I feel like China is the one that's actually playing 4D chess

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

Ok, disclaimer alert!

Right off the bat, I'm not pushing Chicom narratives. That's nonsense. The decline of the west is engineered by Jews and Anglo-Saxons, not Chinamen. They merely do what is in their own interest.

I'm talking about a more geopolitical issue. The Chinese at the moment could strike several heavy blows to US hegemony. It could dump the dollar and stop buying bonds, sending the dollar into a tailspin.

It could invade and occupy Taiwan and tarnish US reputation. It could fund and promote extremists in Iran and the shia axis and send them massive amounts of weaponry to destabilize the middle east and bog the US military down.

But it has not done anything of the sort. Unlike Hitler, Xi and the Chinese have not rushed hot-headed into a confrontation with the west despite being far more prepared than Hitler's Germany ever was.

The Chinese leadership comes off as remarkably shrewd and patient. They realize that it's inevitable that China would surpass the US. Even more so after the last 20 years in which it has become painfully obvious that the US elites are decidedly anti-American.

There is no need for China to fund any grand subversion or take any daring risk to defeat the US. The American elite is more than happy to destroy the country of their own accord. Ruining the demographics, pumping every sort of social degeneracy in the culture, carte blanche to negro criminals, wokeness in academia and the military, offshoring US manufacturing capabilities....the list is exhaustive.

All China has to do is wait and let things stay on course. Within a few decades, they will far surpass the US. With the west burnt in the fires of messianic negrolatry, the world will fall into their hands automatically.

It's like that Sun Tzu quote where the true master wins the battle before it even begins. China is already the world's leading industrial power and 2nd largest producer of scientific papers. It also has the largest GDP(PPP) and the best human capital on earth due to its high average IQ and colossal population.

The only thing that could derail their triumph is an early war/conflict with the US and its vassals. Its situation is a lot like Germany before WW1. Had Germany not gone to war in 1914 and managed to stall for another decade, it would've matched or surpassed Britain in naval might and become stronger militarily than Britain and France combined.

Thus the Chinese have begun an interesting dance. Under Xi, they have simultaneously let Blackrock set up shop in China and they have clamped down on the free market. They fund and promote leftist politicians in the democratic party and they crack down on western degeneracy and social media in China.

I feel like they're trying to stall for time while at the same time stringing the US elite with financial openings.

While I don't trust the Chinese and think of themselves as one of the great forces of evil in this world, I cannot help but feel some admiration for them. They truly do have a competent ruling class that is clear in its vision and ruthless in the pursuit of that vision.

Xi not Zionald Blompf, is the true 4D chess player.

all 32 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

Your fixation on hating Hitler is really odd. It's clear from your post you realise the situations of the Third Reich and contemporary China aren't even close to comparable yet you have the like red face meme guy urge to randomly declare you're not an evil Hitler worshipping nazi every 3 seconds. Really weird man.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I agree his fervor is a bit much, but I do agree with him in the issue that Hitler made multiple blunders early on. I greatly admire Hitler for many reasons, but being a good commander and tactician isn't one of those reasons. He was great at leading the charge, but not at deciding when to do so. There are a plethora of reasons why many of Hitler's generals distrusted and disliked him, and the large and oft-referenced reason of him constantly getting in the way and causing military blunders is probably the most valid.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They disliked him because he took their caste privileges from them, that's why they sabotaged the war effort betraying their own blood and soil. It's also why they continually tried to kill him.

They were subhuman inbred 'aristocrats' who should've been dealt with the way the bolsheviks deal with such degenerate anti-national trash. Hitler's only blunder was not listening to the people who foresaw just how insanely petty and spiteful aristocrats would be.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They were also the best generals in the world, for the most part, and had generations of military tradition and experience backing them up. Look at how well the Great Purge worked for the commies: it didn't. It fucked them over and only extremely desperate and fortuitous actions saved their asses, along with German shortsightedness.

These "subhuman inbred aristocrats" were the only reason Germany existed in the first place despite competing with multiple superpowers and being the target of nigh-unstoppable foes (more than 1, on occasion). To say these diehard nationalists "betrayed the nation" or "sabotaged the war effort" is completely nonsensical, because even though they disliked or even hated Hitler they still diligently fought under him until they couldn't anymore.

Hitler's only blunder was not listening to the people who foresaw just how insanely petty and spiteful aristocrats would be.

Hitler's blunder was misplacing his trust in general. I would agree that the aristocracy were petty and spiteful, but in matters of great national importance such qualities are important.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They're no good when they're all traitors

These "subhuman inbred aristocrats" were the only reason Germany existed in the first place despite competing with multiple superpowers and being the target of nigh-unstoppable foes (more than 1, on occasion). To say these diehard nationalists "betrayed the nation" or "sabotaged the war effort" is completely nonsensical, because even though they disliked or even hated Hitler they still diligently fought under him until they couldn't anymore.

Didn't happen. They constantly sabotaged the war effort, did their own thing disobeying orders (to the detriment of the strategy) and attempted to kill Hitler and other stupid shit. They were all self interested degenerates.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

He was great at leading the charge, but not at deciding when to do so. There are a plethora of reasons w

Hitler had a weird case of not having the stones when it mattered, but having them when it did not.

For example, he lost nerve after the Crete operation and forbade a similar air attack on Malta against the general's protest. Malta would go on to be a key base of operations for Britain during the North Africa campaign.

He stalled the panzers in front of Dunkirk after the failed allied counterattack at Arras. By halting the panzers he let the British army escape and avoid losing over 200,000 men.

He similarly lost nerve during the battle of Britain and instead of concentrating attacks on London, had the Luftwaffe attack random targets with no greater objective.

Arguably his greatest blunder was during the Kyiv incursion. His generals advised him to take Moscow in August while the defenses were weak and winter was far away. Instead, he grew nervous about Soviet forces in Kyiv and diverted the Panzer armies to capture Kyiv. This decision saved Moscow from near-certain capture and robbed Germany of the chance for a decisive victory.

But in other times he showed pigheadedness that doomed German forces. His stand and die orders at Stalingrad, Minsk and right-bank Ukraine merely expedited Germany's defeat.

[–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Arguably his greatest blunder was during the Kyiv incursion. His generals advised him to take Moscow in August while the defenses were weak and winter was far away. Instead, he grew nervous about Soviet forces in Kyiv and diverted the Panzer armies to capture Kyiv. This decision saved Moscow from near-certain capture and robbed Germany of the chance for a decisive victory.

This is not true. We've been over this before. The historical debate about Moscow vs Kiev is misleading: The Wehrmacht was not in a position to mount an early attack on Moscow. In September 1941, Army Group Center was still in the process of building up a supply stockpile that would enable them to attack Moscow. Until this stockpile was complete, it was logistically impossible for them to launch an offensive on Moscow. Under those circumstances, it was only logical that they go after the closer and easier objective of Kiev.

And BTW, diverting elements from Army Group Center was inherent to the plan for Operation Barbarossa. They were always supposed to clear their flanks before advancing on Moscow. Hitler was within his rights when he issued Fuhrer Directive 33. Halder attempted to change Hitlers mind, but he remained adament.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have to disagree.

Dissent within the German high command and political leadership was exacerbated. The leaders of the General Staff, Franz Halder and Brauchitsch and commanders like Bock, Hoth and Guderian counseled against dispersing the German armoured units and to concentrate on Moscow. Hitler reiterated the lack of importance of Moscow and of strategic encirclements and ordered a concentration on economic targets such as Ukraine, the Donets Basin and the Caucasus, with more tactical encirclements to weaken the Soviets further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Smolensk_(1941)#Aftermath

Army group center had decimated the Soviet Western Front and was within 400 km of Moscow. There was a bulge in the south of Army group center but Guderian and von Bock argued that Army group south was strong enough to defeat it on its own. Guderian pressed for an advance on Moscow as soon as possible. Supplies needed to be hauled, sure, but the same was true for the diversion to Kiev and Leningrad.

As far as the two panzer armies of Army group center were concerned, month of August was wasted maneuvering behind the Soviet forces in Kiev and September was wasted in destroying the Soviet forces in Kiev. By the time the offensive against Moscow resumed in October, the high time had passed.

The Rasputitsa set in and the whole army got bogged down in mud. It still managed to score stunning victories at the Mohzaisk-Vyazma line but it got paralyzed by winter afterward.

Had the fateful diversion to Kiev not been made in August, the attack on Moscow could've started in September as Guderian, Bock, and Halder wished. Without mud, the offensive would've been faster and would likely have reached the outskirts of Moscow by early October. This would've allowed the Germans to defeat the main Soviet armies before the arrival of winter. And the battle of Moscow itself would've been fought in October where the skies were clear for the Luftwaffe to operate.

Hitler made an error in judgment. He underestimated the value of Moscow as the railway hub of the USSR. He assumed that the loss of the rich Ukrainian industrial zones would've crippled Soviet war-making capabilities. What he and German intelligence did not realize was that the Soviets would be able to resume and indeed expand their industrial production east of the Ural mountains.

[–]TheJamesRocket 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There was a bulge in the south of Army group center but Guderian and von Bock argued that Army group south was strong enough to defeat it on its own. Guderian pressed for an advance on Moscow as soon as possible.

Army Group South was not in a position to destroy the Kiev salient on its own. Without assistance from Army Group Center, they would be unable to mount a double envelopment against the Red Army. They would have to lever them out of Kiev after a bloody, time-consuming, and expensive battle. The Southwestern Front would be able to retreat in good order and avoid being encircled and destroyed. They would be able to tie down Army Group South and prevent them from advancing further. The battle of Kiev would end with relatively few Soviets being taken prisoner, compared to the incredible total of 650,000 men.

Supplies needed to be hauled, sure, but the same was true for the diversion to Kiev and Leningrad.

As far as the two panzer armies of Army group center were concerned, month of August was wasted maneuvering behind the Soviet forces in Kiev and September was wasted in destroying the Soviet forces in Kiev.

Army Group Center was conducting an operational pause in August. They brought a halt to all major operations because they had outrun their supply lines. This was part of the plan for Operation Barbarossa. The Germans depended on the railways to bring supplys from the Reich to the frontlines in Russia. They were not getting enough trainloads of supplys to carry out any major operations in August. The logistical situation had barely improved by September. Army Group Center literally did not have enough fuel or ammunition stockpiled to go after Moscow. They needed to spent a whole month building up a stockpile to do this. In the meantime, they sent a portion of their forces to go after the Kiev salient. This was all they could do.

Say what you will about Hitler, but he made the right decision in this instance. Halder, Von Bock, and Guderian were completely ignoring the logistical aspect of the plan they were championing. They wanted to go pell mell after Moscow, but if they had done so, Army Group Center would literally have came to a stuttering halt after a hundred miles or so. Logistics are boring, but they place a hard limit on what operations an army can execute.

By the time the offensive against Moscow resumed in October, the high time had passed. The Rasputitsa set in and the whole army got bogged down in mud. It still managed to score stunning victories at the Mohzaisk-Vyazma line but it got paralyzed by winter afterward.

If the Germans had launched Operation Typhoon in September instead of in August, they would have been brought to a halt by supply shortages instead of by the mud. Armys cannot run on hope alone. Tanks and trucks need gas, artillery need shells. Creating the Vyazma-Bryansk pocket 1 month earlier is not going to change the outcome of the war, not if they peter out before they capture Moscow. In fact, this is a worse tradeoff than what historically happened, because the Kiev salient hasn't been destroyed yet. Southwestern Front will still be in action, and causing all kinds of problems.

Hitler made an error in judgment. He underestimated the value of Moscow as the railway hub of the USSR. He assumed that the loss of the rich Ukrainian industrial zones would've crippled Soviet war-making capabilities. What he and German intelligence did not realize was that the Soviets would be able to resume and indeed expand their industrial production east of the Ural mountains.

The purpose of Operation Barbarossa was NOT to capture Moscow: It was to destroy the Red Army in encirclements. Hitler spelled it all out in Fuhrer Directive 21, back in December 1940. Halder, Von Bock, and Guderian were all missing the point. It was not enough to simply take Moscow off the march. They needed to annihilate the Red Army before they took Moscow. Step 1, and step 2. It has to be done sequentially, otherwise the Wehrmacht would have ended up in the same situation as the Grand Armee. They would have held the capital but faced an unbeaten enemy ready to fight on in the winter.

Hitler made the right decision. The battle of Kiev was a terrible blow to the Red Army. The loss of Southwestern Front forced the Soviets to send their reserves to the Ukraine in a vain attempt to plug the huge gap that had been torn in their lines. The loss of industry in the Ukraine was not crippling, but the loss of farmland absolutely was. It placed the Soviets in a very difficult position, as they were forced to cultivate new farmlands in the East. This consumed lots of manpower, and the farmland was not as productive, which put them at risk of experiencing a famine. (This risk became a reality when the Germans launched Case Blue in 1942)

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think some of the blunders you mention early on have to do with his admiration for Britain. If memory serves, he wrote numerous times about how he admired Britons and yearned for cooperation with them, so his hesitance to cripple them may be related to that.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

True. Hitler greatly admired the British empire and saw them as Germanic brothers. He wanted nothing more than an anglo-German alliance. The British could keep their empire and secure the sea while Germany would build a contiguous and autarkic land empire in Europe immune to blockades.

Parts of the British elite wanted peace with Germany as well but the Churchill faction prevented any such thing. Plus, Britain was forced by the hand of geography as well. Britain is an island country. This is simultaneously a strength and a weakness. Her being an island meant that if a hegemonic force ever cemented itself in Western Europe, she would be vulnerable to blockade, starvation and perhaps, eventual invasion.

German victory over France meant that Britain would either have to become a vassal to the Greater German empire or she would have to fight till the bitter end and hope America would enter the war. They chose the latter. They won the war, but ultimately ended up as a vassal for the American empire instead.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Hitler didn't rush Germany into a war it wasn't prepared to fight? Italy and Germany made an agreement in the pact of steel that they would not start a war before 1942.

Neither was ready for war in 1939. He did not have to stir the pot over danzig and attack Poland despite there being a British guarantee. He doomed Germany to ruin.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There were all sorts of international agreements and dire threats about the various aspects of the Versailles treaty, the independence of Austria, Czechoslovakia etc, none of those actually counted for anything so it's easy to imagine why the Germans didn't expect the line to be drawn at Poland. The British government was itself divided on the question of defending or abandoning Poland and the pro-German camp made sure to emphasise their position to Ribbentrop. It's no wonder war broke out. Not to mention that none of the major participants in the Second World War were actually "prepared to fight".

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Not to mention that none of the major participants in the Second World War were actually "prepared to fight".

The allies did not need to. Britain controlled the seas and could import grain or just about any resource she needed. The Royal navy could also easily blockade Germany and cut her off from the resources she needed. The USSR had just about every resource on earth. America had it even better by being an ocean apart.

Britain and France combined also had a larger population and industrial base than Germany. Plus, they were not disarmed for 15 years, and during that time they could develop and openly test new armaments.

Germany was actually behind on tank technology at the outbreak of ww2. As they were prohibited from making tanks by Versailles, they had fallen behind on steel hardening tech. Same with submarines, they were initially behind on submarine tech and had to close the gap rapidly. They also never got around to developing a long-range strategic bomber.

And above all, Italy was absolutely in shambles. She had pitiable industrial capabilities and was wholly unprepared to fight Britain or France toe to toe. This was proved in North Africa.

For Germany to stand a chance at winning any war, she'd have to first build up huge stockpiles of imported oil, aluminum, and grain. Germany managed to extract the grain and bauxite from occupied Europe from but her lack of oil stymied her throughout the war. And she would have had to build up a large military-industrial complex rivaling that of the Soviets and refine tank and submarine designs.

Hitler himself understood this and that's why he planned to fight in 1942. But his own rash decisions led Germany into a foolish war over Danzig, a city with little strategic value.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You are just shifting the goalposts and it's not even convincing. Neither "resources", nor "stockpiles" of any kind win wars on their own. Look at things in context. You say Germany was not prepared to wage war because it did not have the most perfect conditions possible for that purpose. How about Britain and France? Were they prepared for war with Germany in 1939? How about the Soviet Union when the Germans invaded? The enormous military disasters would suggest that the answer would be no and in fact that all of those states were much less ready for war than the Germans were. There can be no such thing as "being ready" to fight a world war.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're not getting the point. In order to win a war, you need the proper tools to wage it. Would you set off to build a home without hammers or drills?

Admiral Erich Raeder, commander of the Kriegsmarine noted that the war began 5 years before the German navy would be ready. Versailles had essentially disbarred Germany from having a navy, so obviously it would take time to rebuild it. German admirals noted that they'd need 300 submarines to enact a full undersea blockade of Britain and starve it into submission. Hitler accordingly ordered mass construction of submarines under plan Z.

However, when the war began, the Germans only had 58 submarines.

The Germans had plans to build a strategic bomber that could destroy British industry. The war began before they could develop it and efforts were shifted to fighters and tactical bombers.

The German army itself was not ready for war with the allies in 1939. Of the 141 divisions that took part in the battle of France, only half were combat capable as they lacked enough arms. Many divisions were equipped with WW1 vintage artillery. The French were far better armed and the British expeditionary force was fully motorized. This was inevitable as these countries had not been forced to disarm for 15 years.

Fortunately for the Germans, the French commanders were exceeding incompetent and used obsolete tactics. The Germans were able to defeat the French army with a handful of armored and motorized units. The bulk of the German army did not even have to see combat.

Yet, these limitations became more prevalent as time went on. At the Battle of Britain, German efforts suffered since the Bf 109 lacked the range to escort the bombers.

German military industry also suffered from efficiency drawbacks as they did not have the experience of the British.

The point I'm trying to make is that Germany was not ready for war in 1939 and Hitler himself knew it. He knew that a great war would have to be fought and he wanted to delay it till Germany was ready. That date was held to be 1942. However, he brashly got Germany into war in 1939 over a really petty issue.

The British elite was not unanimous in their decision to go to war and Hitler did not need to test their reputation for the sake of Danzig. War was not inevitable in 1939.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You have no point, you just recite decontextualised trivia. By saying that Germany was not ready for war, you are implicitly asserting that Britain and France were ready for war - this is the only presupposition which would make your claim about Germany meaningful. The facts are that the British and the French were absolutely not ready to fight Germany and history made that quite obvious with the Battle of France. You say that you need the proper tools necessary to wage a war in order to win it. What tools did the French have to win the land war? What tools did the British have to defeat Germany after the fall of France? Whatever they were, they were obviously insufficient. Your tunnel vision in regards to the German situation is preventing you from realising how much worse the circumstances of the Allies were.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What tools did the French have to win the land war?

The Anglo-French alliance was in the driver's seat in 1940. The plan was to wear the German army down with attrition. They intended to do this via superior French firepower and luring the Germans into fortifications in Alsace-Lorraine and Belgium. Over time, the greater population and industrial capacity of France and Britain would overwhelm Germany.

Britain also had Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to draw on for men and materials. This was Stalin's plan as well. He expected a repeat of ww1 where the German and Western allies would bleed themselves white with years of attrition and when they were exhausted and the Red Army was fully ready for a conquest of Europe, he'd steamroll fascist and capitalist powers of Europe with greater numbers and materiel.

This was all undone by the ingenious Manstein plan which lured the Anglo-French armies into Belgium but then the main thrust came through the Ardennes and trapped the best allied armies in Picardy and Flanders. The Germans themselves were shocked at how easy and bloodless the victory was. And Stalin then found himself in a very unfortunate scenario.

What tools did the British have to defeat Germany after the fall of France?

The British blockade and night bombing campaign. In any case, the British went into the war expecting the French to stay by their side for the duration of the war. The British controlled the seas and thus could not only defeat any invasion of their homeland but could also deny Germany much needed material resources from the rest of the world. They held the upper hand from the get-go.

Germany was the underdog and thus she had to prepare for war. She needed naval aviation, large numbers of submarines, and strategic bombers to fully starve and defeat Britain. The Anglo-French alliance in 1939 already had the tools to defeat Germany. They just bungled it through myopia and complacency.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You say that the Germans lacked the perfect preparations to comprehensively defeat and occupy France and Britain - countries which they did not intend to fight wars with in the first place. I say that unless you contextualise this by looking at how "prepared" the French were to fight the Germans on the battlefield and how "prepared" the British were to invade and occupy Germany, your observations are one dimensional and irrelevant. "Blockading" the entirety of continental Europe does not count as a war winning strategy and in fact says far more about how desperate the British situation was. The bombing campaign is another matter, but that comes much later. The British were certainly not "prepared" to bomb Germany at the start of the war, not by any stretch of the imagination.

[–]somewherenear 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The decline of the west is engineered by Jews and Anglo-Saxons, not Chinamen.

Please explain to me why you are under the presumption that Anglos are not controlled by Jews. England, and the greater Anglosphere is where the Jews are most entrenched, since they have been using Britian and later on America as a staging ground for Western and later world dominance. As a consequence due to their legacy and the fact that other than Israel, the Anglosphere has the highest proportion of Jews in the world, it is understandable when they are the most pozzed.

[–]SoylentCapitalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Many of the richest people like Bill Gates derive their ancestry from the British Isles. There are likely just as many Anglo-Saxon elites as Jewish ones in the Anglosphere even if Jews are disproportionately in positions of power.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Saying Anglos are controlled by Jews doesn't change anything, the result is the same. There is a reason Jews chose the individualistic and money driven society of Anglos as their new seat of power.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Literally everyone has

    [–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The Chinese aren't pulling some amazing 4D chess moves, ever since Deng they have just been following the path of least resistance. They reconciled themselves with liberal capitalism a long, long time ago. This whole pseudo-competition with the US is just one big LARP designed to build domestic support for the elites, in actual fact the US and China are commercially interdependent.

    [–]lokke767 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    The problem for China is that their society is also degenerating as a result of the adoption of wild capitalism. The Chinese population is very shallow and materialistic. That is already manifesting itself in the low fertility rates (1.2 and going down despite large rural population), rampant degeneracy and "female liberation".

    Xi seems to have realized the scale of the problem and that is why he is clamping down on vices and western influence. He will not succeed in his intentions, it is too late to reverse course.

    China will likely see a few decades of material progress and immense power but its fall will be precipitous. All the nefarious social trends that took centuries to metastasize in the west are already present in China and will metastasize much more quickly, because their transition from a traditional society to technological modernity has been too fast and too radical.

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    True but China's population is so massive that they'll maintain an enormous population of 120+ iq people, literally tens of millions for the foreseeable future. And they can maintain a massive and modern industrial society for generations.

    [–]douglas_waltersWhite Supremacist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The Chinese population is very shallow and materialistic

    They openly admire the Jewish mentality to the point where mainstream Chinese academics study their disproportionate influence (i.e. success) in the West.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    elites in china and elsewhere all want to reduce the population. The bigger it is the more they're at risk of revolution. Every modern country has revolution in it's past and often times elites get anastasia'd. That's why they promote degeneracy and also pandemics and other things like terrorism.

    [–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    it would've matched or surpassed Britain in naval might

    I seriously doubt that.

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Well in 1914, Germany had a population of 68 million while Britain had 42 million discounting Ireland. Germany had the largest industrial base in Europe. She had the second largest steel and coal industries in the world after the US and probably the largest chemical industries. German cartel-style protectionist capitalism was superior to British free trade capitalism.

    She already had a larger GDP than Britain and with an increasing population and rising per capita quickly catching up to British levels, it woudn't have been long before she had nearly twice the GDP of the UK. With a larger budget, it's likely her naval strength would've soon caught up to Britain. It was already close to 50% of the Royal navy despite most of their budget being focused on the army.

    And Germany didn't even need to match the UK 100% in naval strength. Reaching 80% of Royal navy strength would've been sufficient. Britain had a global empire and had to disperse its fleets to defends its colonies in Asia, guard the vital sea lanes that brought in its food and raw materials and support the French navy in the Mediterranean against Austria-Hungary and Turkey.

    Germany otoh could focus its whole navy in Europe against the British. That had been the German strategy from the beginning and it could've been pulled off had Germany managed to delay war by a decade. Unfortunately, it was pulled into the inferno by the dead weight of Austria-Hungary and the envy of France and Britain.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Wilhelm II the Kaiser of Germany, was related to the british royal family, his grandma was Queen Victoria. They never wanted a real war, just to kill off useless eaters.

    [–]FuckMasks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    On all your points, I am unsure.

    Except that china is playing the long game. In some way or another, they're playing a very long, plot out game and probably have many elite on a potential skewer. And many future control methods to deploy.

    I don't think they hold all the cards though.