“[T]he agreement never had to be honoured…. ,” he writes. “[T]he Bolshevik Government withdrew from the war and all Tzarist agreements including the Gallipoli treaty.”

In short, the Bolsheviks saved the day, by unilaterally withdrawing their claim to Constantinople.

This was a great stroke of luck for the British.

But was it luck? Or was it planning?

Broadbent suggests the latter.

Putin is now restaking that claim.

 

If the Russian claim to Constantinople was completely unaffected by who won at Gallipoli, then why would the British go to all the trouble of staging a phony attack and making sure they lost (as Broadbent hypothesizes)?

Why not go for the win?

In answer, Broadbent poses a hypothetical question. He asks, “If there had been a victory at Gallipoli would there have been a Russian Revolution?”

Probably not, says Broadbent.

In his opinion, the capture of Constantinople, and its subsequent occupation by Russia, would have caused such an explosion of religious and patriotic fervor in Russia, as to make revolution impossible.

Referring to Catherine the Great’s plan for a New Byzantium, Broadbent writes: “With the ultimate re-establishment of a new Byzantine Empire under the Tzar on the new Christian throne in 'Tzaragrad' on the Bosphorus, would the millions of Russian religious peasants, massively influenced by the victory, have flocked to support the Holy Tzar in the face of revolution, thus thwarting the Bolsheviks?”

Broadbent thinks they might have. In that case, the Tsar might have remained on his throne.
Such an outcome would have been contrary to British interests.

 

From the British standpoint, a Russian victory in World War I would have been catastrophic, Broadbent insists.

It would have meant that the British and Commonwealth troops at Gallipoli were “fighting not for a war to make the world safe for democracy but for the domination of the Slav world by Tzarist Russia.”

Broadbent concludes, “The way out of all this of course was to ensure that Istanbul remained unconquered [emphasis added].”

Lord Kitchener and other high officials of Asquith’s government would have been thinking along the same lines, as they made plans for Gallipoli, Broadbent suggests.

Broadbent’s arguments are weighty. He compels us to consider whether Britain may have deliberately pulled her punches at Gallipoli precisely in order to deprive the Tsar of the one victory that might have saved his throne.

 

How did oil enter this and why is the Petrodollar issue a continuation of this historical issue.
Broadbent’s article leaves an important question unanswered, however. If the March 1915 agreement was so inimical to British interests, why did Britain make such a treaty in the first place?

Why did they offer Constantinople to Russia, if they didn’t want Russia to have it?
Broadbent argues that it was bait to keep Russia in the war. No doubt, this is partly true. But there was another reason as well.
The British did not offer Constantinople to the Russians for free. They asked something in return. Specifically, they demanded a large chunk of the newly-discovered Persian oil fields. The Russians agreed.

 

In 1907, Russia and Britain had signed a treaty dividing Persia into two spheres of influence, with the Russians in the north, the British in the south, and a large neutral zone in between.

Now, on the eve of the Gallipoli Campaign, the British suddenly asked that the neutral zone be added to the British sphere of influence, greatly enlarging Britain’s share of Persia’s oil-rich territory.

Whatever else we may conclude about the Gallipoli Campaign, it appears to have been a bargaining chip in a high-stakes negotiation over Persian oil.

British trade was the key to the power but in industrialization oil was the key to maintaining power. Russia never realized this.

 

The Constantinople Agreement was hammered out in a series of diplomatic letters between France, Britain and Russia from March 4 to April 10, 1915. Opinions vary as to when the Agreement actually became operative.

The Encyclopedia Britannica gives the date of March 18, 1915, which happens to be the very day the Allied fleet commenced its attack on the Dardanelles. If true, this would suggest that the British held off their attack until the very moment the agreement was settled.

The Persian oil concession may very well have been the price the British demanded for attacking Constantinople.

 

In the end, the British got much more than the Persian neutral zone. The entire nation of Persia was turned over to Britain, thanks to the unexpected generosity of Leon Trotsky, whose curious connections with British intelligence we have already noted.
Following the Bolshevik coup of November 7, 1917, Trotsky held equal power with Lenin, to the point where discussions took place as to which of them would lead the new government.

“[T]he Lenin-Trotsky combination is all-powerful,” the Times of London reported on November 19, 1917.

In the end, Trotsky took the position of Commissar for Foreign Affairs, on November 8, 1917, the day after the coup. He did this to focus on making a quick peace with Germany.

But then Trotsky did a curious thing. On November 22, he suddenly announced that the Bolshevik government would repudiate all secret treaties and agreements made by previous Russian governments.

Trotsky said the treaties had “lost all their obligatory force for the Russian workmen, soldiers, and peasants, who have taken the government into their own hands…”

“We sweep all secret treaties into the dustbin,” he said

By publishing and repudiating the treaties, Trotsky claimed he was rejecting "Imperialism, with its dark plans of conquest and its robber alliances."
What he was actually doing was enriching the greatest imperial power on earth, Great Britain. Stalin hated Trotsky. Putin power comes from the Stalinist regimen. These wounds have never healed.

 

Among the treaties Trotsky repudiated was the secret Constantinople Agreement of March 18, 1915. He released the British unilaterally from their promise to hand over Constantinople and the Straits.
Trotsky likewise repudiated Russia’s extensive interests in Persia, leaving everything for the British.

 

In August, 1919, the British government took advantage of the Russian withdrawal by claiming all drilling rights in Persia for the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. (BP oil)The Persian government never actually agreed to this, but their opinion no longer mattered post WW1.

“Russian influence in Persia was reduced to nil and the British… made themselves masters in all of Persia,” wrote US journalist Louis Fischer in his 1926 book Oil Imperialism.

Trotsky’s revolutionary rhetoric notwithstanding, these actions brought no benefit to the Russian people. They helped only the British. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was now free to expand, since its chief rival, the Russian Empire, had suddenly vanished into thin air.

In 1935, the fast-growing British oil giant changed its name to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, then to British Petroleum in 1954.

If Harvey Broadbent is correct—if the British really did pull their punches at Gallipoli to prevent Russia from winning the war—then it appears their ruse was successful, greatly benefitting Britain, at least from a commercial standpoint.

This is why oil is key to what is going on today.

 

The British government plainly had much to hide in its relationship with the Bolsheviks, and therefore much to gain by deflecting blame onto others, such as the Jews.

However, Churchill’s 1920 article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald went further. Churchill did not just blame the Jews for the Bolshevik Revolution. He blamed them for literally “every subversive movement during the 19th century.”

Churchill alleged a 150-year conspiracy, dating back to the Bavarian Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt and the French Revolution of 1789. He wrote:

“This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization… has been steadily growing. It played… a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century…”

 

What did Churchill mean by this? Was he simply exaggerating for dramatic effect? Indulging in a bit of rhetorical overkill?

Or was his reference to a 150-year conspiracy purposeful and calculated?

I would say it was calculated.

Churchill’s allegation of a centuries-old conspiracy appears to be yet another cover story, calculated to distract from yet another sensitive subject which the British government had reason to hide.

 

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. It is ongoing today in the UK, EU, and USA with the help of the WEF and IMF.

 

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.

 

King Louis XVI was Britain’s number one enemy when the French Revolution broke out. He had earned Britain’s hatred by intervening in the American Revolution, forcing Britain to grant independence to the Thirteen Colonies.

The British never forgave him. They devised a plan for Louis’s removal.

They did not have to wait long for their revenge. The growing demand for liberal reform in France provided an opening.

Inspired by America’s revolution, many in France hoped for a better world, in which rank and privilege would give way to liberty and equality.

French liberals of that time tended to be Anglophilic. They viewed England and America alike as beacons of hope, sharing a common tradition of English liberty.

 

The British secret services took advantage of this good will.

Intelligence operatives posing as English reformers infiltrated the French intelligentsia, pushing French dissidents toward violence, class warfare, and hatred of the Bourbon dynasty.
No less an authority than Thomas Jefferson accused the British of using “hired” agents of influence to subvert the French Revolution. Jefferson was in a position to know, as he had been US ambassador to France when the Revolution broke out in 1789.

Jefferson and Lafayette had hoped the uprising would bring constitutional monarchy to France, leaving Louis XVI safely on his throne. But this was not to be.
In a letter of February 14, 1815, Jefferson wrote Lafayette, lamenting the failure of the French Revolution, and blaming it on British intrigue. Remember in the Federalist Papers how Jefferson hated the Bank of England control of government via the Royal Family.

Jefferson knew of the Brits debauchery and you can see it in how he wrote the Declaration of Independence when you look at what he wrote to the French.

The British had subverted the Revolution, Jefferson wrote, by sending “hired pretenders” to “crush in their own councils the genuine republicans,” thus turning the Revolution toward “destruction” and the “unprincipled and bloody tyranny of Robespierre…”

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.

Jefferson expressed the same view in a letter of January 31, 1815 to William Plumer, a New Hampshire lawyer and politician.
“[W]hen England took alarm lest France, become republican, should recover energies dangerous to her,” wrote Jefferson, “she employed emissaries with means to engage incendiaries and anarchists in the disorganisation of all government there…”

According to Jefferson, these hired “incendiaries and anarchists” infiltrated the Revolution by “assuming exaggerated zeal for republican government,” then gained control of the legislature, “overwhelming by their majorities the honest & enlightened patriots…”

Their pockets filled with British gold, these paid agents “intrigued themselves into the municipality of Paris,” said Jefferson, “controlled by terrorism the proceedings of the legislature…” and finally “murdered the king,” thus “demolishing liberty and government with it.”

In the same letter, Jefferson accused Danton and Marat by name of being on the British payroll.

Today Washington DC is filled with the same krewe = Deep State.

 

These are the people trying to limit Bitcoin and stop the BRICS from the Petrodollar system. Today the Royal family wants the CBDCs in EU ASAP. The WEG is the soldiers.

Jefferson/Madison vs Hamilton and the Bank Of England

Jefferson’s views find unexpected support from U.S. historian Micah Alpaugh, who has revealed the extensive influence British reformers exerted over the French revolutionaries. Unlike Jefferson, Alpaugh sees nothing nefarious in this influence, but nonetheless remarks on its surprising extent.

In his 2014 paper, “The British Origins of the French Jacobins,” Alpaugh notes that France’s radical Jacobin clubs were consciously modeled after an existing British organization, the London Revolution Society.

This was a group of English intellectuals who began meeting at the London Tavern in Bishopsgate in 1788, ostensibly to celebrate the 100-year anniversary of William III’s Glorious Revolution. It soon became clear, however, that their true goal was to agitate for revolution in the present day.

On November 25, 1789—four months after the storming of the Bastille—King Louis XVI was still on his throne, showing every willingness to work with the new National Assembly to form a constitutional monarchy.

Sadly for Louis—and for all of France—events took a fateful turn that day which would end all possibility of cooperation. The catalyst for this catastrophe was a letter from the London Revolution Society to the French National Assembly.

That day, November 25, 1789, the president of the French National Assembly read aloud to the legislators a letter from the London radicals.

The letter directly inspired the formation of the so-called Jacobin clubs, from which Danton, Marat, Robespierre, and the Reign of Terror would later emerge.

The letter called on the French to disdain “National partialities” and join with their English brethren in a revolution that would make “the World free and happy.”

Alpaugh writes that the letter “produced a ‘great sensation’ and loud applause in the Assembly, which wrote back to London declaring how it had seen ‘the aurora of the beautiful day’ when the two nations could put aside their differences and ‘contract an intimate liaison by the similarity of their opinions, and by their common enthusiasm for liberty’.”

This letter fueled a “growing Anglophilia” (Alpaugh’s words), inspiring the French revolutionaries to found a Societé de la Révolution, directly modeled after the London Revolution Society.

The Societé de la Révolution was later renamed, but always kept its English-style nickname Club des Jacobins—pointedly retaining the English word “club” as a tribute to the group’s British origin, Alpaugh explains

 

As Jacobin “clubs” sprang up all over France, they typically retained close ties to their English mentors.

Alpaugh writes, “Early French Jacobins created their network in consultation with British models,” such as the London Revolution Society and the London Corresponding Society. “Direct correspondence between British and French radical organizations between 1787 and 1793 would develop reciprocal and mutually inspiring relationships…helping inspire the rise of Jacobin Clubs throughout France,” writes Alpaugh

Deliberately or not, the so-called “English Jacobins” (as they came to be known) offered their French disciples a poisoned chalice of “cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and universalism” (Alpaugh’s words), urging the French idealists to put aside the narrow interests of their own country, in favor of the broader interests of mankind.
This was, in fact, a deception.

That same deception is being used today by the WEF/IMF/BIS on climate and money. These are the new color revolutions.

Alpaugh may not see it this way, but the broader interests of mankind pushed by the “English Jacobins” turned out to be little more than a smokescreen for British imperial interests.

The Jacobin Clubs gave rise to Marat, Danton, and Robespierre, ultimately leading to the Reign of Terror and the murder of King Louis XVI.

They also gave rise to a new ideology which has come to be known as communism. This is where it came from historically.

THE BRITISH to keep their power.

 

The Brits made sure it was not bred on the streets of London. British agents did it in France.

Communism was born on the streets of revolutionary Paris.

More than fifty years before Marx and Engels penned The Communist Manifesto, a faction of French radicals calling itself the Conspiracy of Equals was already preaching classless society, abolition of private property, and the need for revolutionary action.

Led by “Gracchus” Babeuf —whose real name was François-Noël Babeuf—the Conspiracy of Equals tried unsuccessfully to overthrow Robespierre in 1796.

Their conspiracy failed, and Babeuf was put to death. But his ideas live on. Marx and Engels called Babeuf the first modern communist.
No record exists of Babeuf using the word communiste, though he sometimes called his followers “communautistes” (usually translated “communitarian”).
However, a contemporary of Babeuf, Nicolas Restif de la Bretonne, often used the word “communist” in his writings, beginning as early as 1785.

Babeuf’s prosecutors apparently believed that Restif was secretly in league with the Conspiracy of Equals, and some evidence suggests he may have been, according to James Billington, in his 1980 book Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith.

 

For all these reasons, it is not surprising that the self-styled “communistes” who emerged in Paris during the 1830s and 1840s saw themselves, at least partly, as following in the footsteps of Babeuf.

“The term ‘communism’ in the France of the 1840s denoted… an offshoot of the Jacobin tradition of the first French revolution,” wrote Marxist historian David Fernbach in 1973. “This communism went back to Gracchus Babeuf’s Conspiracy of Equals… This egalitarian or 'crude' communism, as Marx called it originated before the great development of machine industry. It appealed to the Paris sans-culottes—artisans, journeymen and unemployed—and potentially to the poor peasantry in the countryside.”

Thus, Babeuf’s “crude” communism was already shaking up Paris more than 20 years before Marx was born.

By March, 1840, the Communist movement in Paris was deemed sufficiently threatening that a German newspaper denounced it, saying, “The Communists have in view nothing less than a levelling of society— substituting for the presently-existing order of things the absurd, immoral and impossible utopia of a community of goods.”

When these words were written, the 21-year-old Karl Marx was studying classics and philosophy in Berlin. He had not yet shown a strong interest in radical or revolutionary politics.

 

Babeuf’s status as the founding father of communism cannot be disputed. Karl Marx was a British agent much later.

It is therefore significant that Babeuf derived many of his ideas from British mentors, at least some of whom were British intelligence operatives. In that respect, Babeuf followed a path trod by many other French revolutionaries.

One of Babeuf’s mentors was James Rutledge, an Englishman living in Paris, who called himself a “citizen of the universe” and preached the abolition of private ownership.
“Babeuf had known Rutledge even before the revolution,” writes Billington in Fire in the Minds of Men (1980).

Through Rutledge and his circle, Babeuf became acquainted with the Courrier de l'Europe, a French-language newspaper published in London and distributed in France. It promoted such radical doctrines as the overthrow of the French aristocracy and the establishment of a classless society. Babeuf became a regular correspondent of the paper in 1789.