Prolonging the Agony: How The Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WWI by Three-and-a-Half Years.

“Prolonging the Agony” is basically the second part of a two-part history of the origins, and extenuation, of WWI. Part I is “Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War”, which I favorably reviewed on Amazon on Nov. 12, 2017. This second part (“Prolonging the Agony”) is perhaps more circumstantial, and less analytical, than the first part (“Hidden History”) in making the case, but nonetheless basically “gets the job done” by showing that there were indeed “behind-the-scenes” entities who acted to extend WWI for the primary objectives of: (i) destroying Germany as an economic competitor to Britain (i.e., the “imperialist” side of the equation); and (ii) maximizing war profits (i.e., the “bankers” side of the equation). Sometimes these two factions had objectives which were in concert, and other times not, thus leading to a seemingly inconsistent “conspiracy” theory, as presented by the authors. But if you put the bankers in the pilot’s seat (as I posited in my review of “Hidden History”), then things make complete sense. In fact, I suspect the authors came to this same realization as they wrote “Prolonging the Agony” (see for example pg. 463), but simply could not bring themselves to confess to their failure to identify the true culprits of WWI this late in the game (as such an admission would require considerable revision of “Hidden History”). And the style of presentation of “Prolonging the Agony” suggests that the authors were not entirely in agreement with one another when writing their second book. Specifically, while “Hidden History” is written in a cohesive style, “Prolonging the Agony” comes across as a bit of a mixed bag – as if the authors decided to divide the writing duties for specific topics and chapters. For example, the style of presentation of Chapters 16-20 (regarding “Food Relief to Belgium”) and 28-29 (regarding the Balfour Declaration) appear to rely much more on circumstantial evidence (and are thus, perhaps, less credible) than the other chapters.Before I go any further (as I do, below), and notwithstanding my criticisms, I would like to go on record as recommending this book as an essential resource in debunking many of the commonly held beliefs regarding the history of WWI (and related matters, such as the Russian Revolution). While not perfect, this narrative still makes more sense than the “populist” narratives written by predominantly Anglo-Oxford “historians”. And as said in my review of “Hidden History”, history ought to make sense.The reason why I gave this book a 4-star review (versus 5-stars) is essentially as follows: if you’re going to present a conspiracy-theory, then it ought to be done properly. Specifically, the flow of the text should be: (i) identifying early on who are the alleged conspirators; (ii) proposing (as perhaps a preliminary chapter) how the conspiracy was intended to work; (iii) proving the theory by a presentation of facts; (iv) positing (and then debunking) alternative theories; and finally (v) addressing (and then resolving) inconsistencies. Rather than following this formula, the approach taken in “Prolonging the Agony” is more akin to making the facts fit the theory, while minimizing inconsistencies and generally ignoring alternative explanations for events. The problem with writing “conspiracy theory” revisionist history is a tendency to focus on the theory, and then subsequently justifying actions as being consistent with the theory. (If one selects this approach, then almost any “conspiracy theory” can be “proven”.) As just one example, if the sinking of the Lusitania was intended to provoke the U.S., then this is inconsistent with the objective of prolonging the war, as it might have brought the U.S. into the war as early as 1915, thus hastening the end of the war. (And this question is never addressed in “Prolonging the Agony”.) The authors would probably explain this away by saying that the Secret Elite U.S. agent (Colonel House) would have tempered Woodrow Wilson’s response to avoid bringing in the U.S. as a member of the Allies in early 1915. But this is all just conjecture – and conjecture seems to form a meaningful part of “Prolonging the Agony”. I guess the big problem I have with most “conspiracy-theories” is that they grant to the conspirators an unrealistic prescience of their intended outcomes, or an unrealistic ability to control outcomes, with no factual showing that the conspirators had any contingencies in place in order to deal with potential alternative outcomes (e.g., what would they have done if the Brits had actually prevailed at Gallipoli, Kitchener had not been killed, or the Lusitania not been sunk?). I can only assume that the authors did not address these issues due to a lack of evidence, and wanted to avoid obvious speculation. Accordingly, the authors of “Prolonging the Agony” seem to fall short – they fit outcomes to a alleged plan, but do not provide any evidence (i.e., facts) to show that the conspirators considered what they might do if their planned actions did not come to fruition. It just seems to me that there ought to be some trace evidence in the historical record that the conspirators had alternative plans in place should their initial plans fail, yet the authors do not provide any such evidence. It is just too incredible to believe that every actual historical outcome was planned, and then arranged, by the conspirators, without anything going off-the-rails, or ANY evidence to show how the conspirators provided for contingencies.The authors contend that records (which could prove their case) were altered and destroyed, and I believe this to be true. But a well-funded research effort could probably still unearth evidence (e.g., personal interviews with descendants of those involved, etc.) to help prove the authors’ case. My suspicion is that the authors simply did not have the financial resources which would have allowed them to perform a thorough investigation in order to conclusively prove their case. And this should come as no big surprise – after all, who is going to fund investigation into a historical episode which could reveal potentially embarrassing details? Certainly not the Rothschilds, or any entity which relies on “old-money”. And “new money” certainly has no interest in seeking out the truth – where is the profit in it for Bezos, Gates or Musk to reveal the past dirty-dealings of the bankers whom they currently rely upon in order to enable their empires? Universities fund “mainstream” historians (such as Margaret MacMillan, of Oxford University) by way of grants, but who provides these grants? Would a “historian” (who is dependent upon a university grant) really write a “history” which casts a negative light on the grantor? Of course not! If they did, that would not only be the end of their career with the university, but also the end of future grants to the university. So think about this when reading any “history” which is funded by someone who might have something to hide. (And be sure to follow the money-trail – it is easy to hide funding from vested interests behind benign-sounding entities such as “The Council for Foreign Relations”.)IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY – from the funding of wars to the funding of “historians”.At pg. 511 the authors indicate that their case (and I believe this to be particularly true with respect to their second volume, “Prolonging the Agony”) is based in large part on “circumstantial evidence”, due to the destruction, alteriation and/or sequestering of credible official records. While Perry Mason has tried to instill within the public the concept that a case based “merely on circumstantial evidence” is inherently weak, any good attorney will tell you that a case based on “circumstantial evidence” is actually much stronger than a case based on “eye witness” testimony. In the case of WWI, consider the following: the “eye witnesses” (i.e., those who were responsible for WWI) who wrote “eye witness” accounts in the way of memoirs, diaries, and official government reports, all had much to gain by lying about, or misrepresenting, facts in order to hide their true motives and their actions. (And to their credit, the authors do a decent job of showing where these “witnesses” flat-out lied in their “testimony”.) In any legal proceeding, “witnesses” accounts are to be weighed in light of their credibility, and particularly in light of potential bias (i.e., any motives for the “witness” to lie when giving their “testimony”). From what the authors have presented, it is abundantly clear that any “eye-witness” accounts of the political happenings of WWI are inherently suspect, due to motives on the part of the “witnesses” to lie in order to protect their self-interest.In the end, the great benefit of this book (notwithstanding its warts, and further in light of “Hidden History”) is that it presents a credible challenge to the generally accepted narrative regarding WWI. We may never know the “truth” behind WWI, but neither should we accept any written “history” as being “the truth”. The burden is thus left to students of history, and to future “historians”, to do their level best to uncover, and disclose to the public, as much information as can be found in order to find out what actually transpired. The search for historical truth is important, even if it pertains to events that happened 100 or more years ago. We are supposed to learn from history, but if we do not know the truth of history, then we risk learning the wrong lessons.I only hope that the authors will continue their work and publish at least one more volume of their history of the “Secret Elite” (and more properly, a history of the “banker-elite”) activities, focusing on: (i) the inter-war period of 1919-1939 (including the lead-up to WWII, which is remarkably similar to that of WWI); and (ii) how the U.S. was “dragged” into that war. If the authors are sufficiently courageous, perhaps they might also address in that third volume the possibility of exaggeration regarding alleged German atrocities during WWII. After all, if there were proven propaganda exaggerations of German atrocities in WWI, then why is it inconceivable that the same did not occur in WWII? (And consider would might stand to benefit from such exaggerations for purposes of propaganda during, and following, WWII.)

Rare that a sequel is better than the original but Prolonging the Agony achieves this, despite the fact that the ending is extremely open-ended, leaving major questions concerning major figures (e.g. Lenin) in limbo! The worst feature of the book is this very ambiguity - but this situation actually makes readers think and search more widely, so will ultimately be productive in the end. I have ordered source books to try to tie the loose ends together - these still awaited - particularly over the Russian Revolution and the fact that the Banksters were promoting and funding both sides of the internal Russian conflict.For British readers the Edith Cavell story is given in detail, showing how Britain had more use for her as a corpse for propaganda purposes rather than as a living witness. For the Gallipoli campaign, the authors set the record straight as to the fundamental strategy of keeping Russia in the war in Europe - in order to weaken both Germany and Russia! The colonial troops sacrificed there (including Senegalese French troops I might add) were just cannon-fodder to make it seem that the West would help Orthodox Russia realize its Constantinople dream. The suspicious death of Lord Kitchener, even more than the sinking of the Lusitania, reveals the duplicity of those at the top even towards their own.The rise of Zionism is highlighted, the connection with the Russian Revolution being clear, since the Cheka, Lenin's Secret Police, were over two-thirds Jewish in origin, hinting at the link, usually suppressed or ignored today, between Zionism and Bolshevism. In some cases however, the authors follow false leads. That Lenin had a maternal Jewish grandfather is not of significant relevance to his revolutionary stance - rather the execution of his older brother and the fact that, like Kerensky, he was born in Simbirsk, the setting for Goncharov's Oblomov novels, explain his fierce determination to destroy the Czarist and bourgeois regimes. Instead, the Jewish connection to both Zionism and Marxist revolution lies much earlier, in the works of Moses Hess, older contemporary of Marx & Engels, and whose writing inspired Theodor Herzl in the first place. But this goes beyond the WW1 theme covered by the authors - though it certainly needs further investigation, especially given the rapidly deteriorating situation of Palestinians today in the face of continued Zionist activities and the raging religious bigotry on all sides inspired by Zionism in the first place.(The authors briefly mention Herbert Samuel, not one of Milner's elite, who became the Zionist go-between with the British parliament. However, Samuel lived for decades afterwards, long enough to have a major change of heart.)The WW1 narrative in this book develops the previous work to a stupendous climax - as Alfred Milner himself travels with a retinue to Czarist Russia at the beginning of 1917, Wall St. in his wake! But I'm not going to tell you the plot - read the book!

This book follows the same authors 2013 'Hidden History', which reversed responsibility for the First World War: not the Kaiser's militarism or German aggression caused the war, but a well-laid, prepared and ruthlessly-executed effort to eliminate an industrial rival and threat to British hegemony. In other words, it was not the advertised “Great War for Civilization”, but a war for the preservation and aggrandizement of the British Empire.The problem with proving this thesis is that there are no primary sources to establish it conclusively. The authors make the point that the primary sources were carefully collected by the victors and culled for preservation, publication - or destruction. It is possible and, considering known collection efforts and seductive gaps in the records, even likely. They also cite enough secondary sources to provide sufficient circumstantial evidence for credibility.'Prolonging the Agony' shows how it was possible to extend by three years a war that should have ended with the exhaustion of Germany's resources in 1915. Simply, the Allies ensured that enough material and food reached Germany to allow her to continue the fight. Incredible? Not if you consider the means examined by Docherty and Macgregor, and the evidence presented. The war period and its major events are much more familiar than the pre-war period, and there is a wealth of references one can verify to shift the balance of probabilities from "possible" to "probable."A word of caution: if you find this book convincing, you will never again believe any government propaganda about any war. Personally, I concluded years before reading 'Hidden History' and 'Prolonging the Agony' that history is the handmaiden of politics, and that no war has ever lived up to its propaganda billing. Draw your own conclusions to your own satisfaction.

A very different perspective on the first world war and democracy

A must read for every single student of WWI history. Undeniable evidence is presented as to why and how Britain instigated the Great War and prolonged its agony, in order to destroy Germany.

Finally we get the truth.

Understanding WW1 and the civilians who lived it.