A Short Geostrategic History of Christendom

A Short Geostrategic History of Christendom

Lev Navrozov
Friday, Feb. 7, 2003

Before the 20th century, the Western and Russian statesmen did not have to be intelligent — for about four centuries the West and Russia had firearms and later machine firearms and “colonized” the countries that had no machine firearms or no firearms at all.

But by the end of the 19th century, Germany became as powerful as England, but this happened after England had conquered, due to firearms and machine firearms, territories exceeding her own almost 100 times. Russia, once a tiny Muscovy, had expanded to one-sixth of the world’s land.

No Western or Russian statesmen were sufficiently intelligent to settle peacefully the argument between Imperialism (a good word in Britain) and the German grudge of a latecomer to the “division of the world.” Instead, the Western and Russian statesmen let their countries be drawn into what they named the First World War. This is a misnomer. It was a Western and Russian, not world, war, and it started like a drunken brawl in a saloon.

This Western and Russian slaughter had two consequences: the semi-constitutional monarchy of Russia under which Chekhov, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky flourished, and the constitutional monarchy of Germany, where the Jew Einstein held the most prestigious scientific posts, were replaced by ruthless absolutist dictatorships. A Western and Russian slaughter recurred, but even more ominously than a quarter of a century earlier.

Hitler followed Gen. (and Professor) Haushofer’s plan: to seize Russia and use its resources to create global armed forces superior to those of the English-speaking countries.

Before 1938 the statesmen in power in the democratic West mistook Hitler for an energetic peaceful German statesman, and after 1938 they mistook his invasion of Poland for the beginning of the attack on Britain and France. Hitler was actually compelled by them to blitz France and bomb England while preparing for the invasion of Russia as per Haushofer.

Roosevelt admired Stalin even before the war, in the 1930s, but during the war, Stalin was all but worshiped by the statesmen of the democratic West.

At the end of the war, some members of British Parliament voiced the suspicion that Stalin was converting the East-European countries into his satrapies. Prime Minister Churchill rose and said that it was beneath his dignity even to refute or discuss such evil allegations against “Marshal Stalin,” a man of honor.

The United Nations was created by Roosevelt, Churchill, and their honorable friend Stalin, with Stalin’s Russia playing a major role in this organization called upon to establish and preserve a new world without tyranny and war.

As absurdly, Stalin began to be accused by President Truman c. 1947 of the intention to attack the West. “The Russians are coming!”

This was absurd because between 1945 and 1949 the United States had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, and Stalin was shaking in his Red Army boots. Stalin’s Russia could be nuked by the United States without any Soviet possibility to retaliate in kind.

By 1963 Soviet Russia had adequate means of nuclear retaliation, and do you know what President Kennedy discovered in mid-1963? That “the Soviet Union and its allies” were NOT after world domination, contrary to what JFK had been asserting incessantly, adding with theatrical grandiloquence that the Americans would rather die heroically than surrender.

In the early 1970s the owners of Soviet Russia launched their stupendous project of development of post-nuclear superweapons aimed at destroying the Western means of nuclear retaliation, that is, at Soviet world domination.

At this point, Kennedy’s declaration that “the Soviet Union and its allies” are NOT after world domination developed into the honest-to-goodness Western friendship with a country that had been accused from 1947 to mid-1963 of the “quest for world domination.”

The Soviet development of post-nuclear weapons up to 1992, when Yeltsin opened the Soviet mammoth countrywide project to international inspection, was either denied or ignored.

Ironically, the war against North Vietnam was initially glorified (in particular, by that same Kennedy) as a battle for freedom against communism. Actually, it was a war not so much with North Vietnam as with Soviet Russia, which supplied everything necessary for the war, while North Vietnam supplied just the guerilla cannon fodder. But this Soviet war against the United States was politely unnoticed.

The war cost about 50,000 American lives, but today Vietnam, that is, North Vietnam, which conquered South Vietnam, is not even mentioned by any nationally visible or audible Americans as a tyranny.

Clinton Loves China, Bombs Yugoslavia

A similar pattern has been in evidence with respect to China. When China was weak, it was denounced as an inhuman and dangerous tyranny, just as Iraq is today. But in the middle of the 1990s, then-President Bill Clinton became the best friend of China, nay, a kind of Sino-American official.

On the other hand, how earnestly he and NATO bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days until Milosevic surrendered!

At his press conference on the eve of the bombing, Clinton had argued that Yugoslavia endangered the world! Why? The terrorist “Kosovo Liberation Army” had dressed their 45 fallen comrades-in-arms (or comrades-in-terrorism) in civilian clothes, and said that these were Albanian civilians who had been shot on Milosevic’s order.

Clinton would have burst into tears, as he described “the shooting that never was,” but his histrionic rage at Milosevic, “the new Hitler,” was stronger than his histrionic compassion for the new Hitler’s 45 victims.

It has to be admitted that many Western statesmen in the past century were ham actors. Their stupidity or insolence was accompanied by cheap histrionics in the style of shysters, whose theatricals substitute legal evidence.

This geostrategic history of the West and Russia in the past century is necessary to understand that nothing new is being added to it in the 21st century.

In all Western discussions of the world danger today, the latter has been said to be presented by the anthrax and other bioagents and chemicals that the United States gave to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s for the war against the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran and which he had not allegedly destroyed.

The word “China” has been pronounced, as far as I know, only once, when a U.S. senator said that the military budget of the U.S.A. is larger than that of China.

Actually, the owners of China can spend unlimited funds on military purposes without classifying them as part of the military budget. The “military budget” of Soviet Russia was smaller than that of the U.S.A., but Soviet Russia produced in the peak year 5,000 times more anthrax than did the U.S.A., in its peak year (4,500 tons against 0.9 ton).

Hence the puny quantities of anthrax that the United States could give Iraq. Yet it is claimed by the most militant U.S. politicians that Iraq has 25 tons of anthrax. About 27 years of U.S. production at its peak? Anyway, Soviet Russia produced up to 4,500 tons a year, and as much is possibly produced by China — in addition to its nuclear arsenal, which began to grow in 1964.

Even if it is true that Iraq conceals 25 tons of anthrax, this is a puny quantity compared with the former Soviet, possible future Russian or Chinese output. But one U.S. senator has found an image, admired by many of his colleagues. You see, 25 tons of anthrax are 20 million teaspoons of it! That is, 20 million Americans may be poisoned! This is what Iraq can do.

Well, no matter how small, a country may have enough rat poison to teaspoon it into the mouths of all Americans, provided they all open their mouths, wait for the rat poison to be teaspooned into them, and then duly swallow it.

Speaking of more aggressive terrorism than the teaspooning of a poison, terrorists can get anthrax from thousands of sources, just as Iraq acquired it from the United States in the 1980s. But suicidal terrorists like to explode, not poison, themselves.

Perhaps the future suicidal terrorists would explode themselves with nuclear bombs, and here the sources are many and plentiful, but Iraq is not among them, even according to the CIA.

As for Russia or China, Soviet Russia produced 4,500 tons of anthrax in the peak year not to replace its nuclear arsenal with anthrax, but to destroy the Western means of nuclear retaliation.

Finally, it is clear why no Mark Twain has appeared in the 20th or 21st century. What Western statesmen have been saying in the field of geostrategy is so funny that who is going to read any humorist ridiculing them? They are Mark Twains without trying to be one — Mark Twains in spite of themselves.

* * *

Until recently, my NewsMax.com columns were accompanied by my proposal to publishers to send them by slow-mail the 130-page beginning of my book, “Out of Moscow and Into New York: A Life in the Geostrategically Lobotomized West in the Age of Terrorism and Post-Nuclear Superweapons.” Though the proposal was addressed to publishers, hundreds of readers sent me e-mails expressing their appreciation of my columns and requesting that I send them my book, or at least the beginning of it. I have decided to meet their wishes by posting on my website my book in weekly installments. Those interested, please let me know (navlev@cloud9.net) and you will be informed by e-mail as to the link to my Web site.