Original Article in the October 2017 Smithsonian Magazine ...
The attached letter was sent on December 9, 2017, to Michael Caruso, editor-in-chief of Smithsonian magazine.
The Smithsonian Institution from its outset in 1846, has set its mission as “an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men”, and overall it has earned a reputation as a reliable and accurate purveyor of history. Thus, it was not surprising that the Smithsonian magazine, [in its October 2017 edition], would dedicate 31 pages to an article to present its perspective on the 100th anniversary of the “Russian Revolution”. However, what was surprising was that the article ‘The Russian Revolution Today’ by Ian Frazier, could best be summarized by serious historians as being mainly superficial. The author interspersed a few historical events within his personal 100 years later travelogue as he visited several Russian sites that had historical significance in 1917. Many pages were dedicated to insignificant photographs with the end result being that history was glossed over, and the destruction that was wrought at that time was minimized. Although, Mr. Frazier discloses some salient points, they are few and far between.
On the seventh page of his article, Mr. Frazier does say that the Bolsheviks “would co-opt” the energy of the initial February Revolution, and later on the 24th page he admits that “historians estimate that before the end of the Soviet Union the Bolshevik Revolution resulted in the deaths of perhaps 60 million people.” Would these important facts not be the basis for additional academic research, analysis and evaluation? Disappointing also was Mr. Frazier’s interpretation, manipulation and bypassing of key events, leaving most readers, [especially those with limited knowledge of that era], with a false, or at best a confused understanding of what actually occurred.
In 2017, we understand how revolutionary movements occur. It is critical to follow the money trail, which Mr. Frazier has mostly avoided. To understand the money trail leading to the 1917 revolutions in Russia, it is necessary to revisit the post Napoleonic Wars’ peace settlement at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. At that time, the House of Rothschild banking family was successfully expanding its operations across all of Europe’s dynastic empires, with the exception that Tsar Alexander I rebuffed that advance into Russia. This led to the City of London’s leading banker Nathan Rothschild swearing an oath that one day the Russian royal family and its descendents would be destroyed.
The House of Rothschild was further incensed, when Abraham Lincoln printed no-interest money (“greenbacks”) to help the North finance its army during the 1861-65 United States Civil War, and, then even more so, when Russian Tsar Alexander II offered Lincoln Russian naval support should he require it. As history would show, both men would be assassinated - Lincoln in 1865 immediately after having won re-election for a second term, and Alexander II in 1881 after several previous attempts on his life.
After financing many revolutionaries and revolts, and wars in Crimea (1850s) and with Japan (1905) in an attempt to dismantle the Russian Empire; and after the February Revolution had forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate, the City of London led bankers’ increased their investment in two more revolutionaries, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) and Lev Davidovich Bronstein (Trotsky) in an attempt to gain control of Russia.
Frazier obfuscates when he talks about Lenin’s return to Russia. “Through German contacts he and a party of other exiled revolutionaries received permission to go by train via Germany, whose government encouraged the idea in the hope that Lenin and his colleagues would make a mess of Russia thereby helping Germany win the war. They went on to receive tens of millions of German marks in aid …“
The reality was that German government and its leading bankers financed and sent Lenin and his revolutionaries, (who were living in exile in Zurich Switzerland,) on an armored train through Germany to Helsinki, and then on to St. Petersburg in Russia, with the specific objective of taking power, and then making peace with Germany. This would allow Germany to concentrate its forces on its western front. In fact, the Bolsheviks were still vulnerable after their coup, but the presence of the Internationalist (German) army kept the Bolsheviks in power although they had lost the election (“badly” as Frazier noted). Subsequently Lenin’s Bolshevik Russia signed the peace with Germany at Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918. There is difference between a ‘mess’ and a peace agreement!
Additional funding from the bankers of Germany and the USA allowed the Bolsheviks to feed, clothe and arm the Red Army to eventually be successful overcoming the White loyalists.
According to Frazier, Trotsky like Lenin was living with his family and fellow revolutionaries in exile, in the Bronx, in New York, in “a building that offered an elevator, garbage chute, telephone and other up to date conveniences the family enjoyed.” It is interesting that Frazier doesn’t wonder how a poor revolutionary would be able to afford such fancy accommodations. In Trotsky’s case, after Tsar Nicholas II had been disposed, his benefactor Jacob Schiff of the Kuhn and Loeb Bank financed Trotsky and his crew to sail on the S.S. Kristianiafjord for Russia to partake and help win control of the revolution.
Two other 100 year anniversaries recently passed this year. The first was the internment of Trotsky and his revolutionaries by Halifax Canadian Border Agents in April 1917. This crew was interred because of the Bolsheviks’ promise to sign a peace with Germany which would free up more German soldiers to fight on the western front against Canadians, Americans and the British. Why did the British and American governments intervene to release them to continue their journey onto St. Petersburg? The second centennial was the devastating Halifax harbor explosion of the munitions ship Mont Blanc on December 6, 1917. Was this payback for Trotsky’s earlier internment?
In early 1918, the Bolshevik coup was still vulnerable with its success still in doubt. At that point the Bolsheviks asked for German (‘Internationalist’) military assistance to safeguard Petrograd from oppositional forces.
After October 1917, the Russian Revolution was no longer a populist revolution. The new revolution was an aggressively financed top down operation using Bolshevik agents, with the result that its financiers reaped a windfall of Russian gold and other treasures, and the House of Rothschild was able to follow through on Nathan’s 1815 oath of destroying the Russian Tsar.
When Frazier comments on the 1967 New York Times 50th anniversary editorial about Soviet rule in Russia, he realizes their summarizing it as “hectic” did not suffice. However he is also reluctant to write any descriptive words about the horrors that the Bolsheviks created. Words such as ‘murderous’, ‘barbaric’, ‘uncivilized’ convey an apt description of the regime that killed 60,000,000 people and enslaved untold others. Of course the New York Times had played a major role in the obfuscation of what actually happened during the 50 years of Bolshevik rule, with their Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Walter Duranty leading the way by deliberately misrepresenting the Soviet engineered famine and mass starvation in the Ukraine in the early 1930s.
The “Russian Revolution” that the Smithsonian Institution’s magazine presents in Iain Frazier’s article definitely does not meet its stated corporate mission, [‘an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men’], of increasing the general knowledge on this subject. Unfortunately, the Smithsonian appears to be another Deep State organization that has an agenda of obfuscation on subjects that have deemed to be ‘controversial’ by its leaders and its financiers.
December 9, 2017
On the Russian Revolution (1)