By M. H. Cochran (Author), Colin Heston (Introduction)

Michael H. Cochran’s Germany Not Guilty in 1914, published in 1931, stands as a provocative and revisionist challenge to the dominant narrative of German culpability for the outbreak of World War I. Written in response to Bernadotte Schmitt’s influential The Coming of the War, Cochran’s book offers a meticulous critique of the “war guilt” thesis enshrined in the Treaty of Versailles, which placed sole responsibility for the war on Germany. With a foreword by Harry Elmer Barnes and later commentary by Henry Adams, the book is deeply embedded in the interwar historiographical debates that questioned the moral and political foundations of postwar peace settlements.

Published during a period of growing disillusionment with the Versailles Treaty and rising revisionist sentiment in the United States and Europe, Cochran’s work was part of a broader intellectual movement that sought to rehabilitate Germany’s image and challenge the punitive postwar order. While not universally accepted, the book found an audience among scholars and political thinkers who viewed the war guilt clause as unjust and historically flawed. Its reception was mixed—praised for its rigor and boldness, but criticized for its perceived apologetics and selective use of evidence.

In 2025, Germany Not Guilty in 1914 remains relevant not only as a historical artifact but as a lens through which to examine the politics of blame, the construction of historical narratives, and the enduring consequences of diplomatic failure. The evolution from “guilt” to “responsibility” reflects broader changes in how societies understand conflict, justice, and reconciliation. As international law and historical memory continue to intersect—especially in debates over reparations, war crimes, and collective trauma—Cochran’s challenge to the Versailles narrative invites reflection on how history is written, who writes it, and to what ends.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. p.166.

By Harry Elmer Barnes (Author), Colin Heston (Introduction)

Harry Elmer Barnes’s In Quest of Truth and Justice stands as a provocative and enduring challenge to the way history is written, remembered, and weaponized. Published in 1928, the book is a cornerstone of historical revisionism, particularly in its reassessment of the causes and culpability of World War I. Barnes argued that the dominant narrative—one that placed sole blame on Germany—was not only historically inaccurate but also morally unjust. He believed that truth and justice in historical scholarship required a fearless confrontation with political orthodoxy and propaganda, especially when such narratives served the interests of victors and power structures.
Barnes’s work was not merely an academic exercise; it was a moral crusade against what he saw as the corruption of historical truth by political expediency. He insisted that historians must act as independent arbiters of fact, not as servants of state ideology. His critique of the Treaty of Versailles and the war guilt clause was rooted in a broader concern: that distorted history could perpetuate injustice, fuel future conflicts, and undermine democratic accountability.
This ethos—of challenging dominant narratives and seeking justice through historical clarity—finds powerful echoes in today’s global conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and Gaza. Both crises are steeped in competing historical claims, contested identities, and politicized narratives that shape international responses and public opinion.
In both Ukraine and Gaza, Barnes’s legacy invites us to ask uncomfortable questions: Who controls the narrative? Whose history is being told, and whose is being silenced? Are we pursuing truth and justice, or merely reinforcing the power structures of the present?
Ultimately, In Quest of Truth and Justice is not just a historical text—it is a call to intellectual courage. In an age of polarized media, geopolitical propaganda, and moral ambiguity, Barnes’s work reminds us that history is not a weapon to be wielded by the powerful, but a mirror in which societies must confront their own truths. As we grapple with the complexities of Ukraine and Gaza, his message remains urgent: justice begins with honest history.

By J.C. Both, M.C. Mouguia and M.E. de Bruijn.

In this report we elaborate on the historical dimensions of young people’s enrolment and use in armed groups or armed forces in the Central African Republic (CAR). While this phenomenon, also understood as the enlistment and use of child soldiers, is often seen as a recent phenomenon, the report aims to show that children and adolescents have historically been involved in self-defence groups or were forcefully recruited in what is currently the territory of CAR. In the past, they were not called child soldiers; they may not even have always been seen as children due to different cultural definitions of childhood. However, the phenomenon is not new as will be shown in this report.

Leiden: African Studies Centre, 2020. 81p.

By Sylvester Sammie.

Linking High-level Accused to Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes in International Criminal Law focuses on the theoretical and practical perspectives taken by the ICTY, ICTR, and ICC. It seeks to answer the question of how high-level officials can and should be investigated and prosecuted for their role in the commission of sexual and gender-based crimes. The author examines the forms, types, and amount of evidence used to prove the role of these high-level accused in the commission of crimes by rank-and-file soldiers. As the accused are usually not present on the crime scene, the international criminal courts and tribunals must rely on individual criminal liability theories enshrined in Article 7 ICTY Statute, Article 6 ICTR Statute, and Articles 25 & 28 Rome Statute to connect them to the atrocities committed on the ground. 100 individual cases from the ICTY, ICTR, and ICC are examined and reveal that in most cases there was sufficient evidence to prove that sexual and gender-based crimes were committed. It was however much more difficult for the prosecutor to prove the role and responsibility of the high-ranked accused and the modes of liability charged. The author gives concrete recommendations on how to gather linkage evidence effectively, and to use the modes of liability accurately to prove the connection between the committed crimes, the broader context and the accused’s role.

Groningen: University of Groningen. 2021. 415p.