Venezuela was too trusting in the United States and its propaganda of freedom and democracy instead of studying the history of the US when dealing with Latin America. All countries located in South America were relatively poor with a South American white elect ruling the majority poor black and brown underclass. This economic situation began to be ameliorated when the Neocons led George W. Bush into the so-called War on Terror.
The War on Terror caused the US to take its eye off controlling the destiny of Latin America because all its CIA assets as well as the Marine (used for gunboat diplomacy) had to be stationed in the Middle East and Central Asia for the Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
With the US occupied and tied down overseas, the countries in South America prospered beginning with Brazil and soon followed by others including Venezuela. Common people benefited, not just the white elites. The poor in the favelas and barrios saw medical doctors for the first time and people got enough to eat. Poverty began to disappear. This ended when it became evident that the War on Terror was an endless war and the US returned home to its old oppressive ways in South America overthrowing the Socialist governments that had brought the working class as well as the grudging white elites (these are the light-skinned people you see demonstrating on TV news against Maduro) against so many social and economic benefits.
Venezuela was a particular target because of Chavez and his Bolivar Revolution and the huge oil supply, that rivals Saudi Arabia oil reserves, located in the US's backyard and refined in the US proper. Greed and desire to outright control this energy source is driving Trump and his administration, not the restoration of democracy in Venezuela. Trump is unable to feel empathy.
Stephen Kinzer in The Brothers: John foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, And Their Secret World War (2013) points out the Hinge Factor or mistake that Chavez made that is now haunting Maduro: Open borders. Kinzer writes that after the CIA overthrow of the Árbenz democracy in Guatemala, its “best men” then focused on the overthrow of the Castro socialist democratic government in Cuba.
One of Castro's closest comrades, the Argentine-born guerrilla Che Guevara, had been in Guatemala in 1954 and witnessed the coup against Árbenz. Later he told Castro why it succeeded. He said Árbenz had foolishly tolerated an open society, which the CIA penetrated and subverted and also preserved the existing army, which the CIA turned into its instrument.
Castro agreed that a revolutionary regime in Cuba must avoid those mistakes. Upon taking power, he cracked down on dissent and purged the army. Many Cubans supported his regime and were ready to defend it. All of this made the prospect of deposing him daunting indeed.
Yet most of the CIA's “best men” emerged from backgrounds where all things were possible, nothing ever went seriously wrong, and catastrophic reversals of fortune happened only to others. World leaders had fallen to their power. They never belied that deposing Castro would be easy, but they relished the challenge. This was why they had joined the CIA.
Quietly, but watched closely by Castro's spies, CIA officers fanned out through the Cuban sections of Miami, where anti-Castro fervor ran hot. They recruited a handful of exiles to serve as the political front for a counterrevolutionary movement, and dozens more who wanted to fight. The would-be guerrillas were brought to camps in Florida, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, and the Panama Canal Zone and trained in tactics ranging from air assault to underwater demolition.
Tensions between Havana and Washington rose steadily. Cuba recognized the People's Republic of China and signed a trade agreement with the Soviet Union. Takers carrying soviet Petroleum arrived in Cuba. American oil companies refused to refine it. Castro nationalized the recalcitrant companies. The United States stopped buying most Cuban sugar. Cuba began selling sugar to the Soviets.
In mid-1960 this hostility broke beyond politics and economics and into the Cuban soul. The Eisenhower administration pressed the International League, one of professional baseball's top minor league, to announce that it was pulling its baseball team, the Sugar Kings, out of Havana.
Love of baseball is deeply ingrained in the Cuban psyche. Castro, an avid fan who had been known to suspend cabinet meetings so he could watch the Sugar Kings play, protested that this blow violated “all codes of sportsmanship.” He even offered to pay the team's debts. It was to no avail.
The sugar Kings became the Jersey City Jerseys, who went bankrupt the next year. The Cuban people lost one of their strongest sentimental ties to the United States.
“The thing we should never do in dealing with revolutionary countries, in which the world abounds, is to push them behind an iron curtain raised by ourselves,” Walter Lippmann warned in a column after the withdrawal of the Sugar Kings. “On the contrary, even when they have been seduced and subverted and are drawn across the line, the right thing to do is to keep the way open for their return.”
Fears of the threat from Cuba gripped Washington. So did fears of raging nationalism in the Congo. Allen, however, was most steadily preoccupied with a third country: Laos.
In the jungles of Laos, Allen Dulles and his men launched the largest paramilitary operation the CIA had yet conceived [until Trump's 2019 Venezuela adventure].
THE DARK SIDE OF AMERICAN EMPATHY
Americans are taught to have empathy for the oppressed, not noticing that the imperialist ambition of the United States when it deals with the so-called Third World the US is the oppressor. This is evident in its historic relationship with Latin America. Using the Monroe Doctrine as an excuse, it has always attempted to limit the choice of freedom and democratic choice in South America.
Trump's rant is a rant of fear, not of empathy. He is making his argument practically based on Lothrop Stoddard's diatribe in The Rising Time Of Color Against White Supremacy (1920): accordingly, in every quarter of the globe, in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the United States, Bolshevik agitators whisper in the ears of discontented colored men their gospel of hatred and revenge. Every nationalist aspiration, every political grievance, every social discrimination, is fuel for Bolshevism's hellish incitement to racial as well as to class war.
And this Bolshevik propaganda has not been in vain. Its results already show in the most diverse quarters, and they are ominous for the future. China, Japan, Afghanistan, India, Java, Persia, turkey, Egypt, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Mexico, and the “black belts” of our own United States: here is a partial list of the lands where the Bolshevik leaven in color is clearly at work.
Bolshevism thus reveals itself as the arch-enemy of civilization and the [White] race. Bolshevism is the renegade, the traitor within the gates, who would betray the citadel, degrade the very fiber of our being, and ultimately hurl a barbarized, racially impoverished world into the most debased and hopeless of mongrelizations.
Therefore, Bolshevism must be crushed out with iron heels, no matter what the cost. If this means more war, let it mean more war. We know only too well war's dreadful toll, particularly on racial values. But what war-losses could compare with the losses inflicted by the living death of Bolshevism? There are some things worse than war, and Bolshevism stands foremost among those dread alternatives.
THE ETERNAL IMPERIALIST ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY
Although the United States propagandizes its self as a bringer of freedom and democracy, this is a lie. Since 1945, the US has been trying to reinstate classic colonialism in the form of neocolonialism. Neocolonialism gives the native population what J. Rufus Fears calls “the essence of freedom,” not political freedom; thereby the US Marines can enforce the will of the US Empire on all former colonized peoples, without a WMD, who want true freedom and the balls and fire power—fighting asymmetrical wars, to challenge the Empire. The latest iteration of this oppressive methodology is seen in its attack on Maduro and Venezuela.
The greatest fear that Western capitalism has is communistic revolutions in any form. There were only two major successful revolutions in the 20th century: The Russian Revolution and the Cuban Revolution--and minor revolutions: Vietnam and Iran. World War I was the opportunity for these revolutions, even the Cuban Revolution, if one uses history as a marker. WWI was named by Stoddard as the First White Civil War, fought over colonies in Asia and Africa. George W. Bush's War-on-Terror, was the opportunity for Hugo Chavez's Bolivar Revolution, which Trump and company are attempting to end—ignoring the lessons of Vietnam and Iran: The United States has never since 1945 been on the right side of history. History moves on, but the US remains in the mindset of pre-WWI.
The impact of Colonial rivalry and aggression on Europe in 1914
World empires and colonies around 1914
Imperial rivalry and the consequences of the search for imperial security or for imperial expansion had important consequences for the origins of the First World War.
Imperial rivalries between France, Britain, Russia and Germany played an important part in the creation of the Triple Entente and the relative isolation of Germany. Imperial opportunism, in the form of the Italian attack on Ottoman Libyan provinces, also encouraged the Balkan wars of 1912-13, which changed the balance of power in the Balkans to the detriment of Austria-Hungary.
Some historians, such as Margaret MacMillan, believe that Germany created its own diplomatic isolation in Europe in part by an aggressive and pointless imperial policy, known as Weltpolitik. Others, such as Clark, believe that German isolation was the unintended consequence of a détente between Britain, France and Russia. The détente was driven by Britain's desire for imperial security in relation to France in North Africa and to Russia in Persia and India.
Either way, the isolation was important because it left Germany few options but to ally herself more strongly with Austria-Hungary, leading ultimately to unconditional support for Austria's punitive war on Serbia during the July crisis of 1914.