Historical parallels: The Nazis' geostrategic threat, and China's

See the Lev Navrozov Archive

By Lev Navrozov

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.
Lev Navrozov

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Hitler came to power in 1933. In the Daily Express of Sept. 16, 1936, Lloyd George (whom my Britannica calls “one of the most brilliant statesmen in British history” and who was certainly not an ultra conservative sympathizer of Hitler, but an honest-to-goodness liberal) wrote that Hitler had “a single-minded purpose.” What was it? Peace. “With Hitler at the help, Germany would never invade any other land.” In a letter a year later, Lloyd George went further: “I only wish we had a man of his [Hitler’s] supreme quality at the head of affairs in our country.”

Hitler wanted in 1938 that part of Czechoslovakia that was inhabited by Germans. That was interpreted as has been the seizure of Tibet by the Chinese dictator: Hitler loves so much his people that he cannot stand their living outside their native country. In return, Hitler promised peace as per Lloyd George, and the car of Chamberlain, the British prime minister who had talked with Hitler and brought back the “peace in our time,” moved in London through a human sea of the jubilant British people, though the majority of the population of all Western countries (except that of Czechoslovakia) could well join them to celebrate in particular Hitler as a great peacemaker “in our time.”

Here a reader may say: “I know the rest of the history of mankind: Hitler continued to pose as a great peacemaker, but his atom bomb project did very well already in 1938. Then he would throw a couple of atom bombs on the United States, which would surrender unconditionally (as Japan did in 1945), along with all the other countries of the world. The German dictator would turn into slaves those who could be useful as such and would annihilate the rest of the conquered population.”

The end of history as we know it?

If the Pentagon had been able not only to play with “the good old arms,” but also to understand that even the most advanced weaponry may become at a single creative stroke in science as obsolete as swords or bows and arrows did upon the advent of firearms—then the Pentagon would have applied in 1939 to the Government with a memo concerning a new likely superweapon, being developed in Hitler’s Germany. Actually, the Pentagon did not respond even when on March 16, 1939, a letter was sent (oh, those Jewish ÈmigrÈs, disturbing important officials!) to the Navy, requesting an appointment with Fermi (a Nobel Prize–winner for 1938, and not a Jew, but an honest-to-goodness Gentile!) to explain the possibility of the atom bomb. Result? Zero.

Unlike his colleagues involved in the nuclear project in Germany and unlike his American-born colleagues in the United States, the Jewish ÈmigrÈ Szilard was convinced that the atomic bomb was nigh, and the only question was which side would obtain it first. With the Jewish ÈmigrÈ Wigner, he persuaded Einstein, whom they had known in Berlin and who was now a world celebrity, to appeal directly to Roosevelt. On Aug. 2, 1939, Einstein’s letter went to Roosevelt. No response.

The ÈmigrÈs then found a White House insider, an “unofficial presidential adviser,” Alexander Sachs, who persuaded Roosevelt to take notice of Einstein’s letter two months after its receipt. In an impeccable bureaucratic style, Roosevelt set up a three-man committee to look into the matter, and over the next eight months a grand total of $6,000 ($778 a month) was made available for the development of the weapon that was to decide the destiny of the world.

In 1939, Hitler invaded Poland, and Britain and France, bound by agreements with Poland, had to declare war on Germany.

When Roosevelt campaigned in 1940 for his third term in office he pledged that he would keep the United States “out of foreign war.” You see? The defense against Hitler’s war for world domination was “foreign war.” But on Dec. 11, 1941, Germany (and Italy) declared war on the United States. So in 1942 Hitler was at war with the United States, and Roosevelt was obliged to launch the Manhattan Project in all earnest.

In his memoir published in 1962, Brigadier General Leslie Groves, who was put in charge of the Manhattan Project in September 1942, writes: “My initial reaction [even in September 1942!] was one of extreme disappointment.” Edward Teller was a Hungarian Jew, who became a German scientist, then emigrated to the United States. He was involved in the development of the “atom bomb,” and he says in his preface to the American general’s memoir: “For Groves, the Manhattan Project seemed a minor assignment. . . .”

That is, for the U.S. top military, and Groves as a fair sample of it, to be in charge of the most important geostrategic development of weapons since the advent of firearms was a minor assignment, and even in September 1942 Groves was extremely disappointed with it. ÈmigrÈ scientists like Edward Teller had not yet convinced him that should Germany obtain nuclear weapons ahead of the United States, all of the U.S. armed forces, along with the Pentagon and Brigadier Gen. Groves, would become either a radioactive dust or corpses, preserved in alcohol, in Hitler’s personal museum of American military history.

In conclusion, it can be said that the Chinese dictatorship will not repeat Hitler’s mistakes. Yes, the Chinese dictatorship have been laying claims to Taiwan since 1949 as Hitler did to the German population of Czechoslovakia and Poland. But the Chinese dictatorship will not budge unless it is sure that it can grab Taiwan without any serious military resistance of the United States. China’s geostrategy goes back into the Chinese history of assassin’s mace, while Hitler’s geostrategy went nowhere except his own idiocy, which saved the democratic West from annihilation or unconditional surrender.

Lev Navrozov's (] new book is available on-line at To request an outline of the book, send an e-mail to

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Print this Article Print this Article Email this article Email this article Subscribe to this Feature Free Headline Alerts