On December 26th, the Zionist entity recognised Somaliland – historic Somalian territory that has claimed independence since 1991 – as a state, the first country in the world to do so. The move sparked widespread outcry and international condemnation, with the African Union demanding it be revoked. Undeterred, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar visited Hargeisa on January 6th, signing a memorandum of understanding on cooperation in multiple areas, including ‘defence’. President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi hailed the visit as a “historic milestone” in Somaliland’s quest for international legitimacy.
These developments are of significant concern to Somaliland’s neighbours throughout the Horn of Africa, with which the statelet has extremely strained relations, that have boiled over into all-out conflict on numerous occasions over decades. Fears are understandably widespread an Israeli – if not accompanying US – military presence locally will embolden breakaway authorities to intensify their belligerence, and seize contested territory claimed by both Hargeisa and Somalia. But grave anxieties are also felt throughout West Asia.
Speculation has long-swirled that Somaliland is viewed as a potential dumping ground for Gaza’s population by the US and “Israel”, to clear the way for further Zionist settlement and Palestine’s total erasure. Recognition appears to be a move in that monstrous direction. Moreover, in November 2025, the highly influential Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies published a paper explicitly stating Somaliland was “an ideal candidate” for “strategic” cooperation, in service of numerous geopolitical and military objectives. Chief among them, a “future campaign” against Yemen’s Ansar Allah.
Throughout the Gaza genocide, Ansar Allah (God’s Partisans) have stood defiant in their defence of the Palestinian people. This has included direct strikes into the heart of the Zionist entity with drones and hypersonic missiles, and a blockade of the Red Sea. The latter effort endured for almost two years, causing immense disruption to global trade and crippling “Israel’s” ports, to the extent of outright closure. Along the way, Ansar Allah resoundingly defeated two grand Anglo-American air and naval efforts to regain control of the Sea.
The INSS paper noted Somaliland’s geographical position offers the Zionist entity “potential access to an operational area close to the conflict zone.” Put simply, an Israeli military presence in the would-be country would make striking AnsarAllah considerably easier in a future war. Entity military and political officials have for months made clear they have not jettisoned reveries of crushing the Resistance, despite the embarrassing failure of Tel Aviv’s 12-day-long broadside against Iran in June 2025.
Nonetheless, there may be other motivations underpinning “Israel’s” recognition of Somaliland – for the territory has long been a subject of literal religious fascination for Zionists. In 1943, the Harrar Council was founded in New York to pursue the dream of Hermann Fuernberg, who fantasised for years about forging a “permanent home for a large Jewish population” in “Harrar” – land spanning Ethiopia and then-British Somaliland. World War II provided Fuernberg and his adherents an ideal opportunity to put their plan into action – or so they thought.
The Council had high hopes of success. First and foremost, Ethiopia’s Emperor Haile Selassie was supposedly a “descendant of the House of David,” and “successor of King Solomon.” The sense the organisation believed God was on their side is writ large in private communications with the monarch. Jewish scripture stating “the Diaspora will come to an end when Jews enter the Land of Cush” is repeatedly cited. The Council elaborated, “Cush is no other than Ethiopia, of which Harrar forms a part.”
‘Heroic Achievements’
The Harrar Council is largely forgotten today, the only vestiges of its existence are correspondence between its representatives and British, Ethiopian, and US officials. The little-known material contains a number of extraordinary insights, not merely into the ultimately failed project itself, but Zionist settlement of Palestine, and how the repulsive colonial ideology of Zionism grew from a niche political project into a dominant force within Judaism.
Some of the most incendiary excerpts can be found in a pamphlet authored by Hermann Fuernberg in early 1943, The Case Of European Jews. Repeated reference is made throughout to the urgent necessity of resolving the “Jewish problem” once World War II was over, and how the Holocaust had significantly strengthened arguments for the creation of a Jewish state. However, Fuernberg was critical of the Zionist colonial movement for its exclusive focus on Palestine as a destination:
“The Zionist program has as its goal the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and the regeneration – cultural, political and religious – of the Jewish people within the framework of this Palestinian state. Their extensive program is so set they cannot deviate from it to take account of current events and urgent problems. Thus, Zionism believes that every attempt at collective emigration which Jews may undertake on a non-Zionist basis may easily damage the Zionist cause and therefore the Zionists oppose all such attempts.”
Fuernberg noted, Adolf Hitler’s ascent to power in Germany “gave Zionism… a great increase of strength,” boosting “both legal and illegal” immigration to Palestine. However, this led to “increasing resistance… to Jewish immigration (infiltration)” locally – “not only from the Arab world.” In particular, ever-increasing Zionist demands for further territory, including lands belonging to nearby states such as Jordan, arrayed international opinion against the settler colonial project. In practical terms too, due to its size and existing population, Palestine was unable to “absorb” the world’s Jews in entirety.
While hailing Zionism’s “many admirable and heroic achievements,” Fuernberg lamented how the ideology “has not been able to convert to its side the great mass of the Jewish people,” despite “40 years of propaganda”. While US Jews provided “the bulk of the funds” for Palestine’s colonisation, and “80% of the Jewish press is Zionist dominated,” Stateside Zionist organisations boasted meagre memberships, representing a tiny percentage of the world’s Jewish population. Nazi rule in Germany had failed to shift this needle significantly outside Europe.
In the same four-decade-long period, “Zionists were able to build a number of quasi-political organizations, which… assumed greater importance” for Jews in lieu of alternative movements opposing Hitler. Despite their putative clout though, “these organizations had never been capable of arousing even among their own adherents sufficient political understanding… so as to make the cry for a Jewish state the united demand of a whole people.” Vast sums reaped by these entities was provided out of “charity and piety”, not support for the Zionist colonial project.
‘Equitable Proportion’
So it was in early 1944, the Harrar Council, led by Fuernberg, submitted a detailed proposal to Ethiopia’s Emperor on establishing a “permanent home for a large Jewish population” in his country, and neighbouring Somaliland. In an accompanying letter to the US State Department, the organisation spelled out the perceived benefits of this land grab. For one, the proposed territory was “large enough to accommodate the very large number of Jews, whose emigration from Europe will become inevitable in the near future.”
Furthermore, “climatic conditions are such that fruit, grain and vegetables grown in Europe can also be grown in Harrar, thus assuring favorable living conditions for a people emanating from Central Europe.” Best of all, “the territory is very sparsely populated, so that the political and racial obstacles to a free development found elsewhere” – ie Palestine “are not likely to arise.” Fuernberg stressed to US officials, “our project is in no way a rival to Palestine,” but instead complemented the settler colonial project.
In submissions to Ethiopia’s Emperor, the Council made a number of bold pledges. All Jews settling in Harrar Province would “swear allegiance to Your Majesty,” the territory’s “internal affairs” would be administered by an elected governing body and “governor-royal or viceroy,” English would be the colony’s official language, and the Emperor would “be entitled to an agreed equitable proportion of certain taxes to be levied… an income which will increase with the growth of the industrial and cultural life of the province.”
It was promised Harrar’s imported population would be “law-abiding, orderly and loyal citizens,” inspired by the “autonomy and the possibility of free development” granted by Ethiopian authorities. Palestine was cited as “an excellent example” of how Jews could “build up an agricultural and colonial settlement and to develop it successfully.” This would greatly “enrich” Ethiopia, offering “vast markets for the products of your land and stimulate the development of its natural resources.”
The Council signed off, “if a harassed and persecuted people can be turned into a happy and prosperous community, the whole of Ethiopia will thereby also be enriched and Your Majesty will rightly be regarded as one of the great benefactors of humanity.” In secret discussions with the State Department, the organisation bragged it had “reason to believe” the Emperor was “favorably inclined towards the Jewish people,” and there was “a fair probability that he will be willing to cooperate to a large extent.”
However, this was not to be. In July 1944, the Emperor’s subordinates politely informed the Council that while Ethiopia had eagerly “afforded asylum to many refugees from Europe,” authorities rejected any suggestion “an entire province” be given to “one group of refugees.” Resultantly, the Emperor demanded “the proposal…be now abandoned.” There is no indication that the British government was possessed of such opposition. Now, over 80 years later, the Harrar Council’s designs are on the verge of becoming reality.
With Trump’s recent regime change in Venezuela , the subject of American regime change is back in the mainstream conversation.
This marks the perfect time to note that the long-running hybrid regime change war on Venezuela is not unique to the country and is a repeat of similar regime change campaigns that Washington has unleashed around the world.
In this article, I will review the recent history of U.S. regime change operations.
Reshaping The Middle East
In 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu was elected as Prime Minister of Israel, and a group of American Zionist Neo-conservatives came up with a plan sent to him to have Israel dominate the Middle East.
These Neo-conservatives such as, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, laid out this plan in a letter sent to the newley elected Benjamin Netanyahu titled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” which called for him to abandon the prospect of a two state solution and instead overthrow governments in the Middle East that were seen as too sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, first and foremost though, “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right”.
When George W. Bush was elected president of the United States in 2000, many of the authors of this document filled up high ranks in his administration, Richard Perle was “A key advisor to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld”, Douglas Feith was, “Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from July 2001 until August 2005” and David Wurmser was “Middle East Adviser to then US Vice President Dick Cheney”.
After 9/11, these Neo-cons saw it as the perfect opportunity to carry out the “important Israeli strategic objective” of overthrowing Saddam Hussien.
The Pentagon created a Office of Special Plans, which funnelled fabricated intelligence from the U.S’s Iraq puppet Ahmad Chalabi, and a secret rump unit created by then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, which falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction.
Similarly, the UK’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair fabricated intelligence claiming Iraq had WMDS and spread the claim through a dossier, despite the fact- as the British Chilcot report later found- “the original reports said that intelligence was ‘sporadic and patchy’ and ‘remains limited’ and that ‘there was very little intelligence relating to Iraq’s chemical warfare programme’”, all of which was left out of the UK dossier.
Based on this mass fabrication, the U.S. and UK launched a criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003 and removed the Saddam Hussein-led regime, which killed 1.03 million people by 2008.
For the U.S, Israel, and the UK, this regime change war was only the beginning of a grander plan to “reshape the Middle East” through regime change.
The U.S. General Wesley Clark said that after 9/11, when he went to the Pentagon and met with “Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz” he learned they came up with a plan to, “take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and, finishing off, Iran.”
Clark later revealed that this plan came from a study which was “paid for by the Israelis” which expanded on the clean break document, saying, “if you want to protect Israel, and you want Israel to succeed… you’ve got to get rid of the states that are surrounding”.
The plan was later continued by the Obama administration when the Arab Spring protests erupted across the Middle East, to carry out the already planned regime change in Libya and Syria.
To take out Libya’s leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the Obama administration organized a bogus humanitarian intervention through NATO, claiming that Gaddafi was about to slaughter civilians.
Based on this false claim, the U.S. and allied NATO states intervened in Libya and bombed the way for “rebels” to take out Muammar Gaddafi.
But in 2015, a UK Parliament Inquiry into the regime change operation found that the claim Muammar Gaddafi was massacring civilians was fabricated, writing, “The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011”, and “The disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians”.
It added, “the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence”.
Furthermore, it noted that the rebel force backed by NATO, which was presented as moderate and pro-democracy, in reality was largely made up of, “militant Islamist militias” including branches of Al Qaeda and ISIS.
The regime change in Libya, was used by the U.S. advance the next regime change war in Syria.
Following the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, journalist Seymour Hersh reported that the CIA established a rat line to, “funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition” adding, “Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida”.
The CIA’s rat line to Al-Qaida linked rebels fighting the Bashar Al Assad regime eventually turned into a CIA program to arm the rebels directly, dubbed Timber Sycamore which the New York Times called, “one of the costliest covert action programs in the history of the CIA” and “one of the most expensive efforts to arm and train rebels since the agency’s program arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1980s”.
According to the Washington Postin 2015 , Timber Sycamore was, “one the agency’s largest covert operations, with a budget approaching $1 billion a year.”
A declassified State Department cable from 2015 revealed the real reason for the operation, writing, “A new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles” and “Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East” adding, “America can and should help them (Syrian rebels) – and by doing so help Israel”.
Following the CIA regime change program- as the U.S. Pentagon official Dana Stroul, boasted -the U.S. placed crushing sanctions on Syria and occupied one third of the country military which was the “economic powerhouse of Syria” with the intention of keeping Syria in “rubble” in hopes it would lead to regime change, a plan that eventually came through in late 2024, when CIA backed rebels overthrew Bashar Al Assad.
Turning Ukraine Into A U.S. Proxy
Another major U.S. regime change project was the overthrow of Ukraine’s neutral, elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to turn Ukraine into a U.S. proxy to be used to fight Russia.
The U.S., through USAID and NED, funded groups like New Citizen, which organized protests against Viktor Yanukovych in late 2013.
Once the protests were underway, they were overtaken by far-right extremist groups, including Right Sector and the Svoboda party, who eventually overthrew Yanukovych in a violent coup backed by the U.S. over false claims that Viktor Yanukovych massacred protestors in Maidan Square.
After the coup, the U.S. senator Chris Murphy, who went to Ukraine during the coup, admitted on C-Span, “With respect to Ukraine, we have not sat on the sidelines; we have been very much involved. Members of the Senate have been there, members of the state department that have been there on the (Maidan) square. The Obama administration passed sanctions, the Senate was prepared to pass its own set of sanctions, and as I said, I really think the clear position of the United States has been in part what has led to this change in regime. I think it was our role, including sanctions and threats of sanctions, that forced, in part, Yanukovych from office”.
The U.S. justified backing the coup based on the claim that Viktor Yanukovych’s forces committed a sniper massacre on protestors in Maidan Square, but in-depth research from the University of Ottawa’s Ukrainian-Canadian professor of political science, Ivan Katchanovski, proves that the massacre was actually carried out by Right Sector, one of the militant groups behind the coup.
Before the coup took place, then Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was caught on tape deciding who to install in government after Viktor Yanukovych was deposed, eventually deciding that, “Yats is the guy” referring to the Ukrainian opposition leader Arseniy Yatseniuk.
This – as Forbes Magazine noted at the time – was because, “Yanukovych resisted the International Monetary Fund’s demand to raise taxes and devalue the currency” while, “Yatsenyuk doesn’t mind”.
Ukrainian political scientist Konstantin Bondarenko documented the effect of the IMF-imposed policies after the U.S. imposed regime change in Ukraine, including:
“Ukraine’s GDP shrinking by approximately 17%”.
The exchange rate going from “8 hryvnias (Ukrainian dollar) to 1 U.S dollar” in 2013 to “23 hryvnias to the dollar” in 2015
Inflation rising from 24.9% in 2014 to 43.3% in 2015
a “significant decline in industrial production during the first two years” after the coup, leading to Ukraine losing “its economic cluster that manufactured goods with high added value (machine engineering)”
“mining and metallurgical complex, energy (coal production), chemicals, food production”, “sustained significant losses”.
“an increase in unemployment and the emigration of citizens from Ukraine to neighboring countries—primarily to Poland and Russia.”
“utility rates increasing by 123%, reaching up to 20% of family income” from the IMF introduced policies
Along with the IMF “reforms” the coup was done to turn Ukraine from a neutral country into a U.S proxy willing to fight Russia.
As Konstantin Bondarenko put it, “The West, however, did not want a Ukrainian president who pursued a multi-vector foreign policy; the West needed Ukraine to be anti-Russia, with clear opposition between Kyiv and Moscow. Yanukovych was open to broad cooperation with the West, but he was not willing to confront Russia and China. The West could not accept this ambivalence. The West needed a Ukraine charged for confrontation and even war against Russia, a Ukraine it could use as a tool in the fight against Russia.”
Following the regime change, the UK’s channel 4 news reported that, “the far-right took top posts in Ukraine’s power vacuum”, which supported abuses against Ukraine’s ethnic Russian population, including by supporting ethnic Russians being trapped in a burning trade Union building in Odessa in 2014 and burning alive, which eventually led to all out civil war in Eastern Ukraine.
Furthermore, the new U.S.-backed government dropped its neutral stance on NATO and, as former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg put it was, “keen to ensure that the resolution from the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, through which Ukraine had been promised NATO membership, would be upheld”.
This regime change- by design -provoked the eventual Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and ensuing U.S. proxy war to weaken Russia.
Regime Change In South America
The recent regime change in Venezuela is far from the only U.S. regime change in South America in recent years.
As Mother Jonesreported in 2004, when, “a rebellion erupted against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide”, Haiti’s democratically elected president, “Several leaders of the demonstrations — some of whom also had links to the armed rebels — had been getting organizational help and training from a U.S. government-financed organization”, the International Republican Institute, a subsidiary of the CIA cutout NED.
Mother Jones noted, “In 2002 and 2003, IRI used funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to organize numerous political training sessions in the Dominican Republic and Miami for some 600 Haitian leaders. Though IRI’s work is supposed to be nonpartisan — it is official U.S. policy not to interfere in foreign elections — a former U.S. diplomat says organizers of the workshops selected only opponents of Aristide and attempted to mold them into a political force. In 2004, several of the people who had attended IRI trainings were influential in the toppling of Aristide”.
In 2009, a military coup took place against Honduras’ elected president Manuel Zelaya, and an in-depth investigation fromthe Center for Economic and Policy Research Research Associate Jake Johnston later found that:
… high-level US military official met with Honduran coup plotters late the night before the coup, indicating advance knowledge of what was to come;
While the US ambassador intervened to stop an earlier attempted coup, a Honduran military advisor’s warning the night before the coup was met with indifference;
Multiple on-the-record sources support the allegations of a whistleblower at SOUTHCOM’s flagship military training university that a retired general provided assistance after-the-fact to Honduran military leaders lobbying in defense of the coup;
US training of Honduran military leaders, and personal relationships forged during the Cold War, likely emboldened the Honduran military to oust Zelaya and helped ensure the coup’s success;
US military actors were motivated by an obsessive concern with Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez’s perceived influence in the region, rather than just with developments in Honduras itself. …
From 2014-2018, the United States National Endowment for Democracy spent $4.1 million funding opposition groups in Nicaragua- which “laid the groundwork for insurrection” that attempted to violently oust the country’s president, Daniel Ortega.
The outlet Global Americans noted during the insurrection in 2018, “it is now quite evident that the U.S. government actively helped build the political space and capacity in Nicaraguan society for the social uprising that is currently unfolding”.
USAID even funded opposition outlets which- before the failed coup attempt- “urged anti-Sandinista forces to storm the presidential residence, kill the president, die by the hundreds doing so, and hang his body in public”.
The U.S. also caused a violent military coup in Bolivia in 2019, by pushing the false claim that the country’s president, Evo Morales, stole the election that year, which was used to justify the military coup, which installed a military dictatorship led by U.S. puppet Jeanine Áñez, who massacred many of Morales’ indigenous supporters when they protested the coup.
The U.S.’s latest regime change in Venezuela is yet another regime change campaign to be added to the long list.
Israel has authorised the use of electronic tracking devices on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, formalising real-time surveillance of civilians who have not been charged, tried or convicted of any crime, according to a new directive issued by the Israeli army.
The order allows Israeli authorities to compel Palestinians placed under administrative movement restrictions to wear or carry electronic monitoring devices and criminalises any attempt to tamper with them. The measure embeds electronic tagging within Israel’s system of military rule over the occupied territory, further expanding the regime of surveillance imposed on the Palestinian civilian population.
Significantly in another example of the Israel’s apartheid rule, defence minister, Israel Katz, has explicitly excluded illegal Jewish settlers in the West Bank from the directive, underscoring the discriminatory nature of the policy and its application along ethnic and national lines. The order was issued following coordination between the Israel Defense Forces, the Israel Security Agency, Israel Police, the Ministry of Justice and the military’s legal authorities responsible for the occupied West Bank.
Human rights observers note that the policy applies to civilians subjected to Israel’s system of administrative control, a framework that routinely denies Palestinians due process and relies on secret evidence. Palestinians placed under such measures often face severe movement restrictions, prolonged surveillance and the constant threat of detention without trial.
The new directive reflects what journalist and filmmaker Antony Loewenstein has described as Israel’s “Palestine Laboratory”, a system in which Palestinians are used as testing grounds for advanced military and surveillance technologies later exported abroad. In his work, Loewenstein argues that Israel exports not only weapons but a comprehensive model for controlling what it labels “difficult populations”, combining military force, mass surveillance and spatial domination.
This model is explored in Al Jazeera’s latest documentary How Israel tests military tech on Palestinians, part of The Palestine Laboratory series. The film documents how Israeli checkpoints function as experimental sites for so-called “frictionless” technologies, including AI-enabled remotely operated weapons that fire stun grenades, tear gas and sponge-tipped bullets. These systems are deployed at checkpoints where Palestinians are routinely subjected to intrusive searches and data collection.
The documentary also details Israel’s extensive use of biometric surveillance systems such as Red Wolf and Blue Wolf. Blue Wolf operates on soldiers’ mobile phones, enabling them to photograph Palestinians and instantly access personal data, movement histories and profiling information.
Red Wolf is installed at checkpoints and control rooms, scanning faces and assigning individuals a colour-coded risk score. Palestinians labelled as “red” are flagged for increased scrutiny, harassment or restriction, including journalists and non-violent human rights defenders. According to testimony featured in the film, Palestinians are categorised without consent and subjected to constant monitoring that shapes every aspect of daily life.
The documentary further exposes the close and often opaque partnerships between Israel’s military and private technology firms. Israeli companies have tested facial recognition, behavioural analysis software, CCTV networks, drones and invasive spyware on Palestinians before marketing these systems internationally as “battle-tested”.
Human rights groups warn that the expansion of electronic tracking and biometric surveillance in the occupied West Bank constitutes a serious violation of international law. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, an occupying power is prohibited from imposing collective punishment or discriminatory measures on a protected population.
Tucker is right, but he forgot to mention that Paul Singer is the largest contributor to the Philos Project, a group of Catholic lackeys who undermine Church teaching for Jewish interests. https://t.co/koiRPPkAzn
I want to make you a wager… I bet that 99% of Americans have never read the speech that President James Monroe made to the US Congress on December 2, 1823. As part of that speech — which was the seventh annual address to the US Congress — President Monroe outlined a policy that is now commonly referred to as the Monroe Doctrine. Understanding what President Monroe actually said has taken on more importance because Donald Trump referenced the Monroe Doctrine to justify his kidnapping of Venezuelan President Maduro. I am going to show you that President Monroe said nothing that would excuse or support Trump’s action. To the contrary, Trump is behaving like one of the old European colonial tyrants.
Trump is not the first to misunderstand the Monroe Doctrine, which is now widely interpreted in America as giving the US control of the Western Hemisphere and giving the US the right to take action against ANY foreign government that has relations with the countries of Central and South America, Mexico and Canada.
The essence of the Monroe Doctrine originally was a firm declaration to oppose European colonization of the Americas. Read carefully what Monroe said:
In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers
All US presidents in the 20th Century — including Trump — believe that the Monroe Doctrine gives the US a veto over political or economic relations that any country outside the Western Hemisphere can have with Canada, Mexico, and the countries of Central and South America. But Monroe’s focus was on European colonial imperialism. President Monroe did not declare that the US would be the final arbiter in deciding whether a country in Central or South America can voluntarily form a political or economic alliance with another country, such as China or Russia.
Monroe’s specific concern was to keep the US out of the wars that were ravaging Europe in the 19th Century. He said:
In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. . . .
We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere.But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.
Monroe made two critical points in the preceding two paragraphs… First, the US will act only if it is attacked or threatened by European powers. Again, his concern was to keep America free of the wars among the various European powers as they sought to secure and consolidate their respective colonial ambitions. Second, Monroe insisted that the US will not interfere with existing colonies or dependencies. However, if people in Mexico, Central America or South America decided to declare independence — as did the 13 British colonies on July 4, 1776 — then any European military action against those former colonies would be viewed as an attack on the United States. In other words, the US policy proposed by Monroe gave priority to those American countries that declared independence a tacit promise that the US would support them. However, this did not grant the US the right to unilaterally insert itself into the political affairs of countries in Central and South America, nor did it empower the US to carry out regime changes in those countries simply because we did not like the new rulers or the structure of the new government.
Monroe then makes a policy statement that every US president in the 20th and 21st Century has ignored… No interference in the internal affairs of other countries:
Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none.
Monroe concluded his outline of the Monroe Doctrine by emphasizing that would be his policy to prevent foreign governments from forcibly imposing their political systems on countries in the Western Hemisphere:
It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference.
Sadly, the Monroe Doctrine has been desecrated and ignored by a bevy of Presidents, starting with President Polk in 1848. Instead of defending Mexico and our Central and South American neighbors from foreign interference, we have repeatedly behaved as an authoritarian dictator. Mexico declared independence from Spain on 16 September 1810. Thirty-six years later, the US provoked a war with Mexico by annexing Texas and manufacturing a border crisis in service of a broader expansionist project. Maybe we should christen this kind of behavior as the Polk Doctrine, i.e., only we, the US, have the right to decide what kind of government the people and nations in the Western hemisphere can have. The Monroe Doctrine was intended to combat foreign interference by imperial powers… The US has bastardized that doctrine and now uses it as an excuse to feed our own imperial ambitions. Venezuela is just the latest casualty.
The US’ sudden military operation against Venezuela and the forcible seizure of the country’s president has dominated headlines worldwide since Saturday. The operation is viewed by global media and observers as a real-life example of the Monroe Doctrine in action, under which the Trump Administration claims that the Western Hemisphere is its sphere of influence.
Focus on the Monroe Doctrine intensified further after US President Donald Trump invoked the doctrine to defend the strike on Venezuela at a press conference on Saturday amid mounting international condemnation. “All the way back, it dates back to the Monroe Doctrine,” Trump stated at the press conference, according to a Sunday report by ABC News. “The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve surpassed it by a long shot. They’re calling it the ‘Don-roe Doctrine’ now,” he added.
Trump’s version of Monroe Doctrine, centered on “America First,” is a geopolitical strategy for the US to impose hegemonic control over the Western Hemisphere. Its core objective is to reconsolidate Latin America as America’s “backyard” through exclusive cooperation, extract regional resources, and ultimately serve US economic interests and consolidate its global hegemony, Xu Yanran, an associate professor at the School of International Relations, Renmin University of China, told the Global Times.
At a press conference on Monday, when asked for response to the sphere of influence concept – the Monroe Doctrine, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian reiterated China’s stance to “oppose hegemony and power politics.”
What exactly is the Monroe Doctrine? What role has it played in shaping US-Latin America relations over the past 200 years? And what does the doctrine’s resurgence mean for the region and the world? To answer these questions, the Global Times has launched a two-part series to decode the doctrine – a scourge that has haunted Latin America for 200 years – and to expose the US’ long-standing interventionist schemes in various fields across the region. In the first installment, we examine the doctrine’s historical evolution, draw comparisons between the Trump and original versions, and explore its potential implications for both the region and the wider world.
Shadow over the Western Hemisphere
The Monroe Doctrine was articulated by President James Monroe in 1823 to oppose European interference in Latin America. In the early 1900s, former US president Theodore Roosevelt expanded the doctrine to justify military intervention across the region. As a result, US Marines were sent into Santo Domingo in 1904, Nicaragua in 1911, and Haiti in 1915, according to an article on the website of the US National Archives and Records Administration.
In addition to direct intervention, the US also undertook dollar diplomacy – supposedly replacing bullets for dollars – aimed at expanding US financial capital in Latin America and fostering regional dependency on the US. The imposition of Panamanian independence and the construction of the canal are prominent examples of this policy, as are the numerous armed interventions in Central America, according to a paper released in 2020 by International Organisations Research Journal published by the National Research University Higher School of Economics in Russia.
With these practices, the Monroe Doctrine, originally designed to prevent other major world powers from meddling in Latin America, evolved into a pretext for the US to turn the region into its so-called “backyard.”
More grievously, in the aftermath of World War II, the US leveraged the Central Intelligence Agency for decades to infiltrate and meddle in the political affairs of Latin American nations. This trapped some countries in prolonged political instability and social deprivation, gravely derailing their paths toward modernization, Sun Yanfeng, director of Latin American research at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, told the Global Times.
One notable example occurred in December 1989, when the US invaded Panama, overthrowing Manuel Antonio Noriega’s regime and seeking long-term control over the Panama Canal. Noriega surrendered to the US authorities on January 3, 1990, the same date of the forcible seizure of Maduro.
While the US continues to pursue its “America First” agenda under the banner of the Monroe Doctrine, people across Latin America have gradually awakened. Resistance against US aggression, intervention, economic colonization and ideological control has steadily grown in the region since the 1990s after a number of anti-US left-wing forces successively came to power in several Latin American countries. At the same time, more Latin American countries have sought to pursue autonomous diplomatic policies and actively expand cooperation with both regional partners and countries beyond the hemisphere, opening up new space for their own development, according to a paper published on the Journal of Latin American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in April 2020.
It is against this backdrop that the Monroe Doctrine was widely described by experts and politicians as outdated. The US administration also appeared to acknowledge the shift. In November 2013 during a speech at the Organization of American States, former secretary of state John Kerry said that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over,” according to Fox News.
However, the Monroe Doctrine began to re-emerge at the forefront of the US policy agenda during Donald Trump’s first term, as Washington sought ways to address mounting domestic pressure and external challenges, according to another paper released in October 2025 by the Institute of Latin America Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
During the Biden administration, policy directions and agenda priorities hinted at the emergence of a new Monroe Doctrine. Following the inauguration of Trump’s second term, this new version has surged back into prominence and entered a phase of full-scale implementation, the paper said.
‘Far more radical’
In the 2025 National Security Strategy, the Trump administration vowed to enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, according to a document released on the White House website.
The core goal of the shift is to secure US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere amid the country’s declining power and to build a US-led regional order that excludes non-regional players, Sun said.
To achieve its goal in the Western Hemisphere, the Trump administration has sought to remove Venezuela, a standard-bearer of the anti-US camp in the Western Hemisphere and “a thorn in the US side,” according to Sun.
On the other hand, this year coincides with both the US midterm elections and the country’s 250th anniversary. Plagued by domestic political struggles, the Trump administration is in urgent need of a high-profile political achievement to strengthen its position, Sun said.
Another reason behind the shift is the Trump administration’s perception of a growing “threat” as Latin American countries, especially major ones, are opening up their economies not only to the US but to a broader range of partners, and in some cases forming competitive ties with the US, according to Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Therefore, the US does not hesitate to employ coercive means, even overt military force, to expand its economic control over Latin America, and this is the core of the so-called Don-roe Doctrine, Lü said.
He noted that the Don-roe Doctrine is notably characterized by the primacy of “might makes right,” a guiding principle rooted in the era of colonialism.
“Compared with the original Monroe Doctrine, Trump’s version is far more radical. It has shifted from ‘defense’ to ‘offense,’ proactively interfering in the internal affairs of Latin American countries through hegemonic means and even directly violating the interests of sovereign states,” Xu explained to the Global Times.
Against global trends
According to Reuters, Trump claimed at a Saturday press conference that his administration would “run” Venezuela “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” which experts contacted by the Global Times said is clearly illegal.
After the forcible seizure of Maduro, the Trump administration also took jabs at other Latin American leaders, including Gustavo Petro of Colombia and Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico, according to The New York Times.
While the Trump-version Monroe Doctrine may appear to be a strategic pivot in which the US is shifting the focus of its security strategy to the Western Hemisphere, the underlying intent of great-power competition is actually growing stronger.
Pan Deng, director of the Latin America and Caribbean Region Law Center of China University of Political Science and Law, told the Global Times that the Venezuela incident marks a major shift in US policy toward Latin America – moving away from relative neglect over the years and back onto a path of high-profile intervention and coercive pressure.
In fact, the two Trump administrations have launched a series of targeted operations to “take down Latin American countries one by one.” On the political front, the first Trump administration placed Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, and the subsequent sanctions inflicted a severe blow to Cuba’s economy.
Economic weapons have also been wielded frequently to repeatedly threaten to impose additional tariffs on Latin American countries. In terms of plundering regional resources, seizing strategic assets and even territorial expansion, the Trump administration has repeatedly made public threats to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” since returning back to the White House.
The US may have announced the end of the Monroe Doctrine, but the fact is, for the past more than 200 years, hegemonism and power politics, which is intrinsic in the Doctrine, is far from being abandoned, Lin Jian made the remarks at another press conference in August 2024, responding to protest in several Latin American countries against US interference in their internal affairs.
The US’s hegemonism and power politics runs counter to the unstoppable historical trend of Latin American countries staying independent and seeking strength through unity. Such approaches will win no support and be consigned to the dustbin of history, Lin noted.
Sun told the Global Times that while the US is once again attempting to extend its “long arm” into Latin America, the region is no longer what it once was. In recent years, Latin American countries have worked to strengthen unity and weather shared challenges. They have actively seized opportunities arising from the development of the Global South and expanded cooperation with countries in Asia and Africa.
During the seventh summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States in 2023, the bloc released the Declaration of Buenos Aires, sending a strong message in favor of regional cooperation and integration, and in opposition to foreign interference.
Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University, also warned a probable spillover effect of the resurgence of Monroe Doctrine from Latin American to the other regions, which could trigger greater global instability and deliver a subversive blow to the international order and established rules.
However, at the same time, it may also generate a sense of urgency that pushes more countries to strengthen solidarity, coordination, and cooperation. This applies not only to Global South nations, but also to other countries that may similarly intensify efforts to uphold multilateralism, safeguard peace, and defend international law and rules, Li said.
December 23rd marked the 35th anniversary of an independence referendum in Slovenia, then a Yugoslav republic. In all, 88.5% of registered voters – 95.7% of participants – said “da” to secession. The plebiscite prompted Ljubljana’s formal declaration of independence, and ensuingTen Day Warbetween Slovene territorial defence forces and the Yugoslav federal army. This was the spark that triggered bitter, bloody interethnic conflicts throughout Yugoslavia over the subsequent decade, and the multiethnic socialist federation’s ultimate destruction.
In May 2000, Britain’s Observer exposed how in the Ten Day War’s leadup, London secretly supplied Slovenia with tactical military communications equipment worth millions, to assist Ljubljana’s impending battle against the Yugoslav military. The disclosure elicited outcry, as London was officiallyat the time committed to preserving Yugoslavia, leading international efforts to prevent the country descending into fractious civil wars. The clandestine provision was at direct odds with this public-stated policy, which included unbending support for an arms embargo on the region.
Responding to the news, former British Foreign Secretary David Owen, who served as the EU’s lead peace negotiator during the Bosnian war, said he was “surprised” London covertly undermined her formal commitment to keeping Yugoslavia “together”. He nonetheless downplayed the assistance, noting what Britain supplied “was not aggressive” – “radios not guns”. Owen therefore argued the shipment “sails close to the border but does not cross it.” By contrast, the Observer reported the communications equipment “played a vital role” in Slovenia’s victory over Yugoslav forces.
This was because Ljubljana won the Ten Day War not via conventional military means, but a wide-ranging, devastatingly effective international propaganda campaign. In physical terms, the brief conflict consisted exclusively of minor skirmishes, and was largely bloodless, with just 44 Yugoslav soldiers and 18 Slovene territorials killed. One would not have known this from contemporary Western media reporting though, which relentlessly portrayed Slovenia as fighting countless grand military engagements against Belgrade’s barbarous invaders, and pluckily prevailing.
British military communications equipment greatly facilitated this informational onslaught. The psychological battlefield’s centrality to Ljubljana’s successful independence struggle had a resounding impact on Slovenia’s fellow breakaway Yugoslav republics. Engendering maximum international sympathy while demonising Belgrade became a core component of Albanian Kosovar, Bosniak and Croat war strategies. In Sarajevo, secessionist authorities deliberately immiserated the local population to create emotionally impactful images for global broadcast. Meanwhile, its military routinely carried out false flags, including targeting civilians with sniper fire. As Canadian UN peacekeepers on-the-ground directly observed:
“The [Bosniaks] are not above firing on their own people or UN areas and then claiming the Serbs are the guilty party in order to gain further Western sympathy. The [Bosniaks] often site their artillery extremely close to UN buildings and sensitive areas such as hospitals in the hope that Serb counter-bombardment fire will hit these sites under the gaze of the international media.”
Ljubljana’s triumph left an enduring impression upon the British too. In multiple proxy conflicts since, London has taken the lead on psychological warfare, in particular atrocity propaganda, vilifying official enemies and justifying intervention and regime change. Since February 2022, a secret Ministry of Defence-created military and intelligence cell, Project Alchemy, has endeavoured to “keep Ukraine fighting at all costs.” Fundamental to this effort are “information operations” designed to convince Western citizens, and Ukrainians themselves, Kiev can somehow defeat Russia, by grossly distorting reality on-the-ground.
‘Quite Incredible’
A memory-holed July 1991 report from now-defunct British newspaper The European – “Lies Win Balkan War Of Words” – lays out in forensic detail how Slovenia’s propaganda war was fought and won. The operation’s “nerve-centre” was “an underground conference complex deep below the streets of Ljubljana.” Here, dozens of Slovene Information Ministry apparatchiks “worked tirelessly” to provide over 1,000 foreign journalists with a relentless barrage of information about the conflict – particularly Yugoslav war crimes, and Slovene military victories – supposedly taking place above ground.
Wild figures on reported “tanks hit, shots fired, prisoners taken” by Ljubljana were supplied hourly. Meanwhile, the Slovenes struck up a chummy rapport with their overseas guests, portraying themselves “as clean-limbed, tanned church-goers who only wanted to live peacefully and democratically in their Alpine idyll of mountains, lakes and meadows.” They claimed to be under attack by “ruthless Communists… dirty, unshaven brutes who dropped cluster bombs on innocent civilians… [and] sought to inflict [their] intolerant religious fanaticism and alphabet of squiggly lines on Europe.”
Ljubljana “needed a bloody, dramatic conflict to ensure the world did not lose interest” in their independence crusade. Thus, “they showered the media with details of battles that had often never taken place,” frequently “enlivening the day” with lurid, often unfalsifiable assertions, such as Belgrade landing “squads of special troops in plain clothes” across the country “to terrorise the population,” or plotting to target a local nuclear power plant and create a Chernobyl-style disaster. Journalists dutifully amplified these dubious claims as fact internationally.
Such was the deluge, “it was possible to report the war without ever venturing above ground” – “but, for those who did venture into the sunlight, the bunker war often seemed a fantasy.” For example, Western news outlets widely covered a purportedly “major battle” at Jezersko, a municipality near Austria. When The European visited the area subsequently, “greatly surprised” local Slovene militiamen instead described a brief tussle with a few Yugoslav soldiers over a borderpost in which “no one had been hurt.”
Throughout the Ten Day War, the Western-backed separatist government of neighbouring Croatia was “carefully analysing” Ljubljana’s informational offensive. They concluded the conflict’s “decisive engagements, which virtually guaranteed Slovenia’s independence, took place in the pages of the foreign media and, even more important, in the news bulletins of the major television networks.” Zagreb duly launched its own “propaganda blitz”. Croat officials were instructed “to hold twice-daily press conferences, which should be as colourful and dramatic as possible,” while Western journalists were given tours by soldiers:
“Everywhere, in town halls, hotel foyers and crouching nervously behind roadblocks, Croat mayors, police chiefs and militia officers… hold press conferences or hand out neatly-typed news bulletins to tell the world of the latest atrocities by Serbian extremists and of unprovoked attacks by the [Yugoslav] army… The Croats’ strategy today is clear. They are bombarding the world with information, which is usually so petty it seems it must be true.”
For example, Croatia’s state media agency Hina pumped out “extraordinarily detailed accounts of the fighting allegedly taking place in the countryside,” with an emphasis on “trivial” incidents. Typically, it was “impossible to check most of these reports precisely because the clashes were so minor that, even if they happened, they left no mark.” This inconsequential, unverifiable cavalcade was occasionally interspersed with “quite incredible allegations”, such as Belgrade having flooded the republic with “hired assassins” drawn from the ranks of Romania’s notorious Communist-era Securitate.
‘Managed Understanding’
The “grotesque caricatures” of Yugoslav forces, and Serbs more generally, as uniquely bloodthirsty monsters peddled by “brilliant” propagandists in Ljubljana and Zagreb took “hold of the public imagination in the West”, transforming “complex” interethnic struggles “into a straightforward battle between the forces of light (Slovenes and Croats) and darkness (Serbs).” This fraudulent dichotomy was exploited even more perniciously during the Bosnian civil war, and subsequent Kosovo ‘crisis’, during which atrocity propagandaserved to justify and sustain NATO’s criminal 78-day-long bombingof Belgrade in 1999.
An impactful staged photo, Croatia, Christmas 1992
The European concluded by noting reliance on psychological manipulation to win wars created a “major problem”. Namely, while “a daily publicity blitz of exaggerations and lies may win international support… it will do nothing to heal the divisions which are ripping the country apart.” Locking-in overseas sympathy made Western-backed leaders in the former Yugoslavia less willing to accept negotiated settlements, and keep brutal internecine battles grinding on, safe in the knowledge further carnage only strengthened their position, in information warfare terms.
Notably, a key propaganda strategy for Croats and Slovenes, per The European, was to portray Yugoslav forces “as incompetent and thuggish.” An identical disinformation dynamic played out during the first 18 months of the Ukraine proxy war. As a November 2023 NATO paper on “Humour In Online Information Warfare” revealed, the military alliance and its Kiev puppets specifically sought to weaponise “humour and mockery”, emphasising “Russian failures” and “Ukrainian determination” in media reporting and online, from the conflict’s inception.
These efforts augmented “the responsiveness and impact” of Ukraine’s “information campaigns,” proving “instrumental” in Kiev securing “US-made F-16 combat aircraft” in August 2023, among other Western arms shipments. The NATO paper makes clear weaponisation of mockery is a long-running objective for the alliance, citing a 2017 study, “Stratcom Laughs”, which outlines methods of exploiting “humour” as a military “communications tool”. Four years later, an official Ukrainian government website entry boasted of how such methods can “influence your opinion”:
“How does propagandistic humor work? Relieves tension, makes perception less critical. Uses common contexts to convey messages with which the audience agrees. Simplifies everything to the ‘obvious’. Creates clear groups: strong and intelligent ‘we’ and clumsy and stupid ‘they’. Of course, the audience associates itself with the former and begins to despise the latter. Simplified managed understanding is easily disseminated by the audience and creates the necessary social context for propagandists.”
Atrocity propaganda has also played a crucial role in prolonging the unwinnable quagmire at unsustainable economic, human, and material cost. In April 2022, British intelligence exploited the ever-mysterious Bucha incident to sabotage fruitful peace talks between Kiev and Moscow, framing the apparent killing of innocent civilians in the town as somehow genocidal. At the time, a US Defense Intelligence Agency apparatchik lamented how the “Bucha Effect” had “led to frozen negotiations and a skewed view of the war” – apparently unaware this was London’s precise objective.
Algeria has taken a legal step that may one day resolve many of the challenges experienced by formerly colonized peoples.
On December 24, 2025, the Algerian parliament passed a law declaring France’s colonization of the country between 1830 and 1962 illegal. The law lists France’s colonial-era atrocities against Algerians, including mass extrajudicial killings, torture and enforced disappearances, displacement and confinement, use of banned weapons, plunder of resources, and sexual violence, among others, and demands an apology and reparation. The unanimous adoption of anti-France law on the continent where association with Western Europeans gave credibility to elitist African politicians in previous decades signifies a profound shift. Both the timing and the law mark the erosion of social and legal engineering that justified colonial-era crimes, even by some independent African governments. Passing the law on Christmas Eve, when many Africans were celebrating an event spread alongside Western colonialism, sent an unmistakable message, while the legislation signified the defeat of France’s legal engineering in Algeria, which justified all aspects of colonialism and guided the Algerian government to reason in a similar way, as is the case in formerly colonized countries. This paper looks into how Algeria’s criminalization of France’s colonialism represents a crucial milestone in defeating vestiges of Western colonialism across Africa.
Defeating Colonial-Era Legal Engineering and Its Results
Algeria’s action opens a legislative front to complement other anti-colonial actions, including armed struggle and litigation. Its significance was revealed by how key European media panicked and launched into incoherent and self-indicting diversions. While other major news media, including The National Interest, Africa News, and Associated Press, foregrounded Algeria’s legislation, including its merits and implications, EU allied media, including France 24 and DW, downplayed the vote and emphasized the views of their pundits, who strangely agreed that the action was symbolic. They argued that laws passed in Algeria are internal, lacking effect outside the country, including in France, which means that all policies and laws passed in France to facilitate colonialism lacked legal bases in Algeria and other colonies. Therefore, laws made in France to authorize the invasion of Algeria, expropriation of its land, repression, forced labor, and nuclear tests were illegal, which confirms the Algerian parliament’s unanimous decision. Therefore, the media indicted France’s colonialism, including forms implemented by other European powers, before quoting an earlier statement by French President Emmanuel Macron, that Algeria’s actions hinder dialogue. Such views conceal a begrudging admission that Algeria has refused to interpret relations with France through colonial lenses, which erodes neocolonial control. Therefore, colonial-era wrongdoing, including crimes against humanity, dispossession, torture, and illegal nuclear tests, will no longer be interpreted through France’s rhetoric or be concealed through colonial legal engineering.
The key reason why Algeria’s Christmas Eve legislation unnerves European colonizers is that it signals that the former colony has overcome social and legal engineering implemented to sustain control, something that may spread to others. With time, other formerly colonized countries will no longer interpret colonial-era atrocities using colonizers’ legislative and judicial lenses that justified and sanitized racism, violence, and plunder. Such changes will leave colonizers exposed and liable. For instance, France and Great Britain provide a striking example. The legislative and judicial bodies they created served as a cover for crimes. The murder of colonized peoples was presented as “enforcing social order,” and the expropriation of land and resources as “economic development.”Also, concentration camps for dispossessed people were framed as “reservations.” This legal perversion was passed to some post-colonial governments, which have continued to use it. However, Algeria’s move signals a shift from such engineering and entails relying on universal human rights to remodel legislatures and judiciaries, creating political systems that eradicate neocolonial control.
From armed struggle to justice
The struggle for independence did not conclude with official declarations following the armed struggles of the mid-20th century. Instead, many African countries, especially in francophone Africa, have continued facing neocolonialism and have responded, including through coups in the Sahel. The progression of the struggle from armed conflict through litigation now needs a boost through legislation to aid African victims who have continued demanding justice for colonial atrocities. The aforementioned legislation from Algiers may signal the beginning of a systematic review of colonial-era legal systems, which will expand freedoms for formerly colonized peoples. It indicates that the legal order left by European colonialists has lost legitimacy and was emphatically overthrown just before Christmas. This overthrow was a progression from previous actions, such as the Mau Mau freedom fighters of Kenya’s suing the British Government for its violations in Kenya during the 1950s. The legal suit forced the UK government to admit to violating the rights of Kenyan freedom fighters, in an out-of-court settlement in June 2013. Such a convoluted legal process occurred since the UK could not countenance being found guilty by the racist legal framework it created. However, a legal provision like the one passed in Algeria could have helped to catch the slippery colonizer.
Criminalizing colonialism may have many positive consequences for previously colonized people as they seek truth, justice, and reparations. It provides a legal framework for addressing remaining injustices and reclaiming land still held by colonialists, which is protected by colonial-era legal engineering. For instance, many Kenyans have not regained their land that was expropriated under colonial legal justification to date, primarily because the legal system in use perpetuates colonial dispossession. These victims have resorted to litigating their case in European courts, as they feel helpless since the existing laws protect current holders of land that was expropriated by the colonial government as late as the 1920s. This land should have been automatically given back to the African owners after independence in 1963. This unfortunate reality could be corrected if the legislature and judiciary were wrested back from colonial legal engineering to create laws that criminalize colonialism and illegal actions done during the colonial era.
Other Africans can learn from Algeria’s Lead.
Algeria’s action represents the continuation of the pursuit of justice by Africans and a warning to European colonialists that their conceding minimal freedoms to Africans is not the end. In places where armed struggles of the mid-20th century achieved only limited freedom, such as in the Sahel, instability persisted and culminated in recent coups through which France lost influence. In others, legal struggle continues, as seen in the case of Kenya. Additionally, others like Algeria have escalated and reversed colonial legal engineering, an aspect that will likely be used in other countries until Africans achieve their fullest extent of freedoms. The recent acceleration in decolonization of Francophone Africa should not mislead the British, Dutch, or Portuguese into thinking that their neocolonialism will continue in perpetuity. Instead, the next efforts towards defeating the remaining vestiges of colonialism might be directed towards deconstructing and reversing the legal and political engineering that gives them neocolonial control to date. Rights movements across Africa might soon start championing the criminalization of colonialism in other countries to reverse colonial-era legal and political engineering for a free Africa.
Simon Chege Ndiritu, is a political observer and research analyst from Africa
Latin America’s history is not simply a chronicle of poverty or instability, as it is so often portrayed in Western discourse. It is, more fundamentally, a record of resistance – resistance to colonial domination, to foreign exploitation, and to local elites willing to trade their nations’ futures for personal power and external approval.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, kidnapped by US forces and about to be put on trial on nebulous and transparently politically-motivated charges, joins a very particular lineup of Latin American leaders. Across different centuries, ideologies, and political systems, the region has produced leaders who, despite their flaws, shared one defining trait: they placed national sovereignty and popular interests above obedience to empire.
From the very beginning, the first Latin American heroes emerged in open defiance of colonial rule. Figures such as Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla and José María Morelos in Mexico did not merely seek independence as an abstract ideal; they tied it to social justice – abolishing slavery, dismantling racial hierarchies, returning land to Indigenous communities. Simón Bolívar (in whose honor the country of Bolivia is named) and José de San Martín, a national hero in Argentina, Chile and Peru, carried this struggle across an entire continent, breaking the grip of Spanish imperial power and imagining a united Latin America strong enough to resist future domination. Their unfinished dream still haunts the region.
Yet independence from Spain did not mean freedom from imperial pressure. By the late 19th century, the US had openly declared Latin America its “sphere of influence,” treating it not as a collection of sovereign nations but as a strategic backyard. From that point forward, the central political question facing Latin American leaders became starkly clear: resist external domination, or accommodate it.
Those who resisted often paid a heavy price. Augusto César Sandino’s guerrilla war forced US troops out of Nicaragua – only for him to be murdered by US-backed strongman Anastasio Somoza, whose family would rule the country for decades. Salvador Allende attempted a democratic and peaceful path to socialism in Chile, nationalizing strategic industries and asserting economic independence, only to be overthrown in a violent coup backed from abroad. Fidel Castro and Ernesto “Che” Guevara turned Cuba into a symbol – admired by some, despised by others – of what open defiance of US hegemony looked like in practice: economic strangulation, sabotage, isolation, and permanent hostility.
Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chávez, working in a different era and through elections rather than armed struggle, revived this tradition in the twenty-first century. By reclaiming control over Venezuela’s oil wealth, expanding social programs, and pushing for Latin American integration independent of Washington, he directly challenged the neoliberal order imposed across the region in the 1990s. Whatever one thinks of the outcomes, the principle was unmistakable: national resources should serve the nation, not foreign shareholders.
Opposed to these figures stands a darker gallery – leaders whose rule depended on surrendering sovereignty piece by piece. Anastasio Somoza, Fulgencio Batista in Cuba, the Duvaliers in Haiti, Manuel Estrada Cabrera and Jorge Ubico in Guatemala, and others like them governed through repression at home and obedience abroad. Their countries became laboratories for foreign corporations, especially US interests, while their populations endured poverty, terror, and extreme inequality. The infamous “banana republic” was not an accident of geography; it was the logical result of policies that subordinated national development to external profit.
Even when repression softened and elections replaced open dictatorship, collaboration persisted. Neoliberal reformers such as Fernando Belaúnde Terry and Alberto Fujimori in Peru dismantled state control over strategic sectors, privatized national assets, and aligned their countries ever more tightly with US-led economic models. The promised prosperity rarely arrived. What did arrive were weakened institutions, social devastation, and, in Fujimori’s case, mass human rights abuses carried out under the banner of “stability” and “security.”
In very recent history, the figure of Juan Guaidó in Venezuela illustrates a modern version of the same pattern: political legitimacy sought not from the population, but from foreign capitals. By openly inviting external pressure and intervention against his own country, he embodied a long-standing elite fantasy – that power can be imported, even if sovereignty is the price.
Latin America’s lesson is brutally consistent. Imperial powers may change their rhetoric, but their logic remains the same. They reward obedience temporarily, discard collaborators when convenient, and punish defiance relentlessly. Meanwhile, those leaders who insist on autonomy – whether priests, revolutionaries, presidents, or guerrilla fighters – are demonized, sanctioned, overthrown, or killed.
To defend sovereignty in Latin America has never meant perfection. It has meant choosing dignity over dependency, development over plunder, and popular legitimacy over foreign approval. That is why these figures endure in popular memory – as symbols of a region that has never stopped fighting to belong to itself.
In short, there is no unique or special case against Nazi barbarism and horrors unless one assumes that it is far more wicked to exterminate Jews than to massacre Gentiles. While this latter value judgment appears to have become rather generally accepted in the Western world since 1945, I am personally still quaint enough to hold it to be reprehensible to exterminate either Jews or Gentiles.”
—Harry Elmer Barnes
INTRODUCTION
Anyone still questioning the relevance of World War II revisionism to politics today should realize how often our liberal, globalist elites not only invoke World War II, but also ignore, suppress, or besmirch revisionism. Whenever a mainstream personality invites a revisionist on his program, he gets swiftly rebuked and called a Nazi not only by the Left but also by people presumably on the Right. Recently, Jewish commentator Mark Levin invoked the massacre of German civilians during World War II to justify the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Clearly, whenever someone questions the authority of our liberal elites, they fire back with World War II. Since Adolf Hitler and the Nazis represent the most extreme form of evil and since globalist liberalism is the ideological opposite of Nazism, any form of oppression and aggression by globalist liberals is justifiable—as long as it is aimed against so-called “Nazis.” And if you happen to be against liberalism or globalism these days, it’s only a matter of time before you get dubbed a “Nazi.”
Historian Harry Elmer Barnes understood this perfectly over seventy years ago and promoted revisionism in the face of eerily similar oppression and backlash. Nine of his most incisive essays on the topic—written between 1951 and 1962—are collected in Barnes Against the Blackout, which was published by the Institute for Historical Review in 1991. Several important themes run through these essays. First, Barnes wishes to proselytize revisionism, and does so by constantly referencing and summarizing the great American works of revisionism of his day. These include:
Given the suffocating interventionist hysteria of the time, major publishers declined to publish these volumes despite how many of them had been written by prominent, well-respected historians. Either the publishers were ardent interventionists themselves, or they feared backlash from anti-revisionists who wielded great power in America, just as they do today. Except for the Neilson volumes, which were self-published, these works found only two small publishing houses brave enough to publish them: Regnery and Devin-Adair.
Two later volumes which Barnes discusses often are TheOrigins of the Second World War (1961) by AJP Taylor and The Forced War (1961) by David Hoggan. (See part one of my three-part review of Hoggan here.) These prove to be slight exceptions to Barnes’ America-centric approach since Taylor was British, and, although Hoggan was American, his work was only available in German at the time.
Another crucial theme running through Barnes Against the Blackout is the presentation of the evidence for revisionism. How do we know the official war narratives are less correct than what the revisionists offer? Barnes is never shy about sharing this information—and there is a lot of it. As with many essay collections from a single author about a single topic, there’s much overlap. And that’s okay. It’s never too much of a good thing revealing how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt “lied the United States into war.”
Describing exactly how the establishment suppressed revisionism in Barnes’ day emerges as another important theme. Barnes focuses on it most in his first two essays, both published in 1953: “Revisionism and the Historical Blackout” (which also serves as the first chapter in his collection Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace from the same year) and “The Court Historians Versus Revisionism.”
Barnes’ final theme is also his most speculative: extending revisionism into the Cold War and postulating how it might avert a nuclear Armageddon. Here is where we find Barnes at his most stunningly prescient but also were he winds up, in spots, to be somewhat dated. Through it all, he utilizes George Orwell’s 1984, which never fails to produce a parallel for whatever point Barnes wishes to make. He explores this novel’s uncanny mirroring of reality in the book’s final essay, 1952’s “How ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ Trends Threaten American Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity.”
Barnes Against the Blackout is also interesting for its seemingly negligible treatment of the Jews. Barnes says very little about them directly. However, this amounts to what I call an anti-theme because any reader familiar with Jewish power and supremacy can fill in the blanks where Barnes could have opined about the Jews, but didn’t—or at least didn’t seem to. This adds an extra layer of meaning to Barnes Against the Blackout.
THE EVIDENCE
The evidence for World War II revisionism which Barnes compiles appears in two distinct yet related branches of history: Pearl Harbor revisionism and Western European revisionism. For the former, he relies greatly on Tansill, Sanborn, and Morgenstern, and demonstrates how the U.S. not only goaded the Japanese into attacking as a “back door to war” against Japan’s ally Nazi Germany, but also knew where the attack would occur and approximately when, thereby outraging the American public into supporting military intervention. Barnes believes this “constituted one of the major public crimes of human history.”
The major facts line up as so:
Roosevelt floated war with the Japanese as early as 1933 during one of his first cabinet meetings.
The U.S. aided and encouraged Chiang Kai Shek to fight against the Japanese in China during the 1930s.
Days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Roosevelt ignored Japanese Prince Fumimaro Konoye’s peace overtures which proposed humiliating concessions for Japan in return for “a little time and a face-saving formula.”
In early 1941 Ambassador Joseph Grew had clearly warned that Pearl Harbor would be the likeliest point of attack. Despite agreements from Washington, US forces at Pearl Harbor remained unprepared for it.
Secretary of War Henry Stimson stated on November 25, 1941 that, “the question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without too much danger to ourselves.”
The US had intercepted the “East Wind Rain” message three days before the attack, which clearly signaled Japanese intentions. Yet Admiral Husband Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short, who were responsible for Pearl Harbor, were kept in the dark about it.
Barnes presents most of this information while piercing holes in the specious logic of pro-interventionist works written by what he calls “court historians.” The two most relevant to Pearl Harbor are Herbert Feis, who wrote The Road to Pearl Harbor (1950), and Basil Rouch, who wrote Roosevelt from Munich to Pearl Harbor (1950). Barnes demonstrates how these historians either ignored, distorted, or misconstrued the above evidence. His point is clear: if the notions of Pearl Harbor being a surprise attack and Roosevelt’s naïve innocence about it were lies, there’s no telling what other lies had been told. It turns out there were many.
As for Western Europe, the facts are equally damning, if perhaps more voluminous. All of them cannot be included a single review, but the points Barnes most often bangs home include:
The diplomatic history of the 1930s, as collected by Taylor and Hoggan, shows that Adolf Hitler did not want war and did what he could to avoid it.
The diplomatic history also reveals that Hitler had made reasonable requests to Poland regarding the “international” (yet very German) city of Danzig; yet Polish leaders refused to negotiate at the urging of Lord Halifax in England who had given Poland a “blank check” assurance of English military support against Germany.
In his last report as Chief of Staff in 1945, General George Marshall had claimed that Hitler “far from having any plan of world domination, did not even have any well-worked-out plan for collaborating with his Axis allies in limited wars, to say nothing of the gigantic task of conquering Russia.”
Hitler had allowed tens of thousands of British troops to escape at Dunkirk “to promote peace sentiments in Britain.”
Hitler had excellent reasons to invade the Soviet Union since the Soviets had “practiced sabotage, terrorism, and espionage against Germany, had resisted German attempts to establish a stable order in Europe, had conspired with Great Britain in the Balkans, and had menaced the Third Reich with troop concentrations.”
Documentary evidence, such as “The German White Paper” found by the Germans after their conquest of Poland, demonstrates the extent to which American ambassador William Bullitt had assured Poland of American military support in the event of war with Germany. This was corroborated by Czechoslovak president Eduard Benés who claimed in his autobiography that on May 29th, 1939 Roosevelt himself had assured him that if war broke out in Europe, America would join the fight against Germany.
The Lend-Lease program, the “Destroyer Deal” between Britain and the United States, the secret Tyler Kent documents, and Roosevelt’s 1941 meeting with Winston Churchill in Newfoundland offer circumstantial evidence that Roosevelt had clear belligerent intentions well before war was declared.
As with Pearl Harbor, Barnes often presents this evidence while reviewing books written by court historians. The most prominent of these is The Struggle Against Isolation, 1937–1940 (1952) by William Langer and SE Gleason. Despite never proclaiming Hitler’s innocence, Barnes repeatedly stresses that the man’s sole responsibility for starting the war is a complete falsehood—a falsehood which is the foundation of all post-1945 politics. In his 1962 essay “Revisionism and Brainwashing,” he states with characteristic flourish:
It is unlikely that there has been any vested interest in dogma, opinion, and politics since the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ equal in intensity to that built up around the allegation that Hitler was solely responsible for the outbreak of war in 1939.
One interesting side note: Barnes implies more than once that it was Hitler’s actions in East Asia rather than Europe which truly antagonized Roosevelt. This contradicts some of Barnes’ other claims about Roosevelt’s opposition to Hitler vis-à-vis Europe. Take, for example, this paragraph from the essay “Rauch on Roosevelt”:
Indeed, it was only in 1938, when Hitler recalled his military mission from China, where Nazi officers had been directing the forces of Chiang Kai-shek against the Japanese, that Roosevelt became actually hostile to Hitler in his policies, whatever the previous rhetoric. Right down through the Spanish Civil War, Mr. Roosevelt condoned when he did not favor, most of Hitler’s policies. Even as late as August, 1939, it appears from the Nazi Soviet Relations that Roosevelt was inclined to put nothing in the way of Hitler if he abandoned support of Japan, sent his military back to help Chiang, and delivered arms to the Chinese.
This is an interesting conundrum considering that Barnes brings up Benés’ recollection from May 1939 in the same essay.
THE BLACKOUT
Barnes spills a lot of ink outlining the ways in which revisionism was suppressed and marginalized after 1945. This often resulted from mainstream historians either having vested professional interests in perpetuating the “good war” myth of World War II—since they themselves promoted it while it was happening—or they sought the wealth, fame, and opportunity afforded to academics who adhered to the official narrative of the war.
In “Revisionism and the Historical Blackout” Barnes enumerates the following methods of suppression:
Excluding revisionists from official documents, while allowing state-approved court historians free access to them
Barnes describes how revisionist historians had been barred from viewing many sensitive documents and in some cases had had their own notes confiscated after viewing the ones they were allowed to see. Barnes concedes that Charles Tansill did ultimately view more documents than other revisionists, but Tansill did not enjoy the free reign of information afforded to court historians like Langer and Feis.
Intimidating publishers into not publishing revisionism
Barnes describes how political pressure groups not only ensured that revisionist volumes would not sell, but made it clear that publishers releasing such material would face business-crippling backlash. Barnes recalls how a major publisher explained this to him despite his personal sympathies towards revisionism. Libraries, book clubs, and nationwide periodicals also contributed to this blackout. Barnes mordantly notes that the post-1945 “Blackout Boys” outdid the Nazis in suppressing honest intellectual inquiry.
Ignoring revisionist works that do get published
Barnes demonstrates how the majority of revisionist works simply did not get reviewed in important mainstream publications—or when they did, as with the case of Charles Beard, they received either cursory attention or were maliciously panned. It almost goes without saying that this silent treatment was not afforded to court historians, whose works received ample praise everywhere. Barnes relays the following recollection from journalist Oswald Garrison Villard to illustrate his point:
I myself rang up a magazine which some months previously had asked me to review a book for them and asked if they would accept another review from me. The answer was, “Yes, of course. What book had you in mind?” I replied, “Morgenstern’s Pearl Harbor.”
“Oh, that’s that new book attacking F.D.R. and the war, isn’t it?”
“Yes.”
“Well, how do you stand on it?”
“I believe, since his book is based on the records of the Pearl Harbor inquiry, he is right.”
“Oh, we don’t handle books of that type. It is against our policy.”
Smearing revisionists personally
Barnes offers several examples of ad hominem attacks upon revisionist historians by the “Smearbund,” as he calls them. Often “isolationism” itself became a slur, as if labeling a person thusly were reason enough to dismiss him. More often, however, reviewers would attempt to ruin a revisionist’s reputation by imputing some evil or underhanded motive rather than argue the facts. Barnes notes how reviewers used phrases such as “bitterly partisan” or “blind anger” when describing Morgenstern while ignoring their own partisan anger. He also notes how one reviewer attempted to discredit Beard because he was hard of hearing and lived on a farm. One reviewer freely admitted to lambasting The Forced War without having read a word of it.
THE COLD WAR AND BEYOND
In his 1954 essay “The Chickens of the Interventionist Liberals Have Come Home to Roost,” Harry Elmer Barnes introduces the idea of the “totalitarian liberal.” Such men (as exemplified by Arthur Schlessinger Jr.) distinguished themselves from pre-World-War-II liberals in their lust for power and abandonment of principled anti-interventionism. Such men make up James Burnham’s managerial elite as described in his 1941 work The Managerial Revolution, which Barnes discusses. Such people reject “the coexistence of conflicting political and economic systems,” and in so doing promote a “we or they psychosis” which enables elites to wage war in the name of “collective security,” a notion which Barnes finds utterly spurious. This is how it was during World War II and it was no different during the Cold War, according to Barnes, except that both sides were mutually deterred by nuclear weapons.
Barnes further extends revisionism into the Cold War in his 1958 essay “Revisionism and the Promotion of Peace.” He remembers how despite standing against World-War-II intervention, patriotic political organizations like America First later fell in line with Cold War intervention “because of the business advantages in industry, trade and finance which an extravagant armament program provided.” President Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex,” in other words. In light of this, Barnes’ passionate belief in the critical importance of revisionism becomes crystal clear. If standing against intervention in 1939 could have spared tens of millions of lives, standing against it during the Cold War could spare humanity a nuclear Armageddon. Indeed, the specter of World War III haunts much of Barnes Against the Blackout.
The final essay in the collection, “How ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ Trends Threaten American Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity” takes the Cold War comparison even further. The “we or they psychosis” becomes the “war psychology,” which led to the absurdity of “perpetual war through perpetual peace.” This is straight out of Orwell’s 1984, which Barnes calls “the keenest and most penetrating work produced in this generation on the current trends in national policy and world affairs.” In the novel, Big Brother (whom Barnes considers a totalitarian liberal) manufactures phony outrages to prolong phony wars designed ultimately to consolidate very real power for himself and the elite classes. And the masses are either hypnotized enough by propaganda, intimidated enough by government, or distracted enough by entertainment to go along with it. Meanwhile, all reliable historical material is destroyed to disconnect the people from their past—just like what the Blackout Boys tried to do with revisionist accounts of World War II. Barnes sees 1984 as a direct mirror to reality.
And there is much truth to this, as shown by how Barnes uses his “Orwell Formula” to predict the Vietnam War as early as 1952:
The declining public interest in the Korean War has made President Truman and his associates the more willing to accept Churchill’s proposal to shift the main psychological impact of the cold war to Indochina, where it may both revive flagging American fear and excitement and also more directly protect adjacent British interests. The Orwell formula has been faithfully worked out in first directing fear and hatred against Nazi Germany, then against Soviet Russia, next shifting antagonism more toward Communist China, and then moving the chief center of interest in the struggle against the latter from Korea to Indochina.
Despite the clarity and prescience of this essay, Barnes makes a few questionable calls. In keeping with his aversion to the Orwellian doublethink of Cold War psychology and hysteria, he impugns the Truman Doctrine as a sham meant to “rehabilitate Mr. Truman’s fast-fading political prospects.” He also paints the USSR in a more benign light than it deserves—as if the United States were the aggressor during the Cold War and had no legitimate reason to employ deterrence or containment strategies against Communism. And in 1952, perhaps the Soviets did seem to some as unlikely to pose a real threat to American interests. But this was before they detonated their first hydrogen bomb in 1953. This was before their invasion of Hungary, and the Berlin Wall, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and a host of other threatening actions. While Barnes makes excellent points about the injustice of blacking out revisionism, this was nothing compared to the psychological warfare the Soviets waged for decades against its own people which culminated in the terror famines, the Great Terror, and the gulags.
It seems that the Soviet Union during the Cold War made for a much more appropriate nemesis than did Nazi Germany. That Barnes seems to disagree, however, is not my bone of contention here. For all I know, Barnes is correct. However, the time he should have spent dispensing with counterarguments from seasoned cold warriors like George Kennan (who barely gets a mention in Barnes Against the Blackout) was instead spent admiring the life-imitating-art impact of 1984. Interesting and enlightening for sure, but hardly the final word on the subject.
THE JEWS
Direct treatment of the Jews in Barnes Against the Blackout rarely rises above incidental. Many of the “court historians” and “Blackout Boys” Barnes mentions do happen to be Jewish—Herbert Feis, Max Lerner, and Selig Adler are some obvious examples. However, just as many if not more are gentiles, such as William Langer, Samuel Eliot Morison, and Samuel Flagg Bemis. In his essays, Barnes never singles a person out as being Jewish. This certainly protects him from the charge of Jew-baiting, but it also prevents him from drawing conclusions from the fact that while a substantial proportion of anti-revisionists were Jews, none of the nine major revisionists mentioned in Part 1 were—clearly a meaningful data point.
When he does mention American Jews directly, it’s only to let them off the hook for pushing Roosevelt into war. In 1962’s “Blasting the Historical Blackout,” he states flatly that:
Roosevelt did not need any pressure from the Jews to create his interventionism and war policy. There is little evidence that he was deeply disturbed by Hitler’s anti-Jewish policy; he was much more annoyed by the fact that Hitler’s “New Deal” had succeeded in spectacular fashion while his own had failed to bring prosperity to the United States.
Maybe this is true, but it does not mean that influential Jews in media, finance, academia, and politics were not enthusiastic if not crucial facilitators of Roosevelt’s war policy. In his 2013 work How the Jews Defeated Hitler Benjamin Ginsburg describes how American Jews professed fierce loyalty to Roosevelt and did what they could to embroil the United States in a war with Germany. As I stated in my review:
Ginsburg describes how Jews in the private sector also war mongered during this time. The heavily Jewish Century Group called for a declaration of war against Germany following the surrender of France in 1940. The press also aided Jewish belligerence through its pro-Jewish bias. For example, when Lindbergh and the Century Group’s General John Pershing were giving speeches around the same time, the Jewish-owned New York Times gave Pershing front-page coverage and relegated Lindbergh to the back pages.
The Fight For Freedom Committee was more “all out” in its pro-war activities than the Century Group.
The FFF organized a nationwide effort –with the tacit support of the White House and the behind-the-scenes support of the British Embassy—to discredit isolationists and to mobilize public opinion against Germany and in support of American participation in the war.
And by “discredit,” of course, Ginsburg means ruthlessly slander and smear. The FFF thought nothing of labeling leading isolationists and America-Firsters like Lindbergh as Nazis, fascists, or dupes of the Axis. Ironically, they would often question the patriotism of such people as a form of intimidation which preceded the McCarthy era by over a decade. For example, because Senator Burton Wheeler wished to prevent the slaughter of American lives in an unnecessary war, the FFF declared that he was a “twentieth century Benedict Arnold.” The FFF also spied upon and collected compromising information on isolationists in Congress, such as Hamilton Fish. As it turned out, the FFF discovered that Fish’s people were distributing pro-German literature and were in contact with German agents. One of Fish’s secretaries went to prison for that. At the same time, however, Ginsburg informs us that the FFF was in constant contact with British agents. Just as insidiously, the FFF and other groups planted moles at isolationist rallies in order to disrupt them.
So perhaps President Roosevelt didn’t need Jews to change his mind, but he certainly needed them to change the minds of the millions of Americans he tried to deceive. Unfortunately, Barnes entirely avoids this point. His minimal treatment of the Jewish Holocaust in Barnes Versus the Black also deserves comment. He exerts almost no effort in placing it within his blackout vs. revisionists framework. Instead, he brushes it aside by saying that the Germans ultimately suffered more than the Jews did. He’s also skeptical that the Jewish Holocaust was the enormous atrocity it was purported to be:
There is little in the history of mankind more horrible than the sufferings of the Germans expelled from their eastern provinces, the Sudeten area, and other regions, some four to six millions perishing from butchery, starvation, exposure, and disease in the process. Their sufferings were obviously far more hideous and prolonged than those of the Jews said to have been exterminated in great numbers by the Nazis. The tragedy of Lidice was re-enacted by the Czechs hundreds of times at the expense of the Sudeten Germans during the expulsion. The Morgenthau Plan, which was inspired by Stalin and his associates and passed on to Henry Morgenthau by Harry Dexter White and other Soviet sympathizers, envisaged the starvation of between twenty and thirty million Germans in the process of turning Germany into a purely agricultural and pastoral nation.
Barnes never voices any support or approval of Adolf Hitler. He admits the man was at times cruel and erratic; then again so were Churchill and Roosevelt. As far as honest statesmanship goes, however, Hitler was actually on a higher plane than any of the Allied leaders. This is a demonstrable fact, one that is borne out by the diplomatic history of the 1930s as revealed by Hoggan. One does not have to love or even like Hitler to see that of all the major world leaders of the time, he was the least responsible for war. Barnes also refuses to demonize Hitler, and actually gives space for arguments claiming that Hitler had been too soft while conducting the war. To Hitler haters, this may sound like apologism, but it really isn’t. In “Blasting the Historical Blackout” Barnes dismisses Hitler’s Jewish policy as “folly” and correctly notes that it was this, rather than any foreign policy, which engendered anti-German hatred in Allied countries. He also recalls proudly how Rabbi Stephen Wise—the rabid, Hitler-hating Jew who led the worldwide Jewish boycott against Nazi Germany—once reprinted articles by him decrying Hitler’s anti-Semitism. Barnes even states that for a decade after 1945—which is smack dab in the middle of the Barnes Against the Blackout timeline—he had wished that Hitler had been assassinated in 1938 or early 1939, which would have avoided the catastrophe of a second world war.
In light of this, it cannot be said that within the pages of Barnes Against the Blackout Harry Elmer Barnes is anti-Semitic. He’s not philo-Semitic either. Instead, like any true historian, he’s anti-Falsehood and pro-Truth. Of course, he may be right or wrong, but never does he relinquish the discipline and objectivity required of great historians to keep civilization tethered to its past so it cannot go astray in its future.
CONCLUSION
There are many minor themes running through Barnes Against the Blackout which contribute to its value. Most notable is the topic of World War I revisionism, for which Barnes was an outright champion. His 1926 work Genesis of World War made him famous in this regard. Barnes often compares and contrasts revisionism from both World Wars and demonstrates how suppression and groupthink after the latter was much more insidious and comprehensive. He also offers examples of revisionism going back to antiquity.
Like Orwell, Barnes likes to invent neologisms and slogans. My favorites are “perpetual war for perpetual peace,” “globaloney,” the “Blackout Boys,” and the “Smearbund.” His 1962 essay “Revisionism and Brainwashing” is especially poignant in its descriptions of how modern Germans had been brainwashed into accepting their own culpability and shame. Some of the most ardent anti-revisionists of Barnes’ day were post-war Germans themselves, whom, Barnes suspects, feared the equivalent of a third Punic War. Barnes also drops historical Easter eggs everywhere. Did you know that the Roman theologian Paulus Orosius smeared the ancient pagans just as outrageously as court historian Herbert Feis smeared the Japanese? Or how about how Renaissance Scholar Lorenzo Valla proved that the 4th-century Donation of Constantine decree, which solidified the secular power of the Pope, was in fact an 8th-century forgery? It took Europe 350 years to come around to this fact. Barnes hopes it won’t take Europeans nearly as long to come around to the forged history of World War II.
If Harry Elmer Barnes has any personal bias in Barnes Against the Blackout it’s one that favors peace and an honest accounting of history. Because the so-called leaders of the free world gave us neither in the 1930s and 1940s, tens of millions needlessly perished. And with globalist liberalism still supreme today, being the root cause for mass third-world immigration into America and Europe, we continue to suffer from the effects of the catastrophe of World War II. Barnes himself said it best: “Revisionism is not only the major issue in the field of historical writing today but also the supreme moral and intellectual concern of our era.”
The following translation was performed free of charge to protest an injustice: the destruction by the ADL of Ariel Toaff’s Blood Passover on Jewish ritual murder. The author is the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, and a professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, just outside Tel Aviv.
Dr. Toaff is uniquely qualified to write this book, being thoroughly familiar with the derivative literature in English, French, German and Italian, as well as the original documentary sources in Latin, Medieval Italian, Hebrew and Yiddish. This is not something he worked on in secret. On the contrary, he worked on it openly with his university students and colleagues in Israel for several years; one of his students was even going to publish a paper on the subject. The author is extremely careful about what he says, and his conclusions must be taken seriously. It reads like a detective story.
If it had been published in Israel, in Hebrew, no one would have cared. There are large bodies of literature in Hebrew that Jews do not wish Gentiles to know about. But Dr. Toaff’s announcement of its publication in Italy, in Italian, raised a worldwide firestorm of fury.
Under unbearable pressure, the book was withdrawn from publication. Come in out of the darkness, and strike a blow for the light.
Internment of civilian nationals belonging to opposing sides was carried out in varying degrees by all belligerent powers in World War Two. It was also the fate of those servicemen who found themselves in a neutral country.
At the outbreak of war there were around 80,000 potential enemy aliens in Britain who, it was feared, could be spies, or willing to assist Britain’s enemies in the event of an invasion. All Germans and Austrians over the age of 16 were called before special tribunals and were divided into one of three groups… continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
The following translation was performed free of charge to protest an injustice: the destruction by the ADL of Ariel Toaff’s Blood Passover on Jewish ritual murder. The author is the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome, and a professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval History at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, just outside Tel Aviv.
Aletho News
Aletho News 