• Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor, 'Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War'. Book Review by Rerevisionist

Most Reviews | Big Lies site

Docherty Macgregor HIDDEN HISTORY The Secret Origins of the First World War Review of Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War
Published 2013 by 'Mainstream Publishing Company', Edinburgh

Partial Revisionist Work (presumably for 1914's Anniversary). Fails Some Important Tests. Review by 'Rerevisionist' 29 May 2016

Try searching for 'first world war anniversary books 2013' or '2014'. Or—for Americans—2017 though as I write this is in the future. There have been, and will be, large numbers of these: probably thousands. Amidst the 'part played by women' books, 'great battles' books and local battles, views of tanks and planes, are some attempts at general histories, though most of them essentially narrow and apparently nationalistic, giving official views in assorted languages. An exception is Docherty and Macgregor's book. 'Revisionism' in official (read: Jewish) publications permits just a few permutations: it was England's fault, after all. No, it was Russia! No; it was Germany. It was the fault of Belgium, perhaps? The Jewish angle—profiting from war from sales of materiel; making huge secret loans to governments, and to puppets, usually blackmailable; encouragement of goyim deaths—remains largely unexplored. Barnes (of the Barnes Review, in the USA) and Belloc (in the UK) went some way into serious revisionism in the 1920s.

Docherty ('former head teacher and author of several historical plays') and Macgregor ('former GP ... with a lifelong interest in the origins of war') do not penetrate this Jewish forest, beyond naming a few of the trees. And they confine themselves to the period from about 1900 to 1914: the Boer Wars, the Russo-Japanese War, numerous 'incidents'—Russians assassinated by Jews, jabs against Germany in Agadir, Japan in Korea, Ireland, a passing mention of the 'Federal Reserve' in 1913—all providing evidence of the desire for wars. But on whose part? D &l M select 'the Secret Elite', and this phrase is repeated throughout their book. They appear to have been heavily influenced by Carroll Quigley, and to have expanded the trail left by Quigley, to build up names of members, and such evidence as has survived pruning. The result blames the English— D & M don't separate the Jewish component, in the now-traditional convention in which (say) the USA's Jews or French Jews are not considered as an interest group of their own. It's entirely possible the book was seen by the publishers as just another part of anti-white propaganda in Britain.

Conceptual Problems
Let me try to explain some of my reasons for finding this book unsatisfactory.
• Consider 'slavery'. This is a vague concept, not surprisingly, as human history has spanned a vast range of organisations. 'Slavery' might be keeping people imprisoned for life; or forcing work, or sex, out of them for life; right the way across to a legal document of indenture, with fairly precisely defined activities. It's not a surprise that definitions are vague and evasive, since Jews control most publication and broadcast use. You will never see a Jew admit that Jews ran the sailing ships slave trade, or that whites were enslaved, or that slavery may have been the only way to get work done before machinery. This is all fairly obvious. Now consider
• 'War'. Again, this is an elastic idea: it may mean a few gentlemanly skirmishes; or a permanent state of uncertainty, where attacks might happen any time across a vast territory; right the way up to mechanised machine deaths, including killing by chemical, biological, food destructive and other technologies. Again, Jewish control over publicity has ensured there's not much debate on these issues. In my opinion, this is simply to prevent the fact that Jews want to profit from wars at others' expense (read: you) becoming too obvious.
• War Aims. These have been kept vague and elusive; it's been proven easy to get people to kill without any firm idea what they're fighting for. In very many wars of aggression, the soldiery have no idea what they're fighting for, unless you count 'pay'. D & M don't address this point at all. The traditional view of the last few centuries has been that if A wins, then B is defeated; that's about it. But it's clear, now, that Jews operate as a multi-state group, exchanging information on the host countries. They are perfectly happy to inflict damage on both A and B, if they benefit. Thus for example in the Boer Wars, some British troops were harmed, and a lot of British money used; and many Boers were harmed. The net effect was gold and diamond and other mines were owned by Jews. Even then, these things were only of much value in countries in Europe and the USA etc, with a sophisticated distribution system. But, in principle, almost anything could be a cause for war: some territorial advantage, access to water or fish, access to land, access to rented lands and housing and infrastructure, access to livestock or live people. D & M don't have an analysis of raw materials, wealth, etc. Bearing in mind the domination by Jews of media, this situation is probably deliberate. D & M see war in the traditional way, as group A fighting group B, with machinery, heroism, what have you. They don't even consider Jews, much less their effects on population pyramids, the lost opportunities of non-war work, the long-term plans within which one mere war is embedded, or even why peace was not negotiated. Of course, D & M are not alone; apart from a few mavericks such as Smedley of 'War is a Racket', hardly anyone considers possible benefits by possible groupings of people as one of the bricks contributing to the wall of war.
• Secrecy. It is unnecessary to discuss 'secrecy' as speculative, problematic, doubtful. It's entirely clear, now, that secrecy has been in force certainly since 1900.
• Lies. Equally, it's clear from (for example) the repeated lies about extermination of Jews—for at least seventy years—that any analysis must assume lies and secrecy. The question is one of detail.

Here are some examples of the difficulty of dropping these multiply-repeated, narrow formulations:
• Lloyd George ('.. young Welsh firebrand ... as parliamentarian of considerable potential') and Churchill ('who had crossed from the Liberal Party etc'): were they, in fact, as described? Remembering modern media inventions such as Obama, and much older ones such as Britons enthusiastic for war in 1914, can these things be checked?
• D & M assume that the pursuit of war by the 'Secret Elite' was rational and carefully-worked out, or at least estimated. At one point, they say the aim of the 'Secret Elite' was to keep the British Empire! But since the outcome of the two World Wars was 'the doleful news' that Britain is bankrupt, it seems someone was miscalculating. I'd suggest the 'Secret Elite' were Jews and their subordinates, and the entire point was to empower Jews more and empower Britons less. Which, after all, was the result.
• D & M seem to think the 'Secret Elite' were on some equal basis. I'd suggest Jewish money was by far the most important part—like a large magnet, to which filings attached themselves. Lloyd George (there's a good chapter on his appetites for wealth and sex), Cecil Rhodes, Milner, people like Wells, all came from nowhere. As with Reagan, Clinton, Thatcher, Blair, Obama they simply were checked on, then accepted, but with an unspoken contract to eject them, as with much of the English aristocracy, when no longer useful.
• Russia as an imperialist power. Bear in mind that the reading public had been fed material on Russia, mainly from Jewish news agencies. In fact, Russia already had a land empire (started at much the same time as Elizabethan England's Irish and other territories). It had difficulties with Muslims in the south China to the east, Poland to the west. But the main Jewish concern was controlling Russian money—denied to them by the Tsar in the negotiations after Napoleon's time.
Russia reminds me of the USA, also a land empire, and also so big that most of the population could be kept in the dark about the rest of the world.
• Media control, in those days newspapers, and since about the 1890s, cheap mass popular presses in most industrialised countries. Hate was easy to fan in any nation; languages insulated the readerships from each other. Germany could hate England and France, England could hate Germany and Russia, Poland could hate, Serbs could hate, and so on. It was fairly subtle: English people congratulated themselves on seeing through German intransigence and brutality, and English superiority to the appalling undemocratic Russians, for example. Almost all Britons were infused with anti-German feelings, which overruled most other emotions. A good example is Bertrand Russell, who was fluent in German, and widely-read, and visited and lived in Germany, but who never, in the whole of his life, made any attempt to investigate the case for Germans against Jews. Unfortunately, human psychology is not well-adapted to defence against repetition.
• Here's a new piece on 'pogroms':

The Myth of the Pogroms: How the Press Covered Up the Massacre of Christians
By Matthew R. Johnson, Ph.D. May/June 2016
From 1905 onward, the revolutionary movement [in Russia] was killing between 10 and 20 people a day. Some were innocent; others were government employees at some level. Not only did the Duma (or parliament) think this was acceptable, they both praised it and protested against any attempt to punish these terrorists. All told, some 10,000 Russians were killed by revolutionary violence throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, before the Reds took over. Rather than being victims of pogroms, Russia's Jews were some of the best armed human beings on the planet. They demanded total freedom from all taxation and military service and, in exchange, would not only finance the Red revolt domestically, but act as its primary infantry in the cities of western Russia such as Kiev, Mogilev or Odessa

The book's structure is chronological, building up to 1914, which has four chapters. Each chapter has bullet-pointed summaries, but these are at the ends. The final chapter Lies, Myths, and Stolen History discusses the removal of archives from Europe, after the 'Great War': vast numbers of volumes were moved to Stanford University ('a private research university') on the USA west coast, presumably as far as possible from Europe, and kept padlocked from the world. And it discusses gaps in archives, and such activities as 'weeding'.
An irritant about this book is that all their work is presented as though completely new; and yet much of this must have been known, and the progress of awareness might have been reviewed briefly. So might their procedures.

Appendix 1 is a diagram, too small to be read comfortably. Appendix 2, 'Key Players', isn't adequate: Leo Amery for example is not identified as a Jew. Then we have endnotes: I wish these were reproduced on the pages too; it might add 30 pages, but would help smooth reading. Then we have references, which are personal papers, Public Record Office, Hansard's Parliamentary Records, world newspapers and magazines, and articles and pamphlets. Finally a 'select' bibliography', mostly popular books including 'histories' including A J P Taylor. And the index.

Their case seems to rest on Russia mobilising first, and Germany mobilising last. And the 'Secret Elite' having a Plan B, involving Ireland. D & M have marshalled a very powerful case.
An alternative case is that the submerged Jewish plan was to attack both Germany and Russia, which were the two major countries opposed to Jewish money power: the Germans had united, and were technically highly competent; the Russian Tsars (I am agnostic about the Godunovs) rejected it. The Anglophonic world (after the assassination of Spencer Perceval and the 1812 war) and the French were both subservient to Jews. D & M's primacy of the German war may submerge this possibility, which of course would need long-term planning, and careful selection of stooges, but fits the facts after the event better, in my view.
D & M make a terrific case for the war against Germany being planned: the 'Relugas Three' of Asquith, Grey and Haldane [p 104; the name is of a Scottish village], with Grey lying for years barefacedly to Parliament, are central figures; so are Africa and Boer War imperialists—Cecil Rhodes and Milner and Beit; so is Lord Frederick Sleigh Roberts, who built up the military system with militarists after his own heart, promoted more or less from obscurity. Other participants included the King, Edward VII, who succeeded Queen Victoria: he spent much of his time in brothels, though the Court Circulars presumably avoided issuing this information. However, he died in 1910. Oxford University in blamed for promoting false history; something of course it does to this day. D & M are very good on all this. However, they don't perceive Jews as (in effect) a nation, unique in its geographical distribution around the parts of the world which were able to be parasitised and subjected to wars. Rothschilds, Warburgs, Schiffs et al are of course mentioned, but not emphasised. The 'Secret Elite' objection to Germany was based on commercial conflict, according to D & M. but they don't provide estimates for costs: was it worth wasting fortunes to wreck German industry? Recent experience of Jewish lies ('immigrants will pay our pensions!' - 'local people won't work!' - 'immigrants boost the GNP!' - 'immigrants are highly skilled!' etc) suggest it was a carefully-fostered myth.

D & M's weakness of course is the omission of the tightly-knit Jewish power influences. There are endless complications, such as how Japan paid for British battleships—if it did. Balfour's Declaration isn't much mentioned, though it was to become an important aspect of the 'Great War'. I've seen the ingenious suggestion that there may have been secret agreements to dismember Russia under Jews, naturally unpublicised. Jewish thuggery is not really mentioned: probably such thugs in Britain fanned war fever by pretending to be Suffragettes, leaving 'votes for women' messages after dynamite outrages against some once-wonderful building, for example. There's no foreshadowing of Coudenhove-Kalergi. The anguish of disabled soldiers on being ignored and finding men in suits talking money isn't hinted at. The disposability of entire countries is understated: the Belgian Congo exploitation, Belgium's use for atrocity lies, perhaps its uranium reserves as expensive junk, and its possible extermination under waves of nonwhites (followed by a Jewish exodus?); Japan's firebombing; France being bombed; and so on, surely pointers to the genuine desires of the 'Secret Elite', might have been factored in.
At the lighter level, I've read 'Tsaritsa' is the correct title for the Tsar's wife. 'Straightjacket' should be 'straitjacket'. Infer and imply are mixed up. 'Frederick' becomes 'Fredrick', Middleton becomes 'Midleton'.

Very interesting, but only half-way to full revisionism. But 5 stars.

https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com is their website on volume 2.