The unconditional surrender of Western civilization: What a downer

---

See the Lev Navrozov Archive By Lev Navrozov SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.

If Hitler had not grabbed, in 1939, “the rump of Czechoslovakia” and had not invaded Poland, but had concentrated on the “peaceful” development of nuclear weapons, the democratic West would have been annihilated or surrendered unconditionally.

If Gorbachev had not fallen in 1991 and had post-nuclear superweapons, able to destroy the Western means of nuclear retaliation and thus to circumvent the Mutual Assured Destruction, the result would have been the same as in the case of Hitler's monopoly on nuclear weapons.

So, today's danger of annihilation of the West (this time by the Chinese dictators' post-nuclear superweapons) is not something new. How to prevent it? To expect that the “supreme leaders of China” will launch conventional invasions, as did Hitler in 1939, is to forget that Chinese geostrategy goes millennia back, while Hitler's geostrategy depended on his adventurous (and failed) conquest of Russia. To wait for the collapse of the Chinese dictatorship, similar to that of the Soviet dictatorship in 1991? Well, the Chinese dictatorship originated more than thirty years after its Soviet counterpart and hence, statistically speaking, its collapse can be expected only after 2020.

Suppose that in 1938 a Russian writer sent to Stalin his book (printed just in one copy, to serve as a memo) which would predict Hitler's invasion of Russia in 1941 at the latest. Absolutism has great advantages for the ruler: Stalin was the law of the land and could order an immediate restructuring of all Soviet economic and military life on the premise that Hitler would attack Russia not later than 1941. But would Stalin believe the author of any such book?

When Hitler's armed forces were attacking Soviet Russia on the night of June 22, 1941, Stalin's order was not to respnd to the attacks because Stalin was sure that those were just Churchill's provocations.

The fact was that Soviet spies in Britain had informed Stalin that in order to relieve Britain, engaged in one-on-one war with Hitler's Germany, Churchill had been trying to make Hitler believe that Stalin was about to attack Hitler, and to make Stalin believe that Hitler was about to attack Stalin. Churchill expected that as a result of his disinformation, Hitler would attack Stalin and/or Stalin Hitler, and the resulting war between them would relieve Britain.

Stalin's fixation was to outwit Churchill. In his fixation, Stalin did not admit that Hitler could attack Russia not only in order to anticipate (preempt) Stalin's attack, but also in order to obtain Russia's natural resources for the war against the English-speaking countries.

Yes, a dictator has enormous strategic advantages because he is the law of the land. But he may be fixated on a false idea (like Stalin's fixed idea to outwit Churchill) so that no book would help him.

Unfortunately, statesmen of the democratic West are not free from fixations either. Thus, in 1938 all of them (a comical hater of Germans named Churchill had no government post) were fixated on the idea that Hitler was a German patriot who wanted merely to reunify Germans (such as those living in the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia) within a single German state. Today it would be useless for me to send copies of my book to all members of Western governments and legislatures because, with rare exceptions, publicly inaudible and invisible, they have been fixated on the idea that the dictators of China will never annihilate the West with post-nuclear superweapons, just as all statesmen of the democratic West were in 1938 fixated on the idea that Hitler of Germany (or Tojo of Japan) would never launch a war against the democratic West.

The only way to save the West from the annihilation by the Chinese dictators' post-nuclear superweapons or unconditional surrender is not to send copies of my book to Western statesmen, but to publish it at a publishing house able to send 500 copies of the book to 500 major book reviewers in the United States (as did Harper & Row when it published my previous book in 1976) and otherwise to foster publicity throughout the West. The readers will create a public opinion which will compel the Western mainstream media to take up the cause of defense in all earnest and will make all Western governments and legislatures defend the West against the twenty-first century “assassin's mace” of China, that is, a surprise attack which can destroy the enemy without any further fighting and enforce its unconditional surrender.

Many of my NewsMax and WorldTribune readers are convinced that the best publishing houses of the West are scrambling for my book, which the late Saul Bellow declared to be of unique value for saving the West. This is a matter of life or death for the whole civilization! It is true that a prestigious literary agency has been selling my book. So what's the problem?

A publisher told me that my book is unpublishable, for even its title alone may ruin a potential reader's mood for the rest of the day! Nonfiction must teach its readers how to be happier (better health, more money, etc.).

Fiction? In the late 1970s and early 1980s, three prestigious magazines sent me for reviewing those works of fiction that had received the highest praise as outstanding works of literature. In my reviews I contended that their authors (John Updike, Philip Roth, Jerzy Kosinski, William Styron, Irwin Shaw…) had nothing to do with literature. As a result of my reviews, all the three magazines were taken away from their editors by way of reprisals for my reviews.

Who cares about the annihilation of the West? A businessman I know has told me that he agreed with the conclusion of my book — that the annihilation of the West is drawing nigh unless the West wakes up. But why should he be interested or concerned? He would die anyway, and for him, a bachelor, to die with the whole country or with the whole Western civilization is less terrible than to die alone.

As I spoke with a lady editor about my book, I retold her the businessman's reaction to show that I am not so naïve as to expect that no Westerners are indifferent to the annihilation of the West. She told me that when she was a little girl, the Soviets were expected to nuke the United States. She knew nothing about Mutual Assured Destruction, believed literally in the Soviet nuclear attack — and welcomed it. Why?

The greatest fear in her life was that her parents would die before her and would thus leave her alone and needed by no one. Now, the Soviets would kill them all happily together.

Some Americans are totally indifferent to the danger of Chinese annihilation of the United States because they believe in the American (and hence their own) infinite superiority over non-Americans. On June 12, 2005, I received an e-mail from Celina Newland. Since I have been an American for “only” 33 years (my father was Russian and mother Jewish), Celina explains that what I have been writing about China is “very flawed.” “We” will “turn China, if it attacks us, into Hiroshima a million times over.”

On the other hand, here are thousands of e-mails from my Internet readers, expressing their horror at the realistic prospect of annihilation of the West and begging me to continue my warnings. However, since such Americans had been inaudible and invisible until May 2005, the entire population of the United States had seemed to believe that the Chinese dictators' only claim to the outside world was Taiwan, populated in particular by those Chinese who fled to Taiwan after Mao had established his “People's Republic” in the mainland China in 1949. In the case of Czechoslovakia in 1938, there could have been an illusion that the Germans in Czechoslovakia were willing to become part of Hitler's Germany. No such illusion can exist with respect to the Chinese who had fled from Mao's China to Taiwan.

In the United States before May of 2005, those who had refused to believe that the dictators of China were exclusively peaceful were publicly invisible and inaudible. However, in May of 2005, US news magazines began to carry articles like “How We Would Fight China” (the June issue of “The Atlantic Monthly”) or “Pentagon Report to Portray China as Emerging Rival” (Financial Times.com of May 24, 2005).

These articles in US “news magazines” are inept, and I have ridiculed them in my weekly Internet columns. But they are a breach in the hitherto solid wall of Western conformity, refusing to see the military danger of the dictatorship of China. In a while, the press and electronic media may be chockfull of such trashy, but fashionable, articles, books, and programs. Many authors write with terrific speed whatever the market calls for at the moment. However, the publication of my book “on the same subject” also becomes more likely. As I joked in my conversations with editors and publishers before May 2005: “Here's the most unfashionable book that may yet become the most fashionable one, for no how-to will be of any interest to most Westerners except for how to save the West.”

The publication will be the end of the pre-publication efforts and the beginning of the struggle against fashionable worthless publications “on the same subject.” One of my Internet readers, John M. Franse, is sponsoring our radio talk shows. This is good for both the publication of my book and its post-publication publicity.

The rescue of the West is in our hands, and there is no way of saving the West except creating a favorable national American and Western public opinion awake to the present danger.