Singham colludes with CCP to rewrite history of WWII to advance Xi Jinping’s ‘new world order’

The wealthy Marxist businessman behind a sprawling far-left network is collaborating with the Chinese Communist Party to denigrate the Allied actions in World War II in an effort to upend the U.S.-led international system and to advance Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s “new world order.”

China-based businessman Neville Roy Singham leads and funds a global financial and activist network that operates inside the U.S. and many other countries, and while he rarely grabs the spotlight for himself in public speeches, he did so in November through the release of a report that denigrates U.S. and Allied Power contributions to WWII.

Singham directly admitted during a CCP-backed forum in Shanghai in November that he had written the 174-page report to combat the U.S.-backed “international rules-based order” — which he called a “lie” — and to help the CCP and its longtime strongman Xi achieve a “new world order” more favorable to China.

Singham: "Fascism was defeated not by Anglo-American capital but by socialist leadership and mass heroism"

The wealthy communist activist summed up the crux of his WWII argument thusly: “As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the victory in the World Anti-Fascist War (WAFW), the Western powers spin their familiar tale: U.S. industrial might and British resolve saved the world from fascism. This is a lie. The truth burns in the numbers: while the Western powers calculated their economic advantage, the Soviet and Chinese peoples paid in blood. Fascism was defeated not by Anglo-American capital but by socialist leadership and mass heroism – a brilliant strategy from Moscow and Yan’an, unbreakable resilience from workers and peasants who refused to surrender, and a sacrifice that saved humanity from slavery.”

To back up Singham’s revisionist historical efforts — which he dubbed “restorationist” — he sought to excuse Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s alliance with Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler which carved up swaths of Eastern Europe, to claim that Hitler and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill were morally equivalent.

Singham ignored the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, signed August 23, 1939, a non-aggression treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that secretly divided Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. That deal facilitated the German invasion of Poland less than a month later on September 1, 1939, and a subsequent Soviet invasion of Poland on September 17, enabling both powers to seize surrounding territory.  

Just the News has previously reported on how numerous far-left radical activist groups have leadership links or financial ties to the funding network backed by Singham, who himself is linked to the CCP and whom some in his network call "Comrade” — and who has also been scrutinized by Republican congressional investigators.

Singham did not respond to a request for comment sent by Just the News through his wife Jodie Evans, the co-founder of Code Pink.

Singham excuses Stalin over “necessary” alliance with Hitler

Singham also sought to excuse Stalin’s non-aggression treaty with Hitler, despite the fact that the Hitler-Stalin Pact allowed the Nazis and the Soviets to divide up large swaths of Eastern Europe between themselves.

History.com noted that “the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact contained a secret protocol specifying the spheres of influence in Eastern Europe both parties would accept after Hitler conquered Poland” and that “the Soviet Union would acquire the eastern half of Poland, along with Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.”

Singham wrote that “facing isolation, Stalin signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939 — not from choice but from necessity created by Western collusion with Hitler.” This is a common trope from Soviet apologists.

Historian Roger Moorhouse wrote in his book, The Devils’ Alliance: Hitler’s Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941, that the Hitler-Stalin Pact “was in force for less than two years, ending with Hitler's attack on Stalin's Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 — but it was nonetheless one of the salient events of World War II.”

“This aspect of Soviet belligerence is more than just a curiosity. Postwar writing on the Nazi-Soviet Pact such that there is long tended to parrot the Kremlin's postwar exculpatory line that Stalin was merely buying time by signing the pact, fending Hitler off while he could prepare Soviet defenses to meet an expected attack. This interpretation, still hawked by communist apologists to this day, does not tally with the evidence, however,” the historian wrote. “As this book shows, Stalin was much more proactive and anti-Western in signing the pact than has conventionally been appreciated. His motivations were complex, of course, but on one level at least, he was seeking to exploit Nazi aggression to his own ends, to speed the fall of the West and capitalism's long-awaited collapse. An unwilling or passive ‘neutral,’ he was not.”

Xi’s “new world order” requires “restorationist” anti-Western view of WWII

Singham made it clear last November when introducing his anti-American report that changing how the world views the history of WWII was key to the CCP’s and Xi’s efforts to change the globe’s power dynamics and to end American dominance, as he labeled the modern West as fascist.

“This fascist lie that the West says that there's a battle between fascism, democracy, and communism — they make a fake argument that there are three systems […] In fact, fascism is actually a face of capitalism and imperialism, as is colonialism,” Singham said. “These are the three faces of a system that right now is getting very, very dangerous for us. The reason I think this study and the role of the Global South Academic Forum and of China is this moment of history if we want to understand international rules-based order — which is their favorite term.”

Singham added: “The international rules-based order was created by another lie, which was that the fascists were all protected by the Americans and put into power in their countries, in Japan and in Italy. If we want to therefore have a new world order that is based on the multilateralism that President Xi and CPC and China have proposed, we have to undo the ideological damage that has been done by the narrative of World War II.”

The U.S. War Department’s report on China in December assessed that “China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has for decades marshaled resources, technology, and political will to achieve its vision of a world-class military” and that “the PLA is a key component of China’s ambition to displace the United States as the world’s most powerful nation.”

“China has a very important role and we in this forum have a very important role that to envision a new multi-order, polarity order, requires the, quite frankly, the deconstruction — a restorationist history of what really happened, who really suffered,” Singham argued in November.

“The liberal fiction of three competing systems – democracy, fascism, and communism – obscures the truth: fascism is capitalism in crisis, its mask dropped. The real struggle was never between three systems but between two: socialism and capitalism, with fascism as capitalism’s emergency response to revolutionary threat,” Singham insisted in his report.

Singham concluded: “History is on our side. That is why they lie about who won the war. That is why we must tell the truth.”

Singham wrongly inflates role played by CCP in fighting against Japan

Singham repeatedly sought to portray the Chinese Communists as the true heroes of the war against Japan in WWII — inflating the role played by Mao and the CCP and downplaying the more critical efforts taken by Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist forces.

Once the Sino-Japanese war ended with the defeat of Japan in WWII, Chiang’s nationalist forces — exhausted from many years of intense fighting against the Japanese — had to turn around and continue a civil war with Mao and the Communists, who had spent much of WWII hanging back and building their strength while the Chinese Nationalists bore the main brunt of battle with Japan. The Communists defeated the Kuomintang (KMT) in three more years of post-WWII fighting, forcing Chiang and his troops to retreat to Taiwan while Mao and the Communists declared the People’s Republic of China on the mainland.

“The deployment patterns expose the truth: socialist forces were desperately engaged in existential struggle while capitalist forces carefully husbanded their strength for post-war advantage,” Singham wrote when characterizing Allied fighting during WWII — but the decision to largely hide out and allow others to do much of the fighting was exactly what the CCP largely did during the war with Japan.

Singham’s report even noted that “the people’s army, led by the Communist Party of China, grew from 56,000 in 1937 to around 440,000 in 1941 and 1.3 million in 1945” — showing the CCP was actually growing in strength during WWII even as the Chinese Nationalists were repeatedly battered in their numerous battles with Japan.

“The CPC’s Hundred Regiments Offensive of 1940 – a series of coordinated strikes across northern China – shattered Japanese infrastructure. The CPC’s forces tied down 60% of Japanese forces and 95% of puppet forces – not some vague ‘bulk’ but a precise, bleeding majority,” Singham claimed.

The communist activist argued that “China’s resistance operated on dual fronts: KMT conventional battles engaged 36% of Japanese forces; CPC guerrilla warfare tied down the rest as well as the majority of the puppet forces.”

Singham’s “sources” for his claims included a report given by Mao to the National Congress of the CCP and a speech by Chinese Ambassador Zhang Weidong.

These claims are widely disputed. “The CCP had a choice: it could have prioritized defending the country against Japan during the war, or it could have prioritized seizing control of China from those who did fight the Japanese. It chose the latter,” The Diplomat said in one analysis. “Meanwhile, by choosing to actually try to defend China against Japan during the war, the Nationalists handed the country to the CCP afterwards.”

The Taipei Times assessed that “from 1937 to 1945, there were 23 battles where both sides employed at least a regiment each” and that “the CCP was not a main force in any of these.” The outlet added that “there were 1,117 significant engagements on a scale smaller than a regular battle, but the CCP fought in only one.”

Endo Homare, the director of the Center of International Relations at Tokyo University, argued it was a “myth that CPC forces fought valiantly with the Japanese army during the Sino-Japanese War” and that, instead, Mao “concentrated his efforts on conspiring with the Japanese army to weaken the KMT forces … even going as far as to propose a truce between the CPC forces and the Japanese army.”

The book Generalissimo recounted that a close Mao ally admitted to Stalin that the Chinese Nationalists were doing most of the fighting and dying against the Japanese. “From the fall of Wuhan in October 1938 to December 7, 1941, the Chinese Army would suffer another 1.3 million casualties. In January 1940, Zhou Enlai, in a secret report to Stalin, reported that more than one million Chinese soldiers had been killed or wounded in the war (apparently as of August 1939),” the book said. 

“Of this number, he reported, only 30,000 were from the Eighth Route Army and 1,000 from the New Fourth Army. In other words, halfway into the third year of the war, by the CCP's own account, the Communists had suffered a mere 3 percent of the casualties.” Mao even seemed to acknowledge at least some of the truth to the Japanese prime minister during a meeting in 1972.

“We must express our gratitude to Japan. If Japan didn’t invade China, we could never have achieved the cooperation between the KMT and the Communist Party. We could have never developed and eventually taken political power for ourselves. It is due to Japan’s help that we are able to meet here in Beijing,” Mao reportedly said, adding that “if Japan hadn’t invaded China, the Chinese Communist Party would not have been victorious. Moreover, we would never be meeting today. This is the dialectic of history.”

Singham: No difference between Hitler and Churchill

As part of his attempt to rewrite the historical record, Singham tried to claim that there was no moral difference between Hitler and Churchill. “Churchill’s genocidal impulses targeted communists and colonised peoples equally [...] Today, Britain venerates this man, who differed from Hitler only in his victory,” Singham wrote.

WWII in Europe was launched by Hitler — not Churchill. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that the war “was the most destructive war in history” and that “estimates of those killed vary from 35 million to 60 million” — and that “the total for Europe alone was 15 million to 20 million—more than twice as many as in World War I.”

The Holocaust was also a deliberate policy of mass murder carried out by Hitler and the Nazis. “Nazi Germany committed mass murder on an unprecedented scale. The Nazis and their allies and collaborators killed six million Jewish people,” the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has said. “This systematic, state-sponsored genocide is now known as the Holocaust. The Nazis and their allies and collaborators also committed other mass atrocities. They persecuted and killed millions of non-Jewish people during World War II.”

As key evidence for his attempt to say Hitler and Churchill were the same, Singham wrote that “the Bengal Famine of 1943 killed 3 million Indians through British policy” — a claim hotly disputed by many historians.

The Churchill Project at Hillsdale College argued that “the true facts about food shipments to Bengal, amply recorded in the British war cabinet and government of India archives, are that more than a million tons of grain arrived in Bengal between August 1943, when the war cabinet first realised the severity of the famine, and the end of 1944, when the famine had petered out.”

“This was food aid specifically sent to Bengal, much of it on Australian ships, despite strict food rationing in England and severe food shortages in newly-liberated southern Italy and Greece,” the Churchill Project added. “As detailed in Andrew Roberts’s brilliant biography, far from seeking to starve India, Churchill and his cabinet sought every possible way to alleviate the suffering without undermining the war effort.”

Singham argues Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler was “collusion” with Nazis

Singham sought to frame British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s now-infamous Munich Agreement with Hitler in 1938 not as strategic appeasement but rather as pro-Nazi collusion.

“Western historiography transformed Neville Chamberlain’s calculated collusion with Hitler into a tale of naïve appeasement – well-meaning but misguided efforts to avoid war,” the Marxist network leader wrote. “This fiction serves a purpose: if Chamberlain merely misjudged Hitler’s intentions, British strategy appears as honorable failure rather than anti-communist conspiracy. The documentary record destroys this myth.”

Historian Tim Bouverie wrote in his book, Appeasing Hitler: Chamberlain, Churchill and the Road to War, that “the failure to perceive the true character of the Nazi regime and Adolf Hitler stands as the single greatest failure of British policymakers during this period, since it was from this that all subsequent failures—the failure to rearm sufficiently, the failure to build alliances (not least with the Soviet Union), the failure to project British power and the failure to educate public opinion—stemmed.”

Churchill — the anti-communist whom Singham had tried to label as "just as bad as Hitler" — denounced Chamberlain’s appeasement at the time as “a total and unmitigated defeat.”

“There can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force. That power cannot ever be the trusted friend of the British democracy,” the future British prime minister said.

History unhinged: Singham says atomic bombs were really aimed at USSR

Singham also argued that “the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945 targeted the Soviet Union more than Japan” because “Japan was already defeated.”

MIT President Karl T. Compton wrote in The Atlantic in 1946 that “I cannot believe that, without the atomic bomb, the surrender would have come without a great deal more of costly struggle and bloodshed.”

“I believe, with complete conviction, that the use of the atomic bomb saved hundreds of thousands — perhaps several millions — of lives, both American and Japanese; that without its use the war would have continued for many months; that no one of good conscience knowing, as Secretary Stimson and the Chiefs of Staff did, what was probably ahead and what the atomic bomb might accomplish could have made any different decision,” the MIT leader added.

President Harry Truman responded with a letter later that year, saying, “The Japanese were given fair warning, and were offered the terms which they finally accepted, well in advance of the dropping of the bomb. I imagine the bomb caused them to accept the terms.”

The Heritage Foundation noted that “U.S. government wartime casualty assessments provide a chilling reminder of the human cost of an invasion had President Harry Truman decided not to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The lowest number of estimated fatalities appears to be 267,000. Other assessments go as high as 500,000 or 1 million fatalities, with many more that number being wounded.”

U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command pointed out that “the sooner the Americans come, the better… one hundred million die proudly” was a Japanese propaganda slogan in the summer of 1945.

“Were it not for the end of the war in August 1945, the alternative would have been the bloodiest battle in U.S. and U.S. naval history had the first phase of Operation Downfall (the invasion of Japan) been executed as planned on X-day (1 November 1945) in Operation Olympic (the invasion of the southernmost Japanese home island of Kyushu),” the U.S. Navy article added. “The U.S. invasion force, with British participation, for Olympic would have significantly exceeded that of Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy in June 1944. An even bigger operation, Coronet, was planned for March 1946, an invasion of the Kanto plain area near Tokyo.”

The U.S. naval history added: “Fortunately, 100 million Japanese didn’t have to die a ‘glorious death,’ nor tens of thousands of Americans, nor 5,000 U.S. Sailors (Fleet Admiral Nimitz’s estimate) since neither Olympic or Coronet, nor the Japanese defensive plan, Ketsugo, were executed.”

The “Comrade” behind the revisionist writings

Singham's pro-CCP slant and Marxist orientation have long been clear — with his broadside at the Shanghai conference late last year just one example of many.

“For months we’ve been the target of a campaign that alleges our funding comes from ‘dark money.’ A few years ago we met Roy Singham, a Marxist comrade who sold his company & donated most of his wealth to non-profits that focus on political education, culture, & internationalism,” the People’s Forum — part of the Singham Network — tweeted in December 2021.

The New York Times reported that Singham works in Shanghai, that his efforts there are linked to the CCP, and that he has attended at least one CCP workshop on promoting the party globally.

The outlet also said Singham shares offices with a Chinese media company called Maku Group. The Chinese group’s “About Us” page — which has since been deleted but which was archived by the Wayback Machine in 2023 — says the goal of the company is to promote a positive vision of China worldwide.

Singham also wrote that he had served on the Central Committee from the League of Revolutionary Black Workers. The league, according to the Marxists Internet Archive, “played a key role in inspiring the Black Liberation Movement and spreading Marxist-Leninist ideas among Black workers and workers in general.” Singham reportedly worked as a “strategic technical consultant” with the Chinese government-linked Chinese telecom giant Huawei from 2001 to 2008, according to New Lines Magazine.

“I categorically deny and repudiate any suggestion that I am a member of, work for, take orders from, or follow instructions of any political party or government or their representatives,” Singham told the New York Times in 2023. “I am solely guided by my beliefs, which are my long-held personal views.”

Congressional Republicans have long called for investigations into the Singham network, its links to the CCP, its leadership in nationwide leftwing protests, and its role in anti-Israel encampments, vandalism, and violence on campus. The GOP — especially then-Senator Marco Rubio — has for years asked the DOJ to look into possible Foreign Agents Registration Act violations and has called upon the Treasury Department and IRS to consider revoking the tax-exempt status for Singham’s network of non-profits.

The GOP-led House Oversight Committee also voted this year to subpoena Singham for information about this sprawling activist network. So far, Just the News has been unable to determine whether the subpoena has actually been served on Singham, or if he has responded to it.