Lev Navrozov
Friday, Nov. 20, 2002

Elected heads of governments are today's only alternative to Stalin, Hitler and Mao. In this sense, we must be grateful to elections even if a fool or an ignoramus is elected. However, there is a tendency to believe that an elected head of government – at least in a large country – is or must be a man of genius, and to be disappointed if he is not.

In Britain, the prime minister is elected by the party that has more members in Parliament than any other party. This is viewed as a double guarantee that the prime minister thus elected is a man of genius. So was Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in the eyes of the majority of the British people and members of Parliament. Judge for yourself.

Chamberlain gave Hitler part of Czechoslovakia and thus made the whole of it defenseless. The majority of the English people almost went crazy with joy. They were absolutely sure, just as was Chamberlain, that the German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia was Hitler's ultimate goal, and now that he was content and happy, "the peace of our time" would set in.

Chamberlain describes how his car on his arrival from Munich could not ride through London because "people of every class," lining the streets, were "leaping on the running board, banging on the windows, and thrusting their hands into the car to be shaken."

Today the question is: Was Chamberlain a fool – that is, a person mentally below the average – in the sphere of international politics, or was he an ignoramus who did not know the ABCs of this field?

The notions "a fool" and "an ignoramus" are often hard to separate. Before his political career, Chamberlain had been a businessman. What if he had not known that different banknotes have different financial values designated on them by numerals? He would have been taken in business for a fool, even if he had been only ignorant.

The ABCs of international politics as of 1938 concerned Hitler's geostrategy, which had been outlined for him in the early 1920s by Gen. Karl Haushofer, a professor of "world politics."

First of all, Haushofer correctly predicted the disintegration of the British Empire, since all empires disintegrate because none of them has ever attained world domination. The German Empire, therefore, must attain world domination.

How? Germany must conquer Russia and convert its enormous resources into a global military machine, including a navy powerful enough to defeat the American and British navies combined.

But Chamberlain (a businessman before his political career) had not read Haushofer. He did not know the ABCs. Nor had the electorate read Haushofer, except for a few mavericks who knew German but had no relationship to parliament or government or media or universities. Even today, American and British historians specializing in Hitler and his war for world domination seem to have never heard of Haushofer.

So the election of the fool/ignoramus Chamberlain was not an unfortunate accident, but a natural and predictable event. The delirious joy of Chamberlain and of the majority of the British people resulted from their abysmal ignorance of the ABCs of international politics as of 1938.

Just as Chamberlain has been recalled after 1939 as a comical nincompoop, Churchill has been growing in Western biographies and histories into a man of genius. Look at those bulky volumes he wrote! He foresaw, he knew, he understood!

Did he, though?

Just as Russian anti-Semites hated Jews for their alleged desire to destroy the Russian Empire, Churchill, in contrast to Chamberlain, hated Germans for their alleged desire to destroy the British Empire, and in the 1920s he kept "warning" the English people of the (imaginary) German intention to attack Britain. Ironically, after 1918 and before Hitler came to power, Germany had, virtually, no army.

You see, Churchill had not read Haushofer either. He was too busy dictating his bulky volumes to his two secretaries taking turns. When Hitler was coming to power, Churchill did not understand who he was. As he wrote: "I had no national prejudice against Hitler at this time. I knew little of his doctrine or record and nothing of his character." (1)

As Hitler's party received a plurality of votes in the Reichstag elections in 1932, which paved the way for Hitler's advent to power, Churchill's son Randolph, who had accompanied Hitler during his electoral campaigns, sent him a telegram of congratulations. There is no evidence that Daddy was displeased.

After a while, Churchill recalled that Hitler was, after all, also a German (a Teuton) and Churchill resumed his warnings that the Teutons were after the British Empire. When Hitler invaded Poland to invade Russia, that was it: the Teutons were going to attack Britain and France, and both countries declared war on Germany, without waging any war.

Churchill had become the prime minister: Hadn't he predicted way back in the 1920s that the Teutons would attack Britain? And here they were already in Poland!

What was gained by this declaration of war without war? Hitler gobbled France within a month or so and bombed Britain. He had wanted neither of these events, but both were imposed on him by Churchill. Hitler was to invade Russia, per Haushofer, which Hitler did, while the "Battle for Britain" had no relevance to Hitler's war in Russia.

Initially, the war was an unprecedented rout of Russia, to which Churchill unintentionally contributed by spreading secret disinformation to assure Stalin that Hitler was going to attack him and to assure Hitler that Stalin was about to attack Hitler (see my article of June 5, 2002, "How Hitler Nearly Won the War in Russia Owing to Churchill"). As a result, Stalin believed that Hitler's intention to attack him was Churchill's disinformation and, ostentatiously, made no preparations to repulse Hitler's attack.

In conclusion, it can be asked why Hitler's party received a plurality of votes in the Reichstag elections in 1932 – why so many Germans voted for it.

The Treaty of Versailles "reduced the infantry of Germany to 100,000 men" and "absolutely prohibited all naval and military air forces." Why did not Stalin capture Germany and exterminate its bourgeoisie for starters?

My own explanation is the only one I have read or heard. Stalin loved secret police takeovers and persecution and hated war. But certainly this explanation was not current in Germany in 1932, and the more Stalin's military might had been growing, the more grounds the Germans had to fear Stalin's conquest of the virtually defenseless Germany.

Those who were against any reduction of the Treaty of Versailles, such as the "Teutonophobe" Churchill, created Hitler, who abolished the Treaty. One may wonder why Hitler's party received only a plurality of votes in 1932, and not an overwhelming majority. Except for card-carrying Communists, few Germans relished the prospect of Germany as a satrapy of Stalin's Russia.

The history of Hitler's implementation of Haushofer's geostrategy had a happy ending. But Churchill had nothing to do with it, and even today not a single Western textbook of history mentions that fact. In mid-October, 1941, Moscow was undefended. If Hitler had known that, he would have entered Moscow and won the war. But the did not know it, and he lost the war.

Of course, Churchill never knew why Hitler had lost the war and ascribed it to how heroically the British fought Hitler's bombs and bombers under his, Churchill's, leadership after Churchill had provoked Hitler into the seizure of France and the bombing of Britain, neither of which was part of Haushofer's geostrategy.

My NewsMax.com columns have been 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 Web site 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.

Source Note

1. Winston Churchill. The Gathering Storm. Boston: 1948, p. 83. Return

A product that might interest you:
FREE – 4 Months to NewsMax.com's Magazine. Check It Out – Get four FREE