The 20th century saw two world wars. It may be difficult for historians and philosophers to agree on the reasons for both, or even either, but perhaps we can concur on certain outcomes. It may prove a valuable asset to chart what may be a portal or window to see where the world is today, as it edges closer and closer to a Third World War.

The number of lives lost in the last world war is staggering, with Russia topping the list at 24 million, followed by China at 20 million, and then Germany and Poland with a combined total of nearly 12 million. A very high portion of the dead were civilians.

Although power and dominance are always at the centre, ethnic rivalry has been a trigger. Victory Day will be celebrated in Russia on May 9 and attended by Xi Jinping, the Chinese president. Many of us in the West were captivated by stories such as the Normandy landings because America was dragged into the war after other nations had become weary, and ostensibly to help Britain whose empire was on fire. Combined, Britain and the United States lost just under one million lives, most of whom were combatants.

America emerged strong after a war that devastated most of the world’s economy. Separated by two oceans, and thousands of miles from active combat, the United States was relatively unscathed — instead becoming the industrial complex that rebuilt the new world order from the ravages of war.

There were many tragedies resulting from the war where nations and peoples bore generational scars. The Jews of Europe, who lost six million lives to Nazi extermination, added a moral chapter to the Second World War. The world’s response to that moral dilemma was to create a safe place as a homeland for these displaced European Jews. It could be said that the creation of Israel was a moral response to that war.

The notion of dominance, commonly referred to as hegemony, is no longer a subtlety but a naked reality. There are two hemispheres of thought: diplomacy or war. The world is torn by these polar opposites where nations will collaborate through diplomacy or be led by forces of war. There is no halfway house; the options are clearly defined. At the moment, it is the collective West whose proclivity is predisposed to war.

The irony is that the epicentre is once again a moral question, but this time it is the plight of the Palestinians. At the base of what may become a Third World War is the question of whether Palestinians are allowed food and water, let alone a place in their own land to live. This is the moral question of the age and what the students at university campuses around the world are asking.

Isn’t it odd that it is China that is affirming its commitment to humanity?

Here we have the so-called “Axis of Evil” encouraging the world to engage in healthy competition, and what was once the liberal West that led the rules-based order stepping away from its own rules to promote hegemony through disorder and war.

The ultimate question is, what kind of a world do we want to live in?

Sadly, it becomes a question predicated on race and ethnicity. The winners are those who stand for plurality and diversity with equality, and the losers are those who believe in racial superiority of any kind. The choices have never been clearer; the battle is to see the world in its opposite. The war should not just be for the strong, but also for the least of us — the weak and the marginalised.