Latest news with #imperialism
Yahoo
11-08-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Imperial Germany's turn-of-the-century plan to invade the United States
Germany invading the United States might sound crazy by today's standards, but global power at the turn of the 20th century was very different from what it is today. The great powers of Europe were carving up Asia and Africa for imperial clout, riches, and raw materials, and sending their forces all over the world required a lot of manpower and firepower. The need for more resources meant that empires required more colonies, but space was limited; uncolonized areas were being snatched up quickly. So when colonies were established too close to competing empires, it could cause friction–friction that could lead to war. The German army at the time was a formidable force, one that had adopted industrialization early on. To compete with the power of the British, the German Imperial Army maintained a peacetime force of nearly half a million troops. Since the empire also implemented universal conscription policies, it could muster up to two million soldiers if it wanted to, more than enough to challenge American forces on land. Meanwhile, the U.S. was far behind, but Germany recognized its martial potential. The Americans had just reinvigorated their Navy and sailed the Great White Fleet around the world, but they maintained fewer than 99,000 active duty troops in the Army and fewer than 10,000 Marines. After all, the United States was more concerned with fighting Native tribes in the West. The Germans had a low opinion of the U.S. Army anyway, believing it was well-fed but lacked discipline. They had an even lower opinion of the Navy, questioning whether the country's democratic ideals affected its military discipline. The German Empire had only become a unified country in 1871, but soon boasted the world's strongest army, a navy that rivaled Britain's, and the third-largest colonial empire. When that empire came too close to the burgeoning overseas possessions acquired by the U.S. during the Spanish-American War, the German General Staff set to work on a plan to invade and possibly even conquer the United States. At the very least, it believed it could capture American possessions in the Caribbean. Operation Plan I The German attack plan was developed in three phases. Toward the end of the 19th century, Germany was ramping up its shipbuilding in an effort to compete with Britain's mighty Royal Navy, so the original planners had naval warfare on their minds. The brilliantly named Operation Plan I called for the German fleet to draw the U.S. Navy's Atlantic Fleet into a decisive battle at sea. Once the American ships were defeated, the Germans would shell American shipbuilding centers (calling it 'the Heart of America') at Norfolk, Newport News, Portsmouth, and Hampton Roads with the goal of occupying all of them. After devastating their shipbuilding capabilities, the victorious German Navy would blockade the East Coast and negotiate an end to the war. Unfortunately for the Germans, they lacked the necessary number of vessels for this plan, so the general staff had to go back to the drawing board. Operation Plan II The next iteration of the plan came at a time when German sea power completely outmatched that of the Americans. This time, the plan involved more than just naval tactics; they also planned for German troops to land in the United States and capture its most important cities. After the prerequisite decisive naval battle outlined in Plan I, a German armada of 60 ships would land 100,000 troops and a large number of artillery in a two-pronged attack on the Eastern Seaboard. The first prong was to land at Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and lay siege to the city of Boston with the artillery. The second prong was more of a fast-paced, shock strategy (what might even be considered a precursor to the Germans' 'blitzkrieg' strategy to come). Imperial ships would fire on New York's harbor fortifications, Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, and Fort Tompkinson on Staten Island. Once they were taken out, the fleet would proceed to shell Manhattan. Concurrently, German troops would land at Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and march on the city. German Gen. Alfred von Schlieffen, who would later concoct the empire's plan to invade Belgium during World War I, drawing both France and Russia into the war, designed the strategy. He was confident they could capture Boston, but believed New York, with its population of millions, could not be held with just 100,000 troops. Again, the goal is to force a negotiated end and a foothold in North America. Operation Plan III In 1903, the invasion plan was reworked because German agents had actually visited Cape Cod and found it to be less than ideal for an invasion. Instead, the planners decided they could land at Provincetown, Massachusetts and at Cape Ann. Once landed, the Germans could sweep into Boston using a pincer movement. In New York, the landing areas considered included Long Island and Brooklyn. The Germans also believed that holding Caribbean bases for naval operations would be necessary to threaten the Panama Canal. Ultimately, nothing came of the invasion plans. Nothing stays secret for long, and the Americans eventually got wind of the threat the German Empire posed. The United States began adding ships to its naval fleet as European rivals began threatening German interests at home and abroad. Suddenly, the Kaiser couldn't spare the troops or ships necessary for an American adventure. Although the Germans were America's number one enemy for much of the first half of the 20th century, the United States never really considered a German invasion to be a credible threat. History History Imperial Germany's turn-of-the-century plan to invade the United States By Blake Stilwell History Naval officer and Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell dies at 97 Naval officer and Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell dies at 97 By Miguel Ortiz History The Gee Bee Racers of the early 1930s created winners and widows The Gee Bee Racers of the early 1930s created winners and widows By Friedrich Seiltgen Desert Storm Desert Shield at 35: Why the Gulf War Still Matters Desert Shield at 35: Why the Gulf War Still Matters By Robert Billard History The world's first jump jet: How we got the legendary Harrier II The world's first jump jet: How we got the legendary Harrier II By Friedrich Seiltgen Solve the daily Crossword
Fox News
05-08-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
House Dem declares she is a 'proud Guatemalan' before American at Progressive International conference
Several House Democrats, including members of the "Squad," criticized the United States over the weekend at a conference in Mexico City that questioned U.S. influence and policies, with one lawmaker saying she was prouder to be Guatemalan than American. The second annual Panamerican Congress brought leftist officials from all over North and South America. Those in attendance included Democratic lawmakers: Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ayanna Presley of Massachusetts, Summer Lee of Pennsylvania and Jesús Gilberto García and Delia Ramirez of Illinois. All are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. During her remarks at the opening of the event, Ramirez spoke about the Trump administration's illegal immigration crackdown and her own ancestry. "I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American," she declared in Spanish. The congresswoman also accused the U.S. of prioritizing "imperialism, militarization, conquest, control, competition in its attempt at domination." On her website, Ramirez, the child of immigrant parents, said her husband is in the country illegally and that she is the only congressional lawmaker "in a mixed-status marriage, and fights for the rights of DREAMers like her husband, Boris, and for comprehensive immigration reform." The White House condemned the remarks made by Ramirez, as well as her fellow Democrats. "These Democrats' comments are despicable and underscore their commitment to putting Americans last," White House spokesperson Liz Huston told Fox News Digital. "In stark contrast, President Trump is working tirelessly to secure peace deals, deport illegal alien criminals, and advance America's interests at home and abroad." Fox News Digital has reached out to Ramirez's office, as well as several lawmakers who attended the summit. In addition to immigration, speakers also voiced their views on the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir, Colombia's deputy minister of multilateral affairs, praised Tlaib during his speech, calling her a "symbol of resistance," which prompted a standing ovation once he finished speaking. The summit was organized by the leader of Progressive International, a radical left-wing group that describes capitalism as a "virus" that must be "eradicated" — in partnership with Morena, Mexico's ruling left-wing party, the Daily Caller News Foundation reported. Gerardo Fernández Noroña, president of the Mexican Senate and member of Morena, called out the "persecution" of migrants in the U.S. under the Trump administration. He called it "unjust, infamous, incorrect persecution where just for being a migrant and just for your skin color or your nationality, you are persecuted." "They are not only imprisoned, but sent to a prison that has been banned since World War II, such as Alligator Alcatraz," he said. "The United States government is grieving over drug use, but I haven't seen a single raid like the one they carry out against migrants against people who sell drugs in the United States." In a TV interview before the event, David Adler, the general coordinator for Progressive International and one of the summit's main coordinators, said the intention of the summit was to confront authoritarian and fascist threats and shift authority from Washington, D.C. to developing countries, the DCNF reported, in the Global South, a term used to describe a loose division of nations across different continents that are generally poorer, have high levels of inequity and harsher living conditions. On its website, Progressive Internation described the U.S. as the "lynchpin of that imperial violence — a position it has carefully built over two centuries." The group cited U.S. military installations overseas and the massive Pentagon budget. "US militarism sustains profound political tensions around the world. Its interventions have destroyed nation after nation, leaving a trail of violence and sorrow in their wake," the website states. "Ending US militarism means saving lives."
Russia Today
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
The ideology behind the ‘New America' is more dangerous than it looks
For the past 500 years, the West has reigned as the world's dominant civilization. Though its grip has loosened in recent years, the West – especially the United States – remains the most powerful force in global politics and the international economy. This power, while capable of building plenty, also carries the potential to destroy a lot. Today, a new ideology is taking shape in the West, particularly in the US. Under the right conditions, it could prove as dangerous to humanity as fascism and Nazism were in the last century. The reelection of Donald Trump may mark a decisive turning point, transferring power to people and ideas that are, at best, deeply ambiguous. This 'New America' is not driven by a single worldview, but rather by a convergence of four ideological factions. At the center stands Trump himself and his allies – throwbacks to the era of great-power imperialism. Trump's inaugural speech to launch his second term left little doubt: He called for territorial expansion, industrial growth, and a resurgent military. America, he declared, is 'the greatest civilization in the history of mankind.' He spoke approvingly of President William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, both architects of American imperialism. The vision is unmistakable: American exceptionalism, enforced by military might and driven by the logic of conquest. It is the language of empire. Then there are the right-wing populists – figures like Vice President J.D. Vance, strategist Steve Bannon, and journalist Tucker Carlson. Their rallying cry is 'America First'. They champion traditional values, claim to speak for the working class, and disdain the liberal elite concentrated in coastal cities. They oppose globalism, support trade protectionism, and promote isolationism in foreign policy. This faction is not particularly new in American politics, but its influence has deepened, especially under Trump's patronage. A newer – and perhaps more unsettling – element of America's emerging ideology is represented by Silicon Valley billionaires. Elon Musk is the most visible figure, briefly heading Trump's Department of Government Efficiency in early 2025. But the more influential actor may be Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist and early internet pioneer who became an informal adviser to Trump. Andreessen's political turn followed his frustration with Biden-era regulations on crypto and artificial intelligence. In 2023, he published a manifesto called 'The Techno-Optimist', a document that preaches unrestrained technological acceleration. In his view, scientific innovation and free markets can solve all of humanity's problems – if only government gets out of the way. Andreessen quotes Nietzsche and invokes the image of the 'apex predator' – a new breed of technological superman who sits atop the food chain. He writes, 'We are not victims, we are conquerors… the strongest predator at the top of the food chain.' Such language might seem metaphorical, but it is revealing. Andreessen's list of intellectual inspirations includes Filippo Marinetti, the Futurist who helped lay the aesthetic groundwork for Italian fascism and died fighting the Red Army at Stalingrad. The most intellectually developed thinker of the techno-libertarian camp is Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and the data surveillance firm Palantir Technologies. Thiel is no longer a marginal figure – he is now arguably the second most important ideologue of the New America, after Trump himself. Thiel is also a master strategist. He personally mentored and funded Vance, now vice president and possibly Trump's heir apparent. At the same time, he backed Blake Masters in Arizona, although that bet didn't pay off. Thiel reads the Bible, quotes Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss, and speaks openly about the limits of democracy. 'Freedom is no longer compatible with democracy,' he has said. He has compared modern America to Weimar Germany, arguing that liberalism is exhausted, and a new system must rise. Despite his libertarian leanings, Thiel's companies develop AI tools for the Pentagon and fund next-generation weapons systems through firms like Anduril. Thiel believes that America has entered a long decline – and that radical technological leaps are needed to reverse it. One of his pet projects is the 'Enhanced Games', a competition where doping and biohacking are allowed. Co-organized with Donald Trump Jr., the event reflects Thiel's obsession with transhumanism and human enhancement. In foreign policy, Thiel views China as America's primary enemy. He has called it a 'semi-fascist, semi-communist gerontocracy' and pushed for complete economic decoupling. Interestingly, Thiel is far less hostile to Russia, which he sees as culturally closer to the West. In his view, pushing Moscow into Beijing's arms is a strategic mistake. The final group behind the New America are the theorists of the 'Dark Enlightenment', or neo-reactionary movement. These intellectual provocateurs reject the Enlightenment values that once defined the West. Nick Land, a British philosopher living in Shanghai, is among the founding thinkers of this school. He predicts the end of humanity as we know it and the rise of posthuman, techno-authoritarian systems governed by capital and machines. For Land, morality is irrelevant; what matters is efficiency, evolution, and raw power. Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug), an American programmer, is another central figure. A friend of Thiel and an insider in Trump's intellectual circle, Yarvin advocates replacing democracy with a corporate-style monarchy. He imagines a future of sovereign city-states run like companies, where experimentation with laws and technologies is unrestricted. Yarvin is clear in his rejection of American global leadership. He believes the US should withdraw from Europe and let regional powers settle their own disputes. He speaks warmly of China, and his views on World War II are unorthodox to say the least – suggesting Hitler was motivated by strategic calculation rather than genocidal ambition. Many of these ideas may seem fringe. But fringe ideas have power – especially when they echo through the corridors of political and technological influence. Carl Schmitt's legal theories enabled Hitler to seize dictatorial powers in 1933. Today, the intellectual allies of Trump and Thiel are crafting their own narratives of 'emergency', 'decadence', and 'reawakening'. What's emerging in America is not a retreat from hegemony, but a reformatting of it. The liberal international order is no longer seen as sacred – even by the country that built it. The new American elite may be withdrawing troops from Europe, the Middle East, and Korea, but their ambitions have not shrunk. They are turning instead to subtler methods of control: AI, cyber dominance, ideological warfare, and technological superiority. Their goal is not a multipolar world, but a redesigned unipolar one – run not by diplomats and treaties, but by algorithms, monopolies, and machines. The threat to the world is not just political anymore. It is civilizational. The superhumans are on the article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team
Irish Times
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Irish people support Palestinians because they recognise the settler colonial process at play
Settler colonialism describes how imperial states capture a territory, migrate there, displace or eliminate the 'barbarian' indigenous population and dominate its land and resources. Ireland was a pioneer settler colony of England, as was graphically documented in the recent four-part RTÉ documentary series , From That Small Island . Many of the imperial techniques used here in early modern times were replicated by the British Empire in North America, the Caribbean and later in Australia and New Zealand – and by others too, such as the French in Algeria. [ From that Small Island review: Colin Farrell sounds in pain, as if he pressed on despite urgently needing the loo Opens in new window ] But as Jane Ohlmeyer, one of the editors and principal contributors to the documentary points out in her book Making Empire, Ireland, Imperialism & The Early Modern World, 'colonisation was not a single occurrence but an iterative and durable process that impacted different parts of Ireland at different times'. Nonetheless, the agenda of scorched-earth reprisals against resistance, civilising barbarous savages and seizing land for improvement was first practised here – even though many people born in Ireland became soldiers, employees or governing agents of that empire in later times too. Applied to Zionism and Israel , the concept reveals a displacement logic against Palestinians in what one of Palestine 's principal historians, Rashid Khalidi , describes as a radical social engineering project in 'a colonial war waged against the indigenous population, by a variety of parties, to force them to relinquish their homeland to another people against their will'. READ MORE But he too recognises that Zionism 'was and is a very particular colonial project' – like British settler colonialism in Ireland, with which he draws parallels . Zionism relied on successive imperial powers and 'became over time a national confrontation between two national entities, two peoples', amplified by the profound resonance for Jews of the biblical connection to the historic land of Israel. That blinds many Bible-reading Protestants in Britain and the United States to the modernity of Zionism and its colonial nature: 'for how could Jews be 'colonising' the land where their religion began?' [ Jane Ohlmeyer: How Ireland served as a laboratory for the British empire Opens in new window ] This helps explain why settler colonialism is rejected as an explanatory framework by many Israeli historians, politicians and commentators. There are Irish parallels, particularly among unionists who say it distorts the complexities of their role in Irish history. However most Irish people support Palestinians because they recognise a similar process to be at play there as here, notwithstanding the nuances. Critical race theory (CRT) has developed in the US since the 1980s to explain the intersection of law, race and power in US society. It argues that through law, racism is historically embedded there. Like settler colonialism, CRT has been vilified and weaponised mainly by conservative activists who reject its premises and implications for the future of white power. The explicit and implicit links with Zionist defences of Israel against settler colonial theories have become a powerful political force in Trump's US, not least through the same Bible readers. Ireland comes into focus through the links between such offensive academic theories and everyday US politics. Official Ireland must take such arguments seriously since they are part of the explicit US Senate mandate given to the new US ambassador here, Edward Walsh. Jim Risch, the republican chairman of the Senate's foreign relations committee, said Ireland's recognition of the state of Palestine is a mistake , while Senator Ted Cruz attacked Ireland's support for the International Criminal Court's case against Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu. [ Fintan O'Toole: Ireland has a proud history of opposing anti-Semitism Opens in new window ] Since objective historical forces place Ireland in this dilemma, there is a limited extent to which canny diplomacy can play a part. The direct experience and memory of imperial violence, coercion and ideology informs Irish perceptions of similar behaviour from Netanyahu's Israel against Palestinians. Our political leaders recognise that, although their actions vary according to contemporary interests and values. Revisionist historians in Ireland applied scientific techniques to Ireland's nationalist historical mythologies of colonial oppression and heroic resistance, concentrating more on those than on the imperial behaviour that gave rise to them. In Israel, revisionist historians similarly interrogated that state's foundational myths. They framed Zionism as a settler colonial project responsible for the forcible expulsion of Palestinians during the 1948 war of independence. Some, such as Benny Morris , defend that as necessary for the Israeli state's survival. Both settler colonial and critical race theory have been validly criticised for portraying the societies they analyse as irredeemably divided – and therefore immune to coalitions of race, ethnic or class interests against the systems of power. Irish historians and citizens have absorbed the revisionist controversy and moved on to fashion a more sophisticated account of imperial power, colonisation and diverse peoples living together in Ireland's history, according to the RTÉ documentary. The same cannot be said for Israel's profoundly polarised debate on its future.
Russia Today
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Trump's African outreach is a facade
US President Donald Trump is more interested in exploiting Africa's resources than building genuine partnerships with the continent, Liberian civil rights activist Emmanuel Gonquoi has said. Speaking to RT following Trump's meeting on Wednesday with African leaders at the White House, the head of the Economic Freedom Fighters of Liberia said he did not believe the US leader was acting in good faith. Instead, he described the meeting as part of a 'colonial package' aimed at rebranding imperialism under the guise of economic cooperation. Gonquoi claimed that what the Trump administration called a 'new policy' was in fact a repurposed set of imperialist tools designed to 'exploit Africa once again.' He added he did not believe Trump was pursuing an economic policy that would benefit Africa more than the US. On the issue of arms sales, Gonquoi strongly criticized Trump's call for African nations to purchase American weapons, arguing that such policies would only deepen the continent's conflicts. According to the activist, Africans 'are interested in utilizing technology and science to take millions of people out of poverty.' Gonquoi emphasized that the continent's focus should shift from militarization to job creation and economic development. He also responded to the moment during a lunch with African leaders when Trump asked the Liberian president, Joseph Boakai, how he learned to speak English. 'I was honestly shocked, considering the history between the US and Liberia. For a sitting US president to have no idea that Liberia is an English-speaking country,' he noted. Reacting to Trump's remark that there is 'a lot of anger' on the continent, Gonquoi argued that tensions are the direct result of Western interference. He accused the US, France, and Britain of fueling internal divisions and manipulating African leaders in pursuit of natural resources. 'Those are the people who continue to fuel conflict on the continent,' he said.
