The World History Rewritten
Here I will present some remarks about civilizations of
Pre-Columbian America. But first two reservations:
- First we have to remember, that civilizations of
Pre-Columbian America had many great achievements, but generally had
the technology level of middle-east civilizations had about the year
2000 BC. It means that Spaniards were
about 3500-years of technological advantage over the Pre-Columbian
they conquered them.
- Second, there were several dozens of Indian cultures in
Pre-Columbian America and a few cycles of rise and fall before the
Christopher Columbus voyage, but I will mention only three of them:
city-states of Mayan civilization, Aztec Empire and Inca
Mayan civilization developed in Jungles between today’s Honduras,
Guatemala and Southern Mexico. Here is the schematic map of the region:
City-states of Mayan Civilization
This map is hand-drawn so some locations of cities are
approximate. Names are in Polish transcription, but it is (I hope) the
same as English.
Red circles shows some Mayan
cities of the “Old Empire” (term “empire” is a mistake here)
Purple circles shows some
Mayan cities of the “New Empire”
Black outlines highlights
metropolises of Tikal and Calakmul
It wasn’t the first Indian civilization in this region, but
had the strongest influence on the development of Indian civilizations
in neighbouring Mexico. First villages of Maya culture were formed in
the first millennium BC.
apogee (zenith) of Mayan
civilization was between IIIrd and IXth centuries AD.
These times Mayans formed several dozens (even more than 40)
city-states with population of 5,000 - 50,000 people. The reasons for
evolution of populistic
city-states here were probably:
- Some discoveries in agriculture, astronomy and writing
- Trade between regions of Yucatan peninsula, Central America
and Southern Mexico - maybe also
economic influence of some older Indian cultures
the relative isolation of villages because of jungles (very similar to
the isolations provided by mountains and isles in Ancient Greece or
swamps of Sumeria in
Every city was relative independent, so term “Old Mayan
used by archeologist to describe this period is a mistake (term Classic Period is better). There wasn’t
any centralized state here. The most important cities these times were populistic city-states.
Their trade, culture and technology radiated on neighbouring lands:
today Southern Mexico, Honduras and last but not least the Yucatan
peninsula, which was colonized by Mayans. Especially important Mayan
discoveries were the alphabet and the calendar (with extraordinary
exact calculation of the year length).
Final decryption of the Mayan “alphabet” made not so long ago let the
archeologists discover, that Maya city-states continuously waged wars
against each other. Rulers of the cities were often changed by coups
d’etat, many times sponsored or supported with military force by
neighbouring cities. The ruler of the city was often a priest-king (it
is not usual in ancient populistic states, for example Julius Caesar
had the title of pontifex maximus - the high priest).
Two most powerful states at the peak of the classic Period
were Tikal and Calakmul.
For long decades both cities waged wars against each other, making
clients and allies of less powerful cities. This resembles the long
wars between Athens and Sparta in Ancient Greece or Umma and Lagash in
the Ancient Sumeria (Sumer).
Around the year of 900 AD
civilization of the Classic Period was destroyed by severe drought.
was the reason for bad crops and catastrophic famine. This catastrophic
disaster launched civil wars and mass migrations. The reason for the
was the climatic change but also too intensive agricultural
Mayan city-states at the end of the Classic Period reached the limits
of productivity in the agriculture. Some symptoms of this
overexploitation were: intensive wars and great government investments
like building new temples (tiered pyramids with temples on the top).
City-states and different groups of political interests (GPIs) started to fight for
resources. Methods of this struggle were a conquest of weaker neighbors
or increasing exploitation of poorer citizens. No matter of method the
particular city chose, the result was the same - greater role of
government in economy and overexploitation of the land.
When the economy is free-market oriented, prices are not regulated, and
there is some inequality in the social distribution of income, then the
increase of prices usually forces a community to start search for
alternate, cheaper natural resources a long time before a crisis. But
when economy is government-driven the prices of goods, land or human
work could be administrative-regulated (and lower than market prices),
resources are overexploited to the limits of effectiveness - and
therefore the economy becomes very vulnerable for natural
After the disaster of the great drought, Mayans rebuild their
culture in colonies on the north end of Yucatan peninsula. This new
culture is called “Post-Classic Period”
(or the “New Empire”). These times Mayan states were not so powerful as
were probably feudal
that sometimes united many Mayan cities.
About 1200 AD Mayan cities of the New Empire were invaded by Toltecs. Then the economic and
political crisis came. When the Spanish voyagers discovered Maya, the
civilization was totally decomposed. And Spaniards conquered the Mayans
The Aztec Empire, Hernan Cortes
One of the oldest cultures in Mexico was the civilization of Olmecs (ca. 1500-300 BC), a nation that
lived in Gulf Coast Region north from the Maya city Palenque on my map
(generally in the Mexican state of Tabasco).
Then in the Classic Period (300-900 AD) there was a few
brilliant civilizations in Mexico, probably because of the influence of
Maya city-states of the Classic Period. The most important ones were
the Zapotecs (with the capital in
Monte Alban), culture of Teotihuacan,
and culture of El Tajin (in the
Mexican state of Veracruz).
In the IXth century AD more or less the same time when the Maya
city-states started to decline, region was invaded by barbarian Toltecs, who built a great feudal empire
spreading on the whole Central Mexico with the capital in Tollan. After a few hundred years in
XIIIth century Mexico was again invaded by barbarian tribes
(Chichimecs), and Toltecs were forced to migrate to Yucatan Peninsula,
where they invaded Mayan states of Post-Classic Period.
The Aztec Empire and Hernan Cortes (Herman Cortes)
It is the same map as above, but this time you should look
its left side.
Green area represents the
(approximate) territory of Aztec Empire at the beginning of XVIth
Yellow spots marks some other
independent or half-independent Indian states this time.
Red arrow is the route of
Hernan Cortes (Herman Cortes) expedition (detailed map).
Black dots marks some
important Pre-Columbian cities (some of them were already ruins in
Blue dot is the city of Vera
Cruz founded by Cortes.
Black dot with Yellow outline is the Aztecs capital of Tenochtitlan localized on the isle in
the middle of a lake (today is a Mexico City here).
One of the last barbarian tribes were Aztecs,
who invaded Central Mexico in the XIIth century and built their state
in the valley, where today is Mexico City. Valley was fertile, and was
an important strategic point, plus have great importance as a nexus of
trade routes, so the Aztecs grew in strength, and in the last decades
of XIVth century started a very spectacular expansion.
Here is the link to the short history and chronology of
the Aztec Empire.
At the beginning of XVIth century Aztecs conquered most of the Indian
nations in Central Mexico. One of the reasons for their expansion was
the need for captives used then in human
sacrifices which were a part of many religious rituals.
Aztecs were killing this way thousands men a year. But it is useful to
note that this religious terror was not so strong at the beginning of
the Empire, but increased with every conquest - helping Aztecs to
preserve their rule over many Indian nations. At the beginning of XVIth
century Empire reached the logistics limits of expansion, and Aztecs
king Montezuma II stopped further conquests. But Aztecs still waged
some ritual wars with other Indian states (ex. with Tlascalans,
whose state was in the
yellow area east from Tenochtitlan).
In 1519 Hernan Cortes
(Herman Cortes) expedition
landed in Mexico. He had little more than
soldiers, several horsemen, several light canons and guns (arquebuses),
about thirty crossbows. Realized that he discovered a large and rich
country, and the Aztecs are hated by conquered Indians, he set off to
heart of the Aztec Empire. During his march, Cortes won alliance and
support of subsequent Indian tribes. For this reason he entered
Tlascalans state. With the support of Tlascalans (which he gained
defeating them in a battle), Cortes marched to the Tentochtitlan.
Montezuma II let Cortes’ army enter the capital without a battle.
Probably reasons for his “ostrich tactics” were: the legend of
Quetzakoatl, Indian rebellion and the reputation of unbeatable
soldiers, which Spaniards gained defeating Tlascalans.
This time Spaniards made
a terrible mistake. Drunken with easy conquest, they forget, that the
military advantage could be not enough to occupy a conquered country
promote a completely new ideology. They started to rob Aztecs’ treasury
temples. Finally they killed Aztecs nobles and officials on a religious
festival. This was the last mistake, which launched the Aztecs’
against Spaniards. Cortes had to retreat from Tentochtitlan losing
during a “noche
triste” (sad night) 2/3 of his army. Withdrawing to the coast
were stopped with 200 000 Aztecs army in an mountain pass to the Otumba
And Spaniards won the battle. Batle of Otumba was probably the greatest
in the history of warfare. Cortes was the only one commander who dare
a 1000 times greater army.
He killed the Indian commander ad Aztecs' army fled. But
Spanish estimations of the size of Aztecs’ army were probably
exaggerated. Maybe even ten times.
Fortunate for Cortes, he got reinforcements from Spanish
colonies, and with a new army of Indian allies he besieged and
destroyed Tentochtitlan, finally conquering Mexico (But the Montezuma’s
treasury lost during a noche triste was lost forever.)
How Spaniards could conquer so great country like the Aztec
Empire with such ease? Well, there were basically four reasons:
|Aztecs' homeland was only a small island
in the sea of conquered Indian nations. The Aztec Empire had just
started to decompose (was not so decomposed as the Persian Empire in
times of Alexander the Great, but if Greeks were united, they could
conquer Persian Empire or at least its large part, probably a 100 years
|Spaniards had a 3500 years of
advantage in warfare technologies (these times had the best army in
Europe). Aztecs did not know metal weapons, armors, pikes, had no
cavalry, no chariots, had only very primitive bows
and ranged weapons. No city wall could stand Spanish canons. Even Aztec
tactics was weak: Indian armies usually made a frontal attack on
Spanish column in narrow mountain pass, so they could not use their
advantage of great number - and thus Spaniards seemed
completely unbeatable for them.
|Indians were afraid of horses, guns,
cannons, and had a legend about the god of wind Quetzalkoatl
(or Quetzalcoatl, taken from Toltecs, name means “feathered serpent” or
serpent”, probably a merge of two deities) - a good white and bearded
god, who gave them laws, alphabet and taught many technological
inventions, then departed to the East Sea, and who some day would
return from East on a “winged ship” to punish bad people and help poor
and oppressed (every second Indian culture in Central America had a
myth like that, so you may find also another versions of this legend).
Therefore at the beginning Cortes was taken for Quetzalkoatl
(Quetzalcoatl). And even
if Montezuma II was not sure Quetzalkoatl (Quetzalcoatl) really
returned, he had to
take into account beliefs of his subjects (i.e. people who lived under
|And at last but not least Cortes had a
great dose of a good luck.
As an anecdote (I was not able to verify this
information): The Holy Thursday 1519, a day when Hernan Cortes (Herman
in Vera Cruz was exactly one day before the day of Quetzalkoatl’s
return according to Indian’s prophecies.
The Inca Empire, Francisco Pizarro
Again, there was several Indian cultures in South America
(Andes Mountains region) before the Inca empire, and some
regions experienced at least tree cycles of expansion-and-fall. I am
not going to describe them here, the same as (when talking about
Central American cultures) I didn’t mentioned many important
archeological sites for example in Panama. I am going to focus only on
the Inca Empire, the kingdom of Chimu and Pizarro’s conquest of the
And here is a schematic map of the Inca Empire
Yellow color shows the Inca
Blue area is the kingdom of
Chimu conquered by the Inca Empire.
Green squares represents some
of the pre-Inca archeological sites.
Red arrows shows the march of
Francisco Pizarro (Pisarro) (detailed map).
Red circle with black
outline represents Cuzco - capital of the Inca empire.
Other red circles marks the cities
of Tumbes and Cajamarca, which plays important role in the story of
Green circle with the black
outline represents Machu Picchu, the last
(and never conquered) stronghold of Incas.
The Inca Empire originated
in a mountain valley around the capital of Cuzco
(or Cusco). It was the third or even forth culture in this region of
Andes Mountains (all these cultures based on potatoes, which helped to
feed large populations). The same as with the Aztecs Empire, Inca’s
the important nexus of trade routes. From the second half of XIVth
century till the year of 1525 the Inca Empire conquered many tribes and
states and got control over the most part of Andes
Mountains and Pacific Coast.
The original name of the state was Tahuantisuyo
(which means “the four sides of
the world”). The Incas was not
exactly the name of nation but a name of privileged ruling class of
soldiers, priests and sages (called amautas),
who were administrating the state. The rest of people were subjects
(ruled ones) and had social
status lower than helots in Ancient Sparta.
It is useful to look at the organization of the Inca Empire
because it was strongly administration-regulated (we can call this a
- Regular people generally had no property (like houses,
clothes, tools, animals), almost everything was distributed by Inca
- There were no private fields, all land was owned and
disposed by state (king), temples and local administration. Peasants
were ordered to cultivate these fields in strictly defined order.
- Craftsman workshops, mines, cattle of llamas, and so on
were also owned by the state, and the Incas precisely (meticulously)
- And every economic
activity (except some small local fairs) were regulated
by Inca administration (There was also “ecological” regulations
protecting for example some valuable animals).
- All precious metals, jewelry and gems were prohibited to
commoners, and only Incas were allowed to possess them.
- Commoners were obligated to work for free for the state
(in mines, at roads construction, etc.)
- Even marriage was regulated by administration.
- Whole villages and
nations were deported or moved from one place to another
to pacify rebellions, or simply to increase the productivity.
Effective administering of such a large empire was possible
- Extended road system with the state service of mail
couriers (relay runners), who delivered messages with the speed 250
miles a day (400 kilometers,
unbelievable but verified).
- Incas writing
called khipu (or quipu) based on a
system of knots on strings (khipu/quipu was rather a mnemonic
system, which should be read by an educated Inca,
who reconstructed the information).
Both inventions helped Incas to collect statistical
for effective administering.
Similar economic conditions result in
similar economic and political systems, no matter of the cultural
background of the country. Other examples of feudal states with
strongly government-regulated economy are medieval Byzantium, China or Japan.
Another interesting element of Inca culture was the religion -
with very similar rituals like in Christianity (generally almost all
nations of Pre-Columbian Indians conquered by Spaniards have rituals
that resembled Christian rituals, but similarities Spaniards had found
in Inca’s religion were so strange, that
made them think it was a devil’s joke).
For example Indians had a ritual of confession with priest
ordered expiation, and remission of sins. It was an element of religion
but also a tool that helped Incas to control common people. So it had
the same purpose as the ritual of self-criticism in XXth-century
Religion (as every ideology) has some political
and economic impacts
Here are some of them:
- Religion could be a brainwashing ideology that helps
to control commoners (it is Marx observation, but ironically communist
ideology - for example in USSR - had the same purpose).
- Religious institutions (like confession mentioned
above) or offices (like European Inquisition) sometimes had the same
role in ancient and medieval communities as a security service or a
secret police in modern states.
- Religion promotes honesty, and thus lowers the
transaction costs of trade and every economic activity (so religion
could stimulate the economy).
- Religion could suppress free thinking, and thus slow
science and technology development.
- Religion usually promotes legality, and thus
stabilizes political institutions, reducing the chances of revolutions.
- Religion could give hope, virtues and ideals, which
makes human life easier, when there are limited supply of goods and
resources to dispose.
I have mentioned six, probably the most important
consequences of religion. And most of them could be some times positive
while other times negative. Religion could protect peasants and
labour workers from exploitation or discourage them to defend
themselves against exploitation.
This theory makes possible to analyze social and
political impacts of different religions. But remember, no scientific
theory could give answer is God exist or not, nor gives answer on any
other religious question. This is the scope of philosophy or theology.
In XVIth century, Inca king Tupac
Yupanqui (or Thopa Inca Yupanqui) conquered the coastal
kingdom of Chimu. It is didactic
to compare the Inca Empire with Chimu Kingdom (but please treat the
story below as an illustrative story tale for children rather than as a
facts, because all we
know about Chimu comes from Spaniards, Incas and from archeological
Opposite to the Inca Empire, kingdom of Chimu was rather a
“liberal” (I mean: freedom-oriented, not left-winged) feudal state,
with larger wealth differences between peasants and aristocracy, and
with larger amount of personal freedom. Kingdom of Chimu sometimes was
the arena of domestic wars between different feudal factions, but also
was richer (per capita)
than the Inca Empire.
Because of the strong culture of freedom and national proud,
conquered kingdom of Chimu many times rebelled against Incas.
Rebellions were pacified with army, but also made Incas to treat the
coastal region of Chimu in a special way (we could say: with some
Ideology of freedom
Freedom is not the natural aspiration (or goal) of every human, but not
more than another ideology.
People are not identical - some of them want to be rich, some
want to be free, some wants a material safety, or a safety from
crime. And ideology of freedom is only one of many ideologies existing
in human society. People who live in democratic countries tend to
forget about that.
When a country is oppressive, the promotion of the
ideology of freedom will be very weak, and the ideology of freedom will
be suppressed with other, stronger ideologies like ex. nationalism.
People who live there, will not be fight for freedom, understand the
freedom, or even see that they are brainwashed. From my own
experience: until I was 13 years old, I believed in communist ideology,
because it was so strongly promoted in my country that I didn’t know it
was based on lies - no mater how intelligent you are, you can
always be brainwashed by some strongly-promoted ideology. It is only
the matter of the amount
(and balance) of resources used to promote different
Ideology of freedom stimulates the economic growth.
Generally because of two reasons:
- Helps the science and
- Guarantees more effective economic redistribution of
resources, like capital (or to be precise, thanks to the freedom in
economy, faster corrects the ineffective uses of resources).
But not guaranties a honest
redistribution of resources.
Honestly, the ideology of freedom favors richer, active or more
intelligent people. Please look at this simple schema.
As you can see, the country with dominating ideology of freedom is
usually little right-winged. This is not honest, but (usually)
guarantees the higher economic effectiveness, because the ideology of
freedom protects the interests of the capital, helps the accumulation
of knowledge, and the science development.
Life in freedom-oriented country could be very hard for
poor, not so educated, not so intelligent or not so enterprising
peoples. When some members of the society become rich very rapidly
(active-ones), others could suffer poverty, because the active-ones
increase demand on goods bringing prices of goods up, and increasing
this way the living expenses for the rest of the society (this effect
could be analyzed using math and economic tools, but have a social and
economic consequences - for example could be some times responsible for
the increasing popularity of populistic politicians and populistic
Please note that both extremes: too equal distribution
of income and very unequal distribution of income (typical in
freedom-oriented country) could have negative consequences:
overexploitation of natural resources and slower growth (in first case)
or political instability and mass poverty (in second case). Of course
things are little more complicated here, but probably the most
important law of my History Mechanics is: There are no ideal
solution in politics
and economy, every solution will have some positive and some negative
At the beginning of XVIth century the Inca Empire reached the
logistics limits of expansion. Rulers started to build walls and
fortifications protecting borders where barbarian Indian tribes were
especially active, costs of pacifying rebellions of other Indian
nations began to increase dramatically. And we can observe the very
beginning of conflict between the “soldiers faction”
and the “priests faction”. Army
wanted to conquer new lands, while Incas close to the Court and priests
tried to get some extra privileges from the king, destroying this way
the equality among the Inca class. Sooner or later this conflict have
to launch a civil war between feudal
factions and it was.
After the death of old king Huayna Capac, prince Atahualpa (soldiers faction) started the
coup d’etat against the first son of old king, a new king Huascar (priests faction). Atahualpa
defeated his brother and imprisoned in Cuzco (Cusco). But that was
probably the last victory of soldiers faction - next Inca king would
have no resources to continue the expansion. The side effect of
the war was that the empire was rebelled, and some provinces still
supported the legal king. And exactly in this moment (1532) the
of Francisco Pizarro landed in
Peru in Tumbes (or Tumbez).
Again, Pizarro have also a great dose of god
First, he discovered the Inca Empire about 5 years before, but had no
money to finance the expedition. And when he tried to organize funds in
Spain, the civil war mentioned above started in the Inca Empire.
Second, Indian nations of the Inca Empire (and also some
tribes from Columbia) had legends about white, bearded god called Viracocha, Kon-Tiki
(Con Tiqui) or Pachacamac, very
similar to the legend
of Quetzalkoatl. Probably the main difference was that prophecies about
Viracocha said: he will return from the north or from Pacific Ocean.
Pizarro had even the smaller army than Cortes. About 300
soldiers, but better equipped and with more horses. Realizing that the
Inca Empire is in the middle of civil war, Pizarro marched south,
hoping to conquer the kingdom the same way like Cortes did. Partisans
of Huascar tried to got an alliance with him, but Pizarro didn’t answer
yes or no, to have options (of alliance) open.
In the city of Cajamarca
Spaniards met 30 000 Incas army leaded by Atahualpa. The negotiations
started. Cortes invited the king to the meeting, and when the
procession of 2000 servants, guardsmen and officials went into
a wall-bordered city square, Spaniards attacked them and kill everybody
but Atahualpa. The great Inca army, now without commanders, fled. Among
Spaniards only Cortes was wounded, when he tried to protect Atahualpa.
Atahualpa was a great commander (and chess player when
imprisoned), administrator, the ruler skilled in intrigues, who had no
problem to kill the whole family of Huascar and many of his
brother’s partisans. Why he went so carelessly right into Pizarro’s
- Well, he was a king of great empire, had 30 000 man
against less than 300 Spaniards. He had more guardsmen in his
procession! He did not believed that Cortes was so stupid to attack
- Atahualpa waged a civil war and hoped to get an ally who
could help him to defeat partisans of
- And finally, common people believed that Cortes was send by
Viracocha or Pachacamac (in Chimu), and hoped that Spaniards would
bring them freedom form Incas rule.
Even if the ruler of the despotic country
does not believe in an officially promoted ideology (like
Atahualpa in prophecies about Viracocha) that ideology limits
his political moves and options. If the ruler (or tyrant) acts
against the official ideology, he would destroy one of the key-elements
that support his rule. This would force him to use (more costly)
brute-force methods for protecting his rule.
This is an
universal principle: compare (for example) one of the reasons
why Saddam Hussein in 2002
could not admit that he had no WMD (weapon of mass destruction) at all
- such confession would destroy his ideoloogy of “New Saladin who fights
against Western Crusaders” - ironically true Saladin (Salah-ad-Din) was
The battle of Cajamarca was really the end of the Inca Empire.
Spaniards imprisoned the Emperor, and got significant reinforcements
when copartner of Pizarro (Pisarro), captain Almagro,
landed in Peru. Atahualpa tried to save his kingdom secretly ordering
to kill Huascar (which not stopped the civil war), and trying
to get the freedom paying Spaniards with gold. Very soon important
Inca armies and cities capitulated and Spaniards killed Atahualpa.
After some time Pizarro (Pisarro) and Almagro started to fight
other. This war between Spaniards gave Incas a chance to start a
rebellion against Spanish rule. Indians were adopting Spanish
very fast: they used cavalry and gunpowder weapons (taught by Spanish
renegades). But there was now too many Spaniards in Peru, and most of
Indian peasants were not interested to die for Incas, so the rebellion
was unsuccessful. But remains of Inca Kingdom survived in Vilcapampa (mountain region close to
Machu Picchu) for many years.
Consequences of the Spanish conquest
Conquests in America gave Spain great resources of precious metals
(mainly silver from new mines), which allowed Spanish kings to wage
imperial politics in Europe. But also launched the diffusion processes
which destroyed the “parliamentary” institutions in kingdoms of Aragon
and Castile (two components of Spain), therefore helped Spanish kings
to introduce oppressive governments in Spain (using the Inquisition and
income from colonies), and in a long run were the reason for the fall
of the Spain.
Indians were murdered during the conquest and rebellions (but Aztecs
and Incas did the same). Were turned into feudal-dependent peasants,
and many of them (maybe 1/3, maybe more) died from European diseases.
But we should also remember that European technologies made local
economies much more effective (it is easier to cultivate field with
iron tools than with tools made from wood and stone).
What would happen if...
It is a good moment to show how important role simple coincidences
played in human history. Columbus voyage (who discovered probably the
longest possible route to America), and very fast conquests made by
lucky commanders - Cortes and Pizarro (Pisarro), in a very few years
control over most of the contemporary Latin America (except Brasilia
colonized by Portugal).
Let’s assume this not happened:
America would be probably very soon discovered by Portuguese
(Brasilia) or English (New Foundland) sailors. Other European countries
(England, France, maybe Netherlands) would probably gain large colonies
in the New World. Indian Empires would be conquered anyway, but maybe
by different countries. Large colonies of England would launch the
diffusion powers inside the kingdom - according to the law of
connected vessels -
which would stop the evolution of political institutions in England
(the same way like in Spain, as it was said above). And England would
not became a democratic
state in 1689 but many years after. This, of course, would delay the
And there would be no large, democratic country of United States,
because USA grew on British capitals and technology. Well, there would
be some large state in North America, because the river Mississippi and
system of Great Lakes are the natural trade backbone for a great
country (the same way as rivers Dniepr and Volga and lakes Illmen and
Ladoga for Russia), but it would be a populistic country. With two
great populistic states: one in Russia and second in North America a
nuclear war in the second half of XXth century would be probably
Warsaw, 8 July 2004
To the top