I think that the really big money in the world wants a large war to happen. They'd profit by producing war materiel, and then profit again by rebuilding all the stuff that was destroyed.
An equally strong argument can be made that WW2 never actually ended. My opinion is that all of these distinctions are fairly arbitrary. We think of history as a sequence of discrete events, but that's just compartmentalizing in order to make things easier to understand, and it's a distortion of reality.
By the normal definition of "war", yes, WW2 ended. We got the Cold War instead, which was better because it didn't come with tens of millions of deaths, and with entire cities being firebombed.
Was it peace? Not really. But it was still a very long way from war, and that mattered.
Sure, but that's an arbitrary line. It's not wrong, depending on what you want to highlight, of course.
But if that's the criteria being used, then WW3 has not begun. That's why I said "an equally strong argument" -- neither argument is actually all that strong.
I was actually going to bring that up, but thought it would overly complicate my point. The connection between WW1 and WW2 is very strong, though, just as the connection between WW2 and the cold war is very strong.
> "A top executive at JP Morgan has sounded the alarm"
Are we really at the point in history where a lone banker gets to declare world war?
Or is the news such dreck that they will amplify "This one coked-out-of-his-gourd rich person said something alarming" into front page news?