By Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty
Orwell famously added: ‘Who controls the past controls the future.’ Fake history is a weapon wielded by ruling elites to exert control over us, for it is knowledge about the past that has the power to shape us as people and develop our comprehension of reality. True history reveals to those who care to learn that democracy is a sham; that we the people are akin to Orwellian proles in Oceania watched over by Big Brother and accepting of anything he cares to tell us or throw at us. Money Power control of the received history is crucially important (more so than control of fake news) because it enables them to keep us in the dark and ensure our ongoing subservience. After almost seventy years Orwell’s observation may appear somewhat clichéd, but it is now more relevant than ever. The highly perceptive author added: ‘The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.’
George Orwell was correct and if humankind is to stand any chance of determining a future without oligarchic totalitarian control, the lies and mythology of our past must be challenged by honest history, hard but necessary truths and historical revision. ‘Revisionism’, according to Joseph Stromberg in an article he wrote about Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, ‘refers to any efforts to revise a faulty exiting historical record or interpretation.’  Professor Barnes, himself one of the greatest revisionists of the 20th century, wrote that revisionism has been most frequently and effectively applied to correcting the historical record relative to wars because ‘truth is always the first war casualty.’  Hold that important statement close. The emotional abuses and distortions in historical writing are greatest in wartime. Consequently, both the need and the material for correcting historical myths are most evident and profuse in connection with wars.
The present authors’ years of research into the origins and conduct of the First World War of 1914-18 (though it continued until the signing of peace in 1919) demonstrates just how accurate Professor Barnes understanding was. Mainstream historians tell us that Germany was guilty of starting WW1 and committing the most barbarous crimes throughout. Proud, virtuous Britain, on the other hand, was forced to go to war against this German evil to fight ‘for freedom, civilization and the integrity of small helpless nations.’ It is all a deliberately concocted lie. Patriotic myths and the victors’ wartime lies and propaganda had been scripted into Britain’s ‘Official History.’ In truth, Britain – or to be more precise, immensely rich and powerful men in Britain – were directly responsible for the war that killed over 20 million people. Kaiser Wilhelm II and Germany did not start the war, did not want war and did what they could to avoid it.
But it is not just First World War history that is involved in the grand deception. Our contention that virtually the entire received history of the twentieth century has been faked and requires urgent and complete revision, will raise no eyebrows in enlightened circles. It will most definitely elicit howls of derision and cries of ‘impossible’ and ‘conspiracy theory’ from the vast majority. Self-interest or cognitive dissonance?
This essay cannot cover the many thousands of examples of historical falsehoods or omissions we found in our historical research – our books do that – but it explains in detail how the men behind the curtain actually create fake history. It is complex and the article is, by necessity, long because corners cannot be cut in relating this hugely important issue.
Who is responsible for faking history?
The elites multifaceted approach ranges from the straightforward destruction or concealment of documents and books, to the more subtle methods of employing Court Historians with their control systems such as ‘peer review’. Before we examine how history is actually faked we need to understand who fakes it. In this regard, the most important influences on our work were books by Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment.
The astonishing 1,300 page tome Tragedy and Hope, published in 1966, revealed the existence of a secret society initially created by the gold and diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes in London in 1891. Its aim was to expand the British Empire to all habitable parts of the world. The enlarged empire would be run by wealthy upper class elites and based on English ruling class values as espoused by Professor John Ruskin at Oxford University. These rich and powerful individuals felt obliged to rule the entire world because they considered the vast majority of the human race too ignorant to do so themselves. In the decades following Cecil Rhodes death in 1902, the secret society evolved. It became transnational as the singularly English elite merged with the American money-power – Quigley’s Anglo-American Establishment – and the geographical axis moved from London to New York. The Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the United Nations in the U.S. were created as Money Power instruments towards their one world government, that is, the ‘New World Order’ which is openly discussed today.
Members of the secret society controlled the United States, the White House, the Federal Reserve System and Wall Street. They likewise controlled Britain, Downing Street, the Bank of England and the City – the financial district of London. They ruled from behind the scenes and were not necessarily the major political players known to everyone. They selected major political figures and funded and controlled them. They would not be the great teachers or historians, but they decided who would be elevated to the great chairs of learning and funded historians who wrote the fake histories. This secret group has been the world’s major historical force since before World War 1 and, according to Professor Quigley, every major event in history since then has been dominated by them.  The secret society was
…one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century. Indeed, the Group is of such significance that evidence of its existence is not hard to find, if one knows where to look. 
We looked, followed the clues, trails and names presented by Professor Quigley and were utterly astonished to find that a secret cabal actually existed with unfettered powers in Britain and the United States. Quigley called them the ‘Group’; we have termed them the Secret Elite, but they are also known as the Money Power, the Deep State, the Men behind the Curtain and so forth. The shocking evidence we have uncovered goes much deeper than that exposed by Quigley, and indicates beyond all doubt that the individuals involved in the cabal – in both London and New York – were responsible for starting, and unnecessarily prolonging, the First World War. Through enormous wealth, power and control of Oxford University, they were able to cover their tracks and fabricate a history which blamed Kaiser Wilhelm II and Germany. A century later, that fake history is still presented as truth by ‘eminent’ mainstream historians with links to Oxford.
The Rise of the Money Power
Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope revealed the ambitions of those whose wealth bought real power:
…The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.’ 
Free from any single political interference, this system was controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland; a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Quigley was adamant that ‘Each central bank … sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.’ The power of the central bank in each instance rested largely on its control of the credit and money supply. In the world as a whole the power of the central bankers rested very largely on their control of loans and gold flows.
Professor Quigley explained how, in 1924, Reginald McKenna, former British Chancellor of the Exchequer and at the time chairman of the board of the Midland Bank, told its stockholders:
I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money … And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people. 
It was an extraordinarily frank statement from a man close to the inner circles of the British Establishment. The international bankers on Wall Street were intimately linked to the Rothschilds in London and Paris. They manipulated the political power of the state to create the corrupt Federal Reserve System to gain a monopoly over the money issue through it.
Another important contributor to the unmasking of the Money Power, Professor Antony Sutton revealed:
The Federal Reserve has the power to create money. This money is fiction, created out of nothing … In brief, this private group of bankers has a money machine monopoly. This monopoly is uncontrolled by anyone and is guaranteed profit. 
With a magic machine that created money from thin air, the international bankers were able to control not merely individual politicians, but entire governments. By comparison, controlling the writing and teaching of history was child’s play. Quigley revealed the names of the rich and powerful banks and bankers – the Gods of Money – who were intimately involved. They included N.M Rothschild, Barings, Hambros, Lazard Brothers and Morgan Grenfell in London.  On Wall Street were J.P. Morgan, Kuhn-Loeb & Co., J.D. Rockefeller and Brown Brothers and Harriman.  Members of these banks on both sides of the Atlantic ‘knew each other intimately.’ 
Carroll Quigley had been invited by the secret society to study its membership, aims and objectives, and states he was helped in this by the British historian Alfred Zimmern who was himself a member of the secret cabal. It appears that Professor Quigley was actually chosen by the secret society to be its official historian.  He was one of the brightest stars in the galaxy of American academics. As a student at Harvard, Quigley had gained two top degrees and a Ph.D. He taught history at Princeton University and Harvard before moving to the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown as professor of history. He was a distinguished member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Anthropological Association and the American Economic Association for many years. He was also a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy and the Smithsonian Institution. He sat on the Congressional Select Committee which set up the National Space Agency. This is an outstanding professional record. Most academics of ambition would have considered their careers to be crowned by any one of Quigley’s individual achievements. He had entry to the innermost workings of the powers which controlled the United States. It is vital that we appreciate that his voice comes from the inside looking out. He knew what was happening and how the system truly worked.
Yet Quigley’s personal position on these developments remains somewhat confused. He stated that he admired the society and many of its members and its goals, but not its methods.  He believed they should abandon secrecy and make their aims and objectives clear to all. This may have been his downfall. To us it remains an enigma that Quigley said he admired these individuals and their globalist aims of a one world government controlled by bankers, yet on the very same page stated that their tendency to place power in and influence into hands chosen by friendship rather than merit, their oblivion to the consequences of their actions, their ignorance of the point of view of persons in other countries or of persons of other classes in their own country … have brought many of the things which they and I hold dear, close to disaster.’ 
Did Professor Quigley decide in the end, like his fellow historian Professor Alfred Zimmern, that the secret society posed such a menace to the world that he chose to expose it? We shall never know. Unable to ridicule Tragedy and Hope as ‘conspiracy theory’ because of his exalted academic position and status, when it was published those he named decided to bury the book. Immediately on its release, unknown persons removed it from bookstore shelves in America – ‘faster than exploding Easter bunnies’ as one wit put it. It was withdrawn from sale without any justification and its original plates were destroyed by Quigley’s publisher, the Macmillan Company. The publishing company was owned by the family of the Earl of Stockton, Harold McMillan, who was British Prime Minister 1957-1963 and at the heart of the British Establishment. Years later, when a rare surviving copy of Tragedy and Hope was found and an unknown publisher decided to pirate it, copies began to sell.
Quigley was deeply offended by the suppression of a book which had taken him twenty years to write. In a 1974 radio broadcast he warned the interviewer, Rudy Maxa of the Washington Post: ‘You better be discreet. You have to protect my future, as well as your own.’  He revealed in the interview that after the book was suppressed, for the next six years he repeatedly asked the publisher what was going on. They ‘lied, lied, lied’ to him and deliberately misled him into believing that it would be reprinted. Quigley stated that powerful people had suppressed his book because it exposed matters that they did not want known. Universities, academics and the mainstream media remained silent over his explosive revelations, the destruction of the book, and the disgraceful treatment of one of America’s top academics.
Unbeknown to them, Quigley had written an earlier history (in 1949) of the all-powerful secret society titled The Anglo-American Establishment. Though some of the facts came to him from sources which he was not permitted to name, he presented only those where he was ‘able to produce documentary evidence available to everyone’.  The book carried far greater detail of the secret society than Tragedy and Hope, especially on the English side of the Atlantic. It exposed exactly who its members were and their intricate family, banking and business inter-connections. It revealed how they controlled politics, the major newspapers, and the writing and teaching of history through Oxford University. It was clearly such an explosive expose of the ruling cabal, and placed him in such potential danger, that he would not allow it to be published in his lifetime. The book was only released in 1981, four years after his death. We consider The Anglo-American Establishment to be the most important work of modern history written in the twentieth century.
The relevance of Quigley’s work in the context of fake history derives from the fact that he revealed exactly how the secret society controlled the writing and teaching of history through a ‘triple-front penetration in politics, education, and journalism.’  They did so through their domination of Oxford University, and Balliol College and All Souls College in particular. They recruited men of ability, chiefly from All Souls and controlled them through the granting of titles and positions of power. The Secret Elite were thus able to influence public policy and education by placing these individuals at the apex of public institutions such as universities, and shielding them as much as possible from public attention or criticism.  Viscount (Lord) Alfred Milner was the leading player in the society’s growth and development from the late 1890s until his death in 1925. He gathered around him a brood of talented Oxford men, utterly loyal to the primacy of the British Empire in pursuit of a new world order. Quigley wrote that no country that values its safety should allow what the Milner group accomplished:
That is, that a small number of men would be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be given almost complete control over the publication of documents relating to their actions, should be able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be able to monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period. 
‘Almost complete control over the publication of documents relating to their actions‘ is, in a nut-shell, how they control history, turn history from enlightenment to deception. The Secret Elite dictated the writing of history from the ivory towers of academia at Oxford, and what was taught thereafter in universities, colleges and schools across the land. To this day, researchers are denied access to documents because the Secret Elite has much to fear from the truth. They ensure that we learn only those ‘facts’ that support their version of history. They are determined to wipe out all traces that lead back to them, and take every possible step to ensure that it remains exceedingly difficult to unmask their crimes.
They carefully controlled the publication of official government papers, the selection of documents for inclusion in the official version of the history of the First World War and all that followed. Incriminating documents were burned, removed from official records, shredded, falsified or deliberately rewritten, so that what remained for genuine researchers and historians was carefully selected material. The professors of history who wrote the false history of the First World War had been carefully selected in the pre-war years by the ruling elite and placed in chairs of modern history and the history of war at Oxford. These chairs had been set up and fully funded by members of the secret society whose outrageous wealth was based on their gold and diamond investments in South Africa. Few, if any, historians elsewhere dared question these ‘eminent’ men at the ‘world’s leading university.’ It is this fake history which has been ingrained in the minds of generations of British schoolchildren over the past century. Any alternative view is heresy.
Unable to ridicule The Anglo-American Establishment as conspiracy theory because of the late Professor Quigley’s high status, and clearly concerned that any publicity would simply draw attention to it, the ruling elite decided to bury it. Anyone ignorant of just how tightly the Money Power controls the mainstream media, might expect quality newspapers to headline this explosive work and praise Quigley as a national hero for exposing the destruction of the democratic process. He had uncovered and revealed a deep and very dangerous corruption which posed a grave threat to our way of life. What happened? Nothing. No newspaper, television or radio station reviewed or commented on his incendiary book. None. It was blanked by ‘official’ history. To our knowledge, and to their shame, no mainstream academic historians have ever written a review of this stunning work. What we must ask is; was anyone permitted to offer such a critique?
From burning correspondence to permanently removing the evidence.
From its inception in 1891, members of the secret society have taken exceptional care to remove traces of the conspiracy. Letters to and from its leader Alfred Milner were culled, removed, burned or otherwise destroyed.  In 2013 we closely examined many of Milner’s remaining papers which are held in the Bodleian Library at Oxford University. They bear witness to the zeal with which much evidence of wrongdoing has been obliterated. Secret dispatches that we know from other sources that he sent, have disappeared. Incriminating letters penned by King Edward VII – a leading secret cabal player in the genesis of WW1 before his death in 1910 – were subject to an order that they must be destroyed immediately on his death. Admiral Jacky Fisher a Royal favourite noted in his Memories that he had been advised by Lord Knollys, the king’s private secretary, to burn all letters sent to him by the king. Fisher consequently burned much of his royal correspondence but couldn’t bear to part with it all.  Lord Nathaniel Rothschild, member of the cabal and by far the richest man in the world, likewise ordered that his papers and correspondence be burned posthumously lest his political influence and connections became known. As his official biographer commented, one can but ‘wonder how much of the Rothschilds political role remains irrevocably hidden from posterity’. 
In Britain crucial primary documents about the lies and deceit surrounding the First World War through diaries, memoirs and important letters were censored and altered, evidence sifted, removed, burned, carefully ‘selected’ and falsified. Bad as that may be, it is of relatively minor importance compared to the outrageous theft of crucial papers from across Europe. In the immediate post-war years, hundreds of thousands of important documents pertaining to the origins of the First World War were taken from their countries of origin to the west coast of America and concealed in locked vaults at Stanford University. The documents, which would doubtless have exposed the men who were truly responsible for the war, had to be removed to a secure location and hidden from prying eyes. It was the greatest heist of history that the world has ever known.
Herbert Clark Hoover, a nasty, corrupt and dishonest ‘mining engineer’ reinvented as a munificent humanitarian and international relief organizer, was the Secret Elite agent charged with the mammoth job of stealing the European documents. In modern day parlance, had it all been recorded on computer he was the one who pressed the delete button. From the early days of the war in 1914, Hoover had been tasked with ensuring that the enemy, Germany, had sufficient supplies of food. Without this food which, astonishingly, came via Belgium from America and every part of the British Empire, Germany would have been forced to capitulate and the war would have ended by the Spring of 1915. Had they not supplied Germany, the astronomical war profits made by the Anglo-American bankers and merchants of death over the ensuing years of slaughter until November 1918 would have been lost. Far from being the ‘humanitarian hero’ who saved the Belgian people from starvation during the war, Hoover’s so-called ‘Belgian Relief’ agency also fed the German army in order to prolong the conflict and maximize profit.  His American-based organization raised millions of dollars through loans and public donation, shipped vast quantities of food and necessities to war-torn Europe and made obscene profits for his backers, yet no documentary evidence of this enormous enterprise could be found at the end of the war. It had disappeared. All of it. Impossible, surely?
The theft of Europe’s historical documents was dressed in a cloak of respectability and represented as a philanthropic act of preservation. These documents, it was claimed, would be properly archived for the use of future historians. The official line was that if not removed from government agencies in France, Russia, Germany and elsewhere, the papers detailing the extent of Hoover’s work would ‘easily deteriorate and disappear’.  It was no chance decision that only documents relating to the war’s origins and ‘Belgian relief’ were taken. No official British, French or American government approval was sought or given. Indeed, like the thief in the night, stealth was the rule of thumb. On the basis that it was kept ‘entirely confidential’, Ephraim Adams, professor of history at Stanford University and a close friend of Hoover’s from their student days there, was called to Paris to coordinate the great heist and give it academic credence.
In 1919, Hoover recruited a management team of ‘young scholars’ from the American army and secured their release from military service. They were primarily interested in material relating to the war’s true origins and the sham Commission for Relief of Belgium. Other documents concerning the conduct of the war itself were ignored. His team used letters of introduction and logistical support to collect import / export bills, sales and distribution records, insurance documents and local customs permits amongst a plethora of incriminating evidence. He established a network of representatives throughout Europe and persuaded General John Pershing to release fifteen history professors and students serving in various ranks of the American Expeditionary Force in Europe.  He sent them, in uniform, to the countries his agency was feeding. With food in one hand and reassurance in the other, they visited nations on the brink of starvation and faced little resistance in their quest. They made the right local contacts, ‘snooped’ around for archives and found so many that Hoover ‘was soon shipping them back to the US as ballast in the empty food boats’.  Hoover recruited an additional 1,000 agents whose first haul amounted to 375,000 volumes of the ‘Secret War Documents’ from European governments.  It has not been possible for us to discover who actually funded this gargantuan, massively expensive venture.
The removal and disposal of incriminatory British and French material posed little or no problem and with the Bolsheviks in control, access to Russian documents from the Czarist regime proved straightforward. They undoubtedly contained hugely damaging information on how the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 had been orchestrated through Petrograd, and how Russia’s general mobilization on Germany’s eastern border had been the real reason for the war starting. It might appear strange that the Bolsheviks cooperated so willingly by allowing Hoover’s agents to remove twenty-five carloads of material from Petrograd,  but when one realizes that the international bankers in the secret society had financed and facilitated Lenin and Trotsky’s return to Russia, and the Bolshevik Revolution itself, it becomes clear.  The Americans could have what they wanted. This surprising event was reported in The New York Times which claimed that Hoover’s team bought the documents from a ‘doorkeeper’ for $200 cash.  And some people think that fake news is a twenty-first century concept.
Removal of documents from Germany presented few problems. Fifteen carloads of material were taken, including ‘the complete secret minutes of the German Supreme War Council’ – a ‘gift’ from Friedrich Ebert, first president of the post-war German Republic. Hoover explained this away with the comment that Ebert was ‘a radical with no interest in the work of his predecessors’.  But the starving man will exchange even his birthright for food. Hoover’s men also acquired 6,000 volumes of German documents covering the complete official proceedings of the Kaiser’s pre-war activities and his wartime conduct of the German empire.  If Germany had been guilty of planning and starting the war – as decreed by Court Historians ever since – these documents would have proved it. Strange that none have ever been released. Had there been incriminating documents, it is certain that copies would have been sent out immediately to every press and news agency throughout the world proving Germany was to blame. The removal and concealment of the German archives by the Secret Elite was crucial because they would have proved the opposite: Germany had no interest in war and most certainly did not start it.
By 1926, the ‘Hoover War Library’ at Stanford University was so packed with archived material that it was legitimately described as the world’s largest collection of First World War documentation.  In reality, this was no library. While the documents were physically housed within Stanford, the collection was kept separate and only individuals with the highest authority had keys to the padlocked gates. It was the Fort Knox of historical evidence, a closely guarded establishment for items too sensitive to share. In 1941 only carefully selected archives were made available to genuine researchers. Over the previous two decades the unaccountable ruling cabal – the very men responsible for WW1 – had unfettered control over them. What they withheld from view, shredded, or put in the Stanford furnace will never be known. Suffice to say that no First World War historian has ever reproduced or quoted any controversial material housed in what is now known as the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Indeed, it is a startling fact that no war historian has ever written about this utterly astonishing theft of the European war documents and their shipment to America.
‘To the victor go the spoils and history is part of that booty’, but it is our history. We should be demanding to know what is hidden from us. The First World War was the seminal event of the twentieth century, and all that followed, including WW2, came as a direct consequence. The people of Britain and Germany, indeed the world, have a right to know the full extent of what has been secretly retained, hidden, or posted ‘missing’ regarding responsibility for that war.
Concealment of British war-time documents
The Hoover Institution at Stanford was not the sole depository for the concealment and sifting of incriminatory documents. In his book The History Thieves, Ian Cobain, an investigative journalist with The Guardian newspaper in London, reveals a secret facility just an hour’s drive north of the city. Concealed in dense woodland near the tiny hamlet of Hanslope, lies ‘one of the most secure facilities operated by any government, anywhere in the world.’ An outpost of Britain’s domestic and foreign spy agencies, MI5 and MI6 which are based in London, Hanslope Park is guarded by a seven-foot-high chain-link fence, just beyond which is a ten-foot-high fence topped with coils of razor wire. Every few yards between the fences are closed-circuit television cameras and floodlights. Cobain writes, ‘only from the air can the enormous scale of the compound be comprehended, it measures almost half a mile across … It is a perfect place to bury difficult secrets.’ 
Controversial files relating to Britain’s colonial outrages were destroyed, and there can be no doubt whatsoever that incriminating files confirming British responsibility for starting WW1, have likewise either been destroyed or hidden in the vaults at Hanslope. ‘Files have been concealed for years, held where no historian or lawyer or interested member of the public could find them.’  Many of these documents have been withheld well beyond the freedom of information time limits for the release of confidential papers. Freedom of Information laws exist, but so many exemptions are applied that it can still prove impossible to access documents that are a century and more old.  It is difficult to decide what the greatest outrage is; concealment of the documents or the fact that academic historians and mainstream journalists have remained totally supine when they should be standing up to the Money Power and creating hell about this. Ian Cobain is an exception and we are indebted to him.
The fruits of our research very clearly show that the entire mainstream thesis that Germany was to blame for the war is a complete fabrication. This leads us to the inevitable but depressing conclusion that, apart from a few notable exceptions, brave and honest war historians are few and far between. Before the First World War had even begun, a dedicated team of ‘eminent’ English court historians was brought together at Oxford University and richly rewarded for creating anti-German propaganda in the form of ‘Oxford Pamphlets.’ They created fake history which blamed a completely innocent Germany while depicting Britain as the saviour of the free world. It was but the beginning of a great lie. The vast majority of academics beyond Oxford unwittingly swallowed that great lie, or were too cowed to question it. The ‘argument from authority’ meant that it was true because an authority figure said so. Little has changed over the intervening century. To this day Court Historians churn out new books about the First World War which throw in the odd caveat that Germany was not solely to blame, but basically rehash the old lies about German guilt. These books are extravagantly praised by fellow Court Historians, and puffed and critiqued in the mainstream media as ‘new and radical interpretations’. It is likely that a number of academics outside the charmed circle recognize the falsehood, but comfortable academic careers, incomes and mortgages have to be protected. The quiet life is infinitely better to being hounded out of a job and ridiculed as a ‘conspiracy theory’ crank indulging in ‘fake history’. We understand that. They have jobs to keep, mortgages to pay, families to feed.
In faking history, lies are created and truth is twisted or suppressed. Revisionists presenting genuine historical information are fiercely criticized and their work publicly ridiculed. Quite ludicrously, the ‘anti-Semitic’ pejorative is thrown around like mud today if one even mentions ‘international bankers’. Our Hidden History has been subjected to attacks on the web by what some consider a paid disinformation agent of the Money Power. Bold revisionist historians such as Professor Harry Elmer Barnes who stood virtually alone in revealing the true history of WW1, and Professor Antony Sutton and Dr. Guido Preparata, who revealed Wall Street’s role in creating Hitler and WW2, were brilliant American scholars whose careers were ruined for daring to speak truth about the real holders of power. Fortunately we are both retired and no longer have careers to protect.
The polar opposite of revisionists are the ‘eminent’ historians willing to sell themselves in return for important professorships, stellar careers, lucrative lecture tours, television documentary productions and book publishing deals. These are the individuals carefully selected to create false histories. Glowing critiques of their work in the controlled mainstream media are assured. The odd Pulitzer Prize or knighthood in Britain will be thrown in for good measure. But such acquiescence to falsehood among academic historians is not simply a modern phenomenon. Classics scholar Professor Peter Wiseman relates how ancient historiography is plagued by mendacious writings from ‘modest elaboration of fact to outright, even flagrant, lying.’
Peter Hoffer, Research Professor of History at the University of Georgia, explained just how difficult it now is for historical truth to prevail:
Lying may be rational or illogical or both, but it is a subject that cannot be avoided in any philosophy of history for our time. History itself is replete with lies and lying. The best and worst example is the big lie. The big lie is a simple message of allegedly great importance. Repeated over and over, despite the piling up of counter-evidence, it has a power that truth cannot deflect and evidence to the contrary cannot undo … A lie [however] does not have to be all that big to make a difference in history. 
In bygone days such dishonest academics operated under the patronage of Europe’s royal courts and were termed ‘Court Historians’. They related only accounts that were favourable to the monarchy, no matter how false they might be. The power of royalty has greatly diminished, but Court Historians remain a significant entity as the intellectual bodyguards of the State. ‘They shape and defend the “official line” or interpretation on the State’s wars, its presidential regimes, foreign policy or other key historical events and policies. As a result they enjoy high esteem and recognition in the mainstream media and academia. As defenders of the status quo they frequently attack and label their critics as conspiracy theorists, revisionists, isolationists, appeasers, anti-intellectuals, or other bogey men, rather than engage in civil discourse or discussion.’ 
There are, of course, more subtle ways of projecting fake history than the straightforward big lie or concealment/destruction of evidence. John Tosh, Professor of History at Roehampton University, London, and former Vice-President of the Royal Historical Society, has studied the basics of historiography and the problems involved in using primary and secondary sources in ascertaining ‘facts’. Tosh relates how many primary sources used in historical works are inaccurate, muddled, based on hearsay or actually ‘intended to mislead’. Indeed, ‘the majority of sources are in some way inaccurate, incomplete or tainted by prejudice and self-interest.’  According to Professor Tosh ‘Historical writing of all kinds is determined as much by what it leaves out as by what it puts in’.  Add that to the fact that so many primary sources have been concealed or destroyed, and the honest investigator faces major barriers to the truth.
The late Cambridge University historian, Professor Herbert Butterfield, warned that omission of important documents from the historical record is not always the fault of historians employed by government. They can only deal with the material they are given. The processes by which official papers are accumulated offers government officials and individual Cabinet Ministers the opportunity to cull these before they are handed over. As Professor Carroll Quigley explained, many of these political figures are effectively puppets of the Secret Elite.
When the official histories are read by the public they have no idea what has been suppressed or withheld. It may be that a single document is more important than all the rest – the exclusion of one document out of three hundred is even capable of destroying the clue to the whole series. … It has proved possible in the history of historical science for a release of diplomatic documents to carry students further away from the truth than before, if the release has not been a total one. 
On the role of ‘official’ government historians Professor Butterfield adds: ‘…Nothing could be more subtle than the influence of upon historians of admission to the charmed circle … a well-run State needs no heavy-handed censorship, for it binds the historian with soft charms and with subtle, comfortable chains.’ 
The Peer Review process.
Control of the history narrative itself is yet another mechanism for creating fake accounts. This, ironically, is achieved by applying an academic principle of historical research which is meant to prevent junk history; the peer review process. Peer review involves a manuscript or research proposal being read and evaluated anonymously by scholars who are themselves part and parcel of the system. They may have considerable expertise in the period, subject matter, languages, and documents with which the author deals, but they have a list of criteria to which the aspiring historical author must bend the knee. And herein lies the finesse of the overall system which prevents true history emerging. Academic papers which fail to display knowledge of existing work, or fail to provide what the peer reviewers deem as valid evidence, will not be approved. It will be damned as weak and appropriate revisions and resubmissions will be demanded. In other words, the fake history of the approved ‘eminent’ Court Historian has to be included. Where valid documentary evidence has been destroyed, corrupted, removed, culled and so forth, then the author is limited to the scraps which have survived. Thus, at a stroke, the permanent withdrawal of primary source documents at Stanford and Hanslope achieves its aim. Genuine, honest history researchers face huge difficulty moving beyond the parameters created by those who actually determine what can or cannot be accepted as history, and they have to play this peer review game to have any hope of advancing their careers. They are required to stay on the mainline train and regurgitate that which the elites want us to believe is true history. Those who deviate or question the process are not tolerated. The only route is the mainline track, laid down by the great universities from chairs of history funded and controlled by the corrupted system.
According to the American Historical Association, the peer review entails a manuscript or research proposal being read and evaluated by other scholars with expertise in the time period, subject matter, languages, and documents with which the author deals. As peers of the author in a specialized field, these reviewers provide analysis to the review boards of agencies on the scholarly significance of the article: Does the author display knowledge of existing work in the field? Does the research design, processes and methodologies, for example, conform to professional standards? Does the author advance an original argument and provide valid evidence to support the work? If particular areas are weak or absent in the presentation, the peer reviewers suggest revisions that will strengthen the project and call for resubmission before funding is awarded or a manuscript is accepted for publication. Scholars support the concept of carefully monitored peer review as the fairest way possible to ensure disinterested evaluation of research, and ‘the American Historical Association believes that such peer review will best serve the American people who fund the research’.  Absorb that, please. ‘Will best serve the American people who fund the research.’ Many academic posts in history are funded by the Money Power. If the state is the funder, it should serve the state. Believe us, it does.
The peer review process may appear the ideal means by which the quality and honesty of historical writing are ensured. And it is claimed that although it is not perfect, it is the best safeguard that academic standards in history have. Reality, however, is different. Well-known, establishment historians who support the status quo are more likely to be recruited as peer reviewers. In the field of war historians especially, it is actually used as a means to sustain and promulgate the junk history it is supposed to weed out. The ‘competent, qualified and unbiased reviewers’ who ‘best serve the American people’ are, in practice, highly critical of articles that contradict their own mainstream narratives. They reject them outright. The fact that their narratives and meta-narratives serve the purposes of Money Power and other elites may be incidental, but is not coincidental, to their epistemological deficiencies. Only official ‘academic’ interpretations and narratives are permitted, and have displaced all other points of view in US and European universities. Naturally, these other points of view are not conducive to the elite interests and consequently are effectively outlawed. The mechanism of displacement is the very matter of peer-review. All ‘revisionist’ voices are starved to death.  Professor Carroll Quigley revealed, and we have confirmed time and again in our books, how Oxford University remains the guardian of establishment history in Britain. Shades of an Orwellian dystopia darken the academic freedoms which have long been touted as the mark of an advanced liberal society.
Parallels with medical research
Worryingly, similarities with corruption in academic history and academic medical/pharmaceutical research and reporting appear to be on the increase. Senior academics who have succumbed to the lure of status and financial rewards are to be found in many fields and the corruption of science-based medicine and academic history offers striking parallels. Like peer review in history, that process provides neither an assured filter for incorrect findings nor a guarantor of the researchers’ integrity. Professor Richard Horton, editor-in chief of the Lancet – recognized as one of the most highly respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world – stated recently that the case against science is straightforward: ‘Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.’  History has been faked and science turned towards darkness. Alarm bells should be sounding across the universe. We continue to be lied to.
The ‘flagrant conflicts of interest’ are the root of the problem in both history and medicine, with a number of senior academics in both fields labouring not for the truth, but for lucrative bonuses paid by powerful paymasters with set agendas. Professor Horton adds; ‘Scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world’, but admits that medical journals themselves are not blameless: ‘Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours.’  Exactly the same charge can be leveled against even the most prestigious of history journals.
In 2011 the British Medical Journal quoted Dr. Marcia Angell, a long time editor of yet another highly regarded peer-reviewed medical journal: ‘It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.” 
In the New York Review of Books, Dr. Angell reviewed books written by whistle blowers in the medical field. She states that no one knows the total slush money provided by drug companies to influence results, but it’s estimated that the top nine U.S. drug companies alone pay out tens of billions of dollars a year. As a direct consequence, Big Pharma has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its products. ‘Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease.’ Angell added that compromised physicians at the highest levels set the guidelines and treatment recommendations nationally. They sit on governmental advisory panels, head professional societies and speak at regular meetings and dinners that take place to teach clinicians about prescription drugs.  Morality is dead. Killed by the greed of the Money Power.
A recent survey found that about two thirds of academic medical institutions hold equity interest in companies that sponsor research within the same institution. A study of medical school department chairs found that two thirds received departmental income from drug companies and three fifths received personal income. ‘Of the 170 contributors to the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), ninety-five had financial ties to drug companies, including all of the contributors to the sections on mood disorders and schizophrenia.’ Billions were being spent (and gained in profit by Big Pharma) on unnecessary, non-efficacious psychiatric medicines that might well be doing more harm than good, even to very young children. For example the professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who also held the post of chief of paediatric psychopharmacology at Harvard’s Massachusetts General Hospital, was largely responsible for children as young as two years old being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with cocktails of powerful drugs. The professor’s studies of the drugs were, as The New York Timessummarised, ‘so small and loosely designed that they were largely inconclusive.’ A U.S. Senator revealed that drug companies, including those that make the drugs the professor advocated for childhood bipolar disorder, had paid him $1.6 million in consultation and speaking fees. Two of his colleagues received similar amounts. 
But the corruption was by no means limited to psychiatry. ‘In 2004, after the National Cholesterol Education Program called for sharply lowering the desired levels of “bad” cholesterol, it was revealed that eight of nine members of the panel writing the recommendations had financial ties to the makers of cholesterol-lowering drugs.’ It is also evident that many members of the standing committees of experts that advise the FDA on drug approvals also have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. 
Big Pharma and the Money Power are, of course, closely related and their corruption of science based medicine and academic history bears striking similarities. They have extensive ties to senior faculty at prestigious universities where they fund departmental professorial chairs. They compromise physicians and historians at the highest level with lucrative incomes, and highly remunerated lecture tours where they disseminate the ‘sculpted data’ which harmonizes with the false accounts demanded by their paymasters. The peer review process in both specialties has been comprised. It is clear that numerous senior individuals in the medical field have sold their honesty and integrity, just as have numerous senior academic historians. But some in the medical profession can be justifiably proud of the fact that honest doctors and medical journals are prepared to expose corruption and name and shame those involved. There is, alas, no such response to be found in the academic history profession where not one solitary voice has been raised against the corrupters or those who fund the corruption.
The Failure of primary source evidence.
Establishment historians place great value on the use of primary source evidence. This is described as ‘Narrative Fixation’ by the heterodox economist Edward Fullbrook  who cites Einstein’s famous aphorism:
Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use: It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
Professor Fullbrook states that in his academic field, by adopting a single point of view and refusing to admit alternative insights, economists deprive themselves of the means of a fuller understanding of the matters they seek to explain. But it is not just in economics that such limitations become apparent. The narrative fixation on the dialectical side of scientific development has had, and continues to have, a deleterious consequence in the human sciences. This involves all of the Humanities and Social Sciences including, as we see here, History. In any attempt to understand a complex truth, what is required is a multiplicity of points of view – a width of methodologies and epistemologies – a ‘Narrative Pluralism’ – but academic historians have a narrative fixation: No documents; no narrative. 
In an article, The Frailty of Historical Truth: Learning Why Historians Inevitably Fail, published by the American Historical Association, Professor David Lowenthal states that ‘Secondary sources are ipso facto unreliable.’  In other words, primary sources should be used. The fundamental problem in war history, however, as we and other revisionists have clearly demonstrated, lies in the fact that it is underpinned by primary sources which are unreliable – not least because so many have been systematically destroyed, falsified, altered, misrepresented, hidden or ‘lost’. In the absence of reliable primary source evidence, it is entirely legitimate – indeed it is mandatory on the part of truth-seekers – to look to other means of establishing what has occurred, what continues to happen and why. ‘Eminent’ historians have decreed that secondary sources/circumstantial evidence are a taboo in historical research, yet they play a hugely important role in the criminal law courts and can literally mean a matter of life or death? In homicide cases or other serious felonies, police detectives act much like historians in searching the past for evidence. If it is considered that sufficient evidence has been uncovered, the accused is sent for trial before a jury of his peers. The gold standard in law courts is direct evidence, but in the majority of cases there is none and only indirect circumstantial evidence is available. By way of example, direct evidence is presented if a witness states that she saw the defendant pull out a gun and actually shoot the victim. On the other hand, if she did not witness the shooting but saw the defendant enter a house with a gun, heard a gunshot and screaming and thereafter saw the defendant leave carrying the gun, it is circumstantial evidence. If two or more independent witnesses testify to this, it is very powerful circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence – and that includes fingerprints and forensic evidence presented by expert witnesses – allows for more than one explanation. When different strands of such evidence are drawn together and each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others, there is every reason to take serious notice. For hundreds of years attorneys have talked about this ‘cable’ of circumstantial evidence. A cable is made up of many strands which individually are not particularly strong, but the more strands which are applied to the cable the stronger it becomes. In many, if not indeed the majority of legal cases, it is this cable of circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence which solidly links an accused to the crime. Juries in the United States and elsewhere are entitled to reach a verdict on such evidence, and Judges are able to condemn an individual to death on the strength of that verdict. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that ‘circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence,’  yet academic war historians deride its use.
Straightforward lies, concealment of important evidence, a peer review system that encourages only accounts sympathetic to the Establishment, and insistence on using only primary source documents (which in reality are the remnants which have survived the Establishment’s cull) are all important elements in the production of fake history.
In the early 1970s, Canadian war historian Nicholas D’Ombrain began researching British War Office records. He noted: ‘The Registry Files were in a deplorable condition, having suffered the periodic ravages of the policy of “weeding”. One such clearance was in progress during my foray into these files, and I found that my material was being systematically reduced by as much as five-sixths.’  Astonishingly, a large amount of ‘sensitive’ material was actually removed as the researcher went about his business. Where did it go? Who authorized its removal? He accused the establishment of systematic withdrawal of evidence. In addition, D’Ombrain noted that minutes of the Committee of Imperial Defense and ‘circulation and invitation lists’ together with much ‘routine’ correspondence had been destroyed.  That D’Ombrain found five-sixths of the total files melting away in front of him demonstrated clearly that unnamed others still retained a vested interest in keeping hidden genuine evidence of historical record.
On conducting our own research we noted that the official notice in the Public Record Office List of Cabinet Papers warns, ‘the papers listed … are certainly not the whole of those collectively considered by Cabinet Ministers.’ The gap, however, is breath-taking. No effort is made to explain why crucial records are missing or what happened to them. Nothing is included from 14 July until 20 August, 1914. Nothing! This period covered the crucial two week ‘July Crisis’ in the run up to the First World War, the British declaration of war on Germany on 4 August, and almost three weeks into the war itself.  It beggars belief that such crucial Cabinet papers relating to one of the most significant events in British history have disappeared.
While official Cabinet papers for the time frame do not exist – presumably destroyed (the files at the National Archives at Kew in London were completely empty) we know what was going on in some detail because Prime Minister Asquith (aka ‘Squiffy’ because it was alleged that he drank a bottle of claret each evening) was writing letters to his paramour, Venetia Stanley, and sharing secret Cabinet details with her. Had Asquith not communicated privately and very indiscreetly to his young paramour, much of what was discussed at those meetings would be lost to history. His letters of August 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, contain the inner secrets of what was said by whom in crucial Cabinet meetings whose minutes were presumably destroyed. The book H.H. Asquith letters to Venetia Stanley – essentially a compilation of Asquith’s love letters – was not published until 1982  and therefore not subject to the post-war censor. This unquestionably saved the information from being redacted or burned.
When researching later Cabinet Memoranda housed in the National Archives,  pages were found to be missing. Page 685 (which was in a series which included crucial confidential documents about Herbert Hoover’s Belgian Relief) has been torn out. Despite this, we had more than sufficient evidence to prove that Britain and America were secretly provisioning Germany through Hoover’s organization in order to prolong the war. Countless documents are missing, but in fairness to the librarians and custodians of the Public Record Office, they could only catalogue what was passed to them from the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office, the War Office and the Colonial Office. It is not the fault of librarians.
An Australian expert on Gallipoli, Harvey Broadbent, had a similar experience when researching the archives: ‘…Difficulties lie in the fact that not all Gallipoli documents seem to be present in the National Archives. There are gaps in document collections of certain events and at crucial times of the campaign.’  Broadbent harbours suspicion that the 1915 Gallipoli campaign (where over a quarter of a million allied soldiers and sailors, including many from Australia and New Zealand, were killed or badly wounded) was deliberately set up to fail by the British and French governments. We gathered many individual strands of circumstantial evidence on this, wound them in to a very strong cable, and have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that it was indeed deliberately set up to fail.
The doomed project went ahead to enable greater geo-political strategies which would benefit the Secret Elite, including post-war control of oil in the Middle East and control of Palestine. Gallipoli was a disaster for the allies in 1915 and the truth had to be concealed at all costs from the peoples of colonial Australia and New Zealand or they would have reacted severely against both the ‘Mother country’ and the war. Yet the big lies persist, and many Australians continue to celebrate a disaster dressed as a glorious sacrifice; an honour to Australian and New Zealand youth. Lies, lies, lies.
It is evident that falsification of the history of the twentieth century has involved a wide range of nefarious subterfuge. Today, the accepted mainstream version continues to be taken as the source for new books and documentaries in film and television. The ideal of objectivity was abandoned long ago. Highly biased and selective choices were made from the infinite number of true facts. Some were given a central place, others marginalized. Facts were selected to align with the narrative which the oligarchs demanded. Many inaccurate, muddled or tainted primary sources were chosen to mislead. A range of documents might be brought into the public domain with one crucial piece of the jigsaw removed. This skewed the picture, deliberately. And there were lies, outrageous lies, levied against anyone who stood as a potential barrier to elite rule and one world government by exposing the truth. Yet all of that is merely the tip of the rotten iceberg and represents what we can actually recognize when we search the available record. Below the surface lie vast quantities of documents removed from public scrutiny and hidden away in places such as Stanford and Hanslope. It seems possible, if not indeed likely, that other as yet unknown depositories exist. It is impossible to say how many records remain concealed to this day, or have already found their way into furnaces in a factual holocaust. As an iceberg in warmer water gradually melts and recedes from the bottom up, so the records decrease in volume, unseen, unknown and unreported as more and more are selected for destruction. In the age of mass communication we have less access to the truth about history than the generations before us. This is no mistake.
As in so many other areas, when researching history a good opening question is: Cui bono? Who benefits from this systematically destroyed, falsified, altered, hidden or ‘lost’ evidence? The Elites, past and present? The court historians whose success is predicated upon conformity?
In the words of Professor Hillel Ticktin, academic economics, is ‘useless – utterly useless’. So too in any objective sense is academic history. Its value resides only in supporting the present-day elites who pay the piper and own the pipes.
If Orwell’s aphorism holds true it is imperative that we revise the entire historical record of the twentieth century. It may already be too late, but we have to dispel pessimism to stand any chance of taking control of our own future. Much has already been done by revisionists such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Antony Sutton and Guido Preparata, and not least by Carroll Quigley who provided the signposts we need on this complex journey. But the ruling elite today are more adept at burying the truth than ever – as witnessed by the vast percentage of the ‘educated’ peoples of the world who remain totally unaware of their existence or the fact that democracy is a sham. Modern history in its entirety requires grassroots revision.
There is too another concern. The selection of approved versions of history dictates what is taught in our universities and schools. Scottish schoolchildren are taught certain aspects of the First World War but all contentious issues are absent from the syllabus. Attending a conference in Brussels several years ago we learned that Belgian schoolchildren are taught absolutely nothing about the ‘Committee for the Relief of Belgium’ which was directly at the centre as the most significant institution in the country’s First World War history. Internationally, university professors and departmental heads determine the body of knowledge from which degrees are judged. Armed with their prized degrees, those who progress to a career in history are obliged to teach from the same sacred scripture in schools, colleges or universities. No one questions this. No one dares. School and college students are then examined on their historical learning and understanding from texts blessed with institutional approval. Thus, generation after generation, we witness the perpetuation and consolidation of fake history.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that all modern historians or war historians are intentionally producing fake history, but they raise no dissenting voice against those who do. The distressing reality is that brave revisionist historians are a very rare breed indeed. Academic historians of all colours need to muster their courage, speak truth to power, and stop toeing the Establishment line. The fact that it is not historians but ordinary intelligent men and women who are at the vanguard of the historical truth movement today brings shame to their profession. The verdict of history itself will surely judge them harshly.
Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty: Authors: Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War, and Prolonging the Agony. How the Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WW1 by Three-and-a Half Years. Comments to: email@example.com
- Quote from Jeff Riggenbach, Why American History is Not What They Say: An Introduction to Revisionism, p. 72.
- Ibid., p. 73.
- For an excellent summary of the role of the secret society see G. Edward Griffin’s talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynVqPnMQ2sI
- Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, pp. ix-x.
- Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, A History of the World in Our Time, p. 324.
- Ibid., p. 325.
- Antony C. Sutton, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy, p. 2.
- Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 500.
- Ibid., pp. 529-531.
- Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. ix.
- Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. xi.
- Ibid. 14. www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeuF8rYgJPk
- Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment, p. x.
- Ibid., p.15.
- Ibid., p.197.
- A.M. Gollin, Proconsul in Politics, p. 551, footnote.
- Lord Fisher, Memories and Records, vol. 1, p. 21.
- Niall Ferguson, House of Rothschild, vol. II, p. 319.
- Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty, Prolonging the Agony, p. 201 et seq.
- Cissie Dore Hill, Collecting the Twentieth Century, p. 1 http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/8041
- Charles G. Palm and Dale Reed, Guide to the Hoover Institution Archives, p. 5. 25. Whittaker Chambers, Hoover Libraryhttp://whittakerchambers.org/articles/time-a/hoover-library/
- New York Times, 5 February 1921.
- Whittaker Chambers, Hoover Library at http://whittakerchambers.org/articles/time-a/hoover-library/
- Macgregor and Docherty, Prolonging the Agony, p 453 et seq.
- New York Times, 5 February 1921.
- Whittaker Chambers, Hoover Library at http://whittakerchambers.org/articles/time-a/hoover-library/
- New York Times, 5 February 1921.
- Hoover Institution, Stanford University at http://www.hoover.org/about/herbert-hoover
- Ian Cobain, The History Thieves, pp. 101-103.
- Ibid., pp. 119-120.
- Ibid., p. 109.
- 1bid., p. 160.
- T.P. Wiseman, Lying Historians: Seven Types of Mendacity.http://liverpool.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.5949/liverpool/9780859893817.001.0001/upso-9780859893817-chapter-4
- Peter Hoffer, The Historians Paradox, The Study of History in our Time, p.88. 39. http://www.johnccarleton.org/court_historians.html
- John Tosh, The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History, pp.33, 65-66.
- Ibid., pp. 136-137.
- Herbert Butterfield, History and Human Relations, pp. 201-209.
- Ibid., p. 198.
- American Historical Association, Statement on Peer Review for Historical Research, (2005). https://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/statements-standards-and-guidelines-of-the-discipline/statement-on-peer-review-for-historical-research
- Dr. John O’Dowd, personal communication.
- E. Fullbrook, Narrative Fixation in Economics, World Economics Association, London, 2016.
- Dr. John O’Dowd, personal communication.
- David Lowenthal, The Frailty of Historical Truth: Learning Why Historians Inevitably Fail, American Historical Association.https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/march-2013/the-frailty-of-historical-truth
- Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct.127, 99 OL. Ed.150 
- Nicholas D’Ombrain, War Machinery and High Policy, preface, p.xiii.
- List of Cabinet Papers, 1880–1914. PRO booklet.
- Michael Brock, H.H. Asquith letters to Venetia Stanley.
- Cabinet Papers, 1905-1918 Volume IV ref: FO 899/4.
- Harvey Broadbent, Gallipoli: One Great Deception? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-04-24/30630