1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

Who is worse in terms of trust, politicians or bankers?

Discussion in 'The Kruse Longevity Center' started by Jack Kruse, Dec 16, 2021.

  1. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    It appears to have been a British intelligence front.

    The newspaper’s owner was London wine merchant Samuel Swinton, a former lieutenant in the Royal Navy who had, in the past, performed sensitive diplomatic missions for Prime Minister Lord North.

    In a 1985 paper, French historian Hélène Maspero Clerc concluded that Swinton was a British secret agent, based upon her study of Swinton’s correspondence with British Secretary of the Admiralty Philip Stephens.
     
  2. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    In some respects, Karl Marx’s career followed a trajectory similar to that of the French revolutionaries. Like them, Marx was influenced by British mentors, at least some of whom are known to have been intelligence operatives.

    In Marx’s case, the British influence was arguably stronger than it had been with Babeuf.

    For one thing, Marx had family connections to the British aristocracy.

    In 1843, he married Jenny von Westphalen. Her father was a Prussian baron, whose Scottish mother, Jeanie Wishart, descended from the Earls of Argyll.
     
    Johan Lindstrøm likes this.
  3. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    In 1847, Marx and Engels were commissioned by the London-based Communist League to write the Communist Manifesto. The tract was published first in London, in 1848. Expelled from Prussia, France, and Belgium for his subversive activities, Marx and his family took refuge in England in 1849. He lived in London for the rest of his life. Few people know this.
    In February, 1854, Marx met Scottish nobleman David Urquhart (pronounced ERK-art)— apparently a distant relative of Marx’s wife, through her Scottish grandmother. Urquhart was a British diplomat and sometime secret agent, who became something of a 19th-century Lawrence of Arabia.

    After fighting in the Greek War of Independence, Urquhart served as a diplomat in Constantinople, where he became a close confidant of the Sultan. In 1834, Urquhart instigated a rebellion against Russia among the Circassian tribes of the Caucasus. The Circassians named him Daud Bey (Chief David), a name by which he became famous throughout the Middle East. Urquhart had a fanatical hatred of Russia, so intense that he publicly accused Lord Palmerston, the Prime Minister, of being a paid Russian agent.

    Somewhat surprisingly, Marx joined Urquhart’s cause, becoming one of the most prominent anti-Russian journalists of his day. Marx wrote blistering anti-Russian screeds for The New York Tribune—then the highest-circulation newspaper in the world—as well as for Urquhart’s own publications in Britain.

    Marx went so far as to echo Urquhart’s accusation that Lord Palmerston was secretly in league with the Russians.
    In his attacks on Russia, Marx wrote not as a revolutionary, but as a propagandist for British imperial interests. His tirades against Russia proved useful to the Empire during the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Marx was a British agent of propaganda.
     
  4. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    The alliance between Marx and Urquhart has confounded historians for generations.

    Marx was a communist, and Urquhart an arch-reactionary.

    What bound them together? What could they possibly have had in common?

    Many scholars have simply ignored this question. Some have actively tried to suppress it, by concealing the very existence of Marx’s anti-Russian work.

    In his 1999 biography Karl Marx: A Life, Francis Wheen writes:

    “His [Marx’s] philippics against Palmerston and Russia were reissued in 1899 by his daughter Eleanor as two pamphlets, The Secret Diplomatic History of the Eighteenth Century and The Story of the Life of Lord Palmerston—though with some of the more provocative passages quietly excised. For most of the twentieth century they remained out of print and largely forgotten. The Institute of Marxism-Leninism in Moscow omitted them from its otherwise exhaustive Collected Works, presumably because the Soviet editors could not bring themselves to admit that the presiding spirit of the Russian revolution had in fact been a fervent Russophobe.

    Marxist hagiographers in the West have also been reluctant to draw attention to this embarrassing partnership between the revolutionist and the reactionary. An all-too-typical example is The Life and Teaching of Karl Marx by John Lewis, published in 1965; the curious reader may search the text for any mention of David Urquhart, or of Marx’s contribution to his obsessive crusade but will find nothing.”
     
  5. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    In his 1910 biography, Karl Marx: His Life and Work, John Spargo argues that, "Marx gladly cooperated with David Urquhart and his followers in their anti-Russian campaign, for he regarded Russia as the leading reactionary Power in the world, and never lost an opportunity of expressing his hatred of it.”
    Spargo thus tries to explain Marx’s anti-Russian work in terms of an ideological aversion to Russia’s “reactionary” politics, which is to say, Russia’s feudal condition during the 1850s, whereby the Tsar held absolute power, and the landowning nobility kept more than 20 million peasants in a state of serfdom.

    This interpretation does not pass muster, however.

    In all of Britain, there was no more “reactionary” voice than David Urquhart, who openly called for a restoration of the feudal system = What the Royal Family and WEF are trying to do today with the Great Reset.
     
  6. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    In his 1845 book Wealth and Want, Urquhart argued that a serf under feudalism was better off than the paupers, miners, and factory workers of the present industrial age.
    “Serfdom, I assert, to have been a better condition than dependent labour…” Urquhart wrote. “The villain was not the slave of the lord, but… a freer man than any labourer to-day.”

    If Marx hated reaction, why then was he drawn to David Urquhart, whose “reactionary” views surely rivaled those of the most retrograde Russian landlord?

    John Spargo writes: “In David Urquhart he [Marx] found a kindred soul to whom he became greatly attached. . . . The influence which David Urquhart obtained over Marx was remarkable. Marx probably never relied upon the judgment of another man as he did upon that of Urquhart.”

    The alliance between Marx and Urquhart confronts us with a genuine mystery. If it is true that Marx found a “kindred soul” in Urquhart, then their views must have converged, in ways beyond the obvious. What exactly did these men have in common?
     
  7. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    I believe what bonded Marx and Urquhart was their mutual hatred of the middle class.

    Urquhart was a leading voice of Young England, a movement of landed aristocrats calling for a return to the feudal system.

    That is exactly what the WEF is doing today. Waging war against the middle class.
     
  8. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    The Industrial Revolution had turned British society upside down, forcing men, women, and children of the lower classes to toil long hours in mines and factories under appalling conditions and for meager pay.

    The aristocrats of Young England blamed these abuses on the vulgar, money-grubbing culture of the middle class or bourgeoisie.

    Things had been better in the Middle Ages, the Young Englanders argued. In those days, benevolent landlords cared for their serfs, as lovingly as they cared for their hounds and horses, never letting them go hungry or homeless.

    The problem of “pauperism” would vanish, said the Young Englanders, if the landowning gentry were put back in charge. The aristocrat’s ancient sense of noblesse oblige would motivate blue-bloods to provide for the poor, just as they always had in the past.
     
  9. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    To prove their point, the aristocrats of Young England became reformers in the 1840s, agitating for a ten-hour work day and other policies to help the poor and working class.

    To achieve these ends, the Young Englanders allied themselves with communists and socialists, who hated the “bourgeoisie” as much as they did, albeit for different reasons
    The 1902 Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Young England movement, “sought to extinguish the predominance of the middle-class bourgeoisie [emphasis added], and to recreate the political prestige of the aristocracy by resolutely proving its capacity to ameliorate the social, intellectual, and material condition of the peasantry and the labouring classes.”

    The key phrase here is “extinguish the predominance of the middle-class bourgeoisie”—a goal the Young Englanders shared with their communist and socialist allies.

    Thus the Young England movement brought Tory aristocrats such as Lord John Manners and George Smythe into alliance with socialist firebrands such as Robert Owen and Joseph Rayner Stephens

    Ultimately, it would bring David Urquhart into alliance with Karl Marx.
     
    Johan Lindstrøm likes this.
  10. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    The Anglo-Irish writer Kenelm Henry Digby has been widely acknowledged as the spiritual leader of Young England.

    His trilogy The Broad Stone of Honour—written between 1829 and 1848—served as the movement’s “handbook” or “breviary” (prayerbook), according to Charles Whibley’s 1925 history of the movement, Lord John Manners and His Friends.
    Whibley writes: “And he [Digby] found in the champions of Young England his most willing pupils, because… he admitted that the aristocracy and the people formed a natural alliance…”

    Regarding this “natural alliance” between nobility and peasantry, Whibley quotes Digby as follows: “I pronounce that there is ever a peculiar connection, a sympathy of feeling and affection, a kind of fellowship which is instantly felt and recognised by both, between these [the lower classes] and the highest order, that of gentlemen. In society, as in the atmosphere of the world, it is the middle which is the region of disorder and confusion and tempest [emphasis added].’”
    By “the middle,” Digby plainly means the “middle class.”

    Like Marx, Digby saw the bourgeoisie as a disturbing new force in the world, breaking the old “natural alliance” between lord and serf, and sowing “disorder,” “confusion” and “tempest.”

    Marx may or may not have read Digby, but his view of the middle class is undeniably Digby-esque.
     
    Johan Lindstrøm likes this.
  11. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    “It is not the abolition of property generally which distinguishes Communism; It is the abolition of Bourgeois property,” wrote Marx in The Communist Manifesto (1848).
    By distinguishing between “bourgeois property” and “property generally” Marx meant that his new Communist movement would not focus on fighting the landowning gentry because—according to Marx—that battle had already been won.

    The real power in today’s world, Marx insisted, was no longer the feudal lord, but the bourgeois businessman, who had supposedly overthrown the aristocrats in a series of bourgeois revolutions.

    That is why we are now asked to believe that self-made entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk are the richest, most powerful men on earth.

    In reality, we have no way of knowing who the wealthiest people are, as wealth is routinely hidden in offshore trusts, beneath layers of shell corporations, where it cannot be traced.

    There are, in fact, indications—contrary to Marx’s theory of bourgeois revolution—that certain aristocratic families managed to survive the Industrial Revolution with their wealth and power intact. They learned to thrive in the new system, living quietly in their country manors, while the bourgeoisie got all the bad press.
     
    Johan Lindstrøm likes this.
  12. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    More than 70 years after Marx and Engels pronounced the feudal aristocracy dead, the power of Britain’s landed nobility emerged unexpectedly as a topic of heated debate in the U.S. Senate.

    In 1919, the Senate was pondering the question of whether or not to ratify the Versailles Treaty, which would have required the US to join the League of Nations. Public opinion ran strongly against ratification, as most Americans—not unreasonably—feared the League of Nations would draw the US back into a dependent relationship with the British Empire.

    Daniel F. Cohalan, a justice of the New York Supreme Court, appeared before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on August 30, 1919, to argue against ratification.

    Born in New York, of Irish descent, Cohalan was active in the Irish Republican movement. He claimed to speak for America’s 20 million citizens of Irish descent, which is to say, for one in five Americans alive at that time.
    “We believe we went to war for the purpose of ending autocracy… ,” Cohalan told the Foreign Affairs Committee.

    Yet the British Empire represented, “the most absolute, most arbitrary and most powerful autocracy the world has ever seen,” he declared.
    Cohalan’s testimony on this point is worth quoting at length.

    Justice Cohalan told the U.S. Senate:

    “The ordinary American… has not come to understand that the English democracy of which he hears and reads so much has little reality in fact, and that England continues to be governed by a handful of men (highly centralized), representing, with but few exceptions, the same small group of titled land-controlling families that have governed England since the days of Henry VIII, if not, in fact, much longer. …

    The dominating figures in England to-day—those in actual power—are the Cecils and their relations [emphasis added]. Lloyd-George or some other figure that has come to represent democracy… is put forward as the premier of governing authority. But the will that dominates, controls, and finally directs the policies and actions of England is that of the master spirit Cecil, no matter which member of that family or its connections it may happen to be. …

    “Englishmen like to say that King George reigns but does not rule. That is true. The real ruling force is that handful of aristocrats who represent the landed feudal aristocracy of England and who form the most absolute, most arbitrary and most powerful autocracy the world has ever seen.”

    This is not the place to debate the question of who really runs things in this world, but Judge Cohalan’s testimony at least reminds us that the obvious and familiar answers are not necessarily the right ones.
     
  13. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Like his aristocratic mentor Urquhart, Marx had a tendency to romanticize the “idyllic” feudal past, and to vilify middle-class culture, in terms reminiscent of the Young Englanders.

    That is not to say that Marx was blind to feudal injustice and inequality. But Marx plainly saw the bourgeois order as worse.

    Marx imagined the Middle Ages as offering, at the very least, some comforting illusion of a harmonious natural order, based on “patriarchal” relations, chivalry, and faith.

    The money-grubbing bourgeoisie, on the other hand, had stripped away those illusions, leaving only “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation,” said Marx.

    Marx spelled it out in the Communist Manifesto. He wrote: “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors’, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.”
     
  14. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    ^^^Digby himself could not have said it better.
     
  15. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Most historians hold that the Young England movement petered out around 1849.

    Yet the spirit of Young England lived on, under different guises.

    It survived through the strange, symbiotic relationship between Urquhart and Marx and today it is in the WEF
     
  16. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    How did we get from the 1880's to today? Academia spread it from Ivory Towers

    It lingered, through the 1880s, in the teachings of Oxford professor John Ruskin, and two of his young disciples, Arnold Toynbee and Alfred Milner
    The Ruskinites embraced a philosophy that would one day come to be known as “liberal imperialism”—the notion that the best way to spread enlightened social policies across the world was by conquest and colonization, that is, through expansion of the British Empire.

    Milner would go on to become one of Britain’s leading statesmen. He served as colonial governor of southern Africa during the Boer Wars, and as War Secretary for Lloyd George during World War I.

    In 1920, the deposed premier of Russia, Alexander Kerensky, would call Milner the “wicked genius of Russia,” a reference to Milner’s controversial role in stirring up the Russian Revolution.
    In 1882, Milner was just an idealistic young journalist filled with enthusiasm for imperialism and social reform.
    In that year—the last year of Marx’s life—Toynbee and Milner both gave lecture series on the topic of socialism.

    Both praised Marx as a genius. Both argued, intriguingly, that socialism was Britain’s secret weapon for containing and heading off revolution.
    The core of their argument was pure Young Englandism—the idea that the upper classes could save Britain from revolution by giving socialism to the masses.
    They further claimed—once again in the spirit of Young England—that the middle class, or bourgeoisie, was the biggest obstacle to their goal.

    These 1882 lectures of Toynbee and Milner were so similar in form and subject matter that I will quote from them below, alternately allowing Toynbee and Milner to complete each other’s thoughts.

    Milner began by acknowledging Marx’s core argument that the Industrial Revolution had intensified class conflict to the point that revolution was imminent.
    However, England could escape revolution if she acted wisely, said Milner.

    “The industrial revolution in England is the type and forerunner of that which has swept over every country in Europe,” Milner said. “We got through it sooner, we experienced its evils sooner, perhaps we shall find hereafter that we have begun to discover the remedies for these evils sooner than any other nation.”
    And what were those remedies? “Socialist programmes,” said Toynbee
     
  17. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Toynbee argued that, of all countries, England was least likely to experience a revolution, because she had had the foresight to implement “socialist programmes” before it was too late.

    “Some of the things the Socialists of Germany and France are now working for, we have had since 1834,” Toynbee boasted. In this regard, Toynbee cited the New Poor Law of 1834, which had established workhouses for the poor, and the various Factory Acts, such as those of 1847 and 1848, which had established a 10-hour work day as well as other improvements in work conditions.

    Such measures, said Toynbee, had “saved England from revolution.”
    Toynbee expressly credited the Young England movement for these enlightened policies, praising Lord John Manners by name.

    “[L]et us recognize the fact plainly,” said Toynbee, “that it is because there has been a ruling aristocracy in England that we have had a great Socialist programme carried out. … [T]he supremacy of the landowners, which has been the cause of so much injustice and suffering, has also been the means of averting revolution.”

    Milner and Toynbee both agreed that the best way to head off revolution was by meeting the revolutionaries halfway and giving them some form of socialism.

    Like the Young Englanders before them, Milner and Toynbee recognized a “natural alliance” between the upper and lower classes. It was the middle class, the bourgeoisie, that posed a problem.

    Milner pointed squarely to the middle class as the greatest threat to social stability.

    He condemned what he called, “the dominant principles of economics, the middle-class or bourgeois principles which have been invented by Capitalists to justify the Capitalistic system and to maintain it.”
     
  18. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Milner continued: “The fundamental doctrine of the dominant [middle-class] school—and on reflection I think the Socialists are justified in calling it dominant, it is dominant in Parliament, in the Press, in nine-tenths of our laws and institutions… the doctrine of this dominant bourgeois or middle-class economy is that the whole business of the State is to protect the personal freedom and the property of the individual.”

    However, Milner saw a new order on the horizon, one in which the “bourgeois or middle-class” values of “personal freedom” and “property” would no longer dominate men’s thinking.
    “I don't deny that Communism may be the ultimate form of human society,” Milner stated, though he allowed that “pure Communism” might be “impracticable” for the present age.

    Impractical or not, Milner had high praise for Karl Marx.

    In an 1882 lecture on the “German Socialists,” Milner called Marx, “one of the most weighty, logical and learned of reasoners,” adding, “Marx’s great book Das Kapital is at once a monument of reasoning and a storehouse of facts.”

    Strangely and fatefully, the same Alfred Milner who praised Marx in 1882 ended up, thirty-five years later, playing a major role in bringing the first Marxist state into being.

    In February, 1917, Lord Milner traveled to Petrograd to warn the Tsar that Russia was on the brink of revolution. To save the monarchy, the Tsar must lay down his traditional autocratic powers and institute democratic government, Milner told him.

    Nicholas refused.

    In fact, Milner’s demand was unreasonable. To democratize Russia in the midst of war would have been folly. Britain had done exactly the opposite, creating a five-man War Cabinet in December, 1916, endowed with extraordinary powers which many called dictatorial. France too had radically streamlined its government decision-making for the war.

    If there was a good time for Russia to democratize, February 1917 was not it.

    Milner was giving Nicholas bad advice on purpose. He was trying to manipulate the Tsar into surrendering power to the Duma, knowing that the Duma’s liberal leaders were all in the pockets of the British Embassy.
    Milner left Petrograd on February 27. Nine days later, the Revolution began.

    On March 8, 1917 a sudden cut in food rations triggered riots in Petrograd.
    The city garrison mutinied on March 12. The Tsar abdicated on March 15.


    This was the so-called February Revolution (given that name because the old Russian calendar ran 13 days late, so the start of the riots was dated February 24). To avoid confusion, all dates here will be in New Style, not Old Style.

    The February Revolution had been well-planned. It was a revolution from above, not below.

    When the soldiers mutinied, they did not rampage through the streets. They marched straight to the Tauride Palace, where the Duma met, to pledge their loyalty to Russia’s new rulers.

    The London Daily Telegraph of March 17, 1917 reported: “On Tuesday [March 12] the movement rapidly spread to all the regiments of the garrison, and one by one they came marching up to the Duma to offer their services. … [T]hey listened to speeches from MM. Rodzianko, Miliukoff, and Kerenski, and then marched off amid cheering.”
     
    Johan Lindstrøm likes this.
  19. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich—first cousin to the Tsar, and third in line to the throne—also marched to the Duma that day, in his naval captain’s uniform, leading the Marine Guard whom he commanded.
    “I wish to declare my sympathy for the new regime, and to place myself at your disposal,” the Grand Duke told Duma President Mikhail Rodzianko.

    It may be worth noting that Grand Duke Cyril had an English wife, Princess Victoria of Edinburgh, whose father, Prince Alfred, was the second son of the late Queen Victoria.

    The February Revolution was, in effect, a palace coup, engineered by the Tsar’s own relatives, working closely with the British Embassy.

    Maurice Paléologue, the French ambassador, called this aspect of the Revolution the “conspiracy of the Grand Dukes.”

    British ambassador George Buchanan was directly involved in the machinations surrounding the Tsar’s abdication.

    On March 14, Buchanan met with the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, the Tsar’s brother, and second in line to the throne. They discussed plans to force concessions from the Emperor.

    Prime Minister Rodzianko was planning to meet the Emperor when he arrived by train that evening, and would request the Tsar’s signature on a manifesto granting a constitution to the Russian people. This manifesto would make Nicholas II a constitutional monarch, ending the 1,000-year Russian autocracy.

    But it would allow Nicholas to stay on the throne.
    The manifesto had been written by Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich—Princess Paley’s husband—with help from a lawyer. It had already been signed by Grand Dukes Paul, Michael and Cyril. The only thing left was to obtain the Tsar’s signature.

    During their meeting of March 14, Grand Duke Michael asked Buchanan if he had “anything special” he would like to convey to the Emperor.

    Buchanan states in his memoirs, “I replied that I would only ask him to beseech the Emperor, in the name of King George, who had such a warm affection for His Majesty, to sign the manifesto, to show himself to his people, and to effect a complete reconciliation with them.”

    Given the gravity of the situation, it seems improbable that Buchanan would have spoken “in the name of King George,” without first getting the King’s approval.

    For that reason, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude that King George V of England—through his ambassador George Buchanan—intentionally and officially endorsed the Russian Revolution, on the night of March 14, while it was still in progress.
     
    Johan Lindstrøm likes this.
  20. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    There is some mystery as to why the Tsar ended up abdicating, rather than signing the manifesto creating a constitutional monarchy.

    Buchanan states in his memoirs that fate took a hand. The Tsar never saw the manifesto, he implies, because the Emperor’s train never arrived that evening. In what appears to have been a carefully planned move, workmen had sabotaged the tracks ahead of the Tsar’s train, so that Nicholas had been forced to divert to Pskov, the headquarters of General Russky, commander of the northern front.

    According to Buchanan, the Tsar telegraphed Rodzianko from Pskov the next day (March 15), finally agreeing to the Duma’s demand for a constitution. But Rodzianko told him, “Too late.” Abdication was now the only course left.

    Why did Rodzianko change his mind?

    Buchanan says Rodzianko’s hands were tied. The demand for abdication supposedly came from the Petrograd Soviet, a group of socialist agitators who had suddenly announced their existence on March 12, claiming to represent the workers and soldiers of Petrograd, but with no legal authority to do so.

    “[W]hile I was talking with the Grand Duke the proposed manifesto was vetoed by the Soviet, and the abdication of the Emperor decided,” Buchanan writes in his memoir.

    There is a problem with Buchanan’s story, however.

    Rodzianko did not take orders from the Soviet. He took orders from Buchanan.

    Let us recall Princess Paley’s accusation that certain liberal politicians used to meet at the British embassy to plot revolution, among them, “Prince Lvoff, Miliukoff, Rodzianko, Maklakoff, Guchkoff, etc..”

    These are the same men who forced the Tsar to abdicate on March 15, 1917. They are also the same men appointed that day to high positions in Rodzianko’s Provisional Government. Prince Georgy Lvov was named Prime Minister, Pavel Milyukov Foreign Minister, Alexander Guchkov Minister of War, and Vasily Maklakov legal commissar.

    Throughout the night of the coup, British Ambassador George Buchanan was at the center of events.

    Following the Tsar’s abdication, on the evening of March 15, Buchanan was seen leaving the Winter Palace. Recognizing Buchanan as a friend of the Revolution, the mob “greeted him with loud cheers and escorted him back to the [British] Embassy, where they gave a rousing demonstration in honour of the Allies,” reported The Times of London.
     
    Johan Lindstrøm likes this.

Share This Page