In the midst of World War One, Russia had its revolution. It was too soon in 1918 to tell which force would come out on top but the allies had vested interests: “The defeated Germany, on Allied instructions, started to pull its troops out of the Ukraine and the Baltic states. The allies struggled to fill the vacuum. By the end of 1918, there were over 180,000 foreign troops on Russian soil and several White Russian armies receiving Allied money and allied guns. People were starting to talk about a crusade against Bolshevism. But thee was strong opposition to any more military adventures. The slogan from the left, ‘Hands off Russia,’ was gaining in popularity.”
We discussed whether we could have nipped Hitler and his Nazism in the bud and decided that was theoretically possible, but no one had the will or the foresight to do it. And so Hitler had his way and millions were killed as a result. Here we see a similar point in time, a time when the Communists could have been stopped. We had troops in Russia and there were those who had the foresight to recognize the danger that Bolshevism comprised. Why didn’t we do it? Again, it is difficult to transform the knowledge and foresight of a few into prudent action. And of course there were the ubiquitous Leftists shouting “Hands off Russia.” Haven’t they always?
Macmillian on page 72 goes on: “If they were not careful, Lloyd George told his cabinet, they would spread Bolshevism simply by trying to put it down.” Ah, here is one of Irene’s favorite arguments and we find it in the mouth of the 1919 player Macmillan describes as the most ignorant. This is such a nonsensical view I wonder if what Lloyd George and his descendents feared has ever happened in history. There are countless examples where opposing something has destroyed it or rendered it harmless. Perhaps someone who loves this precept can provide some examples of the contrary.
Lawrence
