If that is the case, then we must vote in Chen Show Mao into
parliament so that he can bite Harry Lee Kuan Yew.
Set them both against each other and we can reap the rewards,
like how the british supported Hitler against the Soviets and want
to set them against one another.
This is call "sitting on top of the mountain to watch the tigers
fight."
Question: Some people do not realize yet
that the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty is the
result of the breakdown of the Anglo-French-Soviet
talks, but think that the Soviet-German
treaty caused the breakdown. Will you please explain why the
Anglo-French-Soviet talks failed?
Mao Zedong: The talks failed purely because
the British and French governments were insincere. In recent years
the reactionary international bourgeoisie, and primarily that of
Britain and France, have consistently pursued the reactionary
policy of "non-intervention" towards aggression by fascist Germany,
Italy and Japan.
Their purpose is
to connive at wars of aggression and to profit by
them. Thus Britain and France flatly rejected the
Soviet Union's repeated proposals for a genuine front against
aggression; standing on the side-lines, they took a
"non-interventionist" position and connived at German, Italian and
Japanese aggression. Their
aim was to step forward and intervene when the belligerents had
worn each other out. In pursuit of this
reactionary policy they sacrificed half of China to Japan, and the
whole of Abyssinia, Spain, Austria and Czechoslovakia to Italy and
Germany.
Then they wanted to sacrifice the Soviet Union.
This plot was clearly revealed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet
talks. They lasted for more than four months, from April 15 to
August 23, during which the Soviet Union exercised the utmost
patience.
But, from start to finish, Britain and France rejected the
principle of equality and reciprocity; they demanded that the
Soviet Union provide safeguards for their security, but refused to
do likewise for the Soviet Union and the small Baltic states,
so as to leave a gap through which Germany could attack,
and they also refused to allow the passage of Soviet troops through
Poland to fight the aggressor.
That is why the talks broke down. In the meantime, Germany
indicated her willingness to stop her activities against the Soviet
Union and abandon the so-called Agreement Against the Communist
International and recognized the inviolability of the Soviet
frontiers; hence the conclusion of the Soviet-German non-aggression
treaty. The
policy of "non-intervention" pursued by international and primarily
Anglo-French reaction is a policy of "sitting on top of the
mountain to watch the tigers fight", a downright imperialist policy
of profiting at others' expense.
This policy was initiated when Chamberlain took office, reached its
climax in the Munich agreement of September last year and finally
collapsed in the recent Anglo-French-Soviet talks. From now on the
situation will inevitably develop into one of direct conflict
between the two big imperialist blocs, the Anglo-French bloc and
the German-Italian bloc. As I said in October 1938 at the Sixth
Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of our Party,
"The inevitable result of Chamberlain's policy
will be like 'lifting a rock only to drop it on one's own
toes'."
Chamberlain started with the aim of injuring
others only to end up by ruining himself. This is the law of
development which governs all reactionary
policies.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_17.htm
Chamberlain
started with the aim of injuring others only to end up by ruining
himself. This is the law of development which governs all
reactionary policies.
This
event of March 1936, by which Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland,
was the most crucial event in the whole history of
appeasement.
So long as the territory west of the Rhine and a strip fifty
kilometers wide on the east bank of the river were demilitarized,
as provided in the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pacts,
Hitler would never have dared to move against Austria,
Czechoslovakia, and Poland.
He would not have dared because, with western Germany unfortified
and denuded of German soldiers, France could have easily driven
into the Ruhr industrial area and crippled Germany so that it would
be impossible to go eastward.
And by this date, certain
members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative
government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two
birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one
another in Eastern Europe.
In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one
another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of
Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine.
It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany
and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the
West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany
and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism.
In order to carry out this plan
of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was
necessary to do three things:
(1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and
Russia;
(2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these
countries; and
(3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a
necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international
problem.
The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these
things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only
because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of
Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group
realized the implications of their policy and tried to reverse
it...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53130853/Carroll-Quigley-The-Anglo-American-Establishment-1981
