Russian Revolution Or Bolshevik Coup Funded By Internationalists?

The Issue at question is the November Revolution. Just as much of ancient history was probably adjusted by the powerful religious authorities that existed in the past due to their tight control over narratives, so to do we find that even relatively modern history is tweaked and adjusted by the influencers of the syllabus, curriculum and research at academic institutions.

Putin: "Lenin was not a statesman, he was a Bolshevik Revolutionary". I would go a step further.

Below you will find an excellent but old talk of the variety you don't get anymore by Professor Antony Sutton, who taught economics at California State University, and was a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

When I do public domain research I always am interested in the most rebuked views, and then check out both sides of the argument, this appears sounder than the arguments opposing it which largely uses information I've already established to be propaganda as its counter argument.
In this talk, Prof. Sutton goes into his impeccable research on how a close-knit group of Western financiers and industrialists (centered around Morgan and Rockefeller in the US, and around Milner and the City financiers, in the UK) created and sustained Soviet Russia. Particularly, he goes into how Wall Street/City of London financiers used their banking institutions and their industrial enterprises to help finance and sustain the Bolshevik Revolution. Build up Soviet industry during Lenin's Five-Year Plans, both through finance, technology/industrial transfers and technical assistance. Continue to build the Soviets throughout the entire Cold War, through the same kinds of deals. This included the Korea and the Vietnam eras, during which American troops were being killed by... Western-made Soviet equipment. In his academic research, Sutton also went into how these internationalist interests also supported national-socialism, in Nazi Germany, and in general supported every brand of top-down, command-and-control, socialist type political system. Sutton was not a wild speculator. He was a distinguished academic researcher who documented his conclusions impeccably in his several works. Not being able to counter his research, the establishment (including academia) simply attempts to ignore it, and pretend it isn't there. The purpose for these Wall Street policies was very simple: to create, and globalize, what Sutton calls Corporate Socialism. A system under which everything in society is ruled by the state, and the state is, in its stead, controlled by financiers who, hence, get to rule and manage society, to their liking. In other words, to get society to work for the financiers, using a socialist state as an intermediary. This is what we now know as the globalization economic model. As a result of all the clashes of the 20th century, most notably WWII and the Cold War (fought between powers that were manipulated and controlled by these banker cliques), the world has been 'globalized'. Meaning that it has been entirely taken over by these financiers, and is ever closer to being completely ruled by them, through not only the national states and national central banking systems, but mainly through supranational agencies and institutions.

The entire argument is centered around matters raised that have been left out of the history text books, and this counter arguments have thus been forced outside the given historical established narrative which I appreciate, like this from Caleb Maupin, who I actually like generally. It focuses on Jacob Schiff and the Zionists, which I believe is a fail because I agree that the Marxists and Zionist were opposed to one another and I consider it not entirely relevant.

Or this one, which reveals the chip on his shoulder the poster has regarding the Jewish Banker conspiracy that is prevalent, which I actually understand and I don't blame him. But it falls short in content and makes a false claim reffering to the academic fortitude of callibre of reseach of the specific clip  I posted first.

Decide for yourself, but this post of mine goes into great detail as to why I know this sort of counter is irrelevant. The misunderstanding about who the globalists really are:
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/11/who-are-globalists-straight-answer.html?m=1

The accepted explanation of who the Bolsheviks were as players, their funding and who within an outside of Russia they worked with contains mostly correct facts in a standalone sense fact but is full of holes and omits all the important narrative defining facts. Here is the typical assessment: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bolshevik

The differences between Soviet and Bolshevik may also need some fine tuning, it's typically put forward as:
Bolsheviks were part of Soviets who later split to pursue their own manifesto.
Bolsheviks believed in armed struggle, whereas Soviets believed in non-violent means.
Bolsheviks propagated industrial form of socialism, but Soviets believed in agrarian form of socialism.
Soviets believed in smooth transition of society, Bolsheviks emphasized on immediate transition.
Bolsheviks’ movement was more organised than that of Soviet revolutionaries.
Unlike Soviets, Bolsheviks gave more importance to methodology of revolution than the interest of proletariat's.
Bolsheviks favoured radical party members, Soviets preferred more liberal members.
Unlike Soviets Bolsheviks did not believe in creation of a bourgeois class in the process of transition.
Bolsheviks while in power, put trade unions under state control, which was opposed by Soviets.
Bolsheviks tried to impose state controlled capitalism, whereas Soviets opposed arguing that socialism should be devoid of any element of capitalism.