Why Don't We Remember February? None Dare...pp. 40-41

We are five long pages into the chapter about the Bolshevik Revolution and we haven't had any Bolsheviks. That's going to change and we might be willing to excuse Allen for this overly long setup because the history of how the Russian revolution happened is important...but we shouldn't. We shouldn't because of how books work...the setup for this chapter should have taken place in the previous chapter with only a brief summary at the beginning of this one. In my dissertation chapter 2 only makes sense because of some background information. However, that background was found in chapter 1. So spending five long pages (made all the longer by our format shift) on the "history" of WWI doesn't make sense. 

What else doesn't make sense is any of this. The problem with large-scale conspiracy theories is that they often times have to negotiate conflicting world events and push them into one coherent narrative. Take what we have learned so far about the Great War. English and American bankers started WWI in order to run up the national debt of the United States (so far the English debt has not been mentioned). This means that England has framed Germany for its aggression. Ok, all coherent so far. This, however, means that Germany's role in the war is that of a victim, a victim that pushed through Belgium and into France to sell the story that they were the aggressors. Ok, less coherent but so far there's no contradiction. Then Germany, who isn't really into this whole war thing, begins sinking merchant ships and enlisting the Mexican government to invade the United States. Why do this? Did the bankers force Germany to make any of these moves? Allen must think that they did or else his entire story falls apart. Germany was forced to start a way they would lose in order to raise the debt in the United States and the United Kingdom. All the rest of this is window dressing designed to sound smart without ever saying anything. 

Then there's Russia, which makes the story even less coherent. However, we have to get there first. 

Remember: Allen isn't using the usual definitions of communism or socialism. He's using special definitions that I covered in the post on July 1st. 

To get there, Allen has to run us through a familiar pattern. First he lauds the importance of the Bolshevik Revolution to the history of the world. Ok, true. Second, he explains that most Americans are taught this wrong. Ok, true again. I want to point out the move he pulls here, that I didn't notice he was doing earlier. He sucks the reader in by claiming two true facts before he lobs the bullshit at us. We are primed to accept what comes because he's already thrown two strikes (or wickets for my UK readers). So, yes, we are given an incorrect version of the Russian Revolution but Allen's "correction" isn't the right one either. 

The claim is two fold: first that there is a lie about the downtrodden masses rising up against the Russian government. The second is that Czar was toppled in the October Revolution. Allen deals with the latter first, because he's got a fact here and it primes us more if his fact is correct. Which it is. Allen writes, 

"While almost everybody is reminded that the Bolshevik Revolution took place in November of 1917, few know that the Czar had abidcated seven months earlier in March..."

Abdicated is such a lovely word, isn't it. A person abdicates, they formally say, "You know what, this isn't for me" and leaves their crown on the throne to walk away. Yet this isn't what happened to Tsar Nicholas II. Sure, he abdicated in March but that's because there was a popular uprising throughout the month of February. That uprising, which seized the capitol despite the Tsar's order to disperse the protests with rifle fire, caused him to "abdicate." The man didn't so much give up, as he was forced to by the fact that he no longer held any power over the capital city of his empire. It's like resigning a game of chess when the next move is your opponent putting you in checkmate. The only reason that this doesn't happen in February is that it lacks the number of days. 

Allen continues his history mentioning that Nicholas was succeeded by Lvov, a non-political aristocrat, then by Kerensky. Allen claims that Kerensky may have been running a caretaker government for the Communists, but he's got no proof of that. Further, the actions of Kerensky would be in opposition to the demands of the Russians at the time. The Russians wanted out of the War, they were losing to the Germans (-ish), it was bankrupting their country, and mass desertions were common at this point. The war had very little support aside from the most hawkish of Russian Imperialists and anyone a victim of the sunken cost fallacy at this point. Kerensky kept the war going. He did however offer amnesty to those arrested in the prior protests and guarantee freedom of speech right which had not existed before. Kerensky's government fell, but not because of the amnesty, but because he stayed in the war. 

The revolution situation is a lot to take in. So Allen summarizes what he said, "The year is 1917. The Allies are fighting the Central Powers. The Allies include Russia, the British Commonwealth (?), France and by April 1917, the United States. In March of 1917, purposeful planners set in motion the forces to compel Czar Nicholas II to abdicate. He did so under pressure from the Allies after severe riots in the capitol of Petrograd, riots that were caused by the breakdowns in the transportation system which cut the city off from food supplies and led to the closing of factories."

This isn't a summary like he claims. He's added the bit about purposeful planners, but then he also gets it entirely wrong. The planners began the plan in March? That doesn't make any sense. The Tsar abdicated on March 15th, so the plan only took two weeks to accomplish? And it was based on pressure from the Allies because of the riots in the Capital of Petrograd? Those riots began in February. 

What we know, and are trying to reconcile, is who was in charge? The Tsar wasn't taking orders from anyone, in fact, that was part of the problem in reality. In conspiracy-land, this represents a problem and I don't know why Allen doesn't easily fix it. He could just say, "the planners began in 1905 with the establishment of the Duma--a secretive SOCIALIST advisory board..." If he's just making it up why not push it back. Allen is a right-wing conspiracy theorist and by default, he's a monarchist, so cast Nicholas II as the victim, the social reforms as the weapon, and the "planners" as the shooter. It's easy, it makes sense, and it doesn't conflict with easily found historical facts. 

Then we get the gold train...but that, my friends makes me giddy with excitement for next week's post.