Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
The Anglo-American Establishment
 
By
 
Carroll Quigley
 
Professor of Foreign Service
 
Georgetown University
 New York: Books in Focus1981
Table of Contents
 Chapter 1—Introduction Chapter 2—The Cecil Bloc Chapter 3—The Secret Society of Cecil Rhodes (1) Chapter 4—Milner’s Kindergarten, 1897-1910 Chapter 5—Milner Group, Rhodes, and Oxford, 1901-1925 Chapter 6—The Times Chapter 7—The Round Table Chapter 8—War and Peace, 1915-1920 Chapter 9—Creation of the Commonwealth Chapter 10—The Royal Institute of International Affairs Chapter 11—India, 1911-1945 Chapter 12—Foreign Policy, 1919-1940 Chapter 13—The Second World War, 1939-1945 Appendix—A Tentative Roster of the Milner Group Notes 
 
Preface
 The Rhodes Scholarships, established by the terms of Cecil Rhodes's seventh will, areknown to everyone. What is not so widely known is that Rhodes in five previous willsleft his fortune to form a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation andexpansion of the British Empire. And what does not seem to be known to anyone is thatthis secret society was created by Rhodes and his principal trustee, Lord Milner, andcontinues to exist to this day. To be sure, this secret society is not a childish thing like theKu Klux Klan, and it does not have any secret robes, secret handclasps, or secretpasswords. It does not need any of these, since its members know each other intimately.It probably has no oaths of secrecy nor any formal procedure of initiation. It does,however, exist and holds secret meetings, over which the senior member present presides.At various times since 1891, these meetings have been presided over by Rhodes, LordMilner, Lord Selborne, Sir Patrick Duncan, Field Marshal Jan Smuts, Lord Lothian, andLord Brand. They have been held in all the British Dominions, starting in South Africaabout 1903; in various places in London, chiefly 175 Piccadilly; at various colleges atOxford, chiefly All Souls; and at many English country houses such as Tring Park,Blickling Hall, Cliveden, and others.This society has been known at various times as Milner's Kindergarten, as the RoundTable Group, as the Rhodes crowd, as The Times crowd, as the All Souls group, and asthe Cliveden set. All of these terms are unsatisfactory, for one reason or another, and Ihave chosen to call it the Milner Group. Those persons who have used the other terms, orheard them used, have not generally been aware that all these various terms referred tothe same Group.It is not easy for an outsider to write the history of a secret group of this kind, but,since no insider is going to do it, an outsider must attempt it. It should be done, for thisGroup is, as I shall show, one of the most important historical facts of the twentiethcentury. Indeed, the Group is of such significance that evidence of its existence is nothard to find, if one knows where to look. This evidence I have sought to point out withoutoverly burdening this volume with footnotes and bibliographical references. While suchevidences of scholarship are kept at a minimum, I believe I have given the source of every fact which I mention. Some of these facts came to me from sources which I am notpermitted to name, and I have mentioned them only where I can produce documentaryevidence available to everyone. Nevertheless, it would have been very difficult to writethis book if I had not received a certain amount of assistance of a personal nature frompersons close to the Group. For obvious reasons, I cannot reveal the names of suchpersons, so I have not made reference to any information derived from them unless it wasinformation readily available from other sources.Naturally, it is not possible for an outsider to write about a secret group without fallinginto errors. There are undoubtedly errors in what follows. I have tried to keep these at aminimum by keeping the interpretation at a minimum and allowing the facts to speak forthemselves. This will serve as an excuse for the somewhat excessive use of quotations. Ifeel that there is no doubt at all about my general interpretation. I also feel that there are
 
few misstatements of fact, except in one most difficult matter. This difficulty arises fromthe problem of knowing just who is and who is not a member of the Group. Sincemembership may not be a formal matter but based rather on frequent social association,and since the frequency of such association varies from time to time and from person toperson, it is not always easy to say who is in the Group and who is not. I have tried tosolve this difficulty by dividing the Group into two concentric circles: an inner core of intimate associates, who unquestionably knew that they were members of a groupdevoted to a common purpose; and an outer circle of a larger number, on whom the innercircle acted by personal persuasion, patronage distribution, and social pressure. It isprobable that most members of the outer circle were not conscious that they were beingused by a secret society. More likely they knew it, but, English fashion, felt it discreet toask no questions. The ability of Englishmen of this class and background to leave theobvious unstated, except perhaps in obituaries, is puzzling and sometimes irritating to anoutsider. In general, I have undoubtedly made mistakes in my lists of members, but themistakes, such as they are, are to be found rather in my attribution of any particularperson to the outer circle instead of the inner core, rather than in my connecting him tothe Group at all. In general, I have attributed no one to the inner core for whom I do nothave evidence, convincing to me, that he attended the secret meetings of the Group. As aresult, several persons whom I place in the outer circle, such as Lord Halifax, shouldprobably be placed in the inner core.I should say a few words about my general attitude toward this subject. I approachedthe subject as a historian. This attitude I have kept. I have tried to describe or to analyze,not to praise or to condemn. I hope that in the book itself this attitude is maintained. Of course I have an attitude, and it would be only fair to state it here. In general, I agree withthe goals and aims of the Milner Group. I feel that the British way of life and the BritishCommonwealth of Nations are among the great achievements of all history. I feel that thedestruction of either of them would be a terrible disaster to mankind. I feel that thewithdrawal of Ireland, of Burma, of India, or of Palestine from the Commonwealth isregrettable and attributable to the fact that the persons in control of these areas failed toabsorb the British way of life while they were parts of the Commonwealth. I suppose, inthe long view, my attitude would not be far different from that of the members of theMilner Group. But, agreeing with the Group on goals, I cannot agree with them onmethods. To be sure, I realize that some of their methods were based on nothing but goodintentions and high ideals—higher ideals than mine, perhaps. But their lack of perspective in critical moments, their failure to use intelligence and common sense, theirtendency to fall back on standardized social reactions and verbal cliches in a crisis, theirtendency to place power and influence into hands chosen by friendship rather than merit,their oblivion to the consequences of their actions, their ignorance of the point of view of persons in other countries or of persons in other classes in their own country—thesethings, it seems to me, have brought many of the things which they and I hold dear closeto disaster. In this Group were persons like Esher, Grey, Milner, Hankey, and Zimmern,who must command the admiration and affection of all who know of them. On the otherhand, in this Group were persons whose lives have been a disaster to our way of life.Unfortunately, in the long run, both in the Group and in the world, the influence of thelatter kind has been stronger than the influence of the former.
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more