How the British Invented Communism (And Blamed It on the Jews)

Greedy for power and Persian oil fields, King George V of England (right) plotted the overthrow of his cousin Tsar Nicholas II (left).

SUMMARY: Was the Bolshevik Revolution fake? Was Lenin’s 1917 coup little more than a “color revolution,” a staged event, orchestrated by foreign intelligence services? Strong evidence suggests that it was. In the 1920s, prominent Russian exiles accused Great Britain of plotting the Tsar’s downfall. George Buchanan, British ambassador to Russia from 1910 to 1918, devoted 16 pages of his 1923 memoir to denying this charge. But the charge was true. The British secret services had destabilized Russia, just as they had previously destabilized France in 1789. They had infiltrated and weaponized the Bolsheviks, just as they had previously weaponized the Jacobin movement against Louis XVI. While the Tsar was technically Britain’s ally in World War I, British elites feared that a victorious Russia would threaten Britain’s global dominance. Bolshevism provided the solution, demolishing the Tsar’s once-mighty empire, and plunging Russia into chaos and civil war. — RICHARD POE


This is one for those of a certain age. It is very long and very well researched. Trotsky was a British agent


“THIS MOVEMENT among the Jews is not new,” wrote Winston Churchill. “From the days of … Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky… this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation… has been steadily growing.”1

Churchill was talking about communism.

It was February 8, 1920. As Churchill wrote, all eyes were on Russia, where Bolsheviks and anti-Bolsheviks— “Reds” and “Whites”—were battling for control of the country.

Before it was over, some 10 million people would die in the Russian Civil War, mostly civilians, and mostly from disease, famine, and mass atrocities on both sides. From this slaughter, the world’s first communist state would emerge.2

Churchill blamed it all on a “worldwide conspiracy” of Jews.

In a full-page article in London’s Illustrated Sunday Herald, Churchill wrote: “There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. … [T]he majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. … Litvinoff… Trotsky… Zinoviev… Radek—all Jews.”

Churchill declared that the subversive role of “Jewish revolutionaries… in proportion to their number in the population” was “astonishing,” not only in Russia, but throughout Europe.

These Jewish conspirators had now “gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads,” Churchill said. Unless something was done, many more nations would succumb to what he called “the schemes of the International Jews.”

Churchill Spoke for the British Government

Many readers will be surprised to hear such words from Churchill.

We have been conditioned to think of him as the archnemesis of Hitler and the Nazis, a role he took on later in life. But, in 1920, Churchill’s views were not so different from Hitler’s, at least on certain subjects.

As Secretary of War, Churchill spoke with the full authority of the British government. His article faithfully echoed Britain’s official propaganda of the time.

In April, 1919, the British Foreign Office issued a report called the “Russia No. 1 White Paper: A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia,” also known as the “Bolshevik Atrocity Bluebook.” It identified Jews as the driving force behind the Tsar’s murder and the Bolshevik Revolution.3

The British press followed up with a coordinated, anti-Jewish propaganda campaign, largely based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a document of dubious origin purporting to reveal a Jewish plot to enslave the world.

Why did the British Establishment turn so suddenly on the Jews? I believe this was done to provide a scapegoat—a Jewish scapegoat—to deflect from British complicity in the Russian Revolution.

“Embarrassing Breadcrumb Trail”

The first-ever British edition of The Protocols appeared in February, 1920, under the title The Jewish Peril. Here too, the hand of the British government was evident.

The people involved in producing the book left an “embarrassing breadcrumb trail to the door of the British Establishment,” notes Alan Sarjeant in his 2021 study The Protocols Matrix.4 Sarjeant concludes that the Jewish Peril was “part of a sophisticated propaganda offensive conceived and financed at the highest levels” of British power.5

The translators of The Jewish Peril, George Shanks and Edward G.G. Burdon, were military men with ties to Britain’s war propaganda apparatus.6

Its publisher, Eyre & Spottiswoode, was a respected government press entrusted with publishing the King James Bible, the Anglican Prayer Book, and other works owned by the Crown.7

The Jewish Peril’s first press run of 30,000 copies exceeded that of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby in 1925.8

According to Sarjeant, the promotional campaign for The Jewish Peril “was so professionally devised that practically all of Britain’s national and regional newspapers had received a copy for review by the first week of February 1920” —that is, just in time for the splash created by Churchill’s February 8 article.9

In the months ahead, leading British newspapers promoted The Jewish Peril.

The London Morning Post ran a lengthy series of articles based on the book. “Read the startling revelations of what is causing the world’s unrest. Read about the evil Jews’ influence,” ran a July 20, 1920 advertisement for the series.10

The Times of London went so far as to question whether World War I had been fought against the wrong enemy. “Have we… escaped a ‘Pax Germanica’ only to fall into a ‘Pax Judaica’?” asked a Times editorial of May 8, 1920.11


Why did the British Establishment turn so suddenly on the Jews?

I believe this was done to provide a scapegoat—a Jewish scapegoat—to deflect from British complicity in the Russian Revolution.

To be clear, Churchill was not wrong when he said Jews were disproportionately represented in the Bolshevik movement. They were. But that was only half the story.12

The other half is that the Bolsheviks themselves were pawns in a larger game. A British game.

And Churchill knew that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that my Grandma and Grandpa—my father’s parents—were Jews, born and raised in the former Russian Empire. They lived through the horrors of the Russian Civil War, and were still experiencing those horrors when Churchill wrote his article in 1920.

I cannot claim perfect objectivity in this matter.

But I do think I can be fair.




Get the latest Tap posts emailed to you daily