orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/09/85)
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
9234dwz@houxf.UUCP (04/09/85)
Allied Intervention in Russian Civil War.
Source - Encyclopedia Brittannica
A Bolshevik Invitation ?
========================
Apparently British forces were the first on the scene in
March 1918 through an "arrangement" with the SOVIET
government. They were stationed at Murmansk to "protect
allied shipping" from Germany. Now this event is 2 months
before the civil war actually started.
Allied Reasons for Intervention
===============================
Once the civil war started (May 1918) British,French,US
and Japanese forces were involved within Russia's borders
The "Allies" had different reasons (other than crushing
Bolshevism).
Britain & France are quoted as wanting to
get Russia back into the war with Germany.
* [ Either a White victory or a change in mind by the Soviets
* would accomplish this]- my comments !
With most of eastern Russia nominally controlled by the
White Army but with its forces committed against the Red
Army, Japan was able to start annexing Russian territories.
* [Japan had been taking over German colonies in the far east
* so this was pretty routine stuff for them]- me again !
According to Brittannica , US aims were restricted to
trying to restrain Japanese expansion.
* [However some neighbouring territory to recently aqquired
* Alaska might not be unappreciated] - me also
Dave Peak @ hotel!dxp
matthews@harvard.ARPA (Jim Matthews) (04/11/85)
> > 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
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (04/12/85)
> Allied Intervention in Russian Civil War. > > Source - Encyclopedia Brittannica > > Allied Reasons for Intervention > =============================== > > Once the civil war started (May 1918) British,French,US > and Japanese forces were involved within Russia's borders > The "Allies" had different reasons (other than crushing > Bolshevism). > > Britain & France are quoted as wanting to > get Russia back into the war with Germany. > > * [ Either a White victory or a change in mind by the Soviets > * would accomplish this]- my comments ! A change in mind??????? The Bolsheviks before taking power had encouraged that troops leave the front and put their commanding officers on trial. Their position that the war with Germany was a war between imperial and financial interests in which the USSR should take no part and which all socialist parties should oppose was THE cornerstone of international Bolshevik policy. It was the essence of their position as the only socialist party that stuck to its principles on the entire European continent. Peace now was the rallying cry of the Bolsheviks; it might have won them the revolution itself! It also sharply separated them from the Mensheviks. (the paranoics among us might be comforted by learning the one of the paramount slogans of the bolshevik revolution was that governments should avoid unnecessary wars, but i doubt it) Clearly, "getting Russia back into the war" could only mean getting rid of the Bolsheviks once and for all. The Encyclopedia Britannica, like most official histories, is engaging in deception on this statement of intention. > With most of eastern Russia nominally controlled by the > White Army but with its forces committed against the Red > Army, Japan was able to start annexing Russian territories. > Is that like the contras nominally controlling Eastern Nicaragua? > * [Japan had been taking over German colonies in the far east > * so this was pretty routine stuff for them]- me again ! > > According to Brittannica , US aims were restricted to > trying to restrain Japanese expansion. > If US aims were so clean and honorable, why didn't the US negotiate with the Bolsheviks to take this role in western Russia? Did it? If it didn't, I wouldn't take Britannica's set of aims at all seriously. If it didn't, the US was invading the country pure and simple. (The US negotiating with Bolsheviks? I'm just laughing too hard ... I can't go on!) > * [However some neighbouring territory to recently aqquired > * Alaska might not be unappreciated] - me also > > > Dave Peak @ hotel!dxp I must say, I'm learning a lot of official US history on this net. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw