Racism is a big part of it. Every race thinks they are superior and somehow other people are stupid, orks, apes, subhumans etc.

When wars break out though it generally turns out that people are equally capable of killing each other and logistics is what makes or breaks any prolonged conflict. Technology helps as a force multiplier but it won’t save you if the logistics break down and you run low on ammo or manpower.

Yeah, every group is racist, mostly to the same degree I think...but, I can only talk with certainty about the places I've lived, as I'm only a member of one group, and I've only lived more than a year in a few places, so I don't really know outside of that: degrees could indeed be different, I guess in the ones I don't know. In my limited experience of Earth so far, I've seen racism expressed differently by different groups, but every group is racist indeed.

I wonder if this the press angle we were talking about is historically consistent? As in, pre WWI and WWII, did what would become allied powers have press that downplayed the ability of axis powers to fight? And vice versa?

I know once things got started it was like there was racist propaganda, but I'm not sure about prior. Based on our discussion I'd say: probably. But I don't know.

It's weird, it's sort of like perhaps the "silver lining" of negative racism from a recipient's point of view: you are chronically underestimated. This in turn gives you the advantage that any opponents you may have are chronically unprepared.

I like your point about: generally turns out that people are equally capable of killing each other and logistics is what makes or breaks any prolonged conflict seems very salient and succinct and accurate.

One thing I wonder about tho (and we are likely getting way off topic here, so I apologize for that!), is how does this factor into occupation / unconventional warfare?

I can't seem to reconcile right now the ideas that the US has the most advanced and powerful military on Earth, with the fact that is has failed (at least it seems to have failed, but I'm not an expert) in its last few unconventional conflicts. One reason I find this hard to reconcile is because I would think that logistics, people and ammo were abundant in Vietnam, and the Middle East, yet...victory was elusive, and certainly not decisive.

I suppose the technology caveat you mention breaks down when you have "step change" technology, like nuclear weapons, or a UFO breakthrough or whatever. But I suppose the advantage of that is reduced to the extent that it's evenly distributed. The bigger the step, the easier it is, I guess, to prevent that distribution. Nukes? Relatively easy to prevent getting into the hands of everybody. Guns? Not so much.

Anyway, way off topic, so yeah. Any interesting resources you recommend to know more about this stuff?