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

 

 

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 thedestruction 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 toKing 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, asstatecraft’. 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 forobvious 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 involvedpersons 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 membersare 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 monopolizedthe 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 througheminent’ 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

 

 

Version History

 

 

Version 2: Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

 

Version 1: Published Sep 3, 2014