[Hawkeye_a]

I came across this article recently, and it was a fascinating read. It goes into the parallels between 1914 and 2014. The transitions.

The Rhyme of History

The original article(news.com.au) where I read about it summarizes it pretty well.

One compounding factor which I have been thinking about as well was the great depression (different time period, i know), and the parallels that has to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and combined with the similarities outlined in the articles above... worries me.

Discuss...

[mattyb]

The recent vote by British politicians to NOT get involved in Syria has shown that those in power are basically no-longer trusted. This has been further strengthened by the Snowden leaks. I can see this feeling in many other countries : don't get involved. This tends to make me think that a 'World War' is less likely.

HOWEVER, the Chinese have the money, the willpower and the military might to worry me. They are going to need more and more of the world's resources as they bring more and more of their population out of the dark ages. This will not just cause issues in East-Asia, but also South America and Africa where China has been spending some of its vast foreign reserves in securing oil for example.

Besides politics or military power, we have seen that any and every company in the Western world has happily gotten into bed with China just to do business there. I wonder what sort of future we will have when the largest shareholder, supplier, customer and manager are all China based.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I came across this article recently, and it was a fascinating read. It goes into the parallels between 1914 and 2014. The transitions.

The Rhyme of History

The original article(news.com.au) where I read about it summarizes it pretty well.

One compounding factor which I have been thinking about as well was the great depression (different time period, i know), and the parallels that has to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and combined with the similarities outlined in the articles above... worries me.

Discuss...

I read the original piece by Margaret MacMillan and while I could certainly quibble with her comparisons between the British National Party (essentially, white supremacist nationalists who likely would not be found in support of any British Allen Wests) and the US' Tea Party or her break-down of Obama's principled leadership struggling against an obstructionist Congress; the lessons IMO are much simpler than her exhaustive analysis would suggest. The root cause IMO? Human nature and weak leadership.

Human nature may seem less unsightly than lions fighting over the gazelle-laden plains, but it's often just as brutal and predictable. Human nature seeks not only to propagate the species, but as a unique, self-aware creature will also seek to propagate its ideals for sustaining livelihood. Human nature is imperialistic, but it has over time instituted two basic principles that keep this innate adventurism in check; posturing and mutually-advantageous agreements. Imagine a peacock unable to flare its intimidating display of feathers at the critical moment. The foe, if not scared away will overtake the prey. MacMillan also touches on mutually advantageous agreements including economic globalization and nuclear powers' acknowledgement of mutually-assured destruction. If these mutually-advantageous measures do not remain balanced or an opportunity (others' weakness) rises to bolster one side or the other, human nature's adventurism will disrupt the order.

Weak leadership expressed through naive and ambiguous policies both foreign and domestic leads to the mistrust of friends and the adventurism of foes, foreign and domestic. The current US Administration has been plagued by one scandal after the next and the near Banana-Republic style of lawlessness within its cabinet combined with exposed deception and failure around domestic policy has resulted in a sound rebuke by an otherwise friendly media for being less transparent than even the former Administration and a plurality of Americans now do not trust or support the President. Unprovoked, ill-justified action in Libya against a fully-compliant Gaddafi, dithering on action in Syria affording more presence to Putin, and hopelessly naive negotiations with Iran are all leading to a great deal of mistrust throughout the Middle East and the adventurism of our foes. Unfortunately, there is no better time for a foe to act than now.

[Chongo]

[QUOTE=mattyb;4262920]
HOWEVER, the Chinese have the money, the willpower and the military might to worry me./QUOTE]

Makes that 200 million man army in Revelation 9:16 sound plausible.

16 The number of the troops of cavalry was two hundred million; I heard their number.

[turtle777]

I personally think we are closer to the 1930s, already in a prolonged depression, leading up to a big worldwide conflict (like WWII back then).

And yes, history does rhyme, mostly in 80-100 year cycles.

Read "The Fourth Turning" by Neil Howe.

http://www.lifecourse.com/about/meth...-turnings.html

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

HOWEVER, the Chinese have the money, the willpower and the military might to worry me.

China doesn't play it that way. There's a reason they decided to build the largest defensive structure known to man.

The Chinese aren't aggressors.

Also, don't forget killing your customers is bad for your economy.


That said, no question a war with China would be for all the marbles.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Makes that 200 million man army in Revelation 9:16 sound plausible.

Yes, but the logistics to ship those 200M soldiers over to the US is almost impossible.

Europe should be afraid though

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I personally think we are closer to the 1930s, already in a prolonged depression, leading up to a big worldwide conflict (like WWII back then).

And yes, history does rhyme, mostly in 80-100 year cycles.

Read "The Fourth Turning" by Neil Howe.

Lifecourse Associates: The Four Turnings

-t

^Bingo

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, but the logistics to ship those 200M soldiers over to the US is almost impossible.

Europe should be afraid though

-t

... and Bingo again.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by subego 

China doesn't play it that way. There's a reason they decided to build the largest defensive structure known to man.

The Chinese aren't aggressors.

Google "china no fly zone", "china spratly island", "south china sea" and have a read.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, but the logistics to ship those 200M soldiers over to the US is almost impossible.

Europe should be afraid though

Yes, crossing the Persian Gulf states as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan or going north through Russia and Kazakhstan would be really simple. After all, it only took Genghis Khan 20 years to get to the Caspian.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

^Bingo

I think the conditions we are witnessing are a mix of both those time periods. Pre WWI & II.

Pre WWII: The great depression which followed the run on the banks, and the 2008 Lehman brother's collapse and the following global financial crisis.

Pre WWI: What is happening with China and its close allies (Iran, Pakistan and Syria) is almost identical to what was pointed out in the article. Yes, China has a formidable army. But 2 years ago they launched their first aircraft carrier and their first stealth fighter. (I remember reading about it in the Washington post/ New York Times). Syria uses chemical weapons with near impunity and Iran, well....its no secret what their ambitions are.

What I find fascinating is not the 'symptoms' (which we have been discussing so far), but the underlying disease of financial instability/ruin and bad policies that causes these symptoms to occur.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I think the conditions we are witnessing are a mix of both those time periods. Pre WWI & II.

Pre WWII: The great depression which followed the run on the banks, and the 2008 Lehman brother's collapse and the following global financial crisis.

Pre WWI: What is happening with China and its close allies (Iran, Pakistan and Syria) is almost identical to what was pointed out in the article. Yes, China has a formidable army. But 2 years ago they launched their first aircraft carrier and their first stealth fighter. (I remember reading about it in the Washington post/ New York Times). Syria uses chemical weapons with near impunity and Iran, well....its no secret what their ambitions are.

What I find fascinating is not the 'symptoms' (which we have been discussing so far), but the underlying disease of financial instability/ruin and bad policies that causes these symptoms to occur.

Good points above and to your last statement -- this is more in line with what I was thinking as well. All of the factors that serve as a "sign of the times" are merely symptoms of the underlying cause and IMO that has always been human nature.

People like to quibble about American exceptionalism or Tea Party/British nationalism on the rise etc, or this specific action and that specific move, but IMO folks are mired in minutia. Again, human nature is imperialistic. Either your system of governance and your ideals will rule the day or someone else's will. i.e. if you're not growing, you're dying and any country with a standing military understands this. The weakened leadership of one, invites the adventurism of another. Western economies, their policies, and their leadership all equate to blood in the water and the adventurists can smell it. While I realize it may seem cynical, this world will come to a head of ideals. You'll hear some folks on the left repeatedly remind us "Westerners" that we're on the decline and nearly celebratory in the notion that the West and its capitalist ways would succumb to the New Superpower -- China. All the while failing to acknowledge the incredible humans rights abuses, comparatively little freedoms, and lack of any civil rights enjoyed under those systems. It may not be China right away and it might not be within our lifetimes, but there will be a WWIII and it will have been ushered in for the same reason it always had; lions fighting over the gazelle-laden plains.

At some point as distasteful/patriotic/nationalist as it may seem; folks are going to have to choose their allegiances or bury their heads in the sand.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Google "china no fly zone", "china spratly island", "south china sea" and have a read.

In fairness to Sub's comment, he seemed to be talking about aggressive military expansion - into non-Chinese areas in Asia, Europe, Americas, etc.

You're talking about disputes in which China has both a territorial claim and/or significant economic interest. I do not want to speak for him but I doubt he was speaking to those situations - China has been aggressive about disputes over or within its own borders.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Yes, crossing the Persian Gulf states as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan or going north through Russia and Kazakhstan would be really simple. After all, it only took Genghis Khan 20 years to get to the Caspian.

GK didn't have a 300M person army, or tanks, or GPS, or short-range tactical nukes, or a modern supply line, etc. etc..

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

In fairness to Sub's comment, he seemed to be talking about aggressive military expansion - into non-Chinese areas in Asia, Europe, Americas, etc.

You're talking about disputes in which China has both a territorial claim and/or significant economic interest. I do not want to speak for him but I doubt he was speaking to those situations - China has been aggressive about disputes over or within its own borders.

Moar bingo!

Germany annexing Poland is aggression. Japan annexing Manchuria is aggression.

When it comes right down to it, even the Soviets weren't aggressive. They took what they took because they were scared we would try to kick the shit out of them. Those were defensive maneuvers, not offensive.

The one offensive maneuver the Soviets tried was going into Afghanistan, and they got their asses handed to them.

As I imply above, there are only two aggressively expansionist cultures on this planet. China isn't one of them.

[ebuddy]

I wouldn't say China isn't making offensive moves as the battlegrounds aren't always boots on the ground. We're all spying on and f'ing with one another's technology.

I'm also fascinated to see that China's non-offensive actions aren't viewed similarly with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[subego]

Can you clarify that last point? I can read that a couple ways.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Can you clarify that last point? I can read that a couple ways.

Territorial claims and economic interests are being cited to justify China's movement and you likewise find them non-offensive. I'm skeptical that this leeway would be granted in Israel's movements within territorial claims and economic interests as those are generally deemed both aggressive and hostile.

[subego]

Not by me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not by me.

I was unfair. I should've worded it as a question.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

In fairness to Sub's comment, he seemed to be talking about aggressive military expansion - into non-Chinese areas in Asia, Europe, Americas, etc.

You're talking about disputes in which China has both a territorial claim and/or significant economic interest. I do not want to speak for him but I doubt he was speaking to those situations - China has been aggressive about disputes over or within its own borders.

You didn't Google what I suggested did you? Did you actually look at where the Spratly Islands are on a map?

Originally Posted by subego 

Moar bingo!

Germany annexing Poland is aggression. Japan annexing Manchuria is aggression.

When it comes right down to it, even the Soviets weren't aggressive. They took what they took because they were scared we would try to kick the shit out of them. Those were defensive maneuvers, not offensive.

The one offensive maneuver the Soviets tried was going into Afghanistan, and they got their asses handed to them.

As I imply above, there are only two aggressively expansionist cultures on this planet. China isn't one of them.

Tibet? Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You guys seem to forget history.

[subego]

Thanks for the lecture, but I already got the briefing on that.

My statement stands.

I was also briefed on the Soviet Union taking over Eastern Europe, yet I claimed that wasn't an offensive move either.


If you don't understand how I could make that claim, I will gladly explain it, but it's not going to be worth my while if instead of trying to understand my point you're going to hurl insults about how ignorant you imagine me to be.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I was unfair. I should've worded it as a question.

No worries.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

GK didn't have a 300M person army, or tanks, or GPS, or short-range tactical nukes, or a modern supply line, etc. etc..

Thankyou for validating my argument.

Originally Posted by subego 

Thanks for the lecture, but I already got the briefing on that.

My statement stands.

I was also briefed on the Soviet Union taking over Eastern Europe, yet I claimed that wasn't an offensive move either.

If you don't understand how I could make that claim, I will gladly explain it, but it's not going to be worth my while if instead of trying to understand my point you're going to hurl insults about how ignorant you imagine me to be.

I don't imagine you to be ignorant. I would like you to explain why you don't think that what the Chinese did to Tibet or putting soldiers on the Spratly islands is aggressive.

How would you categorize the establishment of a Chinese Air Defence Zone is what is generally not categorized as Chinese airspace? Do you think that the threats are not aggresive threats?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Thankyou for validating my argument.

You didn't make an argument, so there was nothing to validate.

Shaddim did, however, counter the notion that it would take long today, just because it took GK 20 years. You imply those two events are similar w/o giving any reasons or justification.

-t

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

How would you categorize the establishment of a Chinese Air Defence Zone is what is generally not categorized as Chinese airspace? Do you think that the threats are not aggresive threats?

I don't see them as threats - more like posturing. I don't think anyone feels that there is a military conflict coming, though China is playing a dangerous game.

I would say it is more a political calculation to give China favorable trade deals for the wealth of resources those islands contain. Even if they don't "get the islands" they will get something out of the inevitable treaty/deal with Japan.

[Shaddim]

North Korea = threat
China = sword-rattling

China doesn't want to destroy their biggest customer, but at the same time, they don't seem to understand some of the finer aspects of diplomacy (from a Western perspective). I imagine it's largely a cultural disparity. They want to ensure that they aren't being shown disrespect, while at the same time they want to sell as many TVs and phones as they possibly can. It really isn't any more complicated than that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Thankyou for validating my argument.
I don't imagine you to be ignorant. I would like you to explain why you don't think that what the Chinese did to Tibet or putting soldiers on the Spratly islands is aggressive.

How would you categorize the establishment of a Chinese Air Defence Zone is what is generally not categorized as Chinese airspace? Do you think that the threats are not aggresive threats?

The full phrase in play here is aggressively expansionist.

While you can technically call lots of moves you have mentioned aggressive, the expansionist is the part which matters from a global perspective. None of the examples either you or I (Soviets) have given qualify as expansionist.

How can I say that? Look at the amount of expansion which took place afterwards.

The Chinese took over Tibet, and haven't moved on what's next door for over 50 years.

The Soviets took over Eastern Europe, and with the exception of Afghanistan, didn't move for 50 straight years.

To put it another way, to be guilty of the charge of aggressive expansion, you have to, well... aggressively expand. Hunkering down in the same spot for half a century is, in fact, the opposite of aggressive expansion.

While one can never know at the time whether a particular expansion is an overture to something bigger, with the examples of the Soviets and the Chinese, they made their expansion and then more or less stayed put.

There are only two countries which have a consistent history of expansion without staying put afterwards. Those countries are Germany and Japan. Every other country has an attitude of "I just want to be left alone", and has behaved in a manner consistent with that goal.

[subego]

Re: the Spratly islands.

The Chinese have been playing around there since the 13th century. I see no way their current claim can be used as evidence of Chinese aggression. Certainly in terms of the topic of this thread, which is whether China is behaving in a way which should instill fear.

[mattyb]

Thankyou for relying subego.

I still think that what China is doing is aggresive. So do many other nations in South East Asia. I wonder if they are as calm with both China and a China-backed North Korea on their doorstep.

turtle, you say that the Chinese could just hop on over to Europe. I reply with a sarcastic comment about how easy it would be and bring up the fact tha GK took 20 years to get to the Caspian Sea. Then Shaddim mentions that GK didn't have the same type of army as China. In fact the Chinese army is far more complex, with 200/300M men, tanks, cruise missiles etc. In my mind this backs up my 'argument' (via my sarcastic remark) about how difficult getting the Chinese Army to Europe would be. Especially with modern technology.

An example : Gulf War 1. Invasion of Kuwait beginning of August 1990. Air attack begins mid January 1991 and ground troops attack end of Feb. Thats less than 1 million troops, with no problems going over other countries' airspace (since they were part of the coallition) and no issue shipping/flying in supplies.

Shaddim, what about a China-backed North Korea?

[subego]

An important factor here is aggression is in the eye of the beholder.

If I were Vietnam, I'd see China's behavior as very aggressive. As a citizen of a superpower, there's only so much I'm going to care about a few islands in the South China Sea WRT my own (and my country's) safety. From that perspective, the Spratlys are an internal problem for the Chinese.

[mattyb]

Interesting that you brought up Vietnam :

BBC News - Shift as Vietnam marks South China Sea battle