|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Soviet and Chinese 'Sturm und Drang' for World Domination Lev Navrozov Following the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, the Western countries came to call themselves "developed" and others "backward" (and later, more politely, "undeveloped"). This traditional Western development was spontaneous: Farmers wanted running water for their homes and tractors for their work in the fields; businessmen, their factory equipment and transport; specialists, their instrumentation; private urban dwellers, their conveniences and their cars, etc. A traditional Western country's defense has been based on this "economic development," and today's Western articles about the military power of China assume that it has to be also based on general overall "economic development." Take, for example, the Washington Times article of June 29, 2005, by David R. Sands, "Military strategy [of China] ‘defensive,' envoy insists." In conclusion, the anonymous envoy cinches up his argument: Because our people's [all people's!] standard of living has been going up so quickly [that is what the Soviet propaganda began to say about "the Soviet people" way back in the 1930s], much of our defense spending has been devoted simply to making sure our soldiers have a parallel level of income. Your own defense experts said it would be at least 25 years before China could catch up with the U.S. military.You see? The Chinese soldiers' income (!) is not as high as "the people's standard of living"! It would be at least 25 years before she is as "developed" as the U.S. There has been one case in the United States when a weapon was produced outside and beyond the country's general development, and that weapon was ultimately more important than the rest of the country's weapons put together. I mean the nuclear Manhattan Project, which began because the U.S. government learned from Albert Einstein's letter of 1939 that Germany was evidently trying to produce nuclear weapons and because Hitler declared war on the United States in 1941. But though we knew from the Chinese press that the dictators of China founded in 1986 Project 863 to develop post-nuclear superweapons in seven (!) fields (Sturm und Drang!), even the possibility of such an event in China is never mentioned publicly in the West. China is to ensure first a "parallel income" for its soldiers and "develop" in general for at least 25 years. However, today we have a clear retrospective view of Stalin's "Sturm und Drang." No, Stalin was not worried about the medieval poverty of his soldiers. Even after his death, when I was (as an officer in training) in a Soviet soldiers' summer camp, I saw that the Soviet soldiers were as pauperized as serf soldiers in Russia centuries ago. A soldier did not have even a plank bed of his own. A dozen soldiers slept on one wooden platform in a tarpaulin tent. Are we to believe that while the Soviet dictators, from Lenin to Gorbachev (worshiping Lenin), were egotists putting their own interests above anyone else's, the Chinese dictators (using torture openly!) are altruists setting the interests of their subjects (or state slaves) above their own? Story Continues Below
What were Stalin's own interests? The preservation of his absolute power, which necessitated the conquest of the West, whose independent existence was subversive. Indeed, in 1991, the Soviet dictatorship collapsed, since the population waited for miracles from what it mythologized as "democracy." Stalin wanted the maximum military might to deal first with Europe and then with the United States. When Stalin died in 1953 and for decades later, most inhabitants of Russia had no running water (in the countryside they used village wells, just as centuries ago). On the other hand, the Far Eastern and Siberian troops that met German troops at Moscow in December 1941 had better weapons, and after Hitler personally stopped the stampede of his troops, he said that the war had been lost, and, indeed, the next summer saw the debacle of the German army at Stalingrad. Thus, Stalin's Russia was, as of December 1941, a developed country as far as its weapons were concerned, and as poor and backward otherwise as it was centuries ago. In the early 1970s as we left Russia, and 20 years later, a Moscow family usually had only one room to live in. The apartment buildings built before 1917 had all conveniences, but in the 1970s and 1980s, two, three, four or five families shared a kitchen or took turns washing. No country threatened Russia. She was protected by Mutual Assured Destruction. Her dictators' nuclear arsenal was not inferior to its U.S. counterpart. But what did they do? Sturm und Drang! They launched the development of post-nuclear superweapons to circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction and have the world at their mercy. Neither the New York Times nor the CIA believed me when I brought the news in 1972. But in 1992 the newly elected President Yeltsin opened the bioweapons section of the huge Soviet archipelago of development of post-nuclear superweapons. As a result, in 1996 (that is, 24 years after I told the news to the New York Times Magazine editor), Judith Miller, a correspondent for the New York Times (the same who was sensationalized in 2005) and William Broad, its science writer, reported the news: The Soviet giant bioweapons section of the Soviet development of post-nuclear superweapons (never mentioned in the New York Times before 1992) had employed 70,000 scientists and engineers, in addition to who knows how many auxiliary personnel without degrees. The Soviet "germ empire" had spread all over the country, in and near "scores of cities," and including the biggest island in the Aral Sea. It is now [in 1996!] known that the Soviet Union built the most pestilential germ arsenal of all time. At the peak of Soviet activity [that is, prior to 1992], Russian and Western experts say, germ scientists at scores of sites studied some 50 agents and prepared a dozen or so for war. Bombers and intercontinental missiles were ready to disseminate hundreds of tons of smallpox, plague and anthrax, enough to wipe out entire nations.In 1991 the Soviet dictatorship had collapsed (for how long?) and the West was saved (if only for a while). But what the New York Times reported above was a belated truth told by Yeltsin with a lot of evidence. Are we to believe that the Soviet (pre-1991) dictators were cunning enough to dupe the West for 20 years while the dictators of China, who carry on the Soviet Sturm und Drang in the development of post-nuclear superweapons, are guileless dear Western friends concerned only about the happiness of their beloved subjects? Above I quoted a U.S. article about China and perhaps it is proper to end with another such article: "Chinese revolution turns hi-tech," by Spencer Kelly in BBC News of Jan. 6, 2006. Kelly calls Mao's seizure of power in 1949, with Stalin's help, the Chinese Revolution and quips (oh, how wittily) that it "turns hi-tech." He ends his cheerful article cheerfully: China has the size, and it is showing signs of determination to spread its influence beyond its borders. At the dawn of a new century, there is a new kid on the block.What big country does not "show signs of determination to spread its influence beyond its borders"? The radio stations of the United States or Britain have been broadcasting in Russian and other languages for over half a century! And look at that boyish, cheerful remark about a "new kid on the block"! One hopes that thousands of such prattlers will remain as boyish and cheerful when the Chinese post-nuclear superweapons begin to convert their empty heads into atoms. The link to my website is www.levnavrozov.com. Editor's note:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |