To what extent does the clash of ideologies in our time resemble a similar clash leading to World War I?

His entire premise is incorrect. WWI wasn't brought on by a clash of ideologies. It was brought on by competing empires that all espoused the same ideology (and the assassinations in Sarajevo, of course, which triggered the war).

The danger here is much more akin to the run-up to WWII, where Hitler could have been stopped at any of several points, if the Western Allies had only had the guts to do so. His reoccupation of the Rhineland, for instance, could easily have been crushed by a small part of the French Army.

By the time of the Austro-German Anschluss, however, it was too late. Germany had rearmed to the point that Britain and France were scrambling to catch up, and as May 1940 showed, their response was too late.

Similarly, we have a chance to knock Putin on his butt and destroy his popularity with the Russian people, but--like Hitler--he will continue to push until he meets a firm response. He's like a three-year-old who's told to stay behind a line and sticks his toe across it to see how far he can get.

That said, I think we are currently far from a general war, for two major reasons: a) we both have nuclear weapons (and there has never been a major war between nuclear powers), and b) it would ruin international trade (so business interests in ALL of the affected countries will oppose it).

The two wars have been viewed through the binoculars of North Atlantic that leaves behind ¾ ͭ ͪ of Humanity. It so happened that there were a dozen Imperial powers stationed in Europe. 8 of these have extensive global Empires whose Subjects have been inducted into Europe for fighting for European values & interests that they don't even know exist. This is wrong approach.

WW I was a European War fought for European (Imperial) interests.

If you go through the tiresome rigmarole you'll see the same things churned up again & again.

Instead I 'll show you a way out in understanding both the wars. What was the world before like in 1914 (exactly a century ago)& after 1945? And what was the difference? "Imperialism" was the difference. The pre-WW I world was fully Imperialist/colonialist with Europe ruling the whole world. WW I finished the four resident European Empires of which one - Germany - was downgraded & dispossessed of its overseas Empire. Germany too didn't build up its overseas Empire like the others, with sweat & blood. It was a gift to Germany in the Berlin conference, like a slice of cake of Africa. The other eight nevertheless were benefited by the spoils of WW I, gloating over it, not knowing that their turn too would come. It came in the next War (WW II) that was far bigger. In its aftermath the other eight (overseas) Empires too suffered the same fate. Though it took another War (the Cold War) during the pendency of which the Empires continued for some more time, though in tatters. But the writing on the wall was clear. By the end of this Cold War, there was no Empire worth the name. The only visible patch of a vestige of an Empire is the French Guiana on the main South American continent if you ignore the thousands of Imperial islands on the three Oceans..

The generation that is born after the Cold War wouldn't know what it is like, to be in an Imperial world !

Mr. Davis provides some interesting points, but ultimately I don't think there is enough fuel to ignite another world war. Not yet, anyway.

One of the most indicative factors of WWI - and one of the most overlooked - was the burgeoning sense of nationalism among countries across the world. These nationalistic identities grew and grew, and many world powers were just itching to flex their muscles in the international arena. But you just don't see that same passion today, at least not among the traditional Western powers.

Western Europe is staying out of the Middle East conflict because that's where they get their oil from. The U.S. gets about 25% of its oil from the MidEast, a pretty big number, but we're torn right down the middle as to whether we should intervene or not. Plus the United Nations is around. Not that the U.N is actually any good at brokering peace around the world - they just happen to be a curtain that other countries can hide behind while pretending to care about the injustices going on across the world.

Personally, and I qualify my opinion with some vocational expertise, I just don't think the traditional powers care enough to start another world war. We're simply a lackadaisical world these days. The only ones really willing to invest 100% in bloody wars are the Middle Eastern nations...and that's just more of the same when it comes to the history of warfare.

Russia is trying to poke the bear and get a rise out of the world (read: the U.S.) but as a nation we just don't really seem to care.

So that's my answer. We're all too lackadaisical for WW3.

I don't think it is a secret that Germany was forged by Prussia through military victory-

It is also no secret that Germany wanted the overseas empires just like the UK and France- and was more than happy to challenge them when the chance came-

I do not see a clash of ideologies in the lead up to WWI- I have studied a lot about the event- if anything to me - the idea was- we are just as good as they are- we should expand our empire too-

I also felt like the article was terribly written-

Dude knows his history doesn't he. First lesson for today I'd say is NEVER allow Iran Nukes (too late for Pakistan unfortunately). Other thing I noticed is Wilhelm sounds a lot like Putin, only Putin sees his (Russia's) enemies as everyone but Russia.

But I think today the main difference is we're dealing with a radical ideology that knows no borders, An ideology of Death. OURS or THEIRS, doesn't much matter to them. That's not necessarily 'new' but the threat is definitely multiplied, depending on their access to modern tech/weapons, and obviously the Numbers of "true beleivers".

It doesn't. - Conservatives believe that Liberals are wrong-headed; while Liberals believe that Conservatives are evil.