Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War: Part 2 Message-ID: <582@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 08:59:24 EST Article-I.D.: whuxl.582 Posted: Tue Apr 9 08:59:24 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 06:28:13 EST References: <314@ssc-bee.UUCP> <567@whuxl.UUCP> <921@ihuxk.UUCP> <1514@dciem.UUCP> <17@harvard.ARPA> Organization: /usr/exptools/lib/netnews/myorg Lines: 62 I have already pointed out that Mr. Matthews fanciful recreation of the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War is contradicted by textbook historical accounts. His other contentions are just as imaginary. > From Jim Matthews: > (1) There was nothing "imperialist" about it -- Russia could not > conceivably become part of any U.S. "empire." If it's economic imperialists > you're talking about, then that charge should be leveled at the western > businessmen who rushed to trade with the Bolsheviks -- in contrast, there > was no interest on the part of Western industrialists in funding the White > armies. As the historical account points out, in fact the Allies *did* give aid to the White armies. Moreover their intent was to remove Bolshevism and takeover Russia, or at the least install a regime they liked. The suggestion that "western businessmen rushed to trade with the Bolsheviks" is as ludicrous on the face of it as Mr. Matthews' earlier suggestion that in fact Allied troops intervened at the invitation of the leader of the Red Army, Leon Trotsky. Apparently Mr. Matthews forgets the Palmer Raids during this period: these raids on Socialists and others were justified on the grounds of the "Red Menace", specifically Bolshevism. The United States was as eager as the other European powers to isolate the Bolshevik revolution. As already noted the U.S. sent troops, but if troops would not do, isolation in terms of trade might also put pressure on the Bolsheviks. Unless Mr. Matthews comes up with concrete historical evidence to prove his claim that "western businessmen rushed to trade with the Bolsheviks" then I have to assume that readings I recall which spoke of isolating the Bolsheviks included trade. > (2) We did not "invade Russia" -- we gave very limited support to > one side of a civil war. There was no effort to take territory or extract > economic concessions, the common aims of invasions. Again, I refer Mr. Matthews to any historical account, specifically the one in my previous posting. > > (3) We didn't try to "overthrow the Government", partly because > Russia had several governments at the time. If we had really wanted to > overthrow Bolshevik control of either Moscow or St. Petersburg it would > have been a very simple matter. The Bolsheviks were on the edge of > collapse. Well, that is what the Allies thought when they sent troops to Vladivostock. Apparently they were wrong. > > (4) It is unfortunate that Russia is so big, if only because it > magnifies the cruelty that its government can inflict on that country's > people. But Russia's size does not mean that we were impotent to > effect any change in 1918-19. What stopped us was not size, or the > Bolshevik's power, but rather a lack of forsight and will. > > Jim Matthews > matthews@harvard What stopped the Allies success as much as anything was the division in the opposition to the Bolsheviks. I am no fan of Bolshevism nor I am sure were all Russians enamored of the Bolsheviks either. But when the White Army captures territories and tries to reinstate serfdom it tended to lose support more quickly than the Bolsheviks. Just as our current support for former Somocistas who killed and terrorized the people of Nicaragua is unlikely to garner much support from the people. I would suggest that you use the excellent library facilities at your location and read some history. tim sevener whuxl!orb