you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]socksuckersocks_sucks 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Firstly, I doubt the accuracy of this. Most Americunts couldn't even find Ukraine or Taiwan on an unmarked map. Then again, they were barely any less ignorant back when it came to even more obscure countries like Afghanistan.

In International Relations all this is known as "Thucydides trap". When a country loses its world power status it has a tendency to generate a war between it and its contenders.

Transporting this to the 21st century situation, the world power (America) will become increasingly insecure due to its decline (true causes = hyperindividualism, multiracialism; fake/Left-wing pseudo-causes = wealth inequality, inability to make multiracialism work). Unable to identify let alone agree upon and reverse the causes of its decline, America will predictably and violently lash out at its contenders as the gap in strength between them narrows.

I don't accept this theory. For example, Thucydides' trap was not triggered when the Soviet Union began to slow down in growth relative to America nor even when it was on the verge of collapse. But according to the theory it should have. The world should not go from multipolar to unipolar without a war between the great powers.

The main question is how this benefits us. Since Putin and Xi would most likely be replaced with people who are more liberal (thus making it harder to rid ourselves of destructive ideologies in our own homelands), I'd say that there is little point in us supporting this. Currently, it seems best to me to allow the Great Satan to fall without having a chance to regime change the degenerate CCP or Putin's horrid Islamophilic CivNat regime. This means resolutely opposing any war effort to attempt preserving unipolarity through weakening contenders forcefully. These two regimes are in some ways worse than the American regime, but we need them to transition to ideologies other than in a pro-Western, pro-liberal direction. The worst outcome is that they inherit liberalism and continue this world order in America's absence.

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

For example, Thucydides' trap was not triggered when the Soviet Union began to slow down in growth relative to America nor even when it was on the verge of collapse

The trap is triggered when a formerly hegemonic power is at risk of being eclipsed by a newly rising one. The US was hegemonic for the entirety of the cold war. The USSR never came close to it economically, technologically, or culturally. Hell, the USSR was dependent on American grain exports. Soviet industry itself was built by American engineering firms and industrialists.

An example of the Thuycidies trap would be WW1 where Germany wanted to fight Russia as it feared that Russia would surpass her due to its greater land, resources, and manpower. While simultaneously, Britain wanted to fight Germany due to its expanding naval and industrial power.

WW2 saw this principle once more. Germany was rising in Europe while Britain had stagnated. Britain thus went to war with Germany to prevent her from eclipsing it.

Other historical principles would be Austria fighting to suppress an emergent Prussia in the 18th century in the Silesian wars, France fighting the rising Prussia in the Franco-Prussian war, and France and Britain fighting Russia in the Crimean war.

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

An example of the Thuycidies trap would be WW1 where Germany wanted to fight Russia as it feared that Russia would surpass her due to its greater land, resources, and manpower.

This is simply not true.

Yes, the Germans indeed desired WW1 more than any other nation, but it was never about Russia.

It was about France and the UK.

Germany felt it had been left out of the colonial race as the unified country came to existence after the world had already been divied up by these two powers.

Germans wanted a large colonial empire similar to the ones these guys had and the only way to achieve this goal was to go to war with them.

There was simply no other free land available to colonize.

And then there's Imperial Russia.

In the 20th century it was an agricultural backwater shithole with practically nonexistent a weak industry and illiterate peasant population.

Russia was no match for strong European countries and could hardly be called a 'great power'; its military perfomance in WW1 was a total embarassment; hell, just 10 years prior to WW1 they were defeated by the Japs for God's sake — the Japs, who had just crawled out of the stone age. facepalm

Russia posed no immediate threat to Germany and even if it had great potential, it would take dozens of years before they could harness it — and even that was not a given considering how bad their Imperial regime was.

Even though the Bolsheviks a few years later would go on to greatly improve Russian economy, including the industry, in a rather short timespan, and make it second only to the U.S., the most important thing to keep in mind is that the Czarist regime was very weak, corrupt and extremely ineffective compared to the Communist one, so it's not a good idea to use the impressive Soviet-era Russian economic growth as an example of how fast this country could ascend pre-WW1.

While simultaneously, Britain wanted to fight Germany due to its expanding naval and industrial power.

Right.

WW2 saw this principle once more. Germany was rising in Europe while Britain had stagnated. Britain thus went to war with Germany to prevent her from eclipsing it.

That is a complete nonsense lol.

It was Germany who went to war with Britain, not the other way around.

Germany invaded Poland, which openly had a pact with the Brits that obliged them to intervene in the case of German aggression.

Essentially this non-secret pact meant that invading Poland was tantamount to declaring a war on Britain, and the Moustache Wearing Retard proceeded with his imperialist ambitions nonetheless.

And before you say something like:

'B-but Poland was none of Britain's business!! If the Brits didn't want to fight, they could screwed the pact and stayed out of the conflict! See, the fact they so eagerly went to war with Germany over this piece of paper proves they were the ones who wanted it!'

Consider that ever since Hitler came to power, all the Brits (along with the French) did was appeasing the Germans and trying to avoid another bloody war.

They allowed Hitler to rebuild the military (in direct violation of the treaty of Versailles) and secure areas like Ruhr. They were okay with the rising Germany as long as it didn't mean a new war.

Just a year before the invasion of Poland, the Brits served Hitler the Czech republic on a goddamn silver platter — for the single reason they thought it would satisfy his appetite and prevent an armed conflict.

But the bloodlusty Nazi scum would shortly afterwards go on another rampage nonetheless like the murderous lunatics they were.

Really shows who actually 'went to war' with whom.

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

The Communist world had at one point a higher population than the non-Communist world. Its level of economic growth was also far higher than the USA's until the 1950s. Even as late as the late-1980s, Western Sovietologists believed that Bolshevism would triumph. It came as an absolute shock even to these people whose job it was to monitor Communist countries when it all came crumbling down in 1989.

The Soviet Union very easily had the edge in the Cold War. Marxist movements were defeating non- or less- Marxist groups like the FNLA, UNITA, ZAPU, RENAMO, IFP, the Rhodesian and South Vietnamese governments, all across the globe. This forced the US to side with people whose methods if not outright values were inimical to their own, whether ARENA, Park/Chun, Pinochet, Marcos, Mobutu or Suharto out of sheer desperation. The Communist world was far more united, by shared ideology, whereas the "Free" world merely cobbled together anyone who was non-Marxist, excepting a few regimes in Southern Africa, Iberia and to some extent Gaullist France. Most of this class and "anti-racist" bullshit came from a Cold War race to the bottom, with both sides trying to persuade nonwhites to their side by being less "racist" and giving them more gibs.

It seems abundantly clear to me that as Communism struggled and began to lose to the 'Free World', the trap between the two warring quasi-empires should have been triggered. War wasn't triggered in numerous other power shifts, e.g. the Portuguese empire as it went from world power to backwater as it fell further and further behind more and more rivals. The first of those should have triggered the trap. Britain also fought neither Cold War side, despite both of them clearly succeeding it as world powers. Likewise, I see no reason to conclude that America must resort to war in order to attempt forcefully preserving its undeserved world power status. I believe those percentages will decline, that they reflect anti-White (which includes Russophobia) sentiments, the likes of which drove Russiagate, and that Americunts will begrudgingly and meekly accept their nation becoming a disarmed, brown, pan and trans shithole.

Lastly, we gain nothing from this war even if it does happen, i.e. if America uses a Russian invasion of Ukraine or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan as an excuse to start it. Taiwan is gay, Ukraine is run by Jays, America is far worse than either of them. China and Russia are garbage, but clear lesser of evils here.

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

The Communist world had at one point a higher population than the non-Communist world. Its level of economic growth was also far higher than the USA's until the 1950s.

That was an artificial growth fueled by selling the grains confiscated from Ukraine while the local population was starved to death.

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

Most Americunts couldn't even find Ukraine or Taiwan on an unmarked map.

They couldn't find Yugoslavia and Kosovo either, yet they supported the bombing of Yugoslavia and were pretty happy that American troops didn't face any danger. The vast majority of Americans supported the creation of muslim states in Europe and the ethnic replacement in Kosovo, thinking their turn wouldn't come.