The British periodical "Truth" published in its 1890 Christmas edition a cartoon entitled "The Kaiser's Dream" [1]. In the cartoon, the Kaiser imagines a transformed Europe. Most of the nations which in 1890 were led by crowned heads had been replaced by republics. Some republics lay within familiar borders (e.g. "British Republic"). Others were fragmented (e.g. the "German Republics"). But Russia had been transformed into a "desert" ("Russian Desert"). Was the 1917 Russian Revolution the first stage in the roll-out of a long-planned Western regime-change project? If so, was the project's aim to use communism as a means of impeding Russian industrialization?
More proximate is the circumstance that in April 1917 Germany facilitated the transit across Germany in a sealed railway carriage of Lenin and other Bolsheviks. From Germany's wartime perspective, they were enemy aliens. Upon Lenin's arrival in Petrograd, he called for Russia's immediate withdrawal from the war. Russian withdrawal would have the strategic effect of enabling Germany to concentrate its efforts on the Western Front. The related Treaty of Brest-Litovsk followed in March 1918. By its terms, Russia not only withdrew from the war but also ceded industrialized regions to Germany. Was Lenin a German agent?
It is arguable that the Britain and France fomented the First World War with the intention of using Germany as a sword with which to strike at Russia, their nominal ally in the Triple Entente. Did Germany, having been lured into war, then opportunistically exploit the Bolsheviks as a means of closing the onerous Eastern Front?
Thanks in advance for shedding light on these and related matters.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_(British_periodical)#/media/File:Thruth-1890-12.jpg
The simple answer to most of your questions is no. The Bolshevik Revolution was not a long-planned regime change project by the West.
To start, the role of Germany in Lenin going to Russia was largely peripheral. Outside of allowing the sealed train to pass through Germany on its way to Russia, that was extent of their role and this largely seems to be the consensus of the field today. There is no evidence that Lenin or the Bolsheviks were directly sent by, or funded by, Germany. [1] When Lenin arrived, his calling for the end of war was something that was in line with his long-held beliefs. He even broke with the Second International, declaring it ideologically bankrupt, when at the outbreak of war, many socialist parties supported their nation’s war effort instead of promoting pacifism or turning it into a revolutionary wave. On top of that, it had a pragmatic purpose – much of Russia was sick of the war and this was a way of the Bolsheviks to reach the people. It certainly could be seen as benefiting the Germans in their war effort, but that was more an unintended result, not the motivation.[2]
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed in March 1918, was something the Bolsheviks signed reluctantly and largely under duress. When the negotiations began in late 1917, they wanted to bring all warring parties to the negotiating table and develop a peace that was free from indemnities, free from reparations and enforced self-determination. When the Entente Powers refused to attend, the Bolsheviks attempted to sign such a peace solely with the Central Powers. They delayed, however, with hopes of revolution coming to Austria and Germany, having leaflets passed out on the streets of Berlin and Vienna, although to little effect. The Central Powers eventually become sick of the delays and offered a peace on their terms. Leon Trotsky leaves the negotiations, declaring the Bolshevik war effort over, showing the naivety of the Bolsheviks to European diplomacy. The Germans continue their campaign into Russia and Lenin forces his party to accept a harsh peace to defend the revolution and allow the Bolsheviks to focus on the growing civil war. [3]
The Allied Intervention was something that developed once forces were on the ground. The research of Brock Millman argues that many British soldiers made decisions far from central command to get involved. [4] DeWitt Clinton Poole, whose reminiscences are now available in published form, an American diplomat in Russia at the time of the revolution, makes clear the Entente Powers genuinely wanted to reopen the Eastern Front and get involved in the Russian Civil War for a number of reasons, all a result of circumstance. [5]
Finally, to throw another wrench into such a theory as you describe is the very limited role that Britain plays in the coming of the First World War, largely deciding to get involved after a series of agonizing meetings, none of which ensured that the British would enter until the very end. France can be argued to have played a role in ensuring the Russians would respond antagonistically to any action by Austro-Hungary or Germany in the July Crisis, and supporting them the entire way. Christopher Clark emphasizes this in his work. At the same time, it would be difficult to suggest Germany was lured into the war as they were equally willing to consider military means and openly stated such to their allies. If there was any way to suggest Germany was “lured” into the war, it would be in their response to Russian mobilization. [6] So even that part of the theory does not seem to stand scrutiny.
I hope this answers some of the questions you had and I’m happy to respond to others too!
[1] See S.A. Smith, Russia in Revolution: An Empire in Crisis 1890-1928 (Oxford University Press, 2017), 110-111.
[2] See Lars T. Lih, Lenin (Reaktion Books, 2011).
[3] Some of my research details this. See The Communist International, Anti-Imperialism and Racial Equality in British Dominions (Routledge, 2018). Also see Michael Jabara Carley, A Silent Conflict: A Hidden History of Early Soviet-Western Relations (Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), 11-13.
[4] Brock Millman, “The Problem with Generals: Military Observers and the Origins of the Intervention in Russia and Persia, 1917-18,” Journal of Contemporary History 33(2): 291-320.
[5] DeWitt Clinton Poole, An American Diplomat in Bolshevik Russia, edited by Lorraine M. Lees and William S. Rodner (University of Wisconsin Press, 2014).
[6] Christopher Clark, The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to War in 1914 (Harper Perennial, 2012).
The conditions extracted by the Germans from the Bolsheviks at their armistice in 1917 hardly suggests a deep sympathy or friendship between the two powers . Lenin has little choice but to accept after watching the cost to the government of Kerensky of continuing the war
The concern to the west, I think, at the start of the 20th century was more about the imperial ambitions of Germany than the growing friction between the Ottomans and Russians (both of whom were viewed as powers weakened by internal pressures )
Many thanks, Oleksa, for your detailed answer, with references. Thanks also for the correction as to the date of signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (the question is updated accordingly). Your note provides an internally coherent account.
Thanks, Eugene, for seconding the same.
A matter remaining unaddressed is that of the map published in the 1890 Christmas edition of Truth, referred to (with link) in the question.
The map published in Truth seems not to be the only prophetic pre-war map of its kind. Karl Heise presented a comparable map in his book Entente Freimaurerei und Weltkrieg (Entente Freemasonry and World War), published in Basel in 1920 by Ernst Finkh Verlag [1]. A copy of the last mentioned map is attached. According to Terry Boardman [2], Renate Riemecke reports that the map appearing in Heise's book was "designed in 1888" and "in the occult circles of the English-speaking world represented the configuration of Europe as it would be after the World War" [3].
The place of publication of the map last mentioned, Basel, may call to mind the First Zionist Congress held in the same city in August 1897. There may be a connection, but that possibility seems speculative in the absence of further evidence.
The map published in Truth in 1890 is remarkable for its reference to the "Russian Desert" and a fragmented Germany. The map allegedly produced in 1888 and reproduced by Heise is remarkable for its reference to a "Danube-Balkan League" approximately corresponding to Yugoslavia and -- once again -- a fragmented Germany.
How do you account for the accuracy of these prophetic pre-war maps? Do you think the respective map-makers some three decades ahead of the events just coincidentally predicted a world war while also hit upon more or less accurate ideas concerning the post-World War configuration? Or would you say that the map-makers were planners in the sense of the U.S. Neocons in the lead-up to September 2001 and in their subsequent war agenda?
In the latter connection, General Wesley Clarke reported in an interview given in March 2007 that he was present at the Pentagon "about ten days after 9/11". He said --
I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
.So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!” [4] (emphasis added).
[1] Reproduction in Terry Boardman, Mapping the Millennium: Behind the Plans of the New World Order, Temple Lodge, Forest Row, 1998, page 51.
[2] Op. cit. note 1, page 50.
[3] Renate Riemecke, Mitteleuropa -- Bilanz eines Jahrhunderts (Middle Europe -- A Century in the Balance), Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt, 1983, cited in op. cit. note 1, page 50.
[4] Transcript at Global Research: https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166.
Thanks, Stuart, for your comments.
I'm not suggesting that Russia and Germany secretly were allied at any time during the First World War. The subsidiary question I asked is whether Lenin acted as a German spy.
Oleksa showed that if the matter is viewed from Lenin's perspective, then there is no particular reason to think that Lenin was a German spy. For example, Lenin's Bolshevist program already was well-established in 1917. The Bolshevist program was anti-war because the proletariat, which suffers from war (unlike elites, which generally profit from it), benefits from an anti-war program. That makes perfect sense. It is interesting to note that the prominent French trade unionist Jean Jaurès promoted a rather similar program in France, England and Germany. Jaurès advocated an international workers' strike aimed at preventing mobilization. French nationalist Raoul Villain assassinated Jaurès on 31 July 1914. France commenced its general mobilization the next day.
According to Eugene's assessment (stated in a separate thread), Lenin and the German government just used each other. At first I found that this view sounded too glib. Now I agree with it.
Since I live in Zürich, I tried approaching the matter from the Swiss perspective. Here's the puzzle: how were ultra-cautious Swiss federal bureaucrats persuaded to participate in the sealed carriage scheme, which started from Zürich Main Railway Station? Anyone who has applied to a Swiss authority for so much as an official letter in relation to a matter that is a little exceptional will realize that persuading Swiss bureaucrats to allow government assets (such as trains and railway lines) to be deployed in a highly unusual and politically perilous international transport of dissidents during wartime is an extraordinary achievement. Swiss governments want assurances, indemnities, releases, waivers and, of course, full compensation for risks and expenses. Among the risks for the nominally neutral Swiss Confederation was that of being seen to be assisting Germany against Russia by furnishing Lenin with Swiss federal government rolling stock traveling on Swiss federal rails for the purpose of causing an Entente Power to withdraw from the war.
Who brokered such a deal? This kind of task calls for the involvement of a well-connected banker. Richard Bär seems a likely candidate, based on his profession, family banking connections, association with Göttingen, Germany (conveniently located between Zürich and Berlin), and presence in Zürich in 1917. Whoever the deal-mechanic was, I suppose that the German government, which stood to benefit and possessed the necessary financial means, fully financed the enterprise. I know little of Lenin's financial resources, but he appears to have lived very modestly while in Switzerland. Lenin's capacity to finance a long journey by sealed railway carriage seems doubtful. The deal-mechanic would have needed to make arrangements such that the Swiss government (1) was assured that the sealed carriage contained something other than Russian dissidents, (2) received acceptable indemnities from a Swiss financial institution, and (3) payment from a straw-man consignor drawn on a Swiss bank not obviously connected with the German government. The sealed carriage scheme would have been an expensive enterprise. The deal-mechanic presumably earned a very substantial commission.
In the early 20th century, Switzerland was full of international dissidents and hence also international spies keeping track of them. It is quite plausible that German agents in Geneva and Zürich kept dossiers an Lenin and considered, based on their own assessment of Lenin, that he plausibly could procure Russia's withdrawal from the war. Based on such a circumstance, Berlin may quite readily have decided that it would be worthwhile to pay a Swiss middleman up to a million francs in order to procure Lenin's removal to Petrograd. For its part, the Swiss federal government would have been quite willing to accept such payment provided that it could appear to be blameless in the matter.
Dear Michael Lusk,
I want to present the materials of the independent expert Valery Pyakin with a new point of view on historical events. This view is based on a completely new position from the point of view of Enough General Management Theory. These videos are released by the Foundation of Concept Technology on Mondays and I watch these videos with great interest, because a completely different point of view on historical events is demonstrated based on the interrelation of historical facts. I picked up two materials in live spoken German as a simultaneous translation (since you speak German fluently) on a relevant topic to your question.
A full list of all topics in German is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPP40LPUXu8HIzj-bhOagew/videos - the overwhelming majority of videos have live simultaneous interpretation in German, others earlier have only subtitles.
A full list of all topics in English is https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjMzt5EYHQygFV70jjQ2L0g/videos - however all these videos have only English subtitles
So two topics in German for your topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npquQYwPiu0 - Wie die Kriege beginnen - 2 (2018.11.12 Valeriy Pyakin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-EFObIjMv0 - Bolschewiken und Trotzkisten - wer ist wer? (Valeriy Pyakin 08/17/2017)
If you watch the titles of other videos, maybe you will find what you need if I haven’t noticed these videos.
Dear Gennady Fedulov,
Many thanks, much appreciated!
I also hope that you, Oleksa Drachewych, Eugene F Kislyakov, and Stuart B Jennings specifically will address the matter of the 1888 and 1890 maps predictively representing the post-World War order. If there were no long-range forward planning, then how are these maps to be accounted for?
It may not be the most satisfying response, but the maps which predicted general trends that had some degree of accuracy could be seen in the same vein as the Simpsons and their perceived ability to predict things like the Fox-Disney deal or Trump's presidency. Just looking at the first map you posted from Truth, it certainly seems like a map that takes into account concerns relevant in diplomacy at the end of 1890 (Austrian interests in the Balkans were a prominent concern; With Bismarck out, Russia turned to France; Germany may not be as stable; Bulgarian power, thanks to victories in 1885, made them seem like a potential power in the region; Add that Russia was always seen with a degree of limited respect in Great Power politics, a function of Russophobia, seeing an independent Poland and Finland was not that far of a leap). Everything can be explained by looking at the world from the viewpoint of someone interested in the balance of power in Europe in 1890. Even with some intriguing items that are accurate, there are many just as interesting, yet incorrect, predictions (The Balkans and the apparent trend of republicanism across Europe standing out)
Dear Michael Lusk,
This material may be something that could interest you greatly, since this is a historical document as a prophecy of the future First World War and the subsequent revolution of Russia. This is a memorandum of a member of the Council of State, former Interior Minister P. N. Durnovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Durnovo , which was submitted to Nicholas II in February 1914, shortly before the outbreak of the First World War.
Text - https://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his242/Documents/Durnovo.pdf
Comment - http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/history-the-durnovo-memorandum/
Thanks, Oleksa and Gennady.
After reading Durnovo's extraordinary memorandum, the possibility of astute guesswork with a degree of luck seems less implausible than I formerly thought. See, however, the text of the accompanying satirical article in Truth, the theme of which is control of others by hypnotic means.
Opportunities for planning by deliberate intervention (or malicious omission) nevertheless remain evident.
For example, Germany would not have been destabilized but for Frederick III's early death in 1888, and that may not have occurred if the British physician Morell Mackenzie (who also was Victoria's physician) had not taken over control of Frederick's treatment. Mackenzie claimed to have procured biopsy evidence that Frederick's condition was not laryngeal cancer. By contrast, Frederick's physician Ernst von Bergmann held firm to his previous diagnosis of cancer and indication of the need for immediate surgery. Mackenzie, having taken control of Frederick's care, declared that Frederick would recover without treatment within "a few months", and then returned to England. Unsurprisingly, Frederick died soon afterwards, with the fully predictable result that the inexperienced and unstable Wilhelm succeeded to the German imperial throne. Destabilizing consequences for Germany, including Wilhelm's removal of Bismarck, predictably followed.
The Russian Empire has experimented, before 1914, a recent but strong industrialization and I think than Germany feared probabily this increasing power and conceived like a "preventive war" in 1914 to avoid a future parity of forces in East. This geopolitical doctrine (or "nightmare of the Kaiser") is documentated in Germany. The regions more industrials in Russia were, with distance, Saint Petesbourg-Petrograd and Caucase (oil extraction), not at the borders with Germany, ceaded by Brest-Litovsk Treaty, This point seems more than a theory and it is mainteined by facts and documents.
Jacob Messier @Lusk ,there was no mystery about the train trip. As Switzerland was neutral the Swiss government had no problem with antiwar Socialists. And the fairly influential Swiss Socialist Party of course was also neutral, and there were prominent Swiss Socialists who were friendly with Lenin and provided whatever wheel greasing was necessary as well as travel funds. Remember it wasn't just Lenin on the train but a broad array of antiwar Socialists. And the only strange thing about the train was that it was sealed. Back then, international train travel was considered a human right, and it would have been slightly embarrassing for the German government to have refused to let a train full of opponents of the Russian government pass through. BTW, when the travellers hit stockholm, the travellers were practically given the key to the city, with a big public meeting in their honor.
Thanks, John Holmes. Transit of the sealed train carriage across Germany of course is not mysterious from Germany's perspective. Transport to Russia of a carriage-load of opponents of the Russian Empire evidently was calculated by Germany to cause Russia to cease projecting power against it and instead to descend into civil war. The mystery is the Swiss government's participation in the scheme. Switzerland's apparent conspiracy with Germany to commit an act of treason against Russia could not be reconciled with Swiss neutrality. Swiss leaders must have known that the Entente powers might detect such an offence and would be unlikely to overlook it, unless some prior agreement were in place.
The apparent risk for Switzerland was that France and/or England might determine that Switzerland was a de facto Central power, thereby triggering commencement of Entente hostilities against Switzerland despite Swiss protestations of neutrality. The apparent purpose of sealing of the train carriage was to furnish the Swiss government with a plausible deniability defence. In the event of an accusation by an Entente power, Berne could say something like: "What revolutionary socialists? The freight manifest was correctly registered according to Swiss law. It specifies [class of goods] for peaceful purposes. [Mr. X] signed the mandatory declaration that the freight manifest is true and correct. He is a sworn federal official and his word is not to be questioned".
Swedish neutrality was even more doubtful than Swiss neutrality. Knut Wallenberg promised Franz von Reichenau that Swedish neutrality would be benevolent to Germany.
Two questions arise. First, was Switzerland's participation in the sealed carriage affair a Swiss federal government policy, or was it an event emerging from corrupt action by a few venal federal officials who accepted bribes financed by Germany? Secondly, if it was a Swiss federal government policy, was that policy the result of an agreement between Switzerland and France and/or England directed against Russia? The latter possibility is underscored by the map published in the Christmas 1890 edition of Truth.
Michael: I am puzzled by your answer. Given that Switzerland was a neutral power, it would be impossible for Switzerland to commit "treason against Russia." Nor is opposition to a war considered "treason" in a democracy, which allegedly was what Russia was at that point. Indeed one of the countries where Lenin was welcomed with a large public meeting in his honor, with government representatatives welcoming him to the country on the platform was ... Russia. The provisional government, even Kerensky himself, claimed to be both socialist and revolutionary. Kerensky at one point had been Lenin's defense lawyer in
Tsarist courts. And there was a strong "socialist unity" mood in the country at the time, which Lenin had to set about putting an end to (over the resistance of some of his own ranks, notably Stalin).
Indeed, if Sweden or Switzerland had tried to impede the "sealed train" trip in any way, this would have been a violation of what were understood to be generally accepted democratic rights at the time, and would have been highly unpopular. As you mention, Swiss and Swedish neutrality were both more or less pro-German after all. But more to the point, militarily Switzerland with its mountains and armed population was a very hard nut to crack. If France or England had diverted any serious number of Allied troops to an inevitably failed assault on Switzerland , Germany would probably have won the war. Likewise for Sweden, which would have meant a very difficult naval landing operation, which would have given the German plus Swedish fleets a golden opportunity.
ثورات الإمبراطوريات مدعومة بشكل او باخر والعامل الديني كان حاضر بروسيا القيصرية
وتعمل على صنمية ال رومانوف. كانت تزدري الاديان
The 1917 revolution was necessary for the elimination of the colonial system, the formation of independent states in China and India, as well as for the social and political development of Western countries.
It was a natural process. The Russian people made the revolution of 1917. The Civil War later proved the regularity of the historical development of Russia. Russia gained a more powerful status after 1917. The Soviet Union defeated fascism in 1945, it led the anti-Hitler coalition. The Soviet Union was the strongest state in the world in the 20th century.
نعم حصل تأثير بكشف الوعود المزيفة من قبل التحالف الفرنسي البريطاني
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science