Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!matthews From: matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War: Part 2 Message-ID: <31@harvard.ARPA> Date: Thu, 11-Apr-85 09:05:36 EST Article-I.D.: harvard.31 Posted: Thu Apr 11 09:05:36 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 02:27:16 EST References: <314@ssc-bee.UUCP> <567@whuxl.UUCP> <921@ihuxk.UUCP> <1514@dciem.UUCP> <17@harvard.ARPA> <582@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard Lines: 105 > > 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. George Keenan, the premier historian of this subject, states that America did *not* want to topple the Bolsheviks. We sent troops, largely under pressure from the British, but they never saw military action. Neither did the French, who in Mr. Sevener's world would be the most anti-Bolshevik as they suffered the greatest financial losses from the revolution. > 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. Mr. Sevener's recollections on this point have more to do with domestic politics here than the situation in Russia. Adam Ulam, in Expansion and Coexistance, says "In their approaches to the United States, Soviet policy-makers from the beginning used the technique of opening up vistas of a vast and profitable trade....it is startling to find Lenin in May 1918 sketching out for Robins (for communication to the State Department) a plan for Russian exports to the United States for the current year in the amount of 3 billion rubles." With Germany, it was even more clear. Ulam continues: "On May 15 Russo-German negotiations were opened in Berlin for the purpose of concluding a commercial treaty. German economic needs were far from satisfied by her occupation of the Ukraine, and the prospect of large food supplies from Russia was a powerful incentive for continued German toleration of the Bolsheviks." So who's dreaming Mr. Sevener? Not everything in history fits the convenient definitions. > > (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. Wrong, wrong, wrong! See above regarding U.S. and French intentions. The British were anti-Bolshevik, but never marched on Petrograd or Moscow. As for Vladivostok, that is ludicrous! Vladivostok is several time zones from the critical area of the war, and played no part. Indeed, America's role there was pro-Bolshevik, as we were a counter-weight to Japanese expansionism. Ulam says that in the Far East "the Soviets counted on the United States, whose interests would not allow them to permit such a great extension of Japanese power." > > > > (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 > > 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 It was too bad that the Bolsheviks succeeded in convincing the Russian People in 1919 that the Whites were bent on returning Russia to the tsars -- it's an all out tragedy when in 1985 a person with access to libraries and what-not can believe it. The Whites ranged in ideology from monarchist to democratic socialist, and all of the White leaders were to the left of monarchist. As for reinstating serfdom, that's a laugh. Serfdom was fifty years gone, and no one thought of bringing that back. What's sad is that even if Kolchak and Deniken were advocating a return to 1860 conditions, it would have been better than what ensued. As for Nicaragua, I'd have a lot more respect for the Somocistas if they were as pro-democracy and pro-human rights as the Whites were. Applying today's current events backwards almost always makes bad history. As for "reading some history", I do some of that every day. Harvard does not tolerate Russian History majors who do not "read some history." :-) Jim Matthews matthews@harvard