UK Zionist Historian Sir Martin Gilbert (1936-2015) Variously Ignored Or Minimized WW2 Bengali Holocaust

Below an interesting text on Winston Churchill and the Bengali Famine, and how Churchill's Jewish backers have downplayed this atrocity. The number of dead in the Bengal Famine that we often hear, is something in the vicinity of 3-4 million, Dr Polya has different figures - but the main point is the critique of the Jewish gatewatchers and their deceitful methology of downplaying the information that doesn't suit their aims. But as Professor Robert Faurisson use to say: "To judge - is to compare!"

(Note: As Radio Islam is of the Revisionist view concerning what happened and did not happen to the Jewish populations in Europe during W.W. II and the so-called "Jewish Holocaust", our views on this important segment of histor differ widely from Dr Polya's, but we have decided to not omit them from the reproduced text.)

After this text there follows further down this very page another article, "Who Remembers the Persians?", on another atrocity - The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia/Iran, 1917–1919. Also strategically "forgotten" - for the moment - by our Jewish guardians of what is to be known, and what is not to be "common knowledge".

UK Zionist Historian Sir Martin Gilbert (1936-2015) Variously Ignored Or Minimized WW2 Bengali Holocaust
By Dr Gideon Polya

Countercurrents.org
19th February, 2015

British Zionist Sir Martin Gilbert (1936-2015) was an eminent UK historian in the areas of Jewish history, Zionism, Churchill, WW1, WW2 and 20th century history. He was one of very few UK historians who actually mentioned the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust (6-7 million Indians killed by Churchill) but must be criticized for hugely under-estimating this atrocity, excusing the British, eliminating any mention of this from his histories of Churchill, ignoring other holocausts and grossly exaggerating deaths in the WW2 Jewish Holocaust.

British Zionist historian Professor Sir Martin Gilbert wrote millions of words and published over 80 books [1] but some of his assertions need exposure and critical comment, especially because they have helped generate and expand the nuclear terrorist, genocidally racist, racist Zionist-run, Anglo-American Crusader Fortress of democracy-by-genocide Apartheid Israel. One notes the appropriateness of the ISRAEL anagram e-LIARS.

1. Gilbert promulgated the Exodus from Egypt, Promised Land, Nile-to-Euphrates Kingdom of David and Solomon, and Exile from Palestine Zionist myths.

In his meticulously researched “Jewish History Atlas” [2] Gilbert promulgated the Jewish myths of the Exodus from Egypt, the entry to the Promised Land, a nearly Nile-to-Euphrates Kingdom of David and Solomon, and the Exile of the Jews from Palestine under the Romans. In contrast, other historians, notably Jewish Israeli historian Shlomo Sand in his book “The Invention of the Jewish People” [3], point to the absence of documentary evidence (apart from the Holy Bible) for the Exodus (no mention in the huge Ancient Egyptian records), the Kingdom of David and Solomon (at most a small area around the Hebrew-conquered and ethnically cleansed city of Jerusalem) and a large-scale Exile (the Romans obviously took thousands of rebel prisoners but did not have railways and cattle trucks and left millions of Jewish Palestinians to keep on doing business and paying taxes). Indeed the genetic and cultural descendants of Jewish Palestinians of the time of Christ are the horribly persecuted Indigenous Palestinians (their forebears having mostly variously converted to Christianity or Islam) whereas most Jewish Israelis descend from Yemeni, Berber and Khazar converts to Judaism. Indeed recent genetic research has shown that Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jewish maternal lineages have substantial prehistoric European ancestry and nothing to do with Palestine [4].

2. Gilbert admitted 20 “other Zion” plans world-wide for Jewish colonization and the British imperialist origin of handing Palestine to Zionist colonizers but omitted colonization of NW Australia.

On page 95 of his “Jewish History Atlas” [2] Gilbert summarizes 20 schemes for Jewish colonization of other countries around the world but notably leaves out (21) the Zionist plan to colonize and ethnically cleanse Palestine and (22) the anti-Zionist Freeland League plan for Jewish colonization of NW Australia that was vetoed in 1944 by Australian PM John Curtin on Australian Intelligence advice, possibly after the UK Churchill War Cabinet had agreed to partition Palestine) [5-7]. Since there are about twice as many Australians (24 million) as Palestinians (12 million) today, if Australians had suffered the same fate as Palestinians one can simply multiply the latter impositions by 2 to estimate (1) 90% of Australia ethnically cleansed of Australians, (2) 12 million Australians forbidden to step foot anywhere in Australia on pain of being shot (although Jews from around the world could get citizenship of an Apartheid Australia), (3) 8.6 million Australians confined without any human rights to tiny, military-guarded Bantustan-style ghettoes or to the world's biggest concentration camp (policed not by guards with small arms as in Nazi Germany but by navy, army and air force shelling, rocketing and bombing),(4) 3.4 million “lucky” Australians permitted to vote for the government ruling all of Australia, albeit as Third Class citizens under threat of ethnic cleansing (but 20.6 million Australians excluded from voting), (5) 10,000 Australians killed by violence or violently–imposed deprivation each year, and (6) Australia declared to be a Jewish state with 12 million non-Jewish Australians living in Australia as citizens albeit as Third Class subjects under threat of complete ethnic cleansing. Martin Gilbert in his book “First World War 1” (p373) states that the 1917 British Balfour Declaration (that established Palestine as a “Jewish Homeland”, albeit with subsequently grossly ignored caveats of no harm or Arabs or Jews) [8] was issued in an attempt to get Zionist support for continued Russian involvement in WW1 [9].

3. Gilbert helped falsely popularise the WW2 Jewish Holocaust as “The Holocaust”, thus denying all other holocausts.

Zionist historian Professor Sir Martin Gilbert has helped popularize the immense Zionist untruth that identifies the WW2 Shoa or Jewish Genocide (5-6 million Jews killed, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation, according to Professor Gilbert) as The Holocaust (e.g. Martin Gilbert's “Atlas of the Holocaust” [10]) and hence implying that there have been no others, whereas the awful reality is that it was a part of the WW2 European Holocaust (30 million Slavs, Jews and Gypsies killed). Further, 40 million Chinese died in a WW2 Chinese Holocaust under Japanese occupation in 1937-1945 [11], and 6-7 million Indians died in the WW2 Bengali Holocaust under the British with Australian complicity [11-21]. Indeed N.G. Jog's 1944 book “Churchill's Blind Spot: India” in referring to this Bengali Holocaust was the first to refer to a WW2 atrocity as a “holocaust” [21].

Further, 17 million people die avoidably each year from deprivation and deprivation–exacerbated disease in a continuing Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust that has taken 1.3 billion lives since 1950 including 0.6 million Muslims lives [11] in a continuing post-1945 Muslim Holocaust that includes 12 million Muslim deaths from violence or war-imposed deprivation in the post-1990 Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide [22]. Indeed Martin Gilbert supported UK and US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been associated with deaths from violence or war-imposed deprivation totalling 4.6 million and 5.5 million, respectively [23, 24], and of course as a Zionist supported Apartheid Israel that has been responsible for a Palestinian Genocide (ethnic cleansing of 90% of Palestine and 2 million Palestinian deaths from violence, 0.1 million, or violently-imposed deprivation, 1.9 million, since 1936) [25-27].

4. Gilbert minimized the magnitude of the WW2 Bengali Holocaust.

In the 1942-1945 WW2 Bengali Holocaust the British deliberately starved 6-7 million Indians to death with Australian complicity (Australia was complicit by withholding food from its huge wartime grain stocks) [12, 13]. However several generations of Western Mainstream journalists, editors, politicians and academics have ensured that this is a “forgotten holocaust” [13]. Martin Gilbert must be praised for at least referring (albeit very briefly) to “1.5 million” Bengal Famine victims in at least 3 books, namely “British History Atlas”[28], “The Day the War Ended. VE-Day 1945 in Europe and Around the World” [29] and “A History of the Twentieth Century. Volume Two 1933-1951” [30].

5. Gilbert made no mention of the WW2 Bengali Holocaust in his biographies of Churchill.

It is remarkable then that Sir Martin Gilbert, the world's top expert on Churchill, should have not included in 2 of his key books on Churchill any mention of Churchill's WW2 Bengali Holocaust – a holocaust greater in terms of victims (6-7 million dead) than the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million dead, with 1 in 6 dying from deprivation, according to Martin Gilbert [2, 10]). Thus, to the best of my ascertainment, there is no mention of Churchill's WW2 Bengal Famine atrocity in the following books by Martin Gilbert about Churchill, namely “In Search of Churchill. A historians Journey” [31] and “Churchill. A Life” [32]. Just as Winston Churchill totally ignored the Bengali Holocaust (and the 6-7 million people he deliberately murdered) in his 6-volume work “The Second World War” [33] for which in part he got the 1953 Nobel Prize for Literature [34]. Professor Sir Martin Gilbert also ignored the Bengali Holocaust in his 2 “definitive” histories of Winston Churchill. Just imagine a biography of Adolph Hitler that made no mention of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust or indeed of his other atrocities, most notably the 30 million Slavs, Jews and Gypsies killed by the Nazis in WW2.

6. Gilbert excused the British perpetrators of the WW2 Bengali Holocaust.

Martin Gilbert in his book “A History of the Twentieth Century. Volume Two 1933-1951” [30] that is remarkable and praiseworthy in British historiography for actually mentioning the Bengal Famine, stated [my corrections in square brackets]: “In the summer of 1943, as supplies of rice ran out [incorrect], famine spread through Bengal. Its ravages were savage and swift. The poor, and villagers in the remoter regions were its main victims [people starved in Calcutta], not only in Bengal, but in neighboring Orissa and distant Malabar. Within a few months, as many as 1,500,000 Indians had died [6-7 million died, 1943-1945]. The Bengal Famine was one of the worst famines of the century [p522]…Between 1939 and 1945 disease and hunger had taken their toll, with war conditions making it much harder to organize alleviation. In Bengal, a million and half Indians died of starvation [6-7 million died in Bengal, Assam and Orissa] [p725]” [30].

The Churchill Centre says that it sought comment and obtained the following comment from Professor Sir Martin Gilbert: “Churchill was not responsible for the Bengal Famine. I have been searching for evidence for years: none has turned up. The 1944 Document volume of the official biography [Hillsdale College Press] will resolve this issue finally” [35]. Imagine leading historians under-estimating the magnitude of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust by a factor of 3-4 and declaring that Adolph Hitler was not responsible.

7. Gilbert over-estimated WW2 Jewish Holocaust deaths to over 22 million (!) in one instance.

According to eminent Jewish British historian and WW1, WW2, and Churchill expert Professor Sir Martin Gilbert 5-6 million Jews were killed in WW2 with 1 in 6 dying from deprivation [2, 10]. However there is considerable variability in Gilbert's estimates. Thus he estimates that 0.2 million Hungarian Jews perished out of a population of 0.7 million in his 1969 “Jewish History Atlas” [2] and in his 1982 “Atlas of the Holocaust” [10] but he claimed 0.4 million victims in The Times 2005 [36].

It gets worse. Professor Sir Martin Gilbert in his 1981 book, “Auschwitz and the Allies” [37] stated on page 26: “The deliberate attempt to destroy systematically all of Europe's Jews was unsuspected in the spring and early summer of 1942: the very period during which it was at its most intense, and during which hundreds of thousands of Jews were being gassed every day at Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka”. If we assume that “hundreds of thousands” approximates to 200,000 and “spring and early summer” means 16 weeks or 112 days, then Professor Sir Martin Gilbert is asserting that in these 4 concentration camps alone in 16 weeks in 1942 a total of 0.2 million per day x 112 days = 22.4 million Jews were murdered in gas chambers in this less than 4 month period!

Thus the most eminent British historian of WW1, WW2, Churchill, Zionism and the WW2 Jewish Holocaust, Professor Sir Martin Gilbert, while (a) giving a hyperbolically absurd estimate of over 22 million deaths of Jews in 4 concentration camps in less than 4 months has (b) completely omitted any mention of the 1942-1945 Bengali Holocaust (6-7 million Indians starved to death by the British with Australian complicity) from his histories of Churchill while laudably mentioning the WW2 Bengal Famine elsewhere (albeit greatly underestimating the deaths and excusing the British perpetrators).

8. Comparing Martin Gilbert and David Irving.

UK historian of Germany and WW2, David Irving, who was sentenced to 3 years in an Austrian prison in 2005 for “Holocaust denial”, has attracted considerable hostility around the world for his historical revisionist views [38]. Thus David Irving during an interview with the Australian journalist Ron Casey on 27 July, 1995 estimated 4 million Jewish deaths from violence or deprivation in WW2: “I think, like any scientist, I'd have to give you a range of figures and I'd have to say a minimum of one million, which is a monstrous crime, and a maximum of about four million, depending on what you mean by killed. If putting people into a concentration camp where they die of barbarity and typhus and epidemics is killing, then I would say the four million figure, because, undoubtedly, huge numbers did die in the camps in the conditions that were very evident at the end of the war.” [39]

David Irving in an interview with Eric Silver in response to the question “how many Jews do you think did die?” (2000): “I'm quite satisfied that the shootings on the Eastern Front happened, that these probably reached a total victim figure of one million … [re the Jews who died in concentration camps] We have to ask two infuriating questions. Who is a Jew? And what do you mean by died? I appreciate the criminality of being taken out of your home in Vienna or Budapest and sent to Auschwitz, where you died of typhus. But is that being killed, or is it dying?” [40]

However one can legitimately compare David Irving's estimate of 4 million Jews dying in WW2 due to violence (1 million) or imposed deprivation (3 million) or 67% of the upper estimate of 6 million Jewish deaths in the WW2 Jewish Holocaust [2, 10], with Professor Sir Martin Gilbert's estimate of 1.5 million Indians dying in the WW2 Bengal Famine, or 21% of the upper estimate of 7 million deaths by UK medical historian Dr Sanjoy Bhattacharya (Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine, University College London) [16].

Conclusions.

Of course Zionist Martin Gilbert is not alone in his ignoring in his Churchill biographies of the WW2 Bengali Holocaust for which racist imperialist, warmonger and mass murderer pro-Zionist Winston Churchill was responsible. In my book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” [13] I catalogue numerous histories that totally ignore the WW2 Bengali Holocaust that has been assiduously kept from public perception in the English-speaking world by several generations of lying and racist historians.

History ignored yields history repeated and racist Mainstream holocaust ignoring, holocaust minimizing and genocide ignoring by the likes of Zionist historian Sir Martin Gilbert has allowed atrocities such as Palestinian Genocide in which 90% of Palestine has been ethnically cleansed by the Zionist invaders; 2 million Palestinian have been killed through violence (0.1 million) or violently-imposed deprivation (1.9 million) since 1936 (i.e. in Martin Gilbert's own lifetime); and of 12 million Palestinians (half of them children) 6 million are prevented from even stepping foot in their own country, 4.3 million are highly abusively confined without human rights to West Bank mini-Bantustan ghettoes (2.5 million) or the Gaza Concentration Camp (1.8 million), and only 1.7 million (14%) as Israeli Palestinians are able to vote for the government ruling all of Palestine, albeit as Third Class citizens under Nazi-style Apartheid laws.

It gets worse. Neocon American and Zionist Imperialist (NAZI)-perverted Mainstream journalists, editors, politicians and academics continue to ignore the horrendous realities of the ongoing Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide (deaths from violence or war-imposed deprivation 4.6 million and 5.5 million, respectively), the ongoing Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide (12 million Muslim deaths from deaths from violence or war-imposed deprivation in the Zionist-backed post-1990 US War on Muslims), the ongoing Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust (17 million avoidable deaths annually on Spaceship Earth with the First World in charge of the flight deck), and a worsening Climate Genocide (5 million people already die each year from climate change, 0.5 million, or carbon burning, 4.5 million, but 10 billion people are set to perish this century if man-made climate change is not requisitely addressed) [13, 41]. The late Martin Gilbert was a member of the UK Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War that has yet to hand down its report – Professor Sir Martin Gilbert may yet keep lying from the grave.

Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity. History ignored yields history repeated. Please inform everyone you can.

References.

[1]. “Martin Gilbert”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gilbert .

[2]. Martin Gilbert, “Jewish History Atlas” (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1969).

[3]. Shlomo Sand, “The Invention of the Jewish People” (Verso, London, 2009).

[4]. Marta D. Costa et al, “A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages”, Nature, 2013: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html .

[5]. Leon Gettler, “An Unpromised Land" (Fremantle Arts Centre Press, Fremantle, Western Australia, 1993).

[6]. Gideon Polya, “Book review: “An Unpromised Land" by Leon Gettler” - How Australia escaped becoming Apartheid Israel”: https://sites.google.com/site/bookreviewsbydrgideonpolya/gettler-leon .

[7]. Gideon Polya, “Apartheid Australia backs racist Zionist run Apartheid Israel”, Countercurrents, 29 June, 2009: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya290609.htm .

[8]. “Balfour Declaration”. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration .

[9] Martin Gilbert, “First World War 1” Harper Collins, UK, 1995).

[10]. Martin Gilbert “Atlas of the Holocaust”(Michael Joseph, London, 1982).

[11]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, this including an avoidable mortality-related history of every country since Neolithic times and now available for free perusal on the web: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/body-count-global-avoidable-mortality_05.html .

[12]. Gideon Polya, “Australia And Britain Killed 6-7 Million Indians In WW2 Bengal Famine”, Countercurrents, 29 September, 2011: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya290911.htm .

[13]. Gideon Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability”, now available for free perusal on the web: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/2008/09/jane-austen-and-black-hole-of-british.html  .

[14]. Madhusree Muckerjee, “Churchill's Secret War. The British Empire and the ravaging of India during World War II” (Basic Books, New York, 2010).

[15]. Colin Mason, “A Short History of Asia. Stone Age to 2000AD” (Macmillan, 2000).

[16]. Bengal Famine, BBC radio broadcast series “The things we forgot to remember”, 2008: http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.html .

[17]. Paul Greenough's “Prosperity and Misery in Modern Bengal: the Famine of 1943-1944” (Oxford University Press, 1982).

[18]. Thomas Keneally, “Three Famines” (Vintage House, Australia, 2011).

[19]. Cormac O Grada. “Famine a short history” (Princeton University Press, 2009).

[20]. J. Dreze and Amartya Sen “Hunger and Public Action” (Clarendon, Oxford, 1989).

[21]. N.G. Jog, “Churchill's Blind Spot: India” (New Book Company, Bombay, 1944).

[22]. “Muslim Holocaust Muslim Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ .

[23]. "Iraqi Holocaust Iraqi Genocide": https://sites.google.com/site/iraqiholocaustiraqigenocide/  .

[24]. "Afghan Holocaust Afghan Genocide": https://sites.google.com/site/afghanholocaustafghangenocide/ .

[25]. “Palestinian Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/ .

[26]. William A. Cook, editor, “The Plight of the Palestinians. A Long History of Destruction”, (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010).

[27]. Gideon Polya, “Review: “The Plight Of The Palestinians. A Long History Of Destruction”, Countercurrents, 17 June, 2012: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya170612.htm .

[28]. Martin Gilbert, “British History Atlas”(Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1968).

[29]. Martin Gilbert, “The Day the War Ended. VE-Day 1945 in Europe and Around the World” (Harper Collins, London, 1995).

[30]. Martin Gilbert, “A History of the Twentieth Century. Volume Two 1933-1951” (William Morrow, New York, 1998).

[31]. Martin Gilbert, “In Search of Churchill. A historian's Journey” (Harper & Collins, London, 1994).

[32]. Martin Gilbert, “Churchill. A Life” (Heinemann, London, 1991).

[33]. Winston Churchill, “The Second World War” (Cassell, London).

[34]. “Winston Churchill”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill .

[35]. Churchill Centre, “The Bengali Famine”, 18 November, 2008: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/575-the-bengali-famine .

[36]. Martin Gilbert “Could Britain have done more to stop the horrors of Auschwitz?”, Times Online, 27 January 2005: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article507013.ece .

[37]. Martin Gilbert, “Auschwitz and the Allies” (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981).

[38]. “David Irving”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving .

[39]. Richard J. Evans, “David Irving, Hitler and holocaust denial”, Holocaust Denial on Trial: http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/340.html .

[40]. Eric Silver, “An interview with David Irving, Confronting Hitler's defender”, Action Report, 4 June 2000: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/00/05/Silver.html .

[41]. “Climate Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/ .

Dr Gideon Polya has been teaching science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003). He has published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ ); see also his contributions “Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality” in “Lies, Deep Fries & Statistics” (edited by Robyn Williams, ABC Books, Sydney, 2007: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/australian-complicity-in-iraq-mass-mortality/3369002#transcript) and “Ongoing Palestinian Genocide” in “The Plight of the Palestinians” (edited by William Cook, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2010: http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/4047-the-plight-of-the-palestinians.html ). He has published a revised and updated 2008 version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” (see: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ) as biofuel-, globalization- and climate-driven global food price increases threaten a greater famine catastrophe than the man-made famine in British-ruled India that killed 6-7 million Indians in the “forgotten” World War 2 Bengal Famine (see recent BBC broadcast involving Dr Polya, Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and others: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/social-economic-history/listen-the-bengal-famine ).

Addendum - The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia/Iran, 1917–1919:

There's a lot of Brit-bashing in the Jewish controlled press lately, with special focus on the crimes of colonialism. Smart as they are, the Jews never mention Benjamin Disraeli, the Jew who created the British Empire in the 19th Century, or mention the Jewish businessmen who were at the forefront posing as "British" during the vicious exploitation of precious metals and stones in South Africa.

The same goes for the British-induced famine in Persia/Iran. A terrible colonial crime that the Jews who run the press are not making much noice about presently, as Iran is in their sights and is under a current Jewish demonization campaign, and the Jews still need Britain's military and politico-economical resources for their Zionist machinations against Iran.

Thus complete silence on this important piece of history.

Wikipedia's entry: Persian famine of 1917–1919, gives some startling casualty figures:

Mohammad Gholi Majd's book, The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917–1919, identifies a number of allied sources that detail the proportion and scale of the deaths,^[23] and alleges that as many as 8–10 million died, across the whole nation, based on an alternate pre-famine Persian population estimate of 19 million.^[15]^[24] Timothy C. Winegard and Pordeli et al. acknowledge the figures suggested by Majd.^[25]^[26]

One can further read:

Pat Walsh in a review of Majd's book written in Irish Foreign Affairs, a quarterly publication by Irish Political Review blames the British occupation and comments on claims of hoarding as causes of famine, writing "British attitudes towards the starving Persians were uncannily similar to those expressed against the Irish in a similar position half a century before", i.e. the British blamed Persians while suggesting that building roads for their military was a ‘relief measure’ motivated by benevolence.^[16]

More on Mohammad Gholi Majd's book, The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917–1919 can be read from a blog post that we reproduce below.

An especially interesting part is at the end of the text, that notes:

By all accounts Dr. Mohammad Gholi Majd had great difficulty in getting his book published (and even laminated) in the U.S. and whilst other publications dealing with ‘genocides’ were eagerly put on the market (such as that in Rwanda) the subject of an Iranian genocide produced by British agency was considered untouchable by the same publishers.

Who Remembers the Persians?
By Dr Pat Walsh

drpatwalsh.com, 2016-05-07

‘The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917-1919’ by Dr Mohammad Gholi Majd begins with one of the most startling statements I have read:

“The great famine of 1917-1919 was unquestionably the greatest calamity in the history of Persia, far surpassing anything that has happened before. It is shown in this study that as much as 40% of the population of Persia was wiped out because of starvation and the associated diseases that accompany malnutrition. Unquestionably, Persia was the greatest victim of World War I. No other country had suffered casualties of this magnitude in both absolute and relative terms. Yet the great famine in Persia, one of the greatest famines of modern times, and definitely one of the largest genocides of the 20th century has remained unknown and unexplored… Unquestionably, the most remarkable fact about the Persian Holocaust is that it has remained concealed all these years, a fact about which volumes can be written.” (p.1)

Over the last decade or two I have taken a keen interest in the Great War. In writing about it I have read hundreds of Irish and British publications from the time and after and yet I have never come across a clue about the events in Persia to which Dr. Mohammad Gholi Majd refers. In fact, the effects of the Great War on Persia seem to be shrouded in the greatest of secrecy.

The author, despite having written a number of books on the topic of the Great War in relation to Persia, did not realise himself the proportion of the events he was dealing with and came about them by chance. In doing research on another matter in the US State Department archives he came across a letter in which Wallace S. Murray, the American chargé d’affaires in Persia wrote: “Persia would appear at least threatened with the situation which arose in 1917-18 when, due to the drought and the destruction of her crops by invading armies, she suffered a famine that carried off, so it is estimated, a third of her population.” And from there he followed the lead that was to lead to a startling discovery.

The author was initially left incredulous by his discovery and was convinced that this must be an error. And so he therefore set out to discover the truth. He made a careful search of the State Department records pertaining to Persia during the Great War. He noted that the history of Persia in the Great War was shrouded in mystery and the famine of 1917 to 1919 was practically unknown. And he discovered that the facts were even worse than he imagined: “I discovered that Murray’s statement that Persia had lost one third of its population was an understatement. The reality was even worse.” (p.13)

What the author discovered was as follows:

“I could not believe my eyes. I had seen references to this famine in earlier reports, and was aware that this was a serious famine. But casualties of this magnitude are another matter. The matter led me to make a careful search of the records of the Department of State for Persia during 1914-1919. It turned out to be a veritable revelation. The records are immensely rich and previously unused. One by-product was a monograph on the history of Persia in World War I and its conquest by Great Britain. The other is this brief monograph on the famine-cum-genocide in Persia. Sadly, I discovered that Murray’s statement that one third of the population of Persia had been ‘carried off’ was an understatement. The reality was far worse. The statistics are simply mind-boggling. As reported in the American diplomatic dispatches, the population of Persia in 1914 was 20 million, a figure that is easily substantiated in this study. By natural progression it should have been at least 21 million in 1919. The actual population in 1919 was 11 million, showing that at least 10 million persons had been lost to famine and disease – a famine of cataclysmic proportions.” (p.3)

Dr Mohammad Gholi Majd continues in summarising the impact of these events:

“In sum, not until 1956 had Persia’s population recovered to its 1914 level. These results are absolutely revolutionary and cast a completely different light on the history of Persia in the region. Given that the famine was initially caused by war and occupation of Persia by Russia and Great Britain, and then greatly worsened and lengthened by the policies of Great Britain, Persian losses to famine were casualties of the Great War. Persian losses easily far exceeded the Armenian casualties in Turkey and they even greatly exceeded the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis. These findings provide an entirely different perspective on the modern history of Persia and World War I.” (p.4)

It was Lord Curzon, the highest representative of British sovereignty in Asia, Viceroy of the Indian Empire, who told the Persians of their place in the (British) world on a visit from India in 1904:

“We were here before any other Power in modern times had shown its face in these waters; we found strife, and we have created order; it was our commerce as well as your security that was threatened and called for protection at every port along the coasts; the subjects of the King of England still reside and trade with you; the great Empire of India, which it is our duty to defend, lies almost at your gates; we saved you from extinction at the hands of your neighbours; we opened these seas to the ships of all nations, and enabled their flags to fly in peace; we have not seized or held enemy territory; we have not destroyed your independence, but preserved it.”

In short, England told the Persians that they were British property to be done with as Britannia saw fit – and all to their benefit, of course.

But just a couple of years later Britain saw fit to deal with the expanding Russian Empire in Asia by dividing up Persia with the Czar in order to conclude the Great Game in favour of a greater one.

Curzon had stated in his book, Persia and the Persian Question, the importance of the southern portion of the country, which Britain could let no other possess under any circumstances. And he described Persia as part of the glacis of India – a glacis being a killing ground outside a fortress:

“India is like a fortress, with the vast moat of the sea on two of her faces, and with mountains for her walls on the remainder; but beyond those walls, which are sometimes of by no means insuperable height, and admit of being easily penetrated, extends a glacis of varying breadth and dimension. We do not want to occupy it, but we also cannot afford to see it occupied by our foes. We are quite content to let it remain in the hands of our allies and friends; but if rival and unfriendly influences creep up to it and lodge themselves right under our walls, we are compelled to intervene, because a danger would thereby grow up that might one day menace our security. This is the secret of the whole position in Arabia, Persia, Afghanistan, Tibet, and as far eastwards as Siam. He would be a short-sighted commander who merely manned his ramparts in India and did not look out beyond ; and the whole of our policy during the past five years has been directed towards maintaining our influence, and to preventing the expansion of hostile agencies on this area which I have described.”

And a dying ground it was to become for the Persians a couple of decades later.

Persia due to her geographical location lay at the confluence of British and Russian influences. The ideal of the British Indian government was for the South and East of the country to be under its hegemony to guard the Persian Gulf against intruders.

In the 1907 agreement between Russia and Britain, which paved the way for war on Germany and the Ottoman Empire, the Russians and British partitioned Persia into zones of influence. The British agreements with the Russians to settle differences over Persia were designed so that war could be made on Germany. Persia, it was decided, was to be divided in two by the two Powers with a buffer zone in between (which England later grabbed). The southern meridional zone, connected to the Persian Gulf, assured British communications with Mesopotamia, which was ear-marked for absorption in time into the British Empire. The septentrionate came under Russian influence. The veteran Liberal John Morley, who was also working in the Committee of Imperial Defence, preparing War on Germany, helped organise the division of spoils. He wrote to the Viceroy of India on 19 February 1907:

“I have begun in the Defence Committee the operations of which I spoke to you upon the Persian Gulf and the numerous complexities arising from the prospect of the Baghdad Railway, and other matters. The whole proceeding will be very interesting for when we have done with the waters of the Gulf, I am to take the Committee on to the dry land of Persia.”

The Persian government did not agree to the Anglo-Russian agreement dividing up their country but they could do little about it with the two Empires united in interest at last.

In July 1906 the Iranian people had secured a Constitution for the first time after passive resistance and a bloodless revolution. They gained the right to have a national assembly, which would have a say in the selection of ministers and in framing law. Elections were held to this assembly but then the Shah who had granted it died. He was replaced by Shah Muhammed Ali who was determined to turn the clocks back, even if it meant foreign intervention to do so.

The Anglo-Russian Convention came in August 1907. It was presented as a settling of accounts between the two gamers of The Great Game and a contribution to world peace. In it Britain and Russia guaranteed “not to interfere” in Persia “unless injury is inflicted on the persons or property of their subjects.” It was stated that the two powers guaranteed “to secure for ever the independence of Persia”.

The U.S. economist Morgan Shuster was appointed by the Persian Government as economic adviser to put its affairs to right. Like the Ottoman Empire Persia had become disabled by foreign loans made to the Shah which had exorbitant interest rates and which the country struggled to pay back. Shuster began to get on top of this situation and began to restore some element of national sovereignty by eroding the debt. However, at that moment, in 1911, the Russians and then the British invaded their “spheres of influence.”

Shuster wrote a book, The Strangling of Persia, about this experience. He was not surprised about the intrigues of Russia but he was most taken aback by Sir Edward Grey’s breaking of the treaty and disregard for the independence of a country he had so lately guaranteed the independence of. Shuster concluded that it could only be Grey’s obsession with encircling Germany with a view to making war on her in the future, in alliance with the Tsar, that made the British Foreign Secretary permit such breaking of international treaty.

This view corresponds, it should be noted, with that of W.T. Stead, in relation to Grey’s non-interference in Libya, with regard to Italy’s aggression and then his failure to stop the Balkan Wars soon after. It all signalled a Revolution in British Foreign Policy that undermined what Stead called “the public law of Europe” tenaciously defended against Tsarist expansion, through threat of war, by every British Foreign Secretary up to Grey. Something was, indeed, afoot.

In 1916 when Grey had secured his Great War in conjunction with the Tsar, the British War Aims defined with her Russian Ally included:

“That the Neutral Zone of Persia should be included in the sphere of British activities so that the economic life of Asia Minor and Mesopotamia should be always regarded as a field for British enterprise.”

Dr Majd describes the history of Persia during this period by dividing it into a number of phases. When Britain managed to manoeuvre Turkey into the war in November 1914 British and Russian forces violated the neutrality of Persia and entered it with military forces. This occurred about the same time as the British invasion of Mesopotamia. The Russians and British then concluded a secret pact for a new division of Persia.

Persia appealed to Germany for help in resisting the invasion and German forces, along with a Turkish army, entered Persia. During 1916 and 1917 Russia and Britain established control over their respective parts of Persia, driving the Germans and Turks out. However, the Russian revolution broke up the Russian armies in Persia and they evacuated the country. The British capture of Baghdad in March 1917 and the disappearance of her Russian rival created a situation whereby Britain conquered all of Persia during 1918. During this year British forces invaded western, northern and eastern Persia and occupied regions previously held by Russia.

Persia was intimately connected with Mesopotamia in the British strategic conception. In August 1919, Britain imposed the Anglo-Persian Agreement on the country. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, who drafted the document, described England’s policy of adding Persia to the Imperial sphere, in a memorandum:

“If it be asked why we should undertake the task at all, and why Persia should not be left to herself and allowed to rot into picturesque decay, the answer is that her geographical position, the magnitude of our interests in the country, and the future safety of our Eastern Empire render it impossible for us any time during the last fifty years – to disinherit ourselves from what happens in Persia. Moreover, now that we are about to assume the mandate for Mesopotamia, which will make us coterminous with the western frontiers of Asia, we cannot permit the existence between the frontiers of our Indian Empire and Baluchistan and those of our new protectorate, a hotbed of misrule, enemy intrigue, financial chaos, and political disorder. Further, if Persia were to be alone, there is every reason to fear that she would be overrun by Bolshevik influence from the north. Lastly, we possess in the southwestern corner of Persia great assets in the shape of oil fields, which are worked for the British navy and which give us a commanding interest in that part of the world.” (Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men, pp. 39-40)

And yet whilst England could never “give up responsibility” for Persia as a territory it could never admit responsibility for the welfare of its people or that its policy had been tantamount to genocide with regard to them.

Dr. Majd notes that

“From the beginning, the British had maintained extraordinary secrecy on the invasion of Western Persia, their ‘Dunsterforce’ being nicknamed the ‘hush-hush force’… For four and a half years all of Persia was under British military occupation. The British forces had evacuated Persia only after the coup d’état of February 1921 by which the British had installed the military dictatorship of Reza Khan and who was subsequently made Shah in 1925. For the next 30 years the British controlled Persia, until the United States took over in the late 1940s.” (pp.3-4)

In his account, Adventures of Dunsterville, Major-General L.C.Dunsterville, described the reasons behind the British “adventure” that played with the lives of millions:

“One of the big items in the deep-laid pre-war schemes of Germany for world-domination was the absorption of Asia Minor and the penetration into further Asia by means of the Berlin-Baghdad railway. When Baghdad was taken by the British in March 1917… the scheme for German penetration into Asia had to be shifted north and took the obvious line BERLIN-BAKU-BOKHARA. In this latter scheme it was evident that the Southern Caucasus, Baku and the Caspian Sea would play a large part; and the object of my mission was to prevent German and Turkish penetration in this area. Fate ordained that, just at the time that the British thwarted the more southern German scheme by the capture of Baghdad, the Russian breakdown opened the northern route to the unopposed enterprise of the Germans.” (pp.1-2)

The melting away of the Russian Army in the autumn of 1917 left the Anatolian/Caucasus line to be held by the Armenian forces. But the Armenians were almost totally dependent upon their foreign sponsors. Without foreign forces they were as insubstantial as their demand for statehood.

The area was too far from Baghdad to send substantial forces so the idea was to send a “British Mission” to Tiflis to bolster “the broken unit of Russian, Georgian and Armenian soldiery, and restore the battle-line…” (p.8) As Dunsterville noted: “The prospects were considerable, and success would be out of proportion to the numbers employed or the cost involved. It was attractive and practical.”

The Mission never reached Tiflis. And the British underestimated the fighting ability of the Turks. Dunsterville had thought:

“Against such an army it should be easy to reorganise the large numbers of Georgian and Armenian troops, whose fighting spirit would be multiplied a hundredfold by their determination to keep the hated invader out of their homes… Unfortunately the event proved the exact reverse! The revolution had so taken the heart out of the men, that this primitive spirit of the defence of hearth and home, one of the strongest instincts the human being possesses, was entirely absent in the case of the South Caucasians.” (p.4)

Dunsterville was disappointed that the Russians and Georgians just wanted peace and were of a mind that they would get it if they were left alone to deal with the Turks. And he thought the Armenian lack of willingness to resist as inexplicable, but evidence of a ” lack of national spirit” (p.5).

Now, it is totally unacceptable for Major-General Dunsterville to blame the Armenians and others for the failure of British Imperialist designs in the region. Perhaps they had had enough of being sent signals to go into Insurrection and destroy the state in which they lived, with catastrophic consequences for themselves and their neighbours, and then being let down by their sponsors. It was much more realistic for the Armenians to point the finger at Britain. But they didn’t – and they haven’t.

In the Spring of 1918 the Armenians sent a delegation to Dunsterville for help, led by a doctor:

“The schemes propounded… were all based upon British military support in the shape of actual troops and he stated that he was not authorised to accept our aid merely in the form of leaders and organisers. I had to make it very clear to him that I had no troops and could make no promises as to the dispatch of troops from Baghdad. So… nothing came of our conversation” (p.116)

Having seen himself as let down by the Armenians, Dunsterville retreated into neutral Persia. Conscious of this violation of neutrality he explained that Persia was not truly neutral since the Russians had launched the invasion of Ottoman territories from there (after Britain had divided the country up with the Tsar before the War).The melting away of Tsarist forces in North Persia meant a 450 mile gap in the lines that Britain had to fill:

“It was hoped to stop this gap by re-enlisting, under the British flag, a sufficient number of well-paid volunteers from the ranks of the retreating Russians. The efforts made in this direction were a complete failure.” (p.6)

I have an advertisement for The Adventures of Dunsterville by the London publishers, Edward Arnold, in 1920. Placed aside John Redmond’s Last Years (“One of the greatest figures of our time”) by Stephen Gwynn, it reads:

“Who is not familiar with Mr. Rudyard Kipling’s figure of Stalky, the schoolboy ‘wily Odysseus’? Stalky has grown up, and is now Major-General Dunsterville, the author of this work… Towards the end of 1917, under the seal of absolute secrecy, a plan was hatched in London to fill the gap left by the defection of Russia… Hence the ‘Hush Hush Army,’ a body of officers and N.C.Os. each fastidiously handpicked from every front, France, Salonika, Palestine, Mesopotamia – representing every part of the British Empire – in fact, a microcosm of Anglo-Saxondom in arms… To General Dunsterville’s courage and foresight is largely due our present position in Persia. Treachery, bad roads, famine, intrigue, armed opposition by those he had set out to help were successfully overcome. The whole story is a tribute to the amazing versatility of the race… Mr. Kipling’s estimate of Stalky, the boy, is amply realised in the story, of Stalky the man.”

Genocide is a ‘Boy’s Own’ adventure of Imperialism it seems.

Dr Majd places responsibility for the great famine and genocide in Persia during 1917-19 firmly at the hands of Britain:

“Persia suffered its greatest calamity when it was under the military occupation of the British. It is shown that not only did the British do nothing to alleviate the famine (the few token relief measures had little impact) but their large-scale purchases of grain and foodstuff in Persia, failure to bring in food from India and Mesopotamia, prevention of food imports from the United States, and their financial policies – including failure to pay Persia’s oil revenues – greatly aggravated the famine situation. Consequently, many more died as the result of British policies. This assuredly qualifies as a crime against humanity. Persia was the greatest victim of World War I, and suffered one of the worst genocides of modern time.” (p.3)

In his book Dr Majd provides a documentary account of the famine using sources from American diplomatic dispatches, the reports of American missionaries and contemporary newspaper and eyewitness accounts on the extent of the suffering and starvation. He also uses the memoirs of British military officers such as Maj. General Dunsterville, commanding officer of the British ‘Dunsterforce’ in Persia and Maj. Gen. Dickson, Inspector General of the East Persia cordon during 1918-19.

In Chapter 3 he provides an indication of the famine’s toll by comparing the population of Persia in 1914 with that of 1919. In this he is meticulous and thorough in investigating both the pre-war and post-war population levels of Persia so that the true extent of the famine and its effect in decimating the population of the country can be accurately ascertained. The author looks at the population figures from a number of angles and reveals that Russian and British historians who have tried to cover up the extent of the famine based their pre-war estimates of the Persian population on a 60-year-old census. In contrast, Dr Majd uses contemporary estimates of the population levels by Europeans, election figures for the urban centres, and the records of Morgan Shuster, the American Administrator General for the Finances of Persia to show the true level of Persian population in 1914.

Dr Majd describes how Persia was faced with food shortages and high prices from the end of 1916 onwards and by the latter part of 1917 the shortages turned into a famine. He notes that when the famine developed all of Persia and the vast majority of the region around it were under British military occupation and control. The British attempted to conduct a skilful propaganda campaign to blame the Russians and the Turks for the calamity but the author proves that the situation was entirely of Britain’s doing. He shows that British trade and financial policies been the major cause of deepening and lengthening the famine and the Russian looting during their withdrawal was only a temporary and localized factor in the situation.

Chapter 5 examines British grain purchases in Persia during the famine. The documentary evidence shows that the large-scale purchase of grain to feed the British armies in Persia, Mesopotamia and southern Russia greatly aggravated the famine in Persia. General Dunsterville himself acknowledged and lamented the fact that British grain purchases contributed to the food shortage and higher prices and thus resulted in the death of many more Persians.

However, Dunsterville eased his conscience over this by blaming the wealthy merchants who made large profits from selling grain to the British “but were unwilling to help save their poorer brethren.”

British attitudes towards the starting Persians were uncannily similar to those expressed against the Irish in a similar position a half a century before and with regard to the Indians on many ocassion. The Persians themselves, and particularly the Persian resistance, was blamed for the food shortages. Persian insurgents were blamed for hoarding food. When the British set up road-gangs to build roads for the military they suggested that this ‘relief measure’ was motivated by benevolence and that the Persians were ungrateful for it. Major Donohoe, for instance, claimed that

“we did not reckon upon Persian avarice, selfishness, and untrustworthiness of character… no Persians were very long in keeping his itching fingers from another person’s money… men did not bother to buy bread for their starving dependents, preferring to dissipate their earnings in the nightly carouses in an opium den – the local equivalent to a British gin palace.” (pp.65-6)

And upon the suspicion that the labour gangs were frittering away their money idly the British began to pay the labourers only half their money and made the rest up through soup kitchens.

The soup kitchens became a way of controlling the masses and luring him away from the Persian Democrats. Donohoe noted:

“the hungry people came and ate. The second and succeeding days they came in thousands. Barricades and armed soldiers were required to prevent their storming the distribution centres and carrying off all the available supply. And, to the dismay and horror of all good Democrats, not a single one died from poisoning. This was the death blow to the prestige of the democratic movement. It lost its grip on the people… the British were de facto masters of the situation. They had conquered the people of Hamadan not by the sword and halter of the Turk who had preceded them, but by the modern adoption of the miracle of loaves and fishes.” (pp.67-8)

But at the same time the British destroyed many stocks of grain right in the middle of a raging famine in order to prevent the grain from falling into the hands of the Turks, who they feared, at times, might return.

It was not that the British were unaware of the suffering of the people. The author cites many reports and extracts from books written in the immediate post-war period which contain desperate descriptions of the conditions of the people. For instance, Major Donohoe (With the Persian Expedition) described instances of cannibalism breaking out amongst the starving people:

“the foodless people, driven crazy by their sufferings, now resorted to eating human flesh. Cannibalism was a crime hitherto unknown in Persia, and no punishment exists for it in the Persian law. The offenders were chiefly women, and the victims children stolen from the doorsteps of their homes, or snatched up haphazard in the bazaar purlieus. Mothers of young children were afraid to leave them while they went to beg for bread, lest in their absence they should be kidnapped and eaten. I never went into the bazaar or through the narrow, ill paved streets without a feeling of sickly horror at the sight of the human misery revealed there. Children who were little better than human skeletons would crowd around to beg for bread or the wherewithal to purchase it, and in parting with a few coppers to them, one could not help shuddering and wondering if they, too, were destined, sooner or later, to find their way into the cooking pot… They arrested eight women who confessed that they had kidnapped, killed, and eaten a number of children, pleading that hunger had driven them to these terrible crimes… two women, mother and daughter, were caught red-handed. They had killed the daughter’s eight-year-old child, and were cooking the body, when the police interrupted the preparations for this horrible feast. The half cooked remains were removed to a basket, and an indignant crowd of well fed Democrats followed the wretched offenders to the police station, threatening them with death. The next day the women were executed.” (pp.27-8)

Dr. Madj is not content with describing the famine as if it were simply a natural disaster. He is determined to prove that it was anything but a natural disaster and was wholly the responsibility of the British authorities – without whose presence there would have been no famine. He describes how the famine continued unabated during the summer and autumn of 1918 despite one of the best harvests on record. He also conducts a case study of the famine in the Gilan district proving that the region was able to feed itself, and all the refugees that had arrived there, prior to British occupation, but then found its food being commandeered by the British occupation forces and it being plunged into famine. The British grabbed the food in order to feed the British Army that was advancing towards Baku in order to extend the British Empire, in the circumstances of the collapse of the Russian Empire, up to the Caspian Sea and into the Caucasus.

Dr Majd also shows, using British military correspondence, that there was no necessity for the British Army to grab Persian grain at all as it could have been imported easily from India. However, the British authorities decided that this would use up shipping space and preferred to starve the local population than interfere with their military operations in the region. In this way Britain prevented the importation of food into Persia from India and Mesopotamia, Persia’s neighbours to the west and east and even prevented the United States from using it ships to give humanitarian aid to the Persians.

In Chapter 6 the author examines the financial strangulation of Persia by the British government. The British government reneged on an agreement to pay Persia a monthly sum of customs revenues collected in the country and therefore prevented the Persians from alleviating the famine itself.

As a result of large purchases of foodstuffs by the British there was a huge appreciation of the Persian currency during the Great War and hyperinflation developed. The British government robbed the Persian authorities by paying them in fixed English pounds instead of the customs revenues that they collected in the local currency. Given the huge depreciation of Sterling the Persian government was able to get less than a third of the money they previously had got and the purchasing power of the monthly payments declined to practically nothing.

Also Britain withheld Persia’s oil revenues from the Persian authorities. As the author notes at a time when millions of Persians starved, the British government and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company confiscated Persia’s oil revenues on some flimsy pretext of tribesmen damaging an oil pipeline. The amount of oil revenues due to Persia during 1914-1919 was 8,000,000 pounds – a huge sum by the standards of the time – and nearly 4 times the total annual budget of the Persian government. Had this money being paid to Persia many millions would have been spared death by starvation and disease. (In 1913 Persia had begun producing oil and very quickly became a major producer and exporter of oil. The oil concession in Persia was held by the Anglo-Persian oil Company, two thirds of whose stock was acquired by the British government in 1914.)

The author notes that

“The combination of depriving Persia of its oil revenues and the exchange rate chicanery completed the financial strangulation of Persia, with the result that the Persian government was completely starved of funds during the war and the famine and was completely unable to provide any meaningful famine relief to the victims. Having completely deprived Persia of its financial resources, the British government had complained loudly about the inability of the Persian government to come to the aid of the famine sufferers. It should be stressed again that depriving Persia of its financial resources was consistent with the British policy of depriving Persia of its food supply. That famine and genocide had been used by the British as a deliberate act of war in the conquest of Persia there can be no doubt.” (p.10)

The author also notes that Britain played a devious trick against the Persians at the Peace Conference at Versailles. In March 1919 the Persian delegation in Paris put out a document that supposedly laid out Persia’s grievances and demands for reparation. However this document completely misrepresented the causes of the famine and contained ridiculous territorial claims which sought to expand the territory of Persia by double its area.

The author concludes:

“By mixing Persia’s grievances with a heavy dose of falsehood it trivialized the famine, obscured its causes and weakened Persia’s claims for compensation and participation in the peace conference. It was clearly a part of a clever scheme to conceal the famine and its causes. The cover-up of Persia’s greatest calamity had begun very early on.” (p.11)

After the Cairo Conference, which was organized to settle the future of the Middle East from a British point of view, Churchill made a speech to Parliament on the future of the region. The Irish News commented on 15th June 1921:

“England’s present Government mean to hold on to the Middle East – to Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia. Thus, explained Mr. Churchill, ‘a valuable link in the chain of Imperial communication’ will be forged, and a shorter way round to India, Australia and New Zealand. It is an expensive venture: it will become a commitment before the end of the week. And thus a few more ‘small nations’ will be doomed to slavery.”

In the same year Major-General Ironside organized the coup in Teheran which established a British client ruler.

By all accounts Dr. Mohammad Gholi Majd had great difficulty in getting his book published (and even laminated) in the U.S. and whilst other publications dealing with ‘genocides’ were eagerly put on the market (such as that in Rwanda) the subject of an Iranian genocide produced by British agency was considered untouchable by the same publishers.

Documents from the British War Office relating to the occupation and famine are still being withheld from scholars by today’s Government in Westminster.

If it were really true that Hitler actually said, “Who remembers the Armenians?” it would go to show that he was a product of the world Britain made and the history the British State had written for him. He was, after all, a great admirer of Britain and an Anglophile. Herr Hitler would have remembered the Armenians because Britain had made sure they were remembered. But as for the Persians…

Back to our section on Jewish-Israeli influence in the U.K.

Back to our section on the Jewish war against Iran

Back to our section on Jewish-Israeli influence in India.

Back to our section on Revisionism