🌸Teresa Rose Steele 🌸

Poppycock! The idea that wealthy interests might financially induce political leaders to take their countries to war is preposterous. Such things simply don't happen. And any historical examples suggesting otherwise are clearly irrelevant. Because reasons. Fortunately, once we have sufficient control over information, these inconvenient episodes can be quietly erased from history. In the meantime, a few erroneous entries from the historical record: ANCIENT GREECE 395 BC – Persian gold and the Corinthian War The historian Xenophon (Hellenica 3.5.1–2) describes the Persian agent Timocrates of Rhodes distributing gold worth 50 talents of silver to influential politicians in Thebes, Corinth and Argos, explicitly on condition that they encourage war against Sparta. The recipients duly stirred up anti-Spartan sentiment and helped organise the coalition that fought the Corinthian War. An ancient account of foreign money being used to encourage war. How terribly inconvenient. 350–338 BC – Philip II of Macedon Philip II used gold, gifts and patronage to cultivate political influence throughout the Greek city-states. Demosthenes repeatedly accused leading Athenian politicians of taking Macedonian money to promote Philip's interests. Individual accusations remain disputed, but financial inducements were an established instrument of Macedonian diplomacy, contributing to Philip's political influence and eventual dominance of Greece. ANCIENT ROME 118–105 BC – Jugurtha and the Jugurthine War Jugurtha, king of Numidia, bribed Roman politicians, commissioners and military commanders to secure favourable territorial settlements, lenient peace terms and delays in military action. Sallust (Bellum Jugurthinum) describes the corruption in considerable detail, implicating figures including Lucius Opimius, Calpurnius Bestia and Marcus Aemilius Scaurus. Jugurtha supposedly described Rome as "a city for sale, and destined to perish if it finds a buyer." Apparently political corruption influencing decisions about war was already well established 2,000 years ago. MORE RECENT HISTORY 1793–1815 – Britain's "Golden Cavalry of St George" During the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, Britain spent enormous sums subsidising European powers to fight France. These payments helped induce and sustain participation in successive military coalitions. They were predominantly government-to-government subsidies rather than personal bribes, but the principle of using money to influence participation in wars was hardly controversial. 1990–91 – The Gulf War coalition The United States and its Gulf allies used substantial financial incentives to secure international support against Iraq. Egypt received approximately $7 billion in US military debt forgiveness, alongside further benefits from Gulf states and other creditors. Syria also received substantial financial assistance from Gulf countries, while its participation brought diplomatic advantages. Again, predominantly state-level inducements rather than personal bribes. Nevertheless, money played an important role in coalition diplomacy. AND AN IRONIC CHURCHILL CONNECTION 1940 – Britain secretly bribes Spanish generals Churchill himself authorised secret payments to influential Spanish military figures to help keep Franco's Spain out of WWII. This operation is documented in British archival records and examined in historical research, including Ángel Viñas's Operation Bribes. So Churchill's own government understood perfectly well that money could influence whether another country entered a war. CONCLUSION Obviously, none of these examples proves Churchill was personally bribed to promote British involvement in WWII. That particular allegation requires its own evidence. But history provides lots of evidence that financial interests are used to influence political leaders on questions of war and peace. Fortunately, there's always censorship, selective memory and the reassuring phrase "conspiracy theory" to keep inconvenient historical facts from troubling us.