The Tragedy of the Italian Army in Russia. The Fate of 250,000 Soldiers on the Frozen Russian Steppe During World War II

 

Introduction

One of the lesser known but profoundly tragic episodes of World War II was the fate of approximately 250,000 Italian soldiers who were sent to fight on the Eastern Front in Russia. This deployment, ordered by Benito Mussolini in support of Nazi Germany, resulted in catastrophic losses and immense suffering, as the Italian Army faced the brutal Russian winter and the relentless advance of the Soviet forces.

The Context: Italy's Involvement in the Eastern Front

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, Mussolini was eager to demonstrate Italy’s commitment to the Axis cause. Despite Italy’s limited resources and the unsuitability of its army for the harsh conditions, he sent the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia (Corpo di Spedizione Italiano in Russia, or CSIR), which later expanded to the Italian Army in Russia (Armata Italiana in Russia, or ARMIR). By 1942, Italian forces numbered over 250,000 men.

The Challenges of the Russian Campaign

The Italian soldiers were ill-prepared for the Russian climate. They lacked adequate winter clothing, modern weapons, and logistical support. The Russians had tanks, the Italians had mules. The Russian steppe, with its vast distances and freezing temperatures that could plunge below -30°F (-34°C), proved to be a deadly adversary. Disease, frostbite, and malnutrition became as formidable as the enemy’s bullets. The Soviets waited them out until they were at their weakest point then destroyed them with brutal frontal assaults.

The Soviet Offensive and the Collapse of the ARMIR

In the winter of 1942–1943, the Soviets launched Operation Little Saturn, which targeted the Italian, Hungarian, and Romanian armies holding the flanks of the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad. The Italian Army was quickly overwhelmed. Soviet armor and infantry broke through the thinly stretched lines, and the Italians, lacking anti-tank weapons and air support, were forced into a desperate retreat.

The Retreat: Suffering and Loss

The retreat from the Don River, often referred to as the "Ritirata," became a story of unimaginable hardship. Italian soldiers, many suffering from frostbite, wounds, and starvation, marched hundreds of miles through snow and ice, pursued by Soviet forces. The lack of transport, food, and medical supplies led to mass casualties. Thousands were captured and sent to Soviet prison camps, where the chances of survival were minimal.

 

In the last several weeks Italian Facebook sites have posted the anniversary of this complete and utter military disaster.  One story retold the story of how the German commander met with his Italian counterpart and ordered him not to retreat and fight to the death.  The Italian commander reminded the German that he had no tanks nor weapons to defend against the well-armed Soviets.  The German smirked and told him that was his problem.  The Italians were assigned to defend open ground without a hill in sight.  Of the 250,000 Italian soldiers sent to Russia, 90% did not return.

 

In the annals of military annihilation this one must be one of the most devastating and the most insane.  Tyrants don’t care how many men they lose.  Certainly, the Russians did not care how many men they lost either.  This is a damming testament to the rule of tyrants.  We still have them today.  Vladimir Putin does not care how many soldiers he loses in Ukraine.  He cares only for his glory.  This is the madness of war.

 

For a good eye witness testimony of what the Italian Army went through, read the first person account of Italian soldier Mario Rigoni Stern in his book “The Sergeant in the Snow

Julius Caesar: Genius or Villain?

 Julius Caesar was one of the very best military commanders of all time. His military skills were unmatched.  Besides his military skills, Caesar was a charismatic figure beloved by his men.  Just his presence would give his soldiers confidence.  Other military leaders which deserve mentioning include Scipio Africanus, Pompey, Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Byzantine general Belasarius, George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower, Bernard Montgomery, Erwin Rommel and many others.  However, what follows will be about Julius Caesar. 

 

In Roman times, successful military leaders often gained significant personal and political power. Many of these individuals leveraged their achievements on the battlefield to secure control within the political sphere. Julius Caesar exemplified this pattern, using the influence he had amassed through his military success to further his own political ambitions.

 

Caesar's pursuit of power was marked by a deliberate effort to consolidate authority. His growing dominance eventually provoked fear among his contemporaries, leading to his assassination in 43bc.  The conspirators who took part in his murder were motivated by a desire to halt the expansion of his power, which they viewed as a threat to the established order.

 

Up to Caesar's ascent, Rome operated as a Republic governed by elected officials and a senate. Caesar’s drive for absolute power represented a fundamental shift away from this system. Instead of serving within the framework of the Republic, Caesar sought to concentrate power in his own hands, challenging the traditional structure of Roman governance.

 

The Roman Republic had been a stable and successful system of governance for many centuries. Throughout its history, the republic was characterized by elected officials and a senate, which together maintained the balance of power and ensured the smooth functioning of the state. However, following the death of Julius Caesar, a significant transformation occurred within Roman politics. The traditional republican structure gave way to a new system; one dominated by emperors. Emperors were absolute rulers with total power at their whim.  The first individual to assume the title of emperor was Gaius Octavius, known as Augustus, Caesar’s adopted son, also known as Octavian; he ruled from 27bc to 14ad. Augustus established the imperial system that would continue for more than a millennium; until the Eastern Empire's (the Byzantines) fall of Constantinople in 1453, crushed by the Moslem Turks. 

 

Although Caesar has been lauded for his military skill, he brought about a form of government that was antithetical for freedom and rule by the people.  One man had all the power with no one to check it.  Emperors and tyrants are one and the same.  Today we have modern examples:  Sadam Hussain, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jung Un and the Chinese tyrants that rule China with an iron hand.  Tyrants can order the murder of anyone they want.  The Russian tyrant, Putin, arranges for his opponents death; some fall out of apartments, some die from an arranged explosion of an aircraft, as happened to Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner mercenary group, was killed in a plane crash in Russia in August 2023, or Alexei Navalny, a prominent anti-corruption crusader and political opposition figure. He died in February 2024 at the age of 47 while imprisoned in a Siberian penal colony.  Many more examples can be shown by other tyrants.

 

History has shown that the form of government led by emperors and tyrants is not only oppressive but a failure of good government.  Adolf Hitler caused the death of millions and millions of people during World War 2.  He ordered a military attack on Europe and the Soviet Union and his military followed.  Along the way he murdered all the Jews he could find.  In Kiev, Ukraine, he butchered about 35,000 Jews.  The Byzantine emperors, for example, could order the murder of anyone the perceived to be a threat to their power or simply order that they be blinded, which happened regularly. The sixth century Byzantine emperor Justinian ordered the slaughter of over 30,000 people he surrounded and locked in a stadium until all were butchered.  After he did this heinous act, he ordered the building of the grandest Christian church, the Hagia Sofia in Constantinople, which today is a Museum/Mosque.

 

For an excellent course on the history of the Roman Republic, see Hillsdale College’s free courses. Click here:  

 For an excellent history of the Byzantine Empire see the book "Lost to the West" by Lars Brownworth

 

 

 

A Comparative Analysis of the French Indochina War (1945–1954) and the United States Vietnam War Experience (1955-1975) - Contrasts and Parallels in Foreign Intervention and Decolonization

 

Introduction

The history of Vietnam in the twentieth century is deeply marked by two prolonged conflicts involving foreign powers: the French Indochina War (1945–1954) and the United States Vietnam War (1955–1975). Both wars were shaped by the context of colonialism on the French part and the global struggle against communism in the West, yet they differed in their origins, strategies, outcomes, and legacies. This analysis compares the French and American experiences in Vietnam, examining their aims, strategies, challenges, and long-term impacts.

Historical Background

Before the onset of World War II, Vietnam had been a French colony for over six decades, forming part of French Indochina—which included present-day Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. During World War II, the Japanese occupation weakened French control and emboldened nationalist and communist movements, especially the Viet Minh. The Viet Minh, a coalition of nationalist and communist forces founded in 1941 under Ho Chi Minh, sought Vietnamese independence from foreign rule. With Japan’s surrender in 1945, the power vacuum in Vietnam intensified local struggles for independence. In the aftermath of WWII, France sought to reassert its colonial authority, leading to the outbreak of the First Indochina War in 1946. Meanwhile, as Cold War rivalry escalated, Western intervention shifted: following the French defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the United States gradually became the principal actor in Vietnam.

Objectives and Motives

French in Indochina (1945–1954)

The primary French aim was to reclaim its colonial possessions and restore its prewar status as an imperial power. French leaders considered Indochina vital for economic exploitation, prestige, and strategic presence in Southeast Asia. The war was thus fundamentally an effort at recolonization, confronting Vietnamese demands for independence. As the conflict intensified, French motives became entangled with anti-communist sentiment, especially as the Viet Minh were both nationalist and communist.

United States in Vietnam (1955–1975)

In contrast, the United States’ involvement was rooted less in colonial ambition than in the geopolitical imperatives of the Cold War. American leaders viewed Vietnam as a critical battleground to contain communism and uphold the credibility of U.S. commitments worldwide. The “domino theory” posited that the fall of Vietnam to communism would precipitate the collapse of Western-aligned regimes throughout Asia. Thus, U.S. intervention was framed as a defense of democracy and freedom, though it ultimately entailed support for fragile, often undemocratic governments in South Vietnam.

Strategies and Military Operations

French Military Approach

The French campaign relied on conventional military tactics, including the use of professional troops, colonial forces, and local auxiliaries. France attempted to establish strongholds in urban centers and key transportation routes while conducting large-scale operations against Viet Minh bases in the countryside. The French established the “hedgehog” defense—fortified outposts in hostile territory—and sought to control the population through administrative and police measures. Nevertheless, French forces struggled to adapt to the guerrilla tactics and popular support enjoyed by the Viet Minh.

 

Both the French and American strategies were hampered by significant resource limitations and unreliable support, factors that undermined their long-term prospects in Vietnam. The French, for instance, often struggled to field enough troops; by the end of their campaign, they relied heavily on colonial forces and North African units, indicating difficulties in securing sufficient metropolitan soldiers. Supply lines were stretched thin over challenging terrain, and logistical operations suffered from frequent Viet Minh ambushes and sabotage. Furthermore, French political backing was inconsistent, with mounting opposition at home as war expenses escalated and casualties mounted—contributing to wavering resolve within the government and among the public.

Similarly, American forces faced their own constraints. Despite deploying over half a million troops at the height of U.S. involvement, the task of securing both rural and urban regions proved overwhelming. The complexity of the terrain, long supply routes vulnerable to guerrilla attacks, and increasing antiwar sentiment in the United States eroded political will. Congressional debates over funding and strategy exemplified the uncertainty of American commitment, while the South Vietnamese government’s instability further complicated U.S. efforts to build lasting support.

 

While military victory was sometimes within reach, sustaining peace required ongoing conflict, daily casualties, and unsustainable expenses—realities that ultimately dashed hopes for long-term success for both nations. Local forces leveraged their intimate knowledge of Vietnam’s geography, strong community ties, and highly adaptive guerrilla tactics. These advantages enabled the Viet Minh and later the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army to conduct effective operations, blend into the population, and recover from setbacks in ways the foreign armies could not match. In the end, local determination and strategic ingenuity proved decisive in undermining the efforts of outside powers to maintain control.

American Military Approach

The U.S. military strategy evolved over time, initially emphasizing training and equipping South Vietnamese forces. As the conflict escalated, the United States deployed hundreds of thousands of troops and unleashed massive firepower, including extensive air strikes (such as Operation Rolling Thunder), chemical defoliants (Agent Orange), and search-and-destroy missions. American commanders sought to “win hearts and minds” through pacification programs while also engaging in conventional battles, notably the Tet Offensive in 1968. Despite technological superiority, U.S. forces faced persistent guerrilla resistance from both the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. 

Challenges and Limitations

French Obstacles

France confronted several challenges: an unfamiliar and inhospitable terrain, language and cultural barriers, limited resources, and a lack of popular support among the Vietnamese population. The Viet Minh’s ability to mobilize peasants and wage protracted guerrilla war undermined French efforts to secure the countryside. Moreover, international opinion increasingly favored Vietnamese independence, and support from the communist bloc—especially China and the Soviet Union—strengthened the Viet Minh militarily and diplomatically. 

American Obstacles

The United States faced its own difficulties. The South Vietnamese government was plagued by corruption, incompetence, and lack of legitimacy, which complicated efforts to build an effective fighting force and gain popular backing. Like the French before them, Americans underestimated the resolve and adaptability of their adversaries. The jungle terrain, ambiguous front lines, and the seamless integration of guerrilla fighters into local communities frustrated U.S. military planners. Mounting casualties, media coverage, and domestic opposition further eroded support for the war.

The Role of Ideology and Nationalism

In both conflicts, the Vietnamese resistance was driven by potent forms of nationalism and anti-colonialism. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh effectively united diverse groups under the banner of independence and social revolution, leveraging communist ideology as a force multiplier. For many Vietnamese, the struggle was not just against foreign domination, but for self-determination and social justice. In both wars, the foreign powers failed to grasp the depth of Vietnamese nationalism, mistaking it for mere communist subversion.

International Dimensions

French War in the Context of Decolonization

The French war unfolded amidst the global wave of decolonization, with Asian and African countries demanding sovereignty. International sympathy increasingly favored the Vietnamese cause, as seen in the debates within the United Nations and among emerging non-aligned states. The communists received material and moral support from China (after 1949) and the Soviet Union, giving the Viet Minh a strategic edge.

U.S. War in the Context of the Cold War

American intervention was deeply enmeshed in the bipolar struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States. North Vietnam received extensive aid from the communist bloc, enabling it to sustain military operations and political resistance. The war’s escalation risked drawing in China and the USSR, raising the specter of superpower confrontation. Global opinion grew increasingly critical of U.S. actions, with widespread protest movements and diplomatic isolation.

Endings and Outcomes

French Defeat and the Geneva Accords

The French war ended in disaster at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, where Viet Minh forces besieged and overwhelmed a major French garrison. The subsequent Geneva Accords divided Vietnam at the 17th parallel and set the stage for national elections, which were never held. France withdrew from Indochina, marking the end of its colonial empire in Asia. The outcome reflected the triumph of indigenous nationalism and the limits of colonial power.

American Withdrawal and the Fall of Saigon

After years of stalemate, escalating costs, and growing opposition, the United States initiated a phased withdrawal from Vietnam, culminating in the Paris Peace Accords of 1973. The South Vietnamese government collapsed in 1975, and North Vietnamese forces captured Saigon, unifying the country under communist rule. The effectiveness of the Paris Peace Accords was questioned by many observers at the time, as evidenced by repeated ceasefire violations documented by international monitors and the rapid resumption of hostilities. The American defeat had profound consequences: a loss of prestige, domestic turmoil, and a reevaluation of interventionist policies. For example, the war's aftermath led to widespread protests, legislative changes such as the War Powers Act of 1973, and a period of national introspection regarding the limits and costs of foreign interventions.

Comparative Analysis

·      Similarities: Both the French and American wars in Vietnam were ultimately unsuccessful efforts to impose foreign visions on a determined and mobilized population. Both relied on superior military technology, struggled to win local support, and underestimated the importance of Vietnamese nationalism. Each war ended in withdrawal and defeat, with Vietnam achieving unity and independence.

·      Differences: French intervention was primarily colonial, seeking to reclaim lost imperial holdings, while American involvement was motivated by ideological containment of communism. The duration, scale, and intensity of the U.S. war far eclipsed that of the French, with far greater resources expended and casualties incurred. American intervention had broader global implications, directly linked to the Cold War. The French war ended with partition and a promise of elections; the American war ended with outright unification of Vietnam under communist rule.

Legacy and Impact

The legacy of these wars continues to shape Vietnam and the world. For Vietnam, decades of conflict left deep scars but forged a resilient national identity. For France and the United States, the wars prompted soul-searching about foreign policy, military intervention, and the limits of power. The lessons of Vietnam—about the challenges of counterinsurgency, the pitfalls of underestimating nationalism, and the costs of intervention—remain relevant to policymakers and historians alike.

Conclusion

The French Indochina War and the American Vietnam War stand as cautionary tales of foreign intervention in the 20th century. Despite differences in context and motivation, both powers failed to achieve their goals in the face of Vietnamese determination. Today, the history of these conflicts serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between local aspirations and global rivalries, and the enduring significance of Vietnam’s struggle for independence and unity.

 

A House Divided Falls: How Religious Infighting led to the Downfall of a Christian Empire

Introduction

The Byzantine Empire, also known as the Eastern Roman Empire, was one of the most powerful and enduring empires in history. Its rich heritage, culture, and religion were deeply intertwined with its political and military might. However, the longstanding feud between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Greek Orthodox Church played a significant role in weakening the Byzantine Empire, ultimately leading to its conquest by the Muslim Turks.  The roots of the downfall were laid around the birth of Christ when the Roman Empire changed from a Republic to being ruled by emperors.  Some emperors were good and capable, but many were tyrants who ruled by decree.  Emperors were the rulers, the law and the judges:  the worst form of government possible.  We have some fine examples today:  North Korea, Russia with Putin, the Chinese tyrants, and many other autocrats in the world.

The Great Schism

The schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, known as the Great Schism, occurred in 1054 AD. This division was the result of centuries of political, cultural, and theological differences between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity. The primary issues included the authority of the Pope, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, and the inclusion of the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed, which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

The split was marked by mutual excommunications and a breakdown in relations, leading to the formation of two distinct Christian traditions. The Roman Catholic Church, centered in Rome, held sway over Western Europe, while the Orthodox Church, centered in Constantinople, dominated the Eastern regions. Today it is estimated that there are over 45,000 Christian denominations.  This is what happens when we take our eye off the ball and fight about inane issues, when we agree on the major theological points such as the divinity of Christ, the truth of the Bible, the resurrection and forgiveness of sins.  In my experience, I find that many disagreements are really misunderstanding of the issue, such as faith alone, the resurrection and redemption.  You will find differences in any one denomination.  If you ask five Catholics a theological question you will get six answers; the same in Protestant circles.  This, in turn, leads to making your opponent an enemy and refusing to cooperate in anything.  

The Impact on the Byzantine Empire

The schism had profound consequences for the Byzantine Empire. The division weakened the unity of Christendom, making it more difficult for the empire to rally support from Western Europe in times of crisis. The mistrust and animosity between the two branches of Christianity meant that alliances were fragile and often short-lived.

The Crusades

The Crusades, a series of religious wars initiated by the Roman Catholic Church, further exacerbated the tensions between East and West. While ostensibly aimed at reclaiming the Holy Land from Muslim control, the Crusades had a significant impact on the Byzantine Empire. The Fourth Crusade, in particular, was disastrous for Byzantium. In 1204, Crusaders sacked the capital of eastern Christianity,Constantinople, causing immense destruction and further weakening the empire. The establishment of the Latin Empire in Constantinople led to a period of fragmentation and instability.  The Crusades did more damage to their fellow Christians than to their Muslim enemies.  Another example of the rot of division.

Political and Military Weakness

The internal divisions and external threats left the Byzantine Empire vulnerable. The constant warfare and the strain of defending its territories against both Western and Eastern adversaries took a toll on the empire's resources and stability. The weakening of central authority and the loss of key territories further diminished the empire's ability to resist invasions.

The Rise of the Ottoman Turks

The Ottoman Turks, a Muslim dynasty, began their rise to power in the late 13th century. They gradually expanded their territory, encroaching on Byzantine lands. The weakened state of the Byzantine Empire made it an easy target for conquest. In 1453, the Ottomans, led by Sultan Mehmed II, captured Constantinople, marking the end of the Byzantine Empire. The fall of Constantinople was a pivotal event in world history, signifying the shift of power from the Christian Byzantine Empire to the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

Conclusion

The schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was a significant factor in the decline of the Byzantine Empire. The division weakened the unity of Christendom, undermined potential alliances, and contributed to the empire's vulnerability to external threats. The rise of the Ottoman Turks and their eventual conquest of Constantinople marked the end of the Byzantine Empire, a testament to the profound and lasting impact of the Great Schism on the course of history.

Recommended Reading:

1.         Lost to the West, Lars Brownworth, Crown Publishers, 2009,  Brownworth has a terrific podcast on this subject called "12 Byzantine Rulers."

2.        The Lost World of Byzantium, Jonathan Harris, Yale University Press, 2015.

The Folly of Liberation Theology

 The father of Liberation Theology, Father Gustavo Gutierrez, a Peruvian priest, died on October 22, 2024, at the age of 96.  Gutierrez had a huge following in South America and was quite influential with Catholic and Protestant religious progressives worldwide.  Liberation Theology is a radical Christian movement, mainly promoted by the religious left.  Pope John Paul II was vehemently against this type of theology.  John Paul II believed that Liberation Theology as a politicized form of Christianity that was a Marxist interpretation of the Bible.  He should know, since he lived in Poland under the Marxist tyranny of the former Soviet Union.  The Encyclopedia Brittanica defines Liberation Theology like this: “ A religious movement that arose in late 20th-century Catholicism and was centered in Latin America. It seeks to apply religious faith by aiding the poor and oppressed through involvement in political and civic affairs. It stresses both heightened awareness of the “sinful” socioeconomic structures that cause social inequities and active participation in changing those.” 

The thrust of Liberation Theology is centered on the oppressor and the oppressed.  It is a militant anti-capitalist world view.  Our current pope, Pope Francis, is in my opinion, a follower of Liberation Theology.  He has often railed against capitalism and praised tyrannical regimes, such Castro’s Cuba and the tyrants of South America.  He has also made a deal with the Devil, China, whereby the Chinese tyrants get to appoint Catholic bishops who toe the communist Chinese line. He sees the poor as our modern-day saints and capitalists as the enemy of the people.  According to the Britannia quote earlier, it sees capitalism as a socio-economic sinful structure.  What is sinful about it, is not specified.  I see it as an arbitrary assertion without evidence.  Robert J. Spitzer, in his book “Ten Universal Principles” in his chapter on the Principle of Reason states that “what can be asserted without evidence, can be denied without evidence.”

 

So, what is wrong with capitalism?  They don’t specify.  Let’s look at some sample societies that don’t have capitalism.  Who oppresses whom?  Do capitalist society oppress?  It’s possible, but can you provide an example?  A capitalist society such as the United States or Western Europe, do they oppress their citizens?  I need an example.  Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other economic entity.  Why do all people of the world rush into the United States from anti-capitalist countries.  Have you seen the rush of the American border in the last 40 years? In the last four years nearly 10 million illegal aliens have crossed our borders.  Has anyone rushed the border of a Marxist/Socialist country?  Why would these people risk their lives to come here and not Cuba or Venezuela, for example?  Here is the eminent economist Milton Friedman describing capitalism vs socialism:  Click here for this short video.

 

Where have all the innovation and scientific achievements come from, socialist or capitalist societies?  Which countries help Ukraine in their war with Russia, for example?  Which socialist country has come up with what Microsoft or Apple Computer invented.  Who invented the Internet?  Where does innovation come from?  Which country has cutting edge medicine, socialists or capitalists?  Many socialist countries have universal health care but where would you go to have an operation, Cuba, North Korea, or the United States?  

 

Here is another short clip comparing capitalism vs socialism.  Click here.   

 

Now, let’s talk about the religious aspect of Marxist/Socialist vs capitalism.  Does the Bible say which is best?  No, it does not.  Does the Bible say we need to help our poor?  Yes, it does, but it does not say how we must do it, as long as we do it.  In Luke 6, Jesus says, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God.” He promises that the poor will inherit something far greater than any of the riches of this world. He goes on to say that those who suffer now will not suffer in the kingdom (Luke 6:21-22). So, the question becomes, where do people succeed in living a good life? in a socialist country like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, or the United States or Europe?  Which Marxist/Socialist country can you point to as being successful?  We have never seen a successful Marxist/Socialist country, yet people still cling to the socialist pipe dream.  Was the Soviet Union a success?  Countries like Brazil keeps going to socialist leaders such as the current Brazilian leader, Venezuela and other South American countries do the same with zero result. Rich countries such as Venezuela have been devasted by socialist regimes such as the current one.  When will they see the light?

In Defense of Colonialism

 In today’s woke culture, the mere mention of colonialism will get you a negative reaction akin to supporting slavery.  This is not an apologetic for colonialism but a look at the reality of what colonialism produced. Let’s look at the history of colonialism and see just what it accomplished.  I know that colonialism produced some bad actors and bad results, but what society has not?  Colonialism provided much needed structure, government and functioning infrastructure in places where there was none.  Colonialism ended in Africa and many other areas shortly after World War II.  What has happened in Africa since?  Well, let’s look at some examples, among others:  

Somalia.  Somalia, a former Italian colony, has had no government since the early 1990s when the Somali Democratic Republic collapsed, and a civil war started among numerous warlords.  The United States and other European countries sent military forces to stop the bleeding and got involved in the civil war instead. Remember the US disaster in Mogadishu?  A fine book called, “Black Hawk Down” by Mark Bowden was written telling the story of US special forces being ambushed and killed by Somali gangs.  Along with US forces about 24 other countries contributed 37,000 troops there.  In all, about 150 UN troops were killed.  In one battle, 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in an ambush by rival Somali tribes.  What was the result?  Nothing:  500,000 Somalis were killed, and 1.5 Somalis were displaced.  US lost 18 killed and 84 wounded.  Today Somalia is a heaven for Islamic terrorists who continually commit atrocities against their own people.  Have you heard of the terrorist group called Al-Shabaab?  They’re in the news on a regular basis, and not for good.  To this day, no functioning government exists; it’s a lawless place.

 

Sudan.  Sudan, a former British colony, has been in turmoil since independence.  In the last few years, after a brutal civil war, it split into two countries:  Sudan and South Sudan.  There is no effective government in either country and starvation is rampant.  About half of both Sudan and South Sudan’s population is suffering from starvation.  Together there are about 31 million people in these two countries, half suffering terrible food shortages.

 

Mali. Mali has no stable government, and civil war is raging with different warring groups.  France and the United States have sent forces there with no result.  Both are now out.  Russian mercenary Wagner Group forces have been operating there in support of some warring factions.  This turmoil continues to this day.

 

India.  

The British ruled India for 90 years, until 1947.  What happened after independence?  India broke up into India, West and East Pakistan, later becoming Bangladesh.  India and Pakistan have been bitter enemies with atomic weapons ever since.  During the British era there was structure, government, and law and order; after the British left India, chaos ensued with tribes fighting each other, as did the Pakistanis and Indians. Of all the former colonies, India is perhaps the best in achieving a functioning government and a functioning infrastructure.  Pakistan, on the other hand is still plagued with intra-tribal chaos resulting in occasional violence.

 

Haiti.   Haiti has been a total disaster since independence from France in 1804.  To this day, Haiti is a lawless country with roaming gangs ruling the island.  In contrast with its neighbor, the Dominican Republic, Haiti is in constant turmoil.  As of this writing, Haiti has no functioning government, and its people are one of the poorest in the world.  Haiti is currently aided by 400 Kenyan police officers, trying to maintain peace.  If history is any guide, this will eventually fail too.  Between 2010 and 2020 the UN has given Haiti $13 billion dollars, and the problems keep getting worse.  Peacekeepers have been deployed there to no effect.  Of all the former colonies, Haiti would be better off today as a colony.

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa: Moral Failures in the Catholic Church

After Pope Francis was elect in 2013, I discussed his selection with a friend.  I did not like what I found out about Francis.  I thought he would be more of a leftist than a Catholic.  Ten years later, my worries have been confirmed.  Some examples:  Although he says that he is pro-life and the killing of the innocent unborn is equivalent to hiring an assassin, he does not practice what he preaches.   He considers traditional Catholics as enemies of the Church.  He has even prohibited the Church from celebrating the Latin Mass.  He has fired faithful bishops such as Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, as well as faithful priests such as the leader of Priests for Life, Father Frank Pavone.  He has made a deal with the Devil, China, whereby he has consented to have the atheist communist tyrants that run China select Catholic bishops.  Now, hold on here:  This would be the equivalent of giving Adolf Hitler permission to name German bishops during his reign of terror.   How would that go?  Additionally, the Chinese communists are anti-Catholic, anti-Christian and anti-religion, period.  They are an atheist regime; they are enemies of faith in God.  They have demonstrated this by arresting Catholics and bishops, namely the saintly faithful Catholic, 91-year-old Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong.  Another faithful Catholic jailed by the Chinese tyrants is Jimmy Lai of Hong Kong.  The Chinese regularly demolish catholic and Christian churches.  The pope is in bed with these tyrants.  Francis has chosen to visit such tyrants as Fidel Castro of Cuba, Evo Morales of Bolivia.  He regularly bashes capitalism while leaning more to the bankrupt system of socialism.  He seems to be a follower of Liberation Theology (a Marxist interpretation of the Bible) which had its start in South America in the 1960s.  The President of his native country of Argentina, Javier Milei, accused Francis of promoting communism.

 

There have been many bad popes of the past.   My friend will say, “this too shall pass.” Perhaps, but damage will be done.  Most of you have heard of the church’s failures with the pedophile scandals of the past 100 years and the cover-up by the church.  No one has been able or willing to fix this.  Francis has been eerily silent on this.  When American bishops tried to do something about it a few years ago, he ordered them to stand down.  Francis has failed to denounce Vladimir Putin for his invasion of Ukraine.  Instead, he has called on Ukraine to “negotiate” the end of war.  What?  A country that has been invaded and had its citizens murdered and its country destroyed should be the one to negotiate?  What he really means Ukraine should surrender.  Francis has seen evil and failed to call it out.  The leader of the Russian Orthodox church, Kirill of Moscow, who supports the Ukraine invasion instead is appeased by the pope.  This is a moral failure on the pope’s part and an embarrassment to people of good will.

 

Pope Paul V was the pope during Galileo’s time.  This brilliant middle-ages scientist was persecuted by the church and forced to recant scientific valid positions which were confirmed later.  In 1633 Galileo was arrested and jailed until his death in 1642 for his valid Copernican scientific principle of heliocentrism that states that the earth revolves around the sun.  

 

Pope Clement VIII was pope who persecuted the Italian scientist Giordano Bruno.  Bruno was burned alive at the stake in Rome in 1600 by order of the pope after a religious trial for promoting valid scientific discoveries about the cosmos such as heliocentrism and the infinite universe, as well as religious positions held by Bruno, contrary to church teaching such as the trinity, Mary and others.  The jury that tried him included many of the top cardinals of the day.  Bruno’s famous last words were: “Perhaps your fear in passing judgment on me is greater than mine in receiving it.” 

 

Pope Pius IX in the mid 19^th century was not only pope but the king and tyrant of the Papal States which included about forty percent of today’s Italy.  He ruled these states with an iron fist, persecuting anyone who dared to challenge him.  In 1850 the people of the Papal States had had enough:  they wanted self-rule not the rule of priests and the church; not having the church invade their homes to make sure they were following Catholic practices.  Led by the brilliant military commander of his day, Giuseppe Garibaldi, they revolted and declared independence from the pope and established a Roman Republic. Pius IX was forced into exile and fled to the small town of Gaeta near Naples which was under the rule of the Kingdom of the two Sicilies.  There he asked for help from France which agreed to send a French Army of 30,000 trained troops to win back his kingdom.  The French leveled a good part of Rome and killed more than 2,000 Romans in the process. 

 

After dealing a heavy blow to the French invaders, the rebels, outnumbered and outgunned were defeated in a month. The French Army occupied Rome for the next 20 years, when they had to return to France to fight the Germans in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.  While in Rome, French authorities begged the pope not to persecute ex-rebels.  Pius IX refused.  He had some ex-rebels executed by firing squad in public, such as in the large Piazza del Popolo in the middle of Rome.  The French even sent the pope two new guillotines as a gift.  With the approval of Pius IX, the French military authorities plastered bills all over Rome stating that anyone found with a weapon would be summarily executed without trial.

 

For more on Pope Pius IX, I have a longer post on this blog called Pius IX, King, Pope and Tyrant.  Click hereto read it.