14

VIDEO: Echoes of WWI: China, the US, and the Next "Great" War


In the early 20th century, the world’s dominant superpower looked warily on the rise of a competitor to its supremacy. The machinations of the British to contain the rise of Germany led inexorably to the First World War. Once again in the early 21st century, the world’s dominant superpower is looking warily on the rise of a competitor. Will the American Empire’s machinations to contain the rise of China lead to the Third World War? Or is the American/Chinese conflict another engineered conflict for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many? Join James Corbett as he presents “Echoes of World War I” to the Open Mind Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sources and show-notes can be found here.


SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN

If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

14 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AJ
AJ
Oct 26, 2017 1:44 PM

Unless the U.S. use nuclear weapons, which would be suicidal, despite their clear superiority in terms weapons and technology, their ability, effectiveness and motivation to ‘fight’ is very low compared to China or Russia. The term ‘body-bags’ comes to mind.

iusedtopost@thegaurdian
iusedtopost@thegaurdian
Nov 5, 2017 4:42 AM
Reply to  AJ

“Clear superiority”?
This is a misnomer that is constantly repeated by the MSM.
Fully 61% of American cruise missiles failed to hit their target in the attack on Syria by Trump.
China will win any conventional war with America in the South China Sea. The USN has no reply to the mach 6 missiles and S-300/400 derivatives possessed by China.
Nuclear? Then the exceptional ones will disappear as vitrified rock into the dust bin of history.
Just an opinion 🙂

rehmat1
rehmat1
Oct 24, 2017 2:20 PM

Both United States and China are colonial empires. The world has always suffered from the military adventures of the imperialist powers. Both World Wars fought by European and Russians but the coming WWIII would be fought in the Middle East to protect Israel which is darling of all world powers; the US, UK, China, Russia, France and Germany.
In July 2017, US vice-Admiral H. Scott Swift, said that he will launch a nuclear attack next week if ordered by US president Donald Trump.
https://rehmat1.com/2017/07/28/us-admiral-is-ready-to-nuke-china/

Vaska
Vaska
Oct 24, 2017 5:30 PM
Reply to  rehmat1

China a colonial empire? Could you elaborate on that, please?

Big B
Big B
Oct 22, 2017 9:47 PM

President Xi Jinping has recently laid out his ambitious vision for Chinese (and World) development in the 21st century: a hundred year plan to raise the living standards of 70% of the world’s population. This is to be achieved by non-interventionist; non-imperial trade and development means: a laudable plan indeed (especially in contrast with the US Imperium militaristic GWOT conquest and terror and plan): but is it practical??? In the same period: China is entering into a net energy crisis – with (combined conventional and unconventional) domestic oil set to peak in 2018. Not a problem: they’ll just import more oil to top up the shortfall? Fine, in a non-finite world: but conventional oil production has plateaued since 2005 (120% of the increase in oil production over the period has been from unconventional sources) – so the replacement oil is not of the same quality. That creates a deferred net energy crisis (due to a deteriorating EROI) – either in China, or elsewhere (more than likely in non-OECD countries – the very ones China wants to develop the economies of.) This problem will compound over time: so the development of China’s GDP will effectively act as a break on other OECD and non-OECD economies – as China requires a bigger and bigger slice of the world’s finite (energy) resources to maintain the momentum of its growth. And the Chinese economy will need to be 16x larger than present by the end of the century – in order to meet their objectives. [And technological efficiency and improvement INCREASE; not decrease, resource depletion – the Jevons Paradox. Solar powered OBOR? If resources are directed toward a post-carbon infrastructure – where do the resources for OBOR itself (and the high-end goods they intend to export along the various routes) come from? Let alone… Read more »

iusedtopost@thegaurdian
iusedtopost@thegaurdian
Nov 5, 2017 4:49 AM
Reply to  Big B

OBOR energy requirements/
I read somewhere that China is now a world leader in these things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

Jake O
Jake O
Oct 22, 2017 1:42 PM
vexarb
vexarb
Oct 22, 2017 11:50 AM

Typical Economist trash: heaps a pile of junk verbiage to conceal the ugly facts of The Western War of Terror which, starting ca.1980 and still ongoing at present, successively destroyed and/or destabilized YugoSlavia, Iraq, Sudan,Somalia, Libya, Ukraine, Syria — and is now “pivoting” to do likewise to East Eurasia (as though the West had not caused terror enough by 3 million dead in Korea, another 3 million in Vietnam, and yet another 3 million in Indonesia). Bland words disguise the Clintons as failed peacemakers inste’d of being Lord and Lady Macbeth of Arkansaw. ….etc etc. This Economist’s History of WW3 is as fictional as an Oxford professor’s History of WW1.
“But what will History say?”
“History, sir, will tell lies as usual”.

Big B
Big B
Oct 21, 2017 10:26 PM

This is James Corbett at his best: giving a clear summation of current geopolitical machinations toward an engineered conflict. As well as the anti-war solution … ”Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” versus “Let’s go screw up One Belt One Road.” Wilfred Owen (quoting Horace with tragic pathos): versus Steve Bannon (who is just tragically pathetic.) Who do we believe? The national pride cover story: or the mission creep nefarious intent? Bannon’s quote most succinctly sums up the Pivot to Asia and Africa arm of US Foreign Policy. It’s all about strategic denial – not direct conflict – at this stage. China will need access to a vast store of energy and resources if it is to go ahead with OBOR: which it is currently trying to develop through trade and investment. The US Imperium is countering with (al Qaeda affiliated) terrorism; commitment to a massive containment strategy; and provocative maritime ‘Freedom of Navigation’ (FONA) ops. So the “Battlefield of Tomorrow” is being developed today? None of this is clearer than in Africa: which is why the complicit M$M doesn’t report it. In classic ‘problem-crisis-solution’ mode, AFRICOM (and SOCOM) are writing their own deployment and mission statement (as this RT report makes clear.) A parallel development would be the USPACOM (projected deployment) in Myanmar and the Philippines (as Tony Cartalucci makes clear) On this basis: are we looking at a potential engineered conflict – or one that is already underway??? The conventional received and deliberately compartmentalised ‘at face value’ narrative would have us believe that events in Myanmar, the Philippines, and Mogadishu (for instance) are localised (with strictly regionalised cause-and-effect.) But are they? Or are they part of the machinations of a broader engineered conflict??? I would say that they are proxy pre-engagements in a war that is yet… Read more »

Husq
Husq
Oct 21, 2017 8:55 PM

Here is an interesting ‘fictional’ account published in the Economist in 1992. It talks of the emergence of Muslim Caliphate and a war with China but with an interesting twist. Please take note of the term ‘sight bites.’ The 21st century war with China was mentioned in esoteric circles in the 1920’s.This is why I find this article interesting. https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-13282236.html • A World History, Chapter 13: The Disastrous 21st Century The Economist325.7791 (Dec 26, 1992/Jan 8, 1993): 17. Publisher logo. Links to publisher website, opened in a new window. Full text Abstract/Details Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers by selecting the Enter button Abstract Translate [unavailable for this document] A fictionalized account of world history in the 21st century as published in a 1992 history textbook is described. Democracies missed the great opportunity they were given in the 1990s to establish new societies. Full Text Translate [unavailable for this document] “A World History”, by Dwight Bogdanov and Vladimir Lowell (University of California in Moscow, 640 pages or 27 sight-bites, published 2992), has one of the best accounts of democracy’s post-1991 failure. Here is its Chapter 13 This was an opportunity of a magnitude the world had rarely seen before. As Chapter 12 explained, the three-sided War of Ideas that had occupied most of the 20th century ended in a sweeping victory for the once apparently doomed forces of liberalism. The defeat of racial totalitarianism in 1945 having been followed by the defeat of communist totalitarianism in 1989-91, the victorious pluralists seemed to have the future at their feet. The collapse of communism brought universal agreement that there was no serious alternative to free-market capitalism as the way to organise economic life. It was almost as widely agreed that multi-party democracy was the best form of politics; only a handful… Read more »

bevin
bevin
Oct 21, 2017 10:44 PM
Reply to  Husq

That saves us the trouble of acquiring the book. Communism wasn’t ‘defeated’, and certainly not in a ‘battle of ideas’ with C20th Liberalism. Anyone who seriously believes”that there was no serious alternative to free-market capitalism as the way to organise economic life’ needs to get out more often. And take few deep breaths.
As to the nonsense that what Amin calls ‘the triad’ has ever displayed the tiniest interest in democracy, anywhere, well…
Behind the propaganda wall and the ranks of mercenary intellectuals whoring themselves en masse for a share of the pickings, the capitalist system is crumbling. The only question is whether it will collapse before its victim- life on earth- is mortally wounded.

Husq
Husq
Oct 22, 2017 8:49 AM
Reply to  bevin

That saves us the trouble of acquiring the book. <

It isn’t a real book Bevin, that’s the point.

Big B
Big B
Oct 22, 2017 7:27 PM
Reply to  bevin

@Bevin: I’m not sure you understand the basic tenets of the historical dialectic; especially if you think that communism was an autonomous self-determined independent and viable alternative to capitalism? There were not two separate hemispheric COMINTERN and capitalist blocs that did not interact. They existed and encroached within a holistic interactive complex adaptive system. What one did heavily impacted upon and determined the response of the other: a mutual co-dependence and (sub-optimal) parallel development. They had a shared dynamism, competitive determinism – each drove the other (particularly in foreign policy; and technological ‘advancement’ toward confrontation and war) – and as such, they were as much complementary as contradictory and antagonistic.
Especially if you consider that communism was organised financed from Kerensky on; got much of its investment and development capital from Western capitalist bankers (such as John D Rockefeller, John D Ryan of the National City Bank, J.P. Morgan and George W Perkins); and much of its technical and industrial capability through ‘lend lease’ and ‘peaceful’ trade – organised and provided by Western industrial capitalists (such as Armand Hammer and Henry Ford – who, for instance, built the Soviet Gorki plant.) Later technological assistance was provided by the likes of Henry Kissinger (who allowed specialist grinders to be passed to the Soviets that allowed them to MIRV their missiles and pinpoint target US installations): so much for independence and “serious alternative”? More like adversarially joined at the hip???

leruscino
leruscino
Oct 21, 2017 7:37 PM

Reblogged this on leruscino.