documentaries, latest

WATCH: “The WW1 Conspiracy”

James Corbett offers his view on the hidden origins of WW1

What was World War One about? How did it start? Who won? And what did they win? Now, 100 years after those final shots rang out, these questions still puzzle historians and laymen alike. But as we shall see, this confusion is not a happenstance of history, but the wool that has been pulled over our eyes to stop us from seeing what WWI really was. This is the story of WWI that you didn’t read in the history books. This is The WWI Conspiracy.

Watch Part 2 here and Part 3 here. A full transcript and links to sources are available here.


  1. Martin Usher says

    I have been reading an interesting source about the history of WW1. Its “Nelson’s History of the War”, published in 24 volumes over several years ending in 1919. Its written by John Buchan (of “39 Steps” fame) and its engaging reading because it was written before the political perspectives arising from the creation of the USSR and the rise of Nazism dominated our view of 20th century history. Obviously since it was written contemporaneously with the war not all military information is going to be 100% correct but the perspectives he brings, especially in regard to the politics in Europe, the role of the British Empire and the progress of the war in other parts of the world (including in Eastern Europe) give one a wholly new perspective on the fighting.

    One snippet which would give you a wholly unexpected perspective is of the action against a German fort on the coast of China in late 1914 that involved the Japanese. (The Japanese were allied with the British and French at the time.) The Japanese used air power as part of their offensive, driving one German gunboat off from the battle using aerial bombardment. Buchan has a chapter on the role of airplanes and it describes how the various combatants used them, what their limitations were and how they were likely to develop. The two powers that were most adept at using them were the British and the Russians. The British were good at using them to coordinate attacks, the Russians actually used them as offensive weapons. This account dates from 1914/1915, not 1918 or later.

    Its worth a read and since its effectively free — its out of copyright so you can get a download (or a 99c Kindle version) its worth every penny.

    (Another great resource is the youTube channel, “The Great War”.)

  2. Paul Harvey says

    For an excellent analysis of how the ghost of Edward VII and the British state played a huge part in instigating WWI, I recommend the following lecture and radio interview by Webster Tarpley:


    Every time I mention Webster these days, I feel I have to comment on his recent and inexplicable 180 degree reversal on his pro-Russia stance and his alignment with the worst forces of Russophobia – Having said that, it in no ways detracts from his earlier analysis on topics like WWI, the Aldo Moro Assassination and 9/11.

    I really do recommend the first lecture at least – my Grandfather fought in Flanders and it sickens you to the bone to realise how the ‘lost generation’ was sacrificed to the economic and political needs of the British Empire and its American partners.

  3. UreKismet says

    Hmm where the argument claims evidence, I see unrelated incidents beaten up with no linking evidence into a mountain of tosh. Emotional reaction is guaranteed by the nonsense about ‘taking back amerika’. Rhodes was regarded with contempt by the truly powerful long before he died. His notions of ‘how the world really works were considered archaic back then given they had scant regard for the source of so much of humanity’s talent at a period when diversity of talent was being increasingly recognised.

    So much emphasis put on Rhodes despite the reality that India was providing far greater returns to england than South African diamonds whose profitability was dependent on monopoly – diamonds have few uses, the world was on a gold standard so the Rhodes-Rothschilds-De Beers cartel understood very well that the only way to make em profitable was to create a monopoly on supply and manipulate markets. Even that is problematic as the end users are fickle fashionistas so that every market contraction could send prices plummeting to below the cost of recovery unless the market was micro-managed as the diamond market still is today. Huge wars do not advanatge such micro management; although Rhodes and Co had vast sums of notional wealth they became too much a puppet of others to ever grow power beyond the foolish and ultimately destructive to empire Boer war. It was the mess of the Boer war and the scandals which accompanied it which persuaded Australians they needed to GTFO of their close & servile ties to england. After the Boer War never again would the english have ultimate control of the Australian Army.

    Yep there were anti-German campaigns beaten up in the brit media, but they were nowhere near are long lasting or pernicious as the anti-Russian campaigns which continue to this day. Fear of the unknown other is a worn attempt to control the masses through fear.
    I’m wary of all revisionist history because it is designed for cherry pickers to select isolated incidents over huge time frames (in this case 50 years) free from interruption from others who were around at the time who knew through personal experience exactly what had happened.
    It is possible to make a much stronger case that old empire blowhards such as Rhodes had much less to with the outbreak (and cessation) of hostilities than elite paranoia about the masses flexing muscle through tans-national unity.
    Without ax-grinding by detailing all the evidence for that – just consider how and why the great war ended so abruptly. Germany had been on a roll through much of 1918 following the Ludendorff strategy, amerika had lost more than 300,000 men in a few short months. The seppos didn’t actually join the conflict until March 1918 before that it was all arguments over who was the boss disguised as training the troops (england had ‘only’ 780,000 killed over four years).
    The pin was pulled on WW1 as amerikans call it, after Germany’s aristocracy pointed out that if it didn’t cease immediately there would be big trouble.

    True everyone was making money as most of the industrial world’s resources were blown on bigger better ways of killing. The German army could keep going no problem, but ‘back home’ was about to go the same way as Russia had done in 1917.
    They got em thinking. Immediate cessation of hostilities, all resources put into incarcerating, torturing and butchering all suspected German socialists. “Fund the rise of fascism” was the cry then as it is now in amerika, cos fascists appeal to the more selfish and sociopathic of the masses while loyally following the instructions of the existing power base.

    • Heath says

      The War ended with the Americans defeating the German army in the Argonne and were poised to take the war into Germany, something the British and French had failed to do, still attempting to punch their way through Belgium (again).
      While the Germans were exceptional militarily, diplomatically they were inept, totally misjudging the situation, Ludendorf and Hindenburg accepted Wilson’s 14 points gave the Kaiser the heave ho (nobody has heard from the German aristocracy since) and held election assuming the Socialist Party would win which they did, They also assumed, rightly that the socialists would have no idea of how to run an country and the German people would turn back to them as true leaders of the nation (having run round screaming about the socialists having stabbed the Great German Army in the Back), Unfortunately for them the Germans much preferred the SDP to the war socialism of H&L,

  4. Kaiser Mike says

    Pretty good but something struck me as curious.
    Not one word about the jew bankers. Nothing about the Balfour Declaration and the Rothschild family.
    Yes. The “Allies” were at the root or damn near it….but who has profited the most? Cui Bono? Who controls world money, media, and politics?

    Cant say I was much surprised by this.

    • UreKismet says

      Oh it was the in the sub text – more than that would have been tough given all the judeophobic ugliness ol’ Cecil loosed of throughout his life.
      The thing that wasn’t in the subtext but usually is when tosh of this magnitude is being forked out the the credulous, was mention of reptiles in zip up humanoid onsies – surely the dingbats haven’t kicked one of their best inanities to the kerb?

    • Heath says

      My bet is old Nate offered to wipe the Allies war debt to him if he could get the Morgans and Rockefellers to make the US enter the War and create the a Homeland for the Jews in Palestine

  5. summitflyer says

    Thank James Corbett for this very enlightening historical report on WW1.
    The more things change ,the more they stay the same.

  6. Very well put! Just one thing: W T Stead was conned into it by Cecil Rhodes, who faked his support for Stead’s idea of converting the British Empire into a federation of democratic states, with a federal government ruling external affairs. Rhodes insisted on confidentiality, saying that the only person who knew of his plans was Lord Rothschild. Later, when Rhodes turned out to be behind the Jameson Raid, in an early attempt to spark the Second Boer War, Stead told him face to face that he should have been sent to prison for that. Initially, Stead was the sole executor of Rothschild’s will, but his influence was bit by bit decreased, then removed. Eventually, Stead made a mystery trip to Russia, where he met with the Czar to explain to him the danger of an alliance with France, in that Germany would feel threatened, and that could lead to a major war. After that he called in on Tolstoy, where he wrote ‘Peace and War’ at the same desk that Tolstoy had written ‘War and Peace’. Stead died in the sinking of the Titanic in 1912, an operation which more-or-less followed a novel he wrote some years earlier as a warning about the insufficiency of lifeboats. There’s a lot more to it, and I gave a talk to Keep Talking in London on this aspect in 2014.

    My interest in W T Stead was aroused in 2003, when I was Information Officer of Esperanto Association of Britain, and proposed an exhibition at the London Language Show to mark their centenary, featuring the main motor behind the movement in the UK at the time, W T Stead. I was immediately shunned by Establishment-types in the association, and was mystified. I came under personal abuse, and as a result entered their Management Committee to find out what was going on. When I reported confidentially to the President that the minutes and the accounts didn’t seem to tie up, with the minutes constantly claiming that they were running out of capital, and the accounts showing — if my calculations were correct — that the capital was rising dramatically, they launched a witch-hunt against me. I realised that this issue must be much bigger than the tiny association I had been a member of since 1962. It took me until 2014 to understand that Stead had been marginalised not just by my false friends, but by the whole of the British Establishment. He was a good guy, but used by the Establishment, just as I realised I had been for most of my adult life. There is a monument to Stead on the Thames Embankment, opposite the entrance to Temple Underground Station.

    Ian Fantom, Keep Talking (dot info)

  7. Kevin K says

    Link working now. Apologies fault on my machine

  8. vexarb says

    Nothing new but well presented. Especially the men who sedulously nurtured the visceral Anti-Germanism that became such a chilling feature of English Literature from the turn of the century. By 1914 the dogma of German Militarism had become the 40th Article of the Anglican faith. Historians in Oxford (Home of Lost Causes) still believe it.

    • A very good presentation. Well worth spreading as the after effects are very much still apparent imo

      Only half an hour such a lot covered- and there’s another part concerning the US … still to come

      • nondimenticare says

        Eerily parallel, of course, to our present situation and how we arrived here.

Comments are closed.