orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/15/85)
> [I guess it is my turn at Sevener-bashing ...] > Tim Sevener seems to be so delighted to play the village idiot on > the net that worrying about facts and figures would really be out of > character. His latest is to repeat the Soviet line about allied > intervention in 1918-1921. This particular piece of demonology > paints a picture of massive armies sent by imperialist powers descending > on Russia in an effort to strangle the young Soviet Republic. This > myth is in fact a crucial piece of Soviet 'historiography', both > as a legitimation of Soviet power and as a convenient reference for > Western leftists to explain away Soviet suspicions toward the outside > world. > I am not repeating the "Soviet Line". My purpose was not to prove that the U.S. launched a fullscale invasion or attempted takeover of Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. My point was that we did indeed intervene; Nobody has yet denied that fact, though there seems to be great confusion about the *facts* of that intervention. My further point was for narrow-minded Americans to consider their past behavior as many other nations see it: as often benevolent but more often imperialistic intervention in other nations affairs. Just stop to consider: Ronald Reagan scored points among many chauvinistic Americans by deriding the renewal of the Panama Canal Treaty as a "giveaway" of American rights. Imagine what such chauvinists would argue if they could say: see those dirty Commies, they invaded us in 1919, they could invade us again! All pains must be taken and sacrifices made to insure our security! Let me point out several crucial mistakes my detractors have made in presenting the *facts* of the American intervention in the Russian Civil War. One is to focus on the *British* landing at Marmansk. The US was not involved in that expedition. The US invaded Vladivostock in concert with a predominately Japanese force. Second, the purpose of this expedition has been presumed to be all sorts of things: protection of military supplies from the Germans, protection of the railroad,etc. Imagine if Britain had intervened in the American Civil War to protect British "investment in the railroads" (which was sizeable, the British I believe underwrote much of the cost of American railroads). Americans would have been rather upset. Shall we allow the Arabs and other foreign investors the right to send troops to "protect their investments" in our own country in the future? This is precisely the way imperialism works: *if* such were the primary justification for sending troops (which it was not) does that make such intervention justified? I don't think so. Anymore than various repeated American interventions in Latin America to protect the holdings of the United Fruit Co. were justified. Or the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 to protect the Warsaw Pact was justified. Since the US force landed at Vladivostock their purpose cannot have been to protect military supplies from a German army hundreds of miles away. I believe the purpose was primarily that presented in the historical article I cited: to help the Whites in the Russian Civil War and make a feeble attempt to overthrow the Bolsheviks and get Russia back into the War. Given that the German army was hundreds of miles away rationalizations that the US force was there simply to protect military supplies from the Germans just won't wash. What possibly *could* be the purpose of sending troops to another country in the midst of a Civil War? I will not argue with those who say the whole intervention was undertaken reluctantly, and with little willpower or active fighting. Nor am I arguing that it was good for the Russian people that the Bolsheviks took power rather than more democratic groups. I *would* question Jim Matthews argument that the Whites were the "true-blue" democrats and had no interest in regaining land or property redistributed by the Bolsheviks. Russia had a very strong aristocracy which refused to give up its privileges until the bitter end. While the Whites had some socialist and democratic elements I think (and this is opinion not based upon hard and fast evidence) that it was predominately supported by the just-toppled aristocracy and power elite, the reactionary generals and officers who had always supported the aristocracy in their mutual hold on power. (NOTE: there *was* another element in this whole struggle which has been ignored in this whole debate: the strong anarchist and independent Soviet factions which were against both Whites and Reds. Indeed the anarchists had control of one province of Russia for a period until quashed by the Red army. There were also Soviets which were independent of the Communist party for a period. Unfortunately these too, were ultimately defeated and coopted by the Party) But my primary point was to point out that as part of the American history of intervention in many countries throughout the world that one of the countries in which we intervened was our current primary adversary, the Russians. This is a fact which has not been refuted by anyone. tim sevener whuxl!orb