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
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.
2 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion
————————————— END ———————————–
======================================
Click here for Hidden History Chpt 1 & 2
Click here for Hidden History – Amazon Reviews Part 1
Click here for Hidden History – Amazon Reviews Part 2
Click here for Hidden History – Amazon Reviews Part 3
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 2: Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.
Version 1: Published Sep 3, 2014