Interesting theory. The Treaty of Versailles was a very unsatisfactory end to WWI & caused great hardship & bitterness in Germany. I never did figure out the real cause of WWI as it's very complex but I believe that Adolf Hitler saw Soviet Russia & Communism as the main threat to Germany & the whole of western Europe. He possibly saw accepting the French surrender in the same railway carriage & same location as a symbolic end to that episode. Hitler never really wanted to get involved in a long drawn out war with Britain & had always hoped to persuade the British government to join him & help defeat Stalin, if not by direct action then by not interfering.

As for Russia itself, I heard on the radio only this morning that it's still run very much on communist lines which is not surprising as many of the old communist leaders have been voted into power. You can't change the way people think overnight & these things usually take a long time.

PS. Other regular contributors to this forum are far more qualified than me to comment on your theory.

A very interesting point of view, and as presented, quite logical.

Very logically presented, but I would disagree with the characterisation of there being only one war.

The First World War (in parts 1 & 2) broke the traditional power structures and colonial powers. Into this power vacuum are drawn new primaries, with a new way of fighting..the use of clients.

I would characterise this new period as the Second World War. The client wars allowed the new primaries to conduct battles for dominance without directly engaging each other in battle. Economic battles were also a major factor in this war, with both sides attempting to acheive dominance through spending. This is really nothing more than a direct attempt to show superiority in their own form of leadership.

During the era of the Clients Wars we see one, or the other, primary directly enter battle in support of their respective primaries...but only one primary at a time is directly involved.

The whole thing does come to a head in 1991. One primary is already scrambling to stay relevant in an environment of vastly increasing costs associated with weapons development. The other primary has started to enter the Information Age and it's effects on future conduct is yet to be fully seen, but there are indicators.

Direct challenges between the primaries have become more normal ("Mr Gorbachov, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!"), new developments threaten to remove the nuclear threat from one side (Star Wars) and it comes to a final climatic battle in the Iraqi desert.

When the US directly entered battle against the powerful Soviet client in Iraq it showed complete dominance in every respect. Disdaining the convention of attacking with a 3-1 superiority in arms, it attacks while outnumbered.

In a shocking and stunning display of dominance it dismantles that clients capabilities at will. For the first time in aerial warfare we see the establishment of Air Dominance, not just Air Superiority. Allied warplanes roam the battlefield, going where they will and when they will virtually without challenge. Allied armour kills their counterparts at ranges where they can't even hit back. The "cover of darkness" has seen to be thrown back in spectacular manner, exposing the less technological combatant to attacks at any time convenient to the US.

The results are a foregone conclusion at this point. The most powerful client of one party has been dismantled with ease. The message the US sends to other clients of the USSR is simple; "You no longer exists with USSR assistance, you exist at our forbearance". Even in the USSR the message is clear, we go where we will and do what we want. Russian Generals are forced to examine the wreckage of an air defence environment more dense than around Moscow...and it accomplished almost nothing. The image of a US General laughing as he watches video of the Iraqi air defence headquarters being destroyed by a precision munition is powerful...it could just as easily be a building in Moscow.

The client states are faced with a horrible realisation:

Their patron may not be able to defend itself, let alone them. Clients of the US see the possibility that they can dispose of regional rivals who are clients of the USSR, virtually without interference.

The final factor facing the leadership of the USSR is the most telling. Accustomed to trading space for time, the USSR is now faced with an enemy that is interested in only a tiny fraction of land...that occupied by their leadership. Having demonstrated the capablity of destroying specific targets economically, the US sends a more subtle message to the Soviet leadership... no matter how the final battle goes, you will not see the end. A direct confrontation is suicide for the Soviet leadership, and they blink.

That blink is the signal for Soviet clients to flee, some directly to the US camp. In a final spasm the Soviet Union dissolves.

The Second World War has ended.

Quote:

Indeed & in the most basic terms this involves the struggle for balance of power in Europe in the 20th Century. (Andrew's theory ignores the war against Japan so that is a separate issue.) Some might say that this struggle never ended but still continues today under the more peaceful concept of the European Union. Both Adolf Hitler & Winston Churchill would have liked to see a united Europe but had very different ideas on how this could be accomplished.

Quote:

Like WWI the Korean War of 1950 - 53 ended in an Armistice. No peace treaty was ever signed so a truce is all that prevents further conflict. America & its allies are technically still at war with North Korea.

You have a good point there Souichi & I think this is the greatest fear. It also helps explain to me the almost incredible decision this week by my own government that I'm afraid will not be understood by the vast majority of the British public. Many people, including me, have always thought Britain is regarded by many other countries as the milch cow of Europe which is the main reason they're desperate that we don't pull out of the whole thing, whatever the cost, & let them get on with it. I was never against the original idea of a Common Market but a Federal Europe is an entirely different thing.

Quote:

I thought you explained it rather well.

Quote:

I usually refer to it as the Korean Conflict 1950-53.

Quote:

As usual Felix is quite correct & that was what it officially was (is?). http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html

Getting back to Europe I think you would have to study the history of the EU to understand what I'm talking about. The conflict never ended but is still going on a little more peacefully. There is a very real danger that this could change as Souichi pointed out.