The Fate of Empires | Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb

Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb (1897 – 1986), known as Glubb Pasha, was a British army officer, scholar, and author, who led the Transjordan's Arab Legion between 1939 and 1956 as its commanding general. Glubb was a man of his time and class, he wrote some 20 books about the Arab world and Islam, and in 1978 a short treatise titled “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival”. In this he describes a rising civilization as a society where people have a sense of duty and service, practical attitudes, a strong merchant class, and a desire for conquest.  

 

The characteristics of a falling civilizations include frivolity, love of money instead of duty, excessive reverence for celebrities, and the rise of intellect over action. Despite an empire’s geographic, religious, cultural, and technological differences, they all follow the same pattern of expansion, development, decline, and collapse. Using this knowledge, Glubb hoped that through understanding how empires decline, the British Empire could stand a chance at avoiding the same fate. Although the rise and fall of civilization are as unstoppable as the change of seasons, countries can mitigate losses by preparing for the future. 

 

Glubb formulates a set of patterns that empires experience until their eventual collapse. His framework consists of six stages that are characteristic of superpowers and follows the idea of cyclical paradigms in the historical record. Glubb estimates that on average empires last 250 years or 10 generations:

 

1. The Age of Pioneers (The Outburst)
2. The Age of Conquest
3. The Age of Commerce
4. The Age of Affluence (The High Noon)
5. The Age of Intellect
6. The Age of Decadence (Midnight)

Glubb’s formulation of collapse is inherently controversial, but he understands this keenly. Those living in or around a “collapsing” empire could never truly observe it, at least not directly - after all no citizen easily perceives or admits that the empire is failing or has failed. The human spirit is adaptive, and embraces many harsh and diverse conditions with exceptional ease. It is not a “gradually, then suddenly” - but a perpetuity of gradual decline. A collapse is realized centuries later by future hopefuls far removed, or in Glubb’s grim case, barbarians. Glubb’s sense of collapse implies a steady and progressive softening and weakening of an empire, nation, or power. “Empires do not usually begin or end on a certain date. There is normally a gradual period of expansion and then a period of decline. Human affairs are subject to many chances, and it is not to be expected that they could be calculated with mathematical accuracy.” 

 

“The only thing we learn from history, is that men never learn from history”. His central proposition on collapse stems from the questionable way empires pass down history. Glubb considered an accurate generational transfer of history a crucial guard against collapse. Powers that retained fairly objective histories would win out in the long run as a matter of historical record in Glubb’s view. “Our people are represented as patriotic heroes, their enemies as grasping imperialists, or subversive rebels. In other words, our national histories are propaganda, not well-balanced investigations.” Further, in the wider historical sense, Glubb argues that for world history to be useful - it must be an accurate and collective history of the human race. “Any useful lessons to be derived must be learned by the study of the whole flow of human development, not by the selection of short periods here and there in one country or another.”

 

(1.) The Age of Pioneers

The age of pioneers is marked by a sense of freedom and boldness characteristic of new encounters with the unknown. Pioneers are not limited to conventions or traditions. The leaders of the pioneers are creative, set the stage, and are free to improvise unique solutions and compromises. The old virtues - diligence, courage, honor, and loyalty rule the day. “Uninhibited by textbooks or book learning, action is their solution to every problem.”

 

(2.) The Age of Conquest

The age of conquest is a period of military action and land acquisition. Glubb marks this period by the simmering desire for commerce and wealth by the public. The military may be proud and honorable, but conquest is driven mainly by a merchant class who usher in the age of commerce. “During the military period, glory and honor were the principal objects of ambition. To the merchant, such ideas are but empty words, which add nothing to the bank balance.”

 

(3.) The Age of Commerce

Glubb marks the age of commerce by the ease at which goods are transported. In this period, trade is simplified and the ease of doing business maximized. The empire controls all trade routes, resulting in little to no interdependence in the domains of commerce and travel. “The means of transport were slower, but, when a great empire was in control, commerce was freed from the innumerable shackles imposed upon it today by passports, import permits, customs, boycotts and political interference.”

(4.) The Age of Affluence

The age of affluence is identified by a subtle distinction in the value and utility of education. In an empire’s high noon, knowledge is viewed only as a path to riches, with its practical and virtuous foundations taking an indefinite back seat. Glubb intuits that as with the Arab decline, there is a gradual loss of knowledge that would have bolstered the empire’s institutions. “The Arab moralist, Ghazali (1058-1111), complains in these very same words of the lowering of objectives in the declining Arab world of his time. Students, he says, no longer attend college to acquire learning and virtue, but to obtain those qualifications which will enable them to grow rich.”

(5.) The Age of Intellect

The age of intellect is marked by the common idea that education will solve all the problems in the world. It is this idea that underscores what Glubb terms “the inadequacy of intellect”. Glubb’s banal observation is that problem solving and cohesion among people depend simply on the principles that encourage self–sacrifice, loyalty, courage, and trust. Intellect is a product of these old virtues, and not the primary ingredient. “In a wider national sphere, the survival of the nation depends basically on the loyalty and self–sacrifice of the citizens. The impression that the situation can be saved by mental cleverness, without unselfishness or human self–dedication, can only lead to collapse.”

(6.) The Age of Decadence

The age of decadence is signaled by increased pessimism and cynicism among citizens as the empire marches towards midnight. Civil dissensions predominantly in matters of politics become more tribal and pronounced. The pervasive pessimism and cynicism is assuaged through various means and frivolity becomes the order of the day. Glubb writes: “Frivolity is the frequent companion of pessimism. Let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. The resemblance between various declining nations in this respect is truly surprising. The Roman mob, we have seen, demanded free meals and public games. Gladiatorial shows, chariot races and athletic events were their passion. In the Byzantine Empire the rivalries of the Greens and the Blues in the hippodrome attained the importance of a major crisis. Judging by the time and space allotted to them in the Press and television, football and baseball are the activities which today chiefly interest the public in Britain and the United States respectively. The heroes of declining nations are always the same - the athlete, the singer or the actor. The word ‘celebrity’ today is used to designate a comedian or a football player, not a statesman, a general, or a literary genius.” 

 

“In 10th century Baghdad, contemporary historians lamented the decadence of the period, which was signified by who the citizens considered their heroes. [They] deeply deplored the degeneracy of the times in which they lived, emphasizing particularly the indifference to religion, the increasing materialism and the laxity of sexual morals. They lamented also the corruption of the officials of the government and the fact that politicians always seemed to amass large fortunes while they were in office. The historians commented bitterly on the extraordinary influence acquired by popular singers over young people, resulting in a decline in sexual morality. The ‘pop’ singers of Baghdad accompanied their erotic songs on the lute, an instrument resembling the modern guitar. In the second half of the tenth century, as a result, much obscene sexual language came increasingly into use, such as would not have been tolerated in an earlier age. Several khalifs issued orders banning ‘pop’ singers from the capital, but within a few years they always returned.”

When the welfare state was first introduced in Britain, it was hailed as a new high-water mark in the history of human development. History, however, seems to suggest that the age of decline of a great nation is often a period which shows a tendency to philanthropy and to sympathy for other races. This phase may not be contradictory to the feeling described in the previous paragraph, that the dominant race has the right to rule the world. For the citizens of the great nation enjoy the role of Lady Bountiful. As long as it retains its status of leadership, the imperial people are glad to be generous, even if slightly condescending. The rights of citizenship are generously bestowed on every race, even those formerly subject, and the equality of mankind is proclaimed. The Roman Empire passed through this phase, when equal citizenship was thrown open to all peoples, such provincials even becoming senators and emperors. The Arab Empire of Baghdad was equally, perhaps even more, generous. During the Age of Conquests, pure-bred Arabs had constituted a ruling class, but in the ninth century the empire was completely cosmopolitan. State assistance to the young and the poor was equally generous. University students received government grants to cover their expenses while they were receiving higher education. The State likewise offered free medical treatment to the poor. The first free public hospital was opened in Baghdad in the reign of Harun al-Rashid (786-809), and under his son, Mamun, free public hospitals sprang up all over the Arab world from Spain to what is now Pakistan. The impression that it will always be automatically rich causes the declining empire to spend lavishly on its own benevolence, until such time as the economy collapses, the universities are closed and the hospitals fall into ruin. It may perhaps be incorrect to picture the welfare state as the high-water mark of human attainment. It may merely prove to be one more regular milestone in the life-story of an ageing and decrepit empire. 

 

It is of interest to note that decadence is the disintegration of a system, not of its individual members. The habits of the members of the community have been corrupted by the enjoyment of too much money and too much power for too long a period. The result has been, in the framework of their national life, to make them selfish and idle. A community of selfish and idle people declines, internal quarrels develop in the division of its dwindling wealth, and pessimism follows, which some of them endeavor to drown in sensuality or frivolity. In their own surroundings, they are unable to redirect their thoughts and their energies into new channels.

 

 

But when individual members of such a society emigrate into entirely new surroundings, they do not remain conspicuously decadent, pessimistic or immoral among the inhabitants of their new homeland. Once enabled to break away from their old channels of thought, and after a short period of readjustment, they become normal citizens of their adopted countries. Some of them, in the second and third generations, may attain pre-eminence and leadership in their new communities. This seems to prove that the decline of any nation does not undermine the energies or the basic character of its members. Nor does the decadence of a number of such nations permanently impoverish the human race.

Decadence is both mental and moral deterioration, produced by the slow decline of the community from which its members cannot escape, as long as they remain in their old surroundings. But, transported elsewhere, they soon discard their decadent ways of thought, and prove themselves equal to the other citizens of their adopted country. Neither is decadence physical. The citizens of nations in decline are sometimes described as too physically emasculated to be able to bear hardship or make great efforts. This does not seem to be a true picture. Citizens of great nations in decadence are normally physically larger and stronger than those of their barbarian invaders [...] Decadence is a moral and spiritual disease, resulting from too long a period of wealth and power, producing cynicism, decline of religion, pessimism and frivolity. The citizens of such a nation will no longer make an effort to save themselves, because they are not convinced that anything in life is worth saving."

If superpowers inevitably break down around the 10th generation, then in Glubb’s framework the global empire of the United States would be superseded by another great power by the year 2026 at the very least.

Reference: 

John Bagot Glubb (1978) - The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival.

 

See also:

Ibn Khaldun (1377) - Muqaddimah (مقدّمة ابن خلدون.).

Serge Bernard (Jul 25, 2016) - From Conquest To Affluence To Collapse: The 250 Year Empire Life Cycle.

John Mearsheimer (2001) - The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

William Strauss & Neil Howe (1997) - The Fourth Turning.

Oswald Spengler (1918) - The Decline of the West.

 

» When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins
to regard 'having children' as a question of pro's and con's,
the great turning point has come. « - Oswald Spengler, 1918

Lenin. Money. Revolution. | Serhii Hrabovsky

The themes linked to Lenin, money, and revolution present an inexhaustible source of inquiry for historians, psychologists, and satirists. Just imagine: we have a man who, after the complete victory of communism, urged that toilet bowls in public restrooms be made of solid gold; a man who never had to earn a living through hard work; a man who was comfortably off even in prison and exile, and barely knew what money was, yet at the same time made a considerable contribution to the theory of commodity-money relations.

How exactly did he manage to do that? Not through brochures and articles, of course, but through his revolutionary activities. It was Lenin who, between 1919 and 1921, introduced non-monetary “natural” barter between towns and the countryside. This led to the total collapse of the economy, a complete standstill in agriculture, mass famines, and, consequently, mass uprisings against the regime of the Russian Communist Party. Only then, just before his death, did Lenin perceive the true meaning of money and introduce the NEP (New Economic Policy), a kind of “manageable capitalism” under the supervision of the Communist Party.

 

 

However, our purpose here is not to explore these fascinating subjects, but to investigate where Vladimir Lenin got the enormous sums necessary to fund party activities before the revolution. Over recent decades, some very interesting materials have been published, but much remains obscure. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, the underground newspaper 'Iskra' was funded by a mysterious benefactor (individual or collective), disguised in party documents as the “Californian gold mines.” Some researchers believe this was an instance of radical Russian revolutionaries being sponsored by American Jewish bankers, mostly Russian expatriates and their descendants, who hated Tsarism for its official anti-Semitic policies.

During the revolution of 1905-07, the Bolsheviks were funded by American oil corporations aiming to push their rivals out of the world markets (specifically, Nobel’s oil cartel in Baku). At that time, American banker Jacob Schiff also provided money to the Bolsheviks, as he himself confessed. Other donors included Yermasov, a manufacturer from Syzran, and Morozov, a merchant and industrialist near Moscow. Later, the Bolshevik party gained another financial supporter in Schmidt, the owner of a furniture factory in Moscow. It is curious that both Savva Morozov and Nikolai Schmidt eventually committed suicide, allowing the Bolsheviks to inherit a considerable portion of their fortunes. Of course, large sums also came from the so-called “ex’es” (a truncated form of “expropriation”), or, in simpler terms, bank robberies, post office heists, and railway ticket-office hold-ups. These actions were masterminded by two characters with criminal monickers: Kamo and Koba, i.e., Ter-Petrosian and Dzhugashvili.

Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of rubles invested in revolutionary activities could at best only shake the Russian Empire. Despite its shortcomings, the empire’s institutions were relatively solid—at least in peacetime. With the outbreak of World War I, however, new financial and political opportunities opened up for the Bolsheviks, and they didn’t fail to take advantage of them. On January 15, 1915, the German ambassador in Istanbul sent a report to Berlin regarding his meeting with Russian subject Aleksander Gelfand (aka Parvus), an active participant in the 1905-07 revolution and owner of a large trade company. Parvus revealed his plan for the Russian revolution and was immediately invited to Berlin, where he met with influential members of the German cabinet and advisors to Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg. Parvus suggested that the Germans provide him with a large sum of money to help promote, first, the national movements in Finland and Ukraine, and second, to support the Bolsheviks, who advocated for the defeat of the Russian Empire in the unjust war in order to overthrow the “regime of landlords and capitalists.” The Germans accepted his proposal and, by Kaiser Wilhelm’s personal order, gave him two million German marks as the first contribution to “the cause of the Russian revolution.” Later, other installments followed, some of them for even larger sums. According to a receipt from Parvus, on January 29, 1915, he received 15 million Russian rubles for the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia. The money was allotted with typical German efficiency.

In Finland and Ukraine, Parvus’ (and the German general staff’s) agents turned out to be of secondary importance. Their influence on the independence movements in these countries was insignificant compared to the broader processes of nation-building in the Russian Empire. However, in regard to Lenin, Parvus hit the bull’s-eye. Parvus claimed that he told Lenin that, at that moment, revolution was only possible in Russia and only as a result of Germany winning the war. In response, Lenin sent his proxy Fuerstenberg (aka Ganetsky) for close cooperation with Parvus, which lasted until 1918. Another installment from Germany, although not as large, came to the Bolsheviks via Swiss parliamentarian Karl Moor—amounting to only $35,000. More investments came from the Nia Bank in Stockholm, which, on the order of the German Imperial Bank, opened personal accounts for Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, and other Bolshevik leaders. Order No. 7433 of March 2, 1917, allocated funds for the “services” of Lenin, Zinoviev, Kollontai, and others in spreading public peace propaganda in Russia after the Tsarist regime had just been overthrown.

The enormous sums were wisely administered. The Bolsheviks published their own newspapers, which were distributed free of charge in every town and village. A network of professional propagandists covered the entire territory of Russia, and “Red Guard” units were formed openly. Of course, this was not done with German money alone. Although the “poor” political émigré Trotsky had $10,000 confiscated by Canadian customs in Halifax in 1917 while en route from America to Russia, it is clear that he still managed to smuggle vast sums from banker Jacob Schiff to his supporters.

Even greater funds were raised during the “expropriation of the expropriators” (in simpler terms, robbing the wealthy), initiated in the spring of 1917. Has it ever occurred to anyone to question the Bolsheviks' occupation of the palace of ballerina Kshesinskaya or the Smolny Institute?

The Russian democratic revolution broke out unexpectedly in early spring 1917 for all its political subjects, both inside and outside the empire. It was a spontaneous, grass-roots movement both in Petrograd and on the empire's outskirts. Lenin, who was in exile in Switzerland, had publicly doubted only a month earlier whether the politicians of his generation (those in their 40s and 50s) would live to see a revolution in Russia. However, it was the radical Russian politicians who were the quickest to change their ways and seize the opportunity, aided by German assistance.

All in all, the Russian revolution was not accidental. It is even strange that it did not break out a year earlier. The social, political, and national problems in the Romanov empire had reached their breaking point. From a formal economic perspective, industry was developing dynamically, and the stockpile of weapons and ammunition had increased considerably. Yet, the utter inefficiency of central power and the corruption of the elite—inevitable in any autocracy—took their toll. The deliberate corruption of the army, the undermining of the rear, the sabotage of any attempts to constructively address urgent problems, and the incurable chauvinistic centralism typical of virtually all Great Russian political forces exacerbated the crisis. During the 1917 campaign, Entente troops were supposed to launch a simultaneous general offensive on all European fronts, but the Russian army was unprepared. Consequently, in April, the Anglo-French forces at Rheims failed, with casualties exceeding 100,000 dead and wounded. In July, Russian troops attempted an offensive towards Lviv, but eventually had to retreat from Galicia and Bukovina, and nearly gave up Riga in the north without resistance. Finally, the Battle of Caporetto in October resulted in the disastrous defeat of the Italian army, with 130,000 Italians dead and another 300,000 taken prisoner. Only the English and French divisions, urgently shipped from France, stabilized the front and prevented Italy from withdrawing from the war. After the November uprising in Petrograd, when the Bolsheviks and Left Social Revolutionaries came to power, an armistice was declared on the Eastern front—first de facto and then de jure, with Russia, Ukraine, and Romania.

These changes on the Eastern front were largely made possible by funds allotted by Germany to demoralize the Russian army from the rear. The military operations on the Eastern front, prepared and executed with large-scale success, were considerably facilitated by undermining activities within Russia, conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "Our chief goal in this activity was to further strengthen the nationalist and separatist sentiments, and support the revolutionary elements. We are continuing this activity even at present and completing an agreement with the political division of the General Staff in Berlin" (Captain von Huelsen).

"Our joint efforts have yielded considerable results. Without our constant support, the Bolshevist movement could never have reached the scale and influence it has now. Everything testifies to the further growth of this movement." These were the words of German Secretary of State Richard von Kuehlmann, written on September 29, 1917. A month and a half before the Bolshevik revolt in Petrograd, von Kuehlmann knew what he was talking about. He was an active participant in all those events; soon after, he would conduct peace negotiations with Bolshevik Russia and the Ukrainian People's Republic in Brest in early 1918. He controlled huge financial currents, amounting to tens of thousands of German marks, and had contacts with key figures in this historic drama. “I have the honor of asking Your Excellence to allot a sum of 15 million marks at the disposal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for political propaganda in Russia, referring to paragraph 6, section II of the extraordinary budget. Depending on the development of events, I would like to stipulate in advance the possibility of addressing Your Excellence again for additional funds,” von Kuehlmann wrote on November 9, 1917.

No sooner had news of the Petrograd revolt (soon to be labeled the Great October Revolution) arrived than Kaiser Germany allocated new funds for propaganda in Russia. This money went primarily to support the Bolsheviks, who first demoralized the army and then withdrew the Russian Republic from the war, freeing millions of German soldiers for operations in the West.

Despite all this, the Bolsheviks managed to maintain the image of unselfish revolutionaries and romantic Marxists until today. Even now, not only “official” adepts of the Marxist-Leninist creed but also some non-party left intellectuals remain convinced that Lenin and his followers were sincere internationalists and noble champions of the popular cause.

In 1958, Oxford University published secret documents from the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs (including von Kuehlmann’s telegrams) which proved the massive financial and organizational assistance provided by the German authorities to the Bolsheviks. Germany’s goals were clear: the radical revolutionaries were to undermine the military potential of one of the principal rivals of the Central Powers, i.e., the Russian Empire. Thousands of books have been published providing further convincing evidence. Yet, even today, many communist historians and some liberal researchers deny these self-evident historical facts. As German Secretary of State von Kuehlmann noted on December 3, 1917, “Only when the Bolsheviks began to receive constant investments from us via various channels and under various labels were they able to firmly establish their major printed organ, 'Pravda', develop active propaganda, and significantly enlarge their party base, which was rather narrow at the beginning.” Party membership grew a hundredfold within just a year after the overthrow of Tsarism.

Colonel Walter Nicolai, head of German military intelligence during World War I, described Lenin in his memoirs as follows: “Like anyone else at the time, I knew nothing about Bolshevism; as for Lenin, I only knew that he was living in Switzerland as a political émigré. Under the cryptonym ‘Ulianov,’ he provided my service with valuable information on the situation in Tsarist Russia against which he was fighting.”

In other words, without constant German assistance, the Bolsheviks would hardly have become one of the leading Russian parties in 1917. This would have meant a completely different development of events, probably much more anarchical, which would hardly have led to the establishment of a dictatorship, let alone a totalitarian regime. The most likely scenario would have been a different version of the disintegration of the Russian Empire, as World War I was primarily about the destruction of empires. The independence of Finland and Poland was effectively a fait accompli around 1916.

The Russian Empire, or even the Russian Republic, would likely have followed the same process of collapse triggered by World War I. Consider that Britain was forced to grant independence to Ireland, India was pushing for independence right after the war, and many other colonial territories followed suit. The revolution itself was, to some extent, marked by national-liberation struggles, as it was the Life Guards Volhynia Regiment that first rebelled against autocracy in early 1917. At that time, the Bolsheviks were a tiny party, barely known to anyone (with only about four thousand members, mostly in exile and emigration). They had no significant role in overthrowing Tsarism.

Assistance continued after Lenin’s government came to power. "You are free to operate large sums, as we are extremely interested in the stability of the Bolsheviks. You have Riesler’s funds at your disposal. If necessary, wire us how much more you need." (Berlin, May 18, 1918). Von Kuehlmann addressed the German embassy in Moscow, confirming the continuing German support for the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks held fast, and by the fall of 1918, they were channeling huge sums from the Russian imperial treasury into revolutionary propaganda in Germany, hoping to incite world revolution.

In Germany, a revolution did break out in early November 1918. Money, weapons, and qualified professional revolutionaries shipped from Moscow played their role. However, local communists failed to lead this revolution. Subjective and (more importantly) objective factors worked against them. A totalitarian regime was only established in Germany 15 years later, but that is a different story. Meanwhile, in 1921, the democratic Weimar Republic's renowned social democrat Eduard Bernstein published an article in his party's central organ 'Vorwärts' titled “A Shady Story,” in which he revealed that, as early as December 1917, he had received confirmation from “a certain competent person” that Germany had given money to Lenin. According to Bernstein, the Bolsheviks alone were paid more than 50 million German marks in gold. This sum was later officially mentioned in a session of the Reichstag's foreign policy committee. When the communist press accused Bernstein of libel, he invited them to sue him, which led to an immediate cessation of the campaign. Since Germany was in desperate need of friendly relations with Soviet Russia, the discussion of this topic in the press was abruptly shut down.

Aleksander Kerensky, one of the Bolsheviks’ main political opponents, concluded from his own investigation that the total sums received by the Bolsheviks before and after coming to power amounted to 80 million German marks in gold. In fact, Lenin never even tried to conceal this from his party colleagues. At a meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (a Bolshevik quasi-parliament) in November 1918, Lenin stated: “I am often accused of having carried out our revolution with German money; I do not deny it, but with Russian money, I am going to carry out the same revolution in Germany.” And he tried to do so, throwing away tens of millions of rubles. However, he failed: the German social democrats, unlike their Russian counterparts, quickly recognized the situation and arranged for the timely assassination of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. This was followed by the disarmament of the “Red Guards” and the physical elimination of their leaders.

They had no other option. Perhaps, if Kerensky had found the courage to order the shooting of Smolny along with all its "red" inhabitants, even the Kaiser’s millions wouldn’t have helped them. We might round off here, were it not for a report from 'The New York Times' in April 1921, stating that in 1920 alone, 75 million Swiss francs were sent to Lenin’s account in a Swiss bank. According to the newspaper, Trotsky had $11 million and 90 million francs in his accounts; Zinoviev had 80 million francs; the “knight of the revolution,” Dzerzhinsky, had 80 million; and Ganetsky-Fuerstenberg had 60 million francs and 10 million dollars. Lenin, in his secret note to Cheka leaders Unschlicht and Bokiy on April 24, 1921, demanded they find the source of this information leak. However, it was never discovered.

Was this money also intended for the world revolution? Or was it some form of kickback from politicians and financiers in countries where Lenin and Trotsky’s “red horses” were not ordered to go? We can only speculate. Even now, a significant portion of Lenin’s papers remains top secret.

Quoted from: 

Serhii Hrabovsky (2010) - Lenin. Money. Revolution.

See also:

Eustace C. Mullins (1952) - The Study of The Federal Reserve and Its Secrets.

Arsene de Goulevitch (1962) - Czarism and Revolution: From the Past to the Future of Russia.

Carroll Quigley (1966) - Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World In Our Time.

Gary Allen and Larry Abraham (1971) - None Dare Call It Conspiracy.
Gary D. Best (1972) - Financing a Foreign War: Jacob H. Schiff and Japan, 1904–05. 

Antony C. Sutton (1974) - Wallstreet and the Bolshevik Revolution.

Carroll Quigley (1981) - The Anglo-American Establishment.

 Quora (2017) - Who funded the Bolsheviks rise to power in Russia?  

Klaus Schwab & Thierry Malleret (2020) - COVID-19: The Great Reset.