1. Soviet front was if anything but irrational. Considering the high probability of US joining the WW2. It was but a given that Axis powers will loose WW2 when faced against two large Industrial Nations.
2. The actions of Hitler were rooted in his irrational psyche. The objectives of Germany in WW2 were not at all realistic. When the leader and in this case the Dictator at the helm himself was an unstable individual it would not be a stretch to assume that many of the strategic decision themselves were irrational. I conceded that German Commanders and the forces were top notch and made brilliant tactical decisions in many cases but they were let down by faulty leadership at the top.
3. The world today is vastly different. There is much greater connectivity of economies due to globalization of labor forces and exponential improvements in communications and travel. It would be a folly to think that the things will play out the same way as in the 30s and 40s.
I was there when the Berlin Wall came down. All of us in the squadron room served time in Europe at one time or another, and some of us, myself include, actually been to East Berlin when it existed. We were in semi shock watching the news showing people clambering over the wall from either side. The only things muttered by anyone in that room were profanities as expressions of disbelief.
Later that week, our squadron CO had a lunch mini meeting, officers and enlisted, out in the BBQ area to inform some who did not saw the news and to open the subject for discussion as he believed the next few yrs will have direct effects on the US military in general. Speculations ranged from war including up to nuclear as the Kremlin struggles to keep the Soviet empire together to civil war inside Russia, to global peace as the Earthlings finally learned that democracy and capitalism was right all along, and everyone would eventually hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' in the spirit of brotherly love.
I, our CO who was of Cuban descent, and a few others were of the minority view that while open war between Russia and the ideological victors would not occur, the world will not change at all. There would be no evolution into higher consciousness. When a country was proved wrong and a failure, those who were in charge of that failed country, as history so amply have, do not fall to their knees and repent of their sins. They either fight to preserve their status in that country or they flee and the country they once ruled fell into civil war.
The equivalents of your argument were there, that most believed that our world, our generation, is different than that of our ancestors'. Knowledge travels faster and wider. Economies are more interrelated. Human rights, or our version of them, are often copied.
Did the world really changed ?
I agree with the later half of your assessment. One thing though should be noted that there is no grand design which China is pursuing at this stage. The current happenings are merely testing of waters and gaging the strength and will of the adversary. This is a precursor to over-arching strategy.
I disagree. China does have a grand design and strategies to execute that design.
Under the school of realism, contestant major powers are restrained by borders, populations, and economies. The last two items, population and economy, are, and have always been, strong indicators of latent power, which translate to potential power, which finally manifest into physical power.
The goal of every state is survival and every state have a calculus of its odds of survival inside the system that it is membered. If a state believes, however it came to that conclusion, that its odds of survival is low, it must subject itself to a superior power for protection and a higher assurance of survival. Of course, there are political consequences to that alliance. That mean every state inside the system must either strive to be powerful enough to deter aggression or if possible achieve breakout status into a great power and hopefully a hegemon. Thousands of yrs of human history proved this to be true over and over.
The US was not constrained by borders, had a growing population, and given the vast continental territory still economically unexplored, the US had virtually no obstacles to becoming a hegemon in the North American system. Today, about %80 of Canadians lives with 3-4 hrs drive to the US-Canada border. Why not the rest of Canada not developed like the US ? Simply put -- too damn cold. Mexico was constrained by its own geography, developmental issues, and lesser population. In other words, the US was destined to become a system hegemon without having to contest anyone else for that status.
China have two out three. She shares borders with 14 other countries and unlike the US that is protected by the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the water that bordered her failed to protect her from Imperial JPN. Water is a powerful protector. Look at how 100 miles of water deterred Nazi Germany from an invasion of England. But if there is a determined foe, that protection can be defeated. Everyone know that if the US wanted, the Cuban Missile Crisis could have resulted in a bloody invasion with most of the blood from the Cubans. Similar for an invasion of Taiwan with China the inevitable victor.
That leave population and latent economic wealth as how China could break out of being a mere member of a system, into a major power which she already is, into a great power which she is already on that road, and eventually into a system hegemon. Being a hegemon is the most assured state of survival so why would China
NOT exploit that opening ? Probes of other contestants' will and capabilities are components of that calculus.
China does have a grand design for herself and for Asia.