|
 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.
|
 |
In Churchill’s “History of the English-speaking Countries,” the South-African War of a century ago resembles the current war in Iraq in one sense: a powerful country (Gr. Britain in the former case and the USA in the latter) attempted to establish in small and militarily weak countries (in the case of Gr. Britain—in Transvaal and Orange Free State) a superior socio-political order (British and American, respectively).
How did the British cope with the guerrilla war of the Boers, who did not want the superior British socio-political order but preferred their Boerdom?
Churchill described it thus (page 296): “. . . area by area, every [Boer] man, woman, and child was swept into concentration camps.”
The prisoners were hostages. Let every Boer remember that if he became a guerrilla, his near and dear are in a British concentration camp and anything may happen to them.
“By February 1902 more than twenty thousand of the prisoners, or nearly one in every six, had died, mostly of disease” (p. 296). According to my Britannica of 1970 (vol. 20, p. 989), 16,000 children died in the British concentration camps.
Well, the Boers were defeated within 2-1/2 years, owing to the ruthless “empire builders” like Cecil Rhodes and the boundless possibility to be a “democratic Hitler.”
The war in Iraq continues for almost 4 years, and early in 2007 we learn that the U.S. victory will come, with more troops sent to Iraq. The whole history of the war is a fantastic myth, which Cecil Rhodes would not even understand or would have died of laughter. The war was launched because the U.S.–British intelligence had reported that Saddam Hussein acquired weapons of mass destruction. China, Russia, or the West are allowed to have WMD and nuclear bombs. But Iraq? Never! When the intelligence report turned out to be untrue, it was proper for the United States to apologize, go home, and even pay for the damage caused by the mistake. Instead, it was made to seem that since Hussein was anyway a villain, he was responsible for this mistake of the U.S.–British intelligence services, and the war has been going on for almost four years.
Owing to universal suffrage, the U.S. population is ruled by those elected by its majority. Just, fair, democratic. But this does not mean that every elected U.S. top official or appointed military commander is Pericles, Alexander the Great, or Napoleon—or at least Cecil Rhodes minus his British colonial ruthlessness, impossible in the United States today.
Einstein used to say that he was understood by seven people in the world. Why should or could it be different in government or in the art of war?
Let us see how France defended herself against Hitler’s invasion in 1940. Hitler came to power in 1933. The beauty of aggressive war, the superiority of the German race, destined to rule the world, and other gems of Nietzsche and Wagner, who was also a political anti-Semitic writer, whose operas Hitler could whistle by ear, while Wagner’s political essayism was part of Hitler’s political propaganda.
Nor did anti-Semitism make the country peaceful. Intolerance, hatred, egocentrism can readily turn against any nation with reckless abandon
France was the site of leading world culture for centuries: continental Europe from Russia to Portugal spoke French as their language of culture. What did the French top politicians and military officers learned about Germany from 1933 to 1940?
On the evening of May 12, 1940, the Germans were across the French frontier and overlooking the Meuse. On May 15, General Gamelin, in command of the French troops, informed his government that he “could not guarantee the security of Paris for more than one day.”
French Premier Reynaud hastily began to evacuate his government and then went to the radio to broadcast his denial of the “most absurd rumors that the government is preparing to leave Paris.” Premier Reynaud also dismissed Gamelin and replaced him with Gen. Marxim Weygand but the later was in Syria and did not arrive until May 19.
So, how long did the French defense last? Three, four, five, or seven days? Later the Germans were busy mopping up the French forces, taking prisoners, etc.
Churchill’s expeditionary army in France was the wisest: it began running home well before the Nazis had approached and thus escaped safely across the British Channel, which is still celebrated in Britain as a brilliant military victory.
To develop military forces, matching the Anglo-American military power, Hitler needed enough raw materials that he could get only by conquering Russia. That saved Britain, and possibly the entire democratic West from Hitler’s world conquest.
So Hitler invaded Russia and lost the war. Thus, Stalin, a tyrant no less ruthless than Hitler, saved the democratic West, and when the British parliament was discussing Stalin’s seizure of Eastern Europe, Prime Minister Churchill stood up and said that he would not permit to slander in his presence Stalin whom Churchill described in the spirit of Stalin’s propaganda.
A result of WW2 was the collapse of all colonial empires, including the British Empire, whose territory exceeded that of England more than 90 times, and its renaming (“Commonwealth”) did not help. The only remaining empire is China, but in the past decade, the democratic West has paid no more attention to “the China threat” than it did to the threat of Germany between 1933 and 1940.
Lev Navrozov's (navlev@cloud9.net] new book is available on-line at www.levnavrozov.com. To request an outline of the book, send an e-mail to webmaster@levnavrozov.com.