0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
2,265 $

The World Order That’s Now Emerging


Written by Eric Zuesse; Originally appeared on strategic-culture.org

The Post-World-War-II world order was dominated by the one WWII major combatant that had only 0.32% of its population (the lowest percentage) killed by the war: the United States. The Soviet Union’s comparable number killed by the war was the highest — it was 13.7% — 4.28 times higher than America’s. The US was the main force that defeated Japan and so won WWII in Asia. The USSR, however, was the main force that defeated Germany and so won WWII in Europe. The USSR suffered vastly more than did the US to achieve its victory. In addition to suffering 4.28 times the number of war-deaths than did US, the USSR’s financial expenditures invested in the conflict, as calculated by Jan Ludvik, were 4.8 times higher than were America’s financial expenditures on the war.

The World Order That’s Now Emerging

Thus, at the war’s end, the Soviet Union was exhausted and in a much weaker condition than it had been before the war. By contrast, the US, having had none of the war’s battles occurring on its territory, was (by comparison) barely even scratched by the war, and it was thus clearly and overwhelmingly the new and dominant world-power emerging from the war.

That was the actual situation in 1945.

The US Government did not sit on its haunches with its enormous post-war advantage, but invested wisely in order to expand it. One of the first investments the US made after the war was the Marshall Plan to rebuild the European countries that had now become the US aristocracy’s vassal-states. The heavily damaged USSR possessed no such extra cash to invest in (rebuilding) its vassals. Furthermore, the USSR’s communist regime was additionally hobbled by Karl Marx’s labor theory of value, which produced prices that contained no useful information about demand and thus no constructive information for planners. (Planning is essential regardless whether an enterprise is private or public.) Thus, the USSR was doomed to lose in its economic competition with The West, so that the Cold War was actually a losing proposition for them, from the very start of the post-war era. America’s post-WW-II dominance, combined with Marx’s crippling economic theory, and produced the exodus of East Europeans to The West.

America’s aristocracy thus increasingly rose on top internationally. Like any aristocracy, the American aristocracy’s main concerns were foreign trade, and so US international corporations increasingly expanded even at the expense of the corporations owned by its competing, now-vassal, aristocracies, and the US aristocracy’s corporations and brands thus came to dominate the entire capitalist sphere. The growth-bug, if it becomes an addiction, is itself a disease. Out of control, it is a cancer, which can destroy the organism. This is what happened in America. Conquering also the communist sphere was the US aristocracy’s long-term goal, so that they would ultimately dominate every nation, the entire world. By the time of 1980, the US aristocracy’s top goal (world domination) became also the US Government’s top goal. The cancer had spread to the culture’s brain. Growth, backed by “Greed is good” economics, became practically the American religion, viewed as patriotic, and not merely as the nation’s economic model (which was bad enough, with its increasingly imperialistic thrust — such as 2003 Iraq, 2011 Libya, 2012 – Syria, 2014 Ukraine, 2016 – Yemen, and maybe now Iran).

America’s unchallengeable dominance lasted from then till now, but clearly has now reached near its end. The United States is trying to restore its post-Soviet (post-1991) global supremacy, by intensifying the US regime’s secret war against Russia and its allies, which started on the night of 24 February 1990 and which could reach a crescendo soon in WWIII unless something will be done by America’s allies to force the by-now wildly flailing US aristocracy to accept peacefully the end of the American aristocracy’s hegemony — the termination of their, until recently, unchallengeable control over the world. By now, with the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact mirror of America’s NATO military alliance gone since 1991 and yet no peace-dividend but only ever-increasing wealth-concentration into the tiny number of billionaires who benefit from war weaponry-sales and conquests, America needs to abandon its addiction to growth, or else it will proceed forward on its current path, to WWIII. That’s its current path.

According to Josh Rogin in the Washington Post on November 14th, US Vice President Mike Pence had just said, as Rogin phrased it, that “the United States has no intention of ceding influence or control over the [Pacific] region to Beijing” and that if China won’t do everything that the US demands, then the US is fully prepared to force China to obey. The same newspaper had earlier presented Robert D. Kaplan, on October 9th, saying, “The United States must face up to an important fact: the western Pacific is no longer a unipolar American naval lake, as it was for decades after World War II. The return of China to the status of great power ensures a more complicated multipolar situation. The United States must make at least some room for Chinese air and naval power in the Indo-Pacific region.” But the US regime is now making clear that it won’t do that.

The US regime appears to be determined to coerce both Russia and China to comply with all American demands. With both of those countries, as with Iran, the US regime is now threatening hot war. Trump, as the “deal-maker,” is offering no concessions, but only demands, which must be complied with, or else. The United States is threatening WWIII. But what nations will be America’s allies, this time around? If many European nations abandon the US, then what?

Key for the US regime is keeping the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

Rockefeller Capital Management, Global Foresight, Third Quarter 2018 presents Jimmy Chang, Chief Investment Strategist, headlining “Nothing Trumps the Dollar, Yet”. He writes: “The reserve currency status gives the US a significant advantage in handling its finances. American economist Barry Eichengreen observed that it cost only a few cents for the US to print a $100 bill, but other countries would need to produce $100 of actual goods or services to obtain that $100 bill. The world’s need for the greenback allows the US to issue debt in its own currency at very low interest rates. French Finance Minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who later became the president, coined [in 1965] the term ‘exorbitant privilege’ to describe America’s advantage” of the US dollar over any other nation’s currency. That “exorbitant advantage” never went away. Chang concludes: “As for the King Dollar, its short-term outlook appears robust.” However, few other observers now share that view. Increasing numbers of countries are pricing goods in other currencies, and China’s yuan and the EU’s euro are especially significant contenders to end dollar-dominance and to end the advantages that US-based international corporations enjoy from dollar-dominance.

Other than dollar-dominance, the key barrier to world peace is NATO, the military alliance of the northern aggressor-nations. Proposals have been put forth for the EU to have its own army, which initially would be allied with NATO (i.e., with the US regime). On November 17th, Russian Television bannered “EU army: Will it be easy for Europe to get rid of American political diktat?” and pointed to the US vassal-nations that would be especially likely to stay in NATO: UK, Poland, Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Perhaps the other EU nations and Russia could form their own military alliance, which will formally be committed to the independence of those US vassal-nations, and which will welcome individual peace-treaties with each of them, so as to indicate that aggression is only the US regime’s way, and thus to lay the groundwork for peace instead of war, going forward. Clearly, the people who control the US are addicted to invasions and coups (“regime-change”s), instead of to respecting the sovereignty of each nation and the right of self-determination of people everywhere. America’s conquest-addiction threatens, actually, every other nation.

Perhaps a reformed and truly independent EU can provide the new reserve currency, and also in other ways the foundation for global peace between nations. NATO will be irrevocably opposed to this, but it could happen. And if and when it does, it might tame the aristocratic beast that rides the American warfare state, but this isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. A step forward toward it is the courageous statement by “The Saker” at the American news-commentary site, Unz dot com, on November 15th, “Thanking Vets for Their ‘Service’ – Why?” He boldly notes that after World War II, all US invasions have been criminal, and that it’s a remarkably long string of evil — and this doesn’t even include the many coups, which have likewise destroyed some nations.

Nationalism is just as evil in today’s America as it was in Hitler’s Germany. It is hostile to people in any other nation. It demands conquest. And wherever nationalism rules, patriotism dies and is replaced by nationalism.

Only by restoring patriotism and eliminating nationalism can WWIII be avoided. Ending dollar-dominance is part of the path toward an internationally peaceful world that focuses more on serving the public’s needs and less on serving the aristocrats’ cravings. But ending NATO is also necessary.

Either these things will be done, or there will be WWIII.



Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • paul ( original )

    I don’t normally bother with errors but there is a misplaced decimal point in the above. 4,28 should be 42.8. That is if the other figures given are correct. I am only looking at consistency.
    I don’t really go along with this article wholeheartedly. If I had to choose between EU leaders and Trump, I would go with Trump. I for sure see Trump as overly belligerent . I think he has a rather exaggerated approach to putting America first. However, that does not mean he is not right to do this. I think it is his duty. However the manner he chooses is something I would appose.

    • dontlietome

      ” If I had to choose between EU leaders and Trump, I would go with Trump.” That is not a choice Paul, BOTH are controlled ENTIRELY by Israeli lobby groups, so both serve the same master, and the lobby groups are so numerous………..more than I could shake a stick at……………. and if you are not convinced, do a little research. A good example would be the documentaries from Al Jazeera, which exposed how deeply embedded these enemies of mankind are in the U.K. and JewSA. The U.K. was forced to rescind the diplomatic status of members of the Israeli embassy and send them home. Like a many-headed hydra, they have be replaced, but they are still up to serious mischief.

  • Monte George Jr

    re: “Nationalism is just as evil in today’s America as it was in Hitler’s
    Germany. It is hostile to people in any other nation. It demands
    conquest. And wherever nationalism rules, patriotism dies and is
    replaced by nationalism.”

    What you just described is Imperialism, not nationalism. Nationalism does not imply an Exceptional/Indispensable people; it is the globalists Obama/Hillary/etc. who introduced those terms into the public discourse. These same globalist actors insist on attacking and subverting other nations to impose “Western Values”. People who make this error usually also confuse anti-Israel/anti-zionism with antisemitism, and any challenge to even the tiniest details of the Holocaust story with “Hate Speech” – even to the point of trying to criminalize any such discussion in western countries.

    Russia, Iran, Syria are ‘Nationalists’ defending their territories against foreign aggressors.
    The globalist USA, Israel, UK and their vassals are ‘Imperialists’, seeking worldwide domination in a manner truly worthy of Hitler’s example. Nationalism is a good thing; it has room for a non-aggressive, ‘different strokes for different folks’, approach to international relations. Imperialism, the handmaiden to Globalism, is the problem.

    • John Whitehot

      it’s just words.

      they are not able to depict reality, even less to “make it”, unless you’re a fervent jew.

      if you want a reliable way to put these realities blocks in place, then follow the money. With the US it’s the only thing that makes sense.

    • ZP

      Fully agree with your analysis of “Nationalism” and “Imperialism” and this obviously deliberate miss-use in MSM (together with giving “populism” a negative connotation, or erasing the differences of “left”,”center”&”right” politics) seem to have a specific goal to confuse the uninformed. The whole history specifically the 20th century was related/explained in those terms and changing the meaning of those terms changes the understanding of history as well and perhaps “Globalism” would appear as a natural resolution to all the problems the World is currently faced with in such a miss-construed picture of the History?

    • Ace

      Exactly right. People in Kansas City, Reykjavik and Marseilles no doubt love their country. Because of that fact they do not THEREFORE

  • S Melanson

    Estimated deaths military and civilian combined: There is debate among historians over the figures but the numbers below are reasonable.

    Soviet Union 24,000,000 % of population 14.3%
    USA 418,500 % of population 0.29%


  • John Whitehot

    “The USSR suffered vastly more than did the US to achieve its victory. In addition to suffering 4.28 times the number of war-deaths than did US”

    wtf is this?

    US Losses, military – 408000
    US losses, civilian – some hundreds.

    Soviet losses, military – 10 to 11 millions
    Soviet losses, civilian – up to 17 millions, either for nazi actions or famine.

    The USSR suffered around 63 times the human losses the US did.

    The way this author has presented his data clearly has something wrong.

    • S Melanson

      Yes, and I am surprised with the sloppiness. My figures below close to yours, there is debate over exact figures, but the conclusions are the same.

    • PZIVJ

      Error was a decimal place!
      13.7 / .32 = 42.8, not 4.28. But this in %, why figure it that way? :/

    • Tommy Jensen

      Dont forget the 6 million. The worst crime in WWII. Nothing else matters.

      • potcracker2588

        hahaha u fucking jew satanic prick…
        holocaust?? gas chambers??? yeah in the minds of your hollywood jew moguls

  • Admiral_Moorer_believed

    One thing to note. Japan refused to surrender until Russia said it was about to enter the war, as agreed, 3 months after the end of the war in Europe.

    This was a few days after the Atomic bombs. Japan had weathered much worse fire storms and not surrendered before.

    The idea that it was the US that caused Japan to surrender is just wrong.

    Look it up folks.

    • PZIVJ

      A last minute island grab?

    • S Melanson

      It is correct that Japanese surrender was not a consequence of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But neither was the Soviet entry into the war against Japan. Japan had already decided to surrender.

      The excerpts below are excellent and very well researched and authoritative. It is in line with what I have read on WWII and I have read hundreds of articles and books on the subject.

      From: https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
      Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages “real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war.” “With the interception of these messages,” notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), “there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan’s Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: “Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision.”

      In spite of this, on July 26 the leaders of the United States and Britain issued the Potsdam declaration, which included this grim ultimatum: “We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”

      Commenting on this draconian either-or proclamation, British historian J.F.C. Fuller wrote: “Not a word was said about the Emperor, because it would be unacceptable to the propaganda-fed American masses.” (A Military History of the Western World [1987], p. 675.)

      America’s leaders understood Japan’s desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender — that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place — the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.

      The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized, correctly, that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan…

      Shortly after “V-J Day,” the end of the Pacific war, Brig. General Bonnie Fellers summed up in a memo for General MacArthur: “Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan’s unconditional surrender. She was defeated before either these events took place.”

      Similarly, Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

      It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan … The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

      • Concrete Mike

        Thanks S. That last paragraph is chilling.

    • potcracker2588

      the 2 nukes dropped on japan, were 100% german made………look it up…the date of germanys surrender, the trinity test, the drop on nagasaki and hiroshima and crossroads in 1946 two nukes test.All the same technology and apparatus….thats 5 nuclear explosions!!
      Funny now… the next explosions took place in

      1948!!!! Sandstone with totally different techn ology and apparatus and kilotonrange.
      Those were the first usa made atom bombs.They needed 2 years!!!

  • safetynet2razorwire

    Move that decimal point … the one relating America’s war dead to Russia’s. The ratio is circa 40 Russian dead for each American. I must point out that even that jaw-dropping statistic under counts total Russian dead. Then there’s negative impact experienced. Russia accomplished all it did after WWll while tens of millions silently suffered the crippling scourge we today recognize as PTSD.

  • potcracker2588

    WW III is inevitable

  • Brother Thomas

    Not that much new in this article.