861.00/3729: Telegram
The Chargé in Russia (Poole) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received 9:17 p.m.]
793. The following is reply to the first question in the Department’s unnumbered January 24th, 2 p.m.
The present intervention in the north of Russia would be more favorably regarded by the Russians in the affected areas if it were [Page 609] under American control. As already reported, the British are often tactless and interfering nor always free from suspicion of selfish aggression. As it is, however, active discontent is limited to elements among the sailors and the lowest-grade laborers who were participants in the former Bolshevik regime. I am convinced after careful inquiry that the large majority of the people of this region favor the present intervention.
Since receiving the Department’s inquiry I have ascertained the views on general Russian intervention of different members Provisional Government representing every important shade of political opinion. All favor intervention, saying that it is indispensable if there is to be peace in Russia short of the two or three years that it will take the Moscow government to eat up the heritage of accumulated capital upon which it is now living and thereby collapse. The views expressed by Ignatieff, former Chairman of the Petrograd Committee of the People’s Socialists and the most radical member of the Provisional Government, accord with those of his colleagues and, as they may be considered representative, are herewith summarizing [summarized].
The more democratic elements formerly opposed foreign intervention because they feared that the demand for it was like that of the emigrés of the French Revolution. They perceive now, however, fundamental antagonism between democracy and the Bolshevik program. The latter opposes to the democratic rule of all classes the rule of one class which in Russia represents but a small proportion of the people. This difference cannot be adjusted by agreement; force is alone adequate, and the special circumstances of the Russian revolution; have been such that the champions of democracy must seek support abroad. The occupation of Murmansk and Archangel without further advance into the country has been unfortunate; it has lent color to the Bolshevik charge that intervention is selfishly inspired, seaports alone being taken and with a view to permanent occupation. This argument, which is very Russian, is enabling the Bolsheviks, Ignatieff says, to pose on a notionist [nationalist] platform as the defenders of the Fatherland against imperialist aggression, thereby gaining lately the cooperation of certain of groups of Mensheviks and Social Revolutionists who are not converted to the Moscow government but only wishful to protect Russia. Ignatieff says that he speaks for the great bulk of radicals in saying that peaceful agreement or compromise with the Bolsheviki is by the nature of the situation impossible, and that peace can be had in Russia in less than two or three years only through military operations for which direct foreign support is needed and desired.
[Page 610]Please read my 779, January 23rd, 7 p.m.7 in this connection. To be quite fair I would add to this telegram that in recent months there has been a perceptible tendency on the part of Russian anti-Bolshevik leaders to rise above party politics into the realm of real patriotism.
For answers to other questions see my telegram 794, January 27th, 4 p.m. The foregoing to Paris as number 20 same date.