by Jimmie Moglia for The Saker Blog

On hearing the word ‘revisionism,’ suspicion lurks in the mind of some, and alarms sound in the mind of others. Suspicion is the elder sister of twins, credulity and incredulity. And of all kinds of credulity, the most obstinate and wonderful is that of zealots; of men who resign the use of their eyes and ears, and resolve to believe nothing that does not favor those whom they profess to follow.

Hence the law of truth, which most would accept in principle, is broken without penalty, without censure, and in compliance with inveterate prejudice and prevailing passions. Men are willing to credit what they wish, and encourage rather those who gratify them with pleasure, than those who provide them with fidelity, (or at least try to.)

Still, revisionism implies nothing else but an effort to seek historical truth and to discredit myths that are a barrier to peace and general goodwill among nations. There is nothing upon which more writers, in all ages, have laid out their abilities, than revisionism. And it affords no pleasing reflection to discover that a subject so controversial is anything but exhausted.

It may surprise some that the first undisputed revisionist was a relatively little known Renaissance scholar named Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457). He used his knowledge of classical Latin to prove that an important text written by Emperor Constantine, one thousand years before, was actually a forgery. To the skeptic who understandably asks, “So what?” the answer may surprise him. That discovery destroyed the historical justification for the Catholic Church to have a judicial right to the possession (essentially at will), of earthly lands and geographical domains.

The forged document titled “The Donation of Constantine,” stated, “I, Constantine, donated the whole of the Western Roman Empire to the Roman Catholic Church, as an act of gratitude for having been miraculously cured of leprosy by Pope Sylvester I.”

Lorenzo Valla proved that the vernacular Latin of the forged ‘donation’ was in use only in the 8th century AD, rather than the 4,th when the document had allegedly been written.

The incentive for Valla’s research was a land dispute between his patron Alfonso V of Aragon and the Pope of the time. Understandably the Church rejected the conclusion, but rather than been pilloried, insulted, derided, ostracized, banned or burned, Valla actually even enjoyed the patronage of Pope Callixtus III. Perhaps the spirit of the Renaissance inspired indulgence and forbearance, instead of hatred and revenge. Which is more than can be said about what happened to recent revisionists of more recent events.

To step back a little, let’s take the American Revolution for example. Patriotic historians have hailed the dumping of English-imported tea into Boston harbor as evidence of an unsullied love of freedom and of courageous revolting by idealistic patriots against a tyrannical enemy and extortionist import taxes.

But revisionists have shown that the first financier of the Revolution was John Hancock, a wealthy merchant from a family that made its fortune from smuggling. Tea happened to be a major item, generously drunk by colonists and locals.

It just so happened that England had a large overstock of stored and unsold tea from the East Indian Company. To dispose of it they sold it in America at a price that, even with the import tax, was less than the cost of the tea smuggled in America from Holland. This substantially cut into the profit of the Hancock business. Hancock but caught the stream in the torrent of occasion

In 1812 America wanted to conquer Canada to bring freedom thither, as pompously declared by Gen. William Hull in his annexation proclamation, before being defeated at Detroit. Two years later, during the peace negotiations with the British, the Americans denied of ever having intended to annex Canada. “But how about Gen. Hull’s declaration in Detroit?” asked the British. “That was not really government-sanctioned policy,” was the reply, as documented in the records.

And when the British requested some territorial exchanges and concessions that would have preserved independence for some American Indians, the Americans flatly refused. In a report to his boss in London, Lord Bathurst, the British negotiator Henry Goulburn wrote “…till I came here I had no idea of the fixed determination which there is, in the heart of every American, to extirpate (sic) the Indians and appropriate their territory.”

Yet, in the non-revisionist annals of history, the war of 1812 was “The War That Forged A Nation.”

To the Civil War (1861-1865), the term ‘revisionism’ has not generally been applied – though, to be pedantic about it, in the South the same war was called “War for Southern Independence.” Yet unofficial revisionists have focused on the causes of the Civil War far more than on the causes of either World War. Nevertheless, it is no longer impolitic to say that the war had little and only tangentially to do with slavery emancipation.

Revisionists have equally shown that, at the time of the Spanish American war in 1898, President McKinley, with the full Spanish concessions to his demands in his pocket, concealed the Spanish capitulation from Congress and demanded war. Which in turn required an excuse (“casus belli” is the technical term). The sinking of the Maine did nicely, with 268 dead American sailors. Blowing up the Maine was the 9/11 of the Spanish-American War.

Today it is acceptable to tell the truth about the Maine, partly or mostly because 120 years have worn out the print of remembrance, and much greater horrors have shown the immense power of immense evil.

Besides, the relatively recently published “Operation Northwood” papers show a detailed plan for a false flag operation that included the killing of an unspecified number of Americans, to justify the invasion of Cuba during Kennedy’s time. And, as universally acknowledged, the false North Vietnamese attack on an American frigate in the Gulf of Tonkin was the notorious excuse for the Vietnam War.

It is somewhat disheartening to agree with Oscar Wilde that “truth is a matter of style.” And if use almost can change the stamp of nature, habituation to mass media bombardment using the same story can make the story appear true and quell the power of independent thought.

Furthermore, insensibly and by degrees, the popular media, controlled by a state-within-the state, has cleverly assuaged the mesmerized audience to believe and accept that astuteness redeems any evil. Actual cases have literally shown that with lots of money even a moderately unintelligent criminal can get away with murder.

As for 9/11, I will not repeat what has been said, written, debated or demonstrated by thousands of others. In my mind there remains printed the expression of Larry Silverstein, either owner, or renter, or lessee of the towers, depending on intricate legal arguments and definitions. When he claimed on television that he did not go to his office on 9/11, because he had an appointment with a dermatologist, and his wife insisted that he keep it. Physiognomy, however, is a justly debatable science, immune to revisionism.

It was WW1 that actually brought the term “revisionism” into general use, and for good reasons. For the revisionists counted on an accurate assessment of the causes of the War for a review and re-write of the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty assigned to Germany and Austria the sole responsibility for the conflict.

The Germans were ‘Huns’ (sic), suggesting wild hordes of horse-mounted barbarians who brought havoc to the Roman Empire. That the German ‘Huns,’ in 1914, had the most socially advanced measures and safety-net for workers in Europe, including the equivalent of social security, was deemed irrelevant.

But at the onset of the war new methods of communication, mass journalism and propaganda could whip up popular opinion and mass hatred as never before in the history of warfare. By then propaganda, especially of the Edward Bernay’s type, was the arbiter of good and evil, as discussed in the article “The Fraud of Freud.” Propaganda, then and now, is ever ready to surprise the unawareness of the thoughtless, prone to be misled by meteors mistaken for stars.

Media-whipped-up hysteria made Germany entirely responsible not only for the outbreak of war in 1914 but also for the American entry in April 1917.

President Wilson, who decided to join the war to make the world safe for democracy, even imprisoned union leader Eugene Debs for having said that profit, not democracy was the only motive for that decision.

Other revisionists connected the entry of America in WW1 to the quid-pro-quo worked-out in England by certain bankers, in exchange for the Balfour declaration and the consequent eventual ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

At Versailles, the victors alleged that, on July 5, 1914, the Kaiser had called a Crown Council of leading German government officials, ambassadors, and financiers. Where he told them to ready themselves for the war he would shortly declare. Whereupon the financiers asked for a two weeks delay, to sort out loans and securities. The Kaiser agreed and then left for his habitual summer North Sea vacation on his yacht. All this was, allegedly, concocted to give the enemy a false sense of security.

An American revisionist proved from available documents that the Crown Council legend was a complete myth. Some of the alleged participants were not in Berlin at the time. And the Kaiser’s actual attitude, on that 5th of July, was 180 degrees opposite to the official narrative, while the two-week time requested by the bankers was imaginative fabrication.

What actually happened has a tinge of Clintonian-style scandal. The secretary to the German Ambassador in Constantinople, Baron Hans von Wangenheim, revealed the facts.

Von Wangenheim had a mistress in Berlin and, in the early days of the crisis of 1914, she demanded that he return at once to Berlin to settle some critical matters with her. He complied and, to conceal from his wife the real reason for the trip, he told her that the Kaiser had suddenly summoned him to Berlin.

On his return, he told his wife about the fanciful Crown Council he had dreamed up. Shortly later, with his wife by his side, von Wangenheim met Morgenthau, then the American Ambassador at Constantinople, at a diplomatic reception.

Morgenthau had heard about von Wangenheim’s trip to Berlin and pressed him to say something about it. Under the circumstances, von Wangenheim could only repeat the myth he had told his wife. To what extent liquor may have lessened his restraint, and how much Morgenthau elaborated on what von Wangenheim actually said will be forever buried several fathoms in the earth, or sunk into the bottomless sea of things unknown.

Still, that preposterous tale demonstrates the value of revisionism and how momentous and tragic events hang on the most palpable fabrications. For on its basis, the then British Prime Minister Lloyd George advocated the hanging of the German Kaiser (which the Dutch refused to do, for the Kaiser was in exile in Holland).

More recently, Colin Powell’s vial full of milk, paraded as antrax at the United Nations, was the excuse to wage a war on behalf of Israel that netted the destruction of a country, the death of over thousands of American soldiers and a million plus Iraqis.

What caused WW2 would demand an equal or greater volume of revisionism, if free speech were not equated to heresy. To name just one, mostly-buried and poorly-answered question – England declared war on Poland because Germany had invaded part of it, to recover lands lost in WW1. Why did not England declare war on the USSR, who invaded Poland from the East to recover land lost under the terms of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty in WW1? Here the revisionists hit a lexical wall. England and France did not declare war on the USSR because the USSR was “in a state of neutrality.”

One current hot topic for revisionism is the so-called “Russia-gate.” In the US – according to statistics – less than 10% can even locate Ukraine on a map, as fascination for sports alone dramatically outweighs any potential interest in foreign things, let alone foreign history or the policies of foreign governments.

But even for millions in business or business related occupations, concern in foreign matters yields no physical, tangible residue, in the way of durable goods or profit. Consequently, such interests are deemed imbecile and distasteful to men whose habitual occupation is with the acquisition of wealth or the thought of it.

Therefore to suggest that Russia influenced the American electorate to vote for Trump, brings sublimity to the ridiculous. Yet even the “The New York Times,” which usually exhibits a shrewd eye to the limits within which dishonesty is the best policy, has succumbed to the temptation of promoting a legless fabrication. While the insupportably disagreeable lackeys of the information industry continue to lie without being belied, deceive without being unmasked, and wear the medals of their own crimes.

I will conclude this scant and thoroughly incomplete anthology of revisionism by referring to the Spanish Inquisition, which, more than from history books, is remembered thanks to the related satirical sketches of Monty Python.

Telegraphically compressed, the history goes as follows. In 1391 various rulers of Spain banned the Jews from their respective kingdoms. Or rather, the Jews were told to convert (to Christianity), or leave. Those who could leave left, those who didn’t and did not convert suffered persecution. Of those who converted, henceforth called “conversos”, many maintained their important and lucrative positions inside what today we call the establishment.

As an instance – and the related documentation is ample – take the case of Alonso de Cartagena. When 4 or 5-year old, he was baptized by his father Shlomo ha-Levi. Ha-Levi, in turn, had converted to Christianity just before the anti-Jewish pogroms of 1391, and later was elected bishop of Cartagena and Burgos, while his wife remained faithful to her original faith.

Anyway, the perception at large that the conversion to Christianity was just a front, led to two important developments. In 1492 King Ferdinand, who now ruled Castile and Aragon, banned from Spain the unconverted Jews with no exception, while the Inquisition (a kind of National Security Agency), set itself to determine if the conversion was sincere or not.

This decision to expel had been brewing for some time. In the meantime Pope Eugenius IV had nominated Cartagena Junior as Bishop of Burgos. Cartagena was a very learned man who translated Cicero and the books of Seneca in Castilian. And he also set himself to combat the view that Jews could not really be Christian, in his treatise titled “Defensorium.”

According to his (we can call it revisionist) view, the idea of the Jews being the “chosen people” was a misinterpretation. Abram’s circumcision – he wrote – was just a mark of an alliance, not a result of his merits. This is why “(God) generously decided to give his people the law, so that the distinction among peoples be perceived not only in the flesh by cutting off the foreskin, but also in the customs by cutting off vices.” [Dios] se dignó darle generosamente la ley para que la diferencia no fuese percibida sólo en la carne, por el corte del prepucio, sino en las costumbres, por el corte de los vicios” (Cartagena, Defensorium).

But this was not enough. Unsubstantiated historical rumor says that Ferdinand was reluctant to pass the expulsion measure, considering that he had received a very generous offer from prosperous members of the Spanish AIPAC of the time. At which Torquemada allegedly threw a cross at the feet of Ferdinand and said, “Christ was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. Would you betray him, just because the reward is higher?”

Even so, the debate did not end, after the Jews’ expulsion of 1482. For in 1539 Ignatius of Loyola along with four other conversos and one established Christian, founded the Jesuit order. Bitter fights between the parties of “Jesuits-conversos-in” and “Jesuits-conversos-out,” lasted well into the 17th century.

In the overall context, it is interesting to consider the views of Benzion Netaniahou, father of Benjamin Netayou-know-who.

Benzion died in 2012 aged 102, and in 1995 published his book titled, “The Origins of the Inquisition.”

According to a commentary by a critic, B. Netaniahou’s intent was ,“to dissect the consequences of Jewish naiveté. His fascination with medieval Spain wasn’t based only on the behavior of the victimizers but of the victims. He not only drew a line connecting what he defined as the racial anti-Semitism of the Inquisition with Nazism, but implicitly drew a line between the Jews who saw medieval Spain as their golden land and the Jews who saw modern Germany as their new Zion. It is precisely that dread of Jewish self-deception that has defined the politics of Benzion’s son.”

Other revisionist critics have disputed that B. Netaniahou wished to portrays Jews as naive, by quoting the following passage from his book,

It was primarily because of the functions of the Jews as the king’s revenue gatherers in the urban areas that the cities saw the Jews as the monarch’s agents, who treated them as objects of massive exploitation. By serving as they did the interests of the kings, the Jews seemed to be working against the interests of the cities; and thus we touch again on the phenomenon we have referred to: the fundamental conflict between the kings and their people—a conflict not limited to financial matters, but one that embraced all spheres of government that had a bearing on the people’s life. It was in part thanks to this conflict of interests that the Jews could survive the harsh climate of the Middle Ages, and it is hard to believe that they did not discern it when they came to resettle in Christian Europe. Indeed, their requests, since the days of the Carolingians, for assurances of protection before they settled in a place show (a) that they realized that the kings’ positions on many issues differed from those of the common people and (b) that the kings were prepared, for the sake of their interests, to make common cause with the “alien” Jews against the clear wishes of their Christian subjects. In a sense, therefore, the Jews’ agreements with the kings in the Middle Ages resembled the understandings they had reached with foreign conquerors in the ancient world.”

Conclusion? The resentment against the Jews was the fault of the kings. Or rather, Jews were not naive, as one of the book reviewers suggested. Instead they realized that in allying themselves with exploiting ruling elites, they would incur the wrath of the people and thus require princely assurances of protection.

The Jewish alliance with local exploitative elites is a constant among alleged causes of anti-Jewish resentment, in Europe and elsewhere. Whether this set of affairs can be observed in the current Zeitgeist of American history, I do not feel qualified to determine. Considering that the purpose here is/was to review revisionism, not to draw, declare or dismiss sundry articles of truth.

Furthermore, of things that revolve around human life, the world is the proper judge. To despise its sentence, if it were possible, is not just; and if it were just, is not possible. For in the end, as it was said, and not by me, “Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”



  • “Lorenzo Valla proved that the vernacular Latin of the forged ‘donation’ was in use only in the 8th century AD, rather than the 4,th when the document had allegedly been written.”

    Was Lorenzo Valla’s opponent Pope Boniface IX? Being a good Presbyterian I have not studied the Catholic Popes much, but apparently One of the Henry’s of England brought Boniface’s elder brother to England and made him Duke of Kent. Then the younger brother was bought to England and made Archbishop of Canterbury and from there the ‘Archbishop’ was able to become Pope Boniface IX The two brothers were of Europe’s ‘Black Nobility’. It was Boniface who declared that the world was the property of the Church.

    It was interesting to note that by 1916 and the end of the ‘Battle of the Somme’ That Germany had won the war, but England had not yet won Palestine. The German Foreign Secretary, Arthur Zimmerman offered in November of 1916 to end the war, but that was not to be. The British Prime Minister Herbert Asquith was replaced by the Zionist Lloyd George, and although Britain was almost bankrupt, refused Zimmerman’s offer of peace.

    Next there was the ‘Zimmerman Telegram’ which was an absolute forgery and a plan devised by both British and Americans to bring America into the war. And finally the Balfour declaration of which there were many authors, or participants if you so desire, the last being the American Jew, Jacob De Haas.

    (Jacob) De Haas continues:
    Then one morning Baron Furness, one of England’s unostentatious representatives, brought to 44 East 23rd Street, at that time headquarters of the Zionist Organization, the final draft ready for issue. The language of the declaration accepted by the English Zionists based as it was on the theory of discontent was unacceptable to me. I informed Justice Brandeis of my views, called in Dr. Schmarya Levin and proceeded to change the text. Then with Dr. Wise, I hurried to Colonel House. By this time he had come to speak of Zionism as “our cause.” Quietly he perused my proposed change, discussed its wisdom and promised to call President Wilson on his private wire and urge the change. He cabled to the British Cabinet. Next day he informed me that the President had approved. I had business that week-end in Boston and it was over the long distance wire that my secretary in New York read to me the final form as repeated by cable from London. It was the text as I had altered it.

    as for the European Jews being expelled from the various European countries, there is another point in history that should be considered. The Jews were always considered to be ‘the king’s personal property. Thus it was only the king that was permitted to milk the Jewish moneylenders whenever he needed the cash. But in 1290, Edward 1st of England (Longshanks) invented ‘The Parliament’ to raise taxes for him which thus made the Jewish moneylenders redundant. However Edward could not leave the moneylenders in England as that would give his opponents the opportunity to raise funds to threaten the king. Thus the Jews had to go.

    And how long did it take for the other European kings to realise the benefits of ‘Parliaments’ raising taxes instead of relying on the torture of a captured moneylender.

    History is full of lies going back to when God made Adam.

  • @Shlomo ha-Levi (aka Pablo de Santa Maria, Paul de Santa Maria, and Paulus episcopus Burgensis)…. had converted to Christianity just before the anti-Jewish pogroms of 1391, and later was elected bishop of Cartagena and Burgos, while his wife remained faithful to her original faith.

    Actually his wife followed him:

    “Halevi’s two brothers and his sister, as well as his five children, were also baptized at the same time. Only some time later, however, did his wife, Joanna, decide to join them”.
    read more:
    “At first his wife refused to follow his example, but she accepted baptism a few years later”

    Paul of Burgos is reviled to this day by the Jews:
    “This Day in Jewish History / Rabbi Turned Archbishop and Jew Hater Dies. Paul of Burgos, born Solomon Halevi, came to serve the court at the highest levels and to embitter the lives of his former people”.
    ‘As an apostate Jew, Paul was active in encouraging other Jews to convert, and in making their lives bitter so long as they didn’t. As chancellor, he was the moving spirit behind a edict, introduced in 1412, that greatly restricted the ability of Jews to move around and to engage in commerce – unless they were willing to undergo baptism’.
    read more:

    Torquemada himself was a descendant of conversos.

  • Revisionism is a health y skeptical approach to official narratives, especially when those narratives try to apportion blames for such catastrophic events like WW1,2, holocausts, mass murders, genocides. In fact skepticism should be the default approach in any matters of historical records. Revisionism itself should make no exception.
    There was, and still lingers on, a ‘revisionist’ attitude in respect to the responsibility of Germany in starting WW1.
    In respect to the Crown Council of 5 July we would like to know more about the ‘available documents’ offered by an unnamed ‘American revisionist’. The documents known to us (I may be wrong, surely) are the memoirs of Kaiser Wilhelm himself, in which he put squarely the blame on the Russians (a meme reactivated nowadays by ‘revisionist’ historians):
    “The much-discussed so-called Potsdam Crown Council of July 5th in reality never took place. It is an invention of malevolent persons. Naturally, before my departure, I received, as was my custom, some of the Ministers individually, in order to hear from them reports concerning their departments. Neither was there any council of Ministers and there was no talk about war preparations at a single one of the conferences….
    Upon my arrival at Potsdam I found the Chancellor and the Foreign Office in conflict with the Chief of the General Staff, since General von Moltke was of the opinion that war was sure to break out, whereas the other two stuck firmly to their view that things would not get to such a bad pass, that there would be some way of avoiding war, provided I did not order mobilization.
    This dispute kept up steadily. Not until General von Moltke announced that the Russians had set fire to their frontier posts, torn up the frontier railway tracks, and posted red mobilization notices did a light break upon the diplomats in the Wilhelmstrasse and bring about their own collapse and that of their powers of resistance. They had not wished to believe in the war.
    This shows plainly how little we had expected – much less prepared for – war in July, 1914. When, in the spring of 1914, Czar Nicholas II was questioned by his Court Marshal as to his spring and summer plans, he replied: “Je resterai chez moi cette année parce que nous aurons la guerre” (“I shall stay at home this year because we shall have war”). (This fact, it is said, was reported to Imperial Chancellor von Bethmann; I heard nothing about it then and learned about it for the first time in November, 1918.)
    This was the same Czar who gave me, on two separate occasions – at Björkö and Baltisch-Port – entirely without being pressed by me and in a way that surprised me, his word of honour as a sovereign, to which he added weight by a clasp of the hand and an embrace, that he would never draw his sword against the German Emperor – least of all as an ally of England – in case a war should break out in Europe, owing to his gratitude to the German Emperor for his attitude in the Russo-Japanese War, in which England alone had involved Russia, adding that he hated England, since she had done him and Russia a great wrong by inciting Japan against them.
    At the very time that the Czar was announcing his summer war program I was busy at Corfu excavating antiquities; then I went to Wiesbaden, and, finally, to Norway. A monarch who wishes war and prepares it in such a way that he can suddenly fall upon his neighbours – a task requiring long secret mobilization preparations and concentration of troops – does not spend months outside his own country and does not allow his Chief of the General Staff to go to Carlsbad on leave of absence. My enemies, in the meantime, planned their preparations for an attack”.

    What happened on the 5 July was the response given by the Kaiser to the Austrio-Hungarian Ambasador, “with uncharacteristic decisiveness, promising Germany’s “faithful support” for Austria-Hungary in whatever action it chose to take towards Serbia, even if Russia intervened”. He did consult with the Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg and his War Minister Erich von Falkenhayn, who reiterated the Kaiser’s assurances to the Ambassador.
    One can hardly avoid the suspicion that the war party in Germany did jump on the occasion for which it was preparing since 1912. The German Imperial War Council of 8 December 1912 expressed the opinion that “a war is unavoidable and the sooner the better”. Moltke “wanted to launch an immediate attack” but the Council reached the conclusion that Germany would not be fully prepared until 1914..

    • Well wrtten. I hold the belief, that while events went slower in those times they had much larger momentum, because of the scarce possibilities of information and communication. Once mobilizations were enacted, it was pretty much game over.
      Without any prejudice at all, and without quoting countless records, I hold to analysis that the blame is in no small part to be placed with the Serbs. When smaller countries engage in big country politics, often smaller countries get hurt, and while I do not at all blame the Serbs for WWI, they do bear part of the blame, their bellicose attitude starched with the treaties and understandings with Russia and France. That being said, most of the nations had their own secret motives for a war, the English and the Germans certainly did, the Russians also, needing to regain “face” after the disaster of 1905.
      WWI was started because of “beliefs” and “gut feelings” and absolutely not on verified facts, and is a clear example of what “Commander in Chief” can do with exceptional powers and why those powers need to be curtailed.
      History repeating itself.

      • Den Lille Abe
        You forgot to mention that in 1908 Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, which in 1375 was united to the Serbian Kingdom. Serbs to be blamed for World War One? Indeed. Before the war started, you had a German-Austro-Hungarian military alliance, a British-French and a French-Russian military alliance. Why? European powers knew a war was coming. You stated that Russians had to regain face after 1905? Indeed. In 1905 they fought the Japanese. It’s the French who needed to regain face, as in 1871 Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine. You forgot to mention that. After the 1871 French defeat, the French turned to Russia for a military alliance, a huge mistake by Russia, with Russian notables like Dostoevsky openly questioning why the French all of a sudden fell in love with Russia, a country they invaded twice, in 1812 and in 1853. Even Putin in his writings has stated that this was a huge mistake. Yes, Gavrilo Princip assassinated that Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo in 1914. What happened immediately after that? Nothing. The ruling class in Germany was terrified, thinking at first that the Archduke was assassinated by a German nationalist, as he advocated the federalization of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which he knew could not last in the form it did. During the trial it was established that Gavrilo Princip was a freemason, who joined a masonic lodge without realizing what he in fact joined. He pulled the trigger of his gun, while others, in the West, gave the orders.

        • B.F. I am aware of this. What I did write between the lines was that there is enough blame to go around. The main article here takes Revisionism up, and here the Serbs attitude is called into question, whatever your favored partisanship.
          Who else bears responsibility, well, certainly the German Socialdemocrats, in whose power it was at the time to stop the impending train wreck. But they those not to heed their former declarations ” Workers shall not shoot on workers and be tools of the capitalists” and broke with Socialdemocrats across Europe fueling the slow dissolution of the 2 nd Internationale.
          I am not pointing fingers exactly, just trying to dissipate the Revisionist propaganda a bit, I am equally less tolerant of Utasha and Banderian whitewashing, why should I accept Serbian whitewashing or silently accept Stalin and his henchman’s excesses ?
          Please, you want me in earnest to defend the Vikings as peacefull traders, tainted by evil monks fantasies ? I will not.
          The complicity and failures of the instigators of WWI, have been exposed by many credible authors, but some did throw punches that were not well thought out at all, or were they ?
          In either case Serbia payed dearly for their participation in WWI.

          • Den Lille Abe
            Serbian “whitewashing” of what ? Austria-Hungary could never tolerate the existence of an independent Serbian state, certainly not after the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908. As for Vikings, yes, they were notorious for their plundering and raids. However, they were also known for exploration and trade. Before the 9th century Norwegian Vikings came to the Balkans. The old Serbian name for Vikings is “Varyazy”. There were no conflicts between Serbs and Norwegians. In fact the Norwegian King Harold Hardrada served in the Balkans as a knight in the 11th century. Swedish Vikings went to the East, creating the first Russian state. The name of Russia is derived from the Scandinavian word “RUS”, which is still in use. Russia means “The land of the Vikings”, which few people know. It’s estimated that 40% of Russians have Swedish Viking blood. All the Russian blonds are of Scandinavian origin. History cannot be taken out of context. It’s usually very complex.

  • R Moglia, that was an interesting summary of how gullible and uninformed people react to propaganda. I agree very much in your assessments, hundreds of other examples exist of “glossing over”. Fortunately there are still accurate scholars and historians around, that try to record and unbiased and accurate view of past events. Unfortunately the general public takes little interest in such matters., them being complicated and often requiring substantial knowledge yourself to validate said scholars and historians findings.
    One of recent events that does indeed have both impact and and influence right now, is the spat between Anthony Beevor and Ukraine and Croatia, having before that had a spat with Russia. None of these nations, have ever had an internal “cleaning the closet” of skeletons and thus objects strongly when bad things are unearthed.
    All nations probably have in one way or other excelled in in doing some real bad stuff, and few nations have actually had the courage to try and clean these acts up by acknowleding “Yes we did some bad stuff, and we regret sincerely” because of various reasons, the chief one beeing, their societies are not strong enough to handle the truth.
    The second WWII has been thoroughly vented in both Germany and Denmark, the former as an instigator of the war fueled by Nationalsocialism and the latter in most cases as a willing puppet. The processes in both countries have drawn out about 40 years, before the public came to the understanding ” We did some bad (Removed language,MOD), we regret sincerely”. In Denmarks case it was more a bout above internal corroborators and about the troops sent to the Eastern Front ( with government blessing), and their actions as Waffen SS troops.
    Eventually the dirty linen did come out in both coutries.
    As a dual nationality Danish/Swedish citizen I am happy about the Danes willingness to accept the past, more less so when it comes to Sweden, where two major gloss-overs exist.
    In 1648 at the peace of Roskilde Denmark lost its possessions on the Swedish peninsula, Skaene, Halland and Blekinge were ceded to the Swedish after the Danes suffered a devastating defeat, the treaty repeated largely with the Treaty of Copenhagen of 1660.
    Skaene primarily, populated mostly by “naturalized Danes” were then exposed to a systematic ethnic cleansing and genocide, those that are all to common today. The Swedish King had little use for their new Swedish cittizens, them being proud , free, owning their farms, rebellious. A military campaign was launched, its aim not th quell the rebellious, but to exterminate anything Skaenish. The campaign was a success, in a decade, Skaene was mostly depopulated of its original inhabitants, Swedish settlers were brought in, in large amounts. The roads lined by thousands of crucified or impaled Skaenings. The campaign also included destroying or substituting anything built by the Danes, this part of the campaign did first end at the beginning of the 1900.
    Most Swedes are ignorant of this.
    The other major gloss over is Swedens actions in WWII. The official picture is the “Neutral” angle, and “our defense forces can not cope with German aggression”. But this does not remove the fact of iron sales to Germany or the NO to the Allied, to cross Sweden up in the North to assist Finland. Thousands of Swedes privately went to Finland to help out.
    In the last phases of the war the Swedes excelled at returning German war refugees immediately upon arrival, right back to the Russians, who understandably had no love for the Germans.
    In fairness, the Swedes, had to walk a thin line in WWII, but I think it important to be brought out in the open, instead of glossing it over with “neutrality”. We as human beings do very much the same stupid things over and over unless we have a solid record of “It does not work”.
    Such facts become difficult to expose in this day and age, and without pointing fingers (well I do !) in a soicity where Flat Earthers, Creationists, Anti Vaxers and other parts of the loonie fringes have the scene, a fact filled discussion becomes almost moot.

  • “The resentment against the Jews was the fault of the kings. ”

    And what if you were to find out, that many if not most of those kings were crypto-Jews themselves… ?

    The lies, and thus the discarding of the lies, have layers upon layers upon layers.

    • And if I said to you that it is my belief that the famous Scottish King, Robert De Bruce was such a crypto-Jew, as he traced his right to the crown through the marriage of King David’s daughter to his ancestor. And I believe his adversary, the Cummin had a similar right.
      But the final clue was the death of the ‘Black Douglas’ in Spain on his journey to return Robert De Bruce’s heart to the Holy Land.

  • This is an important article because it points out the confusion about what is historical truth as it relates to contemporary truth. All too often, I see one group accuse another group of some egregious act while the other group accuses their opponent. Two totally different sides of the story.

    Russian history itself is replete with this. Two sides with very strong stories pointing fingers. It’s a dangerous trend. A house divided cannot stand. Frequently, people cannot agree on what happened, and frequently blame ‘The Other’, overlooking their own responsibility.

    A lot of the time, history is simply fabricated to justify an injustice, all based on greed and prejudice. It is a bottomless pit. Or fabricated to justify some form of social control. Myths are not limited to just Greek and Roman gods.

    A recent article I saw by Sheldon Richman talks about how American nationalism replaced traditional religions as the American national religion, to the extent that people were prohibited from NOT saluting the flag. As if the US flag is some sort of idol to be worshiped. That is just one example of many.

  • Napoleon gave one of the best interpretations of history, when he stated that it is nothing more than a collection of facts explained by fiction. When it comes to politics, it is indeed a very practical profession, where principles matter little, only interests. We see this today. Iran, for example, has for years been accused of developing nuclear weapons, when international inspectors on the ground stated that this is not the case. Even so, Washington and others want regime change in Iran, a new Shah who would be friendly towards the West, opening up all the oil and gas fields. The fact that Iran wants to move towards the East and economically align itself with Russia and China does not help Washington change its attitude. When in 2014 NATO and the EU instigated that coup d’etat against Yanukovich in Kiev, using mercenaries, thugs, criminals, neo-Nazis, foreign agents and breaking a heap of international laws, Russia was accused of aggression while the famous Amnesty International (created by Peter Benenson from the Rothschild’s banking family) labeled the Russians in the Donbass as “insurgents” while the usurpers in Kiev were the “legitimate” Government. It’s questionable if revisionism, double standards and outright lying can ever be changed in international relations.

    • I principally agree with this comment. The last sentence is probably the most important in my view. I don’t think that any top politician does not have a set of comment for “public consumption” and another for use with other top politicians. When you look at how international relations functions in reality and not how it is reported, you have to concede they are very different.
      I think Hillary Clinton was called on this during the 2016 campaign. It is reality of high level politics I guess, it would be neigh impossible for one top diplomat to BS another, they are to well informed.
      The unwashed masses however, the “plebs” , the ignorant and uneducated, the living and breathing walking dead that populate most of this rocks surface, mostly get to hear what will get the same politicians reelected.
      You may perceive my comment as Elitist all you want, but it is fact, that most “plebs” horizon comprise next weeks X-Factor or Big Brother rather than having a meaninglul conversation with their offspring. If you get the impression that I do not have a high regard about most of my fellow humans, you are absolutely correct.

  • History is written by the victors. Because of that, it should be constantly researched, reimagined and revised. If we don’t know our past, how can we confront our future?

    The Spanish Inquisition was a political tool lasting hundreds of years. It employed many censors and was responsible for book burning, falsifications, forgeries, fabrications and forced translations to the Castilian language. This is increasingly being exposed in Spain by a small group of researchers and is producing astounding results. In response, they are either ignored or pilloried by academia and the Spanish establishment.