International US v China is UK v US 100 years ago

ferrisjso

"Melodramatic" Historian
@Gold
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
21,813
Reaction score
11,722
The term history repeats itself is overused gibberish. But in this case I'm really seeing the similarities the US v China situation feels like we're repeating the UK and US situation 100 years ago. Focus on navy because that's the branch of the military that projects power and IMO is most important(I'm a maritime historian biased).

Recap

100-120 years ago UK was in a very similar situation as the US. Strongest country by a mile(on the surface it might not seem that way but for example in WW1 if the Allies had lost the UK would have still won as Germany had no way of reaching them) with a dominant navy. The US like China had potential much bigger in both land and population than the UK. The US was also seen as producing a lot(both civilian and military stuff) but of lesser quality. And UK citizens attitude towards Americans minus any racial stuff were very similar to that of the US towards China(kind of hard to explain).

As late as 1905ish the US navy while one of the largest in the world was sort of a joke in terms of quality(we didn't have a real army cause look at the US on a map). But in a span of 15-20 years this drastically changed. While the UK had always insisted on having a navy stronger than the second strongest by a very wide margin the US's superior capacity forced the UK to agree to parity as otherwise the US would quickly pass the UK. While they had the same size navy the US could have passed the UK at will at this point and treaties and US isolationism only delayed this.

That's what I think is happening between US and China right now. While carriers might or might not be obsolete I can see the Chinese reaching parity with the US somewhat quickly even in that. The US's impressive fleet is the product of stacking ships up built over decades(our current carrier fleet was built one at a time over the course of 50 years) and because we've had no rivals there's no need to build next gen ships quickly like in the early 20th century where every ship was competing with peers in other countries. Our corrupt military industrial compex extracts immense sums of money and builds things at the pace of a snail and nowadays sometimes can't even finish those things. If any country can build comparable ships at a faster pace any arms race is a wrap. China might have only 3 aircraft carriers one of which is modern but the US has only built 4 in the 21st century.

Another aspect is that Japan was UK's Ally in Asia(actually they were largely responsible for Japan getting so strong so quickly, we don't like to talk about that) who the US was hostile to. Today Japan is the US's main ally in Asia who the Chinese are hostile to. The US is largely responsible for building anime Japan same as UK was largely responsible for Mejii era Japan. If Japan rebuilds it's military it likely is the distant third strongest country as Russia has no navy and power projection and that's been was it's role in the 20th century.


Now I don't think this topic matters I just find the comparison interesting when looking at the early 20th century. The main difference is that nukes make China surpassing the US as number 1 inconsequential. Even without them the US's geography makes it invincible against invasion(UK was too to a lesser extent). Both US and China will be the top 2 by a wide margin likely for centuries(barring the EU becoming a country I just don't see the potential for anyone to break into the great power club). This is different than the UK which fell hard and fast to being a great power in name only.
 
I don’t really think there are that many similarities outside of the fact that both are large countries that modernized quickly (under very different circumstances). The US was a major innovator, whereas China has largely played copycat to catch up. The US had cultural links with a lot of the world that China does not, which will always hold them back from projecting power outside of their immediate neighborhood. The US had a lot of soft power that China lacks completely. I just think they’re vastly different situations in almost every regard outside of the rapid modernization. Realistically, the UK had several peer countries 100 years ago. The US still has none today. The US might not be able to defend an island full of ethnic Chinese people 100 miles off the Chinese coast (with a questionable will to defend the island by themselves if needed), but it takes a scenario that favorable to Beijing for it to be a contest. If our navies skirmished in the middle of the Pacific I think we all know which side would prove to be a more effective fighting force. Yet 100 years ago Britain, France and Russia (+ others) couldn’t even contain Germany.
 
I actually have another country that I think makes for a more interesting (yet still imperfect) comparison. China is Germany in the 1930s. An ancient people on the ascent, rapidly modernizing with an authoritarian government and a chip on their shoulder. And all of this is happening within the context of an already established world order that is hostile and not prepared to accept them changing the status quo.

Both armies far scarier on land, which would require an alliance of powerful countries to defeat (the world is already uniting to contain China (quad, etc.), much as people tried to contain Germany. Japan is the UK in this situation, an island nation that is the former master of the continent who’s jealous and wary and wants to contain them but really can’t do too much on their own and will appeal to the US if shit hits the fan. There are even interesting similarities between the appeasement prior to WW II (Sudetenland and so on) and the situation we’re in where China silenced Hong Kong, wants to take Taiwan and really create a Chinese Empire in the South China Sea and beyond. Main difference this time is the US has its sights set firmly on China and would be leading the resistance.
 
I actually have another country that I think makes for a more interesting (yet still imperfect) comparison. China is Germany in the 1930s. An ancient people on the ascent, rapidly modernizing with an authoritarian government and a chip on their shoulder. And all of this is happening within the context of an already established world order that is hostile and not prepared to accept them changing the status quo.

Both armies far scarier on land, which would require an alliance of powerful countries to defeat (the world is already uniting to contain China (quad, etc.), much as people tried to contain Germany. Japan is the UK in this situation, an island nation that is the former master of the continent who’s jealous and wary and wants to contain them but really can’t do too much on their own and will appeal to the US if shit hits the fan. There are even interesting similarities between the appeasement prior to WW II (Sudetenland and so on) and the situation we’re in where China silenced Hong Kong, wants to take Taiwan and really create a Chinese Empire in the South China Sea and beyond. Main difference this time is the US has its sights set firmly on China and would be leading the resistance.
China has nukes so they can’t really be compared to 1930s Germany. Had Hitler had nukes in WWII none of us would be here
 
Not really feeling this comparison sorry
 
China has nukes so they can’t really be compared to 1930s Germany. Had Hitler had nukes in WWII none of us would be here
I would still be here. I’d find a way
uncle-rico-no-doubt-in-my-mind.gif
 
China has nukes so they can’t really be compared to 1930s Germany. Had Hitler had nukes in WWII none of us would be here

An interesting question is whether or not Werner Heisenberg deliberately stalled the progress on that. He was of course, one of the greatest physicists that has ever lived and a principal co-founder of Quantum Mechanics. When the NSDAP came to power, he was slammed in the press and caught much shit for doing "jew physics" because he happened to publicly defend the legitimacy of, as well as taught Albert Einstein's General Relativity.

This didn't hold for obvious clashes with reality and it was a childhood relationship from school with Heinrich Himmler of all people - as well as their mothers - that ultimately got him out of hot water, and of course he knew full well of his intellect and possible usefulness to regime, eventually being put in charge of the country's nuclear weapons project.

Now does someone so obviously brilliant actually make the "mistake" of opting for D2O as a moderator rather than light water or graphite? Most people find this to be a near impossibility, but it was incredibly complex breakthrough science in the late 1930s and early 1940s which again also means he and his team could've easily misled the government.

I honestly believe Heisenberg put his commitment to the Volksgemeinschaft first and just simply failed to develop the weapon based on all of the evidence, although the moderator issue does seem ridiculously suspect. A lot of German scientists found themselves at an impasse of sorts because they loved their country and wanted Germany to win the war, but Hitler to lose it at the same time. They didn't want to face the obvious that the two couldn't ever be regarded as separate.
 
The US was a major innovator, whereas China has largely played copycat to catch up. The US had cultural links with a lot of the world that China does not, which will always hold them back from projecting power outside of their immediate neighborhood. The US had a lot of soft power that China lacks completely. I just think they’re vastly different situations in almost every regard outside of the rapid modernization.

They're still quite a way behind where the ability to both engineer and (especially) manufacture high technology is concerned. CCP insiders estimate about 30 years off and that also sort of operates under the assumption that America and its cohorts (ASML, TEL, TSMC) are just going to standstill. On the contrary, we are about to witness arguably greatest build-up of heavy industry and advanced manufacturing in US history and a large part of it through Foreign Direct Investment from allied nations, Taiwan in particular.
 
I actually have another country that I think makes for a more interesting (yet still imperfect) comparison. China is Germany in the 1930s. An ancient people on the ascent, rapidly modernizing with an authoritarian government and a chip on their shoulder. And all of this is happening within the context of an already established world order that is hostile and not prepared to accept them changing the status quo.

Both armies far scarier on land, which would require an alliance of powerful countries to defeat (the world is already uniting to contain China (quad, etc.), much as people tried to contain Germany. Japan is the UK in this situation, an island nation that is the former master of the continent who’s jealous and wary and wants to contain them but really can’t do too much on their own and will appeal to the US if shit hits the fan. There are even interesting similarities between the appeasement prior to WW II (Sudetenland and so on) and the situation we’re in where China silenced Hong Kong, wants to take Taiwan and really create a Chinese Empire in the South China Sea and beyond. Main difference this time is the US has its sights set firmly on China and would be leading the resistance.

This is more accurate. Doesnt mean the end result will be the same but the similarities so far are pretty spot on.
 
China has nukes so they can’t really be compared to 1930s Germany. Had Hitler had nukes in WWII none of us would be here

Neither did everyone else. US only got it at the end of the war when the western theatre had already collapsed with an allied victory. So nuclear weapons were a nonequation in the west. Meanwhile everyone has nukes now so its different but so is a lot of other technologies. If we want to make historical comparisons it cant be 100% spot on.
 
Neither did everyone else. US only got it at the end of the war when the western theatre had already collapsed with an allied victory. So nuclear weapons were a nonequation in the west. Meanwhile everyone has nukes now so its different but so is a lot of other technologies. If we want to make historical comparisons it cant be 100% spot on.

It's a cold comfort, but the nuclear deterrence of MAD probably is the primary driver for relative peace, at least among global powers. There will always be geopolitcal pawns, proxy wars and regional skirmishes, but it's highly unlikely we'll ever approach anything like the surreal scale and scope of death and devastation brought on by the 20th century's two world wars.
 
It's a cold comfort, but the nuclear deterrence of MAD probably is the primary driver for relative peace, at least among global powers. There will always be geopolitcal pawns, proxy wars and regional skirmishes, but it's highly unlikely we'll ever approach anything like the surreal scale and scope of death and devastation brought on by the 20th century's two world wars.

Except that MAD is leveraged by non-Western nations. So, it predominantly ensures that the West sits on its hands like a lil bitch while strongman authoritarians do their own thing.
As horrible as massive war might be, its absence is not a default good. There are 8 billion of us.

Nukes benefit brinksmen.
 
Last edited:
UK was not the most powerful country a century ago. They had small army, not very well versed at land combat. They had the best navy, but their army was not strong, they couldn't even defeat the Turks and I am not sure they could even defeat Austro-Hungary.
US probably beats UK at the beginning of the century easy. ALso you somehow forgot RUssia who had 4 times bigger army than UK. Yes, Russia doesn't invest to much in the navy, but in land combat they'd blow UK out of the water back then.
It is also not a secret that in the past 20 years all the US governments have been petrified by the Chinese, who have been developing at extremely fast pace. Trump even started an economic war against China, which backfired since the Chinese released the corona and fucked up the whole world, all the economies suffered economically and socially all the countries divided inside, yet China's economy flourished. USA and China will battle it out in the next 20 years for the #1 economic power. Who ever wins its going to be bad for the rest of the world, cause USA is all about that cancel society now, they are becoming more and more like the CCP regime they once allegedly despised.
 
In terms of manufacturing and market size, China has already surpassed US. The advantage for Muricans is that they hold most of the cards in terms of high tech manufacturing and they can attract top talents from around the world. China on the other hand, faces a demographic crisis and isn't considered an attractive destination for STEM graduates.

US completely supplanted UK as a world power. China isn't going to do the same. It's going to be a multi-polar world with several tiers of power.

Tier 1 (Superpowers) : US, China and EU
Tier 2 (Regional Powers with Strong Global Influence): Russia, Japan, India, UK, Germany, France
Tier 3 (Regional Powers): Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey, Australia, Brazil
 
Except that MAD is leveraged by non-Western nations. So, it predominantly ensures that the West sits on its hands like a lil bitch while strongman authoritarians do their own thing.
As horrible as massive war might be, its absence is not a default good. There are 8 billion of us.

Nukes benefit brinksmen.

This is a great point, but the west sort of IS a lil bitch in this century and a default foreign policy position of mine is one of non-interventionism anyway. It's also not like it has been above propping up strongman authoritarians when it has suited particular interests of the "elite".
 
China will eventually win through subversion. They're using the same tactics Jews use but have a military power and resources Jews lack.
 
Back
Top