In Hitler’s biography published in the United States, we read that in World War I “Hitler proved an able courageous soldier.” The book then lists his awards, including the one that was not usually presented to his rank. Hitler (a German-Austrian) loved war as some individuals love other dramatic deviations from their peaceful lives.
Let us now recall Arthur Neville Chamberlain, who became prime minister of Britain in 1937. In the two years that followed, Chamberlain’s government became associated with what later was called “appeasement.” Chamberlain believed (quite correctly, in my opinion) that Germany was mistreated after World War I: It was virtually disarmed, despite a powerful, aggressive totalitarian eastern neighbor, led (or owned?) by the infinitely ruthless Stalin.
Chamberlain was supported by Lord Halifax, who became Chamberlain’s Foreign Secretary in 1938. At that time, only the communists in Stalin’s Russia, following Marx, spoke about the “communist world” and about Hitler’s ban on the German Communist Party, having confined its leaders to the German concentration camps.
To suppose that Hitler, a National Socialist and a German-Austrian, could be as ruthless as Stalin, a Russian-Georgian, was too much for Chamberlain, who died in 1940. It was only after Hitler lost his war in Stalin’s Russia and committed suicide that those who worried about the policy of appeasement could stop worrying. But what if Hitler had successfully continued his conquest of Western Europe (including Britain) instead of rushing into Russia?
What about appeasement of the country whose original owner, Mao, created The People’s Republic of China? Surely before that the “republic” had belonged to the “parasites”—capitalists (bourgeoisie), but now the ownership of the country was spelled out in its name!
On June 10, 2010, I received an e-mail from Nelson L. It is enough to quote just the first paragraph from it:
I now realize why you are so afraid of China. It’s not for the United States sake, but for your Motherland . . . Russia! You want America to defeat the Chinese for the sake of Russia.
About 40 years ago, my wife, our son, my mother and I had an accidental lucky opportunity to emigrate from Soviet Russia, which had no freedom and could be defined as a country-size prison.
To break the stereotype of Russian paupers rushing to the United States to become rich, let me tell Nelson L. that in Russia I made enough money, translating Russian literary classics into English, to buy a three-storied villa, while since our arrival in New York, we have been living for 40 years in a “modest apartment” and never even thought of changing it for anything more impressive.
I rejected all business ventures (like the one proposed to me to acquire a translation company in New York City). Instead I was lecturing all over the world and have been writing a weekly column with a message to save the free world from being annihilated by totalitarian countries.
In his e-mail, Nelson L. claims that I use China to scare the Americans so that the United States would defeat the Chinese for the sake of “my” Russia! Actually, hundreds of political and military analysts like me living in the democratic West have been criticizing China, since they believe that the post-1989 China has been preparing for World War III.
No global political or military analyst can be totally silent about the post-1989 China. Since I am a political analyst and my study appears every week, I am attacking Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany, though they existed only in the past.
Post-1949 China attracted the world attention in 1989 by a project connected with the Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Citizens of the democratic West are free to declare that the government in their country is not quite democratically elected. But in the People’s Republic of China, such an opinion is not within the freedom of speech.
Recently it was announced in the United States that the last still alive eleven participants in the Tiananmen Square protests were shot.
In the democratic West, freedom of speech is a citizen’s legal right.
In the People’s Republic of China, freedom of speech is a bureaucratic permission given by the ruling bureaucracy. Such a bureaucracy ruled thousands of years ago (in China, for example).
The history of mankind has been largely centered around gang wars. Naturally, quite a few people are alike or think they are alike; hence, they need power for themselves, not freedom for all. If they have collected a majority of sameness versus numberless minorities or unique individuals whom they may think to be useless to them, they become the absolutist rulers, or owners, of countries.
The historic task of development of freedom is to make it necessary or desirable and available for individuals, which may not even constitute a majority.
The more powerful is the gang in absolute power, the more it is determined to defend its absolute power by fighting whatever and whoever in the world seems to resist its absolute power.
The safest, surest way for the power gang to preserve its power is to own not only its domain of absolute power, but the entire world, and this is becoming more and more possible technologically.
What has so far been the reaction of the free world?
The free world has not yet been united to resist any power gang with an obvious global view. The picturesque economic and financial dependence of the United States on the People’s Republic of China undermines the world status of the United States as the leading country in the advance of global freedom.
Lev Navrozov can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.