the fact that they want to destroy all institutions of the West. The question is whether they continue to think (or pretend) that the political enemies of the West would replace those institutions with something better once the shooting starts. I think most people would agree that a world ruled by North Korea or Iran would be less than ideal. I’m not so sure that most people feel that way about China and Russia. Many have been fooled that China’s entry into the world market is evidence of her civility; and that Putin’s attendance at the occasional Orthodox mass is evidence of his.
On the other hand, ordinary people have shown that they are capable of extraordinary feats when called upon. The question there is if the emasculation of the modern male has been complete enough to rid the world of such heroes or if enough remain to win such a fight.
Has “the emasculation of the modern male has been complete enough to rid the world of such heroes” and do “enough remain to win such a fight” is only one pair of questions. Another, unasked, is what will be the effect of the demographic change that those of my age have witnessed. Will the proportion of muslims now living in Britain and its would-be allies such as to effectively sap its will to resist if China, Russia etc should attack?
Amazingly, this chaos erupted under Biden, and yet, Mr. Boot, you blame Trump! Trump ordered the elimanation of both the head of the IRGC and ISIS. He ordered spec-ops to take on the Wagner Group in Syria, where US forces killed roughly 200 of that malign group.
It’s always better to look at what someone does rather than what that person says. Especially when it comes to news about the US; European media just picks up whatever is being nattered about in the New York Times or the Washington Post.