Your examples seem to be rather flawed analogies.
SolkaTruesilver wrote:Thirty years ago, not many people would see China anywhere close to being a real economic power either, USSR had lasted for sixty years and would probably last another sixty at that rate.
IDK, Ever since Korea and later Viet Nam I don't think anybody underestimated China's manufacturing capabilities.
SolkaTruesilver wrote:Fifty years ago, few would consider Japan to ever have a real competitive modern economy.
Bad example - Japan's economy changed into what it is today as a direct and unmistakeable result of the U.S.' verbiage in the post-war Japanese constitution.
SolkaTruesilver wrote:Seventy years ago, Nazi Germany was heralded as the center of the world's geopolitics.
Yes, because 70 years ago it was.
What is this supposed to mean?
SolkaTruesilver wrote:Ninety years ago, Germany had been effectively bottled up, europe was in ruins. No one expected German to be a real danger to peace again.
Bullshit. Anyone could have expected Germany to do exactly what it did after the Treaty of Versailles. Several people even warned of that specific danger before the treaty was enacted.
SolkaTruesilver wrote:Hundred and ten years ago, the UK was the indisputable ruler of the world's economy
The decline of imperial colonialism was a step in the world's development, not a sea-change applying to one nation. Even so, now the U.K.o.G.B.a.N.I. has some competition. So?
SolkaTruesilver wrote:European economies were heavily reliant upon each other
And... they're not now? Don't be ludicrous. That trend has strengthened, not diminished.
SolkaTruesilver wrote:people expected that war would be too devastating for the involved parties to be considered.
Well, the wars did come, but in both cases those expectations were proved to be true in large part. Further, the U.S.' involvement both times was both integral and not included in the predictions of which you speak.
All in all, I fail to see how any of these examples speak to the point.