This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

China Is Not 1914 Germany

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Robert Dujarric via The Diplomat,

Current events are frequently viewed through the prism of analogies. Words become shorthand for a particular type of situation. “Munich” equals the danger of appeasing bloodthirsty dictators, “Vietnam,” and now “Iraq/Afghanistan” means the folly of getting involved in (or, in the case of Iraq, starting) civil wars in countries whose societies the outsiders neither understand nor can effectively influence. In some cases, acting on these parallels turns out to be wise. The fear of repeating “Munich” helps explain the forceful and successful American response to Soviet expansionism at the start of the Cold War (Berlin, Korea, etc.). In other cases, they are misguided, as was the case in the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt, where Nasser was no Hitler and giving up the Suez canal would not have equated to throwing Czechoslovakia to the wolves.

The analogy that is currently in vogue in Asia is “1914.” This is a particularly complex one, as there are two distinct narratives of that fateful year. The one that was prevalent in the U.K. and the U.S. for many decades after the conflict that ensued perceived the war through the “Sarajevo” lens as a giant cataclysm in which all the players bore a share of the blame for the destruction of Western civilization. Another interpretation, which is more dominant today, is best illustrated by the late German historian Fritz Fischer’s Germany’s Aims in the First World War (1961), which assigns most of the responsibility to Berlin.

The “2014 as 1914” discussion covers both theses. Those who dread that a minor maritime collision could escalate into Armageddon subscribe to the “Sarajevo” theory, where an assassin’s bullet set off a chain reaction which even men and women of good intention could not stop. Others think that Beijing is bent on regional, if not world, domination. They see China’s hypertrophied ambitions as an early 21st century of the German Empire’s quest for power described in Fischer’s works. Many officials and analysts who refer to “1914” fall in between. They often know little about European history but see an ominous danger of war that reminds them of what they think “1914” was.

The one common threat in the “1914” warnings is that the People’s Republic is perceived as the Asian counterpart of Wilhelmine Germany. A rising continental autocracy with territorial ambitions on land and dreams of overseas expansion confronting a potential coalition of onshore (India, Vietnam, ROK, maybe even Russia) and offshore (Japan, Taiwan, parts of ASEAN, U.S.) powers. For some, Beijing’s expansionist aims are obvious; others see them as moderate and blame Washington and its allies for not accepting China’s rise, reflecting the same differences of interpretation that existed in Europe before (and after) World War 1 regarding German goals.

The critical error in this comparison is that China today bears little resemblance to Germany a century ago.

First, their domestic situation is vastly different. The Hohenzollern dynasty did face discontent at home, in particular a powerful Social-Democratic movement. But the socio-political fabric of Germany was vastly stronger than that of the People’s Republic. In comparative perspective, Prussia-Germany had enjoyed a stable and productive century prior to 1914, something that does not apply to China in 2014. Prussia-Germany was autocratic but had developed a more effective system to partially include citizens in the political process than China has. Frequent violent protests, and the massive export of capital by rich Communist Party members to overseas accounts, illustrate this point about China’s fragility. It is interesting to note German society, as in existed prior to World War I, was so solidly anchored that much of its establishment survived relatively unscathed four years of total war, defeat and revolution.

Second, we know that Germany in 1914 had an outstanding army. Estimating the worth of the PLA is harder since it has not fought a major campaign since Vietnam defeated China 35 years ago. As a military historian noted “A day’s trial by battle often reveals more of the essential nature of an army than a generation of peace.” (in Russell F. Weigley, Eisenhower’s Lieutenants, 1990) so discussions of the abilities of the PLA are hard to validate. But one thing is clear. In Imperial Germany, especially in its Prussian core, the ruling classes took military service very seriously. Young men of privilege served in the officer corps, one’s rank in the reserves of prestigious units was a source of great pride and social standing. From what we know about the sons (and daughters) of China’s elite, we are more likely to see them studying in Ivy League campuses, eating in Wall Street cafés, and living in Hong Kong flats than leading platoons and companies of soldiers in the frozen hills of Manchuria or the scorching deserts of Xinjiang.

Third, Germany was not the world’s largest economy on the eve of World War I, the United States was. But in many fields, Germany was the most advanced country on the planet. A German doctorate was the gold standard of academia until Adolf Hitler destroyed the universities. Germans led in countless disciplines, be it physics, archeology, or medicine. Germany was ahead in many industrial technologies as well. China has progressed, but its relative position lags well behind that of Germany a century ago.

Fourth, the geopolitics are different. Germany had two continental associates, the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. It took several years before the United States joined the Allies. Today, China is essentially bereft of allies and is confronting what is a de facto U.S.-Japan-Australia coalition, potentially augmented by several Asian states and under certain circumstances most of NATO Europe and Canada.

Fifth, Germany in 1914 was a demographically dynamic country. China, due to the twin consequences of the one-child policy and economic development, is aging at a rapid rate. This is not unique in Asia, but compared to its major global competitor, the United States, China is in demographic decline.

What are the implications of these facts? For China’s foes, namely the United States, Japan, and others, they mean that the situation is not as dire as it was in 1914 for Germany’s opponents (whom we should remember came close to being dealt a terminal blow in the opening stages of World War I). For the Chinese Communist Party, they imply that it would be even riskier for it to initiate a conflict than it was for the Central Powers in 1914.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 02/22/2014 - 22:09 | 4466855 PacOps
PacOps's picture

It's still all about resources.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 22:35 | 4466911 LMAOLORI
Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:03 | 4466990 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

And a moose is not a snake.  The point of thumb sucking pieces like this is...?

This reminds me of junk in the Atlantic, a once fine magazine, with wonderful water colors on the cover, before New York went to hell.  Anyway, the point of "diplomatic" stuff, is to take up space between the ads.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 00:49 | 4467176 0z
0z's picture

It is a myth that the Great War was sought. it just happened, and no one could stop it.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 01:45 | 4467243 Harlequin001
Harlequin001's picture

of course China isn't 1914 Germany, Germany didn't have nukes...

and Germany didn't have the entire western world by the financial testicles either...

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 05:57 | 4467430 The Dunce
The Dunce's picture

Good citizens of Metropolis!  Listen carefully.  The Chinese will end up killing us all.  You bitches.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 06:58 | 4467458 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Hurrah! Another article from The Diplomat!

</s> <= for the irony-challenged

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 09:15 | 4467545 theliberalliberal
theliberalliberal's picture

fuck this cunt and his shitty blog

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 11:02 | 4467646 BandGap
BandGap's picture

China's army blows. Lots of guts, no glory.

The reason their military is so dangerous is that they have almost no combat experience. This is truest for their navy. They are spoling for a fight, like a fat bully who doesn't know how to take a punch. I think Japan could hold them off for quite awhile, probably so with Taiwan, as well.

But that's not to say they don't want to rumble.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 23:34 | 4469682 matrix2012
matrix2012's picture

Since the USA has been engaging in so many wars since the WW2, there is no doubt that the USA has the most experiences with wars.

Interesting to learn that the democracy and freedom propagandist is so fond of violences and wars...

something really does not make up here


Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." - the neocon, Michael Ledeen


+ Now the USA already reduced the timespan between wars to just a couple of years... just count from Libya to Syria to Africa... and now Ukraine is in spotlight

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 07:59 | 4467493 negative rates
negative rates's picture

Yea, cause those writers know that the only reason we read the mag is for the ads. And not one sane looking person in those ads either, that's the sad part.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 10:21 | 4467610 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

No shit.  Esquire is one of the worst offenders.  Madison avenue is off the reservation, completely out of touch with the rest of the country, and yet companies still spend millions to look profoundly stupid.  The CVS drug store chain just decided to stop selling tobacco products.  I hate cigarettes, but if you let politics dictate business decisions, the competition will love you, and eat your lunch.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 22:42 | 4466926 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

F. William Engdahl has an interesting perspective on this that he's written about in his books. He wrote that the ruling class elites had bled the UK dry and she had fallen far behind the Germans in technology & industry. Germany was the up and coming power on the European continent, so the Brit leadership wanted to eliminate that competition and knew war was the only way to do so. At least it was the only way without letting go of their control & privilege in the British Empire.

Of course, the start of WW1 was always presented in previous 'history' books as the world just blundered into it. Some prince got shot and before you knew it much of the world was at war. 

Interesting how much history is blamed on 'accident' and 'blunder'.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 22:45 | 4466940 Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

Yeah yeah...


Funny it is....  How so many people want to give the krauts a pass. And anything the US or UK ever does is steeped in conspiracy.

Won't take long for people to warm up the ovens on this thread....

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 01:28 | 4467219 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Collectivism is POISON.

Those members of German government who commanded horrible things be done are long dead.  Members of western governments are conspiring to steal our freedoms TODAY.

But hey, you invoked the Holocaust, so I guess you automatically win.  Germans are all absolutely evil murderous savages and the American and UK governments are super duper and can totally be trusted so pay your taxes and stop asking questions, civillian.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 01:58 | 4467259 Jugdish
Jugdish's picture

The blacks saved Pearl Hatbor if you watch the movie with ben afflek.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 11:05 | 4467653 BandGap
BandGap's picture

Read the book "To End All Wars". All combatants were virtually the same in WWI, some of the justifications for what they did are just plain stupid in today's terms. But then again, "honor" was still part of the war vernacular.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 02:30 | 4467286 Colonel Klink
Colonel Klink's picture

Spoken like a true POS.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 09:31 | 4467559 Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

So taking a view about the origins of WW1 that you don't like makes those people Nazis who want to cremate dead Jews?


Are you that dumb, or that much of an ad hitlerum troll?



Sun, 02/23/2014 - 12:58 | 4467868 Abi Normal
Abi Normal's picture

Yeah, Adolf never existed according to the troglodites here!  Germany was the victim ROFLMAO!!!  Many of the posters here were born in the 80's and have no idea what the real history is...too bad for them.

This is NOT to say the UK-US are angels mind you!

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 20:21 | 4469043 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

wwi was just a stage managers dream come true on a global scale. it was part 1/act1 of 3part acts,  beginning with the jekyll and (hyde?) island manifesto in or around late 1910... held exclusively amongst the world's elitist by and for the nwo project hope? remember from the curtain's opening act that this was only brought about by the 1913 FRBs & Income Tax. wilson, the nobel prize peace recipient for heroics in getting the usa into wwi and shortly soon after... approx. eighteen months ending-- in which btw, he promised never to bring america's youth into war, to begin with!

setting up the stage for #1act ii. the 'league of nations' (similiar to NATO & the United Nations in its courtier flaccidity) but was an aggregate peace ingredient negligently mis'`maligned by US Pres. Wilson and his point man Sen. Reed refusing to endorse and sign the peace treaty of versailles! scuttle me britches for a new wife (as #1 ellen passes in 1914?)... and wifey edith takes the bedroom by storm, so woody says? the guy is now braindead and wife #2 edith literally and figuritively runs the show having met her just nine months prior! nice! she runs the wh from the parlor (raising her sheeple on the front lawn (kinda like michell's how's your garden growing?), period!!!

part 2 act i.... germany got fucked royally by the french and were held hostage financially while the british were having their own financial difficulties. it seemed they were all in debt to uncle sam? well, with no post war agreement in the stage manager scrip things were moving along just hunky-dory! next mother russia has a battle  (exiting wwi ?) royale of a revolution coincidentally starting in 1917-23, with bolsheviks' lenin, trotsky, marx, and late comer stalin the terrible(!!!)... coming oh so quietly upon the scene as the curtain descends with a full compliment of leading character actors with all their flaws, warts and grotesqueness leeching from the balcony below?  growing exponentially as a cancerous tumor, swallowing goodness and kindness as a trogan riding a dildo into battle?

 #2act ii .... Hitler arrives just as planned in 1933, after the untimely death of the german chancellor... the timing could not have been better-- weimar (1918-33) republic be damned!!! actii:  adolf finds his mojo.

in the meantime the nwo stage manager is setting up the stage for wwii highlight previews to be auditioned by a leading cast of obediant servants from the east, west north, and south global galleries. all inclusive. we'll even invite the orientals of the future (ie. part #3 act i? coming). actiii   the wwii ends and mother america is now hegemony king moneymaster of world. we are the champions! bush #41 declares publicly for the first time the 'nwo' plans for part3 acti

to be cont.  

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 00:52 | 4467179 0z
0z's picture

British rulers were playing golf when the War started...

And besides, why 1914? It seems to me you could argue it had been going on for decades already...

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 00:53 | 4467182 mumbo_jumbo
mumbo_jumbo's picture

wasn't there also that pesky Berlin to Baghdad pipeline thing?

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 16:23 | 4468495 optimator
optimator's picture


Sun, 02/23/2014 - 07:52 | 4467491 Lost My Shorts
Lost My Shorts's picture

Good point; you are getting at the reason why the main article above is brain-dead blather.

The "Great War" happened because ruling elites of both Germany and England had the same two goals:

1) Enrich themselves further and/or preserve their privileged position; and

2) Divert the attention of the proles to external enemies to reduce internal social tensions that would later upend both societies.

The German elites also wanted more access to natural resources to grow their economy so they could satisfy the demands of the masses for a better living standard without any of the dreaded redistribution.  (The UK elites already had good resource access from their empire.)

In that way, China is exactly exactly exactly like the empires of 1914, and likely to behave in the same way.  Someone should revoke the author's PhD.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 10:37 | 4467622 drendebe10
drendebe10's picture

Ur points sounding like Amerika now run by an arrogant narcissistic pathologic lying illegal alien muslim sociopath and all its corrupt overprivileged pals and minions. .338 lapua needed.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 13:02 | 4467834 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

- delete double post -


ISP connection acting strange this morning

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 12:44 | 4467843 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

Lost My Shorts - you make the most important point of all. The 'elites' use war as a tool to control their citizens (and to meet other objectives of theirs).

Around Christmas of 1914 soldiers from both sides decided they didnt want to follow orders and kill each other. They found that they had more in common with the other guy on the other side of the line than those giving them orders 'from above'. :



Sun, 02/23/2014 - 09:56 | 4467587 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

If I remember my history (which this article does not even begin to delve into), after the Archduke was shot, Austria saw an opportunity to expand into the Balkans. The Austrians sent the Serbs an ultimatum precisely written so that the Serbs could do nothing but reject it. When the Serbs did reject it, Vienna declared war.

Meanwhile, while the Russians complained about aggression upon their slavic "brothers", but did nothing, Germany, bound by a mututal assistance treaty to Austria-Hungary, also dithered. Germany did not want to get caught in a two-front war. German diplomats worked overtime to secure a non-aggression pact with Russia that protected east-Prussia, the preferred route of attack for the Russian armies into Germany.

Germany hoped for a quick war in which a lightning attack into France through Belgium, particularly through Liege, would bring about the fall of the French Republic. The whole adventure from a German perspective was to be a redux of 1870, when France lost Sedan, (more than the Germans won it), and then Paris, in a month's time.

The Germans were keenly aware of their strategic vulnerability. They knew they had to gain a decisive victory in the first month of the war, or lose entirely. All the belligerents were plagued by incompetence at the highest levels of command, but Germany was plagued thus the worst. The Crown Prince Willhelm, with his idiotic death's head fur hat is the poster child for dilletante command of armies with unheard-of destructive power. German military leadership existed only from the captain level downwards.

The French had the best (considering) leadership and the French poilus was perhaps the best fighter of the war. World War 1 bogged down because of French resistance, and for no other reason. The French wanted to avoid a repeat of 1870 more than the Germans wanted to recreate it. Really, the whole military aspect of the war boils down to this. Once the trenches were dug, the war became something else entirely.

The British wanted no part of the war, but were bound by mutual defence treaties to take part. During the first big battle, the Battle of the Marne, the BEF dithered and did all it could, under General French (that was his real name) to stay as far away from actual fighting as possible. England was only with the greatest reluctance drawn into the war.

Germany played a gamble to break out of her geographic trap in the center of Europe, and lost. Otherwise, the entire war was a giant clusterfuck nobody wanted, and escalated, especially the bloodbaths of Verdun and Ypres, etc, by the incompetence of the various high commands.

Machinations originating in a shadowy group of diplomatic, revolutionary, and fiancial interests, all with one hidden common purpose, was really to blame for this horrible war. This loose group played upon the pride and incompetence of the nobility in the various nations, (the most in Austria, Russia, and Germany and the least in France) so that once in, no-one could do the sensible thing and pull out.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 11:44 | 4467730 FMR Bankster
FMR Bankster's picture

That's about right. Germany was also concerned that Russia would over time develop and they would be boxed in by multiple strong opponents. Once the German/Russia treaty was not renewed around 1890 Germany planned for a two front war and needed to strike hard in the West to have any chance to survive a war.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 13:01 | 4467874 Abi Normal
Abi Normal's picture

A prince eh?  Arch Duke Ferdinand was his name...funny you're such an expert but you miss the key fact...oh well.  You people who have no idea of the history, and think you know so much, are doomed to repeat it.

Good luck m8y!

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 13:20 | 4467925 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

Abi - its was suppsed to be irony, but looks like I left out the quote marks in that sentence.

So here ya go   "   "  You can insert them where appropriate.

And actually its "Archduke" not "Arch Duke"  - - - -  I've never seen it written in such a creative manner anywhere else.

BTW - yes Hitler existed, of course.  The question is how did conditions from out of WW1 help place him in power.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 18:45 | 4468880 Abi Normal
Abi Normal's picture

In one word, reparations, and yes I accidentallyinserted a space, sorry!  If ironic, then no worries.  Wasn't necessarily saying you didnt think Hitler existed, or was a moron.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 23:15 | 4469618 matrix2012
matrix2012's picture

@ HardAssets


+100 for bring on F. WILLIAM ENGDAHL here :)

More at here:


I bought a couple of book by him, gonna add my collection by few more!


Along with PROF. MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY of; PEPE ESCOBAR (look at; DEAN HENDERSON, see Left Hook at, begin with this one (chapter) "The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families"; WEBSTER G. TARPLEY at and so forth...

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 01:35 | 4467221 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

"It's still all about resources."

Da fuck it is.

It's ALL about THE BOMB.  China needs no army, no navy; -IF iit has just 5 or 6 deliverable nuclear weapons.

Germany didn't have that and China DOES.

Even the punk in NK doesn't get messed with and it's no fucking wonder why.

China would love to lay that white-hot hurtin' on the Japanese -and then force them to buy their debt and ship them shiney electronics gadgets for the next 75 years...

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 13:03 | 4467880 Abi Normal
Abi Normal's picture

Problem with the Chinese BOMB, when they actually fire it off, will it hit the intended target?  People of Fiji, DUCK NOW!!!!

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 20:20 | 4469135 Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Yup, the last man left with most of the key resources: Wins.  But to get there...

The side that (a) defines terms & Words, and (b) frames & drives the Argument, wins the 'Debate'.  You win the hearts and minds, and their bodies will usually follow.  Thus the Pen is mightier than the Sword.

For those on whom words don't work so well, you simply hold them by the "short & curlies" (pressure points), and they will respond -- only faster.

The Elite and Old Guard in the West/US are grand-masters at the soft skills of Deception and PR/Propaganda, but the Asians/Chinese are wise to them.  In that sense, the "1914" Propaganda is more aimed at the domestic than the global market.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 22:15 | 4466869 Zeilschip
Zeilschip's picture

First of all Vietnam didn't defeat China and secondly no one is claiming China is 1914 Germany. Get your facts straight you midget.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 07:31 | 4467473 vyeung
vyeung's picture

Nice comment!!!

If you go around china you will understand why conflict is not something they like. The chinese in general have a much bigger tolerance level in general. They have been fighting wars centuries before and adversion to conflict is something entrenched within the Chinese psych. That is not to say the Chinese will not bomb any nation back to the stone age if attacked.

China is nothing like the US or even Europe, people their just want to do more business. Conflict only benefits the military industrial complex, it does more harm than good for all the profit its suppose to produce.

Only the shadow bankers enjoy this type of world as they enjoy the profits risk free.

The US is also populated with very nice and great people, but the powers that be with their foreign policy vehicles are manipulating the populace with such success that the blame is subordinated to the citizens. America needs to get back to its roots and remove these evil forces is killing the nation.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 08:34 | 4467516 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

I still cannot see why Bath House was not kicked out over Libya. Not Benghazi (reason enough), but the attack against Moamar. The US citizenisms are quite asleep.

"R2P" as a policy is BS. One, we had no right to interfere in Libya. Two, Libya was not attacking US. Three, it proves the US is a captured operation controlled by Banksters and a certain tribe. America needs to secede from Washington, DC. Throw in NY.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 22:36 | 4466914 Carpenter1
Carpenter1's picture

So many advantages China has were left out.

Manufacturing. China could manufacture military hardware at a rate no country could come remotely close to, and has stockpiled enough resources to do so.

Allies. EVer heard of Russia, Iran, North Korea??

Cash. China's excess cash is unmatched. You can buy a crapload of explody stuff for 2 trillion. 

Technology.  Who knows what their capabilities are? Last I checked, Chinese consistently score high on technology based arenas.


Thought these were worth mentioning,  you'd think China was some beat down 3rd world country in Africa the way this article portrays it.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:03 | 4466985 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture



China has a lot more debt than people realize several recent ZH articles have pointed that out. Those shadow banks spoken of they are majority owned by China's Ministry of Finance. The leaders and the other elites who are off shoring their wealth you can bet it's not being held in the Yuan. Many of the rich  are moving to other countries if they can get out. The peasants in the meantime are taxed and not treated well.


?China growth fuelled by debt and government subsidies


Chinese bad loan manager Cinda sits on its own debt mountain 


The $15 trillion shadow over Chinese banks


Wealthy Chinese are voting with their feet to move wealth abroad. That ought to send a message to investors.
Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:10 | 4467008 deflator
deflator's picture

this debt bomb is set to detonate in 30 .....

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:17 | 4467022 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture



Those detonations have already begun and China has already started the bailing out.


China Folds On Reforms - Bails Out 2nd Shadow-Banking Default After "Last Drop Of Blood" Threats

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 01:33 | 4467177 MollyHacker
MollyHacker's picture

China has a lot (huge) financial room to backstop the "shadow banking" and "trusts". Bad-talking China trusts doesn't effectively mean that all are destined for defaulting and what China doesn't have, and is a greater relevancy, is a 170 trillion, or more, of unfunded financial obligations within its own economy.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:08 | 4467005 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

China has no air force, no blue water navy, and zero innovation.  The Pacific Fleet could wipe them out as a training exercise.

They are, however, great at enslaving Tibet.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:24 | 4467035 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture



We are kind of enslaved ourselves if you think about all the money we pay in taxes but at least they aren't excavating us to death - YET.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 00:47 | 4467171 Uber Vandal
Uber Vandal's picture

Re: "The Pacific Fleet could wipe them out as a training exercise."

Please refer to this:

While the US has a strong military, it is never a good idea to underestimate your opponent, for this possible opponent did write the Art of War, and some of the basic teachings include:

All warfare is based on deception

Pretend to be weak, that your opponent may grow arrogant.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 00:44 | 4467166 jcaz
jcaz's picture

"you'd think China was some beat down 3rd world country in Africa the way this article portrays it."

Well... Yeah, actually- ever see them build a boat?

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 13:05 | 4467887 Abi Normal
Abi Normal's picture

Good grief, Chinese weaponry is made of cheap CRAP!  Just the same as all the other cheap CRAP they sell to US!!!

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 22:43 | 4466936 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Who is claiming that China is analogous to 1914 German?  I mean other than the author.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 22:49 | 4466957 deflator
deflator's picture

An educated assumption would be NSA funded, "think tanks".

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:03 | 4466992 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Yeah.  Feels more like an article designed to seed an idea than to respond to one that's already out there.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:31 | 4467041 socalbeach
socalbeach's picture


The idea being promoted is,

"A rising continental autocracy with territorial ambitions on land and dreams of overseas expansion ...".

The comparison to 1914 Germany is there so it can be refuted, whereas the above claim is made and not countered.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 00:17 | 4467115 willwork4food
willwork4food's picture

Vietnam defeated China? Opps. Typo.      But I agree, militarily China doesn't stand a chance against NATO, but they are chipping away at the trunk of the US global financial tree.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 01:26 | 4467216 UselessEater
UselessEater's picture

I thought I read the Diplomat was one of Tavistock's babies...No wonder the article feels designed.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 05:49 | 4467419 Joenobody12
Joenobody12's picture

Who is claiming that China is analogous to 1914 Germany ? Why, the subhuman Mongrel Japanese are.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 22:45 | 4466942 deflator
deflator's picture

 If you want to hear that the status quo will continue forever, "analysts" will come.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 22:48 | 4466951 sangell
sangell's picture

True and the German High Seas Fleet while powerful was no match for the Royal Navy and the distance between the US Navy and China is more a matter of decades than number of ships.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:14 | 4467016 kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Exactly.  Making cheap consumer shit has nothing to do with projecting force.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 22:52 | 4466965 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Um...I don't see it.

China has more of a reason to start a conflict in the Pacific, particularly if there is dissent at home - they will need to stoke nationalism to maintain order - especially against Japan.

The U.S. will be left to decide whether they commit militarily or acquiesce.

Expect Hawaii to be the Western boundary of U.S. naval dominance in the future.

What will Australia do?  Will the U.K. back them?  Could they?

History doesn't necessarily repeat, but it rhymes.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 22:57 | 4466978 ptolemy_newit
ptolemy_newit's picture

I live in china at this moment, Chinese are extremely nationalistic!  Americans will be expelled at the first shot fired by Japan or Philippines. 


As far their military It is common corruption and me first across the country.  So sure the men will fight and steal bullets from each other.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:19 | 4467026 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

Even though the Most Powerful Military on Earth (tm) all action figure rights reserved, has lost every war they've fought since 1945, I see no reason at all they cannot fight and win a land war, in Asia.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 07:08 | 4467461 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!


Sun, 02/23/2014 - 09:08 | 4467540 outofideas
outofideas's picture

To be fair, the US hasn't fought wars since 1945, it has fought "police actions" mostly population supported insurgent forces. Those things no on wins, pretty much ever. Outright war is something completely different. In fact, ask the Chinese about their losses in the Korean "police action".

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:43 | 4467066 DrData02
DrData02's picture

What BS.  On what basis does the author make claims such as "They often know little about European history"?  Maybe the NSA now can read minds and he gets their data.  Otherwise he starts with BS and ends blowing BS.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:47 | 4467071 TheCosmicTaco
TheCosmicTaco's picture

Wrong website. This is Zero Hedge, not Zero Brains. The year is 2014, not 1914. Germany is in Europe, while China is in Asia. Zero correlation. Whoever wrote this piece needs to reboot their skull or go and jerk off to an Asa Akira video.

Chinese generals don't spend much time reading The Diplomat.

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:47 | 4467072 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

One thing that remains constant is that since 1914 the USA still remains the world's greatest fumbler and bumbler of pretty much everything.

I firmly believe that the USA will go down in history as "the world's most ridiculous Superpower." (Polybius used the term "surprise" when he wrote about Romes rise to power...not ridiculousness) I mean George Washington only won one battle actually. (Lucky for him it was the last one. His "indispensable man" was the guy who invented double entry bookkeeping not "Comrade Volkswagon" or "Field Marshall Non De Plum."

Senator McCain is a great case in point: "dead last at the Academy, overthrower of the otherwise perfectly legitimate Government of Ukraine. Instigator of World War III...More than happy to seen as such." (with trusty sidekick Senator Lindsay "it's all legal" Graham.)

talk about a "to do list" for the "executors."
The Germans spent 10,000 years being born, bread and raised for war.
The USA spent two hundred trying...and tell the world to leave it the phuck alone.
At least the Russian invasion had a strategic rationale to it.
Do we actually want to BE the British who "just went there for no apparent reason"??

reminds me of the scene in The Fifth Element where the military comes to recruit Bruce Willis "because he's the last guy on the list that's still alive."

I mean what type of "war mongering super state" creates a series of "land grant universities for the study of agricultural" as the basis for its "intellectual history" in order to "plan for the secret takeover of the world"? (ooh...look...polination!) Talk about "achieving the element of surprise under any scenario or condition."

West Point isn't even a War College...but an engineering school. Their job is suppose to be "managing all the rivers and canals and shit"...not "Global Domination: really just a matter of perspective."

Anywho i'm sure it'll all "come out in the wash" as they say and we'll be back to "it's all about the freedom to practice your religious beliefs without fear of retribution" any day now.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 08:03 | 4467497 negative rates
negative rates's picture

The new line is that we need the money so we can do it right for the kids.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 13:13 | 4467909 Abi Normal
Abi Normal's picture

Yes, your name is correct, you are mentally disabled!  We already are a superpower, and no one rivals the US in economic power!  That being said, the Romans were a superpower too, and they faded into history with a whimper!  Who is challenging us militarily right now??????  Oh, the towel heads think they are, but if the step too much further, they might just find their lands turned to glass.

You bash America regularly, is it because you got hurt in the zone?  Is that your basis for hatred? Get over yourself man!

Sat, 02/22/2014 - 23:56 | 4467083 NoWayJose
NoWayJose's picture

China has no interest in starting a war. They have the ability, and are currently, using the Western laws to actually BUY resource producing companies in places like Brazil, Africa, Canada, and Australia. They simply own the resources outright and get to choose who they sell to. Unlike Germany, Japan, and other aggressors in the past, China does not have to fight a war to gain resources.

And once China controls the gold market, they will also be able to control the foreign exchange market. If anything, a war would be started by the countries who have sold their resources to China and want to get control back.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 00:26 | 4467126 sangell
sangell's picture

Forget 1914. Next week, as events in the Ukraine play out, is looking like a commodity free for all. If, as I suspect, the current state of affairs is simply unacceptable to Moscow and military force or the threat thereof are its only option to reverse it, then gold, oil, gas and every other commodity is going to be on a roller coaster. Wish ZH would give us their thoughts on that.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 08:20 | 4467506 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

Too much Russian History in Ukraine.

Right now, Vlad is ramping up Russian Armor preparations. Soon we may see them on a defensive line along the eastern side of the Dnieper.

Medvedev: "Vlad, too bad we lost the western half."

Vlad: "Da. But they get Chernobyl and we keep Sevastopol."

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 00:29 | 4467140 laomei
laomei's picture

Side note, China didn't "lose" Vietnam, it's called a limited engagement and it accomplished every goal set.

Reclaim islands that had been seized by the French and incorporated into their Vietnam colony? Check

Restore traditional borders that had been changed by the French? Check

Get Vietnam out of Cambodia? Check

Slap the USSR in the face demonstrating they cannot defend allies? Check


So... how did they "lose" again?

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 02:40 | 4467291 sangell
sangell's picture

The same way the USSR lost the "Winter War" against Finland. It showed the Germans the Red Army was crap. Unable to beat a nation 1/50th its size in a few days or even weeks. The Finn's held their own against a Red Army whose commanders had either been purged or promoted for political reasons. The Germans drew some conclusions from this.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 06:39 | 4467452 laomei
laomei's picture

Two entirely different things.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 09:50 | 4467577 Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

The Vietnamese were not forced out of Cambodia by China.  I wouldn't say they lost, but I wouldn't say they won.  I'd say they caused a lot of people to die for no good reason.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 11:41 | 4467723 laomei
laomei's picture

China got Vietnam to stop shelling Yunnan, stop attacking Chinese ships, stop building structures on occupied islands, gained the land sought, utterly devastated the border region, and opened a door to the juicy innards.  It was never a war about conquest, it was about a spanking.  200k were technically deployed, only about 85k actually did anything and it was a battle between one side who had been fighting nonstop for decades with the newest soviet gear, and another side which had not seen action ever with ww2-era gear and jack shit for communications or logistics.  And the whole thing was over in a month.  Point was made, now get the hell out.  It was also a great wake up call for the PLA to start modernizing.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 13:17 | 4467924 Abi Normal
Abi Normal's picture

Promoting China again are ya?  Do you live there?  Or do you just want everyone to emulate them?  China has a fine history of killing more of their own, than anyone else...go look up the Onion Rebellion, and Mao 'the murderer'...

what is it he said, power comes from the barrel of a gun...wonderful man - sarc off

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 00:35 | 4467149 tmosley
tmosley's picture

The author seems to have forgotten that war is nearly impossible today, given nuclear weapons.

China won't go to war.  They will dump their bonds and the financial war will be over, flawless victory for China.

They will continue to develop economic ties with their neighbors, whether they like them or not.  The goods will flow, since troops no longer can.  The world will be a better place for it (for most).  The US will have major problems, and will transform into some amalgum of Argentina and Russia, with much lower world prestige.  They will turn inwards, and there will be a fight for the soul of America, between the statists and the libertarians.  Can't really imagine how that will turn out.  Maybe a breakup and short civil war.  Maybe even a nuclear one. 

It's a bad time to be an American, I can tell you that much.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 01:04 | 4467194 Solarman
Solarman's picture

I don't get the logic.  The Fed bouht more bonds last year than China owns.  Number two, where are they going to dump their exports, number three, by committing this act of economic warfare with no navy or air force good luck getting you ships through an american quaranteen.  Also, you might have missed that we have a robotic, stealth space shuttle (actually 2 of them) zipping around, probably putting mines on every Chinese satellite in orbit.  


Wake up from your fantasy, war with the U.S. will neither be flawless nor painless.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 01:41 | 4467235 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

For the most part, exactly correct conclusion....

Re: treasuries

That is why China has no choice but to be left holding the bag... Call it the club membership fee. Non refundable...

And if some day someone is still bothering to write the history of the last century or so it will be Britain 1815, Germany 1871, Russia 1917, USA 1929 and China 2014(??)...

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 01:39 | 4467238 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You think the Fed can absorb a trillion dollars in bonds in an afternoon?  Without anyone so much as raising an eyebrow, much less dumping THEIR bonds too?

Apropos that you use the word "dumping" because that is literally what they are doing.  They are trading valuable goods for worthless American paper.  They might as well dump that shit in the Pacific and have the government print the Yuan to pay for the goods.  It has the same net effect on their economy.  Peter Schiff had a good analogy on your (extraordinarily stupid) ideas about how international trade works:

Blockade is the word you are looking for, and it won't happen.  China has carrier killers and the US knows it.  A blockade is an act of war, and would be ended very quickly.

Also, nice tinfoil you have there, friend.  "Stealth shuttle".  lol

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 02:32 | 4467287 sangell
sangell's picture

The British blockaded the Falkland Islands with a single nuclear submarine. The US ( and its allies) have an almost limitless number of choke points around China. Mines, subs, airbases ( ever try and sink Guam or Okinawa?) a lousy 1980's frigate firing missiles as fast and as far as anything the Chinese have at a very large crude carrier. Every port, every industrial facility in China is within range of the USN and USAF. Virtually nothing vital to the US is within range of Chinese military power unless they want to launch ICBMS and lose that war too.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 09:43 | 4467569 tmosley
tmosley's picture

>Comparing nuclear armed China to backwater Argentina.

Jesus, are you people even people, or just bots?

America can't even win wars against desert tribesmen, you think they are going to win a shooting war with China?  You think they are going to START a shooting war with China, knowing that that will lead to nuclear retaliation?

Christ you people are airheads.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 13:20 | 4467934 Abi Normal
Abi Normal's picture

hey eyeball, the US has NOT fought a war since WWII, get that through your thick eyelash...if anyone starts anything it will be the chinks!

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 03:35 | 4467322 TPTB_r_TBTF
TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

in an electronic age, i think the Fed can absorb that trillion in milliseconds.

Bond trades get confirmed faster than bitcoin trades.


Sun, 02/23/2014 - 06:36 | 4467450 effendi
effendi's picture

Why should war be stopped by nuclear weapons?

If China was to attack the US mainland then America would respond with nukes. But what about if China were to militarily surround Taiwan, land troops and force it to capitulate and rejoin the mother country? I bet America wouln't unsheathe the nukes.

Same with South Korea, or Thailand or Malaysia,Singapore, Brunei, Fiji etc. America doesn't have the stomache to go to Armageddon and start a nuclear war. Even a real conventional war against a big army would scare most Americans who wouldn't want a casualty toll greater than Vietnam in just a few months.

So by default China will dominate much of Asia and they will become de facto vassal states. The exceptions being states that become vassal states of India (Nepal, Bhutan being most likely to need India as their protectors).

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 09:51 | 4467581 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Nukes stop wars between nuclear powers.  That is all.  When nukes are in play, there are only proxy wars and engagements where land and civillian populations are not at risk (ie air to air combat and perhaps ship to ship combat).

China won't invade any of its neighbors though, nor will it make them into vassal states.  There is no reason for them to.  They have everything they need either in country, or have purchased it elsewhere.

If China went on a campaign of conquest and the US didn't defend its allies, you can bet that those nations would start building nukes in a hurry.  Such a gambit will only work once.  It's too easy and cheap to build nukes these days.  Japan could probably test a nuke before the end of this year if they started now.  Same with South Korea and Taiwan.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 01:04 | 4467193 Catullus
Catullus's picture

This would get a C in a sophomore political economy class

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 01:09 | 4467200 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Unease among the Chinese population will drive the unthinkable into action.

Reason is the great mischief of man.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 08:05 | 4467500 negative rates
negative rates's picture

No it is not, cocaine is.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 02:03 | 4467265 Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

The Diplomat is the Arizona State of foreign policy/analysis sources.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 02:08 | 4467266 Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

"Current events are frequently viewed through the prism of analogies"

He who controls the present, controls the past, he who controls the past, creates the prisms.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 02:43 | 4467294 Spungo
Spungo's picture

I think people are confusing who is who. China is not 1914 Germany. America is. 

America = 1914 Germany (very strong, capable of taking on the world, assuring its ally Israel that it will commit to total war if need be, the government in no way represents the citizens).

Israel = 1914 Austria-Hungary (very close ally of very powerful nation, relatively strong but not too strong, lots of dick waving and war mongering)

Russia = 1914 Russia (offering full support of its weaker allies Iran and Syria that are being fucked with by Israel)

China = 1914 France (not directly involved in this conflict, but they're allied with Russia and are willing to go to total war)

Iran/Syria = 1914 Serbia (weaker nations that are being bullied with the goal of starting the biggest war in history)



Sun, 02/23/2014 - 03:13 | 4467310 Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

Fritz Fischer didn't appreciate, it seems, how much Britain and France wanted to break up the Ottoman Empire.  So did the Zionist movement, which had lots and lots of money, and later basically got the US into the war  {most Americans wanted no part of it - the Jewish efforts Lindbergh and Ford and Pound spoke of were true but "anti-semitic" quickly became a wonderful semantic tool to obfuscate and distract from what was and is wildly disproportionate Zionist/Jewish financial, hence political power}.

While the Russian military was busy with that, having been sucked into the Triple E, the same largely Jewish Bolsheviks who had tried, unsuccessfully, to overthrow the Russian government in 1907 tried again, with help from Jacob Schiff and others in NYC and London....

The real Triple E was Britain, France, and International Zionism  {which was at the time a minority of the world's Jews, as today, the neocons are mostly Jewish, but most Jews, being generally pretty liberal, albeit highly ethnocentric, are not neocons}.


The forces aligned against Russia and against an independent and Ukrainian Ukraine are much the same as they were in 1914, but now the banking class and International Zionism has hijacked the United States and Canada as well as Britain and France.


Israel is always lurking in the background, just as they were in the Georgia-Russia conflict.  I'm sure they'd love to tie up Russia in Ukraine while they act as the Salafist Air Force in Syria again while Saudi provides the anti-air and anti-tank stuff.



Sun, 02/23/2014 - 09:14 | 4467544 WTFx10
WTFx10's picture

Very difficult to believe in the pre-War  and War hstories in both WW's from the winning side. Especially now we know that we are lied to and manipulated on a daily basis. Who controls that manipulation,propaganda?

The muslims,christians,buddists, and hindus of course. /sarc

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 11:17 | 4467673 smacker
smacker's picture

" today, the neocons are mostly Jewish, but most Jews, being generally pretty liberal, albeit highly ethnocentric, are not neocons."

I believe this to be correct. However, it is still the case that a majority of Jews in positions of power/influence around the world today - including Israel itself - derive from the Ashkenazi fork that supports Zionism.

And to clarify: when you say "..most Jews, being generally pretty liberal", you use that term as understood in the US not the UK or Europe, ie: meaning on the political Left. I agree with that. Plenty of material around that shows many Jews were Marxists, Fascists and other assorted socialists. Including Leo Strauss who was an international socialist among other things.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 12:28 | 4467796 Optimusprime
Optimusprime's picture

Very useful and sensible analysis.  Kudos for bringing Pound, Ford, and Lindberg into the discussion.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 03:01 | 4467305 walküre
walküre's picture

China is 1921 Germany

Printing to paper over problems.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 03:26 | 4467315 TPTB_r_TBTF
TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

China is 1941 Germany, ready to bomb Pearl Harbor

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 03:45 | 4467336 TheCosmicTaco
TheCosmicTaco's picture

Pointless piece of waffle. I could have been watching Asa Akira in action instead of reading this.

Are the Chicom generals dumb enough to start a war? Maybe.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 06:03 | 4467433 Fred123
Fred123's picture

Yes, they are.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 03:59 | 4467347 gann1212
gann1212's picture

heres my proposal to end all this crap. shut our borders to the whole world except for canada. make everything we need here and have no contact with the outside world for at least 100 years. tell anyone who bothers us to go screw themselves . we will be a better place and then we wont have to read this b.s. about what someone thinks about this place or that. sounds like a plan to me . if we only had the balls to do it

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 06:24 | 4467442 22winmag
22winmag's picture

I agree. Let's keep the flow of high-grade weed, maple syrup, and illegal asian sex workers through the northern border if nothing else.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 10:43 | 4467625 drendebe10
drendebe10's picture

I vote yes. Isolationism now n forever.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 11:22 | 4467685 smacker
smacker's picture

You'd see a huge rise in prices and a huge lowering of product quality. See Brazil for reference.

I think a better solution is to remove all powers from government to involve itself in "foreign affairs" unless explicitly approved by "the people". It is always politicians who start wars, never the people.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 05:30 | 4467403 Spungo
Spungo's picture

Won't work. America imports about 70% of its oil, so you can expect a lot more foreign entanglements and terrorism.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 05:36 | 4467409 smacker
smacker's picture

Well, I have one comment for Robert Dujarric:

              "Events dear boy, events."

Whilst he may not see parallels between today and those back in 1914, there is nothing to prevent events being steered in that direction OR events arising that make them so.

Ultimately it will come down to what the leaders on all sides want to happen. That is currently unknown.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 08:04 | 4467499 lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

This is a interesting article.

However, I think China by virtue of its power as a manufacturing country wants primarily to  insure its access to energy and raw materials.

They will need a naval force large enough to insure this. Counting on the USN is dubious, in terms of keeping the sea lanes open. The USN and Anglo powers could blockade the sea lanes in a dispute.

In  terms of military prowess, they can simply fight like US Grant: Overwhelm the superior CSA forces with Numbers. Butchery still works, in land wars.

Unlike the western peoples, I do not think the Chinese are as hot-headed. Not that their pickets are asleep on duty, but they prefer to out-think their enemies instead of becoming violent as their first choice. They are more subtle, and likely to use other means (economic) to subdue their enemies.

If I were China, I would use my economic power to enlist the US to use its military to secure my foreign operations, i.e., Africa. Let the US work off its UST debts to the PRC by providing security, but maintain/build enough sea power to insure someone does not decide to block the Malacca Straits on me.

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 08:09 | 4467502 john.smith
john.smith's picture

I feel the author has glossed over a few important points. China has an amazing number of people, with people living in super cities outnumbering those of many countries. Anybody who's been to China can attest to the incredible feeling you get from seeing so many people everywhere.

China also has the US by the balls with their investments in the US. I know everyone says China won't do anything with those since they would be harming themselves, but if you're about to go into war anyway then will it matter as much?

And finally, China does have allies. It has been voting in tandem with Russia on everything, and they both seem to realize they are a much more potent force if they work together. It also has Iran, all of Africa, and basically any country the west is not happy with.


That being said, I don't think China wants to go to war at all. They are happy with the way things are; growing faster than everyone else (even if they fudge their growth numbers everybody else is doing similar tricks), trade routes secured (especially oil) thanks to the US, and everyone trying to flock to them. Even the Asian nations who the US is using to form an alliance against China realize they are more dependent on it than on the US.

In fact, it is more likely the US would start action against China than the other way around.


If China does end up selling its T holdings, it would be because of their debt mess and the need to cover thier currency. That will be an interesting day

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 11:58 | 4467749 WhyWait
WhyWait's picture

Thank you John Dujarric for a thoughtful balanced post.  Historical analogies are essential, unavoidable and inherently misleading and even dangerous unelss examined closely and thoughtfully.  

Smith, these things you point to are real and important. But if China is itself unstable and vulnerable, this power to bring down the financial system is power they dare not use - except as a deterrent threat.  If the dollar collapses anyway, China loses this deterrent.

Lakecity, you point to the internal pressures that a rising capitalist and industrial power faces to militarize and defend its trade routes, energy and materials sources, markets and investments in the world.  These are real and important.  But China is very far from being able to militarily defend its sea lanes to Arabia and its overseas investments in Africa and Latin America, and won't be for at least a decade. China is still hugely vulnerable to US pressure and dependent on US cooperation.  

Would China still able to restructure their economy to be relatively self-sufficient if they had to?  It would be a huge shock and dislocation.  The kind of shock and dislocation that must make the ilk of Kissinger and Cheney salivate. 

How is this for a very messy mixed historical analogy:

The US and allies as Germany and Japan c. 1939; Russia, China, Iran and the Central Asian republics as Libya but with 1000 times the population - and nukes?  Or as "one, two, many Vietnams?"

Or how about this: the US Japan and EU as Brer Rabbit, and Russia, China and Central Asia as the Tar Baby?




Sun, 02/23/2014 - 15:26 | 4468307 bobthecat
bobthecat's picture

From somone who works at a macro fund focusing on china, we are a short fund, that term is not in vogue with anyone that is credible.....

Sun, 02/23/2014 - 17:01 | 4468609 UserLong
UserLong's picture

Putting all the pieces together, sounds like US is in position of the analogous position...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!