Response to a critic who doesn’t see China’s military growth as dangerous.
Lev Navrozov emigrated from the USSR in 1972. To learn more about Mr. Navrozov’s work with the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, click here.
We express our indignation on finding out that “China is building 3 aircraft carriers.” But we keep silent or express our appreciation of U.S. aircraft carriers!
Exactly! Because China is a totalitarian country, in which an autocrat or an autocracy rule the country and may try to seize the world. Recall how free are the U.S. radio, television, social media, and the press!
But here is one criticism from someone who prefers not to reveal his identity and who poses as a great expert in world politics. He (she?) argues that China is a pathetic weakling, absolutely unfit to play any serious role in world politics.
The author of the above opinion submits that for China to maintain a “massive army” is impossible for two reasons: “Reason 1: It cannot feed a military this large. Reason 2: Said army would have to be marched out to die or, being armed, would overthrow the Peking regime.”
As for Reason 1, if China feeds its 1.4 billion people now, it is not clear why it cannot feed 1 billion soldiers who, apart from their military training, are also engaged in civilian work.
As for Reason 2, the anonymous critic explains that “said army would have to be marched out to die [why not kill and capture enemies?—LN] or being armed would overthrow the Peking regime.”
Well, even one division can physically overthrow the government. But which government was overthrown during WWII? Even Hitler was not as much as touched after he had been routed in Russia and driven out of the country.
The anonymous critic goes on to say that his/her “own war game scenarios prove that China would not survive past a 30-day war due to population requirements.”
Russia survived the four years of war against Germany and won it. The Russian food was rationed rye bread. Hitler fled and committed suicide.
The critic’s war game scenarios are figments of his/her imagination, and since the aim is to prove that China is a country unfit for war, the critic invents an imaginary 30-day war, after which the population of China is to die out of hunger [while Russia sustained and survived four years of war! — L.N.].
I was shocked by the following discovery in the last paragraph of the critic’s letter: “The Chinese make misjudgments due to uninformed Western intelligence, making incorrect judgments.”
So, one may ask, how has China managed to survive on its own in the millennia of its history?
Curiously, in 2009, I had a similar experience, but in reverse! Published in 2009 by the Penguin Press in New York was Martin Jacques’ 550-page book.
Set in one-inch high bold type on the front cover of the book’s jacket is the title: WHEN CHINA RULES THE WORLD, with subtitle highlighted in red and set in smaller type: THE END OF THE WESTERN WORLD AND THE BIRTH OF A NEW GLOBAL ORDER.
That is, as compared with China, Western Europe and the United States become the least militarily powerful countries. Now, the book claims, it is China’s turn to rule the world.
The conclusions suggested by both preachers are the same: no war against China. One proclaims China is too weak. The other argues that China is too powerful.
I wrote a column criticizing Jacques’ book and was told that I was believed to have ruined his reputation as a career historian and journalist.
But one has to make a choice when choosing a career. The choice should be motivated by one’s will to preserve the free countries, to one of which I and my family have emigrated to help this country to save its freedom.
The last sentence of the anonymous critic’s effort to say all the ugly words about a nation is perhaps the most denigrating: “It all works out best for the Chicom if someone else does the thinking for them as their entire history [demonstrates — L.N.] they have never proven capable of sound thought.”
Not capable of sound thought?! And what about four great inventions of ancient China: papermaking, printing, gunpowder (and hence firearms), and the compass, among others? Nonetheless the said critic tries to assure us that the Chinese “have never proven capable of sound thought.”
Says the critic in the middle of the sentence “destroying” China: “China is its own worst enemy. It has no food, no water…” Americans are shocked when they hear that the United States owes China 14 trillion dollars, while the critic amazes the world by declaring that China “has no food, no water…” Perhaps the critic has confused China with Sahara?
So, what’s the moral? Beware of the critics like those two I have brought to your attention.