Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘South Africa’ Category

Teaching Whites about Jews - 1782 - COVER

 

[This is the transcript of a 43 minute video by the History Reviewed Channel guy, in his usual measured tone, on the need to teach Whites about jews, especially about their unparalleled ability to lie and deceive. An exemplar of this is the hoax of the twentieth century know as the “Holocaust”.

 

HRC guy spent most of his life revering, looking up to jews as a special victim group that deserved our respect and protection. Then he began studying WW II history and to his shock and horror discovered the truth about jews and how they are at war with Whites with the intention of destroying us.

 

HRC guy is originally from Rhodesia but has, since the early 1980s, lived in South Africa where he has witnessed how a once White run First World country has deteriorated into a complete mess under black rule, engineered by organized jewry — KATANA.]

 

 

 

Click on the above link, or copy the link into your browser to view the video.

NOTE: The original site was banned, so the above link is from someone re-posting the video. If the link doesn’t work do a search for the title in YouTube — Feb 13, 2017.

 

Published on Sep 5, 2015

 

 

I discuss my attempts to teach Whites about jews & also give examples of self-serving jewish stories that are passed around to make people believe they are victims. Jews want everyone to believe they are victims.

 

YouTube Stats

 

Jul 7 — Views: 13,416 – Comments: 423 – Likes: 415  Dislikes: 40
Apr 30 — Views: 9,541 – Comments: 292 – Likes: 302  Dislikes: 28
 Apr 20 — Views: 9,012 – Comments: 277 – Likes: 289  Dislikes: 28

Apr 17 — Views: 8,856 – Comments: 279 – Likes: 282  Dislikes: 27

Apr 16, 2016 — Views: 8,785 – Comments: 279 – Likes: 280  Dislikes: 26

 

 

 

_____________________

 

 

Teaching Whites

 

about Jews

 

By History Review Channel

 

 

TRANSCRIPT — WITH IMAGES

 

 

[00:10]

 

Welcome to the History Reviewed Channel where we analyze the lies and deceptions of history.

 

Some time back I did a video called “Jews 101: Whites Colonised Blacks, jews Colonized Whites”. It was an attempt to try and convert some old military officers who I know very well. And these old guys used to like my African Crisis website. They used to like my work when I was exposing the communists and all the sneaky, nasty things that the blacks were getting up to, and all the deceptions and murders, and so forth, that were carrying on, that people didn’t know about. So they supported me when I did that and they loved it, because they knew I was telling the truth. They knew the media was talking nonsense. And they were delighted that somebody was bothering to stand up.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

[This post is for occasional news and miscellaneous items that readers may find of interest. The latest is posted at the top — KATANA.]

 

News and Miscellaneous – 201604

 

 

News and Misc - Dividing Line

 

 

Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!

 

 

April 20

 

 

Hitle's Birthday - KAT

 

 

News and Misc - Dividing Line

 

Bradley R Smith - Cover

 

 

Special Edition of Smith’s Report, #220

 

March 2016, 36 pages, is now online!

 

In this Issue of Smith’s Report # 220 Special Edition you will find:

 

Bradley Reed Smith – Our Hero, by Germar Rudolf

Remembering Bradley R. Smith, by Richard Widmann

Remembering Bradley, by Ernst Zündel

Farewell to an Optimist, by David Cole

A Life That Made a Difference, by Arthur R. Butz

Bradley Smith, by Robert Faurisson

Remembering Bradley Smith, by Mark Weber

Losing a Wise Friend, by Germar Rudolf

Libertarian Free Spirit Was Masterful Revisionist Writer and Activist, by Michael Hoffman

Bradley in Baja, by Roberto Hernandez

Bradley Smith, RIP, by Chip Smith

Bradley Smith: In Memoriam, by Samuel Crowell

My Memory of Bradley Smith, by Michael Santomauro

Revisionist Bradley R. Smith Has Passed Away, by Kyle Hunt

We Love You, Bradley! Community Voices

3D Imagery Demonstrates the Auschwitz Hole Hoax, by Eric Hunt

Refusing to Look through Galileo’s Telescope, by Ken Meyercord

ADL: BoB’s Rap “Flatline” Promotes “Holocaust Denial”, by Hadding Scott

Ted Nugent, Gun Control, Jews and Nazis, by Hadding Scott

French Revisionist Comedian Banned from China, by David Merlin

Georgetown University Gets $10 Million for Holocaust Study Center, by Roberto Hernandez

Israel to Form Coalition for World Internet Censorship, by Roberto Hernandez

The Vermont Cynic: Bradley Smith’s Last Campus Project, by Roberto Hernandez

Architectural Considerations Not Anti-Semitic, by David Merlin

Activities, by Santiago Alvarez

 

You can read each item here (opens in new window).

 

 

Click to download a PDF of the Special Edition of the Smith Report (1.2 MB):

Special Edition of the Smith Report (220)

 

News and Misc - Dividing Line

 

[In this two part video, the studied History Reviewed Channel guy outlines, through analogy, the similarities between serial killers and organized jewry in their methods of using various ruses to lure their victims into a position of weakness and vulnerability that end in death traps.

While serial killers can practice and perfect their deadly craft over decades, organized jewry has had generations, centuries, if not millennia to hone their tyrannical craft of slaughter through engineering wars, revolutions, and every other form of destruction, and now, presently using the ruses of Liberalism, liberation and freedom, etc., that will result in our eventual enslavement and death unless we wake up, resist and destroy these destroyers.

The clearest manifestation of Organized jewry’s power and genocidal intentions today is their engineered invasion of all White countries by the Third World, with the aim of destroying White people.

 — KATANA.]

 

 

Don’t Listen to Serial Killers

 

& Jews: Part 1

 

 

Published on Apr 3, 2016

(24 minutes)

We examine the similarity between Serial Killers & Jews. The way Jews behave towards ALL WHITES ON THE PLANET is EXACTLY the same way Serial Killers behave towards their victims! We look at the psychological tricks of Serial Killers in preparing their victims for their murder and how it is similar to what Jews and Liberals do to whites. Do NOT listen to what Liberals & Jews have to say!

 

___________________

 

Don’t Listen to Serial Killers

 

& Jews: Part 2

 

News and Misc - 201604 - Don't Listen to Serial Killer and Jews Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4uN0qEMW9c

(87 minutes)

———————————————-

 

 

 

Version History

 

Ver 1 — Apr 5, 2016 — post created.

 

Read Full Post »

Teaching White Kids about AH - COVER

 

[This is the transcript of a 65 minute video by the History Reviewed Channel guy, in his usual measured tone, on the need to teach younger Whites about Adolf Hitler and his true White revolution that severely threatened to break the power of Organized jewry. He highly recommends young people read Hitler’s Mein Kampf as part of their education in fighting jewish communist and liberal brainwashing.  HRC guy is originally from Rhodesia but has, since the early 1980s, lived in South Africa where he has witnessed how a once White ruled first class country has deteriorated into a complete mess under black rule, engineered by Organized jewry — KATANA.]

 

 

Click on the above link, or copy the link into your browser to view the video.

NOTEAs of Sep 7, 2016 this video is no longer available on Alfred Schaefer’s Youtube channel.

Published on Mar 20, 2016

 

Jews need a curtain of ignorance to descend on all people. Then Jews THRIVE! Hitler & Mussolini are the only two TRUE white revolutionaries in a long time, perhaps since the American revolution. Hitler’s legacy & goals have to be lied about because this is the only true, unexpected & successful revolution carried out by common whites from the bottom, which the Elite & Jews were not secretly sponsoring. We also discuss Hitler & women. Why women liked Hitler & women were avid supporters of Hitler and the NAZIS. We MUST teach all the white children about Hitler because they, sadly, have to continue the war which our forefathers & ourselves have LOST. The War to FREE the White Race from Jewish mental slavery MUST CONTINUE. WE NEED FREE SPEECH & FREE THOUGHT FOR WHITES EVERYWHERE!

 

YouTube Stats

 

Sep 7 — Views: 17,575 – Comments: ? – Likes: ?  Dislikes: ?
(Video no longer available)
Apr 14 — Views: 3,401 – Comments: 90 – Likes: 156  Dislikes: 4
Apr 6 — Views: 3,155 – Comments: 81 – Likes: 150  Dislikes: 4
Apr 2 — Views: 2,967 – Comments: 81 – Likes: 146  Dislikes: 3
Mar 26 — Views: 2,245 – Comments: 69 – Likes: 124  Dislikes: 3
Mar 24 — Views: 1,803 – Comments: 61 – Likes: 114  Dislikes: 2
Mar 23 — Views: 1,273 – Comments: 59 – Likes: 103  Dislikes: 2
Mar 22 — Views: 485 – Comments: 53 – Likes: 81  Dislikes: 1
Mar 21, 2016 — Views: 323 – Comments: 43 – Likes: 57  Dislikes: 0

 

 

 

_____________________

 

 

Teaching White Kids

 

about

 

Adolf Hitler

 

By History Review Channel

 

 

TRANSCRIPT — WITH IMAGES

 

 

[00:32]

 

Welcome to the History Review Channel where we analyze the lies and deceptions of history.

Teaching White Kids about AH - 650 - Nazi flag with sunrise

 

Finally the hectic stuff at work, etc., which has been keeping me up late at night and working a lot of extra hours, finally all of that is out of the way and I can resume a more normal routine again. But this being South Africa things are never quite stable. I notice this week when we were putting out our garbage that again the blacks had not come to collect the garbage. We have a company that we all pay money for and it’s part of our rates and taxes. We pay for a service but they decide when they’re going to work and when they’re not going to work. And this must be about at least the fourth time this year that they have not come to pick up our garbage.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Whites Colonize Blacks - Jews Colonize Whites - 542 - Cover

 

[The following is a transcript of a 6 minute concise introduction to the Jewish Question/Problem from an historical perspective, by a White South African — KATANA]

 

 

YouTube Stats

 

Mar 26, 2016 — Views: 1,975 – Comments: 18 – Likes: 56  Dislikes: 0

 

__________________________

 

 

Whites Colonize Blacks;

 

Jews Colonize Whites!

 

 

JEWS 101:

 

Introduction to the Jewish Problem

 

 

Whites Colonize Blacks - Jews Colonize Whites - 522 - Intro 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzkK8fd_yFc

Click on the above link, or copy the link into your browser to view the video.

 

Published on Jun 16, 2015

 

 

JEWS 101: This is based on an email I wrote to a retired senior military officer I know, who is also a Christian. I tried, in a very short way to explain to him that the Jewish Question is not only real, but massive.

 

Whites Colonize Blacks - Jews Colonize Whites - 523 - Title

 

I’m going to read an email that I wrote somebody. To an old Christian man who used to be a high ranking military officer. I was trying to explain to him, in a simple way, what I mean by the Jewish question.

 

Whites Colonize Blacks - Jews Colonize Whites - 524 - Moorish Spain

 

(more…)

Read Full Post »


HIDDEN HISTORY

 

The Secret Origins of the First World War

 

Amazon Customer Reviews – 3

Most Helpful First

Note: Comments on Amazon.uk and Amazon.com

as of Sep 2, 2014

Hidden History 000

 

Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor

 

EDINBURGH AND LONDON

 

Dedicated to the victims of an unspeakable evil.

 

————————————

 

5 of 9 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

A must for those interested in the causes of the Great War, 1 Feb 2014

By – Mr. M. Sleight

I bought this on a recommendation from a friend as his brother is the joint author. It’s not an easy read but if you are interested 20th century in history it’s a good read

 

 

 

8 of 15 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

A warning from history…….., 30 Sep 2013

By – Marcus Laver (United Kingdom)

This book isn’t for people who find comfort in conventional explanations of 20th century history. These people will prefer to believe the ‘official’ history as told by Max Hastings and other historians who back the establishment view – good for them! For those with more open minds, this book will provide plenty of ammunition to blow away the myths propagated by the official histories.

The main thesis of this book is that World War One was not an accident and neither was it orchestrated by devious Germans and the Kaiser, but that it was part of a global programme, devised by an elite of individuals on both sides of the Atlantic, aimed at establishing total dominance over the planet. These people, starting with Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner, taking in the Rothschilds and various other prominent people of the period, including Churchill and Lloyd-George, were committed to destroying the growing power of Germany by forming alliances in order to encircle the German Reich and eventually, annhilating it as a political and economic entity. Germany was viewed as a Carthage to Britain’s ‘Roman’ empire – an upstart challenging the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon, English speaking world. Such an upstart could not be allowed to exist. This thesis has already been explored in some depth in a number of other revisionist books, such as Pat Buchanan’s “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War”, and also Guido Preparata’s “Conjuring Hitler”, though these were more focused on World War 2 rather than the earlier conflict.

Nevertheless, the campaign to destroy Germany started as early as the 1890s and continued until 1945 – the first world war was only the first round in the process.

In many ways the Germanophobia buried deep in the British establishment is still with us today; you only have to look at the fanatically anti-EU (and therefore anti-German) stance of the Tory right wing and of the nauseatingly jingoistic UKIP. One look at the tabloid press in the UK tells you all you need to know about the persistent fear and loathing of Germany, carefully disguised as anti-EU polemic. Modern Germany is an effective puppet of the elite, but old hatreds die hard. Anything remotely ‘social’ from the EU is stamped on mercilessly by the elite owned press (virtually every newspaper), still fearful of Germany taking an independent line.

It doesn’t take much analysis to realise that British foreign policy since the 1890s has been guided by ‘hidden hands’ of elites formed by some of the richest individuals on the planet, and this continues to the present day. It’s also obvious that these elites are as influential in the USA as they are in the UK, and have been chiefly responsible for cementing the ‘special relationship’ between the two nations – a relationship never designed to benefit the peoples of these nations but only the very richest sections of society. The string pullers from the Rothschild led elite are still active today, and no aspect of domestic or foreign policy in the UK, USA and all the other countries of the so-called ‘democratic’ West can ever be implemented without their approval. After the collapse of the communist block the only obstacle left barring the elite’s total world domination lies in the Islamic middle east – it’s abundantly clear that this region is the next target of the elite and of its leading puppets in the USA and Israel.

This book gives a warning from history – we need to heed this warning and mistrust everything that our governments tell us.

————————- Comments (7)

JMB says:—————————————-

100%

except, in my view, for your UKIP reference….

I believe that the intention is for the USA, Israel AND the EU to be puppets of the elite. Don’t forget that British army regiments have already been identified to serve with the upcoming EU army. In disassociating us from the EU, UKIP are working fully against the hidden hands that you describe so well.

1 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 5 Nov 2013 22:11:55 GMT

Marcus Laver says:—————————————-

UKIP are also part of the establishment, otherwise the press would have laid into them like no tomorrow. For an anti-establishment party you would need to look at the BNP or the National Front.

0 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 6 Nov 2013 10:54:52 GMT

JMB says:—————————————-

The press do a good job of completely ignoring UKIP.

I thought this was a good sign….

But if you are right, I would genuinely like to know what individuals can do to de-rail the elite’s agenda and war juggernaut?

0 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 27 Feb 2014 16:19:53 GMT

Boetheus Prettypenny says:—————————————-

Ah, the joys of cable TV, latest refuge of the lunatic fringe.

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 27 May 2014 13:36:36 BDT

[Deleted by the author on 27 May 2014 13:37:15 BDT]

Posted on 19 Jun 2014 23:30:25 BDT

dwnotanumber says:—————————————-

A credulous review.

In fact “conventional explanations” by the “establishment” are challenged. Most famously Fritz Fischer’s thesis in Germany’s Aims in the First World War and War of Illusions: German Policies, 1911-14 challenged and destroyed the previous explanation.

“It doesn’t take much analysis” to start or believe in a conspiracy, in an elite or group of people who control everything. But how come if their ‘hands’ are hidden’ they are so “obvious” to conspiracy theorists?

We certainly should not take everything on trust from the government, but that does not mean we should instead put our trust in conspiracy theories.

1 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 20 Jun 2014 09:44:16 BDT

Marcus Laver says:—————————————-

Have you read the book? This isn’t about a mysterious conspiracy theory – the facts are fully documented. You might not like them, but that doesn’t make them any less relevant. As for German foreign policy in that period, yes it was clumsy and provocative, but this alone does not cause a world war to break out. Too much emphasis has been placed on Fischer’s thesis, which was written at a time when the Holocaust was receiving attention and Germany needed to be apologetic to the world. Unfortunately Fischer’s analysis interprets German defensive measures as if they were preparations for world war, which is far from accurate. German policy has to be viewed in the context of encirclement by France and Russia and a lack of reliable allies.

 

7 of 13 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

Describes how unelected potentates within the British establishment engineered Boer War and World War 1, 28 Sep 2013

By – Mr. G. Knight (Kent – UK)

Potentially electrifying account of how a group of wealthy men engineered Boer War and World War 1 for imperial aggrandisement.

Perhaps time to re-appraise our history and some of the leading lights of the British establishment and the ultimately failed attempt to maintain and enlarge the empire.

Worthwhile following the leads in this book for purposes of corroboration; interestingly many of those leading lights insisted that their personal archives be destroyed after their deaths!?

 

 

 

1 of 3 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

beautifully written, meticulously researched and eloquently articulated, 14 July 2014

By – Fi De-Mendonca

What an outstanding contribution to the understanding of the history of the first world war, beautifully written, meticulously researched and eloquently articulated. Exposing the Secret elite scoundrels and there evil deeds. Congratulation Jim Macgregor, and Gerry Docherty on a sensational book and for writing history. I hope we can learn from this new insight and wisdom.

 

 

 

11 of 24 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars

World War One: Whose fault?, 2 Aug 2013

By – Colin Carnall

Ok for the conspiracy theory buffs but not a serious account. Wholly one sided treatment of those parts of the available evidence supporting their position and essentially ignoring contrary evidence.

————————- Comments (6)

Initial post: 13 Aug 2013 11:42:21 BDT

Dr John ODowd says:—————————————-

I doubt this reviewer has read this book. I am currently three quaters way through it – and it is a mighty hefty read. To comment as he does, he would have had – not only to read the book – but also to have checked a thousand citations and almost three hundred references (fully cited and page-referenced). These include citations and detailed rebuttals of the elite propaganda that passes as ‘academic’ history witten by court historians and ruling-class apologists. I note the author of the review shares a name with a prominent professor in a well-known business school. Such institutions exist solely to maintain the acsendency of the 1% whose work the WWWI was (and all current conflicts are). If he is not the same fellow, his sparse and unargued comment is entirely consistent with what passes for academic activity in business schools.

8 of 13 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 14 Sep 2013 17:30:45 BDT

Marcus Laver says:—————————————-

This review is rubbish – merely an opinion without analysis. Worthless.

6 of 11 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 16 Oct 2013 10:26:29 BDT

Last edited by the author on 16 Oct 2013 10:27:22 BDT

Tim62 says:—————————————-

It’s hardly that, it is a very pithy review pointing out the main weakness of this book – namely that its analysis is weak, partial and one-sided. For all the mountain of documents the authors have sifted through, they have not assembled them in a coherent form. Their analysis – such as it is – is not supported by the historical evidence. They are of course entitled to their views, but I doubt you will find serious historians who agree with them (and no, that’s not because everybody else for the past 100 years has been somehow ‘nobbled’ by a hidden elite). This is not to same as saying Britain, France and Russia bear responsibility for WW1, of course they do. All states in the early 20th C were ultimately prepared to use the threat of continental war to make policy. But the idea that was itself was in any way a desireable policy is a non-starter. Look at the economic impact of war on all the European powers in both 1914-18 and 1939-45.

Sorry, but this review makes perfect sense.

3 of 8 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 15 Nov 2013 18:35:54 GMT

JMB says:—————————————-

Perhaps when you talk of ‘serious historians’ you mean salaried historians?!

2 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 19 Nov 2013 09:55:53 GMT

Tim62 says:—————————————-

Hi, no, just to correct your misunderstanding, when I mean serious historians, I mean just that. Best, Tim

2 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 5 Aug 2014 10:19:35 BDT

Colin Carnall says:—————————————-

You do not need to read citations to recognise that the list is partial. I read the book not the cited articles…..that is what reviewers do! I note this commentator recognises he cannot make a case because he resorts to a personal attack.

 

 

6 of 16 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars

Warning: Conspiracy Theory Claptrap, 8 Jun 2014

By – dwnotanumber

This is not a ‘revisionist’ history book, it is a conspiracy theory novel. Regurgitating Carroll Quigley and supported by some equally dodgy sources such as a nazi official and a holocaust denier (“excellent sources” proclaim the authors), alongside Trotsky and a handful of long-forgotten pre-world war 2 polemics, it makes up a story about a group the authors call the “Secret Elite” which seems to include just about everyone except for the Kaiser and some pacifists. Repetitive use of the meaningless term “Secret Elite” makes the book turgid and boring to read, and its continual use is clearly to hide the obvious flaws in the authors’ belief system. The authors are also rather too free with the use of the word “lie” without substantiating their claims, they are perhaps oblivious or uncaring that such usage can be applied in return. With no sense of irony the authors even admit at one point “You will find no evidence of this in history books. It isn’t there” !

If you think the Queen is a 12 foot lizard then this will confirm everything you have read on the internet.

This book is so bad that I will not resell it as in all conscience I could not pass it on.

————————- Comments (12)

Marcus Laver says:—————————————-

Idiotic review. The book is fully referenced, well researched and is very far from being conspiracy theory drivel. The facts are undeniable, irrespective of whether you like them or not. The secret elite does exist – why not use the term, as it’s pretty accurate and descriptive.

3 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 19 Jun 2014 12:36:36 BDT

Last edited by the author on 19 Jun 2014 12:38:08 BDT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

@dwnotanumber,

1. Carroll Quigley was a respected historian whose research was based on archival material and other reliable sources.

2. Quigley gives an exact description of the “Secret Elite” a.k.a. “Anglo-American Establishment” (the Milner Group on the British side and the Eastern Establishment on the US side) and shows who belonged to it and why.

3. The statement “With no sense of irony the authors even admit at one point “You will find no evidence of this in history books. It isn’t there” !” is as uncalled for as it is irrelevant. It’s a well-known fact that a lot of data missing in history books can be found in national archives, biographies, private correspondence, newspaper articles, etc. This is precisely why new history books are being written all the time. Inconvenient to those who wish to preserve the official early-twentieth-century establishment line to the letter, but inevitable.

3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 19 Jun 2014 22:59:07 BDT

dwnotanumber says:—————————————-

1. Respected by whom? Reliable sources does not mean a reliable interpretation of those sources.

2. Quigley does not give ‘an exact description of the “Secret Elite” ‘ not least because there was no such actual thing to be exact about. Quigley does not use the term “Secret Elite”, nor does Docherty & MacGregor’s invention “Secret Elite” entirely coincide with Quigley’s abstraction “Rhodes-Milner Group” (shortened to “Milner Group” for Anglo-American Establishment) – but that is beside the point. Quigley was not describing, he was making the fallacy of reification, whether deliberately or in error is the question.

3. The statement should be displayed on the front cover as a warning to readers. Docherty & MacGregor do not actually provide any missing data. It is a fallacy to argue on the basis of absence of evidence.

1 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 20 Jun 2014 11:02:08 BDT

Last edited by the author on 20 Jun 2014 13:26:17 BDT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

1. For starters, Quigley was respected by institutions like Georgetown, Princeton and Harvard Universities where he was teaching. There is very little “theory” to the works of authors like Quigley and Docherty & MacGregor, and a lot of presentation of facts based on the sources. You haven’t shown that your interpretation of the sources is any more reliable.

2. The terms chosen to designate the Secret Elite are immaterial. It was generally accepted already at the time that powerful groups (“Cliveden Set”, “Eastern Establishment”, etc.) existed on both sides of the Atlantic who exerted a lot of influence on government (particularly foreign) policy. Quigley describes the Anglo-American Establishment by providing a list of key persons belonging to it and showing how they co-operated in the formation and running of organisations responsible for influencing or making government policy.

3. To argue on the basis of absence of evidence is not necessarily a fallacy. It depends on the argument. It is certainly arguable that systematic withholding of information is indicative of intent to cover up or deceive. The argument is not based on “absence of evidence” but on suppression of information. Docherty & MacGregor provide the data missing from official text books. That’s why the Establishment and its stooges find the book so annoying.

3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 20 Jun 2014 22:13:25 BDT

dwnotanumber says:—————————————-

1. He may well have been respected as a teacher, but that does not prove he was a respected historian.

A fact is something that is not open to interpretation, the works of Quigley and his imitators are interpretations. Quigley certainly did examine sources, but he clearly left things out and made certain interpretations to fit his theory. I haven’t given my interpretation of those sources, I am just noting that I am aware of the deficiencies in Quigley’s interpretation of them.

While Quigley examined and interpreted source material Docherty & MacGregor rely uncritically on Quigley or tend to rely on the views of biased others as their sources. Whereas a historian, in contrast, would examine the views of biased people but would not regard their views as facts over other people’s views, and would take those views in context. By no stretch of the imagination then is this book “fully referenced, well researched”, it seems that the authors have simply supplied sources to fit their pet theory.

2. There were a number of grouping and individuals at this time (as in any time) seeking to influence government policy – and let’s not forget to state the obvious that Milner failed in his aim to achieve imperial federation. But by obsessively focusing on one grouping to the exclusion of what others were doing gives a false impression. Quigley does provide lists of names, the problem is that by placing them under an inclusive term “Group” he implies that all of them held the same view and unchanging aim all the time which is a falsification. Docherty & MacGregor go way, way, way beyond that with their super cover-all term “Secret Elite”. To believe that a ‘group’ has a single intelligence, and that only that ‘group’ determine all events is conspiracy theory pure and simple.

3 To argue on the basis of absence of evidence is always a fallacy – otherwise you can claim anything is true. Undoubtedly systematic withholding of information can be taken as indicative of intent to cover up or deceive, but even if shown to be the case it does not tell us what the information is.

Docherty & MacGregor do not actually provide any missing data. Indeed like Quigely’s work it is missing great chunks of data. The question again must be, is that deliberate?

2 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 21 Jun 2014 01:34:14 BDT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

1. Being respected as a professor of history equals being respected as a historian. You are placing unwarranted emphasis on “theory” and “interpretation” and conveniently ignoring the facts presented by Quigley et al.

2. The fact that other groups existed does not detract from the fact that the Anglo-American Establishment was the most powerful and influential among them. After all, it was Rothschild and their agents J P Morgan who arranged the financing and supply of the Allied war effort. There is no intrinsic necessity for members of a group to hold identical views for the group to qualify as such. A family is a social group and a party a political group even if their members do not all hold identical views.

3. Your statement “To argue on the basis of absence of evidence is always a fallacy – otherwise you can claim anything is true” is itself a fallacy. One may perfectly well plead a defendant’s innocence on the basis of absence of evidence to the contrary. Indeed, “innocent until proven guilty” is a well-known legal principle. It doesn’t follow that “you can claim anything is true”.

Docherty and MacGregor are providing key data missing from Establishment-approved textbooks. The latter, for example, fail to disclose the fact that the war was financed and supplied by the Anglo-American Establishment and it is reasonable to assume that such omissions are deliberate.

3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 21 Jun 2014 21:47:52 BDT

Last edited by the author on 21 Jun 2014 21:50:16 BDT

dwnotanumber says:—————————————-

1. If he was a respected historian he would be cited and referenced by other historians, which clearly isn’t the case. And please don’t tell me that’s because of a conspiracy by the establishment! That the establishment can acknowledge the existence of David Irving whilst simultaneously seeking to exclude him would seem to indicate that in Quigley’s case it’s more a case that no one takes him seriously.

2. Are you claiming that the aims of Rothschild and J.P. Morgan was British imperial unity? For surely that would be the definition of association with Milner. As soon as you move away from that definition then there is no “Milner group”, there is either no group at all or some other group. If lack of definition was Quigley’s error, it is Docherty & MacGregor’s speciality.

Clearly Milner, Kerr and Curtis were not the most powerful and influential people because they each failed in their different aims.

This lack of clarity about the group also seems to fall under the fallacy of composition (see Fischer Historian’s Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought)

3. This is the fallacy of arguing from ignorance (see Fischer again). Show me the facts, not the absence of facts. And remember the burden of proof lies with the author.

What missing key data do they provide? By “Establishment approved textbooks” do you mean the books used in school?

If by “Anglo-American Establishment” (?) you actually mean say JP Morgan and Rothschild, then their role is already common knowledge, not a secret. For example: Britain, France, and the Financing of the First World War, which I would take to be an establishment book.

Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction by Dr Jovan Byford –

“The conspiratorial body is usually represented not just as a list of names, but also graphically, in the form of complex diagrams and schemas illustrating the ties between different individuals and organisations” (p73): Docherty & MacGregor, appendix 1 and 2 – check!

“conspiracy theorists regularly invoke ‘evidence’ of foreknowledge about a dramatic event to suggest that its causes may have been different to those found in official explanations … the main tenet of the conspiracy theory is that a particular event was planned in advance” (p86-87): Docherty & MacGregor, whole book – check!

“in crafting their argument, conspiracy theorists often draw on the writing of their predecessors” (p87): Docherty & MacGregor, based on Quigley and Barnes – check!

It makes you wonder if there is a template that Docherty & MacGregor just downloaded and filled in.

1 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 22 Jun 2014 01:15:23 BDT

Last edited by the author on 22 Jun 2014 23:31:41 BDT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

It is symptomatic of the Establishment and its stooges (or useful idiots) that their arguments sooner or later progress from the false and illogical to the absurd and irrational: according to them, if an author writes that a particular event was planned in advance, then he must be a “conspiracy theorist” (as if planning were not an everyday occurrence); likewise, if he draws on the writings of his predecessors (as if drawing on the writings of predecessors were something historians never do), etc., etc.

1. Quigley is in fact cited by historians, see Parmar’s “Think Tanks”. The bulk of Quigley’s “The Anglo-American Establishment” consists of historical facts, e.g., Rhodes’ advocacy of a secret society, the Anglo-American Establishment’s engineering of imperial conferences, the Commonwealth, the League of Nations, the RIIA and its sister organisation, the CFR, etc., etc. It seems to me that you are placing unwarranted emphasis on “theory” and “interpretation” while ignoring the facts in order to slant the debate in favour of the Establishment.

2. The aim of the Anglo-American Establishment was to control resources and finance in order to control economic and political systems. All the organisations it has set up (the Federal Reserve System, Commonwealth, League of Nations, United Nations, etc.) have been mere means to that end.

3. I haven’t the foggiest as to who you are referring to when talking about “fallacy of arguing from ignorance”. The central argument of authors like Quigley, Docherty and MacGregor is that the Establishment line is contradicted by historical facts. Rothschild and J P Morgan’s financing and supplying the Allied war effort and the profits they made from the war are certainly not “common knowledge”. Most members of the general public I have asked had no idea!

3 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 22 Jun 2014 22:53:00 BDT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

Incidentally, the book you are citing (“Britain, France, and the Financing of the First World War”) shows that the imposition of financial dominance was central to the Establishment’s support for the war – which rather confirms the findings of authors like Quigley, Docherty and MacGregor.

3 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 23 Jun 2014 10:19:48 BDT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that the Establishment as a social, economic and political group doesn’t exist; that the Establishment (or elements thereof) had no desire to preserve and augment British (or its own) imperial power, colonial interests and, in particular, financial dominance; that it had nothing to do with anti-German propaganda, war preparations, secret military agreements or the funding, supplying and profiting from the war; that it had nothing to do with the creation of organisations intended to represent its interests and increase its power and influence such as the Federal Reserve System, the Commonwealth, the League of Nations, the United Nations, RIIA, CFR, etc.; that none of the above was planned; that Churchill never said “we are building with Germany in mind”; and, generally, that it all happened quite spontaneously and of its own accord and that nobody was ever responsible for anything with the singular exception of “those uppity and uncivilised Germans”.

In reply to an earlier poston 24 Jun 2014 12:20:20 BDT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

What emerges from alternative histories like Quigley’s “The Anglo-American Establishment” is that Rhodes (a Rothschild associate) instigated the formation of a secret society and that Milner (another Rothschild associate) was a chief trustee of the Rhodes Trust (which was set up to administer Rhodes’ bequest and to educate future world leaders in line with Rhodes’ ideas) as well as a leading figure in the imperialist clique that exerted a great deal of influence on government, military, finance and other aspects of domestic and international life.

There is no evidence to suggest that this account is historically inaccurate, untrue or in any way “dodgy”. Even supposing, for the sake of the argument, that Quigley and other authors were “dodgy”, their dodginess must surely pale into insignificance when compared with the Establishment’s own dodginess.

Indeed, if we consider the state of the country and of most of the world for which the Establishment must bear some if not most of the responsibility, then the Establishment must be admitted to be about the dodgiest thing on the planet. At any rate, given that in the real world the importance of the Establishment and its policies far outweighs that of authors like Quigley, it is only proper to pay more attention to the former than to the latter.

Concerning the First World War, the Establishment line is that it was started by Germany’s invasion of Belgium. The difficulty with this line becomes apparent immediately we look at the evidence.

In his House of Commons speech of 3 August 1914, Foreign Secretary E. Grey failed to explain what the 1839 Treaty of London – which allegedly put Britain under obligation to defend Belgium – was all about. Instead, quoting former Prime Minister Gladstone, he said: “There is, I admit, the obligation of the Treaty. It is not necessary, nor would time permit me, to enter into the complicated question of the nature of the obligations of that treaty.”

The question that arises in the first instance is: if the “obligations” allegedly established under that treaty were so clear-cut as to warrant going to war, why was it so complicated and time-consuming to spell them out – even in outline?

The truth of the matter was that spelling out the alleged “obligations” would have debunked the myth of their existence.

Article 7 of the Treaty states: “Belgium shall form an independent and perpetually neutral State. It shall be bound to observe this neutrality towards all other States.”

It doesn’t say anywhere that Britain or any other major signatory power (France, Germany, Russia) was obliged to intervene by military means in case of Belgian neutrality being violated by the others.

The fact is that the Milner Group (the imperialist faction within the Establishment revolving round Milner and associates) had already made up its mind to attack Germany long before the Germans invaded Belgium. Indeed, the understanding was that Britain would attack Germany in case of war breaking out between Germany and France or Germany and Russia – irrespective of what happened to Belgium.

The pro-war faction’s position was made very clear by the press. For instance, the key reasons for military action given by the Establishment organ The Times were:

1. Britain must stand by her friends France and Russia.

2. Britain has a vital interest in seeing that France is not overwhelmed by Germany. The Power which dominates France will dominate Belgium and the Netherlands and threaten the very basis of the Empire’s existence – British sea-power

(The Times, 1 August 1914).

Note that this was not the position of the Government (the Cabinet was overwhelmingly against British involvement up to that point) but of the pro-war clique represented by Robert Cecil, Grey, Churchill and collaborators.

Moreover, the British and the French had been building up Russia against Germany, for example, by forming military alliances, by investing in Russian railways (to facilitate military transport), etc., thus making Russo-German conflict inevitable. Conflict with Russia meant conflict with France who was obliged to assist Russia (as per the Franco-Russian Alliance) and conflict with France meant conflict with Britain who was obliged to assist France (as per the secret agreements mentioned in Grey’s speech).

The clique behind these machinations knew it full well and was waiting for it. For example, as conceded by Martin Gilbert, Churchill knew that war between Germany and Russia would lead to British involvement against Germany (vol. 3, p. 25).

Had the Establishment been as hell-bent on world peace as it retrospectively makes out, it would have avoided straining relations with Germany by not encouraging Russia and by refraining from secret agreements against Germany. As, by their very nature, secret agreements cannot be construed as deterrent, they are suggestive of hostile intent.

Indeed, as early as 1906, the Belgian minister at Paris, A. F. G. Leghait wrote of “England’s desire to envenom matters to such an extent that war should be rendered inevitable”; in the following year, the Belgian minister in London, Count Lalaing, wrote that “It is evident that official circles in England are pursuing in silence a hostile policy which aims at the isolation of Germany”; and, in 1909, the Belgian minister at Berlin, Baron Greindl, wrote: “Colonel Barnardiston [the British military attaché in Brussels] asked us, in substance, to associate ourselves with an English and French aggression against Germany.”

The secret agreements of 1906 and 1912 between the British and Belgian military authorities, referred to in the Belgian Archives as “Anglo-Belgian Convention”, show (a) hostile intent on the part of elements of the British Establishment and (b) a blatant violation of the Belgian neutrality that Britain was allegedly “obliged” to defend.

In sum, whichever way we look at it, the Establishment line is untenable. If we take into account the involvement of vested interests associated with the Establishment in financing the war and other international projects promoting their agendas, the Establishment’s position becomes even shakier. In other words, the problem is caused by the contradiction between the Establishment line and historical facts, not by the historians who point it out.

3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 22 Jul 2014 06:13:24 BDT

Last edited by the author on 22 Jul 2014 12:38:23 BDT

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

A response to dwnotanumber:

The “conspiracy theory” pejorative is a favorite refuge for the misinformed. It is impossible to make sense of British foreign policy (after 1900) without the assumption that Great Britain sought a confrontation with Germany. Ask yourself:

-Why would England conclude an Entente with France when France (Delcasse) had declared that any rapprochement with Germany was unthinkable unless Alsace and Lorraine were completely restored?

-Why did Edward VII while still Prince of Wales have secret meetings with Leon Gambetta, the prince of revanchards?

-Why did England support France against Germany during the two Moroccan crises when Germany was on solid legal and moral ground?

-Why did England support France in 1911 when France was in clear and indisputable violation of the Act of Algeciras, even going so far as to threaten war in Lloyd George’s Mansion House speech?

-Why did Grey conspire with France in a secret plan of campaign against Germany which he kept secret, not only from Germany, but from Parliament and even the Cabinet?

-Why did Grey in 1912 give Poincare and Sasonov a verbal promise of a 120,000-man British expeditionary force?

-Why did Grey ignore urgent German warnings about Russian mobilization measures and made no attempt to moderate Russia even as Russia had made the decision to order general mobilization and Germany was leaning heavily upon Austria?

These questions and many others have no credible answer unless we assume that England aimed at war with Germany. With this assumption, the puzzle pieces fall neatly into place.

Finally, you write: “With no sense of irony the authors even admit at one point ‘You will find no evidence of this in history books. It isn’t there'” ! But the irony is yours. You may have heard that when a nation decides upon war, the decision is not shouted from the rooftops nor is it proclaimed in banner headlines. What happens is that the nation embarks on a, well, conspiracy, to keep the decision a secret until public opinion is properly prepared. History is littered with examples. Look at William Randolph Hearst (the American Northcliffe) and the Spanish-American war. Or check Wilson’s Creel Commission whose purpose was described by George Creel himself: “What we had to have was no mere surface unity, but a passionate belief in the justice of America’s cause that should weld the people of the United States into one white-hot mass instinct with fraternity, devotion, courage, and deathless determination.”

There are other examples but you get the point. As for “conspiracy claptrap,” here is one for you: Germany started a world war in 1914 for no apparent reason and with every chance of defeat. Unless you buy Fischer’s claptrap, Germany had no motive except self-defense. Unless of course you think German leaders were “12 foot lizards” in which case the motive becomes irrelevant.

 

 

11 of 33 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars

Very partial pseudo-history, 15 Oct 2013

By – Tim62 “history buff” (London, UK)

It is interesting that communists and fascists do seem to like this book, for entirely different reasons I suspect. For communists because it is yet again proof of the corrupt and base nature of global capitalism, which must be swept away before we attain a workers’ paradise.

For fascists, I rather think because it ties into a nihilist agenda that has been trending in the anglo-blogosphere (sorry about that term) over the past few years, about how we cannot trust ‘them’ (you can define them largely how you want, but it is generally taken to be a shadowy ruling cabal) and it is the precursor to their idea of dismantling current democracies, and replacing them with an altogether different – and more illiberal – version of society.

In fact the ideas underpinning this book largely remind me of the late-60s/early-1970 Red Brigade/Baader Meinhof view that liberal democracy was merely a sham facade.

Read the book by all means, but then read a real history book. This one is very partial. Both authors have done an awful lot of work, crawling through the archives, but it seems they are very partial about how they then assemble the material they have collected.

If you want to argue that German was not alone guilty of starting WW1, there is absolutely plenty of evidence for that. France, Russia and Britain were all certainly prepared to risk conflict to pursue what they saw as vital state interests – but to go from that to some shadowy cabal is moonshine.

Sorry. It might work as fiction. It does not work as history. Try these books instead:

The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 by Christopher Clark, who argues against solely blaming Germany; Catastrophe: Europe Goes to War 1914 by Max Hastings, who argues that Germany and Austria-Hungary should bear the bulk of the blame.

Elsewhere we have The Origins of the First World War (Origins Of Modern Wars) by James Joll and Gordon Martel; The Origins of the First World War: Controversies and Consensus (Making History) by Annika Mombauer.

And of course there is the first volume, To Arms, in Hew Strachan’s magisterial three-volume work on the Great War, The First World War, Volume One: To Arms which covers its origins.

They all have different takes on 1914 – and all of them make more sense than this book.

————————- Comments (9)

Stephen Spielberg says:—————————————-

Thank you – you’ve confirmed my suspicions and I won’t need to read “it”!

5 of 13 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 11 Nov 2013 14:10:48 GMT

Anne says:—————————————-

In my view, the book is an indictment of the undemocratic machinations of a tiny clique.

To say that “communists and fascists like it” seems to suggest that liberal democrats are indifferent to such matters when in fact, in my experience at least, they are the first to criticise the abuse of democratic processes by vested interests.

Far from being intent on “dismantling current democracies,” mainstream criticism of democratic malpractice aims to put democracy back in the hands of the electorate.

To tar all critics of the system with the brush of “communists and fascists” seems unwarranted and undemocratic.

Also, to the extent that the book is based on undisputed historical facts, it can hardly be “pseudo-history.”

As for “partial” it is so by definition in the sense that it deals mainly with those bits of the WW1 puzzle that are often ignored by historians. In fact, there is no such thing as a “complete” history of the war, though Hidden History may contribute to one being written at some point in the future.

10 of 16 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 19 Nov 2013 10:01:36 GMT

Tim62 says:—————————————-

Hi Stephen, my pleasure, best Tim

2 of 9 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 25 Nov 2013 11:06:29 GMT

Marcus Laver says:—————————————-

You are absolutely correct that liberal democracy is a sham. It’s a sham because it’s not a real democracy at all. We vote in MPs (who are all vetted as ‘suitable’ prior to becoming candidates) to represent us and then they implement policies which are diametrically the opposite of what we want! Do you call that a proper democracy? And what do you mean by the book being partial? Are your ‘approved’ histories not partial? Sorry mate, I wasn’t born yesterday.

8 of 13 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 9 Dec 2013 12:12:19 GMT

Last edited by the author on 9 Dec 2013 12:16:44 GMT

Tim62 says:—————————————-

Well, all histories are ‘partial’, in the sense that every historian has took take a particular view of the facts and documents they research. The question is whether that ‘take’ is or is not valid. In terms of this book, I don’t think the writers’ take is valid, because I feel they make serious errors in their handling of their evidence – which undermines their argument.

As for the books I list, it’s by no means an approved list, the historiography of WW1 is huge and growing all the time – there are many other good accounts you could find – I just listed the ones I was reading now.

As for democracry now – in the 21st Century – and whether that is ‘real’ or not – that’s not the subject of the book, though it is a trope of many on the blogosphere – but I don’t agree it is a ‘sham’ in the sense that you mean.

2 of 8 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 17 Mar 2014 21:02:10 GMT

Angeln says:—————————————-

You might also note the authors’ surnames, which perhaps give them a special interest in continuing to demonize England as responsible for all the ills of the world, a pastime all ready popular among the legion of self-styled victims and martyrs on the internet, and which you can’t really blame for when they have such a receptive audience, not least among cretinous English swill now compliantly relocating themselves to ‘Yoo-kay’ because they, like you, don’t know which country they live in or even where to find London.

2 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 18 Mar 2014 10:38:19 GMT

Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2014 10:39:21 GMT

Tim62 says:—————————————-

Hi Angeln,well the authors surnames aren’t relevant to me. There’s no law that says you have to be of a particular nation or ethnicity to write history. The only question is – is what you write any good?

As for knowing which country live in – or where London is – I am happy to put your mind at rest – I am English and I live in England, which is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in a certain city called London. Glad we’ve cleared that one up. Best wishes

2 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 14 Jul 2014 15:15:40 BDT

TLR says:—————————————-

You realize that the Red Brigades/Baader Meinhof-type groups were thoroughly penetrated by security forces, organized crime and various neo-fascist elements in the 70s? Aldo Moro was kidnapped and killed by elements within his own government (and NATO) who wanted to stop his attempts to bring the Communist Party into the Italian government. Have you heard the term “Gladio”? There are actually many shadowy cabals (not just one), and they sometimes work together, sometimes fight with each other. Our modern “democracies” are basically shams run by powerful criminal organizations.

2 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 14 Jul 2014 16:05:37 BDT

Tim62 says:—————————————-

Hi TLR, thanks for the post, yes I had heard about the infilatration of the RB/BM – and Italy’s dirty politics are depressing, that’s true – but it is too much of a stretch to go from that to writing off modern ‘democracies’ – at least for me. Best

 

 

 

8 of 25 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars

the ‘analysis’ of evidence is laughable, 21 Aug 2013

By – A. Lister

There’s no display of curiosity what so ever in examining alternative explanations for seemingly odd or random historical events mentioned in the book, they’re just quoted to fit the authors per-decided hypothesis.

The authors seem to have reached a conclusion first, then looked for events that ‘might’ support their hypothesis and stated that it ‘did’ support the hypothesis.

————————- Comments (2)

Marcus Laver says:—————————————-

This ‘review’ is laughable.

8 of 15 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 15 Oct 2013 10:55:03 BDT

Tim62 says:—————————————-

A Lister, you are absolutely right. It is interesting that this book is proving popular with some, it does seem to be those who belive that a mysterious ‘they’ are out to dupe us all. Sadly the book does not live up to its blurb. The analystis largely non-existent. There is a real debate to be had about why Europe went to war in 1914. Lots of books are out there right now, many rightly pointing out that all sides were prepared to risk major conflict in pursuit of what they regarded as their national interests. This does not add to the debate. Best wishes Tim

 

 

4 of 19 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars

Laughable history book!, 18 Mar 2014

By – Sarah (Midlands, UK)

To call this a history book is laughable, it is a long and personal rant against England by two Scots (?) with excellent timing, just before the Scottish independence vote. It is true that the rich and powerful will always be in control. Those of us who are poor do suffer at their hands. But to say there was a cabal of just a few men in Britain who wanted to takeover the world is just ludicrous. Absolutely tosh.

If you really think we had any control over America at any stage, then you are obviously unaware that they bled us dry in the next war, and had to be dragged into both wars kicking and screaming. Notice these writers were assisted by Americans, American-Irish and Irish. All people with reasons to hate England and/or their own country enough to say anything. How on earth can any idiot believe Germany smashed their way through Belgium because they were forced too. Hello, Germany made the first moves before we even entered the war. I cannot believe that anyone who is not a conspiracy theorist or a hater of the English would ever give this book credence.

————————- Comments (9)

MRB says:—————————————-

Hi Sarah

Short, sharp, and to the point

1 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 18 Mar 2014 13:09:34 GMT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

Sarah, if we admit that “the rich and powerful will always be in control” then we can’t argue that they are not in control.

Of course “we” didn’t have any control over America. The Milner Group and its Wall Street collaborators (what Quigley calls “the Anglo-American Establishment”) did.

As shown by Quigley, the key aims of the Milner Group – the clique behind British imperial and foreign policy – were:

1. The extension of British rule throughout the world

2. The colonisation by British subjects of all lands

3. The recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire

4. The foundation of so great a power as to render wars (read anti-British resistance) impossible

(“The Anglo-American Establishment,” p. 33)

As for the book being “anti-English” we mustn’t forget that many of the key figures in the Milner Group and associates weren’t particularly “English.” See Lord Rothschild, Lord Milner, General Smuts, Lord Balfour, Alfred Beit, the Barings, etc. Even Churchill was half-American.

It’s the Establishment itself that’s anti-English, not those who criticise it. If you want to discuss English-hating Scots, you might want to start with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

9 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 18 Mar 2014 13:24:18 GMT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

“… they bled us dry in the next war and had to be dragged in both wars kicking and screaming”

Those who “bled us dry” were not the same as those who “had to be dragged in both wars kicking and screaming.” The former were the Eastern (Wall Street) Establishment like J P Morgan (who pocketed most of America’s military expenditure), the latter were the American people.

As in Britain, we must make a clear distinction between the ruling elites and the ruled masses.

6 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 18 Mar 2014 13:43:43 GMT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

“Germany made the first moves before we even entered the war”

Not true. The first moves were made by Russia who mobilised against Austria-Hungary and Germany. Being at war with Russia, Germany was automatically at war with Russia’s ally France who was bound by the Franco-Russian Alliance to attack Germany in case of any Russo-German conflict.

Germany had to try and knock France out of the war before concentrating on Russia. Britain had secret agreements to intervene against Germany on behalf of France (see E Grey’s Commons speech of 3 August) and would have entered the war with or without a German invasion of Belgium.

7 of 8 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 18 Mar 2014 19:11:15 GMT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

The Establishment position – which was the position of the cabal (Churchill, etc.) – was made very clear in the press. For instance, the key reasons for military action given by The Times included:

1. Britain must stand by her friends France and Russia.

2. Britain has a vital interest in seeing that France is not overwhelmed by Germany, however friendly we may and do feel to the German people. The Power which dominates France will dominate Belgium and the Netherlands and threaten the very basis of the Empire’s existence – British sea-power

(The Times, 1 August 1914).

At the same time, the French and the British were building up Russia against Germany, for example, by forming military alliances, investing in Russian railways (to facilitate military transport), etc. As a result, Russo-German conflict was becoming inevitable and the cabal behind it knew it full well and was waiting for it – hence the secret agreements with France that not even the government knew about.

And if you’ve got a small clique or faction operating behind the scenes without even the knowledge of parliament and government, then the cabal and its conspiracy are not “theory” but fact.

6 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 18 Mar 2014 19:31:45 GMT

Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2014 19:43:51 GMT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

Had the cabal intended to deter Germany, it would have made its agreements with France and other interested parties public. The fact that it kept them secret suggests an intention to deceive the Germans into believing that Britain wouldn’t get involved.

The deliberate nature of Britain’s actions and those of her allies like Russia is confirmed by various pieces of evidence, e.g., a statement by an official of the anti-German Russian foreign ministry to the British military attaché to the effect that “we have arranged such a nice war for you” (see Max Hastings, “Catastrophe”).

5 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 19 Mar 2014 20:15:33 GMT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

Having seen that the cabal was already prepared to go to war with Germany over France – before Germany even invaded Belgium – it is quite in order to have a closer look at the British position.

The statement “the power which dominates France will dominate Belgium and the Netherlands and threaten British sea-power” logically applies to any power. The fact that it was applied specifically to Germany and not to France shows that Germany was seen as an enemy from inception and it is pertinent to ask why.

The answer is found in Hastings’ “Catastrophe”: “between 1815 and 1870 Russia, Prussia, Austria and France carried equal weight on the world stage, behind Britain. Thereafter the new Germany powered ahead, becoming recognised as by far the most successful continental nation, world leader in almost every industrial sphere from pharmaceuticals to automobile technology, and a social pioneer in promoting health insurance and old-age pensions … Germany displaced France and Russia as the British Empire’s most plausible enemy. Britain, which had been the world’s first industrialised nation, saw its share of global manufacturing fall from one-third in 1870 to one-seventh in 1913 … “

Germany was Britain’s greatest economic competitor and that’s why she was regarded as an enemy by British industrialists and bankers and their political collaborators. As again admitted by Hastings, American industrialists, too, aimed to suppress Germany as an economic competitor: “US industrialists identified, at least in private, a strong interest in an outcome that weakened global competition from Germany. Their country from the outset leaned towards the Entente, and some important Americans offered endorsements … ” (p. 435).

The above industrialists belonged to the Anglo-American Establishment – the clique that campaigned for war against Germany, that financed and supplied the war and that pocketed most of the US-Allied war expenditure, “bleeding us dry.”

As the Anglo-American Establishment were “the rich and powerful in control,” any history that ignores them is by definition skewed. That’s why any book that throws some light on the bits official history chooses to sweep under the carpet must be welcomed as a step forward in historical research.

5 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 23 Apr 2014 10:46:39 BDT

Marcus Laver says:—————————————-

This is a really stupid review, with obvious anti-Irish and anti-Scottish prejudice, even racism. The reader is obviously someone who is totally ignorant and hasn’t even bothered to read the book.

4 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 23 Apr 2014 10:47:10 BDT

Marcus Laver says:—————————————-

Short, sharp and ridiculously moronic.

 

 

 

6 of 27 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars

A “must” for communists and fascists., 3 Oct 2013

By – WK

Read the reviews which applaud this book, and then read the other reviews written by those reviewers – and you will find that this book is heartily applauded by both communists and fascists. No surprise really, since the “evidence” it presents tends to confirm their view that liberal democracies are very very bad.

I can see why the book is so popular with fascists. It seems pretty close to the Nazi propaganda line on the origins of the war. In fact I am amazed that Goebbels didn’t write this book 70 years ago.

It is not quite so clear why the book is popular with communists. Perhaps their hatred of the western democracies makes them more sympathetic to the fascists than they usually pretend.

————————- Comments (10)

Initial post: 15 Oct 2013 11:17:09 BDT

Tim62 says:—————————————-

Very true

1 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 10 Nov 2013 14:45:21 GMT

Anne says:—————————————-

@WK

It would be interesting to know what your conception of “liberal democracy” is because there was nothing “democratic” about unelected characters like Churchill/Milner/Northcliffe and their activities. Besides, Churchill was an admirer of Mussolini, etc.

5 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 11 Nov 2013 09:40:25 GMT

Tim62 says:—————————————-

Of course Churchill was an elected cabinet minister in the period this book is talkng about – WW1. But you are absolutely right to question the activities of unelected press barons like Northcliffe. Milner too is an interesting figure – both for his influence in South Africa, and also in Lloyd George’s wartime cabinet. Mussolini was at this time not yet Il Duce, but a journalist and then soldier until he was wounded in 1917, when he went back to journalism.

0 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 11 Nov 2013 12:53:56 GMT

Anne says:—————————————-

1. Churchill was not “elected” but appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. He was described as “dictatorial” in his outlook by those who knew him. And he was an admirer of the fascists Mussolini and Mosley in the 20s and 30s (the time is immaterial in the context of WK’s remarks).

2. If a “liberal democracy” is run by the likes of Churchill, Milner and Northcliffe, then it is far from being an ideal form of democracy and people are entitled to criticise it without being labelled “fascists” and “communists.”

3. I haven’t seen any evidence to support the suggestion that Hidden History or its authors advocate communism and fascism as a substitute for liberal democracy.

7 of 9 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 11 Nov 2013 13:07:25 GMT

Last edited by the author on 19 Nov 2013 09:57:32 GMT

Tim62 says:—————————————-

Hi Anne

I have no problem with criticising democracy, nor with pointing out that pre-1914 UK had a very limited electoral franchise compared to the country after the 1918 and 1928 Representation of the People Acts. As for Churchill, he certainly was an elected politician. He was MP for Dundee in the 1910 election, and then was appointed as 1st Lord of Admiralty – which seems democratic to me, unless you argue that each cabinet post should then be subject to a separate election. As for whether it’s ideal or not, that from my point of view – as a reviewer of this book – is irrelevant. It’s not the point I was making in my review elsewhere, but a comment on the book. And yes, you are right it would be monstrous to label anybody who criticises how pre-1914 Uk was run as communist or fascist. As for the 1930s – it is not inside the time period I was concerned with, so I will leave that to you and WK

2 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 11 Nov 2013 13:07:26 GMT

Last edited by the author on 11 Nov 2013 13:20:20 GMT

Anne says:—————————————-

Also, note that WK’s “review” says very little about the book itself and its contents and a lot about what the reviewer thinks about “communists” and “fascists” – by which he or she presumably means people he/she disagrees with.

4 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 11 Nov 2013 13:12:37 GMT

Last edited by the author on 11 Nov 2013 13:23:04 GMT

Anne says:—————————————-

My comment was addressed to WK who was referring to “liberal democracy” in general, not at any particular point in time.

Your initial comment to WK’s review was “very true,” presumably, an expression of agreement.

3 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 11 Nov 2013 13:17:26 GMT

Last edited by the author on 12 Nov 2013 11:58:44 GMT

Anne says:—————————————-

Churchill was described as “dictatorial” from the time he became First Lord of the Admiralty which is within the time period under discussion.

Moreover, as your review refers to “communists and fascists” liking the book in the present, your concern isn’t exclusively with the WW1 period. See also your reference to the 60s and 70s.

3 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 25 Nov 2013 11:10:10 GMT

Marcus Laver says:—————————————-

Absolute rubbish. This book has been very well researched – which you would see if you read it properly. It does not put forward either a far-left or far-right viewpoint. It merely presents evidence that a small but immensely powerful elite prepared and planned the war for decades previously. If this doesn’t suit your world view, fair enough, but please don’t preach!

8 of 12 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 26 May 2014 16:17:50 BDT

Aspieman says:—————————————-

The UK was not a “liberal democracy” in 1914,most working class people were not enfranchised.That why we in Ireland had to fight for freedom and democracy against you.I believe you got one person-one vote about 13 years before WW2.

========================================

 

 

Very Important Book for our Time – MUST READ

By Edward Tsaion June 26, 2014

This is a very readable and well-told history of the “Secret Elite” who guided Britain to a path of war during the early 20th century, first the Boer War to steal gold from the Boers, and then to surround and provoke Germany to a ruinous war in order to destroy ?Britain’s upstart and primary rival. Aside from being great history, this book holds a mirror up to our current modern day farce of lies of hypocrisy in government, where the intention of peace is proclaimed loudly to much applause but deliberate imperialistic war is planned and executed. Moreover, the practice of “propaganda as news”, “controlled opposition” and “false flag” attacks are long standing, now centuries-old practices of allegedly “democratic” governments, where evil is made to appear good, and good is defamed as evil.

This book is like a very well-documented case study of this phenomenon. It precisely names the principle actors. It does not chase rabbits down rabbit holes, so speculation is very restrained. It shows exactly how a conspiracy at this level of power and influence actually works, how it places its favored and loyal members in key government posts on both sides of the political divide, manipulates public opinion through the press, makes secret arrangements with foreign agents with no accountability to the legitimate and elected public officials.

When I say JFK and RFK were assassinated by domestic conspiracy, that 9/11 was committed by domestic conspiracy and all the wars and revolutions in the Middle East and now Ukraine are planned by domestic conspiracy, the vast majority of my fellow Americans will scoff, but then again, the average American does not know history, and even highly educated ones refuse to exhibit any curiosity that might cause them to touch upon any uncomfortable truths. If you are that kind of person, I do not recommend this book, but it would be all too shocking. For those very few who wish to actually comprehend what is going on about them and understand why what is said in the halls of government never matches reality, this book is essential.

————————- Comments (1)

Initial post: Jul 31, 2014 9:05:02 PM PDT

Edward Tsai says::—————————————-

Update: finished reading this book. Absolutely fantastic and essential. I must say it again, MUST READ! How the British Parliament was railroaded into war, bypassing all democratic safeguards, is an echo of how America has entered into every war since WW2. It makes one think there is a playbook for instigating war by means of deception that goes back to at least the beginning of WW1, and that the infernal power elite … traitors to the United States, in fact … continually use, refine and update that playbook. Recent events in Syria and the Ukraine (and all the lies and deceptions emanating from Washington DC) are identical. Americans need to wake up to the highjacking of their country.

Reply to this post

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion

————————————— END ———————————–

 

======================================

 

PDF of this post and the two other posts with Amazon Customer Reviews.
Click to view or download (1.0MB). >>Hidden History – Amazon Reviews- 1, 2 and 3

 

Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival


(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen

 

Version History

 

Version 1: Published Sep 3, 2014

Read Full Post »


HIDDEN HISTORY

 

The Secret Origins of the First World War

 

Amazon Customer Reviews – 2

Most Helpful First

Note: Comments on Amazon.uk and Amazon.com

as of Sep 2, 2014

Hidden History 000

 

Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor

 

EDINBURGH AND LONDON

 

Dedicated to the victims of an unspeakable evil.

 

————————————

 

7 of 11 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

Secrets exposed., 14 Aug 2013

By – deejay

This book is far removed from conventional teachings of the history of the first world war , reading it ,one has no choice but to question the legitimacy of all previous teachings.

Written by two highly educated authors this book is an extremely detailed account of just who really was responsible for not only starting but prolonging the war. The research that has gone into this book is incredible, the result is a disturbing conclusion that defies all our previous understanding.

Hidden History is thought provoking, if it happened then *****?

—————————

 

 

 

5 of 8 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

Brilliantly insighful and more like the truth, 19 Feb 2014

By – thomas jenkins (hereford, United Kingdom)

This is more like the truth. Thank you Docherty and Macgregor. Brilliantly researched, extremely well written and closer to the truth than we’ll ever hear from the likes of Paxman, Hastings, Strachan, Ferguson et al or their political masters. Surely the BBC will commission it? Surely? Indeed, as a license holder, I demand they commission it.

————————— (1)

Tim62 says:—————————————-

Why would the BBC commission this, it’s not serious

 

 

 

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars

Albert were delighted.., 9 Aug 2014

By – Leonard “Leonard” (England)

This isn’t a full review; in fact, I’m still reading the book. Something baffles me on page 58, para 2.: the statement that, after the Franco-Prussian War, which took place in 1870, “many in Britain, including the half-German Queen Victoria and her very German husband, Albert were delighted …” Are the authors not aware that Prince Albert died late in 1861? ”

 

 

 

2 of 4 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

Read it and weep, 1 May 2014

By – Grumpy

History is written by the victor and this excellent & well-researched book, presents a compelling case that the victors didn’t just write the story of WW1 after the event, but conspired in advance to set the whole thing up. Such an apparently fantastical version of events that it would be horrific were it true, yet to dismiss as a fantasy consiprancy theory does no service to rigour of the authors. Ignore the initial tone which can seem alarmist. Make your own mind on the facts presented.

 

 

 

 

3 of 6 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars

History with a capital C, 7 Aug 2014

By – Michael A Carragher (Dublin, Ireland)

Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War by Gerry Docherty & Jim Macgregor (Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing Co, 2013), £20.00 (h/b)

On first blush this is an impressive work. Unlike many in its genre, its authors cite sources and add fifteen pages of bibliography—all camouflage.

Like heritage, its non-malignant half-sibling, conspiracy theory draws on history but is not constrained by scholarly discipline. Thus one looks in vain for either “Docherty” or “Macgregor” in their own bibliography, which one assuredly would find if “The history of the First World War [truly] is a deliberately concocted lie”, as they claim (p 11); War in History, Past and Present and other journals would have been eager to publish a paper exposing this lie, and the book would have the endorsement of historians. Its authors’ “explanation” for the absence of such endorsement is that the conspiracy to suppress the truth extends to academia. More on this later.

Docherty & Macgregor’s thesis is that Great Britain engineered the Great War in order to destroy Germany. This dead horse has been flogged intermittently for a century now, ever since Roger Casement’s The Crime Against Europe. While no historian would claim that Germany was solely responsible, the notion that Britain was remains risible.

Along with speculation and outright nonsense presented as fact, there’s a good deal of truth in Hidden History, for all conspiracy theory needs this to lend it plausibility. Cecil Rhodes indeed dreamt of a British-dominated world that would “render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity”. The immense power of the Milner-Rothschild group was typical of the time—across the Atlantic JP Morgan sorted out the Panic of 1907, if not quite literally out of his own pocket, by his wealth and the power that always goes with that. This was a paternalistic age, that of the great oligarchs but also the great philanthropists, an age that fostered a deep sense of duty in which men like Milner had to “choose between public usefulness and private happiness” (Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, p 11). It was also an age of secret diplomacy.

Eric Hobsbawm observes: “The most usual ideological abuse of history is based on anachronism rather than lies.” Docherty & Macgregor bring both ideology and anachronism to their treatment of the past and if they don’t tell lies, they don’t tell the whole truth. They omit to mention that Rhodes was an admirer of Germany and that the Rhodes Scholarship was open to Germans as well as Americans. Rhodes’ belief was that “a good understanding between England, Germany and [the USA would] secure the peace of the world” (Heather Ellis and Ulrike Kirchberger [eds], Anglo-German Scholarly Networks in the Long Nineteenth Century, p 214). The Milner Group’s opposition to the Second Reich was “concerned with upholding against the despotic state” and after the war it worked toward reconciliation and German recovery (Quigley, A-AE, pp 83, 60, 146, 242-45, passim).

Along with selectivity of truth goes shameless bias. The British are presented as the most heinous imperial oppressors; in fact the Germans make them look like altar boys—see David Olusoga and Casper W Erichsen, The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s Forgotten Genocide.

Paranoia was rampant across Europe by 1914, something historians ascribe to the secret diplomacy instigated by Bismarck and, far more so, the disastrous policies of Kaiser Wilhelm. Docherty & Macgregor blame the fiendish machinations of a “Secret Elite” of Perfidious Albion. Both they and historians date the change to about 1891 when “the formation of the secret society was agreed” (D&M p. 19).

Historians see the change rather in terms of the Reinsurance Treaty being allowed to lapse, and the displacement of Bismarck’s kleindeutschland policy by the Kaiser’s weltpolitik. Through 1891 the Russians appealed for the treaty’s renewal in vain; after issuing the blunt warning that they would not be friendless in Europe, the following year they opened negotiations with France, scuppering Bismarck’s policy of securing the Reich as “one à trois” among the Great Powers, and exposing it to a war on two fronts, the old chancellor’s nightmare.

From the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894 stems the division of Europe into two increasingly paranoid camps, which eventually went to war. Was this a consequence of malice or of blundering, bombast and diplomatic failure? Deliberate malice, Docherty & Macgregor claim, drawing on the work of Carroll Quigley in support. They give ostentatiously respectful credit to Quigley, “one of the twentieth century’s most highly respected historians” (ibid, p. 13). Their analysis “goes far deeper than his initial revelations” (ibid, p 16) and they convey the impression that Professor Carroll is nodding benevolently down on their endeavour from whatever heaven good historians go to. This takes some chutzpah, given that the late professor took great umbrage to his work being hijacked to support far-fetched notions with which he definitely would not agree.

According to Quigley, the Milner Group (Docherty & Macgregor’s “Secret Elite”) “had great influence but not control of political life”; while it “directed policy in ways that were sometimes disastrous” its aims were “largely commendable”. Quigley gives credit to Bismarck’s “diplomatic genius” and “masterful grip” and describes his successors as “puppet chancellors” and “incompetents” (A-AE, p 115; Tragedy and Hope, p. 211). It was incompetence and arrogance that destroyed the balance of power that had been sedulously fostered by Bismarck toward European peace and common prosperity, and led to the disaster of the Great War, not the machinations of any “Secret Elite”.

Though he doesn’t seem to have ever used the word, Professor Quigley effectively endorses the sonderweg hypothesis: Germany achieved unification by “repudiating the typical nineteenth century values … the rationalism, cosmopolitanism and humanitarianism of the Enlightenment”, a repudiation that left Germans “ill at ease with equality, democracy, individualism, freedom and other features of modern life”. Yet their very envy of all this in other countries left them susceptible to totalitarian manipulation toward anything that could be presented as their due (T&H, pp 413-15). In an almost elegiac passage Quigley describes how diplomacy degenerated from Metternich’s dictum that “a diplomat … never permitted himself the pleasure of a triumph” to “polishing one’s guns in the presence of the enemy” (ibid, p 223). Bismarck maintained that even a declaration of war should be couched in courteous language, and while his “blood and iron” speech undoubtedly marked a watershed between these two positions, it was under Wilhelm II that bombast and bluster displaced negotiation, fear squeezed out wary trust, and the word of a gentleman could no longer be relied upon.

The outcome was “a precarious and dangerous balance of forces which only a genius could manipulate. Bismarck was followed by no genius. The Kaiser, Wilhelm II, was an incapable neurotic…. As a result, the precarious structure left by Bismarck was not managed but was hidden from view by a facade of nationalistic, anti-foreign, anti-Semitic, imperialistic and chauvinistic propaganda of which the emperor was the centre” (ibid, pp 416-17).

With friends like Quigley, what conspiracy theorist needs enemies? These statements are so congruent with historical orthodoxy that Docherty & Macgregor’s invocation of their author to support heretical views seems less like chutzpah than bare-faced robbery.

Given their misrepresentation of the views of a bona fide historian, imagine the damage these fellows can do with the works of, for example, Harry Elmer Barnes, long exposed as having been in the pay of Zentralstelle für Erforschung der Kriegshuldfrage, established by Weimar to exonerate Germany of any responsibility for the Great War?

To support their notion that the “Secret Elite” engineered the Great War Docherty & Macgregor purport that Belgium had made a secret alliance with Britain. This is an extraordinary claim so one looks for extraordinary support for it. What evidence that Belgium abandoned its internationally-guaranteed constitutional neutrality without anyone in the Brussels parliament or indeed across Europe managing to notice? Why, the unassailable testimony of Alexander Fuehr in his majestic tome, The Neutrality of Belgium (D&M, p. 108, f/n 41, e.g.), which he presented to a New York publisher in 1915.

Though the other works of this august historian and political analyst seem to have become as lost as the poetry of Sappho—doubtless through the dastardly depredations of the “Secret Elite”—his magnum opus survives and may be admired for its objectivity and a few other things by anyone with access to the internet. How the “Secret Elite” could have let this disastrous giveaway slip by them must baffle anyone so intelligent as to overlook the possibility that, coming up to an American election year, Herr Fuehr might, just might, have been a German stooge.

As historians know, the Conventions Anglo-Belges, on which the Germans, after invading a neutral country, based their claim that Belgium had abandoned its neutrality, were consultative and focused on defence of the 1839 treaty. A letter by General Ducarme to the Belgian Minister of War, cited perhaps to back up the integrity of Herr Fuehr should any suspicious soul doubt this (ibid, p 107, f/n 38), gives the game away when one takes the trouble to check it out: “The entry of the English into Belgium would take place only after the violation of our neutrality by Germany”.

Curses!—another toe shot off. But never mind, we’ve got eighteen left and the reassuring knowledge that most people don’t check footnotes, but take them as evidence of scholarship and good faith. They rather can serve to give “semblance of worth, not substance” (to borrow from Milton). As a professional witness in Irving -v- Lipstadt, Dr Richard Evans exposed how another conspiracy theorist, David Irving, “created” evidence with footnotes, some of his “sources” being entirely fictive. Denis Winter’s creative use of footnotes in Haig’s Command helped expose that book as cheap character assassination and permanently discredited its author. Guess who cites it? Our intrepid duo.

Their neutrality the Belgians rightly had perceived as under threat from the Schlieffen Plan—though until August 1914 it was assumed that invasion would be limited to buttressing of the German armies’ right wing and restricted to east of the Meuse; occupation and rape of almost the entire country had not been foreseen. Since at least 1905 it was known that Belgium lay in the German warpath, hence the Conventions, and hence the “enormous expansion of armed forces in a supposedly neutral nation” (ibid, p. 237). Perhaps Docherty & Macgregor don’t understand that meaningful neutrality must be defended, as the Swiss and Swedes understood. The Belgian field force of 150,000 was pitifully small, not the sinister menace to Germany and its millionenheer armies that Docherty & Macgregor pretend.

The many crises that punctuated the years leading up to 1914 were cunningly engineered by the “Secret Elite”, who made them all appear Germany’s fault and managed to hoodwink historians, Professor Quigley included. “The first Moroccan crisis arose from German opposition to French designs on Morocco…. The Germans insisted on an international conference in the hope that their belligerence would disrupt the Triple Entente and isolate France”. “The danger of … war [after the 1908 Balkan crisis] was intensified by the eagerness of the military group in Austria … to settle the Serb irritation once and for all” (Quigley, T&H, pp 219-25).

Many of the claims made in this book are bizarre—at best—and the authors repeatedly go far beyond what evidence supports. Indeed, they come close to endorsing Ché’s dismissal of evidence as “unimportant bourgeois detail”: “Those who consider that the only true history is that which can be evidenced to the last letter necessarily constrain their parameters” (D&M, p 360).

This line chimes with those from one of the most dangerous books of the twentieth century, The Courage to Heal, by Ellen Bass & Laura Davis (still, like Mein Kamf, readily available): “If you think you were abused, and your life shows the symptoms, then you were” (p 22); “demands for proof are unreasonable” (p 137). In the “witch hunt” of the 1990s this book gained sanctity, even in courts of law. Evidence? An unimportant detail. Corroborative testimony? Are you accusing this poor woman of lying? One man was convicted of an historic murder solely on the testimony of his volatile daughter, whose mental instability was presented to the court as evidence of the trauma she had witnessed as a child. This is what happens when we refuse to be constrained by parameters. If you think the Brits started the war, and your mind shows the symptoms, then they did. In a postmodern dystopia of “competing narratives” it’s as good a yarn as any.

Docherty & Macgregor give an example of what “not constraining parameters” presumably means when they point out that the Parliament Act of 1911 did not reduce “the powers of the aristocracy … at all” (D&M, pp 169-70), a claim that goes against both evidence and commonsense (seldom a conspiracy theorist’s strong suit). There’s grim hilarity in the notion that the Boers’ “moral code … was far better than that of Rhodes and the British” (ibid, p 34), given that Die Groot Trek was prompted by Britain’s abolition of slavery and the “outrageous” Ordinance 50 of 1828, which gave equal rights to all subjects of the British Empire, regardless of race. In the Boer Republics “kaffirs” faced legal discrimination and the Boer “moral code” eventually gave post-colonial South Africa apartheid.

Queen Victoria, we are told, was “a favourite cousin” of the odious Leopold II (ibid, p 107). In fact, while Leopold I had been Victoria’s favourite uncle, she thought her cousin “‘very odd’ and in the habit of ‘saying disagreeable things’” (Adam Hochschild, King Leopold’s Ghost, p 35). Honest error? Perhaps—but as the Royal Family was among the “Secret Elite”, a little guilt-by-association can do Docherty & Macgregor’s thesis no harm.

The Schlieffen Plan just possibly could be regarded as defensive, as Docherty & Macgregor claim, in that attack is an effective defence; but when we look at the September Programme, and its proposal to dismember Belgium and annex whole provinces of France, and impose a zollverein on most of Western Europe, we perceive a whimsical interpretation of “defensive”. When we look at how a million square miles was annexed at Brest-Litovsk we know that Germany wanted hegemony, not security. When we look at “the Kaiser’s jihad”—the plan to foment Moslem rebellion across the British Empire toward German control from the English Channel to the Bay of Bengal—we know that any presentation of the Reich as hapless victim of British machinations is nonsense.

Given that it more than anything else contradicts their own hypothesis, Docherty & Macgregor pass over the Fischer Hypothesis with suspicious haste, in a bare half page. It was, we are assured, “demolished” by Professor Marc Tractenberg (D&M, p 355).

To dissect what Fischer wrote and take lawyerly issue with semantics is hardly demolition. “Evidence that the Germans were pressing for a war in the Balkans … cannot be taken as evidence that [they] were really trying to engineer a European war”, says Tractenberg (The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method, p 72). This may be true in a legal sense, but in July 1914 legal considerations had gone by the board. In the face of world opinion after the Sarajevo outrage, Russia could have done little had Austria launched a punitive expedition and “the Serbian problem could be brought to a head without provoking a general war” indeed (ibid, p 71).

But the Austrians were not interested in punishing Serbia but in destroying it, dismembering it among its Balkan enemies, thereby getting rid of the troublesome Serbs while buying the allegiance or at least the benevolence of the territorial beneficiaries. This Russia absolutely would not allow and everyone knew that, so in this indisputable light “Evidence that the Germans were pressing for a war in the Balkans” actually can be taken as evidence that they were determined to engineer any Third Balkan War into European war. The Fischer Hypothesis isn’t even dented by this pedantic nit-picking, far less “demolished”.

But hey, let’s not be constrained by parameters!

The collective of anecdote and accusation is not evidence. Scientists, historians and commonsensical people know never to impute to malice or conspiracy what can be accounted for by incompetence, foolishness, stupidity or chance. Conspiracy theorists have a different world view. Rather than use Occam’s Razor to shave assumptions to a minimum, they see this as a weapon deployed against them, concealed by historians under the cloak of reasonableness in order to cut their throats. Will any of them be swayed by this review? Of course not! The reviewer is one of the “Secret Elite”, isn’t he?

Something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is unlikely to be an ostrich in disguise. Something so loaded with overstatement (it’s got feathers: it’s an ostrich), so contradicted by its own sources and so demonstrably wrong cannot be history. Even when on relatively firm ground Docherty & Macgregor undermine their case by overstatement. That Edward Carson “continued to keep Ulster in close check” is doubtful (D&M, p 317); by July 1914 he had lost full control of the UVF he had helped create. Given Cabinet reluctance to accept even invasion of Belgium as a casus belli, the idea that a Liberal government would go to war with Germany over a few smuggled rifles and some provincial outrage is pathetic (ibid, p 318); the Milner Group was supportive of Irish Home Rule, not hostile (Quigley, A-AE, pp 83, 177-78). Yet Henry Wilson was an arch-intriguer, there were others like him and certainly more went on in Ireland, and indeed elsewhere, than has yet come out in the historical wash so here’s a suggestion:

“The Secret Elite controlled the writing and teaching of history [notably through] Oxford University” (D&M, p 353); but Oxford no longer holds the sway that it did, there are far more universities than in Rhodes’ time and history departments are more likely to be dominated by Anglophobic Marxists or PoMo ideologues than by Imperialist conservatives, so why don’t either or both of these gentlemen enrol and get academic imprimatur on their work? Just down the road from them is the University of Dundee, where they will find Dr John Regan, not renowned for his Anglophilia, and he will be happy, I’m rather sure, to get any genuine dirt on Henry Wilson and Perfidious Albion. “History”, he says, “is about challenging the past and historians” (http://www.dundee.ac.uk/history/staff/profile/john-regan), and Docherty and Macgregor certainly do that. They say they look forward to when their work is “perhaps” taught in schools and universities; this is not going to happen unless it gets academic endorsement.

Until it does it’s just conspiracy theory; merely more plausible than the paranoid postings of twitching lunatics holed up in cabins and caves, with enough assault-rifles to defend a small republic and more bullets and beans than brains.

————————- Comments (19)

Initial post: 11 Aug 2014 17:18:27 BDT

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

Michael Carragher strikes again. In refuting this latest diatribe, let’s begin with this recent headline in the Guardian:

“FOREIGN OFFICE HOARDING 1M. HISTORIC FILES IN SECRET ARCHIVE.

Justice secretary signed authorisation to place retention of files – some created in 19th century – on legal footing for 12 months.

The [British] Foreign Office has unlawfully hoarded more than a million files of historic documents that should have been declassified and handed over to the National Archives, the Guardian has discovered.

The files are being kept at a secret archive at a high-security government communications centre in Buckinghamshire, north of London, where they occupy mile after mile of shelving.

Most of the papers are many decades old – some were created in the 19th century – and document in fine detail British foreign relations throughout two world wars, the cold war, withdrawal from empire and entry into the common market.

They have been kept from public view in breach of the Public Records Acts, which requires that all government documents become public once they are 30 years old – a term about to be reduced to 20 years – unless the department has received permission from the lord chancellor to hold them for longer. The secret archive is also beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.”

No wonder Mr. Carragher is confused.

For further details on this burgeoning scandal, please use the following link:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/18/foreign-office-historic-files-secret-archive

This fits hand-in-glove with the thesis put forth by Messrs. Docherty and Macgregor as well as Professor Quigley’s own thesis as he himself described it on the back cover of his book:

“No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner group accomplished – that is, that a small number of men would be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period.”

Carroll Quigley

The Anglo-American Establishment.

With this settled, let’s get down to brass tacks. Mr. Carragher repeats yet again the error of blaming the Kaiser’s lapse of the Re-insurance treaty with Russia for the collapse of Bismarck’s handiwork and the resulting formation of the Franco-Russian Alliance, which in turn led to the division of Europe into opposing camps.

First, Bismarck constructed his alliance system with the sole object of denying the Powers of Europe as potential alliance partners to an implacably hostile France. Second, Kaiser Wilhelm had good reason for allowing the Re-insurance Treaty to lapse, as it was in conflict with the provisions of the Dual Alliance with Austria as the Kaiser explains in his memoirs. Third, the Franco-Russian Alliance was not an alliance at all, but an agreement between France and Russia to attack the Central Powers at the first opportune moment for the purpose of conquering Alsass-Lothringen for France, and satisfying the historic Russian drang nach Constantinople. as French ambassador Georges Louis would note in 1910:

“In the Alliance, Constantinople and the Straits form the counterpart of Alsace-Lorraine. It is not specifically written down in any definite agreement, but it is the supreme goal of the Alliance which one takes for granted. If the Russians open the question of the Straits with us, we must respond: `All right, when you aid us with respect to Alsace-Lorraine.'”

The planned Franco-Russian aggression was put on hold by the untimely 1894 death of Czar Alexander III and the truly woeful incompetence of his son and successor, Nicholas II.

It was the Secret Elite who arranged for Great Britain to join this unholy “alliance” in 1904 and 1907 thus transforming the moribund Franco-Russian Alliance into the very potent Triple Entente and raising the nightmare spectre of a European war. Preparing the diplomatic ground for changes as dramatic as these could only have been accomplished by the gravitas of a British King: Edward VII. His (alleged) godson, Sir Edward Grey and his minions followed in his royal wake to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. All of this was done in secret (as noted by Lord Loreburn in his book, How the War Came), and no one had any undue worries about any mere Minister or MP stepping boldly forward to warn the King against overstepping his constitutional limits.

Detailed and top-secret preparations with the French and Belgian General Staffs – as noted by S.B. Fay and Dr. Fuehr – readied the Secret Elite for the day when Gavrilo Princip fired the fatal shots heard `round the world and inaugurated the July crisis.

Barely three weeks later, July 20th, the French Government arrived at St. Petersburg on board France’s largest battleship and announced that in the present crisis, Russia should act with “firmness” and “dignity.” Three days later the French depart to the martial drumbeat of military parades and emotional expressions of mutual solidarity. The very next morning – July 24 – the Russians decide to proclaim the “Period Preparatory to War . . .”

The shopworn canard that Russia was acting to protect its “little Slavic brothers” is raised yet again. This despite the fact that Russia had traded away Bosnia Herzegovina in 1908, and in 1911 offered Turkey protection against the Balkan League (organized at Russia’s suggestion) which implied the use of Russian soldiers against Serbia.

Mr. Carragher abhors “conspiracy theories” like nature abhors a vacuum. Thus, the Spanish-American War was, presumably, an understandable American retaliation for the unprovoked Spanish assault upon the U.S.S. Maine. But was this war actually a conspiracy between American political leaders and Press lords like William Randolph Hearst to deprive Spain of its colonial possessions in the western hemisphere? Perish the thought! By Mr. Carragher’s standards, this was long on rank speculation but short on evidence. On the other hand, in the case of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the Ems telegram suffices in Mr. Caragher’s mind to shift blame for the war all the way from French onto Prussian shoulders. This is maintained by Mr. Carragher despite the frank admissions of culpability from French statesmen including Napoleon III himself.

The mother of all WW1 conspiracy theories is Fritz Fischer’s fantastic notion that in 1914, Germany attacked a vastly superior coalition in order to grab hegemony, first in Europe, then the world. In a murky morass of ludicrous suppositions, preposterous presumptions, nonsensical opinions, absurd speculations, daft conjectures, and farcical hypotheses, Mr. Fischer rolls out his comical piece de resistance. It is – wait for it – Bethmann’s September Programme. A thesis as ridiculous as this could only find traction in (mostly) German minds still haunted by Nazism and Mr. Carragher who apparently indulges conspiracy theorists when it suits him.

Mr Carragher describes “Hidden History” as “merely more plausible than the paranoid postings of twitching lunatics holed up in cabins and caves, with enough assault-rifles to defend a small republic and more bullets and beans than brains.” This unfortunate attempt at levity, while more appropriate to a comedy skit on Monty Python’s Flying Circus, might be extended to describe Mr. Carragher as holed up in his cabin with pen in hand and, between mouthfuls of nutritious beans, demolishing conspiracy theorists by the bushel.

To be fair, Mr. Carragher does suggest that “either or both of these gentlemen [Docherty and Macgregor] enrol (original spelling) and get academic imprimatur on their work.” While any such imprimatur is unlikely to come from the British Academy which provides funding for the likes of Mombauer, Strachan, Rohl, and similar court historians, it may yet come when the mass of secret Foreign Office documents mentioned above are released and the British people – and Michael Carragher – are finally allowed to know the truth about their government’s secret geo-political machinations which resulted in the precipitous, blood soaked decline of the once-glorious British empire and reduced it to the impotent nanny-state, cloying to Uncle Sam’s trousers, which it has now become.

In reply to an earlier poston Aug 11, 2014 3:12:56 AM PDT

Michael A Carragher says:—————————————-

When the Hanslope Park archive is transferred to the PRO it will be examined by historians who will amend their understanding of the past in light of what they find, as they did after Fritz Fischer discovered new material in the German archives. Anything from Hanslope Park that may support their theory Mr Hof and his ilk will trumpet; anything that doesn’t will be ignored; anything that contradicts it will be denounced, as they denounce the Fischer Hypothesis. Mr Hof’s intemperate treatment of this reflects the hatred felt toward a traitor, for Fischer was German and Mr Hof and his fellow-travellers base their case on a number of books written by Germans and their American stooges in the war- and inter-war years.

For historians and scientists, truth is always provisional, to be amended with the emergence of new evidence that changes our understanding, such as the Hanslope Park archive may well do. For religious zealots, ideologues and conspiracy theorists, truth is eternal and immutable, supportive evidence “unimportant detail”.

Eternal truths are based on sacred texts: the Bible, the Koran, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and, for Mr Hof, a miscellany of books written not quite so long ago. Jordan Michael Smith summarises:

“…between 1922 and 1927, forty volumes of official prewar records were published by [German] government-picked ‘independent’ historians that, in the words of one scholar, ‘established an early dependence of all students of prewar diplomacy on German materials.’ However, all the files came from the former Foreign Office. All documents from the crucial planning departments-the General Staff, the War Ministry, the Navy Office, and the economics section-were exempt from publication. They, of course, were the most damning and influential regarding German intentions. What was published was misleadingly edited.

“Nonetheless, the staggering amount of materials produced by these regime-approved scholars suggested by their very bulk that they were comprehensive. The German government spread the lie that these materials were exhaustive and that no contrary view was to be seen. During the Weimar Republic, tragically, these volumes played a vital role in spreading the pernicious ‘stab in the back’ claim-that pacifists, communists, socialists, and Jews had intentionally sapped the German army’s will and ability to fight, in doing so seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. Adolph Hitler appropriated this claim to explain why only National Socialism had the internal strength to rebuild Germany and why the Jews needed to be confronted for their alleged perfidy. Continuing well into the 1960s, most Germans believed that their country had fought a defensive war from 1914 to 1918.”

“Judging History: The Great War, Reconsidered” in World Affairs, May/June 2013.

Fischer let the cat out of the bag when he exposed those documents that Weimar and the Nazis had concealed, but for the likes of Mr Hof, this revelation of a conspiracy itself becomes “the mother of all WW1 conspiracy theories”!

To what extent Harry Elmer Barnes, Sidney Fay and others were dupes of the Germans or complicit in their deception is beside the point. The point is that their discredited work is still used by conspiracy theorists long after historians have dismissed it as partial, misleading and wrong.

Why would anyone do this? How can we account for why some people believe that generations of professional historians have turned history upside down; that the Jews-or whoever-run the world; that the Pope and the Queen of England are giant lizards working ecumenically to take over the planet for aliens?

Caitlin Shure explores the phenomenon in “Insight into the Personalities of Conspiracy Theorists” (Scientific American, August 8, 2013):

“Conspiracy theories and scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Both apply a filter of logic to the complexity of the universe, thereby transforming randomness into reason. Yet these two theoretical breeds differ in important ways. Scientific theories, by definition, must be falsifiable. That is, they must make reliable predictions about the world; and if those predictions turn out to be incorrect, the theory can be declared false. Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are tough to disprove. Their proponents can make the theories increasingly elaborate to accommodate new observations; and, ultimately, any information contradicting a conspiracy theory can be answered with, ‘Well sure, that’s what they want you to think’.”

Ms Shure points out: “Psychologists find that distrust of authority and low agreeableness are among factors underlying the willingness to believe”. In accounting for this gullibility she adds low self-esteem, an ability to hold contradictory beliefs, and “a `monological belief system’, in which any and all events can be explained by a web of interconnected conspiracies”.

Psychologists and social theorists identify other factors, which may overlap:

Ignorance: people who know no better may take on faith what they are told by fools. Education and life-experience is the antidote here.

Low intelligence: similar to Ignorance in that these people know no better but different in that not a lot can be done to cure stupidity. Studies consistently find an inverse relationship between IQ score and holding odd, superstitious and incongruous beliefs. Possibly reinforcing such beliefs is that people with lower cognitive abilities can more easily be persuaded that their poor quality of life, a consequence of their lower intelligence and thereby-impaired skills, is rather “evidence” that the Illuminati, the Jews, the lizards are keeping them down.

Contrarianism: a sophomoric proclamation of something that may be only half-believed in order to attract attention. (I suspect that acquiring a girlfriend cures most sufferers.)

Calculation: the opposite to Stupidity. There’s money to be made in selling “Beware the Illuminati” tee-shirts alongside M16 conversion kits at gun-shows, and in filling lecture halls with fools who’ll pay to hear how the lizards are coming along. (Calculating conspiracy theorists may invoke the Gospel of WC Fields to justify their behaviour: “It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money”.)

Neurosis/psychosis: possibly less a cause than the effect of holding paranoid delusions, but obviously also a factor predisposing some people to adopt delusional beliefs.

Vanity: that the conspiracy theorist and a select few others are aware of the reality that the rest of the world is too stupid to see appeals to the vanity of the sufferer and reinforces the deluded belief. The inflated sense of importance may compensate for low self-esteem.

Thanatos syndrome: the persecution complex that leads to neurosis in some may persuade others that they are self-sacrificing heroes who must give their lives to defend humanity against the lizards, Jews or whatever-while taking as many unbelievers as possible with them to eternity. At this point the jihadists strap on the suicide belts and Timothy McVeigh sets out for Oklahoma. We see here Ms Shure’s “low agreeableness” factor taken to its limit.

While not always dangerous, it is futile to argue with people whose world-view is almost pre-Enlightenment, founded on assumptions and faith, not logical argumentation and objective evidence.

The futility is illustrated by the fact that on August 7 at 12:07:59 PM PDT I posted notification on another thread of my review of Hidden History:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2O6G55GWI11NA/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg5?ie=UTF8&asin=B0058F9HOC&cdForum=Fx1XCPNVFYBENUO&cdPage=5&cdThread=Tx3CC8BJE9OZVJK&store=digital-text#wasThisHelpful

At 12:26:10 PM PDT Mr Hof responded to say that he had read my “silly review”. In nineteen minutes he had read a 3,000-word essay, evaluated its arguments, weighed its evidence, checked its many cited sources, and come to a considered conclusion on its merit. Of course he hadn’t. He didn’t need to. He needed only to scan the first few lines to know that my review did not support the Holy Writ of Barnes, Fay, Fuehr et al, and therefore was heresy, to be roundly denounced.

Anyone truly interested in the causes of the Great War needs to toss specious trash like Hidden History and Our Century and read Chris Clark’s The Sleepwalkers. This is one of those rare books that lives up to its hype. The depth and scope of Professor Clark’s research and the wisdom of his analysis could hardly be bettered. He’s as insightful as he’s fair: “It is a curious feature of the July Crisis of 1914 that so many of the key actors in it had known each other for so long. Beneath the surface of many key transactions lurked personal antipathies and long-remembered injuries” (p 90). This observation alone short-circuits much conspiracy theory.

Clark’s analysis of the Entente is all the more scrupulous given his Germanophilia:

“… neither the Entente Cordiale with France nor the Convention with Russia was conceived by British policy-makers primarily as an anti-German device. Inasmuch as Germany featured in British designs, it was mostly as a subordinate function of tensions with France and Russia…. Germany was a diplomatic irritant rather than an existential threat. ‘Anglo-German antagonism’ was not, in other words, the primary determinant of British policy.” (pp 140-41)

In his introduction Professor Clark explains that he is “concerned less with why the war happened than with how it came about” (p xxvii), and in his conclusion he argues:

“There is no smoking gun in this story; or rather, there is one in the hands of every major character. Viewed in this light, the outbreak of war was a tragedy, not a crime. Acknowledging this does not mean that we should minimise the belligerence and imperialist paranoia of the Austrian and German policy-makers that rightly absorbed the attention of Fritz Fischer and his historiographical allies. But the Germans were not the only imperialists and not the only ones to succumb to paranoia. The crisis that brought war in 1914 was the fruit of a shared political culture. But it was also multipolar and genuinely interactive-that is what makes it the most complex event of modern times and why the debate over the origins of the First World War continues….” (p 561).

On the same page he dismisses “conspiratorial narratives in which a coterie of powerful individuals, like velvet-jacketed Bond villains, controls events from behind the scene in accordance with a malevolent plan”; while acknowledging that “it is not, of course, logically impossible that war came about in this manner … such arguments are not supported by the evidence”.

Much earlier, but apropos this remark, Professor Clark acknowledges that “There are … still significant gaps in our knowledge” (p xxiii). If the Hanslope Park archive provides new evidence to fill those gaps he, like historians everywhere, will amend his views and write new books in light of our revised understanding. Mr Hof’s views will remain unchanged, whatever emerges.

Posted on 11 Aug 2014 20:23:16 BDT

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

The dark mind rises . . . still dark. Clearly, Mr. Caragher has failed to fully appreciate the implications of the article in the Guardian. So here it is in full:

“The [British] Foreign Office has unlawfully hoarded more than a million files of historic documents that should have been declassified and handed over to the National Archives, the Guardian has discovered.

The files are being kept at a secret archive at a high-security government communications centre in Buckinghamshire, north of London, where they occupy mile after mile of shelving.

Most of the papers are many decades old – some were created in the 19th century – and document in fine detail British foreign relations throughout two world wars, the cold war, withdrawal from empire and entry into the common market.

They have been kept from public view in breach of the Public Records Acts, which requires that all government documents become public once they are 30 years old – a term about to be reduced to 20 years – unless the department has received permission from the lord chancellor to hold them for longer. The secret archive is also beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Foreign Office is not the only government department that has been unlawfully hoarding files. This month the Guardian disclosed that the Ministry of Defence was unlawfully holding more than 66,000 historic files at a warehouse in Derbyshire, including thousands of files from the army’s Northern Ireland headquarters.

However, the Foreign Office’s secret archive, which is estimated to hold around 1.2m files and occupies around 15 miles of floor-to-ceiling shelving, is believed to be far larger than the combined undisclosed archives of every other government department. One of Britain’s leading historians describes its size as “staggering”.

A basic inventory of the hidden archive gives a clue to its enormousness: batches of files are catalogued according to the length of shelf space they occupy, with six metres and two centimetres dedicated to files about Rhodesia, for example, and four metres and 57 centimetres holding files about Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, the KGB spies who operated inside the Foreign Office and MI6. There are 50 metres of files on Hong Kong, 100.81 metres about the United States and 97.84 metres of “private office papers”.

No length is given in the inventory for other categories such as Colonial Office files or records from the permanent under-secretary’s department, the point of liaison between the Foreign Office and MI6.

The inventory says there is one bag of records from the Foreign Office’s now notorious cold war propaganda unit, the Information Research Department. And buried away within the archive, wedged between files from the British military government in post-war Germany and lists of consular officials, are papers about the treaty of Paris, which concluded the Crimean war in 1856.

The Foreign Office’s realisation that it would eventually need to admit to the existence of such a vast repository appears to have come at a time when its lawyers were waging a court battle with a group of elderly Kenyans. It was a battle that it eventually lost, with the result that it was obliged to issue an unprecedented apology and pay millions of pounds in compensation to thousands of men and women who suffered severe mistreatment during the 1950s Mau Mau insurgency.

During those proceedings the Foreign Office repeatedly denied the existence of a much smaller secret archive of 8,800 colonial-era documents, known as the migrated archive. It was eventually obliged to admit that this did exist, and that its contents corroborated the Kenyans’ allegations about widespread acts of murder and torture by the colonial authorities.

As a first step, the Foreign Office gave its colossal secret a name, the Special Collections. Then last November the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, was asked to sign a blanket authorisation that is said to have placed the retention of the files on a legal footing for 12 months. No announcement was made.

Finally, a written statement about “public records” by the Foreign Office minister David Lidington was quietly issued in the Commons on a Friday afternoon. The statement included two sentences that referred to a “large accumulation” of documents.

As a result of the manner in which the matter was handled, the existence of the archive has remained all but unknown, even among historians. Anthony Badger, the Cambridge history professor who has been overseeing the declassification of the migrated archive, has written that he believes “it is difficult to overestimate the legacy of suspicion among historians, lawyers and journalists” that resulted from the concealment of those 8,800 files.

The discovery that the colonial-era documents are just a very small part of a hidden archive of more than a million files is certain to cause enormous damage to the Foreign Office’s reputation among historians and others. A Foreign Office spokesperson said the archive had accumulated over time and that “resources have not been available to review and prepare” them for release.

The handful of historians who have become aware of the archive are deeply sceptical about this claim, however. Richard Drayton, Rhodes professor of imperial history at King’s College London, said the size of the hidden archive was staggering, and it was “scandalous” that papers of such significance could be concealed for such a long time. “It’s a working archive, for a department which believes it has a long-term, historic interest in many parts of the world,” he said.

It was unclear whether there is any “truly explosive” material within the files, Drayton said, or whether officials were attempting to manage the country’s historic reputation. “It may be that from the perspective of the state, 50 years is a short time. But the idea that the British state today has an obligation to protect the reputation of the British state of 50 years ago seems to me wholly inappropriate. It would be a manipulation of history, which we associate with iron curtain regimes during the cold war, regimes that managed and controlled the past.”

Mandy Banton, senior research fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, said it was “extremely likely” that the archive had been culled to remove material that would most damage the reputation of the UK and the Foreign Office. Banton, a Colonial Office records expert who worked at National Archives at Kew, south-west London, for 25 years, said she had been “very angry” when she discovered that the migrated archives had been withheld. “I would have been incandescent had I learned while still working there. In lying to me, the Foreign Office forced me to mislead my readers.”

Freedom of information campaigners believe that the hoarding of such a huge amount of papers is symptomatic of a culture of secrecy and retention at the Foreign Office and across many other UK government departments. Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, an NGO that works to ensure the Freedom of Information Act is properly implemented, said: “The FoI system depends on people knowing what they hold and being transparent about what they hold.”

The archive is kept at Hanslope Park, a sprawling Foreign Office and MI6 outstation in the heart of the Buckinghamshire countryside. Sometimes referred to by Foreign Office staff as “Up North” – although it is only 60 miles north of London – Hanslope Park is also home to Her Majesty’s Government Communications Centre, a facility where hundreds of government scientists and technicians develop sophisticated counter-espionage measures.

They include measures intended to protect the UK government and its allies from the sort of surveillance that Edward Snowden’s leaks have shown to have been perfected by the National Security Agency and Britain’s GCHQ.

Two wire fences, one 10ft high and topped with razor wire, encircle the cluster of buildings at Hanslope Park. Between them is a no man’s land with intruder alarms. CCTV cameras are positioned every few yards and the entire perimeter is covered by floodlights. Inside, posters on the walls carry the half-joking warning: “Careless talk costs jobs.”

Curiously, many of the offices are said to house row after row of typewriters rather than computers, with incinerators at the end of each room for the disposal of typewriter ribbons – a measure to reduce electromagnetic emissions, which can travel for hundreds of yards and be deciphered by foreign governments.

Hanslope Park is not only a highly secure facility, it is also a place that appears to be accustomed to handling – and destroying – large amounts of paperwork. This, possibly, explains why the special collections have been held there.

The blanket authorisation signed by Grayling put the secret archive on a legal footing for 12 months, during which time the Foreign Office is expected to devise a plan for its declassification and transfer to Kew. A spokesperson said a plan would be presented next month to a committee that advises the National Archives and the Ministry of Justice.

It will be quite a task. Declassification of the migrated archive has taken two and a half years, with the final tranche of documents due to arrive at Kew next month. At that rate, clearing up the special collections would take around 340 years.”

Hopefully, this will shock Mr. Carragher’s shuttered mind into a fuller recognition of the truly stunning implications of the Guardian article – then again, maybe not.

In reply to an earlier poston Aug 11, 2014 3:04:32 PM PDT

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

First, Mr. Carragher describes my opinion of the “Fischer Hypothesis” as “intemperate.” The Fischer Hypothesis, recall, is that Germany started a European war in order to gain hegemony, first in Europe, then the world. There is today a veritable tall mountain of statistics which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that in the summer of 1914, Germany was first among equals in virtually every economic and/or military category. This overwhelming hegemony – earned by the industry and talent of her people – was increasing monthly by leaps and bounds and Germany was even on schedule to surpass Great Britain in the export of finished goods for the first time ever. For what conceivable reason would Germany attack a vastly superior coalition to achieve something she already possessed IN SPADES? This in itself blows the Fischer “Hypothesis” completely out of the water. It is in fact Carragher’s support of this so-called hypothesis that is “intemperate” and not my refutation. If there is even ONE document discovered by Fischer (or, for that matter, Geiss) which substantially alters our understanding of the cause of WW1, I challenge Mr. Carragher to cite it. He will not do so because there are none.

Furthermore, I do not know why it is necessary to again point out to Mr. Carragher that the Weimar Government, including Karl Kautsky, was hostile to the Wilhelmine Government in the extreme. Paroxysms of happiness would have been aroused by any and all documents that would shine an unfavorable light upon the Kaiser and his remaining minions.

Mr. Carragher then writes:

“Contrarianism: a sophomoric proclamation of something that may be only half-believed in order to attract attention. (I suspect that acquiring a girlfriend cures most sufferers.)

Calculation: the opposite to Stupidity. There’s money to be made in selling “Beware the Illuminati” tee-shirts alongside M16 conversion kits at gun-shows, and in filling lecture halls with fools who’ll pay to hear how the lizards are coming along. (Calculating conspiracy theorists may invoke the Gospel of WC Fields to justify their behaviour: “It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money”.)

Neurosis/psychosis: possibly less a cause than the effect of holding paranoid delusions, but obviously also a factor predisposing some people to adopt delusional beliefs.”

Wow! If you are still awake after such stupefying pseudo-intellectual ja-de-ja-da, you are treated to this:

“Eternal truths are based on sacred texts: the Bible, the Koran, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and, for Mr Hof, a miscellany of books written not quite so long ago.”

Nice! Mentioning the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the name of your protagonist in the same sentence is Lesson 1 in “Smear and Libel Tactics 101.”

After further indecipherable psycho-babble about the “Illuminati,” the “Jews,” the “lizards,” and “a `monological belief system’, in which any and all events can be explained by a web of interconnected conspiracies,” etc., etc., Mr. Carragher actually offers a ray of hope. He has apparently read a book (no, really) by Christopher Clark entitled: “The Sleepwalkers, How Europe went to War in 1914.” Hope springs eternal.

Despite having denounced Mr. Clark’s alleged “Germanophilia,” Mr Carragher seems to like this book. This means that he may yet emerge from the fever swamps where, in the manner of Don Quixote, he defends the likes of Fritz Fischer from assault by unsavory denizens of the historical underworld such as “Lizards, Illuminati,” and “conspiracy theorists.” Carragher has offered some quotes from Clark’s book, but here is one which he apparently overlooked:

“German economic power underscored the political anxieties of the great-power executives, just as Chinese economic power does today. Yet there was nothing inevitable about the ascendancy of Germanophobe attitudes in British foreign policy. They were not universal, even within the upper reaches of the Foreign Office itself, and they were even less prevalent across the rest of the political elite. Hard work behind the scenes was needed to lever Bertie, Nicolson and Hardinge into the senior posts from which they were able to shape the tone and course of British policy. Bertie owed his rapid ascent after years of frustration in low-level positions to his energetic politicking with the private secretary to King Edward VII. Hardinge, too, was a seasoned courtier and intriguer, who pushed Bertie’s candidacy for the Paris ambassadorship in 1905. Hardinge employed his connections at court to `override’ a `certain amount of obstruction at the top of the F.O.’ Bertie and Hardinge in turn cooperated in levering Arthur Nicolson into senior ambassadorial posts, despite the fact that his wife was said to shun society and to `dress like a housemaid’. British policy could have taken a different course: had Grey and his associates failed to secure so many influential posts, less intransigent voices, such as those of Goschen and Lascelles or of the parliamentary under-secretary Edmond Fitzmaurice, who deplored the `anti-German virus’ afflicting his colleagues, might have found a wider hearing. Instead, the Grey group gradually tightened their grip on British policy, setting the terms under which relations with Germany were viewed and understood.

The `invention’, as Keith Wilson has put it, of Germany as the key threat to Britain reflected and consolidated a broader structural shift. The polycentric world of the `great games’ in Africa, China, Persia, Tibet and Afghanistan, a world in which policy-makers often felt they were lurching from crisis to crisis and reacting to remote challenges rather than setting the agenda, was making way for a simpler cosmos in which one enemy dominated the scene. This was not the cause of Britain’s alignment with Russia and France, but rather its consequence. For the restructuring of the alliance system facilitated – indeed it necessitated – the refocusing of British anxieties and paranoia, which were riding high in the years around the Boer War. British foreign policy – like American foreign policy in the twentieth century – had always depended on scenarios of threat and invasion as focusing devices. In the mid-nineteenth century, French invasion scares had periodically galvanized the political elites; by the 1890s, France had been displaced in the British political and public imagination by Russia, whose Cossack hordes would soon be invading India and Essex. Now it was Germany’s turn. The target was new, but the mechanisms were familiar . . .”

Clark, Christopher (2013-03-19). The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 (Kindle Locations 3256-3392). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Posted on 18 Aug 2014 15:24:22 BDT

Dr Mac says:—————————————-

Amazon provides an excellent forum for readers to review books, have a healthy discussion on a book and post comments for the benefit of other readers. There is, sadly, a misuse of this facility by a small number of individuals who do not understand the difference between respectfully taking issue with an author, and intentionally insulting them simply because they disagree with what they write. Known as”trolls”, they apparently get pleasure from posting blatantly disruptive, snide or insulting comments , and are considered sociopaths. The general advice to authors is ‘do not feed the trolls’, do not react to their immaturity, laugh them off.

The educated, eloquent troll such as Carragher has a penchant for veiled calumny, insulting innuendo and mocking comment. They invariably apply the label “conspiracy theory” in order to denigrate a book and put readers off. Carragher manages to squeeze that tired pejorative into his review six or seven times. Can that be a troll record on Amazon? He clearly has a broad knowledge of war history, but unfortunately it has been garnered from books that simply churn out the falsehoods created by English court historians. Having read all of those books Carragher knows for sure that Germany was responsible for the war, knows for sure that Britain could not possibly be responsible. Everything he has read tells him we are mistaken. Cognitive dissonance prevents him from opening his mind to any other possibility. How dare we write something that challenges his knowledge and everything he assumes to be true. Is it self-righteous indignation against those who challenge his assumptions that causes him to devote time to writing troll attacks on Amazon, or is there another reason behind it?

People who have actually read the book and commended it on Amazon are, according to Carragher’s fellow trolls, either ‘fascists’ or ‘communists’. Their message is clear, a book which appeals to ‘fascists’ or ‘communists’ must surely have been written by fascists or communists. The book is certainly touching the raw nerves of staunch British war guilt deniers. The ‘conspiracy theory’ pejorative is a refuge for the uninformed or, as Professor James F Tracy states, a disciplinary device used to place certain events off limits to debate and to prevent legitimate questions being asked about dubious official narratives. ‘I am unconvinced’, Tracy writes ‘that interest in or acceptance of “conspiracy theories” has any correlation with a lack of intelligence or education. In fact, some recent research suggests that entertaining conspiratorial explanations of reality-meaning that one does not take what their political leaders offer as explanations of policies or events-is likely indicative of a higher intelligence and simply good citizenship.’ Thankfully, more and more people across the world are displaying that good citizenship, questioning their political masters and academics, and no longer prepared to be treated like sheep. Will Carragher be swayed by this? Of course not! Professor Tracy himself is a ‘conspiracy theorist’ isn’t he?

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on Aug 21, 2014 8:46:11 AM PDT

Dr Mac says:—————————————-

Let us take Troll carragher’s points one by one:

‘(1) One looks in vain for either “Docherty” or “Macgregor” in their own bibliography, which one assuredly would find if “The history of the First World War is a deliberately concocted lie”, as they claim.’

Docherty and Macgregor are too ‘bean brained’, as Carragher terms it, to understand his point. Authors do not include the title of the book currently being written in the bibliography of that book.

(2) ‘…journals would have been eager to publish a paper exposing this lie, and the book would have the endorsement of historians. Its authors’ “explanation” for the absence of such endorsement is that the conspiracy to suppress the truth extends to academia…’

In the real world the exact opposite is the case. Step outside parameters acceptable to the establishment and the oxygen of publicity is withdrawn. Our book sells extremely well despite the fact that it has been totally blanked by the mainstream press and journals in Britain. Our literary agent says he has never known anything like it in over 40 years in the publishing business. That is the reality for writers who challenge the received history. Carragher’s efforts as a troll to damage books which question the official narrative are but a mere irritation. The more ferocious the attack the more reassured writers can be that they are on the correct lines.

Regarding ‘the endorsement of historians.’ We are in communication with a number of historians who support our thesis. Academics are well aware, however, that their careers can be ruined for seriously challenging the received history. Guido Preparata, for example, a brave historian who wrote ‘Conjuring Hitler’ about banks and big business in America financing the rise of Hitler, (an essential read for all truth seekers) was forced out of his university and his career.

(3) ‘Docherty & Macgregor’s thesis is that Great Britain engineered the Great War in order to destroy Germany. This dead horse has been flogged intermittently for a century now, ever since Roger Casement’s The Crime Against Europe. While no historian would claim that Germany was solely responsible, the notion that Britain was remains risible.’

A dead horse has indeed been flogged for a century, but not the one that Carragher implies. In stating that no historian would claim Germany responsible, he truly displays his ignorance of the historiography. What about Sir Max Hastings, Professor John Rohl, Dr Annika Mombauer, Professor Garry Sheffield, Dr Catriona Pennel or Professor David Stevenson?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

What about Professor Hew Strachan or Professor Norman Stone among others?

He should name the books which blame Britain. Point them out so that others with an open mind can read them.

(4) The immense power of the Milner-Rothschild group was typical of the time-across the Atlantic JP Morgan sorted out the Panic of 1907, if not quite literally out of his own pocket, by his wealth and the power that always goes with that. This was a paternalistic age, that of the great oligarchs but also the great philanthropists…’

And if Carragher agrees with that he will agree with anything. Can we point him in the direction of the works of Mathew Josephson, Ida Tarbell, Walter W Ligget, Giovanni Arrighi, Burton Folsom and Jack London to name but a few?

(5) ‘Eric Hobsbawm observes: “The most usual ideological abuse of history is based on anachronism rather than lies.” Docherty & Macgregor bring both ideology and anachronism to their treatment of the past and if they don’t tell lies, they don’t tell the whole truth. They omit to mention that Rhodes was an admirer of Germany and that the Rhodes Scholarship was open to Germans as well as Americans. Rhodes’ belief was that “a good understanding between England, Germany and [the USA would] secure the peace of the world” ‘

Hobsbawm is an apt individual for Carragher to present as his paragon of intellectual and academic integrity. According to Pryce-Jones, he ‘steadily corrupted knowledge into propaganda, and scorned the concept of objective truth, he was neither a historian nor professional.’

On page 210 we write, ‘Rhodes Scholarships favoured American students, with one hundred allocated there, two for each of the fifty states and territories, whereas a total of sixty were made available for the entire British Empire.’ The fact that we didn’t mention one place available to a German student is being construed by Carragher as an ‘abuse of history’. In any case, according to Professor Quigley, the Rhodes scholarships had nothing to do with improving relations with Germany, but were ‘merely a façade to conceal the secret society, or, more accurately, they were to be one of the instruments by which the members of the secret society could carry out its purpose.’ [Quigley The Anglo-American Establishment, p 33] Its purpose was to take control of the world, and in order to realise that purpose they had first to destroy Germany, not promote a good understanding with it.

We have found no evidence whatsoever in all of Rhodes’s nefarious activities over the years that he was ‘an admirer of Germany.’ ‘Jealous of Germany’ would be a more apt term. His desire was to federate the English-speaking people and to bring all habitable portions of the world under their control. For that purpose he left part of his great fortune to found the scholarships ‘in order to spread the English ruling class traditions throughout the English speaking world as Ruskin had wanted.’ [Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, p131] In the final analysis it is immaterial whether or not Rhodes admired Germany. His role as leader of the Secret Elite effectively ended in 1895 following his part in the botched Jameson Raid into the Transvaal. Rhodes was dead and buried before the the new leader, Lord Alfred Milner, and the cabal set out their plan to destroy Germany.

There is likewise no evidence that Rhodes desired ‘the peace of the world.’ Quite the contrary. The word ‘peace’ may have been written into his will, but the will was a sham in terms of altruistic intent. This ‘peace loving man’ sent his British South Africa Company’s private army rampaging across Southern Africa to secure riches and tribal lands through the slaughter of thousands of tribal African’s with machine guns. The ‘peace-loving’ Rhodes encouraged war on the Boer farmers , the the destruction of tens of thousands of their farms and the slaughter of their livestock. Indeed, two years before his death in 1902, he reprimanded WT Stead for his opposition to the war. Rhodes raised no voice of objection against the horrors of the British concentration camps wherein some 20,000 children died. ‘Secure the peace of the world? Give us a break.

(6) ‘Along with selectivity of truth goes shameless bias. (that’s rich coming from him) The British are presented as the most heinous imperial oppressors; in fact the Germans make them look like altar boys-see David Olusoga and Casper W Erichsen, The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s Forgotten Genocide.’

‘Selectivity of truth’? ‘Shameless bias’ ? Carragher is not opposed to conspiracy theory, he breaths it. Olusoga and Erichsen’s book sits on our ‘atrocities’ book-shelve with Conan Doyle’s The Crime of the Congo, Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost, E D Morel’s King Leopold’s Rule in Africa and John Doyle Klier’s Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russia. They describe the harrowing atrocities, despicable racism and religious bigotry against which we have campaigned our entire lives. Kaiser Wilhelm, King Leopold, Queen Victoria and her son, King Edward V11, can all roast in hell for their crimes against the people of Africa. Our book describes British atrocities in South Africa not because we are shamelessly biased in favour of Germany, but because it was entirely pertinent to our chronicling of Secret Elite activities from 1890 to 1914. In any case, Germany’s undoubted colonial atrocities in South West Africa do not alter the fact that Britain, not Germany, was responsible for the First World War. Carragher should stop clutching at straws and address the big issues we discuss in the book.

(7) ‘Historians see the change rather in terms of the Reinsurance Treaty being allowed to lapse, and the displacement of Bismarck’s kleindeutschland policy by the Kaiser’s weltpolitik.’

We’ll pass on that guff since Mr Hof has comprehensively dealt with it.

(8) ‘Docherty & Macgregor …give ostentatiously respectful credit to Quigley, “one of the twentieth century’s most highly respected historians.”‘

Ostentatiously respectful credit? Carragher truly is clutching at straws in his efforts to denigrate our work. He may not know it, but Carroll Quigley is one of the twentieth century’s most famous and highly respected historians. Full stop. His revelations that a powerful, secret cabal was controlling Britain make Carragher uneasy because they do square with his bizarre and distorted historical perspective.

(8) ‘They convey the impression that Professor Quigley is nodding benevolently down on their endeavour from whatever heaven good historians go to. This takes some chutzpah, given that the late professor took great umbrage to his work being hijacked to support far-fetched notions with which he definitely would not agree.’

Professor Quigley was indeed vexed that his work was being hijacked to support far-fetched notions. Notions such as Carragher’s that Britain was controlled by a peace-loving, democratic body that only went to war in order to defend little Belgium. The professor encouraged others to follow the markers he set down and that is exactly what we have done. We discuss the enigma that is Carroll Quigley in revealing the secret society and its nefarious aims, yet saying he agreed with those aims. The only thing we convey about Quigley is our clearly stated view that he was frightened of the consequences of his revelations. He suggested as much in a radio interview, and would not allow The Anglo-American Establishment to be published during his lifetime. Presumably through fear of repercussions.

(9)’According to Quigley, the Milner Group (Docherty & Macgregor’s “Secret Elite”) “had great influence but not control of political life.”‘

Quigley wrote that the methods of the all-powerful secret cabal could be summed up as ‘a triple-front penetration in politics, education and journalism; the recruitment of men of ability, chiefly from All Souls and by linking them through matrimonial alliances and by gratitude for titles and positions of power; and by the influencing of public policy by placing members in positions of power, shielded as much as possible from public attention.’ [A-AE, p 15] ‘No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner Group accomplished in Britain – that is, that a small number of men should be able to wield such power in administration and politics…’ [A-AE p197] But don’t take Carragher’s word or our word for it, read Quigley for yourself and witness the overwhelming control the Secret Elite exerted over politics, the press, the banks, industry, education, Oxford University and the writing of history. His entire book, The Anglo-American Establishment, is dedicated to revealing just that.

(10) ‘Given their misrepresentation of the views of a bona fide historian, imagine the damage these fellows can do with the works of, for example, Harry Elmer Barnes, long exposed as having been in the pay of Zentralstelle für Erforschung der Kriegshuldfrage, established by Weimar to exonerate Germany of any responsibility for the Great War?’

As ever, reactionaries trot out this old canard to blacken Professor Barnes and make him appear devious and dishonest. In the 1920s Germany commissioned a historical analysis of the war’s origins. Why on earth shouldn’t she? She was innocent. Harry Elmer Barnes, a man of recognised honesty and integrity from an erstwhile enemy country, no less, was invited to do it. He accepted, examined the evidence in all countries, discovered that Germany was indeed innocent, and wrote books on his findings. His ‘The Genesis of The World War’ and ‘In Quest of Truth and Justice’ are two of the most important books ever written on the First World War, and the very reason Carragher and his mob so determinedly attempt to blacken them. Like Guido Preparata, a generation or two later, for publishing his honest findings and speaking truth to power, Professor Barnes was targeted by that power and his reputation trashed. Another demonstration of the truism that the closer genuine historical researchers get to the truth, the more vociferous are the attacks they face. If the British Establishment and its attack dogs like Carragher are not attacking, you know you are following a cold trail. Carragher should put down his blinkered spectacles and attempt to overcome his cognitive dissonance. He would find it very liberating. His pathetic attempt to make it appear that Barnes abused his role as an academic historian and lied to exonerate his paymasters tells us more about his activities than it does anything about that courageous and honest historian. Truth seekers should have no qualms about reading Barnes’s work, indeed they must.

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on Aug 21, 2014 8:53:49 AM PDT

Dr Mac says:—————————————-

(11) ‘To support their notion that the “Secret Elite” engineered the Great War Docherty & Macgregor purport that Belgium had made a secret alliance with Britain. This is an extraordinary claim so one looks for extraordinary support for it. What evidence that Belgium abandoned its internationally-guaranteed constitutional neutrality without anyone in the Brussels parliament or indeed across Europe managing to notice?’

The reason people in the Brussels parliament and across Europe didn’t know about the alliance clearly has to be spelled out for Carragher. The clue is in the name SECRET alliance. A secret is information kept from, or not known about, by others. Carragher feigns incredulity that secrets could be kept from the Belgian parliament. Were the MPs there somehow less gullible than British MPs who accepted the repeated lies over the years from the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary that Britain had no secret alliances. Indeed more than half the membres of the British cabinet had no idea about the shared activities between Britain and France, and between Britain and Belgium.

That’s why they are known as the SECRET alliances, Mr Carragher.

(12) ‘… Why, the unassailable testimony of Alexander Fuehr in his majestic tome, The Neutrality of Belgium…’ etc.

Carragher throws in sarcasm for good measure, and attempts to denigrate the work of Alexander Fuehr. Why? What important message does Fuehr have that requires silencing?

‘…England’s real reasons for going to war with Germany had nothing to do with Belgium’s neutrality. …The fact is that England did not draw the sword for Belgium, but that Belgium is fighting for England. …The frequent notes of moral indignation, the constant references to the national honor and the reiterated assurances that Belgium had always lived up to her international obligations, displayed in those official documents, fall flat now, after the world has learned something about the Belgian Government’s illicit ante-bellum relations. It is obvious that its course of action could not have been determined by any considerations of Belgium’s national honor, but merely by the obligations which, contrary to international law, it had assumed toward England and France. Nevertheless, the question arises: what did the Belgian Government, in carrying out those obligations, expect? Could it reasonably hope and did it really expect successfully to stop the advance of the German army, with the aid of its secret allies…’

[Alexander Fuehr, The neutrality of Belgium ch V. http://www.gwpda.org/memoir/belgneut/BelgC05.htm#5.79 ]

Britain and Belgium were secret allies, according to Fuehr so Carragher attempts to denigrate him with this nasty little sting in his tail:

‘ Herr Fuehr might, just might, have been a German stooge.’

So, Fuehr and Barnes, and presumably ourselves and all others who present evidence of Germany’s innocence might just be ‘German stooges’. On the other hand, Oxford historians beholden to the very men responsible for the war, and who proclaimed Britain’s innocence at every turn, are paragons of honesty and integrity. This from the man who has the temerity to accuse us of being selective with the truth and shamelessly biased.

Let’s see if there are any other ‘German stooges’ suggesting a secret Anglo-Belgian alliance. Canadian Professor J S Ewart revealed that just as Britain had a secret military alliance with France, so she had with Belgium. In 1906 senior British and Belgian army officers began preparing together for the war. Britain would send 100,000 men across the Channel. Planning and preparation were carried out in secrecy, no agreement committed to paper. Agreements reached between General Ducarne, the Chief of the Belgian General Staff, the British General Staff and the British Minister responsible, were to be known only to them. During the Secret Elite’s remorseless countdown to war, the details were worked out in ever greater precision. Belgium was assured that within twelve or thirteen days, two British army corps, four cavalry brigades, and two brigades of mounted infantry would be landed. British Military Attaché, Lieutenant-Colonel Barnardiston, assured the Belgians that half the British army could actually be landed within eight days. Everything was prepared down to fine detail, including intermediary officers, interpreters, maps, uniforms, hospital accommodation for the wounded, etc. By 1912 the new Military Attaché, Lieutenant Colonel Bridges was able to assure Brussels that Britain now had available for dispatch to Belgium an army composed of six divisions of infantry and and eight brigades of cavalry. [JS Ewart, The Roots and Causes of the Wars, pp 542-43.]

What about the famous American war historian, Professor Sidney B Fay? Carragher likewise dismisses him and appears to consider him yet another ‘German stooge’. Fay tells us that in 1906 the Secretary of State for War, Lord Haldane, began secret preparations for war together with General Grierson of the British General Staff and French Military Attaché, Colonel Huguet. In the course of those Anglo-French joint military preparations, British and French Staff Officers carefully studied the ground upon which the armies were to fight, not only in France but in Belgium. Senior British officer Sir Henry Wilson, who was deeply in the secrets of the French General Staff, and Director of Military Operations no less, spent summer holidays on his bicycle reconnoitring the Belgian countryside. A gigantic map of Belgium covered the whole wall of his London Office highlighting roads the British army might follow. When asked by Count Metternich from the German embassy in London what was going on, Minister for War, Haldane, replied that a military convention between France and England did not exist, had never existed, and that no plans were in place for the conclusion of one. He claimed not to know of any conversations that had taken place between English and French officers to prepare military arrangements. [Fay, The Origins of the World War, pp. 212-13]

Henry Wilson was reconnoitring southern Belgium around Namur in August 1908. And again in August 1909 when he cycled the area around Mons. In January 1911 he was back in Brussels and met with members of the Belgian General Staff before driving around Namur. The following month he was back again in southern Belgium, and in October was back yet again cycling the zone south of the Meuse. What does Carragher think senior British officers were doing so often in Belgium and meeting with their General Staff, planning to rob a sweet shop on Rue des Bouchers?

(13) “The entry of the English into Belgium would take place only after the violation of our neutrality by Germany….The Belgian field force of 150,000 was pitifully small, not the sinister menace to Germany and its millionenheer armies that Docherty & Macgregor pretend.

Yet again Carragher conjures false accusations to discredit our work. The vast, vast majority of Belgians were brave, innocent and perfectly entitled to defend their homeland against invasion. They were never a ‘sinister menace to Germany’, and we have never ‘pretended’ that they were. ‘The German invasion of Belgium furnished Sir Edward Grey with his popular-appealing reason for entering the war. He was anxious that he should not be deprived of it by Belgian submission and urged them to resist.’ [Ewart 137]

Germany offered to respect Belgian neutrality if Britain agreed to remain neutral, but Grey declined without even mentioning it to the cabinet or parliament. The ‘sinister menace’ to Germany was not the Belgian army, but Sir Edward Grey and his puppet masters behind the scenes in London. ‘The German invasion of Belgium was not the cause of the war; the invasion of Belgium was not unexpected, the invasion of Belgium did not shock the moral susceptibilities of either the British or French governments. To colour the picture with the pigment of falsehood so as to excite popular indignation was imperative, and it was done with complete success.’ [A Ponsonby, Falsehood in Wartime, p. 56] In any case, as Professor Niall Ferguson states, If Germany had not invaded Belgium, Britain would have.

(14) ‘Many of the claims made in this book are bizarre-at best-and the authors repeatedly go far beyond what evidence supports. Indeed, they come close to endorsing Ché’s dismissal of evidence as “unimportant bourgeois detail”: “Those who consider that the only true history is that which can be evidenced to the last letter necessarily constrain their parameters” (D&M, p 360)This line chimes with those from one of the most dangerous books of the twentieth century…’

Carragher tears one sentence from its context to make it appear that we have a complete disregard for evidence to support our work. He then uses further underhand tactics to link us to ‘one of the most dangerous books of the twentieth century.’ Read the entire page in which the sentence properly sits, and the entire chapter titled ‘Lies, Myths and Stolen History’ and you will see that in lifting the sentence out of context, Troll Carragher is the real danger to truth. The chapter reveals how hundreds of thousand of documents in all countries across Europe which specifically related to the war’s true origins, were removed by an agent of the very men in London who were responsible for the war.

Throughout 1919, and at enormous cost, Herbert Hoover enlisted one thousand men (recently demobbed US officers, including 15 history professors) to scour Europe and remove the secret war documents of all belligerents. They included the complete minutes of the German Supreme War Council which would undoubtedly prove to the world that Germany was not responsible for the war. They were shipped to the west coast of America and hidden away under lock and key from prying eyes. It is explained away with the incredible assertion that Herbert Hoover simply wanted to preserve them for posterity. As the chapter explains, it was the grand theft of European history pertaining to the causes of the First World War, but we have yet to come across a mainstream British, French or American historian who refers to it. Carragher, of course, also totally blanks this astonishing fact in order to concentrate on his devious and despicable troll activities.

The chapter also explains how huge gaps exist in the official archives of the British Cabinet, Foreign Office, War Office and Committee of Imperial Defence for crucial weeks and months before and after the war began. This is no coincidence. The Guardian, considered Britain’s leading quality newspaper, recently reported that millions of these important documents are being kept locked away from historians in a large, high security establishment, Hanslope Park, north of London. One hundred years since the war began and the British Establishment still needs to keep the truth hidden.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/18/foreign-office-historic-files-secret-archive

Insofar as we are aware, never at any time over the past 100 years has any British historian mentioned, let alone questioned, what happened to the massive quantities of documents missing from the British archives. Documents which are undoubtedly crucial to a true understanding of the war’s origins. Carragher apparently knew nothing of this, so when Mr Hof revealed it to him (see above postings) what was his response? Shock? Indignation that the Brits could be so devious? Clamouring for immediate release of the documents in the name of honesty and truth? No! None of these. He swats the astonishing revelation aside with, ‘When the Hanslope Park archive is transferred to the PRO it will be examined by historians who will amend their understanding of the past in light of what they find…’

Astonishing, truly astonishing. Carragher is dismissive of the notion that the conspiracy to suppress the truth about the origins of the First World extends into academic circles in Britain, so who are we to argue? The response of an enlightened Irish academic, Anthony Coughlan, is more to the point:

‘So much for British historians doing due diligence on their sources. If one cannot spot the filching of 1.2 million documents, and draw attention to the implications of such a gap in the official record, British historians surely need to re-assess their methodology. In effect, most conventional British historians have lost their credibility regarding the origins of World War 1.’

This then is the context in which sat our little sentence to which Carragher has attributed such evil intent. The point he cannot accept, wants to hide, is that the truth cannot possibly be evidenced to the last letter because those responsible for the war removed so much of the evidence. While mainstream British academics have purposefully ignored the above astonishing facts, genuine independent historical investigators are now building a true picture of the war using circumstantial evidence. It is a fact that Carragher and his ilk had best get used to. Circumstantial evidence will doubtless be unacceptable to our troll, but for hundreds of years lawyers have successfully applied in the criminal courts and many murderers have faced capital punishment on the strength of it. Lawyers talk about a cable analogy in circumstantial evidence. A cable made up of many strands which individually are not particularly strong, but the more strands which are applied to the cabal the stronger it becomes.

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on Aug 21, 2014 9:15:29 AM PDT

Dr Mac says:—————————————-

(15) ‘Denis Winter’s creative use of footnotes in Haig’s Command helped expose that book as cheap character assassination and permanently discredited its author. Guess who cites it? Our intrepid duo.’

Guess who reviewed it? Our intrepid troll Carragher. He gave this ‘cheap character assassination’ book (he certainly knows a thing or two about character assassination) and ‘discredited author’ the top five stars on his review of the book on Amazon.

Carragher wrote:

‘A meticulously researched book … Winters backs his claim up with over twenty pages of end notes. Most disturbingly he was forced to do much of his research in the war records offices of Canberra and Ottawa because British archives, he claims, were “mysteriously” closed to him. Indeed, as part of his thesis he claims that the entire Official History was written to justify how the British High Command had conducted the war, and that an historian who was to have written an accompanying “popular history” was undermined and sacked when his version proved politically unacceptable. …a sombre and disturbing book that cannot be cast aside in the name of patriotism, loyalty or anything else.’

Denis Winter is far from being the first to find British archives closed to him, and will not be the last. The historian D’Ombrain noted that records were removed from the files by unknown persons as he was actually carrying out his research. Thanks to the Guardian article we now know that 100 years after the event, the British Government is still hiding such documents away under high security. If the Carragher thesis that Britain was a sweet, innocent country that went to war simply to support poor little Belgium is correct, why the need to conceal anything? Winter’s assertion that “the entire Official History was written to justify how the British High Command had conducted the war” was on the button and the very reason his superb book has been vigorously attacked by British Establishment trolls. What does Carragher’s astonishing 180 degree turn in his opinion of the book tell us? Purchase it and decide for yourself. Haig’s Command is yet another essential read.

(16) ‘…a little guilt-by-association can do Docherty & Macgregor’s thesis no harm.’

Well he certainly knows a thing or two about that bearded trick, since apportioning ‘guilt by association’ is clearly a Carragher forte. Witness how he subtly drops Mein Kamf and David Irving into his odious review of our book. Docherty and Macgregor, you see, are indeed nasty fascist conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers to boot. Do not listen to a word they say. Carragher would not dare express this outright because he knows we would kick his ass straight into the civil courts. Like all trolls he is a coward. He resorts to cheap innuendo and implies guilt by association to fascism, while hiding behind the anonymity of the Amazon pages.

(17) ‘Given that it more than anything else contradicts their own hypothesis, Docherty & Macgregor pass over the Fischer Hypothesis with suspicious haste, in a bare half page. It was, we are assured, “demolished” by Professor Marc Tractenberg (D&M, p 355).The Fischer Hypothesis isn’t even dented by this pedantic nit-picking, far less “demolished”.’

What a surprise. Carragher is a Fischer fan and accepts his now now mangled thesis of German war guilt. Fischer was German historian who claimed that in early July 1914 the Germans had decided to start a continental war. British war guilt deniers were ecstatic when the book was published in 1961. If the Fischer thesis ‘more than anything else’ is Carragher’s ace card to trump our hypothesis then he truly is floundering. And, if Trachtenberg was merely pedantically ‘nit-picking in his dismissal of Fischer, he must surely be an awesome sight in full frontal attack.

For a summary see: http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=303

If Carragher won’t accept Trachtenberg’s word, how about Gerhard Ritter or Egmont Zechlin or Hans Mommesen or Sir Herbert Butterfield or Niall Ferguson, to name but a few? They will, of course, all be ‘German stooges’.

Niall Ferguson writes: ‘According to Fritz Fischer and his pupils they (Germans) were every bit as radical as the British Germanophobes feared. The war was an attempt ” to realise Germany’s political ambitions, which may be summed up as German hegemony over Europe” through annexations of French, Belgian and possibly Russian territory. …Yet there is a fundamental flaw in Fischer’s reasoning which too many historians have let pass. It is the assumption that Germany’s aims as stated after the war had begun, were the same as German aims beforehand. …But the inescapable fact is that no evidence has ever been found by Fischer and his pupils that these objectives existed before (his italics) Britain’s entry into the war. … All that Fischer can produce are a few Pan-Germans and businessmen, none of which had any official status…’ [Niall Ferguson, The Pity of War, pp 169-70.]

Carragher quotes the Hobsbawm view that ‘The most usual ideological abuse of history is based on anachronism.’ Indeed, and that is exactly what Fischer based his abuse of history on. What Carragher and his ilk cannot stomach is the proof that Germany had no ‘war aims’ prior to August 1914 for the very straightforward reason that she had no interest in a war. After being forced into a defensive war by the Russian and French mobilisations, she quite naturally and properly developed war aims. All countries did. Fischer has lost all credibility apart from a few British historians and apologists like Carragher who grimly cling to one of the few remaining props that shore up the crumbling walls of their myth. Why did Fischer concoct such lies and damning indictment of his own country? Historian, Professor Hans Fenske relates in a personal communication that in 1933 Fischer joined the so-called Sturmabteilung, the armed branch of the NSDAP. This helped promote his career to extraordinary professor of history at the university of Hamburg in 1942. His ‘Griff nach der Weltmacht’ (Germany’s Aims in the First World War)was an effort to dissociate himself from his Nazi past.

So, fascists are after all making an appearance here, and guess who supports them?

(18) “The Secret Elite controlled the writing and teaching of history [notably through] Oxford University” (D&M, p 353); but Oxford no longer holds the sway that it did…’

Few if any historians in England to this day are brave enough to speak out against the English orthodoxy or the word of the ’eminent’ Oxford professors past or present – the court historians who fabricated the history of the war to suit the agenda of their paymasters. That fabricated history – that conspiracy theory – is still taught to this day in English universities and schools. Are their any English Fritz Fischer’s out there prepared to challenge the English orthodoxy? None!. As the historian Murray Rothbard succinctly put it, ‘historical revisionism was an antidote to the dominant influences exerted by corrupt ‘court intellectuals’ over mainstream historical narrative. Mainstream historians distorted the historical record in exchange for power, prestige and loot. The task of revisionists is to penetrate the fog of lies and deception of these court historians and to present true history to the people.’

It comes as no surprise that Carragher fails to mention that the outrageous abuse of the historical record took place not in Germany, but in Britain. Professor Carroll Quigley devotes an entire chapter to the Secret Elite’s control of Oxford University, All Souls College in particular, and through that their control over the writing and teaching of history. He wrote: ‘No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner group accomplished – that is, that a small number of men…should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period.’ [A-AE, p 197]

In our blog during the month of August we roll out Quigley’s research on Secret Elite control of Oxford, and name the court historians who falsified history in order to exonerate Britain. The Elites funded the professorships, appointed the professors, and ensured that what came out of Oxford followed their narrative. [firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com ]

(19) ‘…why don’t either or both of these gentlemen enrol [at university] and get academic imprimatur on their work?

No thank you. We already have university degrees, and it has become very evident to us that a degree in history from an English university does not necessarily make for an honest or open historian.

And finally,

(20) Just down the road from them is the University of Dundee, where they will find Dr John Regan, not renowned for his Anglophilia, and he will be happy, I’m rather sure, to get any genuine dirt on Henry Wilson and Perfidious Albion. “History”, he says, “is about challenging the past and historians”, and Docherty and Macgregor certainly do that.’

Academic historians in Britain happily talk the talk, but seldom walk the walk. Carragher seems to know rather a lot about Dr Regan so let him arrange a meeting and we will be more than happy and willing to debate our work with him – or indeed with any other historian on any other platform. If Carragher has any confidence in his own knowledge base, he should forward his email address and stop hiding behind the curtain of anonymity at Amazon. We won’t hold our breath.

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

Wow! Dr. Mac takes Michael Carragher to the woodshed. The literary spanking administered by Dr. Mac to Mr. Carragher is unsurpassed and never more deserved. The best option for Mr. Carragher at this point is a tactical retreat to contemplate his increasingly uncertain future as a reviewer of books.

In reply to an earlier poston 19 Aug 2014 11:15:39 BDT

Michael A Carragher says:—————————————-

Any issue I take as a reviewer is with a book, not its author or authors, and any book that purports to support its case by drawing on long-discredited sources like Harry Elmer Barnes is immediately suspect. If the same book misrepresents the views of a more creditable author like Carroll Quigley it becomes gravely more suspect. If it fails to place its thesis in the context of current scholarship (addressing some of the salient books, journal articles and doctrinal theses of say the last decade), it forfeits any putative claim to be taken as history. If it tries to dismiss the main impediment to its thesis (the Fischer Hypothesis, in this case) in a half page and a short, grossly overstated single reference, it becomes safe to dismiss it as pretentious at best, and likely much worse.

I make no judgement on its authors; merely on their book. What I read I call for what it is, and what I read is what the authors wrote. There’s a difference between not pulling your punches and “intentionally insulting”.

I don’t propose to reprise my review; sufficient to reiterate that Hidden History is a bad book. It puts forward an account of the past at odds with that which is currently understood, and it “defends” this alternative, not as historians do, with evidence that can be sourced (and whose sources, when checked, back up the claims), but with flagrant misrepresentation, sophistry and bluff.

All these ploys make Hidden History a bad book indeed, and I have a right as a reviewer, if not a responsibility as an historian, to make this robustly and unambiguously clear in order to dissuade potential readers, who may be beguiled by its misuse of sources, and other flimflam, from swallowing its nonsense. If telling the truth makes me a troll, I thank Dr Mac for his compliment.

Dr Mac’s use of words like “calumny” and terms like “cognitive dissonance” makes one suspect that his PhD was not in English Literature or the language in which this is written, any more than it was in history, so maybe he misunderstands “troll”. (Or maybe he imagines that I can be intimidated by anyone who throws cheap buzz-words from behind a user-name.)

His powers of comprehension, if not his very reading skills, are far below what one would seem entitled to expect of any post-graduate, even in these days of grade-inflation: “Carragher knows for sure that Germany was responsible for the war” is abjectly at odds with what I wrote: “While no historian would claim that Germany was solely responsible…” Nor did I ever call anyone either fascist or communist.

But why let facts get in the way of a good ad hominem attack, any more than in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

The idea that Chris Clark is an “English court historian” shows the binary thinking of the conspiracy theorist. Professor Clark is Australian and ever since Charles Bean Australian historians tend to have been critical of, if not hostile toward, Britain’s management of the Great War. Furthermore, Clark is known as something of a Germanophile. Presumably any historian who doesn’t support the beliefs of Dr Mac is an “English court historian”, Germanophiles and even Germans (like Fritz Fischer) included.

As for “prevent[ing] legitimate questions being asked about dubious official narratives”: I have already made clear that like any historian I look forward to the opening of the Hanslope Park Archive and exploration of what it may contain in order to improve our understanding of the past; “questioning … political masters and academics” is a very good thing indeed, and swallowing unsubstantiated nonsense is always bad, as we saw in Germany between the wars and as we see in conspiracy theorists today. Questioning is what historians do; it’s said that if you aren’t occasionally surprised by what your research reveals, you aren’t doing your job. Mining the records for what supports your prejudice, and selectively quoting from what you find, is what conspiracy theorists do.

Should the good doctor wish to address any of the actual points made in my review, rather than distorting and misrepresenting them, I will be happy to engage with him. But I have far better things to do than give oxygen to conspiracy theorists so will ignore any further ad hominem attacks, non sequiturs and other fallacies, rhetorical evasions, misrepresentation and cant.

0 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 21 Aug 2014 09:23:27 BDT

Last edited by the author on 21 Aug 2014 09:29:58 BDT

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

From his disparaging and derogatory “review” of my own book, Our Century, I have learned that in responding to Mr. Carragher, it is always necessary to begin with a correction of his numerous errors of fact. Mr. Carragher writes:

“The idea that Chris Clark is an `English court historian’ shows the binary thinking of the conspiracy theorist.”

No one has charged Christopher Clark with being an “English court historian.” In fact, I gave Mr. Clark a five-star review and called his book (The Sleepwalkers) the best book on WW1 I have thus far read.

Then Mr. Carragher writes:

“I make no judgement on its authors; merely on their book. What I read I call for what it is, and what I read is what the authors wrote. There’s a difference between not pulling your punches and `intentionally insulting'”.

Perhaps Mr. Carrager would like to explain his description of Hidden History as:

“. . . merely more plausible than the paranoid postings of twitching lunatics holed up in cabins and caves, with enough assault-rifles to defend a small republic and more bullets and beans than brains.”

Or consider his insulting and derogatory judgment of Professor Harry Elmer Barnes who has the singular distinction of having authored a trail-blazing book which radically and permanently altered the historical consensus on the cause of World War 1.

In case you’re wondering, here is the theory on WW1, carefully cleansed and shorn of all smelly, underhanded conspiracy as Mr. Carragher would presumably have it:

Having cobbled together the largest Empire in the history of the world with bullets, boots, and battleships, British fortunes sank to a low ebb after the successful gold and diamond heist against the Boer Republics. It was decided that “splendid isolation” was no longer splendid and Great Britain resolved to live at peace with her neighbors. With this in mind, King Edward VII and Foreign Secretary Edward Grey concluded Ententes with both members of the explicitly anti-German Franco-Russian Alliance. With Edward VII clearing the diplomatic ground with his royal gravitas and Sir Edward following behind to cross the t’s and dot the I’s, massive concessions with regard to Morocco, Siam, and Persia (for which Britain would earlier have gone to war), re-aligned the British ship of state with Paris and St. Petersburg. German worries about encirclement were airily dismissed while Grey actively opposed any rapprochement with Germany and conducted intensive and detailed military “conversations” with France and Belgium – all kept meticulously secret from the Cabinet and Parliament and, of course, the people. Thus did the two Edwards – King and Lord – transform the moribund Franco-Russian Alliance into the very potent Triple Entente.

Of course, when the Austrian Archduke and his wife were murdered in Sarajevo, British leaders recognized that while this was serious, they had faith in the strenuous efforts of the indefatigable Sir Edward to preserve the peace.

But wait a minute! In early August there were reports that German troops had crossed the Belgian frontier. OMIGOSH! What was poor England to do? After all, the treaty of 1839 obliged the signatories to observe Belgian neutrality. True, the treaty did not require military intervention, and true, Belgium had merely requested diplomatic intervention. And true, British observance of past treaties had not exactly been sterling – the Act of Algeciras being the most recent example.

But British leaders were determined to do the right thing this time. Yessir! They would consider the treaty in its most extreme interpretation of “armed” intervention. Thus overcome with feelings of nobility and gallantry with not a wicked thought in their hearts, they sent Tommy Atkins cross-Channel to uphold the honor of Belgium even if – HORRORS! – this entailed a war with Germany.

It is astonishing but true that many if not most Britons (and at least one Irishman) cling to this ridiculous view a hundred years later and reject any other as a “conspiracy theory” even while accepting provably false theories like the Fischer thesis. If nothing else, this is eloquent testimony to the towering success of the Secret Elite. I cannot do better than the description of Michael Carragher as offered by Dr. Mac (above). It is eloquent in its brevity and accuracy. To wit:

“The educated, eloquent troll such as Carragher has a penchant for veiled calumny, insulting innuendo and mocking comment. They invariably apply the label “conspiracy theory” in order to denigrate a book and put readers off. Carragher manages to squeeze that tired pejorative into his review six or seven times. Can that be a troll record on Amazon? He clearly has a broad knowledge of war history, but unfortunately it has been garnered from books that simply churn out the falsehoods created by English court historians. Having read all of those books Carragher knows for sure that Germany was responsible for the war, knows for sure that Britain could not possibly be responsible. Everything he has read tells him we are mistaken. Cognitive dissonance prevents him from opening his mind to any other possibility. How dare we write something that challenges his knowledge and everything he assumes to be true. Is it self-righteous indignation against those who challenge his assumptions that causes him to devote time to writing troll attacks on Amazon, or is there another reason behind it?”

Indeed. But Mr. Carragher is not deterred. He writes that “I don’t propose to reprise my review” and “I have a right as a reviewer, if not a responsibility as an historian, to make this robustly and unambiguously clear in order to dissuade potential readers, who may be beguiled by its misuse of sources, and other flimflam, from swallowing its nonsense.”

Mr. Carragher should know that my “right” and “responsibility” are the same as his and I will return the favor in full measure and then some. Even at this late date, Mr. Carragher has yet to state a single reasoned critique. Cogent argument will be replied to in kind, but if he continues in this trollish vein, his bad reviews will inevitably be seen as recommendations, whilst his good reviews will cause the book to be ignored. Call it poetic justice.

Meanwhile, to those who still consider Germany wholly or mostly responsible, “Hidden History” will come like the monsoon rains to a parched desert. They should not allow themselves to be dissuaded by the likes of Michael Carragher.

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 25 Aug 2014 15:46:05 BDT

Dr Mac says:—————————————-

[READER NOTE: Dr Mac’s comments at Amazon.com are included here.]

Please see Amazon.com where I did indeed address every point Carragher made in his review. Apart from one, however, he failed to engage with some twenty points I raised, for the simple reason that he was completely wrong on all counts and could not answer them. Yet again, despite pleading that he does not throw persoanl insults, we have further obnoxious personal comments about my lack of reading skills and having sub-standard qualifications etc. Like his piece above, he spouted so much obnoxious personal bile on his Amazon.com post about me being ‘stupid’ etc. that they removed his post and warned him off. So much for responsibility and professionalism as an English historian. If he is indeed a historian who is confident in his own powers of comprehension, I challenge him yet again to advise us of his real name and his place of work. I will happily debate our thesis in any place at any time with him and his ilk. I might even throw in a tutorial for him in good manners.

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 25 Aug 2014 16:43:59 BDT

[Deleted by Amazon on 26 Aug 2014 05:55:11 BDT]

In reply to an earlier poston 26 Aug 2014 02:21:46 BDT

Last edited by the author on 26 Aug 2014 07:18:24 BDT

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

He’s baaack! Hardly able to sit on his posterior which is still red and stinging from the recent paddling administered by Dr. Mac, Mr. Carragher is back for more. He begins in typical fashion:

“He [Dr. Mac] dismisses as `guff’ the widespread belief that `Historians see the change [in the European balance of power after 1891] rather in terms of the Reinsurance Treaty being allowed to lapse, and the displacement of Bismarck’s kleindeutschland policy by the Kaiser’s weltpolitik’, giving gracious credit to Mr Hof for having `comprehensively dealt with’ my claim that no Secret Elite was involved.”

As I have pointed out to Mr. Carragher on at least two prior occasions, the problem was French hostility and her unremitting lust for “revanche.” Carragher seems to imagine that if only the re-insurance treaty had not lapsed, France would never have found an outlet for her relentless scheming and the world would have lived in peace. Mr Carragher does not know or does not wish to know that treaties are good only as long as the signatories agree to observe them. The Act of Algeciras, violated by France and Great Britain, is a good example.

After this “analysis,” Carragher continues in his inimitable style:

“Mr Hof is the man who single-handedly discovered that Prussia became a Great Power a quarter of a century after guaranteeing Belgian independence, so he’s a formidable antagonist. “

This what I actually wrote in “Our Century”:

“In Germany meanwhile, Otto von Bismarck was making steady and sometimes brutal progress in the unification of a bewildering patchwork of petty kingdoms, fiefdoms, and principalities. Having never before played a dominant role in European politics, Prussia suddenly startled the world with two brilliant military victories; first in 1864 against Denmark, and again in 1866 against Austria. The latter victory gave Bismarck control over the states north of the Main river, and he now formed the North German Federation. It was a long step towards unification and France was beginning to look askance at the growing power of her neighbor to the east.”

There is no mention of “Great Power” as Carragher, someone who abhors those who would “misinterpret” his words, should know. If Mr. Carragher thinks that Prussia played a dominant role in European politics before 1864, I won’t hold it against him.

The tireless Mr. Carragher soldiers on:

“He [Peter Hof] says, `Bismarck constructed his alliance system with the sole object of denying the Powers of Europe as potential alliance partners to an implacably hostile France’; this is certainly true. Also, `the Franco-Russian Alliance was not an alliance at all, but an agreement between France and Russia to attack the Central Powers at the first opportune moment for the purpose of conquering Alsass-Lothringen for France, and satisfying the historic Russian drang nach Constantinople’. How such an `agreement’ would fail to constitute an alliance is puzzling, but the substance of the statement is certainly credible.”

But Carragher says that “this is certainly true” and “the substance of the statement is certainly credible” so why does he raise the issue at all? Is it that huge difference between “agreement” and “alliance?”

But at least Mr Carragher does provide some comic relief:

“We now realise that it was the Kaiser who was the master statesman. We who had imagined Wilhelm to be foolish, erratic, impulsive, bombastic, tactless, timid and possibly brain-damaged at birth must hang our heads before the judgement of Peter Hof. How foolish John Charmley must feel! How bitterly he must regret his “clever” remark that where Bismarck played chess, the Kaiser played bad poker, and gambled away the empire that Bismarck had painstakingly assembled.

The man who gave the world his discovery that the Second Balkan War was actually the Third Balkan War has done it again. As Alan Sokal exposed the pretentiousness of postmodernists, Peter Hof exposes those ridiculous historians who would pretend that the Iron Chancellor was anything but a second-rate statesman, far overshadowed by the august and wise Wilhelm II. Take another bow, Mr Hof.”

First, no one has disputed the fact that Otto von Bismarck was Germany’s greatest statesman, including Kaiser Wilhelm. It should further be noted that the Kaiser – unlike Bismarck – presided over an Empire that was increasingly threatened by the Triple Entente.

Second, Willy and Nikky concluded the Treaty of Bjorko – an improved version of the re-insurance treaty – after which the Kaiser enthused that he had thereby rescued Germany from “the horns of the Franco-Russian dilemma.” But other leaders elsewhere had other ideas and the Treaty of Bjorko became a dead letter – almost certainly the fate of the original re-insurance treaty even without Wilhelm’s help.

Third, Carragher raises yet again the canard about my referencing three – not two – Balkan Wars. This is what I actually wrote:

“Turkey sued for peace and on December 10, 1912, at the behest of Sir Edward Grey, the Powers convened in London. When Turkey and Bulgaria could not come to an agreement on the issue of Adrianople, the armistice collapsed and the second Balkan War began on February 3, 1913. Again the Turks were defeated and again Turkey sued for peace. Having recovered from her initial surprise, Austria demanded that, at a minimum, Serbia must evacuate Durazzo and a new state-Albania-must be created on a vaguely defined strip of territory along the Adriatic coast. Russian pressure forced Serbia to agree and the Treaty of London was signed on May 30, 1913.

Barely a month later, in a disagreement over the spoils of war, Bulgaria attacked her erstwhile allies on June 29. Initially successful against Serbia, Bulgaria was defeated when Rumania joined the war against her and the third and final Balkan War ended on August 6 with the signing of the Treaty of Bucharest.”

If Mr. Carragher can find any fault with this analysis, he should cite it or forever hold his peace. He again libels Professor Barnes shamelessly with the tawdry, utterly false accusation that he tailored his writing for money.

Finally, he regurgitates his earlier notions about Winter and Hussey which have already been dealt with by Dr. Mac.

Carragher’s is an empty sound and fury with an occasional thundering pinprick here and there. But life does have its little annoyances and we learn to put up with them. Our neighbor’s tiny Schnauzer refuses to stop its infernal yapping, but we love him anyway. Only the first part of that applies to the indefatigable Mr. Carragher.

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 26 Aug 2014 07:00:30 BDT

Michael A Carragher says:—————————————-

“Willy and Nikky concluded the Treaty of Bjorko after which the Kaiser enthused that he had thereby rescued Germany from `the horns of the Franco-Russian dilemma’.”

But … but … if the Reinsurance Treaty had been “in conflict with the provisions of the Dual Alliance”, surely Bjorko would have been too?

What’s it to be? More special pleading?

In reply to an earlier poston 26 Aug 2014 07:27:29 BDT

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

Another thunderous pinprick by Mr. Carragher and time for another history lesson. So sharpen your pencils, Mr. Carragher, sit up straight and pay attention: class is again in session. Your homework assignment is to study the Dual Alliance and write an essay on why it was incompatible with the re-insurance treaty, but not with the Treaty of Bjorko. Class dismissed.

Michael A Carragher says:—————————————-

The Dual Alliance and the Reinsurance Treaty were not at all incompatible. Though the former was an Austro-German defensive pact against Russian aggression, the latter was based on neutrality, and the two together gave Germany influence over potential Austro-Russian conflict in the Balkans. To manage both, however, called for more statecraft than was available after Wilhelm sacked Bismarck and decided that he was “the sole master of German policy”, adding, with an exaggerated sense of autocracy and misplaced confidence, “my country must follow me wherever I go”.

Ironically, and in ominous portent, Wilhelm only seems to have been advised by Chancellor Caprivi after the Treaty had been abandoned; he had, in fact, assured Russia that it would be renewed. Abandonment, and the antecedent decision to align more closely with Austria, had been determined by Baron Holstein, the “monster of the labyrinth”, rather than by the “master of German policy”. Already loss of Bismarck’s iron grasp was being felt and Germany entered a period of unstable, uncoordinated, inconsistent, occasionally comical but ultimately fatal mismanagement of foreign affairs.

No matter about that treaty, though! As the “master of German policy”, and a master statesman besides, the All Highest could manage Russia by himself. The fact that the Czar despised him and treated him with ostentatious contempt didn’t deter a man who, with no musical training or significant artistic talent, could tell composers how to arrange their symphonies.

It didn’t take long to realise that Bismarck’s policy of “a good treaty with Russia” had been the right one and that such a treaty was not after all incompatible with the Dual Alliance. The Germans set out to recover the prize they’d let slip.

By now, however, it was clear that a large cannon had come loose in Berlin and the Russians were wary, especially after the rebuffs they’d received to their entreaties for renewal of the Reinsurance Treaty. They had what they wanted now, an ally, and didn’t need Germany as they had before. Besides, Wilhelm had broken his royal word that the Treaty would be renewed; he had revealed himself to be not just unreliable but dishonest.

The Germans persisted in trying to recover what they’d lost, sweating harder as the years went by. “There is hardly a time between 1890 and 1912 when German diplomacy did not keep well in mind the possibility of detaching Russia from France and reviving a Three Emperors’ League” (LCB Seaman, From Vienna to Versailles, p 133).

At about the time of the Jameson Raid Wilhelm proposed a Franco-Russian-German alliance against Britain. The Russians passed. Possibly they were already looking to mend fences with Britain and saw no advantage in antagonising their rival in the Great Game in order to suit a capricious and impulsive treaty partner, and expose themselves to liability that the Kaiser could all-too-easily incur: he had already proposed a Franco-Russian-German-British alliance against the USA, and others against China and Japan.

His bewildering array of alliance proposals illustrates the Kaiser’s inconsistency and silliness. The Björkö “treaty” was too much too late. It played out a little like an episode of Fawlty Towers, or a circus-act with a clown on a tightrope over a shark-pool. Back in Berlin the chancellor collapsed when he saw the amendment that the “master of German policy” had unilaterally added to his, Bülow’s, terms. After he came to he threatened to resign. The Kaiser countered by threatening suicide. Whether he lived or died didn’t matter in St Petersburg where the Russians, aghast at what their ally would be certain to reject, flushed Björkö back into the Baltic.

In its ineptitude, confusion, futility and farce the Björkö episode serves as a cipher for Wilhelmine policy. It revealed German desperation as well as incompetence, reinforced the Franco-Russian Alliance and encouraged Anglo-Russian conciliation, while its failure humiliated Germany and undermined her position at Algeciras (where she was further humiliated by her insistence on an international conference rather than the bilateral negotiations that had been offered).

The Russians saw no incompatibility in their rivalry with Britain and Britain’s Entente with their ally. Rather, in addition to its attempt to break their treaty with France they saw in Björkö a threat to spike their plans for rapprochement with Britain, something that promised a better future in making them one à trois among the Great Powers, as Germany had been under Bismarck, a prize of enormous advantage that the Kaiser had let off the hook.

The prize was swimming in foreign waters now.

The idea that “the Dual Alliance … was incompatible with the re-insurance treaty, but not with the Treaty of Bjorko” is puzzling, given that the former merely committed its parties to benevolent neutrality in the event of war with a third, reducing the danger of Continental conflict, while Björkö was more aggressive in its terms, to the point of committing its members not to make separate peace in the event of war. The idea would seem to be rooted in a peculiar understanding of history so whether the “Treaty” of Björkö means the original proposals or incorporates the Kaiser’s personal amendment is irrelevant.

The Russians’ pragmatism and flexibility in their relations with their ally, France, and their opponent, Britain, stands in contrast to the policy-makers of Berlin, who incorrectly perceived incompatibility between the Reinsurance Treaty and the Dual Alliance. Any incompatibility could be negotiated, and the Russians and the British soon negotiated the Convention of 1907. Germany was “encircled”.

Allowing the Reinsurance Treaty to lapse provided France with an ally and exposed Germany to a war on two fronts, the avoidance of which had been the central plank of Bismarck’s foreign policy. The Germans’ persistence in trying to redeem their disastrous error and restore relations with Russia proves that alliance with both Russia and Austria was as compatible in the Kaiser’s time as it had been in Bismarck’s.

Squandering her relationship with Russia not only left Germany as one merely à deux among the Great Powers, but it thereby entangled her in the Balkans, which Bismarck had claimed was “not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier” but out of which he had predicted some “fool thing” would start the next European war. After allowing the Reinsurance Treaty to lapse Germany lost the power to broker between Balkan rivals Russia and Austria, and found herself increasingly “shackled to a corpse”, and dragged into her only ally’s quarrels.

Abandonment of the Reinsurance Treaty has been described as “the most important foreign policy decision of Wilhelm’s reign” (Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers, p 181). Historians regard it as catastrophic for Germany, leading as it did to semi-isolation and eventually war, which saw his country follow Wilhelm into ruin. Some laymen attribute this isolation and war to conspiracy rather than incompetence, and call on the Kaiser to support their claim. Others blame bad fairies.

(Well, Professor Hof? A or A+?)

In reply to an earlier poston 27 Aug 2014 21:12:32 BDT

Last edited by the author on 27 Aug 2014 21:16:47 BDT

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

Let’s see what the man who allowed it [the reinsurance treaty] to lapse had to say about it:

“During the last period of his tenure of office as Chancellor, Bismarck declared that the maintenance of friendly relations with Russia, whose Tsar reposed special trust in him, was the most important reason for his remaining at his post. In this connection it was that he gave me the first hints concerning the secret reinsurance treaty with Russia. Up to then I had heard nothing about it, either from the Prince or the Foreign Office, although it happened that I had concerned myself especially with Russian matters.

Very soon the question arose of the extension of the reinsurance treaty with Russia. Caprivi declared that, out of consideration for Austria , he was unable to renew it, since the threat against Austria contained therein, when it became known in Vienna- as it almost unavoidably would- was such as to lead to very disagreeable consequences. For this reason the treaty lapsed. To my way of thinking, it had already lost its main value from the fact that the Russians no longer stood whole-heartedly behind it. I was confirmed in this view by a memorial written by Count Berchem, Under Secretary of State, who had worked with Prince Bismarck.

The much-discussed non-renewal of the reinsurance treaty with Russia, already touched upon by me, is not to be considered so decisive as to have influenced the question of whether there was to be war or peace. The reinsurance treaty, in my opinion, would not have prevented the Russia of Nicholas II from taking the road to the Entente; under Alexander III it would have been superfluous. Prince Bismarck’s view that the Russian ambassador, Prince Shuvaloff, would have renewed the reinsurance treaty with him but not with his successor, is naturally the honest, subjective way of looking at the matter-judged in the light of fact, however, it does not hold water, in view of what the two parties concerned had to consider at that time. For instance, the Under Secretary of State of the Prince, Count Berchem, stated officially in a report to the Prince that the treaty could not be renewed, which meant that it could not be renewed through Shuvaloff either. I thought that not the old treaty, but only a new and different kind of treaty, was possible, in the drawing up of which Austria must participate, as in the old Three-Emperor-Relationship. But, as I said, treaties with Nicholas II would not have seemed absolutely durable to me, particularly after the sentiment of the very influential Russian general public had also turned against Germany.”

William II (2013-08-21). The Kaiser’s Memoirs (Kindle Locations 3504-3514). . Kindle Edition.

Now let’s take a look at two other citations:

“Throughout these years (1871-1914) the revision of the humiliating Treaty of Frankfurt, by which Germany had sealed her victory over France in 1871, remained at all times the supreme and undeviating objective of French statesmanship.”

Kennan, “The Fateful Alliance”

Professor Kennan elaborates:

“The sense of humiliation and resentment flowing from the defeat of 1870 was profound and enduring. France was not accustomed to the experience of total defeat, in the modern manner. The desire for revenge permeated, in one way or another, almost the whole of French society. It would, as Bismarck believed, probably have existed, and this in scarcely smaller degree, even had the Germans not insisted on taking Alsace and Lorraine; but this loss of territory served as a convenient symbol and rallying-point for it.

Equally profound was the belief that France would never be able to achieve this revenge by her own efforts alone: that to make this possible she would have to have an ally. For these reasons, the thought of an alliance with Russia was never, through the entire period from 1871 to 1894, wholly absent from the minds of French political and military leaders. There never was a time when this possibility did not appear as the greatest hope, the highest ultimate objective, of French policy.”

Then there is this:

“Many years before Kennan, Karl Marx observed with uncanny accuracy that ‘If Alsace and Lorraine are taken, then France will later make war on Germany in conjunction with Russia.’

Bismarck had opposed the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine predicting that it would be the Achilles heel of the new German Empire, but he bowed to von Moltke and the General Staff which insisted that Germany needed a geographical barrier against any further aggression. King Wilhelm agreed. He stated that Germany was demanding Alsace-Lorraine not for territorial aggrandizement, but for its security; “to push back the point of departure of the French armies which, in the future, will come to attack us.” In view of the fact that France had declared war on German entities no less than thirty times in the last two centuries, the demand does not seem unreasonable.

France could neither forgive nor forget. Never mind that she herself had initiated-even insisted upon-war despite outraged European opinion. It seemed not to matter that the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine had been forcibly annexed by France two centuries earlier-Louis XIV acquired the provinces by the Treaty of Nijmegen in 1678-and that the German claim to these was at least as legitimate as that of France; or that the terms of the Treaty of Frankfurt which ended the war were far less harsh then those imposed by Napoleon upon Prussia in 1807. And never mind either that Imperial France, after many costly failures, had at long last been set firmly on the road to parliamentary democracy.

To the French, what mattered was that French pride had been grievously injured. After centuries of hegemony in Europe, Paris would no longer be Europe’s capital. In the European symphony, France would henceforth play second fiddle to an upstart Germany and this was all too much for French pride to accept. The French are nothing if not proud. The eclipse of Imperial France by the birth of the German nation rankled, and its effects lingered over the political landscape like a chill and foreboding fog.

Victor Hugo wrote: ‘France will have but one thought: to reconstitute her forces, gather her energy, nourish her sacred anger, raise her young generation to form an army of the whole people, to work without cease, to study the methods and skills of our enemies, to become again a great France, the France of 1792. The France of an idea with a sword. Then one day she will be irresistible. Then she will take back Alsace-Lorraine.’Such sentiments were symbolized and kept alive by Gambetta’s famous phrase: ‘Speak of it never; think of it always!’

While the French desire for ‘revanche’ would wax and wane through successive republican administrations, it would color and poison the political atmosphere in Europe. It would lead first to the Franco-Russian Alliance in 1894 and, finally, to the explosion of 1914 . . . “

Peter Hof, “Our Century” (P.3)

Carragher finally writes: “(Well, Professor Hof? A or A+?)”

Did you really imagine, Mr. Carragher, that this tidal wave of French resentment and “revanche” could have been held in check by the reinsurance treaty? Only Bjorko had a chance – however slight – of insulating the impressionable Nikky from French and (later) British scheming. Those who lambast the Kaiser always seem to omit the very pertinent fact that the lapse of the reinsurane treaty had its only effect from French warmongering.

As for your grade, I’ll be happy to give you an A on this latest posting on account of the absence of the nonsense and vitriol which characterized your initial post and earned you a well-deserved F – concerning which, all pencils have erasers. I suggest you do the right thing and utilize yours.

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 28 Aug 2014 07:56:36 BDT

Michael A Carragher says:—————————————-

Well thank you, Professor! There’s a virtual apple on your desk.

In reply to an earlier poston 28 Aug 2014 08:45:40 BDT

Last edited by the author on 28 Aug 2014 08:57:12 BDT

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

An apple? How nice! I would be happy to take a bite out of that apple, especially with a modest side-order of your virtual eraser to aid proper digestion.

In reply to an earlier poston 29 Aug 2014 15:47:37 BDT

Dr Mac says:—————————————-

And so Michael Carragher limps off with very few toes left. He claims to have responsibility as “an historian” to dissuade potential Amazon customers from purchasing the product, Hidden History. Since he has consistently personally abused and ridiculed the authors, I believe both we and Amazon have a right to know on what basis he claims to be an historian. He is an “historian” who has somehow or other managed to stay below the radar of my numerous academic friends and acquaintances in Dublin.

Over to you Mr Carragher.

In reply to an earlier poston 1 Sep 2014 08:25:03 BDT

Michael A Carragher says:—————————————-

Apologies, Dr Mac, for appearing to neglect you, but I’ve been rather busy, and entertaining Professor Hof besides.

Your invitation to public debate is declined. Dr James Randi cautions that such debate with conspiracy theorists is unwise, for many reasons. For a start it gives them the attention they crave and whether they win or lose their conspiracy gets publicity.

In addition, the conspiracy theorist has several subtle advantages over his historian/scientist opponent. For a start, his position can never be disproved and he can use this fact in subtle ways.

Debates traditionally have the Aristotelian components, ethos, logos and pathos, the first two designed, we could say, to convince the audience that the debater can be trusted and that he knows what he’s talking about–what we may call argument-to-convince; pathos makes appeal to the audience’s sympathy–what we may call argument-to-persuade; i.e. persuade the audience to vote, spread the word, etc.

Normally argument-to-convince takes up most of the debate, argument-to-persuade following on from this and often restricted to the “peroratio” or conclusion. But because the conspiracy theorist can never be proved wrong he can short-circuit the ethos and logos elements of debate, cutting quickly to argument-to-persuade. If he succeeds, he will almost certainly win the debate.

Because the conspiracy theorist cannot be proven wrong his opponent can be presented as being on shaky ground from the outset, his intelligence and/or motive subtly called into question so that he loses in the ethos stakes. This may be facilitated if the audience, as it usually is in such debates, contains a good number predisposed to believe the conspiracy. The conspiracy affects them as well as everyone else so the ethos of anyone who would deny it is called into further question: “whose side are you on?”

The problem for the historian/scientist is the relative strength of emotionality and rationality. In The Elephant and the Rider Jonathan Haidt likens emotionality to an elephant and rationality to its rider. Normally the rider is in control; but he is small and weak and can be overwhelmed by the elephant’s strength and size. The conspiracy theorist plays on this fact to bring the debate as quickly as possible to the argument-to-persuade stage and appeal to audience emotionality–i.e. fear of the conspiracy.

Of course logos most be deployed too. But here again the conspiracy theorist has the advantage that his conspiracy has so many facets it’s easy to slip from one to another if he gets hard-pressed.

Similarly he has advantages when it comes to supporting evidence: “If you think anyone who’d start a war deliberately would scruple to plant that evidence you surprise me.” Or: “Evidence? Oh there’s tons of evidence. Literally tons of it. Literally miles of shelves stuffed full of it. All safely hidden away by Herbert Hoover. Didn’t you read my book?”

Thus the issue becomes the evidence used to “prove” the conspiracy theorist’s case.

It’s tautology, of course, but it can be difficult to “turn the debate back”, as it can be presented, to the logos stage, where the historian/scientist is on much stronger ground. An audience that’s well on the road to being persuaded can be brought to perceive any attempt to “revert” to argument-to-convince as “scraping the barrel” or “clutching at straws”.

From memory, Dr Mac, you use that very expression twice in trying to refute my criticisms of your book. The problem is you use it on the wrong forum, so to speak.

Dr Randi points out that while public debate favours the conspiracy theorist, one that constrains rhetorical free range favours the historian/scientist. He points out that in the USA creationists often are able to use their rhetorical skills to persuade school boards, and even state legislatures, to incorporate Biblical creationism (nowadays disguised as “intelligent design”) in curricula. But when such measures are challenged in court they always fail, for the simple reason that their logical and evidentiary vacuity cannot be camouflaged under hard questioning.

So I prefer to keep our discussion to this forum, where we can focus on specifics, logic and evidence.

“Please see Amazon.com where I did indeed address every point Carragher made in his review. Apart from one, however, he failed to engage with some twenty points I raised…”

Professor Hof has given me an A for my essay-length treatment of that point in my review that you dismiss as “guff”; if you can direct me to where your posting has been relocated, or replace it on this thread, I will be happy to engage with the remaining points.

In reply to an earlier poston 1 Sep 2014 09:45:12 BDT

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

Carragher wrote:

“Professor Hof has given me an A for my essay-length treatment of that point in my review that you dismiss as “guff”; if you can direct me to where your posting has been relocated, or replace it on this thread, I will be happy to engage with the remaining points.”

But this is what I actually wrote about Carragher’s A grade:

“As for your grade, I’ll be happy to give you an A on this latest posting on account of the absence of the nonsense and vitriol which characterized your initial post and earned you a well-deserved F – concerning which, all pencils have erasers. I suggest you do the right thing and utilize yours.”

Let me make this so clear that even you can grasp it. Your “A” was on account of the absence of the usual nonsense and vitriol, period. On substance, you get an “F.” My point was that French hostility was the problem – NOT the lapse of the reinsurance treaty, which you failed to address, much less refute – hence your F. I didn’t mention your F in the forlorn but dashed hope of extracting some small measure of rational debate from you. But what did we get? We got “Dr. James Randi” and “Aristotelian components, ethos, logos and pathos” and “creationists” and “Normally argument-to-convince takes up most of the debate, argument-to-persuade following on from this and often restricted to the peroratio or conclusion” Yikes! What in heaven’s name does this unfathomable flapdoodle have to do with WW1? It’s enough to make one yearn for the relative calm of a yapping Schnauzer.

Let me assure you Mr. Carragher, that you are a long way from being “entertaining” and a longer way from rational debate if your latest posting is any indication. Your next assignment is to don the pointy dunce-cap and stand in the corner until you are prepared to address the issues without the pretentious pseudo-intellectual hieroglyphics.

In reply to an earlier poston 1 Sep 2014 10:56:33 BDT

Dr Mac says:—————————————-

It is nice to see Carragher drop his usual nasty invective, but very revealing that he continues to use the pejorative ‘conspiracy theory’ for anything that questions his assumptions, and as his refuge from public debate. On this occasion he manages to squeeze it in about half a dozen times. And this despite the fact that with ‘specifics, logic and evidence’ Mr Hoff has clearly demonstrated it to be Carragher’s beliefs which are conspiracy theory.

Before we proceed I have several questions: Is James Randi, on the strength of whose utterances Carragher declines to have a public debate, James Randi the parlour magician?

He quotes him as ‘Dr Randi.’ What are his academic qualifications?

Carragher alludes to himself as an academic historian. On what basis?

1 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 2 Sep 2014 05:01:20 BDT

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

Mr. Carragher is obsessed with the reinsurance treaty. He is quite certain that if only Wilhelm II had not allowed it to lapse, the angels would have prevailed over Satan and the Kaiser could never have hurled his black legions against the shining ramparts of heaven. The thought of innocent Irish youth being subjected to this sort of “history” is disquieting at best. Mr. Carragher is apparently unable to conceive of a “conspiracy theory” except in the pejorative context, but here are two suggestions:

1. Give us an example of a war devoid of conspiracies.

2. Give us your summary – as brief as possible – of the cause(s) of WW1.

Last edited by the author on Aug 22, 2014 3:05:52 PM PDT

Peter Hof says:—————————————-

Michael Garragher retreats – sort of. He admits that “Now everyone gets things wrong from time to time. I certainly got it wrong with my review of Winter and don’t try to conceal that. I have never tried to remove a single word of anything I placed online, as Dr Mac has discovered. Having to live with what you say and being reminded of your fallibility is no bad thing. Besides, trying to pretend that you never said what you once did seems like cowardice to me; certainly dishonesty.”

But then he reverts to his usual too-clever-by-half and overlengthy ja-de-ja-da. He writes:

“I don’t have Dr Mac’s time to go through all the objections he raises to my review, but to knock down one as an example:”

Carragher cannot admit to himself that he cannot “go through all the objections [Dr. Mac] raises to my review” not because he doesn’t have the time but because these are irrefutable. The one “example” he ventures is to quote Dr. Mac as follows:

“In stating that no historian would claim Germany responsible, [Carragher] truly displays his ignorance of the historiography”:

and gives his earth-shattering answer:

“this is almost embarrassing in the blatancy of its misrepresentation of what I wrote: ‘While no historian would claim that Germany was solely responsible….'”

Dr. Mac apparently omitted the word “solely.” But having grasped this straw, Mr. Carragher milks it to the last drop. He writes:

“Can’t Dr Mac read what he just quoted?

Is he too stupid to understand the meaning of a common adverb? [The astute Mr. Carragher is here referring to “solely.”]

Or is he just malicious in deliberately misrepresenting what I said (here and elsewhere in his diatribe)?”

Then (as Cyrano de Bergerac once put it) he barks:

“If he’s neither stupid nor illiterate nor malicious let him “kick [my] ass straight into the civil courts”, as he huffs and puffs and bluffs and blathers he will.”

Thus Mr. Carragher’s bombastic reposte hangs “solely” by a single word. Truly pathetic. But give him credit. He does retreat as his red stinging behind, so thoroughly paddled by Dr. Mac leaves him little choice. But along with the tragedy, there is hope. Carragher – temporarily unable to sit – writes:

“I cannot be certain that they’re [D&M] wrong, of course, and if evidence emerges to persuade me that they’re right I will acknowledge this as I acknowledge how wrong I got Winter back when I was younger and knew less than I do now.”

With this, Mr. Carragher has left the door ajar and the possibility that he will eventually open it wider and walk through into the sunshine. So there you have it. We might appropriately caption Mr. Carragher’s “review” with Quigley’s far more famous title: Tragedy and Hope.

2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

 

 

======================================

 

PDF of this post and the two other posts with Amazon Customer Reviews.
Click to view or download (1.0MB). >>Hidden History – Amazon Reviews- 1, 2 and 3

 

Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival


(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen

 

Version History

 

Version 1: Published Sep 3, 2014

Read Full Post »


HIDDEN HISTORY

 

The Secret Origins of the First World War

 

Amazon Customer Reviews – 1

Most Helpful First

Note: Comments on Amazon.uk and Amazon.com

as of Sep 2, 2014

Hidden History 000

 

Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor

 

EDINBURGH AND LONDON

 

Dedicated to the victims of an unspeakable evil.

 

————————————

 

38 of 45 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

A 1st-class myth buster, 5 Nov 2013

By – Anne

There is little doubt that this book will be seen as “revisionist” for some time to come and quite rightly so. Contrary to some people’s belief that history must be set in stone like the ten commandments, common sense demands that history be constantly revised to reflect fresh insights and new findings. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be history but dogma.

Hidden History takes up the findings of US historian Carroll Quigley about a secret society consisting of leading bankers, industrialists and politicians and looks into its connections to the First World War.

In fact, there was no secret about the existence of this group which was popularly known as “Round Table Group,” “Milner Group” or “Cliveden Set” on the British side and as “Eastern Establishment” on the US side, just as there was no secret about the immense influence and power it undemocratically exerted on government and on society at large. The only secrets so far have been the details of their machinations and their carefully disguised intentions.

On the whole, it is generally accepted by historians that the Anglo-American interests described in the book financed and profited from the war. What remains to be established is whether they also had a hand in instigating the war.

The authors provide a clear overview of the historical background to the war, filling in the details as they proceed with their well-researched investigation. They correctly draw attention to the existence of Anglo-American organisations like the Pilgrims Society whose purpose, ostensibly, was to promote “goodwill and friendship” between Britain and America, and their links to Anglo-American financial interests, such as Rothschild agents J P Morgan & Co. (who later acted as agents for the British government during the war).

It is clear from the founders of these organisations, from the make-up of their memberships, from the individuals attending their meetings as well as from their views on Anglo-American collaboration vis-à-vis Germany, what their true intentions were and this is corroborated by a growing body of evidence.

For example, as pointed out by Ioan Ratiu in The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy, the involvement of Lindsay Russell, a Morgan lawyer (whose firm Alexander & Colby acted as counsel for Morgan-controlled Southern Railway Co.) and later co-founder and chairman of the Morgan-dominated Council on Foreign Relations, in the formation of the Pilgrims Society and the fact that J P Morgan himself served as vice-president of the New York Pilgrims shows whose interests this organisation represented, while the involvement of Field Marshall Lord Roberts on the British side and his friend General Wheeler on the US side indicates that military co-operation between the two countries was high on the agenda.

Indeed, already in the early 1900s, key speakers at Pilgrims dinners attended by Milnerite luminaries like Lord Esher and their protégé Churchill, had pleaded for an expansion of the US Navy, for war on Germany “for supremacy in the Pacific,” etc. (Ratiu, pp. 255-6).

As is well known, Pilgrims president Lord Roberts was a leading figure in the campaign for military preparations against Germany (as well as a key advocate of conscription) as was his friend, press baron Lord Northcliffe (Alfred Harmsworth), while Lord James Bryce, Roberts’ successor as Pilgrims president, co-founder of the closely associated Anglo-American League and author of The American Commonwealth, produced the Bryce Report on alleged German atrocities in Belgium which was used to turn public opinion against Germany on both sides of the Atlantic.

The fact that those associated with the Pilgrims referred to it as an “informal Anglo-Saxon Parliament” indicates that its members and supporters saw themselves as a sort of Anglo-American government within government.

One observation I would make is that Churchill not only was by far the most eager for war and ordered naval mobilisation without Cabinet permission as the authors point out, but he also put pressure on the Cabinet to go to war by threatening them with a coalition government based on support for the war, as well as putting pressure on Liberal leader Lloyd George and being backed by Lord Robert Cecil, a leading member of the ruling elite (M. Gilbert, Churchill: A Life, pp. 269, 271, 273) who as shown by Quigley was also a member of the Milner Group (Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, p. 227).

In short, the above interests and their associates were demonstrably responsible for directing the propaganda campaign against Germany, for conducting the war preparations, for putting pressure on the political leadership to go to war, for financing the war and, significantly, for the creation of the British-dominated League of Nations which conveniently put German colonies under British control after the war.

For example, Lord Robert Cecil (a cousin of Lord Balfour, himself a Pilgrims and Anglo-American League member who was responsible for setting up the anti-German Committee of Imperial Defence) backed Churchill on his pro-war machinations, campaigned for a league of nations, became the chief government spokesman for a league, chaired the Supreme Economic Council of the Allied and Associated Powers during the 1919 Paris Conference that established the League, co-drafted the Covenant along with General Smuts and associates, remained involved in the League for many years and chaired the committee which organised the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA a.k.a. Chatham House) that has dominated the Foreign Office ever since.

The principal motivation behind all this was the reconstruction of the world in line with a new economic and financial world order serving the agenda of the interests involved.

In a speech to the Pilgrims Society in 1904, future US President Woodrow Wilson declared that “the Anglo-Saxon people have undertaken to reconstruct the world.” After the war, with Germany out of the way, the very same interests called for an international economic conference to reorganise the world’s financial and commercial structure (Ratiu, pp. 257, 259), etc., etc.

All the key points the authors are making are based on properly-referenced, reliable sources that are easy to verify.

In light of the overwhelming evidence only the naïve and the disingenuous can persist in their denial of the obvious.

————————- Comments (10)

Last edited by the author on 18 Nov 2013 17:59:13 GMT

Anne says:—————————————-

Key signatories of the memorandum calling for an international financial conference to re-organise the world’s financial and commercial structure included:

On the US side

J P Morgan

Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb, a Morgan ally

Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb

James A Stillman, president, Stillman-Rockefeller-controlled National City Bank of New York; Morgan ally

Frank A Vanderlip, ex-president, National City Bank; president, Japan Society (a Schiff-Belmont-Morgan operation)

Elihu Root, Morgan lawyer and front man; hon. chairman, Morgan-controlled Council on Foreign Relations

On the British side

Charles Grenfell, senior partner, Morgan, Grenfell & Co (J P Morgan’s London branch); director, Bank of England

Henry (later Lord) Brand, partner, Lazard Brothers; financial adviser to Lord Robert Cecil on the 1919 Supreme Economic Council

Robert Kindersley, partner, Lazard; director, Bank of England

Lord Robert Cecil, former chairman, Supreme Economic Council of the Allied and Associated Powers

Lord Bryce, ambassador to the US; co-founder, Anglo-American League; ex-president, Pilgrims Society H H Asquith, former Prime Minister whose government declared war on Germany

Morgan lawyer Lindsay Russell was the founder of the Pilgrims Society whose object was an alliance between Britain and America “through the ownership of the great industries of the world and through the sharing of their profits” and which was referred to as an “informal Anglo-Saxon Parliament.”

Anglo-American League co-founder Asquith was honorary president of the League of Nations Union, an umbrella organisation for the pro-league campaign.

Once created, the League of Nations was run by Pilgrims member Balfour as vice-president and his colleague and collaborator at the Foreign Office and former private secretary, Eric Drummond, as secretary-general.

The League’s financial conference, which took place on 15 November 1920 at Brussels, was convened by Henry Brand, Robert Cecil’s adviser and leading member of the Milner Group, etc.

It isn’t exactly rocket science to see that WW1 was part of these interests’ plan to re-organise the world for their own agendas.

5 of 9 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 7 Jan 2014 16:10:09 GMT

Last edited by the author on 20 Jan 2014 14:36:46 GMT

Anne says:—————————————-

Additional evidence supporting the authors’ conclusions is provided by data relating to Anglo-American mining interests in the Belgian Congo and their crucial involvement in the Allied war effort.

In December 1914, the Germans offered to withdraw from Belgium in exchange for the Belgian Congo.

See memorandum by British ambassador to Russia, Sir George Buchanan, 15 January 1915, cited in A J P Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848-1918, Oxford, 1954, p. 535 and note.

Also New York Times, 4 August 1915, “Von Jagow Planned Partition Of Congo”:

“Certain German publicists … [one of whom was a “well-known statesman”] … have been quoted as saying that Belgium might preserve her territorial entirety in Europe provided certain commercial concessions were made, together with the cession of the Belgian Congo” (“Von Jagow Planned Partition Of Congo,” New York Times, 4 August 1915).

And Hansard, vol. 90, c. 1241 – 20 Feb. 1917:

“… the Allies – if Germany were to buy the Belgian Congo – could get complete restoration, including Belgium, with Antwerp, and also Serbia …”.

This proposal was rejected, as was an earlier one (of 29 July 1914) to respect Belgian and French territorial integrity in exchange for British neutrality, which the British government chose to dismiss as “crude and almost childlike” (Hastings, Catastrophe, p. 77).

Similarly, in August 1914 the Belgian government requested the Spanish government to approach the Germans with a request for the neutralisation of the Congo basin during the war. The Spanish consulted the British ambassador who told them that the British government “could not entertain” such a proposal (Hansard, vol. 74, c. 1445 – 14 Oct. 1915).

The fact of the matter is that Britain’s imperialist clique aimed to control Africa “from Cape Town to Cairo.” Already in 1907, Churchill was busy building a gigantic railway system to “catch the whole Congo trade” (M Gilbert, Churchill: A Life, p. 190) and the Anglo-American Cape to Cairo Railway was planned to pass right through the Belgian Congo.

But it gets even better. The imperialists’ main concern was not trade but natural resources. Copper ore had been discovered in the area earlier and, in 1906, the British Tanganyika Concessions, which was run by Cecil Rhodes partner Sir Robert Williams, and the Rothschild-associated Société Générale de Belgique, Belgian’s dominant bank, set up the Union Minière du Haut-Katanga to mine copper in a 15,000 square kilometers area containing the world’s largest copper deposits. Large-scale production started in 1911.

In 1912 and 1913 diamond deposits and a gold field of “exceptional richness” were discovered in the Belgian Congo by Forestière Minière du Congo, a Belgian-American concern co-owned by King Leopold of the Belgians, the Société Générale and Guggenheim (the mining and smelting giant), Ryan (the banking and industrial magnates) and other New York interests (“Diamonds Found In Congo,” New York Times, 23 September 1912; “Gold In Belgian Congo. Field of Great Richness Discovered in Katanga Province,” New York Times, 5 August 1913).

All the key imperialists in the pro-war faction (Churchill, Lord Milner, Daily Mail owner Lord Northcliffe, etc.) had close links to Rothschild, J P Morgan, Guggenheim, Ryan and associated interests who in turn had close links to the Belgian Congo and other African colonies.

On the US side, Edward R Stettinius, partner of Rothschild agent J P Morgan, was put in charge of American war purchases for the Allies.

John D Ryan, president of Anaconda Copper, became Assistant Secretary of War and head of the copper-buying committee.

Paul D Cravath, Thomas F Ryan’s lawyer, was made legal adviser to the American War Mission to Europe.

Baruch, Churchill’s friend and partner of J P Morgan, T F Ryan and the Guggenheims in the Congo and the US, became chairman of the all-powerful War Industries Board.

J P Morgan & Co., who were business partners of the Belgian king, became official agents and financiers of Belgium, Britain and other Allies.

On the British side, Churchill was made Minister of Munitions, Lord Northcliffe was made head of the British War Purchasing Mission to the US (as well as of the Propaganda Ministry), Lord Milner was made War Secretary, etc., etc.

The fact is that while British politicians talked of going to war over “Belgian neutrality,” their financial and industrial backers (and likely instigators) were motivated by their mining and other interests in the Belgian Congo, German South-West Africa (where diamonds had been discovered in 1908), South Africa (where the Rothschilds and associates held extensive diamond and gold interests), etc.

The more we look at the evidence ignored by mainstream, establishment-backed historians the more difficult it becomes to believe that Britain went to war over “Belgian neutrality” and not over world supremacy (including Belgian colonial possessions controlled by the same tiny Anglo-American clique that supported, financed and supplied the war).

This makes it all the more imperative to look for alternative or “revisionist” interpretations of events like those found in Hidden History.

9 of 11 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 19 Jan 2014 01:49:54 GMT

Marcus Laver says:—————————————-

Fascinating! These bankers deserve to be burned alive for their crimes.

5 of 8 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 21 Jan 2014 20:26:43 GMT

Last edited by the author on 22 Jan 2014 20:24:18 GMT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

Very good review. Belgian archives that are systematically ignored and avoided by mainstream, establishment-approved historians show that Belgium’s diplomatic representatives were unanimous in their suspicion of British intentions:

For instance, in 1906 the Belgian minister at Paris, A. F. G. Leghait wrote of “England’s desire to envenom matters to such an extent that war should be rendered inevitable”; in the following year, the Belgian minister in London, Count Lalaing, wrote that “It is evident that official circles in England are pursuing in silence a hostile policy which aims at the isolation of Germany”; and, in 1909, the Belgian minister at Berlin, Baron Greindl, wrote: “Colonel Barnardiston [the British military attaché in Brussels] asked us, in substance, to associate ourselves with an English and French aggression against Germany.”

All this opens up a startlingly different vista to that painted by mainstream “historians.” The same archival evidence proves that by 1912 Belgium had caved in to British and French pressure and placed herself on the side of the Entente through secret conventions, thereby technically forfeiting her neutral status. What’s more, thanks in no small measure to King Leopold II – a business partner of international industrialists and financiers – she had become the fiefdom of foreign interests that dominated her economy, controlled her colonies and sponsored the war.

In his House of Commons speech of 3 August 1914, Foreign Secretary E. Grey failed to explain to parliament what the 1839 Treaty of London was all about. Instead, quoting former Prime Minister Gladstone, he said: “There is, I admit, the obligation of the Treaty. It is not necessary, nor would time permit me, to enter into the complicated question of the nature of the obligations of that treaty.”

If the “obligations” allegedly established under that treaty were so clear-cut as to warrant going to war, why was it so complicated to spell them out? Because they were more fictitious than factual, that’s why.

As late as June 1918, Lord Milner, Britain’s chief imperialist and principal director of strategy in Lloyd George’s war cabinet, said that the battle was “for Southern Asia and, above all, for Africa.” It wasn’t just by accident that Germany’s African colonies ended up divided among Britain, France and Belgium in the same piratical way the gold-rich Transvaal had been wrested from the Boers.

It’s time to tell the world that the war was not over “Belgian neutrality” but over Anglo-American interests in Africa and other parts of the world.

By the way, I don’t think there is any need to burn any bankers, it’s enough to introduce measures to prevent them from controlling the political system : )

6 of 8 people think this post adds to the discussion

Posted on 23 Jan 2014 04:13:19 GMT

raspotts says:—————————————-

This review has convinced me that this book is worth checking out through the library. I wish it was a bit clearer on what is actually in this book and what isn’t but the reviewer knows about from other sources. That’s part of the reason this review failed to persuade me to buy it. Another is that books of this type tend to claim that Britain, or in this case ‘Anglo-Saxons’ on both sides of the Atlantic, are the sole war-mongers. All the Great Powers of Europe, and for that matter the Japanese, were in this game of competing empires. Britain came out on top because it was best player, not because it was attacking political innocents.

I also have to say that the two one-star reviews attacking reviewers and by extension readers of this book using identical, extremist language also encouraged me to have a look at this. The similarity makes it sound like they were assigned to attack this book.

2 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 23 Jan 2014 17:01:13 GMT

Last edited by the author on 23 Jan 2014 17:08:44 GMT

Anne says:—————————————- 

Hi raspotts

In my view, the book provides convincing evidence that WW1 and, in particular the Anglo-German aspect of it, was engineered by Anglo-American interests. All the authors want you to do is to consider the evidence that is not available in mainstream publications.

I think the book successfully debunks the myth of the British Empire and the clique behind it as “champions of world democracy.” Their true intentions have been exposed by reputable scholars like Carroll Quigley, and Hidden History is a valuable contribution to this quest for historical truth.

All empires are predatory entities and my review was not intended to exculpate any of the belligerents but merely to emphasise the fact that the evidence presented is credible and not “made up” as the reviews attacking the book seem to suggest.

6 of 8 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 23 Jan 2014 21:01:15 GMT

Last edited by the author on 23 Jan 2014 22:57:55 GMT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

Calling people “communists” and “fascists” is uncalled for and beyond the pale, really. Shows the kind of tactics they are prepared to resort to. Their “reviews” say very little about the book and it makes you wonder if they bothered to read it at all. Probably not.

By the way, I was lucky to find the book at the local library and it’s good to see that people are reading it. But with the Centenary set to drag on for years, this is only the beginning of the debate and I will definitely buy a copy for my own reference.

4 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 25 Jan 2014 15:03:58 GMT

Last edited by the author on 25 Jan 2014 15:09:02 GMT

Anne says:—————————————-

On the thread about my review of Max Hastings’ Catastrophe, this person calling themselves “WK” also implied I was a “fascist” for saying that Rothschild interests were involved in financing the war – which only exposes their ignorance.

But I agree that up to now the establishment line has been accepted almost without serious challenge from historians. The debate has only just started and is bound to intensify as more evidence comes to light and hopefully more authors write about it. Hidden History is certainly a valuable contribution to the wider debate as well as giving the general public a chance to learn about the history of their country.

6 of 8 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 4 Mar 2014 22:43:57 GMT

Ypres says:—————————————-

The first thing to establish, in unravelling any crime, is ‘who benefited?’

4 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.

In reply to an earlier poston 10 Mar 2014 22:59:08 GMT

Last edited by the author on 22 Mar 2014 17:28:21 GMT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

Ypres, if we think about it, that should be the question any serious enquirer ought to ask themselves. Nor is there any lack of data showing that British interests (though not, unfortunately, ordinary Britons) and their American collaborators were the main beneficiaries. But, curiously, it’s precisely the question that official “historians” do their best to avoid.

PS See also my comments to Sarah’s 1-star review.

 

 

 

25 of 31 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

Splendidly-researched account of the origins of the First World War., 7 Aug 2013

By – William Podmore (London United Kingdom)

Gerry Docherty, a former head teacher, and Jim Macgregor, a former doctor, have written a most remarkable book about the true origins of the First World War. They write, “What this book sets out to prove is that unscrupulous men, whose roots and origins were in Britain, sought a war to crush Germany and orchestrated events in order to bring this about.”

They note, “A secret society of rich and powerful men was established in London in 1891 with the long-term aim of taking control of the entire world.” This was the real ruling class, led by Cecil Rhodes, Prime Minister of Cape Colony, Lord Nathaniel Rothschild, the world’s richest man, Lord Esher, advisor to the monarchy, Alfred Milner, later high commissioner in South Africa, and William Stead, the top journalist of the day. Prime Ministers Lord Rosebery and Lord Salisbury, and Balfour, Grey and Asquith, the elected cover, carried out the demands of this tiny minority.

Milner, using Jan Smuts, instigated the Boer War. Milner wrote, “I precipitated the crisis … and … have been largely instrumental in bringing about a big war.” 102,000 people were killed.

Britain’s 1904 entente with France gave Morocco to France, and drew France into an alliance pointed against Germany. Britain’s 1907 Convention with Russia secretly offered Russia control of the Black Sea Straits, and also drew Russia into the alliance against Germany.

The British government backed King Leopold of Belgium’s annexation of the Congo. In return, Belgium agreed to secret military cooperation with Britain and France. From 1905 onwards, these three states jointly planned war against Germany.

As the authors state, “Belgium’s behaviour violated the duties of a neutral state … Professor Albert Geouffre de Lapradelle, the renowned French specialist on international law, explained: `The perpetually neutral state renounces the right to make war, and, in consequence, the right to contract alliances, even purely defensive ones, because they would drag it into a war …'” So Belgium was not neutral. As Albert J. Nock wrote, “Belgium … was one of four solid allies under definite agreement worked out in complete detail …”

The authors point out, “On four separate occasions over the previous two years [1912-14], Grey and Asquith stood at the despatch box in the House of Commons and solemnly assured Parliament that Britain was entirely free from any secret obligations to any other European country. In a private letter to his ambassador in Paris, Grey noted: `there would be a row in Parliament here if I had used words which implied the possibility of a secret engagement unknown to Parliament all these years committing us to a European war ….'”

On 3 August 1914, Grey read out to the House of Commons a letter to the French, but left out its last sentence: “If these measures involved action, the plans of the General Staffs would at once be taken into consideration and the governments would then decide what effect should be given to them.” The authors comment that if he had read this out, “All of Prime Minister Asquith’s previous statements in Parliament denying that secret agreements tied Britain to France in the event of war with Germany would have been revealed as deliberate deceptions.”

Revanchist lawyer Raymond Poincaré said, “I could discover no other reason why my generation should go on living except for the hope of recovering our lost provinces …” He became Prime Minister of France in January 1912, then President in February 1913.

The authors write, “Poincaré’s first concern was `to prevent a German movement for peace’. Under his direction, the nature of the Franco-Russian agreement changed from a defensive alliance to open support for aggressive Russian intervention in the Balkans.” Poincaré extended national service from two to three years and sharply increased the size of France’s army. Docherty and Macgregor observe, “By 1914, over 80 per cent of Russian debt was owed to French banks. Poincaré and his backers insisted that these loans were conditional on increases in the Russian military and a modernised railway infrastructure that would speed up mobilisation against Germany.”

The Russian ambassador in Bulgaria wrote in November 1912 that a representative of The Times claimed `very many people in England are working towards accentuating the complications in Europe’ to bring about the war that would cause the `destruction of the German Fleet and of German trade’. King George V reportedly told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov in September 1912, “We shall sink every single German merchant ship we shall get hold of.”

Poincaré went to St Petersburg on 20-23 July 1914. France’s ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paléologue, wrote in his account of the banquets held to honour Poincaré that “the Grand Duchesses Anastasia and Melitza, the respective wives of Grand Duke Nicholas and Grand Duke Peter, were ecstatic at the prospect that `War is going to break out. Nothing will be left of Austria. You will get Alsace-Lorraine back. Our armies will meet in Berlin. Germany will be annihilated.'”

The British ambassador, Sir George Buchanan, sent a telegram to the Foreign Office on 24 July, summarising the result of Poincaré’s visit: “France would not only give Russia strong diplomatic support, but would, if necessary, fulfil all the obligations imposed on her by the alliance.” The authors comment, “Poincaré and Sazonov had agreed the deal. When Russia went to war against Germany and Austria, France would fulfil her commitment to Russia. This telegram explicitly proved that by 24 July Sir Edward Grey knew that his world war was ordained. The document was concealed from the world for ten years.”

The authors point out that, “Buchanan did not suggest that Sazonov should stop the Russian mobilisation, far from it, but urged him to keep it well hidden from German view.” Paléologue recalled Buchanan telling him, “Russia is determined to go to war. We must therefore saddle Germany with the whole responsibility and initiative of the attack, as this will be the only way of winning over English public opinion to the war.”

On 24 July, Russia, France and Belgium all mobilised. The first to mobilise was the aggressor. The chief of Russian general staff for mobilisation explained why – after the first mobilisation `no further diplomatic hesitation is possible’.

Alexander Isvolsky, Russia’s ambassador to France, told St Petersburg on 1 August, “The French War Minister informed me, in hearty high spirits, that the Government have firmly decided on war, and begged me to endorse the hope of the French General Staff that all efforts will be directed against Germany …” This was almost 24 hours before Germany had announced mobilisation or declared war on Russia.

Docherty and Macgregor sum up, “Germany was the last of the continental powers to take that irrevocable step [mobilisation]. How does that possibly fit with the claim that Germany started the First World War?”

—————————

23 of 29 people found the following review helpful

 

 

5.0 out of 5 stars

Should be taught in School, 15 Aug 2013

By Caroline Ovens “ronnorock” (scotland)

I bought this book to take on holiday and read it in 4 days, I am now on my second reading. This is no conspiracy nonsense, this is the real deal, from start to finish the authors put the chapters together to draw an outline of what happened over 100 years ago and how it came about.

You will find 27 chapters and there is something in every one of them that will have you reading on to get to the next chapter.Some of my personal favourite’s were “catch a rising star and put it in your pocket” “Ireland..plan B” and “Alexander Isvolsky-Hero and villian”, but they are all worth your attention.

If people want to do conspiracy theory then that’s fine as most come from elected Governments anyway, Tony Blair and his weapons of mass destruction comes to mind. This book should be taught in Schools, hopefully kids would stop signing up to get killed fighting a rich mans war.

Brilliant stuff, and I hope there will be more from both authors.

————————- Comments (4)

[Deleted by the author on 17 Sep 2013 11:21:20 BDT]

In reply to an earlier poston 15 Sep 2013 11:26:36 BDT

Last edited by the author on 17 Sep 2013 12:13:17 BDT

JMB says:—————————————-

People find the analysis presented here to be unwelcome news. That is because it is the opposite of what we learned both at school and in constant reiterations by hack ‘historians’ and in the media: Germany’s fault, Kaiser wants to rule the world, Archduke shot, poor old Belgium etc. It seems we were taught 1914 propaganda re-hashed as ‘history’.

I am very angry to learn that we were shovelled in to this war much in the same disgraceful way that we went to war against Iraq: no public consensus, no vote in parliament, no vote in the cabinet…. A stitch-up. 10 million soldiers dead because . . . .

5 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.

Posted on 15 Sep 2013 12:23:55 BDT

[Deleted by the author on 17 Sep 2013 11:21:05 BDT]

In reply to an earlier poston 17 Sep 2013 10:36:11 BDT

Rachael says:—————————————-

How can it be conspiracy theory gone mad when the authors provide documented evidence to support it? If it was as you say there would be NO documentary evidence.

I would consider it a disgrace if it wasn’t used.

 

 

24 of 31 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

An Essential Counterbalance to a Century of Establishment Propaganda Posing as History, 30 Aug 2013

By – Dr John ODowd

This book is a triumph. It examines the anatomy of the ruling class at a particular and crucial historical turning point, dissects and reveals its structure, identifies its membership, agents, dupes and placemen, and displays its putrid innards for all to see.

Although this book is about the first world war, and the tricks of its procurement, its importance and salience are current – for the same interests persist, and their methods – deceit, the formation and operation of occult networks, their embodiment in the Establishment, the subornment of states , law, parliaments and the flimsy veneer of pretend liberal `democracies’, and the co-option and penetration of key elements of civic society, especially the civil service, academia and the media, as well as the military, to serve their personal ends – remain the crucial means by which money power dominates the globe today.

As I write, an attempt has just been made by the Establishment to bounce us into attacking Syria on its behalf, without even the fig-leaf of a `dodgy dossier’. On this occasion it has apparently miscalculated, and the UK Parliament, much to its evident amazement, has thwarted its intentions – for now. Be sure they’ll be back. This book will tell you why – and how.

This evil clique have always owned governments, elected or not – and their armed forces – and they have always emplaced dictatorships – at home and abroad. They own banking and finance, because they ARE banking and finance. Their stock is secrecy, subterfuge, bribery, propaganda, threats, ruthlessness and violence.

And this persistence is more than symbolic – their names, genes and continuing interests have penetrated both time and global societies, such that the direct descendents of those who unleashed the savagery of World War I, to serve their insatiable lust for power and wealth, perpetuate and extend these lusts and their means of satisfaction down to the present day, and across the globe – with continuous wars and ever-present human misery. Perpetual war is its hallmark, its order, its ultimate means of enrichment and its perennial principle instrument.

War is abhorred by most human beings, so the apparatus described above is used to `persuade’ ordinary people to give up their sons, brothers, husbands to `King and Country’ against a fiendish enemy that has to be manufactured and demonised -in this case Germany – ‘the Huns’, but subsequently the Commies, or Saddam or Islam – take your pick – any fiend will do. In contrast, for the money elite, war and the threat of war, are its stock in trade. War and preparation for war are hugely profitable in themselves (and are now just about the only industries left in the US and UK), but they are also the means, or behind the means, by which economic and political hegemony is maintained.

‘Trade’, and more importantly its Financial counterpart, are its front and `legitimate’ businesses, but to ensure that it is carried out on their terms, war is the overt or covert enforcer. The latter is described, quaintly, as `statecraft’. Behaviours that in private individual life would be described as immoral, unethical, psychopathic and criminal, are excused, or celebrated in businessmen and statesmen alike, and ordinary men and women are made monsters and victims in their service.

As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman so succinctly and revealingly put it:

“The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”

In other words, to make market capitalism work, you have to murder people.

At the point in history described in this book, empires were territorial, and in this particular embodiment, the elite were espousing the rule of the English-speaking white man. Since then things have moved on: Empires are still based on plunder and slavery, but its means are more commercial, financial and based on one-sided so-called `free- trade’ -all backed up by the open or implicit threat of war, rather than territorial occupation. Drones and cruise missiles, rather than boots on the ground – although these will march if required.

The beneficiaries remain the same: the international ruling class. Behind formal `democratic’ structures, there still stands, in the UK for example, a bureaucracy closely connected to the ruling class through the individuals going through the same private schools, exclusive universities workplaces and public institutions. They have imbibed the same culture and the same bonds of loyalty to the nation and state. They have their hands on the levers of power. This has not changed. This book exposes how it – `the secret elite’ worked in the lead up to the first world war, and in doing so reveals its unchanging aims and methodologies.

This has been described as a `one-sided’ book – but it is not an unbalanced one. It provides a necessary correction and counterbalance to nearly a century of establishment-biased propaganda posing as history, written largely by Establishment ‘court’ historians and apologists for the money elite -none of whose explanations ever made much sense. An assination in Sarajevo? the invasion of ‘neutral’ Belgium (a country steeped in African blood)? How do these lead to world war? This book will tell you.

In its 361 pages, and massive, fully cited bibliography, it describes in detail how the money elites – at that time largely Anglo-American (but in fact, as today, standing above any state) plotted, connived, bribed, murdered and lied their way to procure an imperial war that served their greater ends. The bias of this book is to the truth that the elite did their best to hide. Its authors, a doctor and a leading teacher have used their considerable diagnostic, forensic and pedagogical skills to analyse a disease and present their findings with remarkable facility and verve – fully documented, convincingly argued, and wholly credible. It is a work of substantial scholarship, written in a highly accessible form and utterly, totally persuasive.

None of this is taught in our universities, where sociology does not discuss a ruling class, politics courses do not discuss the political influence of wealth, economics courses justify inequality using bad maths and worse psychology, and as this book clearly demonstrates, academic political and military history, particularly emerging from so-called elite universities, is largely propaganda written in the service of the same elites. With primary sources often `lost’, destroyed or hidden. These authors have filled some of the gaps and tied together hitherto diverse material to provide a persuasive account of motives, means and methods of an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the ordinary people of the world.

In the words of Scotland’s national poet, Robert Burns: “Facts are chiels that winna ding”. This book is replete with facts that ding the very foundation of the Establishment to its rotten core.

————————- Comments (2)

 

5 of 7 people found the following review helpful

Votet says:—————————————-

Spot on, Dr John O Dowd, particularly with your side-swipe reference to ‘an attempt has just been made by the Establishment to bounce us into attacking Syria on its behalf’, so reminiscent of the alleged lies told to Parliament in a “Statement” – not a debate you’ll note – by that so-called Liberal Sir Edward Grey, the UK Foreign Secretary, 99 years ago !

5 of 8 people think this post adds to the discussion

In reply to an earlier poston 3 Aug 2014 12:14:54 BDT

JMB says:—————————————-

Brilliant review by Dr John O Dowd and a great book.

Where do we go from here?

 

 

5.0 out of 5 stars

Superb Re-Evaluation of the Origins of he First World War, 20 Feb 2014

By – P. S. Hogg “Paddy S Hogg” (Cumbernauld, Scotland)

Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor should be proud of their unstinting work and historical analyses of the origins of the Great War and in the meticulous way they unravel and unmask the genesis of that unparalleled war of human carnage by showing the web of deceit and manipulation of the apparatus of political power and the media in the UK and other state of Europe as they engineered their war to decimate the threat to the assets of the rich and powerful behind the ‘British Empire’. What was regularly played as a card of national interest and of course that mercurial word ‘patriotism’, was in reality always private big business interest. The Milner group and the Rothchilds network wanted Germany out of the race for Empire to keep the established British Empire as the ruler of the globe and both authors unravel their web of networking among placed and patronage politicians who did their bidding at the right time to prepare and manipulate British opinion into the jingoistic anti-German belief that they, the ‘Hun’, started the first world war.

Scholars and students alike should read this book. It should be given out free to school children for their exams to debunk the rubbish they are spoon-fed, the lies exposed so forensically by the authors here. It was simply a pleasure to read, but a chilling experience to see how the power of money and the Secret elite’s singular objective and greed – dominance animal behaviour on a global scale motivated by greed and power – occasioned the bloodiest war humankind had ever known.

This book adds so much truth to the phrase of Jean- Paul Sartre when he said, When the rich wage war, it’s the poor who die. War is also a divertionary tactic from constitutional and economic crisis, with the second reading of the Home Rule Bill for Scotland going through parliament in may 1914 and so many strikes from 1910 onward. I cannot wait for volume two which will focus on the war itself. The authors are not free of any fixed establishment view and their passion to reveal the truth is infectious and their writing is top quality.

Congratulations for such a wonderful antidote to the tripe of A J P Taylor an co and the jingoistic idiots who still dream of Brittania ruling the waves. She did so only when there was no-one else on the waves………….

—————————

 

 

 

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

Timely and very scholarly look at the First World War …, 11 July 2014

By – MrsPaul (Scotland)

(TOP 1000 REVIEWER)

Timely and very scholarly look at the First World War. Examines the motives behind the causes and escalations during the run-up to the assassination of ArchDuke Ferdinand, the reasons the war might have been deliberately prolonged, and the possibility a secret cabal of elite players manipulated an entire world into a war that changed history and took millions of lives.

Contemporary illustrations, photographs, two appendixes, notes, and an extensive list of references contribute to the credibility of the work.

If you are interested in the subject as we approach the centennial of the day WWI was declared, if you have family members who served, lost health or lives owing to the conflict, this is a book you do not want to miss.

—————————

 

 

 

7 of 10 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

Entirely plausible account that makes more sense than popular myths, 18 Mar 2014

By – Thomas J. Minogue

I am no historian and am sceptical of most accounts of history which are generally written by the winners and as such are subjective. So my knowledge of the causes of the First World War (before reading this book) are based on the matters of fact and my impression of the numerous accounts of the winning side that are generally biased in the extreme.

The propaganda that prompted men from all corners of the empire to answer the call to arms was pretty drastic with Germans portrayed as savage imperial warmongers bent on world domination, killing, bayoneting children etc., while our own people were always reasonable folk only wanting to lead peaceful lives and bring good to the world with our empire.

I have always had a problem with such scenarios, which are hardly credible given that all the big imperial powers were as bad as each other and sometimes joined forces in their barbarous foreign adventures, such as the sacking of the Old Summer Palace in 1860 by a joint Anglo-French force, under the command of the James the 8th Earl of Elgin.

So for my money the cartel of western nations intent on ruling the world were all pretty much as bad as each other and this has always left me with a problem in accepting the popular view that Great Britain was the principle defender of democracy, and the rights of small nations and Germany was the ruthless conqueror set on expanding her empire.

Apologists for the British empires excesses will say that they were in line with the mores of the times but that is hardly a justification. To say the Belgians, French, Russians, Germans, Austrians, Japanese et al were all as brutal in their treatment of subjugated peoples hardly makes it right, and makes me question the myth that peaceful, little Britain, Servia, France, Belgium, Japan, were forced into the First World War by the hostile actions of nasty Germany and Austria.

The “3 crazy cousins falling out” theory is usually debunked by aplogists who portray the Czar and Kaiser as being all-powerful despots while the other cousin, Britain’s king was a powerless figurehead with little influence [The BBC 2 series 37 Days continues this caricature] doesn’t wash with me. Granted the King was less influential than his father was, following the Parliament Act of 1911, curtailed to some degree but in my opinion he was still a powerful force and one only has to look at his influence with the army in regard to the Curragh Mutiny for evidence of this.

Asquith, the PM at the outbreak of war Asquith was forced to travel to Biarritz for the official “kissing of hands” of the Monarch, the only time a British Prime Minister has formally taken office on foreign soil, only a matter of 5 years earlier so would hardly be able to stand up to King George V, the son of the man, Edward VII he had grovelled to.

So on balance I think the proposition that an Anglo-American pact between the WASP US First Families and their Empire Loyalist partners in Britain is not only possible but highly probable. That there was an incentive by Anglo-American bankers such as the Rothschilds to foster war is as real then as it is now.

So I will go with the authors of this book in having probably found the real cause for World War One. Of course this is not a popular view to have, as it debunks the myths that so many of our countrymen and ancestors died for nothing more than a greedy elite who wished complete dominance of the globe, but that is how it seems to me, sad as that may be.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the British establishment with blood dripping from their hands after: forcing China to accept our Opium, burning an pillaging the Benin civilisation, stealing Southern Africa from the Boer settlers and in the process rounding up their men women and children and locking them up to die in concentration camps, had suddenly become all sweetness and light.

Changed in a few short years from barbaric butchers to civilising crusaders.

—————————

 

 

 

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars

More Buried than Hidden?, 13 Aug 2014

By – conjunction

If most of what this book contains is true, I’d say it is more about history that’s buried than hidden. If this is the case this is a very important book, and for that reason, please forgive the length of this review.

A few years ago I read Andrew Roberts’ biography of Lord Salisbury, reviewed by me on this site. Salisbury had been Disraeli’s foreign secretary before he became PM himself. When he did he continued to act as foreign secretary, combining the roles. He was a consummate diplomat, and for a number of years ran Europe like a train in partnership with Bismarck.

In his last few years, things went awry a little, notably in the Boer war which was at best mismanaged. The official histories I had read talked about the difficulties of governing via the new device of telegraph, and headstrong behaviour by our people in Cape Town, but there was something odd to me particularly about the behaviour of Joe Chamberlain which seemed to bring a new element, a brashness into politics which had not been there before.

Salisbury retired and Balfour took over and a lot of changes in the style of politics occurred and some to me puzzling incidents occurred in the lead up to the First World War. I felt that I did not understand what was going on and none of the books I read seemed to speak to this new politics that led us into dangerous negotiations over crises that sprang out of nothing.

The someone recommended ‘Hidden History’ to me.

Docherty and McGregor tell a story about the lead-up to the war which is utterly different to the narratives in any other book on the period that I have read. I have some issues with the way they tell their story, which I’ll go into later, but their version of history is the only one I have heard which makes sense to me, which explains so many things I had not understood about the war, a war which still puzzles historians and causes endless arguments. Who was responsible?

D&M answer unequivocally that the prime responsibility was with a cosy cabal they call the Secret Elite, (hereafter the SE), who were initially Milner, of Boer War fame, Lord Esher, Haldane, and subsequently Balfour, Asquith, Lloyd George, Churchill, and crucially Nathaniel Rothschild. Allied to these were important diplomats in France and Russia, and a number of bankers in the USA as time went on.

D&M argue that these men largely directed the course of history in those years, deliberately manipulating and misinforming not only Parliament but the cabinet as well as the public in Britain and other countries.

Their object was to promote the ongoing hegemony of the British Empire, and to do that by knocking out Germany, then beginning to overtake them economically, from the equation.

The two crises in Morocco were set up by France behaving in a rash imperialist manner and then with Britain putting all the blame on Germany. The SE managed the press – sound familiar? – in both countries to assist with this.

Edward VII, far from being the vacant playboy posterity prefers to remember, was a suave and accomplished diplomat, whose lifestyle was an excellent cover for his diplomatic forays.

Rothschild, who D&M claim controlled many major banks in the US and Europe bankrolled monarchs and governments all over Europe at the request of the SE.

Britain amazed the world by allying itself with Japan in 1902. This was to pressurise Russia and soften them up prior to making an alliance with them against Germany.

Sir Edward Grey, who in his biography claimed to have forgotten to mention to the cabinet his secret alliance with the French a number of years before war broke out, and who lied repeatedly to Parliament and almost everyone else on this matter, acted as a man only wanting peace in public, all the time committing his government without their knowledge to Machiavellian intrigue all with the design of making Germany look bad and crucially engineering France and Russia to force Germany into a position where she had to look the aggressor.

To do this Belgium, who knew exactly what was going on years before war broke out, had to be neutral and refuse to allow German troops to cross their borders, to give Britain the pretext for war of defending them.

According to D&M Germany until the very last minute held out for peace, and at no stage wanted war.

Germany pleaded with Russia to call off their mobilisation, and when the Tsar seemed to relent at the last minute and sent an envoy with conciliatory messages to Berlin, the SE’s man in Moscow had him arrested before he could get on a train.

How has all this been concealed for so long?

Published books have been suppressed, and tons of documents have been shredded, memoirs ruthlessly edited.

The SE operated across parties, and ignored the cabinet and parliament except when they had to face them.

This may all seem pretty unlikely, but I had always thought, well, the war happened because there were some pretty dodgy diplomats around who never got their act together.

The Tsar may not have been the world’s greatest politician, and the Kaiser may have been naïve – although according to D&M not nearly as neurotic and temperamental as public legend has it – but the evidence is here that they were on the case. The war was not an accident.

Now for my reservations.

This book has been well researched, relying heavily on a number of publications written in the several decades after the war by a series of eminent historians, most of which were apparently rubbished or even suppressed by the publishing industry for some time. However these books have now resurfaced and a lot of people are reading them.

However when you read ‘Hidden History’, in many places you see the numbers for notes, but exactly how the referred text backs up the points made you are rarely told. And there are long passages where the authors say ‘The SE did this, and said that…’ with no notes or reference at all. I wondered whether in some of these passages the authors were relying on a crucial work by a man called Quigley, who had supposedly once been part of the SE, but this is not stated.

However the narrative is put together very carefully and frankly is very convincing. Its just that given the controversial nature of the story I would have preferred a book that adopted a more conventionally rigorous academic approach, even if it meant adopting a less certain position on some points.

Almost as a digression, mention is made of Churchill’s escape from prison in South Africa at the time of the Boer War. It is strongly suggested that Churchill lied about his experiences, his escape is referred to as a ‘myth’. The authors present no evidence for this whatsoever except that Churchill has no corroborative witnesses.

In view of the fact that after Churchill’s dismissal form the cabinet in 1915 he went and fought very bravely according to William Manchester in the trenches for six months I don’t find D&M’s criticisms helpful and they detract from the book.

Another criticism is that D&M may be correct in asserting that Germany didn’t want war, but the narrative is very much London centred, and looks quite closely at what was going on in Paris and Moscow, but sheds very little general light on the desires of the Austrian and German governments.

If you had read nothing else you could come away from this book thinking the Germans saints. There is much criticism in this book of British behaviour in South Africa. Germany’s record as colonists in Africa is worse than Britain’s by tenfold – see Pakenham’s ‘The Scramble for Africa’.

Despite these criticisms this is an important book, most of what they say is evidenced, and should be read by anyone who can’t understand exactly why the twentieth century turned into a horror story.

—————————

 

 

 

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

Excellent. It’s a must read for everybody who teaches …, 26 July 2014

By – Gerardo

The work of serious historians. Excellent. It’s a must read for everybody who teaches about the last century.

Dr. Gerd J. Weisensee MSc, Bern

—————————

 

 

 

5 of 8 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

Why then would Germany risk a war against a numerically superior opponent in order to gain hegemony – something she …, 19 July 2014

By – Peter Hof (USA)

In the beginning there was Article 231. It stated:

“The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.”

But the release and publication of official diplomatic documents after 1918 – initiated by Austria and Germany – produced two trail-blazing books by two American revisionist historians, Barnes and Fay, that permanently consigned Article 231 to the historical dustbin and no respectable historian dares refer to it today except with contempt. In succeeding decades as the battle for history raged, the war-guilt question (kriegschuldvrage) inhabited a shadowy no-man’s-land between allied propaganda and the ever-growing pressure of historical truth.

In October, 1961, German historian Fritz Fischer launched an all-out assault on the revisionists with his book “Germany’s Aims in the First World War.” (German title: “Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914-1918”) Fischer claimed that Germany had started the War in order to gain hegemony in Europe and then the world. Referred to as the “Fischer Thesis,” it caused a sensation in Germany and was enthusiastically embraced by the blame-Germany-first crowd. Fischer was soon refuted by other German historians – most notably Gerhard Ritter – who pointed out that Germany already had hegemony in Europe, won, not by boots, bullets, and battleships, but by the industry and talent of her people.

This was amply underscored by a veritable mountain of economic statistics which prove beyond any doubt that in the summer of 1914, Germany was first among equals by every conceivable measure. Why then would Germany risk a war against a numerically superior opponent in order to gain hegemony – something she already possessed in spades? But the “Fischer thesis” was the only remaining game in town and historians clung to it like a drowning man to a life preserver.

Nevertheless, the times they were a-changing. In 1998, Oxford historian Niall Ferguson published “The Pity of War” to rave reviews. The back cover of the book states:

“The Pity of War makes a simple and provocative argument: the human atrocity known as the Great War was entirely England’s fault. According to Niall Ferguson, England entered into the war based on naïve assumptions of German aims, thereby transforming a Continental conflict into a world war, which it then badly mishandled, necessitating American involvement. The war was not inevitable, Ferguson argues, but rather was the mistaken decisions of individuals who would later claim to have been in the grip of impersonal forces.”

This was followed by similar volumes which disputed German war-guilt. In 2011 came “The Russian Origins of the First World” War by Sean McMeekin, and in 2012 came “The Sleepwalkers, How Europe Went to War in 1914” by Christopher Clark. These books contain valuable information and have the virtue of further destroying the stubborn canard that the Central Powers started the War, but they lack in some respects the finality which the published documents fully support.

Comes now “Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War” by Gerry Docherty and James Macgregor. This is the very first volume that states the case straightforward and unapologetically: It was Great Britain – not Germany and Austria – who started the Great War of 1914-18. Why would Great Britain do such a thing? British leaders sensed that Germany, given her growing economic/military hegemony in Europe, might soon be in a position to challenge the world hegemony wielded by the mighty British Empire. Britannia had grown quite used to ruling the waves and waving the rules, and the notion that it was England’s destiny to instruct the “lesser races” was common in Elizabethan and Victorian England. Thus the frightening possibility that an upstart Germany could upset the Albion applecart had to forestalled and the sooner the better.

Messrs. Docherty and Macgregor begin by telling us about one fateful wintry day in February 1891: “The three staunch British imperialists who met that day, Cecil Rhodes , William Stead and Lord Esher, drew up a plan for the organisation of a secret society that would take over the control of foreign policy both in Britain and, later by extension, the United States of America: a secret society that aimed to renew the Anglo-Saxon bond between Great Britain and the United States, spread all that they considered good in the English ruling-class traditions, and expand the British Empire’s influence in a world they believed they were destined to control.”

The “Secret Elite” – the name chosen by the authors to avoid the profusion of names under which the “Group” operated – gave an early and convincing demonstration of their strength and influence by causing two hitherto independent, sovereign nations – Transvaal and the Orange Free State – to be annexed by the British Empire.

On February 8, 1901, Edward VII informed the German representative, Baron Hermann von Eckardstein that “For a long time at least there can be no more any question of Great Britain and Germany working together in any conceivable matter” (Massie, Dreadnought, p. 309).

With this, the British ship of state began slowly to steer in the direction of Paris and St. Petersburg and away from Berlin. From this point forward, British foreign policy left little doubt as to its intended goal. First came the 1904 Entente Cordiale in the wake of the British King’s diplomacy. Then came a similar understanding with Russia in 1907. This last completed the transformation of the moribund Franco-Russian alliance into the very potent Triple Entente and the Austro-German Press began to mutter darkly about einkreisung (encirclement). Further German objections came in the form of the two Moroccan crises in 1905 and 1911 when German diplomacy attempted to drive a wedge between Britain and France. But the hostile 1911 Mansion House speech by Lloyd George made it clear that there were no prospects for success in this direction.

When the July crisis threatened war and a forthright exposition of the British attitude would have preserved the peace, Sir Edward Grey played his cards close to the vest. Having already given a verbal promise of a 120,000-man expeditionary force to Poincare and Sasonov in 1912, Grey now hinted to a worried Cambon that the concentration of the British fleet should answer his doubts, whilst whispering into the Austro-German ear that England would remain neutral. With the deftness of a carnival huckster, Grey subtly encouraged both sides to interpret the British position according to their own preferences, thereby coaxing the opposing alliance systems onto a collision course.

Governmental and public opposition to the war in England bordered on unanimity but Sir Edward had an ace up his sleeve. He knew that the German plan of campaign called for a lightening thrust at France through Belgium. This enabled him to use the treaty of 1839 to circumvent the opposition and send Tommy Atkins to line up outside the recruiter’s office.

But was Great Britain wrong or even unique? After all, some two-thousand years ago the Romans made an analogous decision that resulted in the Punic Wars and the disappearance of Carthage from the world map. Other empires made similar decisions for similar reasons. But however we choose to judge Great Britain, the fact remains that it was she – not Germany – who was responsible for the Great War and this is forcefully presented in this superb, trailblazing, first-of-its-kind volume – highly recommended and indispensable for any student of the First World War. In summary, it may be said that King Edward VII discovered the moribund spear of the Franco-Russian alliance. Sir Edward Grey felt its heft, polished and sharpened it, and used the Sarajevo crisis to hurl it at Germany. The rest, as they say, is history.

————————— (1)

Initial post: 23 Jul 2014 11:43:58 BDT

Political Dissident says:—————————————-

Very good review with some very pertinent points. The war was very obviously a continuation of established imperial policy of eliminating any power that stood in the way of British world supremacy.

It was Britain who declared war on Germany and not the other way round. And it was Britain who instigated the conflict between Germany and Russia by building up the latter against the former – in the knowledge that a war between them would end up in British involvement. It is time for the Establishment and its propaganda machine to be taught a lesson.

 

 

11 of 17 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars

Not a comfortable read for those with a closed mind, 25 Oct 2013

By – Tony D

This book touches a raw nerve with those who want to believe all of the propaganda that has passed as history over the last century. It always puzzled me that a `lucky’ assassination of a minor European heir in Sarajevo should have triggered the First World War. It does not add up. Having read virtually every book written about the war, I believe that Docherty and Macgregor’s book is one of the most important, if not the most important, ever published on the subject.

With its deep research and brilliant analysis, it has provided the `eureka’ moment in my long search for the truth about the origins of that horrendous war.

The book carefully builds on the work of the highly esteemed Professor Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) of Princeton University, and raises it to a completely new level. A mentor of Bill Clinton, and an establishment insider with access to the corridors of power, Quigley revealed the existence of a secret cabal of exceedingly rich and powerful men in England devoted to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire. He learned of this group from sources he was `not permitted to name’ and was given access to top-secret

documents concerning it. Quigley received `assistance of a personal nature from persons close to the group’, but for `obvious reasons could not reveal the names of such persons’.

In his seminal work, The Anglo-American Establishment, he explained how this small, unelected, undemocratic cabal sought power on a global scale and was `one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century’. It involved `persons whose lives have been a disaster to our way of life’ and operated behind the scenes to gain control of politics, the press and education in Britain and the United States. The group was `able to conceal its existence quite successfully’, and many of its most influential members `are unknown even to close students of British history’.

Quigley stated that evidence of the secret society was not hard to find, and challenged others to further research it and carry his work forward. Docherty and Macgregor are among the first to accept that challenge. Their book names the individuals involved, traces their privileged positions, and knits together a splendid proof that they brought about the First World War in order to destroy Germany as an industrial competitor.

It not only reads true, but develops a narrative that is jaw dropping.

In the early twentieth century the `Secret Elite’, as the authors have dubbed the group’s members, controlled Oxford University, All Souls College in particular. Professor Quigley revealed that they completely monopolized `the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period’ and that `no country that values its safety should allow what the group accomplished.’ Docherty and Macgregor reveal exactly how the secret cabal deliberately brought the world to war, removed and destroyed documents relating to their actions, and falsified the historical record of the war’s true origins through `eminent’ Oxford

historians beholden to them. It is that totally false history which has been taught in universities and schools for the past century.

All of this could, of course, be dismissed as wild eyed `conspiracy theory’ were it not for the early ground work of Carroll Quigley, lecturer at the prestigious Georgetown Harvard and Princeton Universities, and a man widely recognised as one of the greatest

historians of the twentieth century. The Establishment loosed its hounds to attack Quigley’s revelations, and made very determined efforts to suppress his books. In attacking Docherty and Macgregor’s hugely important book, the pro-Establishment individuals unwittingly

attack Professor Quigley. It seems they have never heard of the man, let alone read his crucial contributions to history.

I strongly urge you to read Docherty and Macgregor’s book. Your understanding of how the world came to be where it is today will be massively enhanced. Do not read it if you wish to remain cocooned within the illusion of fabricated history. It will upset you.

Apparently it already has upset a few already.

————————— (1)

 

Initial post: 29 Apr 2014 00:51:00 BDT

Amazon Customer says:—————————————-

very true account of what happned and who caused not only the first world war but also the subsequent ones.and is still at this game today in ukraine and syria.

 

 

======================================

 

PDF of this post and the two other posts with Amazon Customer Reviews.
Click to view or download (1.0MB). >>Hidden History – Amazon Reviews- 1, 2 and 3

 

Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival


(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen

 

Version History

 

Version 1: Published Sep 3, 2014

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »