The o' chile effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot com and listeners like you Now and Yeah Serrated and our media Tack February twenty one, of twenty twenty four. Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, this the O'Kelly effect you listening to it, It is Wednesday, wodnes Day, as I speak, live middle of a week, humpday, some people say. But anyway, here we are. Larry Hancock is with me as he is every other Wednesday as of late, and glad to have him along.
Why because he gives us the grand context, the context of most subjects. Now often we do discuss the jfk assassination, but that will not be the case tonight at least you know who knows. Maybe it'll get an honorable mention, but not the focus of tonight's show. Anyway, you know who Larry Hancock is if you're a regular listener, But if not, we go to larrydash Handcock dot com. That's Larry Hyphenhancock dot com and check out his work. His blog over there, which is interesting, will keep you up to
date on his many works and potential books. Apparently we found out last time we talked to Larry that the work on Oswald in Three Dimensions or whatever that finyl title is going to be. And if you've been listening to my show, you might say that Larry should ask his wife about that, because she's come up with some good titles in the past. Just saying, and you
might have learned that when we did the Larry Hancock collection. Anyway, Yeah, he's working on this thing on Lee Harvey Oswald, taking another look at him. And we discussed it last time and we'll be discussing it more in the future, especially if it comes out in book form. But Larry takes
up a whole lot of spaces on my bookshelf. Surprise Attack, Shadow Warfare, The Awful Grace of God, some things he co authored, a lot of things he co authored, some with Stu Wexler, also an excellent guest, somebody I'd love to speak with more often, and hopefully with starting this year sometime if I can get in touch with stew anyway, all that aside, Yeah, like I said, Larry takes up the largest amount of books
on my shelf for one singular author. And someone would have talked, well, Gee, creating Chaos, unidentified you know what, I'm wasting a lot of time here already, and I don't want to list all of Larry's books and describe him because the hour will be gone just like that. Larry, how are you doing tonight, sir? I'm good Jack. We're kind of having an early spring here and I'm really enjoying the warmer weather. Right last time we spoke, I think it was kind of cold in your neck of
the woods, wasn't it. We had ten inches of snow last week. We're out of power for about thirty hours all told. So yeah, totally different last week. Oh man, I'm sure you were prepared and all that good stuff. You have wind up radios and flashlights, right, because I have a couple of those around, just because I don't want to be stuck and oops, the bees are dead. You have a couple of those around, right? Oh yeah. We go even a little further than that.
We're pretty much prepared to go for at least a week without power without too much difficulty. Excellent. Well, good to know Larry. That way, I don't have to worry when I see a storm in your neck of the woods. But anyhow, look, unfortunately, I have this upbeat sound in my voice. But we're going to talk about something that is pretty dark and dirty and is current not necessarily the historical topic, but you got to look back at history to figure out what's going further. And I'll set it up
this way. Quite often I have said that I feel like and I may not be right because I try to look at the standardized definitions regarding this topic. But the truth is, I often feel like we are either quite close to the precipice of going over the cliff when it comes to not the end of the world or the disaster. I'm not the sky a swelling guy, but entering that time when we might have to declare that we are in the stage of history that is going to be referred to as the Third World War.
There are others out there who have said we're already there. They're just lying to us about it and for some reason trying to keep us calm here in America regarding it because from a technical position, we haven't taken any heavy losses yet in this constantly erupting conflict. Others say that we're overreacting because there is always you know, it's man's nature after all, Just like in KRMEI Sabastano's book Right Violence in Our Nature, The Human time Bomb book. I'm
referring to. You know, all of that is relevant in this discussion. Right Are we at that point? Are we not? Is there something to compare it to? Well, sure there is. We've had two things that were called world wars. Would I say that we're at the height of it or in an intense portion of it? Absolutely not. But at the same time, I do recognize that we have lots of conflicts everywhere, and maybe I'll pull up that definition that I found regarding when it is you can or
should declare that it's a world war. But Larry, where do we begin with this topic? Do we look back in history and start to draw the
parallels or should we look at what's happening now? Where would you begin trying to dress down this situation and give us the proper context on whether or not we are indeed either at the precipice or already in progress when it comes to World War three, I think check the right context is to look back and in terms of conceptualizing World War thinking about the fact that from the period nineteen thirty eight through nineteen forty nineteen forty one, but certainly thirty eight thirty nine
there was a world war in existence. We just weren't participating directly in terms of mobile in troops, sending troops in large scale into the battlefield, or in you know, attacks on our domestic continentally the United States, But as far as the rest of the world was concerned, there was flighting all over, okay, And I think that's what we have to It has to be our benchmark. It doesn't if there can be a world war without us being
directly involved. And one of the difficulties and that is that that gives us kind of a prejudice view in terms of, oh, well, it's not bad, nothing's really happening, because we're not directly under attack. Right.
Well, the world is a bigger place than just us, no matter how small it is cotting recently, right, right, right, And look, it's gotten smaller because our communication is more instantaneous, which almost makes it seem like we would automatically assume that the awareness of such a thing would be quicker and more of a happening, so to speak. And truthfully, we should look back at World War War One, which I'm pretty certain was kind of
declared a World War again before the US entered it. And I'm not even saying again as in just like World War Two. In fact, there are two different perspectives in play here that we should keep in mind, right, and the one is indeed, whether the US is involved or not doesn't necessarily qualify or disqualify what is happening regarding declaring something technically speaking a world war.
If we look at Wikipedia, for instance, okay, it's pretty simple, and I hate Wikipedia, but sometimes concise is concise, so I gotta go with it. A world war is an international conflict that involves most or all
of the world's major powers. That's the first sentence. Conventionally, the term is reserved for two major international conflicts that occurred during the first half of the twentieth century, World War One from nineteen fourteen to nineteen eighteen and World War Two from nineteen thirty nine to nineteen forty five, although some historians have also characterized other global conflicts as world wars, such as the Nine Years War,
the War of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Years War, French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, and Cold War and the War on Terror. And I kept saying and because I was missing the thing there that said that's a bad read
on my part. But the point is that there are other things that have been sort of classified as world wars, but the declared generalized state of world war is only your conflicts from nineteen fourteen to nineteen eighteen and nineteen thirty nine to nineteen forty five, And often on this show we study a lot more World War Two because it sort of shaped what would happen for the rest of the twentieth century, and quite frankly, I think it severely influences or extremely
influences the circumstance we find ourselves in today still, even though it is, g let's look at it coming up on what eighty years ago now, I guess right, yeah, eighty years nearly ago when it ended. Okay, so nineteen thirty nine to nineteen forty five. We don't need to belabor people with what events occurred there necessarily, But the US wasn't involved at first, That wasn't what it was. Were people calling it a world war before the
US entered it? And did it qualify under the remember the original definition? The general definition again from Wikipedia. Sorry, A world war is an international conflict that involves most or all of the world's major powers. So I guess the first thing to determine is what are the world's major powers and how did they become involved? And I think that's the first step when we look at today. But maybe we should begin with nineteen thirty nine to nineteen forty five.
Larry, what do you say, Well, I think we should begin with nineteen thirty eight thirty nine, because there's one piece of differentiation going on here. You can have a world war if all the major powers are involved, or most all of the are involved. They don't necessarily all have to be fighting each other at the same time, even if it ends up that
way. I mean, for example, at the beginning of World War two, Italy was very much involved in warfare and in attempted territorial expansion in Ethiopia. Okay, Germany was involved in the same thing in Poland, and certainly in Europe you could have considered a Poland a major power. China was involved in a major long term war in Japan and Korea. I'm sorry vice versa
Japan in China and Korea. You know, So this is warfare going on around the globe with several major powers, and for that matter, were we involved, certainly with Lyndley's with British support, we were playing the same role with Britain at that point in time that we were playing with Ukraine now or should be playing with Ukraine now. Sorry, little prejudice there. So again,
wars around the world constitute global war. It just becomes a question of when everybody unilaterally decides it's time to declare it and let's choose sides, which to some extent is beginning to happen now. I mean, for example, we have North Korea, who just in this past week has changed its old stance towards South Korea. They used to have a strategic position of mutual agreement
incorporating the two nations commonalty. Now North Korea has decided that they don't want to play that way anymore, and as a matter of fact, they may just decide to go ahead and take over the South. That's us last week, Okay, a big sea change really there from the last several decades that just kind of blew away a whole relationship that had developed in an afternoon.
And that's one of the frightening things, because we've reached a position where several of the players in this are very much like they were in nineteen thirty nine. They are states that are nation states that are really essentially dictatorships where one clique, one power, one individual has the position where in an afternoon they
can issue an edict and that's the way it is. I mean essentially, now Putin has fully militarized Russia and taken Russia into some none of us thought could happen, a fully mobilized, twenty four hour day industrial complex at war, and we're we're not really facing that. So in North Korea, in Iran, in Russia, we have major power players where a single individual or their clique can make those decisions regardless of what kind of opposition there might be.
We thought there'd be on opposition in Russia. Didn't happen. But that's that takes us back to a position where it's almost like you're on the precipice because you can have all of these global conflicts going on and then almost instantly everybody can vote on an alliance. Not everybody, but those individuals like North Korea and Russia, where now the majority of the ammunition being used on the Ukrainian front is from North Korea. Amazing. Well, but that's where we
are now. But it's not unlike nineteen thirty eight. Yes, global wars just on the cusp of choosing sides. But a serious contrast here is that the Russian Federation of today is not the Soviet Union of that time period, right. You know, the Soviet Union had a lot more satellites than it does now, you know, than Russia does now. Russian Federation there was more territory, was more expansive, there was more involved there. Now.
I always thought of it, and this was something that I didn't realize was incorrect until maybe, you know, a few years ago, let's call it, but several years ago really, But it's not like it was childish. I always thought that it was more about how much of the world was involved. Like once you have you know, border wars between different nations, Okay,
that's one thing that's like always happening, it never ends. But on the other hand, to have all of Europe sort of become involved directly, then that means that whole major region, that whole continent is involved, right, you know, the Japanese being involved in certain things regarding territory in their general area. That's one thing but to have it spread throughout Asia is yet another. And then Asia is involved, and thus you know that entire swath
of territory which is huge. That's more toward what would be a declaration of a world war in my mind. But it, or at least it used to be. But that's not really the case here. It's not about you know, okay, how many continents are really fully engaged here? Is all of Africa engaged or is it just the northern part which usually seems to be the case, like it was with Italy and its territorial issues and Ethiopia and all that French colonization was going on, always had been, and its colonial
interests. I mean again, they were in Vietnam, you know, and all of that before we went there. They had various interests in Asia, they're different colonies and losing control of their colonial interests during this time period even I think right in here in that time of World War two. But is
France a major power in and of itself? Not necessarily is that concerned something that you know, turns us to a condition of world war And you almost made it sound arbitrary, where well, it just seems as though people declare it, and there's an arbitrary there's not really a standard for this, and I can't find a perfect checklist, right, but one would say that at a certain point, when you have enough fighting going on in enough places and
a significant thing you said, where there seems to be two sides or two general sides, is it only a two sided thing? And then those that want to stay out of it, you know, the people that want to be neutral at the time that this is going on, and then everybody else forming alliances on two sides of one line. Is that more influential in figuring out whether we're in a conditional world war or is it something else? What are your thoughts there? Well, I think it's two elements. One,
as you just said, it's how many places is fighting occurring. One can make a very strong historical argument that during the you know, the American Revolution, where we thought all the fighting was going on here, the rest of the world was seeing a global warfare between France and England, you know,
throughout Asia, throughout you know, they were fighting around the globe. We just thought it was all about us, but you know, they they thought we were kind of, oh, there's this revolution over there, and you know that's a problem, but you know, the French and you know the Indian Ocean are more of a problem for us, you know, because they're destabilizing our convoys to envy it. You know. So the first it's how many places is fighting going on? And right now we have fighting going on
at a lot of places. The second is alliances. And I might have said one afternoon, everybody says, Okay, we're all in an alliance, but that's not really how it works, correct, I mean, right now, for example, you have an alliance that's formed between North Korea and Russia, Russia and Iran, Russia and the Palestinian world because Putin has just invited all of the Palestinian leaders to Moscow and essentially told them, you know, they're going to be part of his new alliance. Well, that's not a
formal declaration of the Triple en Taunt, you know, or whatever. But the bottom line is, if you get back to tracing the people and the ammunition and the money that's sustaining the fighting, that's an alliance in terms of World War uh In something you just said, for example, like France and Britain, I mean, right now, as of this weekend, there are there is a new European task force sailing to the Gulf to combat healthy read
healthy slash Iranian attacks on shipping right now. Yeah, that is so we have an American group there, we have an European group there. I mean, what would you call this generally, except you have warfare going on or certainly in the northern hemisphere. Okay. And that's the thing that connects to the US getting itself involved in Yemen, the Huti thing, because that was our justification for bombing in uh yeah, in a Yemeny area, which is
connected to this overall conflict as well. So it's not just as simple as who's shooting at who? In other words, Yeah, now, in terms of a in terms of what I would call a I mean, you have global warfare, let's just call it that, whatever version it is, that isn't going on now, and there's no sign that it would there's nothing in the cards that says it would slow down. Okay. But the other element that you have is again it's actually this is where it's a bit different than
nineteen thirty eight originally. But now you have among that group that I was just talking about, you do have political instability We know there was political instability inside Russia, and Putin has managed to totally crush that. We know that there's political instability inside Iran, and Iran has managed to pretty well crush that.
There is also increasing political instability inside China. I don't know how many of your listeners have been forming following the news that the new trend inside China
is the formation of local militias. And we're talking about militias that are formed, not like our National Guard, but these these are even corporations or Chinese corporations are forming their own militias now truly nominally under control of the People's Liberation Army, but because there is a lot of China's having a lot of economic problems and there's no signs that's going to get better any time soon. There are a lot of demonstrations, a lot of political unrest over land, real
estate, and these militias are being formed to deal with domestic problems. Well, just prior to October two, you know the event that sparked the live fire events that are going on in Gaza. Quite honestly, there was a lot of unrest in Israel. There were people protesting with the government and there were problems with you know, the with net and Yahoo and him being up on corruption. People protesting against maybe the compulsory military service or how that was
being run. They were not happy with the legal system. It wasn't like all was completely peaceful in Israel prior to this, you know, there was a bit of something going on. And even in Germany there's been some issues and things over the government and exactly what type of mistakes are being made and things like that. So some of these people that got involved, there's some of these nation states that got involved were not necessarily in a just on one
quiet day shooting broke out situation. There may have been issues that built up tension in a nation state, in a region, etc. Now China is a weird example because again you wouldn't think that any of that would spill out of China, but now you have well armed groups that have been organized whatever the reason is, maybe it's an internal security issue or whatever. But there's
also you know, there's also a lot of different things. See China's hard for me to follow because I never quite trust the information I always get from there. Politically, it's very controlled, you know, as far as the UH, you know, the the the the the the centralized government in general. But at the same time, I don't know how much financial trouble they were actually having realistically. Is it being made to look bad so that people don't get too afraid of the big bad wolf as it's growing up, et
cetera. You know, to me, it's always a propaganda issue, and you got a temperate when you're looking at China, and the whole thing with Russia is that I don't know if that was a matter of propaganda where people were saying that Putin was in a problematic position before this, or now he's in a position of, you know, the people don't feel really good about his leadership or whatever, and people even tried to propagate the idea that he
was ill, I mean, and so on and so on. Sometimes it's difficult to know whether we're looking at propaganda or real world conditions in real time. But I think we have a couple of benchmarks in terms of China. We do have economics, We do have their stock market, what their central bank is doing, you know, so there's no propaganda there if their central bank takes certain measures, or if their stock market essentially crashes, or if
they put certain limits. I mean, that's that's basic economy. Either they do or they don't. You can interpret it as you will, But I don't think there's anybody that's looking at there, even the numbers their government is publishing, and thinking that the Chinese economy is underperforming expectations. I guess you would say, because they've they have created some extreme expectations for themselves over the last two or three decades. I mean, the Chinese public has expectations.
They made huge investments in real estate that now in any event, so we do have that benchmark. In Russia. I mean, I think it's fairly reasonable to say that. I mean, it seems like ages ago, but it wasn't really ages ago. When you had a convoy marching on Moscow being well received by most of the cities that was passing through, and you know, with two major military leaders essentially about ready to go over to it,
you know that's that was real. There's no hiding that. Now, Putin put that to bed, and Putin has a very direct way of putting those things to bed by killing people. You know, that's it works for a time at least, So I think in both of those cases, But I think what I'd like to focus on, Chuck, is the difference here is let's say that we're we have global war, So okay, is it going to get better? Is it going to get worse? The real question is
there's a lot of fighting going on. Can we hope to see a downturn in it, you know, by by whatever. And the problem is that we now have at least three governments North Korea, Russia and Iran who's who have are operating on a military footing in some cases with Iran, and some
of it not even necessarily being under their direct control. But the point is the regimes in power are stable to the extent that they are committed to military action, that they have built their economies around military action, their power based is around military action. There's the putin you know, none of them can suddenly this afternoon say, oh, we made a mistake. We really should be buddies with everybody, and you know, trust me, I just it
was, you know, we're going to back off this. China is the only exception. They haven't committed themselves yet, although they haven't really made any friends recently with Indonesia or Vietnam. But I think the concern is for those that want to be optimistic about this, there are several of these parties where the regimes in power are being sustained by military action and confrontation, combat whatever. So there's there's really no there's no really reason that they would abandon that.
That that's that's that's what they're that's where their power base is, and that's what's sustaining them. So why would they give it. It's like, do you think that if Putin suddenly said, oh, Western Europe is not coming to get us. You know, NATO is not about to invade, all of that was non sense. And all the guys that are speaking for me that told no, no, we need to back off, forget this huge military buildup that we're doing. Now I changed my mind. That's not
going to happen. So yeah, I think that's a big issue that we have now that we didn't even necessarily have in thirty eight or thirty eight nine. We have regimes that are sustained strictly by their position towards conflict. Right, but you know, as China and the Russian Federation are interconnected, they are not reliant on one another. You know. In other words, the Chinese system could stand without Russia. It doesn't need Russia to exist, and
the Russian Federation doesn't need China to exist. They're not, you know, really super dependent upon one another for their existence as some of those alliances were in the nineteen thirty eight time period. There were certain countries that were sort of dependent upon the bigger powers for their existence. There were certain regions that
were dependent upon some powers for their existence. I think this is a little different in that, Yes, Europe in and of itself, the European Union is clearly interdependent because of their arrangements, not just militarily but business wise, they sort of have an interdependent relationship. China and the Russian Federation do not. And I would say that Putin's not unreasonable for thinking that he's being encroached upon by NATO, given that there were, you know, there's disputable issues
about what's on. That's where you and I would disagree, Okay, But even if he felt he was being encroached on, he just launched an invasion, you know, brutal invasion. But I take your point. China is at this point in time, there is no doubt that Russia, North Korea, and Iran are tightly bound yes, economically, I mean, Russia would not be doing what it's doing in combat right now without Iranian ballistic missiles in North Korean artilleryshells. I mean, Putin is tied to them, and they
are both emboldened by that type. Try I agree with you. China is totally a wild card. All we can hope for is sanity on China's part. But if China were to do something insane in regard to Taiwan or quite frankly, even Indonesia, where there is there is open conflict, I mean there are military incidents that are occurring with Indonesia. I mean, so right now China is kind of a hope for sanity, but not in the other
not with the other three players, I don't think. And and interestingly enough, India is India is another major power, if you will, in terms of population, if technological capability, and at the moment, India to a large extent is sustaining Russia with covert oil purchases. And I'm not saying it's not a complex situation. Really, the simple part at the moment is Russia,
North Korea and Iran. That doesn't make it good because that those are you know, all three states are now very heavily focused on a military strategy spheres of influence towards world and I think I think certainly if you were to ask Israel, they would would say that that Iran is a very large part of their problem. And yet fascinating where you know, Putin kind of like
you said, has indicated that he's more on the Palestinian side. Seems like they're and you know, the United States clearly is on the Israeli side when it comes to that part of the conflict. It's interesting to me that the only thing that I think separates us from getting to that declaration here where a whole lot more people would be saying, I think it's time to call this the Third World War, would be the direct military involvement of China, which
hasn't happened to a significant degree yet. Yeah, And that would be the thing that I think would make it indisputable. And yet it doesn't feel as though the world is mostly engaged in this now. That could be due to the way it's presented in Western media, or that could be due to the fact that, as per usual, North America is not directly involved in the conflict, even when our military becomes directly involved. It doesn't come here exactly,
does it. Yeah, I think you're right if you ask our military, and I thought they're very well aware they're at war, you know. I I the fact that they're being constantly rotated, there's spending more time overseas. There are combat groups Army, Navy, and Air Force that are in constant combat. If you if you look at their logistics with the amount of so, they would certainly tell you that from their view, yeah, that's our day is now combat. You know, any of them are exposed to
it at any time. Army, Navy, Air Force. I think your other point about North America, yeah, we're we have we are so have become more and more isolationists, more and more domestically focused. I think if you were in Europe, the Middle East, maybe not Latin America okay, and maybe not Africa, agreed, but northern Hemisphere most most anybody else would would you know? The war has reached out and touched a great many people.
Uh, we have a compartmentalized it to a certain extent with our volunteer military and the and the fact it's kind of like Linley's you know the fact that right now we're actually paying our defense companies, you know, to produce materials to go overseas, not free use by our forces by the Ukrainians. Uh, and not just the Ukrainians, because we're literally replenishing not just in Europe, we're replenishing uh, military stocks around the world, from Australia to
uh, the Philippines to you. It's it's just you don't have the sense from what the headlines are in our newspapers, well, like the amount of stuff that's being sent to Ukraine. When people talk about, well this money is being spent, well not directly, because what's happening is that already created assets, elements, you know, different tools are being sent there and then they need to be replenished, as you said, wherever it is they came
from. So that keeps the industrial part of the military industrial complex busy because they have to produce new stuff to replace the stuff that is now being siphoned or funneled into the Ukrainian conflict. I mean not just there, but a major portion of those assets are being funneled into there. So there's the business end of war as opposed to the troops. Because look, we don't have a lot of troops coming home from anywhere. So it's not the boots on
the ground issue. We don't have you know, bodies coming home again. Another thing that begins to shake and move the public's imagination. And believe me, I'm not looking forward to that. I'm just saying that at this time. It also lends itself too well. There can't be a major conflict. We don't have people dying from our perspective now. And as you say, I mean, there are look at it that way, but we are. We're not only there are now factories. There are new factories being built.
There are factories that are running three shifts a day, four shifts a day, as they said, not just to produce stuff for Ukraine, but just produce stuff for quite frankly, for Israel, for all of the other companies countries where we are we're backfilling and we're sending uh, you know, Greece. You know, you could just call out any number of countries if you
look at the at the sales and the trade agreements where we are. The Yeah, the military complex at the moment is is doing quite well, which is quite reasonably one of the reasons our economy is doing quite well, I mean, this is an upside economically for us. It's and the other thing is really kind of strange is it's our oil and gas exports are booming, and if anything, it's easier to get stuff from us than it is to get through the Red Sea at the moment or around the Horn of Africa.
So we are not feeling the pain here. Well, that was in part that. Yeah, the article I covered last night, in part it's responsible for the headline that's basically states, you know, why are we doing so well producing oil and gas under Joe Biden. Part of the reason is that, quite frankly, they Sorry, something is starting to play in my background here. I'm gonna cut my mic for a second to fix that. But part of the problem is that we're having to create oil and gas to fuel
different operations. And that's part of what's floating our production right now is resource allocation. It's not necessarily that the American public is utilizing this stuff that we're creating here, but we're exporting it to the global market. Even if we're not directly selling it into a military conflict, we're selling it to people who
end up having to move it into a military conflict. So our production is quite high under Biden right now, as a matter of fact, way higher than anybody thought it would be, and higher than it's been in a while
due to exactly what you're saying here. Yes, oh absolutely, And and and the economy in general, I mean, the economy in general is strong and it you know, that's one of the things that strengthened it is strengthen it's here because I haven't looked at our balance of trade yet late in the last couple of weeks, but this there is there is no doubt that this level of global combat fighting, et cetera, is benefiting our exports, is
benefiting our economy. And frankly, one of the strangest things about it to me is the fact that you know, we have we have incidences where oil and gas are really to the point where they should be real natural resources. I mean, we are going to be running out of them. But what we're seeing in Russia and Ukraine is they're taking each other's oil reserves out. It's kind of like, oh, this is great. Now we've turned this
into an energy war. That's the last thing we needed. The same thing with the Hate's and Yemen now we've turned it into an energy war now a global commerce war. So again I very much doubt that the international shipping firms or even the international air transport firms would would dodge the question of where they're you know, that they're seeing a different world in terms of things that they have to take either take advantage over or concerned about, you know, routing
flights, routing chips, re routing personnel, insurance. Yeah, that's back to there is, if not a global war, global warfare. Fair enough, So let's get to some specific comparisons. Then, if we are indeed rolling up to about to enter that time period where it is declared like it was in World War two nineteen thirty nine, you know, what are the
differences. Well, we've already discussed that there were territorial conflicts that were occurring in a lot more places, I think in nineteen thirty nine than they are here. But those aren't the things that really end up qualifying it as a world war. What are the comparisons we could make here twenty twenty four to I don't know, let's even say nineteen thirty four, if we were to give it another five years before we get into World War three, officially,
where would we be standing at as the time period just before now. I know that there's a difference in the pace of it. There's a difference in the reality because communication is faster, allocation of resources and issues can can become evident much quicker problems. Direct reports from the battlefield are clarified a lot faster, or at least the information has transmitted a lot faster than it was in the nineteen thirties. I mean, you couldn't dispute that. So things should
happen at a quicker pace. Maybe we do have to look at nineteen thirty four to figure out how we would get, you know, in the next five years to nineteen thirty nine, but maybe it would be the next year in our current modern state because things are just simply going to move faster.
What are your thoughts on that and what comparisons could we make directly, I mean specifically, I think one of the comparisons you make, like thirty eight, thirty nine, forty is that basically to some extent combat had stabilized. You know, you had the falls far on the front in France. You
know, it stabilized to some extent even in China. The Chinese were pushing back against the Japanese to some extent, but at that point in time, stability, stability in a military sense, began appear to various parties as an opportunity. The Japanese saw the American support for China, the American involvement and resource control. They saw it as a threat and an imminent opportunity that they had to deal with right now, So they they pushed. That's what pushed
them over the edge. The Germans, to a large extent, although they didn't start it, saw an opportunity, as did the Russians quite frankly in Eastern Europe to take territory. And I think the big, the big difference, and what the citing point is going to be is where they or not the players in this see where we are right now as an opportunity. If they've gone, they've gone so far, you know, and they haven't gotten a reaction that would really stop them from doing anything there. You know,
combat really is limited to a thousand mile front in Ukraine? Okay, So do does somebody see it as an opportunity? Okay? Europe can't come up with enough ammunition to even sustain Ukraine. Why don't we just go ahead and take Poland? Because I mean, I'm sure you. Tyler chucked Putin, and several of his most outspoken supporter have said it's time for them to secure their own security by rebuilt, by moving west. I mean, so is there some point that they're tempted to do that, just as you know,
Hitler was tempted to move east. You know, Well, they decide it's now, okay, now is the time, it's I think, and I'm not happy with any of this. But what happened, what we saw in nineteen thirty eight thirty nine is essentially the parties that had initiated most of the warfare, Germany, Italy, Japan felt that they had an opportunity to do more, more expansion, more expansion, because nobody had really stood up, you know, not that there wasn't some fighting back, but they viewed it
as an opportunity. Well, and there were different occurrent there were different circuscumstances here too, where whereas let's just point out, most significantly Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union in and of itself was not exactly adversarial to Germany immediately, you know, and they weren't just neutral either. They were kind of friendly, but it wasn't clearly that they were their enemy or you know, they weren't clearly for or against them. In my mind
the way I read history at that time. Of course, that's the Soviet Union under Stalin as opposed to you know, the Russian Federation. There is a big difference. One two. You take a look back. You just said, and people might have thought they misheard you. The US is support
of China while the Japanese were the aggressor. That is a circumstance that it seems like a fairy tale compared to what we're looking at right now, because that almost makes no sense given the current spears of influence in the world today. It's amazing, and of course most people don't understand that. Right before the attack, in the six months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States was working with Japan to create a strategic bombing force. Sorry,
working with China. Yes, it's the top of the way it should be. Check you're right, working with China to create a strategic bombing force to bomb Japan. Yeah. And it was in the newspapers and it was like we're sending our best bombers to the Philippines and then they will be going on and we're supporting creating a bombing group in China, and there were maps showing how Japan would be at risk. So we've lost a lot of that history.
But I think it wasn't insane. It really was not insane. In the movie Red Dawn, where you know, the the Communists basically invade America in the fictional story, you know Patrick Swayzee in the original and Jennifer Gray, and they remade it not too many years ago, and it was a very confusing plot. But one of the weird things that happens is there is an American fighter pilot who was shot down and he says, oh, you know, our only allies right now is you know, is what's England Australia?
And of course, you know, half a billion scream and Chinaman or something like that. And the guys around the fire go half a billion, But why only half a billion? There's like a billion of them, and he goes, yeah, there was. The funny thing is that it wasn't insane in the nineteen eighties to think that the Chinese would be our ally if a World War occurred if there was a major conflict. And by the way, in Red Dawn, it might be that they just decided to take out
America. That doesn't necessarily make it a world war. So both of those things which seem really weird. And I think Rutger Howard plays the fighter pilot if I remember right, but it's almost weird to hear that and people go, wow, that's like a crazy Hollywood creation. No, it's based on
the real world. That would have made sense for quite quite a long time that the Chinese would have been willing to cooperate with us, especially if based with an adversary like Japan, who you know, went through its fascions. Again, looked at JP. Sattilli's work on this and his coverage of the the rise to fascism in Japan, which made it a completely unrecognizable nation, you know, compared to what it is today for us in modern times. But either way, that that was the true map of the way it was
drawn back then, so you have a different circumstance. And again Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, so you know, their actions during World War two way different than what they would be today, et cetera. So I mean, you have a different landscape. You know, Poland's independent at that time. Hitler invaded it, taking it over as if it was a territorial
right along with Austria. And that was another thing. The majority of the power in Europe that were at the time kind of sitting there going, look, if you're not going to go any further, we're going to let this alone. That's appeasement. That's Neville Chamberlain, right, That's that whole thing that that Joe Kennedy Senior, you know, was was involved in and dismissed from the Roosevelt administration as the ambassador to England because of his idea about appeasing
Hitler, so on and so forth. I mean, well, yeah, that's where I was really trying to go, because I think the problem is if the people who initiated the combat see an ongoing opportunity, there is no it will be there if you appease it. If you don't respond to it, it still makes it an opportunity. That's why Chamberlain, we you know, you can't you can't say Okay, we're good where we are, and they're going to say, well, no, we're bitter where we're going to
be you know, you've just given them the initiative. But one other thing I'd like the point out that is different. It's sort of different. Maybe not during the Cold War, we always we assumed that nuclear weapons would, you know, be the endgame. We could not have a world war because
nobody's insane enough to go nuclear, which I hope is still true. But one of the things that we're seeing now that we have become so much more of a global community in terms of electronics, if you will, interconnectivity. Forget that we're just we're not what we were during the thirties in terms of interconnectivity. It's it's far more important down to the level of agriculture, manufacturing,
whatever. And it's interesting that during World War Two we saw all parties pass up on the use of their major unconventional weapon, which was chemical warfare, you know, and they nobody used it, Okay, so they remained
that same and then just fought it out bloodily with conventional weapons. What we have seen emerge now, especially with with drones and unmanned systems and what i'd call infrastructure warfare, is that we face the possibility that a country can essentially neuter another country with conventional warfare simply by using not non nuclear to to take
out infrastructure. And that's that's something that didn't exist at the time. So the rules of escalation have changed, and indeed World War II's rules of escalation changed because of the trench warfare that occurred in World War One. There was a lot of chemical weapons used there. Yes, a lot of it was
you know, simplified things like mustard, gas, et cetera. But still it's almost like, look, we already know how ugly and bad and long lasting these problems can be regarding post conflict cleanup, right, maybe we don't want to do that again. Is there a lesson in hand here? And are we too far away from the time that big Man and little Boy or
whatever they were called, fat Boy, fat Man, little Boy. I forget the names there for the two bombs that were dropped on Japan, which indeed were frightening spectacles for the world, but much less savage than the fire bombings that occurred in Japan and later in Germany that the US Air Force carried
out. Indeed, though those spectacles are not so burned into our memories now that they would be a great warning for somebody, maybe is that a possibility or do you think because of the technological advances there's just more options here? And indeed you can neuter and utilize, you know, that country's resources without making them all toxic, you radiated, chemically poisoned, as you would have with these other higher level non conventional warfare elements of the past. There's something
to be said for both sides of that equation, I think. And as we come around to just almost an hour of this discussion where I'd like to sort of wrap it up soon and tie a bow on this whole thing, how is it that you would compare that? Do you think that any of what I'm saying here has any influence over the trajectory, the limitations how far somebody will push things. Obviously, we've seen that all of these things are useful as threats. Right. The idea of biochemical warfare and what could be
loosed and what is being done has been introduced into the conflict Rhetorically. We've heard the possibility and we haven't heard it lately, but you know, because we're deep into the conflict now in Ukraine. But the beginning, there was an immediate fear that nuclear weapons could be deployed right away, even if they were just you know, quote battlefield end quote nukes or whatever, the tactical
weapons, they were possibilities, maybe smaller ones. And people were also worried that if Russia felt as though it was really getting its head handed to it, that out of desperation for the fact that, well, if the Russian Federation is not going to survive this, perhaps we don't care what happens to
the rest of the world. We could see a quick escalation. So the technological and the literal assets, the literal elements of warfare, the tools of warfare, and when they are properly deployed is another question here as we move forward, So you know, tie something around that for me, give me an idea what your thoughts are there regarding the escalation or lack thereof, regarding the different technologies and types of warfare, because can is what we do see
in Ukraine right now, on top of the rhetorical, on top of the propaganda, on top of the information and psychological warfare, but it is the main player there in Ukraine. Is there a possibility that we could see major escalations and reactions if somebody steps into the biochemical theater if somebody steps into the use of tactical nukes. If that happens, things would change immediately, I
think. And are we too far away from World War two to remember or are we too far away from World War one to remember the consequence of that? Or have we now regained our arrogance to believe that we can control the consequences of that? And I do mean generally, not just one nation state, but all of them. Have they fallen into a stupor that is based
on either ignorance or complacency? And do they lack proper context about the consequences of that sort of escalation or do you think they're aware of it and that's why we haven't seen it so far? What are your thoughts? I think I think nuclear is not the real concern, and if anything, the people that are think still thinking they're safe because of nuclear and retaliation are probably being a bit naive. What we haven't seen anybody. We've seen Russia do it
so far. They actually did it even before Ukraine pull the trigger on what I would call nuanced warfare, combining cyber warfare with conventional warfare and essentially overwhelming warfare. I think the model for what happens next is Georgia and what Russia did in Georgia and the ability that Russia, Russia now has to say, take cyber warfare and large gale drone attacks, live bomb attacks, whatever to wipe out the infrastructure of a small country during winter and give the population no
choice but freeze to death or change your government. I think what's being overlooked is the ability to do that, not nukes, because you know, again the equation is, if you read the news articles, if if Russia just did get five thousand intermediate range ballistic missiles, which are known now they're nothing more than longer range artillery shells. You know, the barrage warfare, unfortunately, is what we're seeing. And when you combine that may not be a
threat to the United States. Okay, I'm not talking about that, but I'm talking about Taiwan, Japan, Eastern Europe. You know, to a small all or geography, that could be overwhelming. And again the problem being is if there are no consequences, if the consequences aren't obvious, the temptation will be there. I have no doubt one of the reasons Putin decided to go all out in Ukraine is because he had been so successful in Georgia.
It's step by step, it's you know. So to wrap it up from that perspective, Chuck, I think, you know, I don't think it's escalating weapons. I think it's deciding where that next opportunity is going to lie. And as long as as this continues, and you know, Iran obviously saw opportunities in the Middle East to increase its leverage in Syria for that matter, even Lebanon. As long as they see that they're opportunities, there's nothing
really Their regime needs opportunities as diversions. So I think moving to a different level a weapon is not my concern. My concern is the extent to which these regimes see opportunities. Okay, So with that in mind, though,
I think it's not necessary to have the Russian Federation involved. Let's just say theoretically, if fighting came to a stop in Ukraine, peace were declared, a deal was struck, and that was the end of it, and all forward momentum militarily was stopped, I think that would not necessarily stop the momentum regarding the rest of the world inviedfuly not. It didn't in twenty fourteen. That's exactly what happened in twenty fourteen. That's what the Ukrainians are scared of.
Yeah, twenty fourteen, you had a peace treaty that said, okay, we'll never attack you again. Okay, good, But when that lasted what four years? Yeah, But putting that aside, even Larry putting that aside, let's just say that really there was a cessation here and it stopped
right there. Regarding that part of what is happening on the global game board, the truth is, Okay, what's happening in the Middle East is enough if it continues to spread as it you know, like, look, we look at both World War One and World War Two as truly having its seeds
in the former Yugoslavia. You know, that thing sort of metastasized and became and you could see the Middle East, as has been stated many times throughout my entire lifetime by every analyst known to man, the Middle East in and of itself could be the metastasizing tumor that becomes the global conflict all by itself as well. Right, absolutely agree, that would just be if if anything, the situation you describe would I think would be thought of as proof of
concept. Look out, well that worked here, Now where can we take it next? So no, that would not that would not resolve the situation in terms of the global threat, uh, anymore than I think. Uh. You know, immediately before, you know, before World War two, before global warfare, there were there were agreements and sensations and attacks stopped in certain places. You know, that didn't change. That didn't change the whole picture. It just stabilized situation. You know. It's like, okay,
the other shoe is yet to drop. So no, I agree, if you had if you had peace in Ukraine tomorrow afternoon, I don't think it would change this the whole global context of what we've been talking about in terms of Russia, Iran, North Korea, hopefully not China. But you know we just now, as you said earlier, China is China is an unknown right still the wild card? Yeah, still the wild wild card. Yeah. And here's the thing about it, to again tie a complete bow on
this. Ultimately, we started with a question, you know, which is are we in a state of world war and therefore world War three already in progress, or are we on the precipice. What would be your simple answer. There is it an overreaction on the part of people like myself who overanalyze things. Is it is it a point of really banter for the sake of banter, or are we looking at something that's academic? What are your thoughts there? Like, how would you answer that? Is it already in progress?
Do we have a circumstance where it's about to emerge or is it just an unrealistic and I don't know, some people showing their fear and others seeming to believe something ahead of the evidence being presented one way or the other. What are your thoughts there? Are we in that state yet not? Or
is it coming? What are your thoughts? And we're in that state simply because there are regimes that see that see warfare as their only real opportunity where the sphere whatever you want to call it, elevate it up and talk about. They see spheres of influence as vital to their existence. They see, you know, warfare and a militarized nation state is vital to their regimes survival,
et cetera. As long as you've got major power players that are in that mode, you're you're you don't go back downhill you're at a point of risk of expanding global combat. I don't even know if you want to call it, you know, world war three, whatever it's. We are in a state of global combat and there's no reason to think that there's any any immediate way that you can make it go away because of the of the geopolitics
of the people who see it as an opportunity. It's kind of the reverse of the military industrial complex, right that are our thought earlier was all wars are created by the business people. Don't think that's what we're really seeing right
now. Uh, In this case, global combat is being being fed by regimes that see it to their advantage, not a business matter, to their to their advantage from a power standpoint, a control standpoint, different story, right, But there's no reason to let a good conflict go to waste. And and as per usual wars, you know, we talked about that. So no, that that's and unfortunately we're kind of we're at the moment we're the ones that are probably profiting more than anybody else. Right, And look,
a war is a business, and guess what business is warfare? These things do stand and I know it sounds like a FERENGI you know, what do you call that rule of acquisition? But it is the truth. It's always going to be a business, and business is almost always good because it is already in progress. And global conflict is what global business. So even though it may not be the primary driver, it's certainly an element at play at all times. So I advise you guys to go over to larrydash Hancock
dot com. I recommend all of Larryhancock's writings. If you see Larry as an author or co author, my best bet is to tell you that you have encountered one of the best things that could be written on various historical topics
and things that are relevant to today. And I would say, just in closing that although just like you know, business is not the main driver for warfare, I would say this idea that you know, the Russian Federation is not necessarily the main driver for what will get us to the undeniable state of World War three. The Russian state definitely is an element that can be involved. They're significant enough, but they're not the only thing. They're not the
only possibility. And even if all of the conflicts surrounding that circumstance were to disappear tomorrow. I don't think it would take us anywhere away from that precipice or from that nearly declared situation. And apparently I think your analysis says about the same thing, although you and I might differ as to exactly how significant the sphere of influence is of the Russian Federation on that final declaration, so to speak. So again, Larrydashancock dot com and Larry, I'd like to
thank you for doing this with me tonight. I really appreciate it and as always love having you on. And we'll see you again in two weeks, right you bet we'll be back. Absolutely so, guys, I hope no matter who you are, where you are, when you are, that not only are you doing well, but I want you to remember that I am merely o'helly all of you are indeed the effect. Go to Larrydashandcock dot com.
Check out his works, his blog everything. It's all worth a read if you want to be informed anyway, We'll see you revelation through conversation. Wallstream Window dot dot Gold Silver, the stock market, wall Stream Window dott Perhaps you're invested deeply, Perhaps you're not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started Wall Street dot com dot com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, understood these trends professionally for many years, and
now he gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wall Street streamdo dot Com go there? Now go there, now go there now revelation through conversation? Could you expressed my caller school, Who's there anyone else who happens to get on the aera of jelly dot com who'd not necessarily replied views of Jelly dot com or che Chelly And we are not responsible for any stupidity which might excuse like it? Do you like history? Real history that you were never taught
in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one at your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike swanso Chili
dot com. Go ahead, call it about the Jay assassination right, Well, what do you want to know dy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barrie Hancy weapons. Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon. But okay, Oswald was on the building and trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on now has a real effort on the day of pay assassination. Book into her claim. Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words.
You'll get the results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence in the case to get at well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith Barry Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at k I A s JFK at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissect the many, many fantastic claims judasvary Baker in her own words.
Both the War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the times, and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security
state. Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic. In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World
War, and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was up against. For more information, the Warstate dot Com. In Denial The Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks by Larryhancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial ripped the cover off many of them, using new files that exposes things about the Bay of Pigs
that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not earn from it. It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks Larryhancock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com
in digital or physical force? Do you like history, Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson with new documentation never seen before that will open your eyes to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War, Nuclear Bombs and Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen
sixty one. Get your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson dot Com Radio Network again Ready, Get Ready for