How the British Invented Communism (And Blamed It on the Jews)
By Richard Poe – Unbekoming Book Summary - 50 Questions & Answers
You don’t get to rule the world without being both ruthless and extremely competent at your job.
British Empire, well explained here as the Invisible Empire, is both.
I recently read Richard Poe’s excellent book, and highly recommend it.
How the British Invented Communism (And Blamed It on the Jews): Poe, Richard, Bin Ladin, Noor
This book was born out of a substack he wrote in Jan 2023.
How the British Invented Communism (And Blamed It on the Jews)
The thesis is pretty straight forward, and the supporting evidence is compelling.
For anything involving British Empire and Russia, we need to go back to Halford Mackinder and Heartland Theory.
Mackinder viewed Germany's potential alliance with Russia as a significant threat to British interests. He believed that if Germany and Russia were to combine their resources — Germany's technological and industrial prowess with Russia's vast natural resources and manpower — this alliance would challenge and possibly overcome the maritime dominance of Britain and its allies. Such a German-Russian bloc could exploit the Heartland's geographic advantages to its benefit, making it a formidable force against the maritime powers.
Throughout his career, Mackinder's theories evolved, but the core idea remained that the geopolitical stability of Europe, and by extension the world, hinged significantly on the relationship between Germany and Russia. His work influenced not only geopolitical thought but also the strategic policies of Western powers, particularly in their efforts to prevent any single power from dominating the Heartland region. This perspective was evident in the Cold War era's containment policies and continues to influence geopolitical strategies today.
Daniel Natal
Russia as a rival had to be destroyed, and Communism was the secret weapon used to destroy it. It was one of the first “Color Revolutions.” The Red Revolution.
Here in Poe’s own words.
Britain’s Secret Weapon: Color Revolution
In an earlier article, “How the British Invented Color Revolutions,” I argued that the modern “color revolution” or bloodless coup was perfected by 20th-century British psywar strategists such as Bertrand Russell, Basil Liddell Hart, and Stephen King-Hall.
In that article—published May 14, 2021—I mentioned Portugal’s 1974 Carnation Revolution as the first, full-fledged “color revolution” of which I was aware. Since then, I have learned that color revolutions go back much farther than I had imagined.
The British have been doing it for centuries.
If we define a color revolution as a fake insurrection—that is, as a foreign-sponsored coup masquerading as a people’s uprising—then we must conclude that the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolutions of 1917 seem to fit that description in many ways.
In both cases, the uprisings began not in the streets, but in the drawing rooms of liberal aristocrats.
In both cases, the hidden hand of British intelligence can be found manipulating events behind the scenes.
In both cases, “team colors” were used to identify the rebels, in a manner similar to today’s color revolutions— specifically, the tricolor cockade and “Phrygian” cap of the French Revolution, and the red flag and “Scythian” cap of the Bolsheviks.
It seems more than coincidental that the Age of Revolution coincided with Britain’s rise to global dominance. It was precisely during that era—the late 18th to early 20th centuries—that Britain mastered the use of political subversion as a weapon of statecraft, an instrument for toppling governments that stood in her way.
Thomas Jefferson accused the British of sending “hired pretenders” to turn the French Revolution toward “destruction” and “bloody tyranny.” By such means, wrote Jefferson, “the foreigner” overthrew “by gold the government he could not overthrow by arms” — as apt a description of a color revolution as one could imagine.
Communism is being used today to finish off the job and finalize the takeover of the whole world.
Communism is a power harvesting system, or “machine” as Rakovsky put it.
With thanks to Richard Poe.
12-point summary
BRITISH IMPERIAL MASTERPLAN The Russian Revolution represents the culmination of Britain's centuries-long strategy to eliminate its primary imperial rival. Far from being a spontaneous uprising, the revolution was the product of sophisticated British intelligence operations, refined from techniques first developed during the French Revolution. This strategy transformed Russia from Britain's greatest imperial competitor into a weakened, isolated state.
THE ARCHITECTURE OF REVOLUTION Britain perfected a system of regime change that operated through multiple layers. At the highest level, the British Embassy under Ambassador Buchanan served as the revolution's nerve center, coordinating with liberal aristocrats while maintaining plausible deniability. This sophisticated approach combined overt diplomacy with covert manipulation, allowing Britain to orchestrate regime change while appearing to oppose it.
THE INTELLIGENCE NETWORK British intelligence maintained extraordinary influence over revolutionary leaders, most notably Leon Trotsky. From his MI6-arranged release from Canadian internment to his consistent actions serving British interests, Trotsky's career demonstrates the extent of British control. This influence network included figures like Churchill's cousin Clare Sheridan, who served as Trotsky's handler while posing as a sculptress and Bolshevik sympathizer.
THE STRATEGIC DECEPTION Britain's wartime strategy, articulated by Lord Kitchener, aimed for Germany to lose World War I without Russia winning it. This explains seemingly contradictory actions like the deliberately failed Gallipoli Campaign and the Constantinople Agreement, which promised Russia control of the Straits while ensuring it would never receive them. The revolution ultimately achieved exactly what Kitchener sought.
THE ECONOMIC PRIZE The revolution secured crucial British economic interests, particularly in Persia. Trotsky's repudiation of Russian treaties left Britain in complete control of Persian oil fields, allowing the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later British Petroleum) to claim all drilling rights. This elimination of Russian competition in Central Asia represented a major strategic victory for British imperial interests.
THE CLASS ALLIANCE The text reveals a sophisticated alliance between British aristocrats and revolutionary movements. Through the Young England movement and figures like David Urquhart, aristocrats used socialist ideas to weaken middle-class power while preserving their own influence. Marx's distinction between "bourgeois property" and "property generally" reflected this class alliance.
THE CIVIL WAR STRATEGY British intervention in the Russian Civil War was designed to prolong conflict rather than resolve it. Despite having over 180,000 Allied troops and 300,000 White Russian forces surrounding a smaller Bolshevik force in 1918, Britain consistently undermined anti-Bolshevik efforts while maintaining a pretense of support. This strategy ensured a prolonged conflict that left Russia permanently weakened.
THE PROPAGANDA SHIELD Britain developed sophisticated methods to conceal its role, notably Churchill's 1920 article blaming Jews for the revolution. This deflection strategy included coordinated propaganda campaigns and the strategic use of anti-Semitic materials like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to provide alternative explanations for revolutionary events.
THE REVOLUTIONARY TEMPLATE The British approach to the Russian Revolution established a template for later "color revolution" tactics. Key elements included infiltration of opposition groups, coordination with liberal elites, use of symbolic identifiers, and maintenance of plausible deniability while orchestrating regime change. This template would influence political operations throughout the 20th century.
THE HUMAN COST The scale of Britain's success came at an enormous human cost. Over 10 million people died in the Russian Civil War, mostly civilians lost to disease, famine, and mass atrocities. The deployment of 60,000 British troops, primarily to secure economic interests rather than fight Bolshevism, reflects the strategic rather than ideological nature of British intervention.
THE IDEOLOGICAL WEAPON British intelligence shaped revolutionary ideologies from early communism through Bolshevism, demonstrating how radical political movements could be directed to serve imperial interests. This influence extended from Babeuf's first communist movement through Marx and ultimately to the Bolsheviks, showing the long-term nature of British ideological manipulation.
THE LASTING IMPACT The success of British strategy in Russia had profound global implications. It eliminated Britain's primary imperial rival while establishing techniques for regime change that would influence international relations for centuries. The creation of buffer states, strategic use of civil conflict, and manipulation of revolutionary movements became standard tools of great power competition, with consequences that continue to shape world events.
How the British Invented Communism (And Blamed It on the Jews)
50 Questions & Answers
How did British intelligence influence both the French Revolution of 1789 and Russian Revolution of 1917?
British intelligence used similar tactics in both revolutions, infiltrating and manipulating liberal aristocratic circles to promote regime change. In France, intelligence operatives posing as English reformers infiltrated the French intelligentsia, using the London Revolution Society to help establish the Jacobin clubs that would later lead to the Reign of Terror. Thomas Jefferson accused the British of sending "hired pretenders" to turn the Revolution toward "destruction" and "bloody tyranny."
In Russia, the British Embassy under Ambassador Buchanan became a hub for liberal plotters, with Princess Paley noting that "The English Embassy had become a hotbed of propaganda. The Liberals met there constantly." The British used similar techniques of infiltration and manipulation, supporting various factions to ensure the collapse of Russian power while maintaining plausible deniability.
What evidence suggests the British deliberately pulled their punches during the Gallipoli Campaign?
Australian historian Harvey Broadbent points to several suspicious elements of the Gallipoli Campaign that suggest deliberate self-sabotage: under-resourcing, informing the enemy five months in advance of the attack, hurried and inadequate planning, overly complicated landing plans, and the selection of incompetent commanders. The campaign's failure conveniently freed Britain from its obligation under the Constantinople Agreement to give Russia control of the Straits.
The sheer scale and persistence of the alleged "bungling" is difficult to explain by incompetence alone. A March 15, 1915 memorandum of the British Asquith government noted that "Russia alone, will, if the war is successful, gather the fruits of these operations," suggesting British leaders had little motivation to ensure the campaign's success.
What was the "Great Game" and how did it shape British policy toward Russia?
The Great Game referred to the intricate spy-vs-spy maneuvers between British and Russian agents vying for advantage in Central Asia. British intelligence officer Arthur Conolly coined the term in 1840, though the strategic rivalry had been ongoing for centuries. The British strategy consistently aimed to prevent Russia from gaining access to warm-water ports and challenging British control of trade routes to the East.
Queen Victoria viewed this as a question of "Russian or British supremacy in the world." The Great Game strategy involved playing Muslim powers against Christian ones, particularly backing the Ottoman Empire against Russia. This fundamental approach shaped British policy through World War I and the Russian Revolution, with Britain consistently working to keep Russia contained and weakened.
How did the British strategy of creating "buffer states" serve their imperial interests?
The British pursued a consistent policy of helping separatist forces in former Russian provinces, successfully achieving independence for Finland, Poland, and the Baltic states. This strategy of creating buffer states served to weaken Russia by breaking up its empire into smaller, more manageable pieces that could be more easily controlled or influenced by Britain.
US historian Louis Fischer noted that "England's policy has always been the dismemberment of Russia," explaining that Britain supplied White Russian leaders with support precisely because they wanted to "divide and then be the patron and protector of the parts." This strategy allowed Britain to maintain influence while preventing the emergence of a strong, unified Russian state that could challenge British interests.
Why did Lord Kitchener believe Russia needed to lose World War I while Germany also lost?
Lord Kitchener, as Secretary of War, viewed Russia as Britain's only real rival in Asia and the only European power capable of challenging British supremacy there. According to historian David Fromkin, Kitchener believed that winning the war in Europe while allowing Russia to emerge victorious would ultimately risk Britain's position in Asia. Therefore, "the only completely satisfactory outcome" would be for Germany to lose without Russia winning.
This strategic calculation helps explain many seemingly contradictory British actions during the war. While officially allied with Russia, Britain consistently took actions that undermined Russian power while maintaining the appearance of support. The Russian Revolution ultimately achieved exactly what Kitchener sought - Germany's defeat without a corresponding Russian victory.
How did Persian oil play in British strategic thinking regarding Russia?
Persian oil was a crucial factor in British strategic calculations. When Britain offered Constantinople to Russia in the March 1915 agreement, they demanded in return a large chunk of Persia's oil-rich territory. The British successfully used the promise of Constantinople as leverage to expand their control over Persian oil fields, particularly through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later renamed British Petroleum).
After the Revolution, Trotsky's repudiation of all previous Russian agreements left Britain in complete control of Persian oil resources. In August 1919, the British government claimed all drilling rights in Persia for the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, with US journalist Louis Fischer noting that "Russian influence in Persia was reduced to nil and the British... made themselves masters in all of Persia."
How did the Constantinople Agreement of 1915 influence Russian-British relations?
The Constantinople Agreement of March 1915 represented a crucial turning point in Russian-British relations. While appearing to promise Russia control of Constantinople and the Straits in exchange for continued participation in World War I, the British never intended to honor this commitment. Instead, they used it as leverage to gain control over Persian oil fields while simultaneously working to ensure Russia would never be in a position to claim its promised prize.
The Agreement's timing coincided suspiciously with the start of the Gallipoli Campaign, suggesting it may have been part of an elaborate deception. Once the Bolsheviks took power, Trotsky conveniently repudiated the agreement along with all other Tsarist-era treaties, freeing Britain from its obligations while retaining the Persian concessions it had gained in exchange.
What was the real purpose of Churchill's 1920 article blaming Jews for the Russian Revolution?
Churchill's article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald served as a cover story to deflect attention from British complicity in the Russian Revolution. By blaming Jews for "every subversive movement during the 19th century," including both the French and Russian Revolutions, Churchill's article helped obscure Britain's long-standing practice of using political subversion as a weapon of statecraft.
The timing of the article, appearing just as Britain faced hard questions about its role in the Revolution, suggests it was part of a sophisticated propaganda campaign. The British government had already issued similar anti-Jewish propaganda through its "Russia No. 1 White Paper" and coordinated press campaign based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
How did British intelligence manipulate Trotsky throughout his revolutionary career?
British intelligence maintained control over Trotsky through multiple means, beginning with his release from a Canadian internment camp in April 1917 on orders from MI6. After joining the Revolution, Trotsky remained close to British handlers, including Churchill's cousin Clare Sheridan, who was identified as a British spy. His actions consistently aligned with British interests, from repudiating Russian claims to Constantinople to abandoning Russian interests in Persia.
During the Moscow Treason Trials of 1938, Soviet diplomat Christian Rakovsky testified that Trotsky had worked with British intelligence as early as 1924. While Soviet show trials are not necessarily reliable sources, considerable independent evidence supports this connection, including Trotsky's role in legitimizing Allied intervention through his Murmansk telegram.
Why did Lloyd George consistently oppose effective intervention against the Bolsheviks?
Lloyd George opposed any intervention that might effectively defeat the Bolsheviks because their regime served British strategic interests by keeping Russia weak and divided. When Churchill proposed using military force to compel the Bolsheviks to hold elections in December 1918, Lloyd George blocked the plan. His military advisor Sir Henry Wilson noted explicitly that "LG is opposed to knocking out Bolshevism."
Lloyd George used the pretext of opposing "reactionary" forces to deny support to White Russian commanders who might have restored a strong, unified Russia. He blocked funding and support for both Kolchak and Denikin when they appeared close to success, while simultaneously claiming Britain was technically "at war with the Bolsheviks" but pursuing a policy of "not making war."
How did the February Revolution transform from a constitutional reform movement to complete regime change?
The transformation hinged on British Ambassador Buchanan's pivotal role in the events of March 14-15, 1917. Initially, Grand Duke Paul had prepared a manifesto for constitutional monarchy, already signed by several Grand Dukes, which would have preserved the Romanov dynasty while limiting its powers. The plan had widespread support among liberal reformers and seemed likely to succeed.
However, this constitutional compromise was derailed when Rodzianko suddenly changed course and demanded complete abdication. While Buchanan claimed this change came from Soviet pressure, evidence suggests otherwise, as Rodzianko took orders from Buchanan, not the Soviet. The British Embassy's influence effectively transformed what began as a reform movement into a complete regime change, serving British strategic interests.
What role did the British Embassy play in coordinating revolutionary activities?
The British Embassy under Ambassador Buchanan served as the central coordinating point for revolutionary activities. Princess Paley specifically identified the Embassy as the meeting place where liberal leaders including "Prince Lvoff, Miliukoff, Rodzianko, Maklakoff, Guchkoff" regularly gathered to plan the revolution. These same men would later form the core of the Provisional Government after the Tsar's abdication.
French Ambassador Paléologue confirmed these activities, noting frequent questions about "Buchanan's relations with the liberal parties." Though Paléologue publicly defended his British colleague, his private writings reveal deep concerns about British involvement in revolutionary plotting. The Embassy's role was so central that by March 24, 1917, Buchanan was described in Danish press reports as wielding "dictator-like" power in Russia.
How did Ambassador Buchanan acquire "dictator-like" influence in Russia by March 1917?
Buchanan's extraordinary influence emerged from his key role in orchestrating the Tsar's overthrow and his control over the new government's key figures. A Danish newspaper correspondent reported that Buchanan had become "the mightiest man in the empire," noting that the Russian government wouldn't dare take any step without consulting him first, even on internal affairs.
The extent of Buchanan's power was symbolized by his occupation of the imperial box at parliament, where party leaders would come to him for "advice and orders." His appearances routinely triggered ovations, demonstrating how successfully he had positioned himself as the revolution's patron. The key leaders of the Provisional Government were all regular visitors to his embassy, ensuring his continued influence over Russian policy.
What was the significance of Grand Duke Cyril's defection to the revolutionaries?
Grand Duke Cyril's defection represented a crucial moment in legitimizing the revolution within Russia's power structure. As first cousin to the Tsar and third in line to the throne, his decision to march to the Duma leading the Marine Guard he commanded provided crucial military support at a critical moment. His declaration of sympathy for the new regime encouraged other military units to follow suit.
Significantly, Cyril had an English wife, Princess Victoria of Edinburgh, whose father was Queen Victoria's second son. This connection suggests British influence may have played a role in his decision to break with the Tsar. His defection exemplified how British connections within the Russian royal family helped facilitate the revolution from within.
How did Lord Milner's ultimatum to the Tsar catalyze the revolution?
Lord Milner's February 1917 mission to Petrograd, ostensibly to help save the monarchy, actually served as the catalyst for revolution. He delivered an unreasonable ultimatum demanding immediate democratization in the middle of war - something Britain itself had explicitly rejected, having created a more autocratic five-man War Cabinet for greater efficiency.
The British press later explicitly connected Milner's mission to the revolution's outbreak, with the London Guardian noting that "the outbreak followed promptly on Lord Milner's return from Russia, where his failure was generally understood to mean that nothing could be hoped from the Tsar." When challenged in Parliament about "fomenting the Revolution," notably, no one disputed Milner's role.
Why did Britain recognize the revolutionary government so quickly?
Britain's rapid recognition of the revolutionary government on March 22, 1917, just seven days after the Tsar's abdication, reflected their pre-existing investment in the revolution's success. Lloyd George immediately praised Russia's new position among "nations which base their institutions upon responsible government," while former Prime Minister Asquith celebrated Russia joining "the fellowship of free peoples."
This swift recognition served to legitimize the new regime internationally while securing British influence over its policies. The new Foreign Minister Milyukov quickly assured Britain that Russia would remain in the war and honor its alliances, though Buchanan privately admitted he had "abandoned all hope of a successful Russian offensive" even as these public assurances were being made.
What was the relationship between the Petrograd Soviet and British interests?
The Petrograd Soviet's emergence on March 12, 1917, conveniently provided a pretext for more radical action against the Tsar. While Buchanan claimed the Soviet forced Rodzianko to demand abdication rather than constitutional reform, this appears to have been a convenient fiction, as Rodzianko actually took direction from Buchanan, not the Soviet.
The relationship appears to have been one of useful friction, with the Soviet's existence helping to push events in directions that served British interests while providing plausible deniability for British agents. The Soviet's role in demanding complete regime change aligned perfectly with British strategic goals while allowing Britain to maintain an appearance of supporting more moderate reform.
How did British support shift between different revolutionary factions?
British support demonstrated a pattern of backing whichever faction would best serve to keep Russia weak and divided. Initially supporting liberal aristocrats and the Provisional Government, Britain quickly began undermining these same forces once the Tsar was removed. They then alternated between supporting and undermining various White Russian commanders while maintaining a policy that ultimately ensured Bolshevik victory.
This calculated shifting of support created a prolonged period of civil war and chaos, achieving Britain's strategic goal of preventing any single faction from establishing a strong, unified Russia. Lloyd George's consistent opposition to effective anti-Bolshevik intervention, while maintaining a pretense of opposition to Bolshevism, exemplified this strategy.
What role did the Kornilov Affair play in weakening resistance to Bolshevism?
The Kornilov Affair of September 1917 served to fatally weaken Kerensky's Provisional Government while strengthening the Bolsheviks. British support for Kornilov's attempted coup was evident in the distribution of pro-Kornilov pamphlets by the British Military Mission and the provision of a British armored car unit under Commander Oliver Locker-Lampson, complete with British soldiers in Russian uniforms.
The coup's failure discredited military leadership while forcing Kerensky to rely more heavily on radical elements for support. Significantly, Trotsky was released from prison immediately after the failed coup, allowing him to take control of the Petrograd Soviet and begin organizing the Bolshevik takeover. The affair effectively eliminated the last credible alternative to Bolshevik rule.
How did British actions during the Russian Civil War ensure Bolshevik victory?
British actions during the Civil War consistently undermined anti-Bolshevik forces while maintaining a pretense of supporting them. Despite having over 180,000 Allied troops and 300,000 White Russian forces surrounding a much smaller Bolshevik force in late 1918, the British refused to take decisive action. Lloyd George blocked effective support for White commanders while demanding they accept conditions that would have prevented the restoration of a strong Russian state.
The pattern of providing just enough support to keep the fighting going, while withholding resources needed for victory, prolonged the civil war while ensuring its eventual outcome. When the British finally cut off all support to White forces in December 1919, they effectively sealed the Bolsheviks' victory, achieving their strategic goal of a weakened, isolated Russia.
How did the London Revolution Society influence the development of Jacobin clubs?
The London Revolution Society played a pivotal role in shaping the French Revolution's radical turn through its direct influence on the Jacobin clubs. On November 25, 1789, their letter to the French National Assembly catalyzed the formation of the first Jacobin clubs, offering a poisoned chalice of "cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and universalism" that encouraged French revolutionaries to subordinate national interests to supposedly universal principles.
The French Jacobins explicitly modeled their organization after the London Society, even retaining the English word "club" in their name as a tribute to their British origins. This British influence provided a template for radical organization while directing French revolutionary energy in ways that ultimately served British strategic interests rather than French national ones.
What was the connection between British intelligence and early communist theorists?
British intelligence maintained influence over early communist theorists through a network of handlers and informants. Gracchus Babeuf, considered the first modern communist, derived many of his ideas from British mentors including James Rutledge, while maintaining connections to the Courrier de l'Europe, a French-language newspaper published in London that appears to have been a British intelligence front run by former Royal Navy lieutenant Samuel Swinton.
This pattern continued with Karl Marx, who developed close ties to British diplomat and intelligence operative David Urquhart. Marx's marriage to Jenny von Westphalen, whose Scottish mother descended from the Earls of Argyll, provided additional connections to British aristocratic circles. These relationships helped shape communist ideology in ways that served British imperial interests.
How did Marx's relationship with David Urquhart shape his anti-Russian stance?
Marx's alliance with Urquhart, a British diplomat and secret agent, led him to become one of the most prominent anti-Russian journalists of his day. Through Urquhart's influence, Marx wrote blistering anti-Russian articles for The New York Tribune and other publications, even echoing Urquhart's accusation that Prime Minister Palmerston was a Russian agent. This partnership has confounded historians given Urquhart's status as an arch-reactionary who openly called for restoring feudalism.
The alliance makes more sense when understood through their shared hatred of the middle class or bourgeoisie. Despite their seemingly opposite ideological positions, both Marx and Urquhart saw the bourgeoisie as a disturbing new force breaking the traditional order, with Marx's anti-Russian writings serving British imperial interests while maintaining revolutionary credentials.
What role did class antagonisms play in the alliance between aristocrats and communists?
The alliance between aristocrats and communists was built on their mutual hatred of the middle class (bourgeoisie). The Young England movement of aristocrats blamed the bourgeoisie for industrial exploitation and social disorder, while advocating a return to feudal relationships between nobles and peasants. Similarly, Marx distinguished between "bourgeois property" and "property generally," focusing his critique specifically on middle-class rather than aristocratic wealth.
This convergence of interests allowed aristocrats to use socialist and communist movements as tools against their middle-class rivals. The Young England movement became active reformers in the 1840s, allying themselves with socialists and communists who shared their antipathy toward the bourgeoisie, though for different stated reasons.
How did Young England movement ideas influence early socialist thought?
The Young England movement provided a template for using socialist ideas to prevent genuine revolution while preserving aristocratic power. Their leader Kenelm Henry Digby argued for a "natural alliance" between aristocracy and common people against the middle class, which he called "the region of disorder and confusion and tempest." This framework influenced socialist thinking through figures like Marx, who adopted similar anti-bourgeois rhetoric while maintaining connections to aristocratic circles.
Arnold Toynbee and Alfred Milner later developed these ideas further at Oxford, arguing that socialism was Britain's secret weapon for containing revolution. They claimed that Britain's aristocratic leadership had enabled the implementation of socialist programs early enough to prevent genuine revolution, demonstrating how socialist ideology could serve aristocratic interests.
Why did Marx distinguish between "bourgeois property" and "property generally"?
Marx's distinction between "bourgeois property" and "property generally" in The Communist Manifesto reflected his focus on attacking middle-class rather than aristocratic wealth. He argued that the fight against feudal property had already been won, allowing him to focus exclusively on bourgeois property while leaving aristocratic wealth largely unchallenged. This convenient theoretical framework aligned with British aristocratic interests.
This distinction becomes more significant when considered alongside Marx's close relationships with aristocratic figures like David Urquhart and his family connections to British nobility through his wife's lineage. It suggests his theoretical framework may have been influenced by these connections to serve aristocratic interests while maintaining revolutionary credibility.
What was the real power relationship between aristocracy and bourgeoisie?
Contrary to Marx's theory of bourgeois revolution, evidence suggests certain aristocratic families survived the Industrial Revolution with their wealth and power intact. Justice Daniel F. Cohalan's 1919 testimony to the U.S. Senate revealed that England continued to be governed by "the same small group of titled land-controlling families" that had ruled since Henry VIII's time, with the Cecils and their relations maintaining particular influence.
The apparent dominance of self-made entrepreneurs masked the persistent power of aristocratic families who learned to thrive in the new system while keeping their wealth hidden in offshore trusts and shell corporations. This challenges the conventional narrative of bourgeois triumph over aristocracy, suggesting a more complex reality of aristocratic adaptation and continued influence.
How did British aristocrats use socialism to prevent genuine revolution?
British aristocrats deployed socialism as a strategic tool to head off more radical revolutionary change while preserving their own power. As Arnold Toynbee explained in 1882, "it is because there has been a ruling aristocracy in England that we have had a great Socialist programme carried out." The aristocracy's implementation of limited socialist reforms helped prevent more radical upheaval while maintaining their fundamental control.
Alfred Milner, who later played a key role in the Russian Revolution, argued that socialism could serve as an antidote to middle-class liberal principles of individual freedom and property rights. This strategic use of socialist ideas allowed the aristocracy to maintain control while appearing to make progressive concessions, effectively containing genuine revolutionary threats.
What was the significance of Babeuf's "Conspiracy of Equals"?
Babeuf's Conspiracy of Equals represented the first modern communist movement, attempting to overthrow France's Directory government in 1796. While the conspiracy failed and Babeuf was executed, his ideas about classless society and abolition of private property became foundational to later communist thought. Marx and Engels acknowledged him as the first modern communist, and his ideas influenced the Paris communists of the 1830s and 1840s.
Significantly, Babeuf's ideas were shaped by British mentors including James Rutledge and connections to British intelligence through the Courrier de l'Europe newspaper. This early British influence on communist ideology established a pattern that would continue through Marx and later revolutionary movements.
How did British intelligence influence early communist ideology?
British intelligence shaped early communist ideology through a network of handlers, informants, and front organizations. From Babeuf's connection to British intelligence fronts like the Courrier de l'Europe to Marx's relationship with David Urquhart, British operatives consistently influenced the development of communist theory in ways that served imperial interests while maintaining plausible deniability.
This influence helped direct revolutionary energy against the middle class while largely preserving aristocratic power structures. The pattern of British intelligence manipulation of revolutionary movements, first seen in the French Revolution, would continue through the Russian Revolution and beyond, using communist ideology as a tool for imperial strategy.
How did British intelligence orchestrate Rasputin's assassination?
British intelligence operative Lieutenant Oswald Rayner appears to have played a central role in Rasputin's assassination. While history has traditionally credited Prince Felix Yusupov with leading the operation, evidence suggests Rayner, who had been Yusupov's close friend at Oxford, was the actual orchestrator and likely fired the fatal shot. A secret British communication confirmed the killing, stating "our objective has clearly been achieved."
The assassination was part of a broader British strategy targeting what they called the "Dark Forces" at the Russian court. Rayner's involvement was later confirmed in Andrew Cook's 2006 book "To Kill Rasputin," which noted that British Ambassador Buchanan took special care to deny suspicions about "a young Englishman" being involved in the murder, suggesting awareness of the operation's sensitive nature.
What was the significance of Trotsky's Murmansk telegram?
Trotsky's March 1, 1918 telegram to the Murmansk Soviet commander provided crucial legal cover for British intervention in Russia. While claiming peace talks with Germany had "apparently broken off" (a false claim Trotsky, as Foreign Minister, knew to be untrue), he ordered acceptance of "any and all assistance from the Allied missions." This telegram effectively gave British forces legitimate grounds for entering Russian territory.
The telegram's timing and content suggest it was coordinated with British interests, as it helped protect British military supplies stored at Murmansk from potential German seizure while establishing a precedent for Allied intervention. The telegram would later be used as evidence in Trotsky's 1937 treason trial, highlighting its significance in the pattern of his cooperation with British interests.
How did Britain manipulate various White Russian commanders?
Britain maintained control over White Russian commanders through their complete dependence on British funding, supplies, munitions, and military advisors. Every significant operation had to be coordinated with the British War Office, giving Britain effective veto power over White Russian strategy. Lloyd George used this leverage to impose impossible conditions on commanders like Kolchak and Denikin, demanding they accept the breakup of Russia into independent states.
When White commanders appeared close to victory, Britain would withdraw or restrict support, as they did with Denikin when he advanced on Moscow. This pattern of manipulation ensured that White forces could maintain pressure on the Bolsheviks without actually achieving decisive victory, prolonging the civil war while preventing the restoration of a strong unified Russia.
What was the real purpose of Allied military intervention in Russia?
While Soviet propaganda portrayed Allied intervention as an attempt to crush Bolshevism, the real purpose was to pursue other strategic objectives while maintaining a pretense of anti-Bolshevik action. The British sent troops—and encouraged other nations to do so—primarily to counteract German influence and encourage White Russian leaders to look to Britain rather than Germany for support.
Britain's true objective was to carve up the Russian Empire into "buffer states," a strategy that proved successful in Finland, Poland, and the Baltics. The intervention forces did very little actual fighting against the Bolsheviks, and sometimes even fought alongside them, as in the case of British Royal Marines defending Murmansk alongside Red Guards.
How did British forces end up fighting alongside Bolsheviks?
In a striking demonstration of Britain's real priorities, the first British troops to land in Russia actually fought alongside Bolshevik forces. When Finnish White Guards captured the town of Pechenga near Murmansk in May 1918, British Royal Marines fought shoulder-to-shoulder with Red Guards to drive them out, fearing the Finns might be acting as a German vanguard.
This cooperation emerged from Trotsky's March 1, 1918 telegram inviting Allied intervention at Murmansk, demonstrating how British strategic interests could trump ideological considerations. The episode highlights the complex nature of British intervention, which was focused more on maintaining strategic control than on fighting Bolshevism.
What role did the Anglo-Persian Oil Company play?
The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later British Petroleum) served as a key instrument of British imperial strategy. When Britain offered Constantinople to Russia in 1915, they demanded expanded control over Persian oil fields in return. After the Revolution, Trotsky's repudiation of all Russian treaties left Britain in complete control of Persian oil resources, allowing the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to claim all drilling rights in Persia in August 1919.
This outcome demonstrates how Britain used the Revolution to eliminate Russian competition in Persia, with US journalist Louis Fischer noting that "Russian influence in Persia was reduced to nil and the British... made themselves masters in all of Persia." The company's evolution into British Petroleum represents a lasting legacy of this strategic success.
How did Britain use the promise of Constantinople to manipulate Russia?
Britain used the March 1915 Constantinople Agreement as a sophisticated tool of manipulation, promising Russia control of Constantinople and the Straits in exchange for continued participation in World War I and concessions in Persia. However, the evidence suggests Britain never intended to fulfill this promise, using the Gallipoli Campaign's failure to avoid delivering on their commitment.
The timing of the agreement, coinciding with the start of the seemingly deliberately failed Gallipoli Campaign, suggests it was part of a calculated deception. The Revolution ultimately provided Britain with a convenient escape from their obligations while retaining the Persian concessions they had gained in the bargain.
What was the significance of British control over Russian supply lines?
British control over Russian supply lines through Murmansk and other ports gave them significant leverage over both White and Red forces during the Civil War. This control allowed Britain to regulate the flow of military supplies to various factions, effectively determining their ability to conduct operations. The strategic importance of these supply lines was demonstrated by Trotsky's Murmansk telegram, which legitimized British presence at this crucial port.
This control over logistics became a key tool for implementing Britain's strategy of prolonged conflict, allowing them to maintain just enough support to keep fighting ongoing while preventing any faction from achieving decisive victory. The strategy effectively kept Russia weak and divided while maintaining British influence over all parties.
How did Britain maintain influence over revolutionary leaders?
Britain maintained influence over revolutionary leaders through a combination of intelligence operations, financial leverage, and strategic manipulation. The case of Trotsky exemplifies this approach, from his release from Canadian internment by MI6 to his ongoing contacts with British handlers like Clare Sheridan. His actions consistently aligned with British interests, suggesting a degree of control or influence.
More broadly, Britain's influence operated through the British Embassy's network of connections with liberal leaders, many of whom would form the Provisional Government. Ambassador Buchanan's "dictator-like" influence over these figures ensured British interests were protected even as power shifted between different revolutionary factions.
What was the strategic importance of the Dardanelles?
The Dardanelles Straits represented a crucial strategic chokepoint controlling access between the Black Sea and Mediterranean, making them central to British-Russian rivalry for centuries. British strategy consistently aimed to prevent Russia from gaining control of the Straits, which would have given Russian warships access to the Mediterranean and threatened British control of trade routes to the East.
Catherine the Great's "Greek Plan" to restore the Byzantine Empire with Russian control of Constantinople had been thwarted by British opposition in the 18th century, and this strategic priority remained constant through World War I. The failed Gallipoli Campaign and subsequent Revolution ensured the Straits remained out of Russian control, serving long-standing British strategic objectives.
How did the British-Soviet Trade Agreement of 1921 reflect British strategy?
The 1921 Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement represented the culmination of British strategy, formalizing their relationship with a weakened Soviet state after ensuring the destruction of imperial Russia. The timing of the agreement, following shortly after Britain's cutoff of support to White forces in December 1919, demonstrated how Britain had achieved its strategic objectives through the Revolution and Civil War.
The agreement coincided with Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP), which reintroduced limited capitalism and invited foreign investment. This arrangement allowed Britain to maintain economic influence over Russia while ensuring it remained too weak to challenge British global interests, effectively completing the transformation from rival empire to manageable trading partner.
What happened to the White Russian forces after British support was withdrawn?
The withdrawal of British support proved catastrophic for White Russian forces. General Kolchak was betrayed and turned over to the Bolsheviks, being shot on February 7, 1920—ironically, just 24 hours before Churchill's article blaming Jews for the Revolution appeared. General Wrangel, commanding the last substantial White army, was forced to evacuate Russia on November 14, 1920.
While some White forces held out in eastern Yakutia until June 1923, Wrangel's evacuation effectively ended any realistic hope of defeating the Bolsheviks. The timing and manner of the White forces' collapse, following Britain's December 1919 cutoff of support, demonstrates how crucial British backing had been to their operations and how its withdrawal sealed their fate.
How did Princess Paley's perspective illuminate British duplicity?
Princess Paley's unique position as widow of the Tsar's uncle Grand Duke Paul provided crucial insider testimony about British duplicity. She specifically identified the British Embassy as the "hotbed of propaganda" where liberal plotters regularly met, and noted how British animosity toward Russia "traces a red line across three centuries," recognizing Bolshevism as just another weapon in Britain's traditional anti-Russian arsenal.
Her personal experience of betrayal—having supported British interests only to see her husband and son murdered by the Bolsheviks—gave particular weight to her observation that Britain "supports wittingly... the Government of the Soviets, so as not to allow the real Russia, the National Russia, to come to life again and raise itself up."
What was the true extent of British casualties in the Russian intervention?
Nearly 60,000 British troops served in the Russian Civil War, with the largest contingent (40,000) deployed to the oil-rich Caucasus region. Smaller numbers served in North Russia (14,378), Siberia (1,800), and Trans-Caspia (950). The distribution of forces, heavily concentrated in the oil-rich regions, reflects Britain's true strategic priorities during the intervention.
These deployment patterns, particularly the focus on securing oil regions rather than fighting Bolshevism, support the argument that British intervention was primarily aimed at securing imperial interests rather than defeating communism. The relatively limited combat operations and casualties align with Lloyd George's policy of being "at war" with the Bolsheviks while "not making war."
How did the dismemberment of Russia serve British interests?
The breakup of the Russian Empire into smaller states served multiple British strategic interests. It prevented the emergence of a unified Russian power that could challenge British global dominance, created controllable buffer states along Russia's borders, and allowed Britain to secure key resources like Persian oil without Russian competition.
US historian Louis Fischer explicitly noted that Britain's policy "has always been the dismemberment of Russia," with the goal of dividing it into parts that Britain could patronize and protect. This strategy proved successful in establishing independent states in Finland, Poland, and the Baltics, though the Bolsheviks eventually reconquered other breakaway regions.
What role did Clare Sheridan play in British intelligence operations?
Clare Sheridan, Winston Churchill's first cousin, operated as a British intelligence agent while posing as a Bolshevik sympathizer and sculptress. Her role included maintaining close contact with Trotsky, allegedly becoming his lover while serving as one of his British handlers. Her artistic work provided cover for intelligence gathering and influence operations at the highest levels of the Bolshevik leadership.
The significance of her relationship with Trotsky is underscored by its later emergence as a source of marital conflict between Trotsky and his wife Natalia Sedova in Mexico, suggesting its importance went beyond mere social connection. Reliable sources have confirmed Sheridan's status as a British spy, making her relationship with Trotsky another piece of evidence for his connections to British intelligence.
How did British actions in Russia prefigure later "color revolution" tactics?
The British approach to the Russian Revolution established a template for later "color revolution" tactics. Key elements included using foreign intelligence services to infiltrate and manipulate opposition groups, coordinating with liberal aristocrats and intellectuals, using symbolic identifiers (like the red flag), and maintaining plausible deniability while orchestrating regime change.
This approach demonstrated how revolution could be used as a weapon of statecraft, allowing powerful nations to topple governments while maintaining an appearance of non-intervention. The successful implementation of these tactics in Russia provided a model that would be refined and reused in later decades.
What were the long-term consequences of British intervention for Russia?
British intervention resulted in a weakened, isolated Russia that would remain effectively contained for decades. The five years of civil war left more than 10 million dead, devastated Russia's infrastructure, and created conditions for the emergence of a totalitarian state. The loss of territory to newly independent states and the elimination of Russian influence in regions like Persia fulfilled long-standing British strategic objectives.
The intervention also helped shape the nature of the Soviet state that emerged, as the experience of foreign intervention provided justification for policies of isolation and militarization. The legacy of British manipulation contributed to enduring suspicion of Western intentions in Russian political culture.
How did the Russian experience influence British imperial strategy?
The successful manipulation of the Russian Revolution demonstrated the effectiveness of using revolutionary movements as tools of imperial strategy. Britain's ability to eliminate its primary imperial rival while maintaining plausible deniability provided a template for future operations. The experience showed how supporting controlled opposition and moderate reform could prevent genuine revolution while advancing imperial interests.
The strategy of using socialist and communist movements to weaken rival powers while preserving British aristocratic influence proved particularly effective. This approach, combining overt diplomacy with covert manipulation of revolutionary movements, would influence British imperial strategy throughout the 20th century.
What lessons about great power manipulation can be drawn from this history?
The Russian case demonstrates how great powers can use revolutionary movements and civil conflicts to achieve strategic objectives while maintaining deniability. The British success in eliminating their primary imperial rival while appearing to oppose the revolutionary forces that achieved this goal shows the sophistication possible in such operations. The ability to maintain influence over seemingly opposing factions proved particularly effective.
The experience also reveals how ideological movements can be co-opted and directed to serve imperial interests, often without their participants' awareness. The pattern of aristocratic influence over ostensibly anti-aristocratic movements, seen in both the French and Russian revolutions, suggests the complexity of power relationships beneath surface-level political narratives.
I appreciate you being here.
If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.
Please make full use of the Free Libraries.
Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.
Stories
I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com
For COVID vaccine injury
Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.
Baseline Human Health
Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.
This makes perfect sense. But, "blamed it on the Jews"?? Show me the divide between England and the Jews because there is none that I can see. The monarchy under Henry 8th broke with the Vatican when Pope Clement denied the king a divorce. Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded as she was a Catholic. Jews capture England after Waterloo to forever control finance. There is nothing Jews hate more than Catholics. If England pulled off the Bolsheviks, who financed the Revolution? I rest my case.
There doesn't seem to be an end to this rabbi hole. Oops, rabbit hole!