The source of this blackout is the Rockefeller Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations. While the original intent of the blackout was to cover up the true history of the Second World War, a concomitant result was that the First World War was covered up as well.
The Committee on Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations is concerned that the debunking journalistic campaign following World War I should not be repeated and believes that the American public deserves a clear and competent statement of our basic aims and activities during the Second World War. What is contemplated is not a nationalistic treatment, but rather a history, with the issues and problems presented by an American historian for an American public.”1
What the Rockefellers call “journalistic debunking” most call truth telling, and whoever thinks that the history written under the CFR-Rockefeller cabal is not nationalistic and hagiographic needs to have their head examined. The fact that the list of “respectable historians” to be utilized in this revisionist cabal excludes both Charles Beard (the most respected US historian of the first half of the twentieth century and American Historical Association member) and Charles Tansill, shows these men for what they are: charlatans. Why would two of the most qualified historians in the US not be consulted on so august an endeavor? Only if the intent was to deceive and obfuscate. Such an end was seen by Charles Beard who wrote in the Saturday Evening Post:
“The Rockefeller Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations…intend to prevent, if they can, a repetition of what they call in the vernacular “the debunking journalistic campaign following World War I.” Translated into precise English, this means that the Foundation and the Council do not want journalists or any other persons to examine too closely and criticize too freely the official propaganda and official statements relative to “our basic aims and activities” during World War II. In short, they hope that, among other things, the policies and measures of Franklin D. Roosevelt will escape in the coming years the critical analysis, evaluation and exposition that befell the policies and measures of Woodrow Wilson and the Entente Allies after World War I.”2
Sadly Beard was right: not only has Roosevelt escaped the net of truth, but Wilson’s lies were placed back in as well.
I have endeavored to cite and reference men of the highest echelons of power and reputation: economists, men of letters, statesmen, generals, etc. to show that many thoughtful men have given careful thought to the origins of the First World War and that if anybody should bear the sole weight of war guilt it should be France, with Russia as a close second. Yet the hacks and quacks who teach history jealously guard the true secrets of the war and through a complex system of filtering and disinformation spread, known as peer review, this cabal of silence is maintained at the expense of both posterity and, more importantly, the truth. 
Check out Todd Lewis’ blog at http://praiseoffolly.wordpress.com/
1 The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1946, 188-89.
2 Charles Beard, former president of the American Historical Association Who’s to Write the History of the War?, Saturday Evening Post, p. 172. October 4, 1947.)
Thanks for the article. I am enjoying the series on the origins of WWI immensely.
Thank you very much for this enlightening article series. I’m looking for critical literature on the US – Decicisionmaking regarding its entry into the first world war. I suspect that the Zimmerman-Telegram and unrestricted Submarine-Warfare weren’t sufficient. In your article “journalistic debunking” on the origins of the first World War are mentioned. Could you post bibliographic Information regarding such works in the aftermath of the great war?
America’s entry in the war was technically in 1914. Before the end of 1914 France and Britain ran out of munitions and were running out of money. Wilson authorized American business to supply and finance the Entente powers in violation of neutrality. Germany had moral cause to declare war on the US right there, but was already up to her neck as it was. The German General Staff concluded very early that war with the US was a question of when not if. US finance was tied to German defeat at that point, US troops were going to intervene if Anglo-French defeat was imminent.
Hello Happy Guest. Thanks for the input. I’ve heard and read similar thesises to yours in the past. Unfortunately i haven’t encountered it in a scholarly setting. Thus i don’t know of archival proof for it. Without this the thesis can’t be used in formal discussions. That is why I’m looking for scholarly and journalistic works on the reasons for the Entry of the USA into the great war.
Thanks for all the kind words everyone. I will put out some sources of WW1 revisionism soon.
Here are some sources of First World War revisionism.
The Genesis of World War
by Harry Elmer Barnes
A rare and hard to find book, but rich with resources. Including discussion of revisionist literature on both sides of the Atlantic.
—
Nothing Less Than War: A New History of America’s Entry into World War I.
By Justus D. Doenecke
—
War is a Racket
By Smedly Butler
—
Sidney Bradshaw Fay’s
Origins of the World War in 2 volumes
Thank you very much. This is most helpfull!
Your welcome.