Tags: nazi | germany | china

Western Blindness: Nazi Germany to China Today

Friday, 05 May 2000 02:33 PM

In the Western post-World War II mythology, Winston Churchill is a sage who saw the German rearmament from 1933 to 1938 and spoke publicly of a new war Germany was preparing, while the British prime ministers of that time were nincompoops who would not listen, and the last of them, Neville Chamberlain, crowned the nincompoopery with the Munich Agreement of 1938, ceding to Hitler the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia and thus making the rest of the country indefensible.

But the German rearmament could not be and was not concealed: the Versailles restrictions were officially repudiated by Hitler as early as May 16, 1935, whereupon Goering’s bombers flew in a festive air display over Germany. As for the goal, any foreign journalist, diplomat or tourist could hear a German marching song: "Today we own Germany, tomorrow the whole world.”

Why did not the prime ministers of Britain from 1933 to 1938 see the obvious, while Churchill did? For reasons having nothing to do with Germany, Churchill was excluded from all cabinets between 1931 and 1939. He was a "non-government person” with a small personal following, to which he could say whatever he thought or liked. But what if Prime Minister Chamberlain or his predecessors had said publicly between 1933 and 1938 what Churchill was saying to his small personal following? They would have had to put their country on a war footing. How would the majority have liked it? Who was to foot the bill?

Surely the opposition would have claimed that the prime minister was a warmonger, provoking Germany to arm and even attack first, out of fear of being attacked. On the other hand, the Munich Agreement was hailed by the democratic West (except for Czechoslovakia) with such exultation that an outsider could well decide that England and France had routed Hitler’s Germany and its allies so that political freedom, peace and prosperity ensued all over Western Europe from Lisbon to Warsaw.

Let us see what Churchill said publicly when he was prime minister and not a "non-government person.” As prime minister during the war, Churchill negotiated not the destiny of Czechoslovakia with Hitler, but the destiny of all of Eastern Europe with Stalin. According to Churchill, Stalin confided to him that 10 million well-to-do Russian farmers had been done away with in the early 1930s. Now, Goebbels screened Soviet newsreels about that heroic liquidation, which helped Hitler’s party to receive up to 37 percent of the votes in the Reichstag elections in 1932. Would Hitler have come to power if there had been no Stalin?

In 1945, there was evidence that Stalin was virtually annexing Eastern Europe and was shutting it behind an iron curtain, as Churchill put it later, when he was no longer prime minister. But speaking as prime minister in the House of Commons on February 17, 1945, Churchill presented such a glowing portrait of Stalin to defend their negotiations regarding Eastern Europe that Chamberlain’s benign attitude toward Hitler looks sober and sensible in comparison.

Marshal Stalin and the Soviet leaders wish to live in honorable friendship and equality with the Western democracies. I feel also that their word is their bond. I know of no government that stands in its obligations, even in its own despite, more solidly than the Russian Soviet government. I decline absolutely to embark here on a discussion about Russian good faith.

In the post-WWII myth Chamberlain figures as an incredible nincompoop because he did exactly what the democratic West did with respect to Soviet Russia, or has been doing with respect to China — sought common ground, negotiated, signed agreements, resolved conflicts, build bridges, normalized relations — but in his case the object of his enthusiastically praised ministrations launched next year a war for world domination and thus made a fool of Chamberlain with great tragicomic force. On the other hand, the Soviet empire died a sudden death from internal causes, and China ...


Between the 15th and the 20th centuries Europe had a decisive military advantage: firearms. I call it superweapon No. 1 of the second millennium. Owing to superweapon No. 1, Europe conquered both Americas, nearly all of Africa, most of Asia, all of Australia and New Zealand. In 1938, England and France faced, for the first time, a foe that could conquer them, obliterate them as a civilization, perhaps even exterminate their population, and create its own civilization on the site.

Yet history was perceived by the democratic West in 1938 and is perceived today as universal one-way development or evolution or progress. Indeed, Spencer and Darwin regarded human progress as the highest stage of organic evolution. At this stage the post-Roman West drew on Greco-Roman antiquity ("democracy,” "republic,” "senate”) and on Judeo-Christian culture. Before the 20th century England was engaged in wars of conquest, and Spencer perceived progress as development or evolution of conquered primitive countries from savagery to civilization, while in the 20th century England began to perceive peace as a hallmark of progress of the civilized world.

In 1938, Churchill believed that Germany would behave as it did a quarter of a century earlier, while Chamberlain acted on the willful assumption that like every civilized Western country Germany wanted peace, and WWI broke out because the conflicts of that time had not been resolved in a civilized manner.

Actually, as of 1938, Germany, a Western country, was mentally or psychologically a different civilization, separated from the democratic West by millennia. A prolific political writer who was foreboding the Jewish domination of the Aryan world, Richard Wagner, wrote operas that Hitler knew by heart as a devout churchgoer knows the church liturgies, and that glorified the barbarians, that is, the Aryans, who had vanquished the civilized, that is, racially impure and decadent, Rome.

Having written a hymn to Wagner at the beginning of his "transvaluation of all values,” Nietzsche put Judeo-Christian culture upside down: What it regarded as good he proclaimed to be evil, and what it regarded as evil he proclaimed to be good. He envisaged a master race dominating the world "to mold the future man by breeding, and, at the same time, by destroying millions of bungled humans — we must not be deterred by the suffering we create, the equal of which has never been seen.” Already during WWI, hundreds of thousands of German soldiers bought a special field edition of Nietzsche to carry in their knapsacks like the Bible.


In 1938, the German scientist Otto Hahn split the uranium atom, the point of departure for development of "the atomic bomb.” In his publications, Hahn regretted the fact that his discovery could be used for military purposes.

Here it can be supposed that the information was brought to the attention of Hitler, who initiated the relevant project in 1938, obtained nuclear weapons ahead of the United States and established world domination. Yet Hahn’s discovery was ignored by Hitler and his advisors but agitated those European physicists who had left Europe because they were Jews. They dreaded Hitler’s war domination. Two of them, Szilard and Eugene Wigner, asked a third, Einstein, whom they had known in Berlin, to write to FDR and explain that Germany could develop the bomb if the United States had not forestalled it. A world war was on, the project started, and in 1945 superweapon No. 2 forced Japan to surrender. But that was its only use in the four years of the U.S. monopoly on it, whereupon superweapon No. 2 became just a weapon of deterrence.

However, the Soviet and Chinese rulers now knew that wars of territorial expansion, as they had been waged by Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan, were outdated. Superweapon No. 2 decided the outcome of the war with Japan and it would have decided the outcome of the war with Germany had the war lasted longer. Now, science and technology did not stop in 1945 at superweapon No. 2. Predictably, a search began in Soviet Russia and later in China for superweapon No. 3.

No one had known before 1938 that superweapon No. 2 would come from nuclear physics. There had been no systematic search for superweapon No. 2. Otto Hahn in Nazi Germany had nothing to do with any such search. The Soviet quest for superweapon No. 3 was not a program of development of an anticipated definite weapon; it was the world’s first search for a new superweapon in general, for it is possible that even today no one knows from which field superweapon No. 3 will come. In 1992 Yeltsin closed the program of development of offensive biological weapons that had occupied an archipelago of laboratories and employed 72,000 specialists. Thus, its existence in the post-WWII era became, retroactively, an official and public fact.

JFK was one of those who used the phrase "the Soviet quest for world domination.” From 1945 to 1949 Soviet Russia had no nuclear weapons, and until the early 1960s no means of their delivery across the Atlantic. In 1963 it had both, and it was searching for superweapon No. 3, and here JFK declared on June 10 that the Soviet quest for world domination is only "suspicion,” while actually "the Soviet Union and its allies” have "a deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race.” The Munich-like ministrations followed, such as the agreement of 1972 prohibiting the development of biological weapons, which agreement the Soviet rulers treated exactly as Hitler treated Chamberlain’s masterpiece of 1938.

But in the late 1980s President Bush and Prime Minister Thatcher managed to out-Munich Chamberlain’s Munich. A participant of the Soviet offensive bioweapons program was sent to the West in connection with some unique equipment to be purchased, but defected.

Compare with 1938. After all, the German arsenal contained no superweapon. But here Bush and Thatcher were told about the Soviet search (contrary to all agreements, of course!) for a superweapon as decisive as the U.S. atomic bomb was in 1945. Now, the launching of the first Soviet space satellite in 1957, ahead of the United States, took the West by surprise, showing that science and technology in Soviet Russia could sprint in certain strategically vital directions ahead of the West. What if the new Soviet superweapon were ready to strike the West within hours?

Surely Bush and Thatcher were immediately on all Western TV screens, explaining that the West had been living in a fool’s paradise since June 10, 1963, while it could be destroyed any day by the new Soviet superweapon. Instead, Bush and Thatcher concealed the life-or-death information in order not to spoil their relations with Gorbachev and began to negotiate with him secretly. Imagine Chamberlain concealing Hitler’s atomic bomb project in order not to spoil his relations with Hitler and negotiating with him secretly. To the negotiators, Gorbachev coolly lied that the offensive biowarefare program had never existed.


In 1993, I found a U.S. government paper of 1993 according to which China was the only big country that had an "offensive biological warfare program.” But just as Prime Minister Chamberlain did not notice publicly what he and Churchill could not help seeing, and President Bush with Prime Minister Thatcher did not notice publicly what a Soviet defector had revealed, so, too, President Clinton has not noticed publicly a document of 1993, prepared by his own administration. However, while Bush and Thatcher at least tried confidentially to have it out with Gorbachev, Clinton has simply ignored the document of his own administration.

The document also mentioned Iraq as having an offensive biological warfare program. Of course, it was puny, obsolete and altogether laughable compared with that of China, whose gross domestic product is expected to surpass that of the U.S. within the next decade. But the Iraqi program was just a brilliant opportunity for Clinton to display his statesmanship by bombing Iraq to force it to accept the inspection.

Now, what would have happened if Clinton had noticed publicly China’s program? He cannot bomb China, which is not Iraq — or Yugoslavia. The Chinese rulers would have denied the existence of their program as Gorbachev denied the existence of his. The infinitely profitable trade and business with China would have gone to Europe. A new JFK would have called Clinton’s public accusation "suspicion,” ruining normal Sino-American relations and leading to a arms race and hence to war.

The U.S. government document has been publicly available for seven years, to say nothing of the relevant congressional hearings going back to 1989. But except for myself in the internet NewsMax.com, its magazine Vortex, and on a dozen or so radio programs, I do not know of a single publicly visible, audible or widely read American who would refer to this document or reason out that if the Soviet quest for superweapon No. 3 was found in 1992 to have been a fact of the Soviet absolutism, it is not clear why the Chinese absolutism should not encourage science and technology to go on in quest of it rather than stop at firearms or nuclear weapons.

The Chinese absolutism was highly rational or "scientific” even more than two millennia ago. Today this is evident in a measure like forced abortions. No prejudices, taboos or scruples. Pure science. The rulers do not want a high population growth rate because in contrast to Stalin or Hitler, they do not believe in numerical military superiority as a means of world domination. Hence forced abortions. It is inconceivable that in an absolutism so "scientific” and uninhibited morally the rulers would consider the expected superweapon No. 3 immoral, as compared with the good old firearms or straight honest nukes.

For China an immediate source of subversion is Taiwan, with which the United States has been unable to deal as Chamberlain dealt with Czechoslovakia, since the population of Taiwan are former U.S. allies — enemies of the rulers of China, and would be destroyed accordingly. But the United States contrived a Munich, according to which there is "one China” and Taiwan is not independent. ... However, the vast hotbed of infectious democracy is not Taiwan, but the democratic West itself, and the fall of the Soviet absolutism in 1991 showed the rulers of China that if the democratic West is allowed to exist as democratic, then no matter what its intentions are or will be, its pathogenic microbes of democracy, which it spreads because of the very fact of its existence, will destroy the Chinese absolutism as it destroyed the Soviet absolutism in 1991.

In 1938 England and France did not understand Germany, a Western country. Does the United States understand today’s China, the oldest civilization extant, with its absolutism as old as its civilization? When democracy flourished in Athens, Confucius in China saw nothing but absolutism in the past and in the future. In the United States, power has been reduced to the profession of an official, of a public servant, of an administrator, and is often practiced by lawyers. It is hardly surprising if an American doubts that the Chinese rulers value their power so much that to preserve it they are searching for weapon No. 3 to make the West surrender or, if this is impossible, to destroy it. For the sake of what? Power! Not even wealth for the sake of which such heinous crimes are committed in the United States!

However, under absolutism, the power possesses the country, including its wealth — trillions of dollars in China already today and dozens of trillions ere long.

The striking difference between post-Mao China and Russia or Germany in the 1930s is due to the difference between the geostrategy as conceived by Stalin or Hitler in the 1930s and as understood by the Chinese rulers today. In the 1930s the great leader, a man of genius, a superman, was to lead his army into battle, while his militarized country was to produce for him the biggest army possible. Every soldier or civilian was to be indoctrinated in a single faith, and dissenters were traitors.

Today China has no need for the great leader to lead his army into battle. During the next world war, which may be over in minutes, the Chinese rulers are to watch it as a scientific experiment is watched today from an observation center. The rulers will be as impersonal as the scientists.

Similarly, China is not a military-industrial camp producing the biggest army possible, but a society most conducive to the development of science and technology as the key to superweapon No. 3. Accordingly, except for political freedom, all freedoms should be granted, so that those American, European, Japanese or any other scientists who are not particularly sensitive to the presence or absence of political freedom feel themselves in China as in a free society, open, tolerant, diverse, dynamic, intensely alive, vibrant, comfortable, financially rewarding, enjoyable, scientifically and culturally stimulating. ...


Way back in the 13th century China delighted Marco Polo, one of the first Europeans who visited it. Europe was torn by religious wars and religious persecution, while Christian churches and synagogues were tax-exempt in China! In Europe power and religion combined, while in China power had no religion, and hence no religion was persecuted as long as it was thought to be safely apolitical. Printed typographically since the 11th century had been books dealing with political economy, philosophy, religion and all arts and sciences.

Marco Polo admires law and order in China as against rampant crime and violence in Europe. He remarks that "many persons, and especially those who harbor bad designs, always carry poison about them.” The key is the phrase "those who harbor bad designs.” If you do not harbor any, you will live in China in the greatest safety on earth, even if you are a Christian or a Jew. Pray, think, create, read books, enjoy the many splendors of China, the center of the world. There is no such cuisine, silks, porcelain, or ivories anywhere else.

But if you harbor designs that the powers that be will consider to be against their law and order, swallow the poison, to avoid torture. Oddly enough, over seven centuries later, not a word is said in my Britannica about Chinese torture. Yet "many” 13th century Chinese knew something about it and poisoned themselves to avoid it. "But their rulers, who are aware of this practice, are always provided with the dung of dogs, which they oblige the accused to swallow, causing a vomiting of the poison.”

Well, George Orwell in his "1984," drawing on Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia, was unaware of this national triumph of torture in power over the national readiness of "those who harbors bad designs” to commit suicide.

© 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
In the Western post-World War II mythology, Winston Churchill is a sage who saw the German rearmament from 1933 to 1938 and spoke publicly of a new war Germany was preparing, while the British prime ministers of that time were nincompoops who would not listen, and the last...
Friday, 05 May 2000 02:33 PM
Newsmax Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved