Harry Elmer Barnes and the Blackout of History

by P. S.

A student essay from Dr. Elliot Neaman's History 210 class (historical methods - spring 1998)

The Holocaust denier whose literature I have studied is Harry Elmer Barnes. Barnes, like many of the deniers, places blame of World War II not on Germany, but shifts the burden of blame on the Allies and the United States. Barnes and the Revisionists say that Roosevelt, while publicly pursuing a policy of neutrality and isolationism, wanted the U. S. entry into the war (Dallek 1). After the death and destruction of World War I, the United States wanted to concentrate on domestic affairs rather than be entrapped by European political crises (Divine 22). The threat of world domination by fascist countries ultimately led the involvement of the United States. However, historians like Harry Barnes and Charles Beard have claimed that Roosevelt followed a backdoor policy into World War II by provoking Japan to attack Pearl Harbor (9-16). I have chosen Robert Dallek, Robert Divine, Alan Bullock, and information from the course I took on History of the American Military to refute the arguments Barnes has taken on as his own.

The general argument of the deniers has been that history has been misrepresented by propaganda and needs to be revised. From this point, Barnes tries to legitimate the cause of revisionists, even if the facts are false and arguments are based on lies. After establishing the legitimacy of revisionism, Barnes continues on to attack Roosevelt as well as Britain for World War II. At the same time, Barnes makes the assumption that Germany’s Hitler didn’t intend to take over the world.

To counter the arguments of Barnes, I will confirm through different historical sources as to what actually happened. Proven in this paper, I will show that while Roosevelt wanted peace, he was unintentionally drawn into the war. Providing a historical backdrop will prove that Roosevelt did not intentionally bring the United States into war.

When beginning this project, I read a pamphlet called Holocaust Denial: Bigotry in the Guise of Scholarship. First, I learned how many Holocaust deniers have received a good education (21). The publishers of Barnes Against the Blackout has an intellectual air of The Institute for Historical Review. In fact, The IHR is a Nazi organization disguised in historical scholarship (Holocaust 32). Revisionists and deniers lessen the seriousness of war crimes and point to others as the culprits. Their techniques entail using half-truths and lies to show that the Holocaust was a hoax (4-18). Barnes claims that anyone who has documentary evidence which challenges revisionist lies and half-truths is false.

Harry Barnes is a sociologist and historian ( Holocaust 4-18). He is considered to be the father of Holocaust denial. According to Barnes, there are two types of historians (Barnes 54-55). There is the one type of historian who works for the Army, Navy, or State Department. These type of historians he calls court historians. The second type of historian is the "blackout contingent." The "blackout contingent" are made up of civilians. Both court historians and the "blackout contingent" are controlled by the Ministry of Truth, which are against the revisionists. As Barnes observes, "Since the war several corps of court historians have volunteered to work to combine the elaboration of official mythology" (11). The court historians were started by President Truman. Public documents, which are readily accessible to court historians, are denied to revisionists. There is an intimidation campaign against publishers and periodicals to print revisionist work. Barnes designates those who wish to censure revisionists as "hatchet men." If one does not perpetuate the official mythology as to the causes of World War II, then the "hatchet men" will be out to criticize and harm the reputations of revisionists (45). Charles Bear agrees with Harry Barnes that there is a conspiracy against the revisionists. Both agree that evidence supporting Roosevelt’s desire for peace is untrue. Barnes points specifically to Hyde Park, where the Kent Documents were kept secret (12). The proceedings, according to Barnes, are allowed to be seen only by court historians.

Professional historians are hired to falsify the facts, according to Barnes. With the suppression of revisionist voices, a totalitarian regime is being formed in America. "In a totalitarian society one cannot pick and choose which elements of totalitarianism he will accept and which he will reject" (Barnes 55). To find support for his theory, Barnes looks to George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four. In the story, bureaucrats are intimidated into submission and forced to falsify history (51). According to this belief, he proclaims that American historians promote militarism and an aggressive spirit. Columnists, radio personnel, and pressure groups come together to instill fear into revisionists (199). "Likewise, the great majority of our newspapers are highly hostile to material questioning the traditional mythology about the causes and results of this war" (17). Barnes mentions John Flynn as being attacked for writing against the "official mythology"(40). Mr. Flynn wrote the book called The Roosevelt Myth. The attack on revisionists is also in Britain (101). Barnes claims that Professor Taylor is a victim of British Historical Blackout, also known as the "Iron Curtain of Discreet Silence." Barnes declares, "History has been an intellectual casualty in both World Wars, and there is much doubt that it can be rehabilitated during the second half of the century" (47).

Revisionists, and as the movement evolved, Holocaust deniers, pointed to the Canadian Charter of Rights and the U. S. Bill of Rights as proof that their work can’t be censored (Holocaust 27). Therefore, the revisionists sought support from the henry Regnery Company and Devin-Adair Company to publish their work (14). These two publishing houses were the first to circulate revisionists thinking. Charles Tansill was able to publish Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941. Another revisionist author was William Chamberlain, who wrote America’s Second Crusade( Barnes 31). Revisionist writings also periodically appeared in the Chicago Tribune, which praised Mr. Chamberlain’s work. Even if revisionist works are not ignored, then the authors and works are attacked so harshly that revisionist reputations are destroyed.

Basically, Barnes believe that court historians and war departments have shaped public opinion since World War I. Only a special elite of revisionist historians have been able to pierce the "mythology". Barnes warns, "If world policy today cannot be divorced from the mythology of the 1940’s, a third world war is inevitable, and its impact will be many times more horrible and devastating than that of the second" (7). Barnes points to one of the first revisionists, who was Francis Neilson (21). he wrote a book called How Diplomats Make War in 1915. Francis Neilson’s beliefs would form the foundation of Barne’s beliefs. In 1937, Mr. Neilson was ostracized for objection to interventionism. Sidney Fay was also one of the first revisionists. Then, in 1926, Barnes wrote Genesis of the World War.

Up till now, I have discussed what Harry Barnes believes and those who have influence him the most. The main focus of Harry Barnes debate is over World War II and its causes. Barnes claims that America has an interventionist frame of mind, which would be the cause for the U. S. entering World War II (Barnes 27). Interventionists in America only want nationalism and war. The goal of all interventionists is to establish an empire and increase territory. The goal of America in World War II was for world domination, not to fight fascism and the preservation of democracy. Historians are involved by supporting an international crusade. Charles Tansill goes so far as to say that the U. S. was the aggressor nation, not Japan or Germany (38).

The reason why court historians have cracked down on revisionists is to create a police state so that interventionists can create a world empire. Placing blame on countries other than Germany has been a tactic of revisionists and Harry Barnes. Later, this tactic was adopted by Holocaust deniers. For example, Barnes blame the British, not the Germans, for the failure of the Munich Conference (Barnes 110). The British could be crueler than the Germans, as seen by the saturation bombings. In addition, Barnes believes that the British had a devious plan to get the United States involved in World War II. "Let us look at the facts that confirm the assertion that Churchill knew, long before Pearl Harbor, that Britain could count on American aid as soon as Roosevelt could bring the country into the conflict" (207).

According to Barnes, Germany has become the scapegoat for the cause of the war. Hitler wanted to peacefully revise the Treaty of Versailles (Barnes 166). In addition, on March 31, 1936, Hitler made a non-aggression pact which was ignored by the Allies (106). "Gideonese repeated the old alarmist dud to the effect that, if we had not gone to war against Hitler, he would have made a vassal of Stalin and Soviet Russia and would have controlled the Old World- from the English channel to Vladivostok" (Barnes 33). Barnes points to General George Marshall’s report that Hitler had no plan for world domination (6). When Hitler took over Austria, he had wanted to do it peacefully. The Austrians supported the invasion. With respect to Czechoslovakia, "Hitler did not provoke the movement for Slovakian autonomy, which was spontaneous" (111).

When Germany invaded Poland, the Poles were more eager for war than the Germans. "Right down to the final crisis Hitler had hoped for peaceful revision" (Barnes 112). Even if the Germans did aggressively take over Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Austria, the United States had nothing to fear. "Our national security was not even remotely threatened in the case of either World War. There was no clear moral issue compelling us to intervene in either world conflict (Barnes 4). While Barnes may bring a new slant on history, this slant has been so obscured in recent times by Holocaust deniers. While Barnes argument hint at truths, today’s Holocaust deniers deny all truth. For example, David Irving wrote a book called Hitler’s War. (Holocaust 22). Irving claims that Hitler had no knowledge of the "Final Solution."

Harry Barnes claims that Revisionism has truth at its base (Barnes 200). People who defend the policies of Franklin Roosevelt seek to maintain the image of his legend. Barnes firmly believes that Roosevelt lied the United States into World War II. Court and diplomatic historians defend his legend. Even the educated have been tricked into believing the legend. Barnes calls the root of opposition to revisionism as those who make allegiances to him. Charles Beard support this opinion in his book President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941( 25-28). Beard argues that the isolationist path America had been following was abruptly disturbed when America entered the war. Roosevelt should’ve sought public opinion first. Beard argues that because Roosevelt’s domestic policy in the New Deal failed in 1937 and 1938, Roosevelt sought armament and war (206-207). Between January and March 1941, the question was no longer whether the U. S. should enter World War II, but when. "Their only uncertainty revolved about what he would regard as a sufficient incident to warrant asking congress for a declaration of war and how and when such an incident could be brought about" (Barnes 24).

Barnes points to Roosevelt’s description as a peace-loving man, while secretly planning for war. In September 1938, Roosevelt appealed to Hitler at Munich (Barnes 207. As a result of the meeting was that Roosevelt told one of his generals that war was inevitable. In addition, Barnes points out that in 1944, Roosevelt had no original copy of the Atlantic Charter for human rights (209-211). Roosevelt had lead the public to believe that Lend-Lease was "aid short of war". In actuality, Barnes believed that Roosevelt’s war machine was put into motion. The U. S. used convoys to ship goods and in July 1941, an economic embargo was put on Japan. In September 1940, the U. S. had settled the Destroyer Deal. Administration saw the U. S. legally and morally involved in the war. "We freely admit that, at heart, the President was never an isolationist, but his internationalism was hardly that of a devoted friend of peace" (Barnes 205). With respect to Japan, Barnes believed that Roosevelt wanted to enter the war by provoking Japan. The army and navy had inclinations that an embargo on Japan might start a war (209). If Japan was economically destroyed, the only alternative for them would be to turn to war. Starting in 1917, Roosevelt had hoped to war with Japan (205). That same year, the Trading with the Enemy Act was passed. Barnes argues that up until Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were willing to withdraw from China. "As far back as 1937, the Japanese had become convinced of the unwisdom of further aggression in China and were willing to settle matters by the retention of Manchuria" (Barnes 212). In 1937, Japan and China were going to form a coalition to fight Communism(44). America wanted a conflict to exist between China and Japan. One British Minister of Production comments, "America provoked Japan to such an extent that the Japanese were forced to attack the Americans at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty on history to say that America was forced into war (Barnes 210).

My argument against Harry Barnes is based on the secondary sources I have used. The argument I have focused on centers around World War II. Throughout the history courses on World War II, I knew that President was involved in World War II reluctantly, at best. Barnes claims that the United States is forming into a totalitarian regime. If this were so, the revisionists writings printed by the Henry Regnery Company and Devin-Adair would never have appeared in public. Barnes has successfully sowed the seeds of doubt as to what actually happened and caused World War II.

One of the main premises of Barnes is that while President Roosevelt was publicly an isolationist, he was truly a militaristic person who desired imperialism. Barnes fails to see the context to which the U. S. was situation. After World War I, the U. S. was aware that tensions still existed among the European powers (Dallek 1). The U. S. drifted to a policy of isolationism and refraining from military commitments. This is why the United States did not want to participate in the League of nations. As Robert Divine observes, "But while he urged the European leaders to come together again and seek a peaceful solution, he refrained from making any specific American commitments" (22).

Another argument Barnes has espoused is that the United States and Canada, by not printing revisionist works, are denying freedom of the press. First of all, revisionist and Holocaust deniers have formed a coalition of writers at the Institute of Historical Review. Secondly, newspapers are not under government authority (Holocaust 27). When Barnes speaks in generalities of court historians and hatchet men, there is no need for argument since his points are vague and looks to evidence which are taken out of context, like when he refers to Nineteen-Eighty-Four.

While Barnes argues that Roosevelt intentionally led the U. S. into war, facts show that even until Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt had hoped that diplomacy and embargoes could prevent the United States entry into war. While Barnes ignores the backdrop and entire scene surrounding World War II, he takes things out of context to prove his opinion. I believe that Barne’s criticisms of Roosevelt are based more on a personal dislike for Roosevelt, rather than factual information. Therefore, I find it necessary to establish a chronology and context to understand how Roosevelt was unintentionally provoked into entering World War II.

One criticism which is fair to put on Roosevelt is that he was an idealist. "He shared fully in the hatred of war that was at the root of American isolationism in the depression decade, and he was determined to ensure that the United States would remain a beacon of peace and sanity in a world going mad" (Divine 10). Roosevelt’s desire for peace is echoed in the Chautauqua Address (17). In January 1936, Roosevelt had told Congress that the U. S. would remain neutral. Ideally, Roosevelt had wanted to be a model of peace and democracy. Even amidst the rise of totalitarian regimes of Germany, Italy, and Japan, the U. S. wanted peace. If Roosevelt was an imperialistic nationalist, the U. S. would’ve intervened sooner.

Barnes argues that Roosevelt ultimately abandoned isolationism because of economic woes and the failure of the New Deal. On the contrary, Roosevelt was taking a risk by focusing on foreign policy rather than domestic (Divine 6). If he had wanted to fix his reputation, he would’ve focused on domestic problems.

Roosevelt’s involvement in European affairs was unintentionally gradual. Barnes argues that Roosevelt wanted war with Germany and Japan. In fact, Roosevelt refused to trade with nations at war because he hated war so much. "The evidence indicates that from the very outset Roosevelt acted out of a desire to curb American trade with nations at war and not out of a concern for collective security" (Divine 13). Later, as fascist regimes became more menacing, as a dutiful president should do, became concerned about the security of his country. " ‘The direction and aim of our foreign policy has been, and will continue to be, the security and defense of our own land and the maintenance of its peace’"(Dallek 9).

When Roosevelt changes his policy in respect to foreign affairs, is when Barnes heaps up his arguments. By going against his oath of isolationism, Barnes criticizes Roosevelt of stretching the constitution and breaking his oath (Dallek 15). At this point, Roosevelt was purposely drawing the United States into war, according to Barnes. Barnes ignores the fact that Hitler wanted to conquer the world and destroy liberty (11). Hitler intended to create a Third Reich based on German racial superiority (Divine 20). Hitler wanted the Sudeten land in Czechoslovakia. He also wanted Poland, the Rhineland, Austria, and Russia. Alan Bullock writes about German military tactics. "The sort of war she could win was a series of short campaigns in which surprise and the overwhelming force of the initial blow would settle the issue before the victim had time to mobilize his full resources or the other Powers to intervene" (Bullock 219). Because Hitler used Blitzkrieg tactics to subdue surrounding countries, Roosevelt was faced with an issue of time. Poland was taken in 4 weeks, Norway in 2 months, and Yugoslavia in 11 days. Rather than being criticized for wanting war, Roosevelt was often criticized for passivity and inactivity during the beginning of German aggression.

At the Munich crisis, the painful transition of Roosevelt’s thinking could be seen (Divine 23). The transition was going from an isolationist to an internationalist. Roosevelt was beginning to realize that war may be the only option to preserving American society. In addition to Germany, there was also the threat of Japanese aggression on China (18-19). "No bombs fell on American territory in 1937, but even without them Roosevelt appeared to be aware that the desire for peace alone was not enough" (Divine 19). Going from the passive isolationist stance, Roosevelt was forced into an active interventionist one.

During the ensuing years leading to World War II, Roosevelt remained resistant to declaring war. Even when Roosevelt gave up on isolationism, he hoped that aid to England could win the war (Divine 47). By passing Lend-Lease legislation, it was believed England would have enough materiel to win the war (Divine 39). Congress allowed seven billion dollars in appropriations to be given to Britain. Until October 1939, the U. S. was unable to trade with warring nation based on Neutrality laws (29). After October 1939, England and France could purchase supplies from the United States. The Neutrality Act had been passed in August 1935. In the act, an embargo was to be placed on arms being sent to warring nations. Later, the Neutrality law was revised. In 1936, Germany began to speed up rearmament.

By fighting Germany indirectly, giving aid to England and France, Roosevelt hoped not to have to ask Congress for a declaration of war (Divine 28). Roosevelt had firmly believed that the defense of England was the defense of the United States. Barnes may claim that Roosevelt was itching to find an excuse to enter the war. In fact, Roosevelt was looking for any way to stay out of direct action against the enemy. Roosevelt had the chance to enter the war when France was on the verge of collapse. In a class on the History of the American Military, I learned that several months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U. S. S. Reuben James was sunk and 100 U.S. sailors lost their lives. Still, the U. S. didn’t declare war. When France surrendered to Germany, Britain was alone in resisting Germany. Britain stood between Germany and the United States. So, in the Destroyer Deal, the United States gave Britain 50 destroyers in return for bases.

America began to prepare itself for war, but hoping not to enter one. On July 7, 1941, Roosevelt sent 4,000 American marines to Iceland (Divine 43). This move was done to ensure safe delivery of goods to Britain. By October 1941, American merchant ships were allowed to travel to British ports and they were allowed to carry deck guns. American naval patrols were extended halfway across the Atlantic (41). Roosevelt’s decision to convoy British ships was seen as an "undeclared war on Germany" (45). "Recognizing that Hitler threatened the security of the United State, he took a series of steps which brought the nation to the brink of war, but his own revulsion at the though of plunging his country into the most devastating conflict in history held him back until the Japanese attack left him no choice" (Divine 48).

In December 1941, Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, which brought the U. S. into World War II. Revisionists have claimed that the U. S. entered World War II through a backdoor policy. With the previous evidence, it is clear that the U. S. did everything in its power to avoid war. Only when war reached its own shores were they willing to put all effort into fighting. The development of Japan into a military power was aggressive and intentional. A short history on how Japan became an imperialist nation in Asia will show that Japan wanted war, while America had hoped for diplomacy to solve the problem.

Starting in 1895, Japan was interested in military aggrandizement (Dallek 46). There are numerous military examples: The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, the Twenty-One Demands of 1915. The U. S. finally to act. "Finally, after ten years of Japanese expansion, it was only sensible and prudent for the United States to demand that it come to an end and that Japan retreat" (Dallek 52). The pressures on Japan were gradual and reasonable. The public opinion was more hostile to Japanese actions than the diplomats dealing with Japan (51). Since 1937, Trojo had been military dictator of Japan. Revisionists have claimed that Japanese actions of territory gain was no worse than the gains made by the United States. The revisionists point to the Monroe Doctrine. Historically, the Monroe Doctrine was for self-defense(45). The Japanese sought to dominate society and create a completely New Order.

Japan, in its negotiations with the United States, ignored U. S. warnings that a Japanese dominion of Asia in its entirety would not be tolerated. "Her sole purpose in the negotiations was to persuade or compel the United States to yield to Japan control of the entire Pacific, from Hawaii to India and beyond" (Dallek 45). To prevent Japanese expansion, the U. S. enforced an economic embargo (47).

In hopes of dealing with the Japanese diplomatically, an embargo was put into place (Dallek 48). On September 14,1940, export of scrap iron and steel was stopped(28). As a result, Japan and Germany formed an alliance known as the Tripartite Pact. In order for the embargo to be lifted, the U. S. ordered Japan out of China. U. S. military strategists believed that asking Japan to leave China was too much (50). Diplomats believed that the request and embargo was not only necessary, but a way to prevent the U. S. from using military force on Japan. "The Japanese were given to understand that there would be no relaxation of the embargo until Japan gave up her gains by aggression there" (Dallek 48). American diplomacy also sought to isolate Japan from the Tripartite Pact, which included Italy and Germany.

From this historical occurrence, Barnes and Tansill form their hypothesis that America intentionally provoke Japan into war. While it might have been a mistake to order Japan out of China right then and there, Roosevelt did not plan to enter the war through Japan. Roosevelt had hoped to pressure Japan to give up its aggressive path.

By July 1941, Japan wanted to form China into a puppet state with Wang Ching-wei as its leader (Dallek 46-47). Economics and military control would remain in the hands of the Japanese. America was interested in China, hoping to promote economic liberty known as the Open Door policy (50-51). In addition, if Japan was to control China, they would be too close to the American colonies in the Philippines (Divine 16). After July 1941, the U. S. took a more offensively diplomatic position (Dallek 48). America wanted Japan to give up all its conquests which had been acquired through aggressive means. There were two things which were imperative to the United States. First of all, Japan must be stopped from moving southward, which could cut off the supply line to Britain. Secondly, Japan must be prevented from entering the European war. Basil Rauch argues that the harsh stance taken by America towards Japan was warranted. "Japan in the spring and summer of 1941 would accept no diplomatic arrangements which did not give it everything that it might win in the Far East by aggression, without the trouble and expense of military campaign" (Dallek 46).

Harry Barnes seeks to quiet the opposition to revisionism by showing that all arguments contrary are part of the "mythology." Any claims against revisionists concerning the second World War are shown to be allegiances to President Roosevelt. Barnes blames Roosevelt for entering World War II when Germany and Japan were clearly the aggressors. While Germany and Japan sought to dominate the world, the U. S. wanted to live in peace as an isolationist nation. Remaining neutral was detrimental to the very existence of the United States. When emerging out of neutrality, Roosevelt hung onto the hope of peace by remaining outside the boundaries of the actual fighting. Even when danger to the United States seemed eminent, the United States followed an "undeclared state of war" with Germany and Japan by giving aid to the resistors of fascist regimes.

President Roosevelt, in the midst of world conquest, rearmed itself for self-defense. Barnes and the revisionists claim that Roosevelt entered World War II through a backdoor policy which involved provoking Japan. Japan needed no provoking, it was already a belligerent militaristic nation. The United States always followed a diplomatic course, with fighting remaining a last resort. As stated in Robert Dallek’s book, "There was nothing the United States could have done which would have deterred Japan from her course of aggression" (45).

Works Cited

Barnes, Harry Elmer. Barnes Against the Blackout. Institute for Historical Review: Costa Mesa, 1991.

Bullock, Alan. Hitler and the Origins of the Second World War. Oxford University Press: London, 1967.

Dallek, Robert. ed. Roosevelt Diplomacy and World War II. Holt Rinehart and Winston: New York, 1970.

Divine, Robert. Roosevelt and World War II. The John Hopkins Press: Baltimore, 1969.

Littman, Sol. ed. Holocaust Denial: Bigotry in the Guise of Scholarship. Simon Wiesenthal Center: 1994.