CHAPTER VIII

LENIN AND BELA KUN

HE greatest unsolved problem before the
Conference was Russia. The old monarch-

ist Russia that went into the war as the ally of France and Great Britain had vanished for ever. The March revolution of 1917, and the succession of Kerensky to power had brought a new Russia to birth. It was a Russia the Allies proved themselves incompetent to handle, and it gave place in November of the same year to a Bolshevist Russia, under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky.

The Bolshevists, it was universally agreed, could not last for six weeks. It was doubtful whether the first week of 1918 would see them in power. They had snatched a sudden advantage and would go as swiftly as they came. So the prophets of every Allied country, both the prophets who sympathised and the prophets who condemned. Yet the assembling of the Peace Conference delegates in January, 1919, found Lenin still in power, and to all appearance well established. The affairs of Russia were inextricably complicated. The Bolshevists, holding Petrograd and Moscow and the greater part of European

Russia, were encompassed on all sides by a circle of enemies. The British forces at Archangel were upholding a precarious local government under Nicholas Tchaikovsky; there was another British force at Murmansk; the Finns, the Esthonians, the Lithuanians, the Poles, were all operating with more zeal or less against Lenin. Petlura in the Ukraine was moving armies about with doubtful purpose. Denikin and his Cossacks, supported by French, British and Italian detachments based on the Black Sea, was pushing up the Dniester, Dnieper and Don. Admiral Koltchak was trying to drive west into Russia from Omsk. On every front the civil war swayed to and fro with inconclusive issue. To all appearance it might sway to and fro for ever.

That was the situation the Allies took in hand at the beginning of the Conference in Paris. They could not forget what Russia had done in the early days of the war, when Rennenkampf's incursion into East Prussia had detained German divisions that might otherwise have been overwhelming France in the west. Neither could they forget that they were at Paris to make peace, and a peace that left Russia torn by civil war could hardly be called peace at all. As it was the very question What is Russia? could not be answered. The Bolsheviks were of course not represented at Paris, for the Allies were actually, though not formally, at war with them and were starving their country of necessities by blockade. Various anti-Bolsheviks, including M. Tchaikovsky, M.

Sazonoff and Prince Lvoff, were there, but it was manifestly futile to enter into compacts with men to whom no effective authority attached at all. Either Russia must be ignored altogether or the Allies must take the initiative themselves and evolve some solution of the crisis.

Their way was by no means clear. Feeling ran high against the Bolsheviks in every Allied country. They had so weakened Russia, the charge went, as to leave her prostrate before Germany, and they had signed the surrender peace of BrestLitovsk, at a moment when a still effective Russia might have been sealing the final victory of the Allies. Apart from that, opinion in all Allied countries with regard to the Bolsheviks was divided. All classes were at one in condemning their atrocities, though the degree of credulity with which every kind of irresponsible legend was accepted tended to vary. There was a left wing in Great Britain and America and Italy and France that sympathised with much of Lenin's political doctrine, and a right wing that hated his theories hardly less than the methods by which he imposed them. To the latter class any kind of compromise or even communication with the Bolshevik leaders was anathema. The former, realising the hopelessness of attempting to subdue Russia by force of arms, were prepared to welcome any opportunity of negotiation on reasonable terms.

Another factor to be reckoned with-particularly since it continued to influence the Conference to the end-was the special attitude of France.

France had large financial interests in Russia. Her investors were large holders of Russian bonds, and when the interest was no longer forthcoming the French Government had had to assume responsibility for the payments itself. But the principal was in jeopardy as well as the interest, and it was not surprising that the bitter indignation of the French against the men ostensibly responsible for Russia's financial default should powerfully stimulate the demand for the support of leaders like Koltchak or Denikin, who would at the same time overthrow the authors of Russia's bankruptcy and undertake themselves to honour the country's obligations to its creditors.

Such were the tendencies and cross-currents of which the Peace Conference had to take account in January. The Russian problem was two-fold, concerning both the pacification of the country and its representation at the Conference. The Allied leaders decided on a move that might have settled both questions simultaneously. It was clear that if any result of value was to be attained the fighting must stop and the heads of the opposing factions must come together and discuss their differences. The decision to act on that decision was not reached without other alternatives being fully canvassed. The French were strong advocates of military intervention. When the Council of Ten took the matter in hand Marshal Foch was present at the discussion. President Wilson, according to reports which penetrated outside the council chamber, asked him what force would be

required to subdue the Bolsheviks. His estimate was 350,000 of the best troops. The President turned to Mr. Lloyd George, "How many would Great Britain supply?" he asked. "None," replied the Prime Minister tersely; "how many would America supply?" "None," said the President. Mr. Wilson then turned to M. Clemenceau, “And France?" he questioned. Clemenceau made a gesture of resignation. "None," he jerked out. That account of what happened may not be verbally accurate according to Mr. Bullitt it was Mr. Lloyd George who took the initiative—but in substance at any rate it fairly represents the discussion.

Military action on the great scale being thus ruled out, the question of a conference of the Russian groups was taken up in earnest. That solution was urged on the Council of Ten by President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George. The latter indeed was for summoning representatives of all the groups to Paris, but M. Clemenceau frowned the suggestion out of court. The proposal finally agreed on stood technically in the name of President Wilson, but the British Prime Minister was understood to be entitled to an equal share of the credit of authorship. In view of subsequent events the material portions of the official announcement drawn up by Mr. Wilson and issued on January 22nd are worth quoting textually.

"The single object the representatives of the Associated Powers have had in mind in the