How did the Bolsheviks manage to capture power in November 1917? If you immediately think about who financed them, then most money the Bolsheviks got from Germany and Germany helped Lenin to come to St. Petersburg, but this is a wrong way to look for the answer to the question. The Bolsheviks did not get to power by money. They got to power because the Provisional Government let them to power.
It is not any new insight that Freemason Alexander Kerensky let the Bolsheviks to power. When Kerensky died in the USA, the Russian Orthodox Church did not give him a burial place as he was seen as the person, who let Bolsheviks into power in Russia. Also the Serbian Church denied him burial. The clergy was quite correct in this case.
Kerensky was the Secretary-General of an irregular Freemason lodge that has shortly been established in Russia. As most subversive Freemason lodges, it was under the Grand Orient of France. Freemasonry was forbidden in Russia in 1822 because of Masonic subversive activities elsewhere. Masons tried to make a revolution in 25. December 1825, this Decembrists revolt failed. Freemasonry was allowed after the 1905 changes. The illegal Grand Orient of Russia’s Peoples (Co-Masonry with c. 400 members) was created 1912 and dissolved in 1917. The organization was political and aimed to democratic changes.
Kerensky was elected to Duma 1912 and was one of the most powerful leaders of Duma and a strong opponent of the Tsar. Thus, when we read from UK archives: “In the summer of 1914, the Duma and the zemstva expressed full support for the government’s war effort.”1 it means that Kerensky was pro-war in 1914.
The spirit was low among many Russian soldiers and civilians. Lenin’s Bolsheviks spread antiwar attitude. In March 1917 there was lack of food in Russia. Another Freemason of the Grand Orient of Russia’s Peoples, Nikolai Nekrasov plotted with Octobrist Alexander Guchkov, Alexander Kerensky and some others to force Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate. According to main stream historians a spontaneous bread revolt without leaders broke out in March 1917 leading to the February revolution and abdication of Nicholas II, thus Freemasos did not have time to realize their plan. After Nicholas abdicated his brother did not accept becoming the Regent. Mihail Rodzianko, the Chairman of the Duma, formed the Provisional Government. The Prime Minister was Prince Georgy Lvov. Alexander Kerensky was elected as a Minister to the Provisional Government, first of Justice, later of War.
This main stream explanation fails since a revolt without leaders, even if it included 200,000 unreliable reservists, most unarmed, has no chance against a disciplined division of the regular army and the Duma could have marched in loyal forces to suppress the revolt, but the Freemason generals did nothing. Instead, they isolated the Tsar and gave orders in his name, which were not coming from the Tsar. Therefore Masonry, and not the crowd, is directly responsible for the February revolution, which is also shown by the constitution of the Provisitional Government. A web article2 by Vladimir Moss lists of Russian Freemasons. I cannot guarantee the correctness of this list as the membership lists were secret, but I marked the names of people in the Provisional Government, and also Trotsky. The list in 2 can be compared with 3 from Freemason sources: we find the same bold face names (M. Rodzianko by using the last bold face sentence in 3). It is an accepted historical fact that the Provisional Government was formed and dominated by Freemasons. 3 fully accepts the claim that under Nekrasov’s leadership the Grand Orient of Russia;s Peoples was a political subversive secret society.
The Provisional Government was very unpopular, as the Petrograd Soviet was against it and the government could not help with the food problem and wanted to continue the war. Kerensky’s position, however, was a bit different. Kerensky was also vice-chairman of Petrograd Soviet and a member of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet (Ispolcom).
The war had gone rather poorly for Russia, but the Central Powers situation was becoming hopeless. The Tsar and his generals must have expected that Germany falls in the Spring 1918: already in September 1916 the German Head Quarters had wanted to extend conscription to 16-60 years, meaning they were running short of men, in February 1917 Germany started unlimited submarine war, meaning the British siege on Germany was intolerable, and as a consequence the USA joined the war. Austria-Hungary was practically beaten by the Brusilov offence. By staying in the war without doing anything special Russia’s situation would have improved after a few months.
Instead of waiting for the war situation to improve, Kerensky made two moves that weakened the Russian army and still worsened the spirit among soldiers. The first move was that Ispolcom issued an order (fully illegal as Ispolcom was self-appointed and not a govenrmental organization) that military units should organize as soviets, which stripped officers of power. Kerensky must have been the central decider who allowed this to happen. The second move was the Kerensky offensive, which went badly. Losses are always higher in an attack than in defence and Kerensky could have asked any general if the offensive had a good chance of success. If not, it would be counterproductive, as it turned to be. In a few months Germany would have had to start withdrawing from Russia as the USA was stepping in to the war in the West. But Kerensky wanted to weaken the supporters of the Tsar in the military and among the people so that the old regime could not be re-established.
Kerensky was critized by the military for stripping the authority of officers by the Ispolcom order and for poor commandship in the Kerensky offence. The first Provisional Government failed due to a dispute of Ukraine and Kerensky became the Prime Minister. In August 1917 there was an attempt of a military coup d’etat lead by General Lavr Korniloff. This is rather natural: Kerensky was a revolutionary and saw the right as his enemy, but no enemies to the left, so the right-wing did not want him as the Prime Minister.
At this point Kerensky armed the Petrograd Soviet to fend off Korniloff’s troops. These weapons that Kerensky gave to workers went straight to the Bolsheviks and they were used against Kerensky’s government in November 1917. He could have called loyal troops to oppose Kornikoff as Freemasons did have strong support in the army (Generals Alexeyev and Ruzsky were Masons), but he did not.
In September 1917 Kerensky declared Russia a democracy, this illegal deed and the Korniloff affair made certain that Kerensky’s government did not have any right-wing supporters: Kerensky followed a policy of weakening the right-wing and treating the left, namely the Bolsheviks, as friendly parties. This despite the fact that he must have known that the Bolsheviks do not want a democracy but the dictature of the proletariat.
Bolsheviks had only 24% support in the following elections, they did not have military support or arms, nor did they had powerful persons who could help them, with the exception of Kerensky and other Freemasons. Bolsheviks armed by Kerensky forced the Prime Minister to escape and captured power. The conclusion is inevitable: Kerensky helped the Bolsheviks to power. Whether he did so intentionally or not is irrelevant.
In my opinion it is very likely that his irregular Freemason lodge was created and worked for the outcome that happened: it could not have happened any other way and what did happen follows the Protocols of the Elders of Zion rather well. The Bolskeviks banned Freemasonry in 1922, Kerensky went to exile to the USA. What does Protocol 15 say about the fate of Freemasons after the Zion lodge takes the power? “Every kind of new institution of anything like a secret society will also be punished with death; those of them which are now in existence, are known to us, serve us and have served us, we shall disband and send into exile to continents far removed from Europe.”5 You do not need to believe that the Protocols are authentic. They can well be a forgery, but a forgery by someone who understood the workings of subversive (irregular) Freemasonry.
After the Bolsheviks took power the real power rested at the Central Committee of the Russian Communistic Party. In the early years of Russian Communism, one third to one fourth of the members of this committee were Jews, which is a huge overrepresentation considering that Jews were only two percent of the population. In many Central Committees native Russians were a minority. As a conclusion so far, the October revolution was not made by native Russians and the February revolution was, though timed by a spontaneous bread revolt, made by Freemasons, who then made actions that gave the power to the Bolsheviks. This is as far as main stream historians are mostly willing to go, but let us go further.
The Freemasonic article 3 tells that the Grand Lodge of Russia’s Peoples had meetings with the Ambassadors of France and Great Britain, Maurice George Paleologue and George Buchanan. There was also a Jewish high member of the lodge, L. Rubinstein mentioned later in 3. It is clear that the Ambassadors met Freemason Guchkov, who was the head of the Militay-Industrialist Committee providing ammunation and Freemason Prince Lvov, who was the head of zemsvas (local administration). Thus, the Russian war effort was in the hands of the Masonic leaders. If the Grand Lodge of Russia’s Peoples got commands from some higher lodge, then these two Ambassadors, and possibly Rubinstein, might be the people who transmitted the commands. Ambassadors of France and Great Britain were official representatives of the main Allies of Russia, however, they were also Freemasons and Masonic goals for the war were different from the goals of the countries.
In 2 it is mentioned that a right-wing Russian writer Oleg Platonov had stated that all Grand Lodges wanted the war in 1914, the author of 2 Vladimir Moss agrees with this statement. I think Platonov’s claim is logical and most probably true: Masons wanted to destroy absolute Monarchies, three were left in Europe and the world war abolished them. Masons wanted have a war that ends wars. The WWI did not end wars, but the battles of Verdun and Somme were later used as examples of the senselessness of wars. Masons tried to spread democracy and improve the situation of minorities. After the WWI many suppressed nations were granted independence. These goals were largely achieved by the major war in Europe 1914-1918, but most Masons believed that the war would be short. It was not and what followed after the war was even worse.
Freemasons in general did not accept the doctrine that the end justifies the means, but revolutionaries did. This saying is not from Niccolò Machiavelli’s Prince or from the rules of Jesuits, but it resonates well with nihilist revolutionary Sergey Nechayev’s 1869 book Catechism of a Revolutionary and with Lenin’s you cannot make an omlet without breaking eggs. However, from Vladimir Moss’ text 2 it follows that Guchkin knew something more than an average Freemason. He knew that Italy had a secret agreement with Great Britain and would not respect the Triple Alliance agreement and may not stay neutral, and that the Entente were plotting a war. He also says that the war would be over in three months. This must have been what most people and most Masons believed, but from what Guchkin says it may follow that he knows that it will not be:
“’Italy, in accordance with a secret agreement with England, will not be on the side of Germany and Austria, and if the war goes well can stab them in the back. The plan of the future war has already been worked out in detail by our allied staffs (English, French and Russian), and in no way will the war last for more than three months.’
“Then Guchkov was asked: ‘Tell us, Alexander Ivanovich, don’t you think that the war may be prolonged contrary to your expectations? It will require the most colossal exertion of national nerves, and very possibly it will be linked with the danger of popular discontent and a coup d’etat.’
“Smiling, Guchkov replied: ‘In the extreme case, the liquidation of the Dynasty will be the greatest benefit for Russia…’”
Assuming that Vladimir Moss is correct, Guchkov was planning abdiction of the Tsar already before the war.
Let us consider the war. By Jovini’s inner and outer lines theory (i.e., that with two equal forces, one in a center and the other on the outside, the center force wins because it can faster move forces: first knocking out the opponent on one side, then on the other) Germany could win the war in two fronts by having an army better that either the French or Russian, even though the German army was not better than the two put together. By Clausewitz’s center of mass and solution battle theory Germany should advance towards the center of mass, which in the case of France is Paris, and engage the French in a solution battle leading to a fast peace agreement. France would be attacked first as Russian mobilization would take a long time. Germans estimated in 1906 that Russian mobilization takes 30 days. Russians estimated in 1913 that they could do it in 15-18 days, but that is incorrect because the Russian army was worse trained and equipped and Russia needed massive force in order to have over three times overpower in each battle, as was in the Brusilov offence against Austria-Hungary. In the whole Brusilov offence Russian overpower was 1.7 million against 1 million, but in a battle, like Battle of Kostiuchnówka it was 26,000 to 7,000.Russians could not concentrate such a force in a short time. The only uncertainity is if Germany will attack France directly or through Belgium. France fortified the direct border, apparently wanting Germans to attack through Belgium, which would bring the British to the war and set up a seige around German ports.
Assuming that Germany would not succeed in defeating France and would have to withdraw to fortified lines, the war in the West would turn into trench warfare. By continuing trench warfare Germany would finally lose because of the British siege. They could not put a countersiege on the Great Britain without bringing the USA to the war, which would also result to a German defeat. Therefore Germany would have to try to make a breakthrough against a fortified line, which in the time of machine guns would be too costly. Therefore Germany would lose if it cannot keep mobile and defeat France in the early stage of the war. The assumption must have been that Germany ackowledges the hopeless situation and the war ends if Germany does not manage to defeat France in the beginning.
Raymond Poincaré, President of France, was satisfied when Germany posed the ultimatums for Russia and France. He kept the French forces far from the German border so that after the short war it would be clear that Germany was the attacker and France could get the areas it lost in the Franco-Prussian war 1870-71 started by Napoleon III, and could pay its warloans with war reparations from Germany. France had managed to convince Russia to attack East Prussia with its standing army of 200,000 men. That force was not enough and though von Hindenburg had much smaller forces, he managed to destroy two Russian armies. Yet, the Entente plan worked: Germany shifted two divisions to the East and the advance towards Paris stopped. Soon the situation in the West was that Germans had 20 division and the Entente 30. Germans withdrew to a fortificed line and the situation was very much one that foretells German defeat.
We can see that the Entente made a trap to Germany. It was not good for Russia to attack East Prussia with its standing army in 1914. She lost most of the capable force and had to build new forces from reservists, which rather much explains Russia’s poor performance before the Brusilov offence. Attacking Germany in the first weeks was not in Russian war plans before 1914, yet it was essential for the victory of the Entente. German fear that Russia would attack Germany in 1916 when new railroads in Russia would enable a faster concentration of forces may also have been intentional false rumor to get Germany to start a war. Russia did want new areas, but Slavic areas from the direction of South in order to get to the Mediterranean. The arm race before the war was largely caused by Churchill’s insistance that England must have a superior navy. As Germany was trying to get even, British built more ships. With the superior navy the British could set a siege around Germany and they could control the world seas. Germany had already lost the race for building ships before 1914 and could expect that the British will set a siege if the war starts. From the German perspective the prospects of war should not have looked promising in 1914, but waiting longer they would turn yet worse. Still, in 1914 Germans were confident that Russia would not attack before mobilization and they had enough time to defeat France, they willingly used the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia to start a two-front war.
Germany was not behind the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. The idea was also not invented by teenage Gavril Princip. The track leads to Serbian intelligence, but where does it lead from there? It must lead to the Entente as Raymond Poincaré was happy for the German ultimatum and Guchkin seemed to know more than he told. The claim that the assassination of the Archduke and the starting of the war was orchestrated by Freemasons is an old one and usually discarded, but considering the role of Freemasons in the Russian revolutions we should not discard this theory.
One key to understanding the war is to ponder why Germany did not recognize that it was going to lose and did not stop the war when the conquest of France failed. Germany was not prepared for a long war, but it had four million strong army and could continue the war. Yet, there is no point of continuing a war that will end to a defeat. Though Hitler did continue the war even though there was no chance, during the World War 1 German generals did think they could win the war or at least reach a honorable peace settlement by continuing fighting. This implies that they believed that the USA can be kept out of the war.
For winning the war Germany had to defeat France. Eric von Falkenhayn tried in vain to break through a fortified line in Verdun, as a counteroffece the Entente tried the same in Somme. In Napoleon’s time it was possible to break a fortificed line with conscript infantry and artillery, after Gettusbury to about 1944 it was difficult as machineguns effectively stopped the infantry attack. Today fortificed lines cannot stand ground. Ironically, von Falkenhayn had everything that was needed, but did not know how to use it. He did try articllery strikes before the infantry attack, but the grenades must hit very precisely to one place in the same time in order to be effective. von Falkenhayn failed, thje Battle of Verdun was stopped in December 1916. After this time Germany did not have a way to force France to peace, but Fance also could not advance to Germany through the fortified line.
The German chance left was a honorable peace. They would have to make a peace with Great Britain and Russia. von Hindenburg was assigned to lead the East front. He succeeded in creating a situation where Germany proposed peace to Russia. Tsar rejected the offer, so Germans turned to Lenin. The mysterious thing here is that Lenin could not get to power without Russian Masons and Germany could not control these Freemasons, their closest connections were to France and maybe to England. Russian Masons wanted to abolish the absolute monarchy and maybe go for constitutional monarchy or democracy, but they were not willing to throw away a looming victory in the next Spring when Germany runs out of resources. Yet, Kerensky gave power to Lenin. Kerensky was not on German payroll. On whose payroll was he? There may be some hint in a quote of Rathenau.
Jewish Walther Rathenau was one of the people organizing the German war economy. In 1922 he was assassinated by a right-wing terrorist Organisation Consult. One Rathenau quote is often citated: “Three hundred men, each of whom knows all the other, govern the fate of the European continent, and they elect their successors from their entourage.” The quote is apparently authentic and not a joke. These men cannot be elected democratically as they elect their successors themselves. My conclusion is that some people must have given Kerensky the orders to let the Bolsheviks to power. They would make a peace with Germany and thus help Germany towards a honorable peace agreement. We only need to identify who these people were.
Vladimir Moss in 2 tells that the plan to abdicate the Tsar was made in the British Embassy in Russia after Tsar had rejected the demands of the Entente representatives. These demands were not necessary for war actions. The third demand was fully Masonic: it demanded a constitution to Russia. Tsar rejected these demands, as he correctly noted, Russia was not doing worse in the war than the Western allies.
There is left Great Britain. Germany also had to make a peace with Great Britain. In 1917 Germany started unlimited submarine warfare as an effort to force England to peace. Wilhelm II had opposed this action earlier as it might bring the USA into the war, but now this action was approved. Would it have brought the USA into the war without anti-German propaganda in the USA? Probably not: Americans wanted to stay away from the war in Europe. Only by describing Germans as barbarians in the American media the public opinion was turned pro-war.
Four days after the start of the World War I Zionists started negotiations with Great Britain. The negotiations lasted up to 31. October 1917, when the British Cabinet approved the text that on 2. November was published as the Balfour declaration. In this text England in reality broke the promises she had given to Arabs, who had on behalf of British attacked their Osman tulers. (Notice as an interesting coincidence that on the same day, 31. October 1917, there was the miracle of the sun in Portugal.)
The British hardly would have approved the demands of the Zionists for a home land in Palestine had Germany not put pressure on British by unlimited submarine warfare. Did Germany play two hazard cards: sending Lenin to Russia and starting submarine war that can bring the USA to the war? If Germany played two hazard cards, the first one was exceptionally lucky. Who would have guessed that Kerensky gives power to Lenin? The second card was particularly useful for Zionists: with this card they got the Balfour declaration, but for Germany it meant defeat. I think no hazard cards were played. Germany must have also had negotiations with Zionists. They promised that Lenin will get to power and will make a peace, and maybe they promised to use Jewish-owned media to keep the USA out of the war, but that promise they did not keep.
Vladimir Moss in 2 suggests that the secret group of people, the three hundred that Rathentau mentions, are the Bnai Brith. I do not think so. It is too public and not old enough. The group should derive latest from 1840s since at that time started pre-Zionism in Freemasonry. I end this chapter to a quote from 5:
“Who and what is in a position to overthrow an invisible force? And this is precisely what our force is. GENTILE masonry blindly serves as a screen for us and our objects, but the plan of action of our force, even its very abiding-place, remains for the whole people an unknown mystery.” (Protocol 4)
Footnotes:
1Foreign Office 371: Records of General Political Correspondence—Russia, National Archives (U.K.)
2Vladimir Moss, The masonic plot against Tsat Nicholas II
“The Masons were also joined by the Cadet A. Kolyubakin, Prince Bebutov, Baron G. Maidel, the public library worker A. Braudo, the historians N. Pavlov-Silvansky and P. Schegolev, the lawyers S. Balavinsky and O. Goldovsky, the Octobrist A.I. Guchkov, his comrade in the party M.V. Rodzyanko, the Cadet N.V. Nekrasov, the workers’ party A.F. Kerensky (in 1912, through the ‘Ursa Minor’ lodge ), the Mensheviks A. Galpern, Chkheidze, the Bolsheviks Trotsky, Lunacharsky, Skvortsov-Stepanov, Krasin, Boky, Sereda, Chicherin, the millionaires M.I. Tereschenko, A. Konovalov, P.P. Ryabushinsky (with his two brothers), Prince V. Obolensky, Countess S.V. Panina, Baron V. Meller-Zakomelsky (not to be confused with the general), M. Gorky, his wife E. Peshkova, his godson the Jew Zenobius Peshkov (the brother of Ya. Sverdlov), their friend E.D. Kuskova (a female Mason of the higher degrees), her husband S. Prokopovich, Prince G. Lvov (president of the Zemstvo and City Unions), Prince A. Khatistov (the city commandant of Tiflis), Prince P. Dolgorukov, Major-General P. Popovtsev (of the 33rd degree), Mark Aldanov, Fyodorov, Chelnokov, the Menshevik G. Aronson, the artist Mark Chagall, the cadet V. Velikhov and very many other prominent activists of that time.”2
3Freemasonry in Russia From the Grand Orient of France in Russia to the Supreme Council of the Grand Orient of Russia’s People
“Worshipful Masters of Lodges only knew three secretaries of the Supreme Council–Nekrasov, Kerenski, Tereshchenko, its full membership was kept in secrecy.”
“The meetings of the Supreme Council were held in the homes of P.P.Ryabushinsky, Ye. Kuskova, Prokopovich, Konovalov (his dacha in the suburbs), Chelnokov, Dolgorukov, and Guchkov–in Moscow, the homes of Orlov-Davydov, Fyodorov, Polovtsev, Moeller-Zakomelsky, and Gorky, as well as isolated rooms in two restaurants, Content and Au Daunond in St. Petersburg.”
“A list of ministers of the future Provisional government was discussed and agreed beforehand at the apartment of Ye. Kuskova and was just slightly amended in 1916 at the apartment of Duke Lvov and in the suite of the France hotel in St. Petersburg. Approximately half of the places in the provisional government were taken by masons from the Supreme Council of Russia’s Peoples nominated for their posts in the previously compiled list long before 2 March 1917. The first cabinet of the provisional government included nine brothers and only one profane–Pavel Nikolayevich Milyukov.”
“Lady mason Ye. Kuskova wrote to a mason Volsky (15 Nov. 1955): “We had got our people everywhere. Such organizations as Free economics society, Technological Society were penetrated by them from inside.” She further added, “up to now the secrets of this organization have not been revealed, despite it was a huge organization.”
5The Protocold of the Learned Elders of Zion. 1919 (or 1903)