BC Historical Newspapers

BC Historical Newspapers Logo

BC Historical Newspapers

The Red Flag Dec 28, 1918

Item Metadata

Download

Media
redflag-1.0083522.pdf
Metadata
JSON: redflag-1.0083522.json
JSON-LD: redflag-1.0083522-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): redflag-1.0083522-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: redflag-1.0083522-rdf.json
Turtle: redflag-1.0083522-turtle.txt
N-Triples: redflag-1.0083522-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: redflag-1.0083522-source.json
Full Text
redflag-1.0083522-fulltext.txt
Citation
redflag-1.0083522.ris

Full Text

 THE RED FLAG
■■$
4
VOL. I.   No. 1
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 28. 1918
q^HBfr   Five Cents
They Are
There!
By JOHN REED
AT the present time the Allied armies in Russia—
American troops among them—are supporting
three "Governments" at Archangel, Vladistock and
Omsk. These "Governments," which are said to be*
"supported by the majority of the Russian people"
(whoever they may be), have one characteristic in
common; they stand for the return of Czardom. So
that the Allies, who started out with the scarcely-disguised intention of "restoring the Constituent Assembly," and thus setting up a bourgeois Republic, now
find themselves in the position of gendarmes of the
Counter Revolution.
According to official statements of the American
and Japanese governments, the objects of intervention
in Russia were, protection of military supplies in Archangel and Vladivostock against German and Austrian
. war- prisoners, and assistance to the Czecho-Slovaks,
who were presumably trying to leave Russia. The
most "solemn and public" promises were given by both
governments that they had no intention of "interfering in the internal affairs of Russia." But the British
government, which was associated with the Americans
and Japanese, stated through Lloyd George that the
purpose of the intervention was to create "a center
for the elements opposed to Bolshevism." And the
French government, whose aims in Russia can least
bear the light of liberal scrutiny, did not deign to publish them.
As soon as foreign troops landed on Russian soil,
the Commissaire for Foreign Affairs, Tehitcherin. ad-
dresed a note to the Allied and American governments
asking why no notice of intervention had ever been
givn to the government, and demanding a bill of complaint.
"If the Allied and American governments have any
cause for complaint against the conduct of the government of the Russian Republic," he said in effect,
"we respectfully ask why it has not been called to our
attention, that we may satisfy it. ... "    ;
When the armistice with Germany was signed by
the Allied and American governments, Tehitcherin
asked for an armistice with the Soviet government
also.
Both these communications were ignored. It may be
urged that neither the Allies nor the United States
recognized or now recognize the Russian government.
But for months all these governments carried on semiofficial relations with Russia, have made demands on
it again and again; and in March, President Wilson
publicly addressed the Fourth £ongress of Soviets as
representatives of the Russian pifrple. ... Is the only
conclusion posible from all this jfrat the aims of intervention are so frankly imperialistic that any statement
of them would be extremely compromising. . . . ?
Even those persons who were persuaded by the Sis-
son documents and other forgeries, and the subsidized
propaganda of Miliukov's Ambassador in Washington,
Mr. Bakhmetiev, that Lenin and Trotzky were German
agents, must now be considerably puzzled. If it were
true that the Bolsheviki in Russia were a tyrannical
minority supported by German gold and German bayonets, the collapse of Imperial Germany woula necessary entail the collapse of the Bolsheviki—just as it
entailed the collapse of the Ukrainian dictatorship and
the "National Council" of the Baltic provinces. But
the defeat of Germany has merely-strengthened the
Russian Soviet government. Only the most credulous
will be able to swallow the accusation of the capitalis
tic press that the Kaiser, defeated in Germany, is still
ruler of Russia!
One of the armistice terms imposed upon Germany
requires that the indemnity paid by Russia to Germany must be surrendered to the Allies—to hold in
trust for some future Russian government. This government, of course, must be acceptable to the Allies.
There remains in Russia no force with any power except the force of the Black Hundreds — the Dark'
Forces against which the Russian people revolted in
March, 1917, to the applause of the liberal world; any
other government set up in Russia must immediately
fall, for the Russian "moderates" and "liberals" have
no following whatever.
This is clearly shown by the history of the various
so-called "Governments'* which have been set up and
FAMINE IN RUSSIA
A striking light is thrown on the cause of
food difficulties which are experienced by
Soviet Russia, by a letter written on September
4th by M. Rene Marchand, the wrell-known
"Figaro" correspondent in Russia, to M. Poin-
care, the original of which has been discovered
during a search made in his house by the agents
of the Extraordinary Commission for Fighting
the Counter Revolution, and which is now published by the Moscow "Isvestia.' 'In the course
of his letter, M. Marchand deplores the fact
that—"Of late we have allowed ourselves to be
drawn exclusively into' Vdfight against "Bolshevism thus engaging, without any advantage
whatsoever to the interests of the Entente, in a
policy which can have no other result than intensifying unnecessarily the sufferings and de- 9
spair of the Rusian people, to aggravate the existing anarchy and to accentuate the famine and
civil war as well as the party feuds."
M. Marchand then reports a secret conference
at the American Consulate-General at the end of
August last, which was attended, in addition to
the American Consul-General Poole, by all the
other representatives of the Allied Governments
and by himself.
"I then learnt that the British Agent was preparing the destruction of the railway bridge over
the river Volkhoff. A glance at the map will
show that the destruction of this bridge would
be equivalent to the delivery of Petrograd to
death by starvation. The British agent added
the information that he had already made an attempt to blow up the Tcherpoff Viaduct which
would have had the same disastrous effcet on
the food supply of Petrograd. The conversation then turned on the subject of the destruction
of the various railway lines. One of the agents
mentioned that he had secured the valuable assistance of the railway employees, who, however,
were opposed to destruction on a large scale;
the corrupted employees were only prepared to
assist in th blowing-up of trains carrying war
materials. I do rht want to dwell upon details
but I am profoifljj^convinced that these were
not isolated acts ornfcfcj^rt of individual agents.
But even if they .\^eAr^olated acts their effect
would be equally pernicious; they are calculated
to draw Russian into an endless and even bloodier political fight and to deliver it to inhuman
sufferings by death and starvation. Moreover,
the sufferings would affect almost entirely the
poor and the middle classes of the population,
while the richer people and the bourgeoisie would
always be able to find the means of escaping to
the Ukraine or abroad."
M. Marchand notes that throughout the conference not a single word was uttered about
fighting Germany, and expresses his profound
conviction that the Soviet Government would
not call in Germany to its assistance.
supported by Allied troops. These governments—the
governments of the North, at Archangel, the All-Russian Provisional Governments at Ufa and at Omsk,
and the Siberian Government at Irkutsk, centered
about certain reactionary delegates to the Constituent
Assembly—Tschaikovsky, Avksentiev, Zenzinov and
others; men who were too conservative even for the
"moderate" Socialist parties to which they belonged
under Kerensky's regime.
It is a proof of the power of the Bolsheviki over the
masses of the people, and a justification of the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, that these "liberals"
and "Socialists" were forced to depend for their fighting forces upon renegade Cossacks and Chinese mercenaries under outcasts like General Seminov, Hor-
vath and Gurko, and Admiral Kolchak; upon the
Czecho-Slovaks, the Japanese and the Allies. . . . And
as was natural in such a situation, even the Allied and
American troops could not save these "governments"
from being overthrown by the Russian riff-raff they
had evoked to fight their battles.
The pressure upon the Russian Soviets has been terrible. The Allied diplomatic representatives in Moscow, it seems, made use of their diplomatic privileges
to plot counter-revolution and even the blowing up of
bridges and munitions work, after the pattern of the
Kaiser's hirelings in this country. Armed attacks have
failed. Deliberate and concerted efforts are being
mride to-starve- th^-I'fcu^inr*-^<wple irrte^ubmvr<'on; In
answer to this the Russian Soviet government, while
Allied troops were actually shooting down Russian
peasants by the thousand in the North and on the East,
treated subjects and citizens of the Allied nations and
the United States with the greatest consideration. And
in all this time they have left no stone unturned to
make peace—even, according to dispatches offering
reparation for property confiscated or destroyed in
Russia, and for repudiated debts.
Shall the United States be a party to what, after all,
has inevitably taken on the significance of an attempt
to restore the Russian Czar?
BERLIN SOVIETS TO
ESTABLISH AN ARMY
COUNCIL    OF    PEOPLE'S    COMMISSARIES
CLAIMS SOLE RIGHT TO DECIDE UPON • '
NUMBER AND STRENGTH OF VOLUNTEER " NATIONAL GUARD."
Amsterdam, Holland (Monday)—The Council of
People's Commissaries in Berlin has signed a law for
the formation of a volunteer national guard for the
maintenance of public order and safety. The law
provides that the guard shall be solely under the Council's control, while the latter also has the sole right to
form detachments of the guard and fix their number
and strength.
The guard, which is to be pledged to support the
Socialist and democratic republic is to be outside the
framework of the army, and the vol%iteers composing it are to choose their own leader*.'»
Nov. 15 Paris "Matin" said : "Let us avoid the
formation of a Bolshevist bloc in central Europe. To
prevent it, let us erect a barrier between Russia and
Germany.   Let us send an army to Danfyig."
V
& ^■^
'^m
^m
«^i*
THE RED FLAG
Wages and High Prices in Russia
ONE of the most important questions in the economic life of a country is that relating to the
struggle against the high cost of living. The wages of
the workers do not keep pace with the high cost of
living which is moving forward with terrific speed.
No matter how much wages are increased the price
of the articles of prime necessity increase much more
swiftly. The increase of wages is not moving parallel with the growth of high prices, but it moves by
jumps, under the pressure of struggle, strikes, threats,
and all sorts of administrative demands.
During the period of eight months of the bourgeois
revolution in Russia, the workers obtained a number
of changes in the scale of wages, and in this manner
they met the high cost of living; they tried to insure
themselves against a return to the old, terrible conditions of labor and wages by "tying" the capitalist with
"regulations'' for a definite period of time.
But the "regulative" contracts are of value only
when the prices on the products of consumption are
more or less stable. As soon, however, as this stability
disappears, when prices on bread, meat, butter, wood,
rooms, clothes ,shoes, and other necessary articles are
changed not daily but hourly, then these "regulative"
contracts become obsolete and insufficient before the
expiration of the time limit, and they appear to be
only an obstacle in the struggle of the workers, rather
than a weapon for curbing the capitalists. This
brings a condition where, in spite of the contracts, the
workers, here and there, demand an increase in wages
in order to prevent their condition of life becoming
worse.
It is clear, then, that to fight the high cost of living
one must choose another path, and the increase of
of wages at the present time, a time of paper-currency, does not guarantee the worker from the high
cost of living. The oftener the wage changes, the
more influence it has orj speculation, on the increase of
merchandise prices and it would have required a most
strict and exact regulation of fixed prices in order that
the increase of wages should not effect, in its turn,
the worker as a consumer, in the form of an avalanche
of high prices on all products of consumption.
The increase in wages because of the paper-currency
circulation, the tendency q^a sudden drop in the rate
of the rouble, does not increase proportionally its purchasing power. As a matter of fact, the continuous
jump in the high cost of living is chiefly the result of
the dropping in the value of the rouble. The other
side of this drop in the value of the rouble is speculation, the struggle against which must go simultaneously with other means of fighting the high cost.
And tOxfight high prices one must proceed from two
ends at once: by raising the value of the rouble, its
stability, and, on the other end, by the increase of real
wages.
It is necessary, in short, to try to make things so that
one could get more products for a rouble and that
wages should not only be given in paper tender, but
represent real purchasing power.
It is clear that this program of fighting high prices
cannot merely go on within the boundaries of one factory, or one city, but is an economic program on an
all-Russian scale.
We have already pointed out that to raise the value
of a rouble can be only achieved by increasing the
mass of products in the merchandise market.
And this is why the rouble drops in its purchasing
power, because having been forced to issue paper
roubles during the war in great quantity, we at the
same time used up a great mass of products in the war.
Even now we ^hall be compelled to issue paper
money, but our economic problem is the production
of merchandise, necessary not for war,but for the requirements of the country. If these hundreds of
thousands of workmen who work in the war factories,
will begin to produce products for consumption or machines, which lighten labor and increase the productivity of labor; if these millions of soldiers who are
listed in the armies, will return to productive labor,—
By M. BRONSKY.
then the value of the rouble will rise. For only then
the supply of merchandise will be increased in comparison with the demand, only then will those who
purchase products also be in some degree the producers of these products.
Thus, the most substantial means of fighting high
prices, that is, to fight the decrease of the purchasing
power of the rouble, is the increase of the country's
productivity, by means of increase in the number of
persons working on productive needs of the people's
economy.
It is understood, that this path is long, and that one
cannot expect in the near future apparent results. But
this is the only path leading to the goal.
But the workers cannot wait. Their wage scale
established a few months ago, can scarcely meet the
systematic rise in the prices of products of first necessity.
It is necessary to take extraordinary measures in
order* on the one .hand, to safeguard the workers'
families against a lack of products of prime necessity,
and on the other hand, protect the country against industrial disorganization.
Especially now, political power is in the hand of the
proletariat and peasantry, it would be folly and incompetence for the proletarian government to allow
the closing of factories and plants, lockout and strikes,
as a means of the economic struggle of the proletariat.
The strike is a method of struggle of the proletariat
in bourgeois society, is a means of compelling the capitalists to make concessions, under The threat of holding up the source of profits—a method which costs the
worker very dearly, and affects the whole of society.
If the government now is in the hands of representatives of the working class, and if the class interests of
the workers coincide with the interests of the whole of
society, it would have been a crime on the part of the
proletarian government to let the workers defend their
interests by the costly and difficult way of strikes—the
way of closing the factories.
We are face to face with the problem of solving the
^igh cost of living from an absolutely different angle;
owing to the unreality of the increase in wages it is
necessary to provide the workers with these products
which compose the greater part of expenditure in the
budget of the workers's family.
In the first place are the expenses of subsistence:
bread, meat, potatoes, butter, etc., further, the expenses for room rent, heating and lighting; then follow the
expenses for clothing, shoes, underwear, etc.; and then
expenses for cultural needs: schools, newspapers,
books, medicines, etc. Thus, the nominal wage of the
workers is divided into its component parts and must
cover all the above-named expenses. If, instead, part
of the money-wages is paid to the workers in products
for which they spend their wages, and on the rest of
the products to establish fixed prices,—then as a matter of fact the nominal rise of wages measured in
roubles can be stopped, increasing its real power, and
providing the workers with products of prime necessity. By organizing public restaurants for all categories of workers and their families, it is possible not
only to lessen the burden on the workers' wives in preparing breakfasts, dinners and suppers (economy of
labor and fuel) ; but it is possible to provide their subsistence and in fact to raise the purchasing power of
that part of wages which is being spent for subsistence. The public lunch rooms which can be established at the factories, or in the working quarters, can
actually increase wages materially, and not simply
nominally in roubles.
In this manner could be solved the question of rent.
Here, more radical means will have to be employed.
The expenses for rent are going directly into the
pockets of landlords who collect from the tenants the
rents on the capital invested in building the house.
This is one of the sources of the capitalist's profit,
which less than anything else has the right to exist.
The question of nationalzation or municipalization of
houses is a question of the near future.   The mora
torium on the rents is only a temporary measure and
must give way to municipalization of the houses and
State monopoly of the city real estate. By instituting socialization (municipalization) of houses, we, in
this way, decrease that part of the wages which is being expended for'rent. Simultaneously with this the
income of city and State will be increased (rents considerably lessened go to the city and State treasures);
in this way the city and the State will be able to put
into life such institutions (free schools, dispensaries,
theatres, museums and so forth), which, in their turn,
absorb great sums from the wages of the workers.
Only in this way is it possible to fight the high cost
of living.
As a necessary form of the transition period and as
a means of fighting speculation, it is necessary to establish fixed prices not only on the chief products of food,
but also on products of consumption in general.
In a word, the struggle against the high cost of living by the proletarian-peasant government cannot
tread the old path of increasing the nominal wage, but
it must follow the path of establishing a real wage by
providing all the working masses with the necessary
means of consumption.
The above article, from the Moscozv Pravda, was
evidently written just after the Soviet government was
established in Russia. How to reduce prices has a
different application when "the proletariat control the
powers of production.
Increase your production until there is an abundance of products for consumption and prices fall! Impossible under capitalism with profiteering in production, for the capitalist curtails production by closing
down his industry and perhaps diverts his capital to
other fields when prices fall to the point where the returns on capital are affected.
Premier Lenine, Trotsky, and other prominent
Soviet officials, in their addresses to the workers, have
always stressed on the absolute necessity of raising
productive power as the primary solution to the Russian problem. From manv sources we hear of their
surprising success in the face of stupendous obstacles,
externally and internally, which have been thrown in
their way.
The following clipping from the Vancouver Province of December 24, may serve as an instance corroborating what other reports say:
REAL RESTORATION.
London, Dec. 24.—Capping a growing wave of suspicion, evidenced in the Liberal British press during
the past -month, the New Statesman today makes the
sensational announcement that Bolsheviki, supported
now by many former opponents, are effecting a real
restoration of Russian order.
The New Statesman, far from being an organ of
the extreme Radicals, is regarded as being a sober element with a large circulation among Liberal intellectuals.
The article has undoubtedly heightened the spreading impression that the full truth has not yet come out
of Russia.
Agitation is increasing in favour of compelling the
government to state explicitly its attitude toward Russia. It is now regarded as practically certain this agitation will result in President Wilson being urged to
declare his stand in the Russian situation during his
visit here.
INDUSTRIES STARTING.
"Order is more thoroughly re-established in Russia
now than at any time since the fall of czardom," said
the New Statesman. "Food distribution is better organized than at any time during the whole war. Factories are rapidly starting up again as fast as raw materials can be obtained. Management of the factories
by committees railed for obvious reasons. Management by the Soviets with consultative committees of
employees has been substituted with growing success. '   '■'■*'
T—▼»
m i^i ■    ^—■—r v——r",^-""^w^ -~—<—i   ■■..., -^.
T ■ ■'» » 1 P^    I.
■»—»->■—>^if^sa«a
THE RED FLAG
"The Bolsheviki, though hampered by undesirable
tools, are clearing the country of bribery and corruption. Terror has ceased. It has been greatly exaggerated. If Nikolai Lenine had not been in bed as
the result of a wound there would have been no Tr-
ror in Moscow. There have been no executions in
Moscow for two months. During the 'Terror' there
were 400 executions, of which 60 per cent, were corrupt soviet officials. Inefficiency is being remedied by
rapid recruiting from the educated classes.
"Any government established by us will need the
support of foreign bayonets, as the Russian proletariat
ar)e thoroughly imbued with Bolshevism."
Comrades in Scandinavia and in the Allied countries 1 Arouse
a storm of protest against the executioners of the people of Finland I
Spread the news about our fate to the people of the world!
Comrades in Germany and1 Austria! If our words reach you at all,
we want to say to you, rise and put down your government. It was
the German army which defeated the workers rule in Finland and
which is now facilitating the reign of the White Terror. Do not
say to us "Am I my brother's keeper?" It is better to die than to
be an international scab and an executioner of the workers.
"The crucified labor of Finland appeals to its class comrades in
all countries. You must prove in practice that international class
solidarity does exist. Comrades and workers in all countries* listen
to the martyr outcry from Finland!----New York  "Nation," Nov. 30.
3	
rHE APPEAL OF THE FINNISH WORKERS.
The following proclamation, copies of which have
'v lately reached this country, was issued at Stock-
n earlv in August by the Central Committee of
n'Foreign  department of  the  Finnish  Workers'
vernment.
*uin    we   appeal    to    the   workers    in    all    countries.    Comrades!
(htfnl   is   the   fate   of   the   Socialist   workers   in   Finland.     Four
ftths have elapsed since the defeat of the revolution, but still the
hite Terror is raging in the country,    it is obvious that the Finn-
li bourgeoisie intends to destroy all the organized Socialist workers,
.11   the   seventy   or   eighty   thousand   revolutionaries,   who   are   now
starving in detention camps in various parts of the country.
From day to dny the endless destruction of the organized workers
continues. Hundreds die every day of hunger and disease. From
day to day their executions go on, based upon decisions of special
field court-martials., and instigated by the spirit of revenbe and
class hatred on the part of individuals. In every detention camp
the number of such murdered workers grows into hundreds upon
hundreds. It is estimated that the White Terror in Finland has
already killed almost as many people as lost their lives in the
civil war—about 20,000 men. women and children; and this mad
orgy of murder is not yet ended.
More than 100 field court-martials pronounce their sentences, life
imprisonment, long prison terms, confiscation of private property of
individuals. They are not treated as prisoners of war, but as ordinary criminals who are accused of murder, pillage, etc.. the verdict covering all their acts from the time of the Socialist Government, and action taken in open warfare during the civil war. Arbitrary  decisions of  the  courts  and  class hatred  dictate  the  sentences.
The White Guards themselves say that the life of a Socialist is
not worth that of a dog, and without any penalty anyone may kill
a Socialist at any time.
Comrade!, workers of all countries. Listen to the rfiarty- outcry
of organized labor in Finland. Let your voice be heard! The White
Terror, which the Finnish bourgeoisie does not want to stop, intends
to destroy the proletariat of Finland to the hist man and woman.
We appeal to that international solidarity which has been proclaimed
so long. Urge your governments to take up the blood question of
Finland!
Comrades in Russia, who yourselves have experienced the cruelties
of the White Uuards' Remember the fate of the revolutionary workers of Finland, and be ready to fight to the last (Jrop of blood
against the attacking enemies of the revolution; and arouse the
workers in other countries in our defense(
RUSSIA AND THE CZECHO-SLOVAKS.
A Stockholm dispatch of November 3, announced
that M. Tschitcherin, People's Commissary for Foreign Affairs, had telegraphed to the Provisional
Czecho-Slovak Government at Prague offering to
allow the Czecho-Slovaks in Russia to return borne
if they would lay down their arms and guarantee
their safety. On this point the following statement
sen tout by Russian wireless on Nov. 1, is close up in
forming. The statement is a good example of Russian official documents frequently communicated to
the press by the British Government and printed in
leading newspapers.
"The Russian Workmen's and Peasants' Councils'
Government, which represents large masses of the
working population of Russia, and which in all its
actions has always expressed its will to defend the
interests of the laboring classes, this Russian Government declares solemnly to the Provisional Government of the Czecho-Slovaks that never has it ever
entered their minds to deliver the Czecho-Slovaks,
who have found refuge in Russia, over to Austria-
Hungarians."
This is a baseless affirmation on the part of the
counter-revolutionary caluminators. At the beginning of this year the Councils' Government agreed
with the French and English Governments as to permission for the Czecho-Slovaks in Russia to go to
France, but months and months passed, and France,
in spite of her promise did not furnish the ships for
transporting these Czecho-Slovaks. In the meantime,
agents of the French and English capitalistic governments led the Czecho-Slovaks into error, and subject
ed them to counter-revolutionary influences. They
put at their head Russian reactionaries, agents of the
infamous oldCzarist regime. All measures which the
Councils' Government was forced to take against the
Czecho-Slovaks were merely measures of legitimate j|-
defense against the counter-revolutionary movement,
which aimed at the deposition of the people's authority in Russia. The many victories won by the Red
army of revolutionary workmen and peasants of
Russia over the Czecho-Slovak detachments and
White Guards, prove that the Czecho-Slovak detachments are powerless to depose the revolutionary government of Russian workmen and peasants. The
Councils' Government, in spite of the success of its
forces, has no other wish than to terminate this useless shedding of blood, and declares to the Provisional
Government of the Czecho-Slovaks that it is ready to
allow the Czecho-Slovaks to cross Russia as soon as
they have laid down their arms, and to give them a
complete guarantee as regards security for their return home.
The Councils' Government wishes to enter into
direct negotiations with the Provisional Government
of the Czecho-Slovaks, with a view to elaborating the
conditions for the return home of those Czecho-Slovaks who are willing to go back to the territories
which are now under the authority of the Czechoslovak Provisional Government of Prague. The
Councils' Government will thank the Czecho-Slovak
Government for a reply."
(Signed) Tschitcherin,
People's Commissary for Foreign Affairs.
Moscow, Oct. 31, 1918.
New York "Nation" of Nov. 3th.
BOLSHEVIST TROOPS CONTINUE ADVANCE
The Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 19.
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (Wednesday)—A message from the Esthonian War Department to the Esthonian delegation here states:
"The Bolshevist forces are advancing on a wide
front. The winter weather and condition of the roads
makes defense difficult. Our small army is facing
the Lettish Bolsheviki, who are 20 miles from Dor-
pat.
"They are likely to occupy the town before the
German evacuation on Friday. We have evacuated
Wesenberg."
An Open Letter to American Liberals
By SANTERI NUORTEVA.
Representative of the Finnish Workers' Republic.
THE letter that follows has been sent to a number
of prominent American liberals with whom
Comrade Nuorteva, as official representative of the
People's Republic of Finland, has repeatedly had occasion to discuss the general situation in Russia and in
Finland. ,
They have shown interest in and appreciation of the
importance and difficulty of the problems which the
peoples of the countries in question were called upon
to solve.
Comrade Nuorteva addressed these gentlemen not
purely and solely as a personal matter, but as exponents and representatives of a group that has preserved
and embodies the best American traditions, without
having become contaminated by the sordidness of machine politics—the liberals of America.
They must accept the responsibility that goes with
their station as well as with their historical antecedents—either protest against what they cannot justify
or become responsible as fully as if they had themselves done that which they failed to oppose.
Sir:
So it did happen after all. America, the "sponsor
of the new freedom," America, the "founder of world
democracy," is in Russia to-day, together with the
Japanese, British, French and Italians, Colonel Sem-
enoflf, General Horvath and other Russian reactionaries, to destroy the Bolshevist revolution. That is
what the intervention amounts to, all reassurances notwithstanding.
I don't know that I have any business to write to
you about Rus^a. I don't know that you have any
time or interest to spare to consider the world drama
which is being played in the far East. I don't know
whether your patriotic efforts at bringing about class
harmony in America will leave you time enough to
see how your government and other governments are
trying their utmost to prove to the world in Russia
that conflicting class interests never can be conciliated.
Yet. somehow, I cannot refrain from writing you
these lines. The greatest crime the history of the
world ever has witnessed is being perpetrated against
the Russian people—under the guise of "helping Russia,"—a crime as much blacker than that of the German imperialists, as is a stab in the back from a man
pretending to be a friend more repugnant than a blow
in the face from a confessed enemy. The Germans
were at least frank in their indecency. They never
pretended "helping Russia." And in Germany even
the despicable Scheidemanns had enough moral stamina to raise their voices in the German Reichstag
against the brigand terms imposed upon Russia by
the Brest-Litovsk "peace" treaty. German papers
printed vigorous criticism of Germany's policy in Russia. Here nobody dares to say anything,—least of
all you, the so-called liberals, who have been trying to
persuade us. the "dogmatic Socialists," that class interests are not the paramount issue in the world war
and that there is some guarantee to the democracy of
the world in the idealistic aims of great individuals.
What are you doing in Russia, sir? I am saying you,
because as long as you have not raised your voice in
protest, you arc responsible for it along with all the
others.
Why did you go to Russia, and what do you expect
to get out of it? You went there to"help the Czechoslovaks," of course! That is what the diplomatic declarations said. To help the Czecho-Slovaks to get
out of Russia to fight on the western front. But aside
from the fact that these declarations speak of the
westward movement of the Czecho-Slovaks,—and nobody certainly imagines that the Czecho-Slovaks can
go to the western front by moving westward from
Siberia—you will remember that the intervention plans
regarding Russia were laid long before the editors of
the American papers learned how to spell the name of
Czecho-Slovaks, or before they knew whether the
Czecho-Slovaks were inhabitans of Africa or Aus-
- tralia.
Some time ago I saw a plan of Russian intervention,
which was submitted to the State Department by some
great defenders of American business and democracy.
It was submitted last March, and it openly spoke of
the necessity of funding a pretext for intervention in
Russia. Very frankly it contemplated the possibility
of inducing somebody to invite an Allied intervention.
The Cadet Party was expected to do the inviting-
even the Cadets did not dare openly to invite foreign
intervention in Russia. The statement purporting to
come from the Cadet Party, inviting Allied intervention, was fabricated in Paris by former Russian ambassadors and other adventurers who represented nobody but themselves. Even Kerensky could not be
induced to plead for an armed intervention in Russia,
(Continued on page 6,) ^•m^^
^^
w
I ■
I
I
THE RED FLAG
A Problem in Tactics
'   :
:"t
I I
: !
ft
Bv LOUIS C. FRA1NA
■I
THE great fact of contemporary history is the proletarian revolution in action. This great fact, the
affirmation in life of the theory of Socialism, is now
deciding the destiny of the proletariat, and of the
world.
And the great fact of contemporary Socialism is
that this proletarian revolution proceeds by means of
an implacable struggle between Socialism and Socialism, between mutually exclusive conceptions of Socialism. t
The uncritical Socialist rhapsodizes over the coming of Socialism in Russia, over the "Socialist" Republic in Germany; Socialism, is conquering! But
which Socialism—what conception of Socialism?
The proletarian revolution is in action in Germany,
has been for one year and a half in action in Russia;
and the most unrelenting enemy of this revolution, the
enemy behind whom skulks the forces of Capitalism
and reaction, is Socialism itself, or rather that "majority" Socialism which dominated the International before the war and betrayed Socialism during the war by
transforming itself into an ally of social-imperialism.
In developing its action against Capitalism and Imperialism the revolutionary proletariat met a staggering surprise—the opposition of Socialism. Shaken
by the impact of revolutionary events, and verging on
collapse, Capitalism built its last line of defense—an
alliance with the moderate, opportunistic "majority"
Socialism. The real struggle in Russia, the real struggle in Germany now, is not between Socialism and
Capitalism, but between Socialism and "Socialism,"
between revolutionary "minority" Socialism and petty
bourgeois "majority" Socialism. The proletarian re-
olution against Capitalism and Imperialism is equally
a revolution against the old moderate, petty bourgeois
Socialism; the decisive phase of the Revolution and
tl-e decisive phase of the coming reconstruction of international Socialism—a fact which the American Socialist press either completely ignores or camouflages.
Tn Russia, in March, 1917, Czarism was overthrown
and a bourgeois republic organized. Immediately antagonism developed between bourgeois and proletarian,
between Capitalism and Socialism. Shaken by revolutionary proletarian action, by the determination of
tie proletariat to break through the breach created in
the old order for action and the conquest of power,
the bourgeosie concluded an alliance with moderate
Socialism, with the "Socialism" of Cheidse, Plekhanov,
Tseretelli, the Socialism of the Mensheviki and the
Social-Revolutionary Party. What was this Socialism? In substance, in tactics, ideology and immediate purposes, it was identical with the majority
Socialism that dominated the International during the
war (and which is still dominant, except in Russia,
Germany and Italy). It was this Socialism that was
dominant in Russia before the Revolution, that captured the immagination of the Socialists of the world,
that was considered the real expression of the Russian Socialist movement. This Socialism concluded
an alliance with the bourgeoisie, by means of a "coalition government;" it opposed the coming of the proletarian revolution, acted by all means in its power
against the revolutionary proletariat. After the proletarian revolution, in spite of all, conquered power,
after a new Socialist state of the unified Soviets was
organised, this "majority" Socialism stayed in the
opposition, and elements of it, such as Maslov and
Tchaikovsky, made agreements with international Imperialism for armed intervention—against the Soviet
Republic, against the Russian masses, against the
proletarian revolution! The decisive struggle in Russia was the struggle between revolutionary proletarian
Socialism and moderate petty bourgeois Socialism.
A parallel course is being pursued by events in Germany. The "majority" Socialism of Scheidermann,
Ebert & Co., of the Social-Democratic Party, of that
party which before the war (and even now, in some
quarters) was considered the exemplar of a Socialist
Party, did all in its power to prevent action against
the war and the government, to prevent the coming of
a revolution; this "Socialism'' intrigued against the
proletarian revolution in Russia, trying to use it in
the nationalistic interests of Germany, crushing the efforts of the masses to act in sympathy and solidarity
with revolutionary Russia; and ten days before the
mass action of the German proletariat flared up into
the Revolution, this "majority" Socialism issued a
proclamation against revolutionary action, against
even strikes and demonstrations hostile to the government- But the revolution came; and now the "majority" Socialism of the Social-Democratic Party, the
model 6f moderate Socialism everywhere, opposes the
completion of the revolution, through its slavery to
the petty bourgeois democracy of the Constituent Assembly it promotes Capitalism, tries to stultify the
revolution within the limits of petty bourgeois action
and reforms, is the real enemy of the revolution, the
last line of defense of Imperialism and Capitalism in
Germany. Simultaneously the pure (in type, but not
in spirit) "Menshevik" Socialism of the "centre" Independent Socialists, of Haase & Co., acts equally
against the revolution, by wavering between Scheide-
mann and Leibknecht, between petty bourgeois Socialism and proletarian Socialism. The democratic,
parliamentary republic is organized in Germany, but
instead of the struggle to transform this bourgeois
republic into a Socialist republic, moderate Socialism
in Germany, as in Russia, engages in the counter-revolutionary struggle to prevent this transformation!
Why?
All sorts of arguments are made to explain, or condone, the attitude of moderate Socialism in Russia.
The war, sav some; but why. now that the war is over,
.should moderate Socialism still act against the Soviet
Republic? The Mensheviki and the Social-Revolutionists, say others, did not think a proletarian revolution could be accomplished; but why, after the revolution was accomplished, should the tendency of moderate Socialism still oppose the Soviet Republic, often
in «lliance with the bourgeois counter-revolution and
international Imperialism? But the great argument
of the Russian Mensheviki and their petty bourgeois
Socialist supporters everywhere, is that Russia was
industrially undeveloped, economically unripe for Socialism, the proletariat not strong enough to make a
proletarian revolution and introduce Socialism. Socialism, say these perverters of Marxism, requires a
highly developed Capitalism, ignoring that the coming of Socialism implies a series of international revolutionary class struggles in which proletarian class
power decides the issue. Revolutionary Socialism in
Russia was determined not alone in a struggle for the
proletarian revolution in Russia, but for the proletarian revolution in Germany, and in Europe. Still,
considering Russia alone, there was a deceptive color
of truth to the argument that industrially undeveloped
Russia was not prepared for a proletarian revolution.
But now consider Germany. Germany, industrially,
is the very antithesis of Russia. If any nation in the
world is industrially prepared for Socialism, it is Germany ; a completely industrialized unit, in which the
peasantry is a minor factor and the industrial proletariat at least one-half the population. Germany is a
small country, territorially, close-knit by concentrated
industry, in which concentrated industry controls. It
is inconceivable that industry in Germany itself, under Capitalism, could develop any greater measure of
maturity. Even the perverters of Marxism would admit that Germany, objectively, is ready for Socialism.
And yet, in spite of this difference with Russia, moderate petty bourgeois Socialism pursues in Germany
the identical policy of moderate Socialism in Russia,
is against the proletarian revolution, against Socialism
in fact.
Why? It is clear, it is incontrovertible, considering the dissimilarity of industrial conditions in Russia and Germany, and the similarity in policy of moderate Socialism, that there must be a general policy,
one fundamental tactic, that each possesses and which
determines them in a counter-revolutionary course.
It is not a question of individuals, or of their personal motives and character; but of the tendency they
represent.
What this fundamental tendency is, is apparent
upon considering that the issue that split Socialism in
Russia and Germany, was the issue of "All power
to the Soviets!"—the issue of state power; the issuer
the old bourgeois state or a new proletarian state?    ,
The fundamental tendency of moderate Socialism,
which is at the same time the cause and the effect o»
its petty bourgeois ideology, the basis of its compro
mising tactics and opportunism,  and the  reason :
avoids the real industrial struggle and rejects foias
action, is the conception that the coming of Socia|i<>-
is a process of introducing measures of socializattc,
on the basis of  the  bourgeois  parliamentary  stat
Petty bourgeois,   moderate   Socialism   considers   th
"democratic" parliamentary state as the centre of it.
activity, the instrument for the coming of Socialism.
Parliamentary action is the decisive instrument of action; nationalize industry after industry, perfect the
"democracy" of the state, secure a parliamentary majority—and then comes Socialism!
This policy, clearly would determine moderate Socialism in Russia and in Germany in a struggle for
the democratic parliamentary state. If the democratic
state is the instrument for the introduction of Socialism, then the real struggle is to establish the democratic
parliamentary state—which was precisely why moderate Socialism in Russia and in Germany was donii-
nantly interested in the parliamentary state, adherents of bourgeois democracy.
But this policy of moderate Socialism has another
aspect—if the state and parliamentary action are considered decisive, then the "co-operation of classes"
becomes imperative. Socialism becomes the concern
of all the classes which must unite in the introduction
of Socialism—which was precisely the policy formulated by the German Social-Democratic Party in its
Wuerzberg convention in 1916. This circumstance
develops the corrupt, compromising, counter-revolutionary ideology of moderate Socialism.
Out of this policy emerges necessary and relentless
opposition to "All power to the Soviets!"—to a dci-
tatorship of the proletariat. "All power to the Soviets !" implies a new state—but moderate Socialism believes the old parliamentary state is the instrument for
the introduction of Socialism; proletarian Socialism
implies the one-class state, that the introduction of
Socialism is the concern of the proletariat and the
proletariat alone—but moderate Socialism believes in
the democratic state "of all the classes" and that the
introduction of Socialism is the concern of all the
classes, a process of class co-operation.
The fatal, un-proletarian character of this policy of
moderate Socialism is not very apparent in normal
times, except on the problem of unionism; but it becomes as clear as crystal in the Revolution, necessarily reveals its counter-revolutionary character. And
all Other defects of moderate Socialism are simply an
expression of this fundamental tendency, this petty
bourgeois policy.
Revolutionary Socialism, Marxism, completely repudiates the attitude of moderate Socialism on the
problem of the state. Marxism projects, and revolutionary experience confirms, that the proletariat can
not simply lay hold of the ready-made machinery of
the bourgeois state and use it for its purposes; this
machinery must be destroyed and a new state organized—the state of the organized producers, of proletarian dictatorship. Marxism conceives the introduction of Socialism as the process of one class, determined by the struggle of one class—the proletariat;
all other classes, in the final test, are necessarily counter-revolutionary. It is imperative, accordingly,
that the revolutionary proletariat annihilate the "democratic" state "of all other classes" in favor of the new
proletarian state.    And what is this new state?    It •^-^mmwm
mmwwmp
m
mm
m
THE RED FLAG
5
is simply the state of the organized producers—the
working class; dispensing with the reactionary parliamentary forms and fraudulent democracy of the
bourgeois state. The bourgeois state is an instrument
of class rule, the authority of one class over another,
its army, police and bureaucracy instruments for the
terrorism of the proletariat. It is upon the basis of
this new industrial state, with industrial and not territorial constituencies, that Socialism can be introduced. The complete political expropriation of the
bourgeois is the necessary preliminary to his complete
economic expropriation. The first concern of the
revolutionary proletariat, accordingly, is the conquest
of the state power by mass action, the annihilation of
the bourgeois parliamentary state, and the organizing
of a new proletarian state functioning temporarily as
a dictatorship of the revolutionary proletariat. This
state is the state of the organized producers — the
state comprised in "all power to the Soviets!" Revolutionary Socialism in Germany and in Russia, instead
of using the revolution, the breach in the old order,
to "perfect" the "democratic'' state, the completion
of the proletarian revolution and the organization of
the new proletarian state—a policy which alone can
realize Socialism.
And, in terms of simplicity and life, this problem is
comprised in the class struggle and life itself.
This great issue split Socialism in Russia and in
Germany; it is decisive.    It has many vital aspects;
the relation of parliamentary action to all forms of
proletarian action, the necessity of developing the dynamic mass action, of the industrial proletariat, the
rejection of "class co-operation" under any and all
conditions. To us in the United States, the problem of state power and its correlative aspects are instinct, for one thing, in the problem of industrial
unionism. In the coming reconstruction of Socialism
the problem of state power will play a decisive role.
The general policy comprised in the revolutionary
attitude to the problem of state power is not realizable
in an actual revolution alone; it affects the policy of
Socialism and is realizable in general forms under any
and all conditions, in the piping days of peace and in
the stern days of revolutionary struggle.
Clippings From the Press
BRITISH GUNS FIRE ON BOLSHEVIST LINE
Stockholm, Sweden, (Tuesday)—A communication
from official Esthonian sources announces that the
British squadron was given an enthusiastic reception
on its arrival at Reval. Representatives of the Esthonian Government put out to sea to welcome the Britsih
ships and the quays were thronged with cheering
crowds, whlie, later, many people offered the British
sailors who came ashore, bread and salt as a token of
welcome.
Subsequently an official Esthonian communique announced that the British squadron had bombarded the
Bolshevist lines behind Wesenberg.
On the Asserien front, it is added, the enemy advance has been arrested, although on the Pskoff front,
he continues to make progress.
Meanwhile mobilization of the Esthonian army is
described as progressing satisfactorily, the Allied support having encouraged the population.
Meanwhile, a member of the Danish Legation, which
reached Stockholm from Russia on Sunday on its way
to Copenhagen described the situation in Petrograd
as rapidly growing worse ,and said that the Bolsheviki
were reliably credited with the intention of evacuating
Petrograd, owing to the allied action.
Nijnl Novgorod is mentioned as the Soviet Governments future headquarters, and the Bolsheviki are
said to intend increasing the Red Army from 1,000,000
to 3,000,000 men.—Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 18.
AGITATION IN SOUTH AMERICA.
Montevideo, Uruguay.—There has been a steady increase in Bolshevist agitation in Brazil, Uruguay and
Argentina in the last two months, and it is reported
that councils have been formed by workmen in cooperation with the police. At Rosario, Argentina, a
council of this nature has called a strike.—Christian
Science Monitor, Dec. 18.
FINNISH DELEGATES LEAVE.
STOCKHOLM,    Sweden    (Wednesday)—Petrograd messages  state that  Professor Hirm and Dr.
Toerngrem are leaving for Paris to represent Finland's interests at the Peace Conference.
TROOPS IN CHARGE AT KIEV.
Amsterdam, Holland (Monday).—A Kiev message
via Berlin states that the town was occupied on Saturday by troops of "the Director," which consstis of
Messrs Vinitchenko, Petlyure, Schwetz and Reivsky.
Mr. Setman has abdicated and the Cabinet resigned.
The message adds that complete order prevails and is
being maintained by the Directory's troops.
WHICH?
With the purpose of assisting in "the development
of Siberia," the Japanese Economic Relief Commission has announced its intention of forming a corporation "to obtain mining and forest concessions from
the Russian authorities and exploit the natural resources in Siberia."
Shares will be subscribed by the Manchurian Railway, the Eastern Asia Industry Company, the Sino-
Japanese Commercial Corporation and other interests."—The "Nation" Dec. 14.
All for democracy of course! That is why the
Soviets are anathema in that their program calls for
the natural resources to be exploited by the people,
for the people.
BOLSHEVIKI CLOSE EMBASSY.
AMSTERDAM, Holland (Wednesday)—According to official reports, the Russian Bolshevist authorities ordered the offices of the Polish diplomatic representatives in Petrograd and Moscow to be closed
do^wn and sealed about the middle of November, and
Mr. Zarnowski, councilor of the legation was arrested.
Polish protests remained without effect as did those
of the Danish consulate.
BOURGEOIS COUNCIL ACTIVE.
ZURICH,  Dec.  23.—The  Bourgeois  Council has
called a Congress of Bourgeoisie from all parts    of
Germany for January 5, according to a Berlin dispatch.
From New York "Nation" of Dec. 14.
It is many a century since Erasmus of Rotterdam
wrote his "Praise of Folly." Our European "Special
Correspondents" are adding a few supplementary
chapters. For more than a year they have been telling
us about the wickedness of Lenine and Trotsky, the
traitors who sold their country for German gold. At
last we began to believe this story, together with accounts of the suffering of that noble popular hero,
Karl Liebknecht, who was slowly dying in an imperial jail for having dared to raise his voice against
Prussian militarism.
And now with a single touch of Cleo's magic wand,
the scene is changed. Militarism is dead. The
great prophet of a joyful war enjoys the windy pri-
vacv of an island of the dreary Zuder Zee. Lenine
and Trotsky, slain countless times by assassins' bullets, are alive and seemingly prosperous and content.
Liebknecht, as leader of a radical group of socialists,
has become an object of Allied denunciation. This
week he is accused of having sold his country for
Bolshevik money. If we understand the matter
aright, the Teutonic millions that first corrupted
Russia, have returned to Berlin and are now corrupting the German Republic. Unless these millions come
to rest the world will continue in a state of turmoil.
ANTI-SOCIALIST POGROMS.
The red flag and the red neck-tie have been the
chief excuse for these outbreaks.
They are spurred on by a press which can no longer
stir the blood of its readers by attacks upon German
language newspapers and uninterned aliens, or demand the execution of the first German spy to be
caught.
To attack Socialism and sympathisers with the
Soviet Government of Russia is the latest pastime of
the newspapers that have been seeking to enlarge
their circulation by preaching hate and bitterness.
As the "Nation"' has pointed out, heretofore, the progress of these anti-socialist pogroms is due in large
part to our insularity. Few Americans are aware
that long before the war, socialist influence was
strong in many governments abroad, and that the period has long passed when it was considered good
sport in Europe to assail socialists as destroyers of
society. The "Nation" holds no brief whatever for
their economic doctrines, but it does believe that the
time has come in America to treat them with respect,
to give them freedom of the platform and seriously
to consider whether they can contribute anything to
the creating of that better world for which we are all
longing.
It looks with the utmost regret upon any attempt
to suppress them by force, and it is firmly of the
belief that anti-red-flag laws and violent physical assaults upon the advocates of socialist doctrine will
serve only to increase the number of its adherents
and make the movement more bitterly hostile to our
government. The experience of other countries has
abundantly shown the self-defeating character of
every attempt at the suppression of opinion by violence.—New York "Nation."
ALL-RUSSIAN CONGRESS HELD.
LONDON, England (Wednesday)—The Admiral-
tv issues per wireless press a Moscow Government
wireless stating that an all-Russian congress for general military instruction was inaugurated on Dec. 15.
The message further reports a discussion on theatrical questions held under the presidency of the people's commissary for public instruction, and states
that instruction in dramatic art has been organized
throughout the country.
FINNISH PROJECT CRITICIZED.
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (Wednesday) — The
Stockholm's Tideningen, commenting in a leading article, on the statement of General Mannerheim, the
new regent of Finland, that the Aland question must
be solved by a policy of conciliation, declares that
this means the trampling down of Aland's inhabitants' desire for a union with Sweden, to which
General Mannerheim is notoriously opposed.
The paper complains that General Mannerheim has
misrepresented the Aland question to the European
public by suppressing the fundamental fact of the
Aland population's firm desire for union with Sweden.
Amsterdam, Holland (Monday).—A Stockholm report from Reval states that the British and Esthonian
governments have concluded an agreement placing all
ports and means of communication in Esthonia under
British control. A British squadron consisting of
three cruisers, three destroyers, and six submarines,
reached Reval on Tuesday..—Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 18. I
I
I
( j
< '
THE RED FLAG
t
'
(Continued from page 3.)
and now he, who was your hero two months ago, is
ostracised by "respectable society." And so the m-
terventonists had to resort to political trickery, which
would be comical if its consequences were not so
tragic "The population on the Murman coast" has
invited you to take Archangel! The population on the
Murman coast, forsooth! Some illiterate Lapp fishermen and a handful of intellectuals-truly true representatives of Russia! Later the interventionists succeeded in bringing to. Archangel old man Tchaikovsky and a few other members of the dissolved Constitutional Assembly, which forthwith was proclaimed as
the "legitimate government" of Russia in the declaration issued by Allied representatives at Archangel.
But in Vladivostok not even that much could have
been accomplished ,as far as the local population is
concerned. In the face of an Allied armed occupation, Vladivostok in the municipal elections gave an
overwhelming majority to the Bolsheviki. The
workers struck in protest against Allied occupation in
Vladivostok, and your papers triumphantly declare,—
after having said for many days that the strike would
not materialize, as most of the workers would not
strike,—that the strike is a fizzle, as the Allies have
been successful in replacing the strikers with Chinese
workinqmen. "Fighting for democracy"—by arraying coolie labor against Russia! "Not interfering in
internal affairs of Russia,"—yet arraying one group
of people against another!
What are you doing in Russia, sir? Don't you
think that people have eyes to see and ears to hear
with? Who invited you to Vladivostok? Was it
Colonel Semenoff, a discredited Czar official, and General Horvath. a notorious swindler and adventurer at
the head of a few thousand troops composed of Chinese riff-raff, saloon keepers, gamblers, and other adventurers of the "wild east," who valiantly rose "in
defense of civilization" because the workers' rule in
Siberia was putting an end to the unspeakable.social
condiitons in the towns of the far' "wild east ?"
If your purpose is to get the Czecho-Slovaks out of
Russia so that they may fight Germany, why don't you
send them to Finland to fight the Germans"there?
Why are you not similarly interested in aiding the Finnish workers, who are now in Russia in an attack upon
the German masters of Finland? The British Government gave assurances a few days ago to the Finnish pro-German White Guard Government that it
would not encourage "any group of factions in Finland." Did this declaration mean, if anything, that
the British Government under no circumstances would
encourage the anti-German workers of Finland to
fight against their masters? But when in Southern
Russia the Cossack General Krassnoff, armed and
supported by German troops, makes an attack against
the Soviet Russia, his activities are being hailed in the
press as a part of the "work of liberation in Russia."
How can you explain that paradox? We are told over
and over again that this is a war for democracy and
against German militarism, yet it seems that in Finland the blackest reaction, and German reaction at
that, is being encouraged and the democratic anti-
German masses discouraged, while in Russia the workers' republic, which is anti-German and democratic, is
attacked, and any one is encouraged who is against the
Soviets, whether he be an anarchist, a monarchist, a
reactionary pro-German junker or a so-called liberal.
All this is of course clear and understandable if you
judge it from the point of view of the philosophy of
the class struggle. Socialism is a greater enemy to the
existing order than German militarism. But you will
not admit that ,or at least you have not openly admitted it. But if you do not admit it, then the policy
you advocate in Russia is the most chaotic, irresponsible and ridiculous the world ever saw.
The truth about Russia does not reach us to-day;
you do not realize what the Soviets are accomplishing.
When the work of the Soviet Government does become known it will most likely result in bitter criticism of interference. But the present policy of making criticism punishable cannot last forever.      The
war will end; and then will come a time when uncen-
sored speech once more is a fact. There will be years
ano^ centuries of human life after the war is over, during which the historian will be permitted to judge the
events of to-day without the prejudice of passion and
without the will to distort, due to economic interests.
What, then, xvill be the verdict on your present Russian policy ?
Even now many facts are becoming known which
cannot be explained away. We have been told that
the antipathy of the Allied nations toward the Soviet
Government is due to its "subservience to German occupation" and to the "betrayal at Brest-Litivsk." But
do you know, sir, or do you not, that some time before the ratification of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty
by the Soviet Government, the Government of the
People's Commissars showed concrete willingness to
continue the war against Germany and wanted to know
to what extent it could expect co-operation from the
Allies in the task of the reorganization of the Russian
army? How will you explain the absence of an answer to this proposition of the Soviet Government?
Do you know that last winter, just before the German
advance in Russia, Trotsky earnestly requested cooperation in taking away big guns from the Russian
front so that they should not fall into the hands of the
Germans? In spite of Trotzky's efforts the Germans
took the guns and transported thern to the western
front. About the same time the Russian Government
requested aid in the form of a few hundred British
naval officers to take charge of the Black Sea Fleet
so that a plot engineered by Russian reactionary officers aiming to deliver the Black Sea Fleet to the Germans should not materialize. They were not successful in obtaining the requested help and a large part of
the Black Sea Fleet was delivered to the Germans by
Russian reactionaries. And the crowning madness
of all this is that the press accused the Bolsheviki of
having delivered those guns and that fleet to the Germans !
T have knowledge of scores of similar incidents
which all prove that the Soviet Government was extremely eager to co-operate with the Allies in every
possible way against Germany, but without success.
Why?!? '
In order to be a fair as possible and to give the benefit of the doubt to the Allied representatives I shall
admit as a possible reason for their action that they
never expected the Soviet Government to stay. The
above related incident regarding the guns on the eastern front took place at a time when the Allied representatives, misled by Russian counter-revolutionarists,
were sure that the Soviet Government would be overthrown in a few days. They apparently hoped that a
new eastern front could be established by the Cadets,
which would require the presence and use of the big
guns. But if that was the reason for their otherwise
inexplicable action in the matter, it only shows their
utter lack of understanding of the real relations between the political forces in Russia. The same will
be the historic verdict in all other cases where there
was no attempt made to use the Soviets against Germany.
Another excuse may also be advanced. Starting
out with the theory that the Bolsheviki were paid
agents of Germany, the Allies naturally suspected
every approach on the part of the Bolsheviki as an
"effort to obtain information for the German army"!
But even that is no excuse at all. For more than a
year the press has been shouting that Lenine and Trot-
zky are paid agents of Germany—but never has a
shred of real evidence been offered in this respect. Certain "documents," I understand, were printed in "Le
Petit Parisienne." The actual fact, however, is that
these so-called documents are proven forgeries, which
were in the hands of the bitterest enemies of the Bolsheviki during the Kerensky regime, and could not be
used because of their obvious forgery and falseness.
On the other hand there are innumerable proofs of-
a willingness to co-operate with elements whose only
"merit" is their opposition to the Soviet^? but who
otherwise are openly co-operating with the Germans.
Much is this respect has been shown in the attitude
toward the Finnish White Guard, towards th,e pro-
German Ukrainian bourgeoisie and toward the Milu-
kov faction, which is co-operating with Germany and
now has squarely declared itself for the restoration of
monarchy in Russia. Much more could be shown if
all the facts were known. Above I already referred
to the assurances given by the British Government
to the White Guard Government of Finland, who have
sold themselves body and soul to the Germans—that
the British Government never would support any rebellious faction in Finland against the present Government.
How in the name of common sense can you then
expect that any sane person, who is acquainted with
the facts as they are, could for a moment believe that
the main reason for intervention in Russia is to recreate opposition to Germany? The story about the
Germans in Siberia, who are fighting the Czechoslovaks, is altogether a product of hysteria or a deliberate misrepresentation. Last April, at the request
of Trotzky, Allied representatives went all through
Siberia to confirm rumors circulated already at that
time about armed German prisoners acting on behalf
on behalf of the German government. The Allied representatives did not find anything of that kind, and
their findings must be known to the Allied Governments.
Why all that talk about the necessity of liberating
the valiant Czecho-Slovaks and permitting them to
proceed to the western front? The facts about their
case are that the Soviet Government was doing all in
its power to allow the Czecho-Slovaks to get away
from Russia. Trotzky offered them passage by way
of Archangel. For some reason that offer was not
accepted. The stories about their having been attacked in Siberia while on their way to Vladivostok
may be easily interpreted otherwise than as an attempt to prevent their leaving Russia. The eastward
moving Czecho-Slovaks of course obstructed the transportation of foodstuffs along the Siberian railroad to
Russia. It is easy to understand that the necessity of
feeding Russia came in conflict with the desire of the
Czecho-Slovaks for unhindered passage. Yet I am
sure that whatever difficulties arose in that respect,
(they could have been straigntened out between the
Soviets and the Czecho-Slovaks. if they had been left
to settle it themselves. It is obvious that the local
population was incited against the Czecho-Slovaks by
Germans as well as by Russian reactionaries, who saw
in the conflict between the Czecho-Slovaks and the
Soviets a potential nucleus of an interventionist adventure.
And so we have been compelled to witness a tragedy, which the historian of the future will regard as
one of the most pathetic events in the history of revolutions. The Czecho-Slovaks,—themselves rebels,
—most of them originally in sympathy with the Russian revolution, most of them Socialists, desiring to
establish their international independence by revolutionary means,—are being used by those who promised
them national independence, and who profess adherence to the principle of self-determination of nations,
as the hangmen of the Russian Revolutionists. Never
has a rebellious people, striving for independence,
been asked to pay a more horrible price. If the present plan of reactionaries in Russia is to materialize
for the moment, if the Czecho-Slovaks meet with success in putting down the Russian revolution and to establishing there a bloody reactionary monarchy, and if
they as the Judas-pay for this work are to receive the
independence of Bohemia, can't you see that future
generations will haunt that "independent Bohemia,"
built on the corpses of the greatest revolution in the
world, down to the deepest hell as betrayers and traitors to liberty and progress ? But still more possible is
another outcome. Either the Czecho-Slovaks will
successfully perform the work they are asked to do
to-day, and, having re-established reactionarv monarchy in Russia, will find reaction and monarchism
strengthened in Austria as well—and never will get
the price anticipated by them, or—they will not be
successful in their plan and will be cast aside just as
you are ready to cast aside Kerensky to-day.
(To be continued.) ^mm^pwm
^■■^w^
mm
^^"
■ '■ p ■
THE RED FLAG
Is It Peace or More War?
By WILLIAM STEWART.
I think it is about time attention was directed to the
utterances of a gentleman named Mr. Leslie
Urquhart. He is described as being "at the head of
large Siberian mining enterprises," and on the strength
of that commendation evidently considers himself
qualified and entitled to advise the British people as to
what should be their policy and conduct towards Russia. If the British people allow their government to
act upon this gentleman's advice, they will probably
find that they have only come to the end of one war to
begin another similar to that in which the nation was
involved against the French revolutionists, a war
which may be equally discreditable and disastrous.
How far Mr. Urquhart is qualified to give advice
may be judged from the fact that sO long ago as 12th
December, 1917, speaking as chairman of the Irtysh
Corporation, Ltd., he declared: "The Bolsheviks are
on the point of collapse; Russia is rising again; the
country is coming back to common sense, and the sufferings of the deluded masses this winter will finally
complete their downfall, and that of all other extremist elements, to my mind this is certain and bound to
take place very soon." That was eleven months ago.
The Bolsheviks were on the point of collapse. And
now, on 7th November, 1918, the Bolsheviks are apparently so far from being on the point of collapse
that Mr. Urquhart thinks it necessary to advise the
Allies almost in so many words to declare war against
the Bolsheviks. His summing up of the situation
means, in his own words, "openly arraying ourselves
against the Bolsheviks and treating them for what they
were, the exponents of a creed fatal to all we had ever
known as civilization. This again implied armed force,
a great Allied effort from the Murman coast, from
Siberia, and through the Dardanelles"; and further,
"a force overwhelming relatively to any possible operation that the Bolsheviks or Germans could offer could
be sent by the Allies to the south of Russia and to the
Caucasus." A nice little missionary programme which
the happy people who have been rejoicing over the
coming of peace will do well to ponder over, and
which, taken in conjunction with Mr. Churchill's naive
suggestion that it may be necessary for the British
forces to police Europe, opens up quite an exciting
prospect for the democracy of this country. In a
word, it means war. While the peace bells are ringing ! War to suppress revolution. It is Pitt and Cas-
tlereagh's policy over again, a policy which had its reflex at home in the violent suppressions of every kind
of civil liberty. And this is the cool proposal of Mr.
Leslie Urquhart, who is so little capable judging of the
nature of the forces at work in Russia that he thought
the Bolsheviks were on the point of collapse eleven
months ago.
To his audience in Glasgaw last week Mr. Urquhart
presented an alarming and lurid picture of Russia under the Bolshevist. Well, I suppose no one imagines
that Russia is at present an earthly paradise. It has
too recently emerged from bloody war, and from even
bloodier Czardom, for that. For that matter Great
Britain itself is not a superlatively comfortable country
to live in. No country is under Capitalism. It is all
a matter of comparison. With what are we to compare Russia's present state? With the conditions under the Romanoffs? or with its problematical condition after the Irtysh Corporation and its like have begun fully to exploit its resources for the advantage of
foreign dividend hunters? And if the Russian people
are minded to try to establish Socialism without passing through all the stages of the Capitalistic purga
tory, what right have we to interfere ? We, who have
the memory of the child labour and the sweating system, and who still live in Capitalism's slums. I hold
no brief for Bolshevism. I think that probably it
would not be a suitable kind of government for this
country—though a continuance of parliamentarism
such as we have had during the last four years may
compel us all to remodel our conceptions of the science
of government—but I agree with Mr. Asquith that it
is not our business to prescribe to other countries their
form of government. I think that applies to Russia,
even though it may be true as Mr. Urquhart says, that
"Russia and Siberia open a field for commercial and
industrial development greater than any other country
in the world." For that very reason I would leave
Russia to the Russians. Under Socialism they will
develop their country in their own good time and for
other purposes than the enrichment of people who have
not the slightest intention of either working or living
in Russia, and for whose interests I do not think it is
the duty of this country to go to war or to maintain
armed expeditions. Now that the war with Kaiser-
dom has ended, now that the German people have
agreed to the wishes of our rulers and have established a democratic form of government, I think we are
entitled to a long, long period of peace. And I suggest that the first duty of British democracy should be
to demand the withdrawal of British troops from Russia. If the Irtysh Corporation want a war, let them
raise their own troops. A shareholders' battalion would
make a good beginning, with Urquhart as Colonel—
or Drum Major perhaps. The armament shareholders
of all countries might be invited to join up. A proper cosmopolitan hell-fire legion for the maintenance
of permanent and universal anarchy."—From The
Forward, Glasgow, Nov. 16.
One-Big-Union Wins New Victory
VICTORIAN LABOR CONGRESS UNEXPECTEDLY INDORSES THE PLAN FOR ALL
AUSTRALIA—ACTION IS THE RESULT OF TACTICAL MANEUVER.
Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 18.
Melbourne, Vic—Having secured at the Congress
of Victorian unions held to deal with the proposals
for closer unionism, a victory as overwhelming as it
was unexpected, the advocates of "One-Big-Union"
for Australian labor unions are pushing forward with
the formation of the new organization, which they
claim will end in the establishment of the industrial
cooperative commonwealth. As has been pointed out
in The Christian Science Monitor, the One-Big-Union
advocates had already carried the adoption of the
scheme at a conference of New South Wales unions
but looked for the Victorian congress to decline sanction to the proposal which would have the effect of
postponing it indefinitely. The One-Big-Union advocates were at work for months past among the
Victorian unions, spreading their propaganda, but
even when the congress was assembled it looked as
though the numbers were against them. An astute
move by Mr. B. Mulvogue, leader of the One-Big-
Unionists, however, led to victory.
Two schemes were officially before the congress-
one providing for the linking up of Victorian unions
into federation,,this being the proposal of the moderates ; and the other for One-Big-Union for Victoria,
the proposal of the militants. The unions had already taken ballots in regard to these schemes and
had instructed their delegates accordingly. Realizing
that many of the delegates, while personally favoring
One-Big-Union, would be compelled by instructions
to vote for the federation scheme, Mr. Mulvogue
dropped his own scheme of One-Big-Union for Victoria and moved that the congress affirm the necessity of forming One-Big-Union for all Australia. As
this proposal had never been discussed ty the unions,
delegates claimed a free hand and after forceful debate the resolution was agreed to on division by 111
votes to 34.
A remarkable scene was witnessed when the division took place. Seated upon the minority side of
the Chamber were the representatives of the old form
of craft union, many of which organizations are controlled from Great Britain—realizing as they saw the
benches opposite filling with the representatives of
such unions as the Building Trades, Australian Workers Union, Railway Workers and others, that unionism, as they had understood it, seemed vanishing in
Australia. Triumphantly cheering and singing "Solidarity Forever" (an I. W. V\. song), were the men
who assert that the mission of unionism is to abolish
the capitalistic system and that this can be achieved
by "repeated assaults on the ci'adels of capitalims."
The galleries were packed with members of the
Revolutionary Socialist Party and there was a sprinkling of men at one time familiar on I.W.W. platforms,
who hailed the result of the vote with enthusiasm.
A peculiar feature of the division was the fact that
the Australian Workers Union delegates voted solidly
in favor of One-Big-Union, though in reality their organization views the proposal rather indifferently. Its
leaders point out that they already have the machinery for One-Big-Union without creating more. However, as *he organization has advocated One-Big-Union it cannot consistently oppose and it will, therefore,
fall into line with the new organization. This is another point won for the One-Big-Union men, as the
Australian Workers Union is the most powerful in
Australian unionism.
Although the One-Big-Union men have secured an
initial triumph, the decision of the conference has yet
to be debated by the unions individually, and from
some organizations, such as the painters and plumbers, the One-Big-Union proposal is already encountering hostility. Howover, as the One-Big-Union has
now gathered beneath its banner a majority of the
unions in the two most important states and has secured the support of the Australian Workers Union
and the transport unions, the claim of its advocates
that when the organization is put into working form
it will be powerful enough to compel the smaller
Unions to come in willy-nilly, seems well founded.
WHAT WE MUST DO.
PARAPHRASED WITH APOLOGIES TO THE
"NATION."
We are told that this was a war for democracy:
very well, by its fruits we shall know it. It is for
us to trace and note how near the democrats come to
their professions. We were told that this was a people's war: very well, from now on it is for us to note
the results, good or ill, which accrue to the people.
We are told above all, that it was a war for liberty;
very well, it is for us to note the precise outcome of
political, economic and social liberty under it.
We are told, finally, that this war was not due to
conflict of economic interests. We have been sternly
forbidden to view that it was in any sense a banker's
or capitalists' war. Very well, it is now our function
to point out from time to time the marks that differentiate its practical outcome.
Having fought a war for democracy we shall now
find out whether it is worth the enormous*sacrifice.
This having been a people's war we shall seeJiow much
the people will benefit by it. This war for liberty
having been won by the people for democracy, we
now start, or should do so, on a new era.
Our shackles and chains of pre 1914 will now
drop from us ? w
8
THE RED FLAG
The Chief Task of Our Day
ft'
Poor thou art, rich thou art,
Strong thou art and weak thou art,
Oh Mother Russia!
The history of mankind is at present passing
through one of its greatest and most difficult crises, a
crisis with a tremendous—without exaggeration it may
be said—with a world-wide liberating significance.
From war to peace, from war between beasts of prey,
who have sent to the slaughter millions of those toiling and exploited, with the object of securing a re-
division among the strongest of the robbers, of the
spoils already acquired—to a war of the oppressed
against the oppressors for freedom from capitalist
oppression; from the abyss of suffering, pain and
hunger to the shining communistic society of the
future, to general wellbeing and permanent peace;—it
is no wonder, at the most acute points of such a
tremendous transformation, when round about the old
is going to pieces with frightful noise and crash, while
in indescribable pains the new thing is being born,
that some men's heads should be turned, that others
should be seized by despair, and that others should
geek relief from actuality, which is at times too bitter, in the shade of fair, enchanting phrases.
Yet it was necessary to feel vividly what was occurring, to live through, in the most excruciating and
painful manner, this sharpest of all the sharp turns of
history, lifting us out of imperialism into the communistic revolution.   In a few days we destroyed one
of the oldest, most powerful, most savage and barbarous monarchies.    In a few   months   we   passed
through a series of agreements with the bourgeoise, of
living down of petit bourgeois   illusions,   for   which
other countries have required decades.      In a few
wreeks, after having overthrown the bourgeoise, we
defeated its open opposition in a civil war.   In a victorious, triumphal progress of bolshevism   we   have
passed from one end of  our  great   country   to the
other.   We have raised to liberty and to independent
life the lowest sections of the toiling masses that have
been oppressed by Czarism and bv the bourgeoise. We
have introduced and strengthened the Soviet Republic,
a new type of government, immeasurably higher and
' more democratic than the best of the bourgeois-parliamentary republics.    We organized a dictatorship of
the proletariat, supported by the poorest peasants,
and inaugurated a widely-planned system of socialistic
reconstruction.   In millions and millions of workers in
all countries we have awakened  the   faith   in their
powers and kindled the fires of their enthusiasm. We
have sent out in all directions the call of the international workers' revolution.   We have thrown down
the   gauntlet   to   the   imperialistic   robbers   of   all
countries.
In a few days an imperialist robber, falling upon
us unarmed, has cast us to the ground. He has forced
us to sign an incredibly oppressive and humiliating
peace—our punishment for having dared, if only for
one short moment, to free ourselves from the iron
bonds of the imperialistic war. The robber strangles
and chokes and dismembers Russia with all the greater
fury, the more threateningly he perceives rising before
him in his own country the spectre of the impending
workers' revolution.
We were forced to sign a "Peace of Tilsit." There
is no reason for deceiving ourselves as to that. We
must have the courage to look right into the face of
this bitter, unembellished truth. We must sound to
the depths, completely, the whole abyss of defeat and
humiliation into which we have now been cast. The
better w* understand this, the harder and firmer will
become our will to free ourselves, to rise again from
slavery to independence, our unbending resolve, at
whatever costs, to raise Russia from her present
poverty and weakness, to make her rich and powerful
in the true sense of the word.
Bv N. LENIN.
And this she may become, for we still have left
enough territory and natural resources, to provide
each and every one of us. if not with a super
abundance, yet with a sufficient supply of the means
of subsistence. We have enough, in natural riches
and in labour-power, as well as in the stimulus, which
our great revolution has communicated to our national
productive forces—to create a really rich and powerful Russia.
Russia may become such if we cast aside all discouragement and all orator)-, if we strain every nerve
and tighten every muscle, if we understand that salvation is possibly only by the path of international
socialist revolution, on which we have entered. To
advance on this road, undaunted by defeat, to build up,
stone by stone, the firm foundation of the socialist
society, to work with untiring hand at the creation of
discipline and self-discipline, ai strengthening, at all
times and in all places, the organization, the orderliness, the efficiency, the harmonious co-operation of
the forces of the entire nation, a central supervision
and control of the production and distribution of
products—such is the path to power, whether it be
power in the military sense or power in the socialist
sense.
It is unbecoming for a socialist, when he has suffered a defeat, to protest his victory loudly or to
droop into despair.    It is not true that we have no
other alternative than that between an "inglorious"
(from the point  of  view  of  the shlakhtcy) death,
which is what this terrible peace amounts to, and a
"heroic" death in a hopeless war.   It is not true that
we have betrayed our ideals and our friends by signing the "Peace of Tilsit."   We have betrayed nothing
and no one, we have neither sanctioned or concealed a
single falsehood: to no single friend and companion
in misfortune have we refused all   the   aid   in our
power.    A commander-in-chief, who withdraws the
remains of his army, defeated, and  afflicted   with   a
panic flilght. into the interior of   the   country, who
defend- this withdrawal, in a case of extremitv. with
an intolerable and humiliating peace, is not perpetrating treason with regard to those sections of the army
which he can no longer assist and which have been
cut oft" by tlie enemy.   Such a commander is doinr: his
duty when he chooses the only way that is open for
saving what can   still   be   saved, consenting   to   no
gambles, embellishing no sad truths in the eyes of the
people, "giving up territory, in- order to gain time,"
utilizing every breathing-spell, no matter how short,
in order to collect his forces, in inorder  to  provide
repose and healing for his army, which has become
sick with disintegration and demoralization.
We have signed a "Peace of Tilsit."   When Napoleon I. forced Prussia in 1807 to make such a peace,
he destroyed all  the German armies, occupied the
capital and all the large cities, introduced his police
system, obliged the vanquished to provide an auxiliary
army for the conduct of new wars of conquest conducted by the victor, dismembered German v. and concluded with certain German states  alliances  against
other German states.   Yet, in spite  of  this   severe
peace, the German people succeeded in maintaining
themselves, in gathering their forces, and in attaining
for themselves the rights of freedom and independence.   To all those who are able and willing to think
the example of the Peace of Tilsit-which was only
one of the many oppressive and humiliating treaties
forced upon the Germans at that time—shows clearly
how childishly naive is the thought that under all circumstances a most cruel peace is the depth of degradation, while war is the path of heroism and salvation.
Warlike eras have frequently shown that peace may
often discharge the function of a breathing-spell for
the gathering of forces for near battles.   The Peace of
Tilsit was the greatest humiliation of Germany and
at the same time, the point of departure for a great
national awakening.   Historical circumstances at that
time provided no other way out than throu/J
geois state; for, a century or more ago, li
created by a small band oi noblemen and j
of bourgeois intellects, while the great j
workers and peasants lay slumbering and t -
History at that time, therefore, moved aril
slowness.
Capitalism has now con iderably rai-cd
general, and particularly th t of the masse
has shaken up the masses, baa awakened tli-:
paralleled terrors and Bufferings.    The v
celerated the march of hist' ry BO that it m \\
the speed of a locomotive.    History i> n< I
the independent action of millions and til
lions of people.    Capitalism ha- reached   l\
socialism.
And therefore, if Rush.i nmv can pal
disputably is passing, from a Peace   bt    '
period of national uplift, to a great war
defence, the result of the transition will
burgeooise state, but the In ernatkmal soeii
tion.   We have therefore become, since l H
"defenders"; we are for the "defence o\
land."' but the fatherland we are   deienj
socialist fatherland, we are defending oaf
which is a section of the universal army «
"Hatred of the German>; down with -l i\
■—such was the cry and remains the > r■•)
dinary | i. e. bourgeois) patriotism.      \
"Hatred to the imperialistic robbers, hat il
talism. death to capitalism." and. togethci
"We must learn from the I iermana!   Ra
to the fraternal union with the German v\ 11
have been late in coming to our assist       U
wait for their coming, v.e shall ga n  tinj
come to our asisstance."
Yes. learn from the Germans]    Hist*
zigzags and in roundabout paths.    I
the German at present simultaneously p<
gether with savage imperialism,   tin      |
discipline, organization, harmonious o
the basis of the modern machine industr
accountability and Bttpervisi m.
And that is precisely what we lack.
what we must learn,   ffiat \\ u ha
tion must have in order to pn 1 from]
beginning, through a series oi difficult
victorious conclusion.    That is exacth  I
sian Soviet Socialist Republic needs in of
being poor and weak, and to become,
rich and mightv.
ORGANIZE THE VVOJRLD SAYS
SMUTS.
London. England.—General  Smut-.
cently at a dinner givin in honor ol the
ors in London, said that during the perio
reconstruction after (fa wjr, when esse
terials would have to be rationed. ., Leaf,
became not an ideal or an aspiration, but
tical necessity.   Judging from experiem
kans, he thought it might be expect©
future Europe would be lr   a more di
with more danger of war, than had bet
In the circumstances be thought it won
tive to create an International organizatfc
peace among the smaller states, even it
sary to supervise their internal policing,
the German colonies   General Smuts M
of these were quite fairly and proper!)
would have to be givswao (h* British I
had conquered them and  (Those  futuri
and security depended upon litem,    Bui
colonies not so claimed, he   bought •> 1
tions could depute certain p< wcrt to ho]
lei provisionally until the fljttttioa ol
disposal was settled.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.redflag.1-0083522/manifest

Comment

Related Items