Background to Treason, Part 2:
Zionism, the Paris Peace Conference, & the Bolshevik Revolution
The following text by William Pierce is an excerpt from a longer text, “Background to Treason: A Brief History of U.S. Policy in the Middle East, Part 2: From the Balfour Declaration to the Roosevelt Era.” I simply reserved everything after the discussion of the Bolshevik Revolution for later publication. The subtitle is my own creation.
In presenting his plan to use an anticipated war among the Gentile nations for the furtherance of Jewish goals, Theodor Herzl had announced at the first meeting of the Zionist Congress, in August 1897: “After the great European war is ended, the peace conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time.”
When the Paris Peace Conference finally did assemble, on January 18, 1919, the Jews were more than ready: they had stacked the conference in their favor more thoroughly than any riverboat gambler had ever stacked a deck of cards. All the delegates of the Allied powers — especially those of Great Britain and the United States — had been approached beforehand, many of them repeatedly, and been harangued, badgered, bribed, threatened, and coaxed to support the Zionists’ demand that Palestine be taken from Turkey and given to them.
Jews also had taken a hand in the preparation of background material used for briefing the delegates on the historical, political, and economic facts relevant to their deliberations. Thus, a set of recommendations prepared by the “Intelligence Section” of the U.S. delegation to the conference suggested that “the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and settle there” and that future policy should be “to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.”
Finally, most of the top Zionist leaders converged on Paris, so that they could follow the proceedings at the conference closely and do any personal arm twisting needed to keep the delegates in line. Louis Brandeis was in and out; his protégé Felix Frankfurter was there whenever he was not; Chaim Weizmann commuted between London and Paris; Rabbi Stephen Wise came from New York; and Bernard Baruch, a wealthy Wall Street commodities speculator who had come to have as strong an influence on President Wilson as that exercised by Brandeis, was an official delegate of the U.S. government.
A few of the Allied political leaders undoubtedly had a sympathy for the Zionist position based on their childhood inculcation with Sunday School tales of the “chosen people” and the “promised land.” During the first years of this century such beliefs were still fairly common among otherwise intelligent and sophisticated men in America and Britain. This apparently was the case with British Prime Minister Lloyd George, for example, who was known to lecture his colleagues in Parliament on the Old Testament from time to time.
Biblical superstitions were not what the Jews were counting on, however. Money and political influence, the latter exercised through their growing control of the press, were their principal arguments in persuading the delegates to give them what they wanted. Their influence was strongest among the British and the Americans, with their virtual domination of the weak and confused Woodrow Wilson being their trump card.
Rabbi Wise has related a conversation he had with Wilson while the conference was in session: “‘Mr. President,’ I said, ‘world Jewry counts upon you in its hour of need and hope.’ Placing his hand on my shoulder, he quietly and firmly said, ‘Have no fear, Palestine will be yours.’” 
Such a commitment to the Jews was, of course, completely contradictory to Wilson’s loudly and widely professed principle of “self-determination for all peoples,” since the Palestine he proposed to give to the Jews already was inhabited by a people hoping for their own self-determination. The truth of the matter is that Wilson seems to have been much more concerned with the rhetorical impact of his famous “Fourteen Points,” which enumerated the principles he asserted would govern America’s policy at the peace conference and which he had announced to the world on January 8, 1918, than with their actual meaning.
He had an abundance of lawyerly cleverness with words, and he was brimful of all the latest liberal platitudes about the desirability of “peace without victory” and making “the world safe for democracy,” but he seems to have had little understanding of, and less concern for, the realities of the situation to which his Fourteen Points — and his “Four Principles” (announced February 11, 1918), “Four Ends” (July 4, 1918), and “Five Particulars” (September 27, 1918) — supposedly were addressed.
The very first of the Fourteen Points, for example, called for an end to all secret diplomatic negotiations and demanded that “diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.” One can only wonder what the man had been smoking when he came up with that idea, so contrary to common sense and human nature is it. Indeed, Wilson himself became so conspicuous in ignoring his own injunction the following year, when he carried on most of his peace negotiations in Paris behind closed doors, that Robert Lansing, his secretary of state, had to warn him about the bad impression this secrecy was making on the public.
The sixth of Wilson’s Fourteen Points, calling for all nations to adopt a hands-off policy toward the Bolsheviks in Russia, who were then in the process of taking over that country and liquidating their “class enemies” in the most brutal fashion, bears the unmistakable imprint of Brandeis and Baruch. The Allies were concerned about the Bolsheviks for two reasons: first, because they sapped Russia’s ability to continue fighting Germany (the Bolsheviks, in fact, made a separate peace with Germany in March 1918 and put up no effective resistance to the continued German presence in Russia thereafter); and second, because they were afraid that Bolshevism might spread to their own countries if it were permitted to succeed in Russia. These concerns had led to a limited amount of Allied military help for the White (i.e., anti-Bolshevik) Russian forces. Wilson, who had welcomed the revolution in Russia from the start, strenuously opposed this help, and, despite the pleas of the Allies, refused to send more than a token U.S. military force to Russia, where its role was limited to observation.
If one did not know better, one might attribute Wilson’s insistence on non-interference with the Bolsheviks to an almost incredible degree of naiveté; he was, after all, the woolliest-minded of democracy mongers, and if he really believed that the purpose of America’s involvement in the First World War was to make the world safe for democracy, then it is conceivable that he may also have believed that the success of the Bolsheviks in Russia would be a gain “for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace.” But, of course, he really believed neither of those things. He took America into the war, because the people who supported him and flattered him, who touted him in their newspapers as a “champion of the people” and guided his political career for him, told him to. And he sabotaged the Allied move to aid the White Russians against the Bolsheviks, because the same people told him to do that too.
The historians who still excuse Wilson’s stand on the Bolsheviks as mere liberal woolly-mindedness (many liberals shared Wilson’s optimistic views on the Bolshevik Revolution at the time) are belied by an abundance of documentary evidence. The United States had diplomatic personnel in Russia who kept the secretary of state back in Washington closely informed of what was happening there, and the American military observers who had been sent to Russia as a sop to the Allies also submitted copious reports. The message that came back to Washington from every American source in Russia was the same: most of the Bolsheviks were not members of the “great, generous Russian people” but were Jews; they were opposed by most Russians; they were ruining Russia and destroying the best of her people; and they were a menace to the world which ought to be stamped out immediately.
The National Archives in Washington contain an abundance of State Department and War Department reports with this message. Many of the State Department reports have long since been gathered up, reprinted in bound volumes, and made available to the public; those which have not can still be located relatively easily by any diligent researcher.
Two weeks before Wilson read his war message to Congress and nearly 10 months before he announced the Fourteen Points, information had been sent to Washington indicating who was behind the budding revolution in Russia, then in its “Provisional Government” phase. On March 19, 1917, U.S. Ambassador David Rowland Francis sent a telegram from Moscow to Secretary of State Robert Lansing. In it he said: “Immeasurably important to the Jews that revolution succeed. If Jews make such advances, however, great discretion should be exercised lest revolution assume a phase which would arouse opposition… [of] anti-Semitics [sic] who are numerous here.” 
On May 2, 1918, the U.S. consul general in Moscow sent a telegram to Lansing which reported: “…Jews predominant in local Soviet government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population which tends to regard oncoming Germans as deliverers…. German, Ukraine troops closing in actively on Bryansk which is Red Army staff headquarters but Red Army lacking in discipline and morale, flees before enemy without fighting and plunders local population which is prepared [to] welcome Germans as deliverers….” 
The following Military Intelligence report of March 1, 1919, photographically reproduced below, by U.S. Army Captain Montgomery Schuyler is typical, rather than exceptional, of the accounts of Bolshevik activity which were received in Washington from American diplomatic, commercial, and military observers in Russia in the years 1917-1919. Note the reference in the third paragraph to orders not to interfere in local affairs. President Wilson had grudgingly permitted a few American military personnel to be sent into revolution-torn Russia at Allied insistence, but they were under orders not to help the White Russians or to hinder the Bolsheviks. Wilson made a great pretense of humanitarianism and of concern for freedom and human rights, but the documentary record proves him a fraud.
He justified the U.S. intervention in the First World War on the basis of making the world “safe for democracy,” destroying the “autocratic power” of the German government, and giving the German people “self-determination.” Why, then, did he insist on non-intervention in Russia, when it was quite clear that the Bolsheviks were establishing a regime a thousand times more obnoxious to any humanitarian — or even to a genuine liberal — than that of the German Kaiser? Furthermore, a determined Allied effort in Russia could have put down the Bolsheviks at a relatively small cost in lives, while Wilson’s policy of intervention against Germany resulted in the deaths of three million more combatants, including 115,000 Americans, and a vastly greater destruction of Europe’s cultural heritage, by prolonging the First World War nearly two years.
Every major foreign-policy move Wilson made — taking America into the war, blocking Allied intervention against the Bolsheviks, backing a British mandate over Palestine — forced him to repudiate some lofty principle or other he had proclaimed earlier, but every move also served the purposes of his Jewish advisers and boosters. Woodrow Wilson willingly sacrificed the lives of millions of his own people in order to please these unspeakably evil men and retain their support. (The full text of this report is included in the Appendix at the end of this article.)
On July 5, 1918, Lansing received a lengthy telegram from the U.S. consul in Vladivostok, John Kenneth Caldwell. It contained a report by an American commercial representative who had traveled throughout Russia during the preceding 13 months, and it described in detail the suffering of the Russian people at the hands of the Bolsheviks whom Wilson was so anxious to protect: “…Bolsheviks in every city I have resided are simply robbing, murdering, and burning. Practically every business is ruined…. Fifty per cent of Soviet government in each town consists of Jews of worst type, many of whom are anarchists…. The great mass of Russian people prefer even German tyranny to Bolshevik terrorism. I suggest careful consideration Ally [sic] intervention….” 
On October 5, 1918, a dispatch was sent to Washington from the U.S. Embassy in London. It contained an eyewitness report written by a Dutch diplomat who had recently returned from Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg, now Leningrad). After describing some of the mass arrests, starvation, and massacres being inflicted on the Russian people by the Bolsheviks, the report concluded: “The foregoing report will indicate the extremely critical nature of the present situation. The danger is now so great that I feel it my duty to call the attention of the British and all other governments to the fact that if an end is not put to Bolshevism in Russia at once the civilization of the whole world will be threatened…. I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless as above stated Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things. The only manner in which this danger could be averted would be collective action on the part of all powers.” 
“Immeasurably important to the Jews that revolution succeed”: that was the most important message from revolution-torn Russia in determining Woodrow Wilson’s policy of non-interference with the Bolsheviks. In his message to Congress calling for war against Germany, Wilson praised the overthrow of Czarist rule by the “great, generous Russian people.” In fact, however, Wilson, in connivance with his Jewish advisers, helped a tiny, alien minority fasten a new tyranny immeasurably worse that Czarism on the Russian people. Above, Lenin, who was at most one-fourth Russian, harangues a communist mob in May 1920. Below him on the steps of the platform are Jewish commissars Trotsky and Kamenev, who were rivals for the number-two spot in the Bolshevik hierarchy.
On November 12, 1918, the American legation in Copenhagen forwarded to Washington a report by an American bank official, R.R. Stevens, the representative in Russia of the National City Bank of New York, who had just finished an extended journey in Bolshevik territory. Stevens repeated what every other observer had stressed: “It is very important to note that from the smallest districts up to the very head the government is composed almost entirely of Jews….” He described the suffering and death of the Russian people under the Bolsheviks, and then he, too, called for intervention: “All humanity cries out against it; all humanity should rise and demand a decent government where every man and all classes should have a right to exist…. The only solution which can be made of the Russian problem is international intervention on humanitarian grounds, backed by whatever military force is required.”
None of this had the least effect on Wilson. He refused to criticize the horror in Russia in any way, and he continued to insist that the Bolsheviks be left free to work their will on the prostrate Russian people without interference from the West, which was exactly the way the Jews wanted things to stay — in Russia, that is. In Palestine, on the other hand, they very much wanted Western intervention, and again Wilson was their compliant tool.
The 12th of Wilson’s Fourteen Points asserted that the “nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.” That promise of autonomy was a continuation of the war propaganda begun by the British to win the support of the peoples of the Middle East for the Allied side. It had worked well, causing Arab uprisings against the Turks and delivering much of the eastern Mediterranean area into British hands.
Wilson’s promise meant no more than the earlier British promises, however, in the face of Jewish demands. Arab autonomy was the last thing the Jews wanted. The Zionist leaders at the peace conference did not even want Jewish autonomy, in fact, because that would have left them with many responsibilities they were unwilling to accept — including the responsibility for defending themselves from the Palestinians whose land they wanted.
The Zionist plan was for Turkish rule over Palestine to be replaced by British rule; the Jews would then be given free rein to begin occupying the land and building up all the infrastructure of a Jewish state, while the British would maintain law and order, keep the buses running, deliver the mail, and protect the Jews from the inevitable wrath of the Palestinians. When the Jews had become strong enough, they would take over de jure rule from the British. That was the way Weizmann spelled it out for Lansing and for Lloyd George in Paris. 
And that was largely the way things finally came out at the peace conference. To be sure, the Jews did not get quite everything they demanded — but they demanded a great deal. The territory they wanted Britain to administer for them as a future Jewish state included not only all of Palestine, but also a third of Lebanon; the entire East Bank of the Jordan, right up to the outskirts of Amman; and sizable chunks of Egypt and Syria as well. Jehovah, it seems, had promised all of that to them.
When it became clear that the Palestine Mandate would actually comprise only about half of the territory the Jews were claiming, Brandeis was brazen enough to send a telegram to the conference importuning the “Christian nations” to keep their “solemn promise to Israel” by enlarging the Mandate. Until 1922, when the League of Nations formally approved the Palestine Mandate, specifically excluding the East Bank (Transjordan) from the territory covered, the Jews still thought they might get most of the land they coveted.
The Jews also did not approve of an inter-Allied commission of inquiry, the so-called King-Crane Commission, whose task was to determine the wishes of the inhabitants of the proposed Mandate and report back to the peace conference. They urged Wilson to hurry up with the signing of the treaty, before the commission could give its report.
When that report finally was presented, in August 1919, it opposed Jewish aims right down the line. It concluded that subjecting the inhabitants of Palestine “to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle [of self-determination]….” By that time, however, the treaty had been signed at Versailles (on June 28), and Wilson had returned to America to receive the cheers of the crowds, his crusade for the right of “self-determination for all peoples” conveniently forgotten.
A great deal could be written about events in Palestine subsequent to the signing of the Versailles Treaty: about Jewish immigration and the taking over of the land, about conflict with the Palestinians, and about Jewish chicanery in dealing with their British protectors. This is not a history of Zionism per se, however, but an account of the way in which the Jews, using Zionism as a unifying and organizing principle, gained control of the government of the United States and then used that control to advance their own ends, to the incalculably great detriment of the American and European peoples. Therefore, events in Palestine will be sketched only in broad outline, and the focus will remain on Jewish activity in America and Europe.
As was demonstrated in the first article of this series, the Jews built their bridgehead in America during the 35 years from about 1880 to the First World War, carrying out during the latter half of that period a specific plan to gain and use political influence in the United States. Their plan involved three elements: a general buildup of numbers, financial resources, and media control; finding a proper tool through which they could work their will; and then bringing all of their strength into play at a decisive moment — namely, at the peace conference following the long-anticipated war between the goyim.
The plan, as far as it went, worked quite well. Not only did the Jews get most of what they wanted at the peace conference, but the strength they had developed in finance and the media could now be used for other purposes. Woodrow Wilson was of no use to them after the peace conference (he suffered a complete breakdown in September 1919, which left him an invalid until his death in 1924), but the singularly vulgar form of democracy which had emerged in America by the first part of this century was ideally suited for bringing to the fore new men whom they could control as completely as they had controlled Wilson.
From National Vanguard magazine (March, 1983), transcribed by Michael Olanich
1. For the context of Herzl’s announcement, see National Vanguard No. 91, p. 12.
2. My Diary at the Conference of Paris, David Hunter Miller (New York, 1924), v. IV, pp. 254-267. A more recent work, covering not only the Paris Peace Conference but the entire period from 1914 to 1948, is The Palestine Diary, Robert John and Sami Hadawi (New York, 1970). This latter work is probably the most valuable single source available in English today on the Zionist intrigues which led to the dispossession of the Palestinian people and the formation of the state of Israel.
3. Bernard M. Baruch (1870-1965), of mixed Sephardic and Ashkenazic ancestry, began his career as a runner for a Wall Street broker. Then he began peddling stocks on the side and giving advice on buying and selling. He bought a seat on the New York Stock Exchange in 1898, and by 1910 he had amassed an enormous fortune through speculation. He always seemed to know before anyone else when a stock was ready to soar or plunge. President Wilson appointed him chairman of the War Industries Board in 1918, making him virtually an economic czar of the United States during the last phase of the First World War.
Serving under Baruch on the War Industries Board was another self-made Jewish stock speculator, Eugene Meyer, later to become owner of the Washington Post (and father of the present owner, Katherine Meyer Graham).
4. Challenging Years, Stephen S. Wise (New York, 1949), p. 197. Wise (1874-1949), who was born in Hungary, came to the United States in 1875, in the vanguard of the Jewish invasion force. He became the leader of one of the largest Jewish congregations in New York City and exerted great influence in the Democratic Party political machine there. He attended the second Zionist Congress in 1898 in Basle, and in the same year he became one of the principal founders of the Zionist Organization of America. During the First World War he organized the American Jewish Congress and became its first president. Later he promoted the World Jewish Congress and was president of that organization also.
Although Wise shared with Brandeis and Baruch the task of guiding Wilson during the post-World War I peace negotiations, his greatest and most destructive role came during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. From 1933 until his death he exerted a powerful influence over the policies of the U.S. government, and he was one of the foremost promoters of the anti-German propaganda which led the United States into the Second World War.
5. In Wilson’s address to the Congress on April 2, 1917, calling for a U.S. declaration of war against Germany, he had referred to the recent outbreak of revolution in Russia thus:
“Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening [sic!] things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia? Russia was known by those who knew it best to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital habits of her thought, in all the intimate relationships of her people that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude toward life. The autocracy that crowned the summit of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in origin, character, or purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been added in all their naive majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace. Here is a fit partner for a League of Honor.”
The effect of the revolution was, of course, exactly opposite to that predicted by Wilson: instead of adding Russia to the Allied forces (Czarist Russia was already one of the Allies), it took Russia out of the war.
6. Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918, Russia (Washington, 1931) v. 1, p. 7.
7. Ibid., v. I, p. 518.
8. Ibid., v. II, pp. 239-241.
9. Ibid., v. I, pp. 674-679.
10. Memoirs of the Peace Conference, David Lloyd George (New Haven, 1939), p. 748.
11. Palestine Diary, v. I, pp. 123-125.
12. Ibid., pp. 142-143.
13. Ibid., p. 139.
Capt. Schuyler’s letter:
[handwritten across top of page:] 383.9 Mil. Int. Report, Schuyler
In reply please
refer to No _______
DoD Dlr. 5200.9 Sept . 27, 1958
NWR by [signature] Date 8-17-60
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
AMERICAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCES. SIBERIA .
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF
My dear Colonel Barrows : March 1, 1919.
I have just received your letter of January 29th, forwarded by Baron Hoven of General Romanovsky’s staff, who has just arrived in Omsk, I was of course much interested in your news, as I had been unable to find anything about the movements of our officers or as to myself.
I was afraid that I should be stranded in Omsk for some little time even if the others got away and although I want to get home just as soon as possible for urgent personal business reasons, I realize that I am of more use here than possibly anywhere else. This work, however, is so familiar to me as this is the fifth revolution I have watched in the pains of birth, that I must confess it has lost its charm of novelty.
I have not attempted to write you anything concerning the situation here in Omsk as I have felt that conditions here were so fluid that what I wrote would be valueless when received by you. Lieutenant Cushing is preparing a sort of weekly report which he will send in in his own name and which will suffice for us both for the present. My telegrams have been perhaps more numerous than you desired and some of the subjects mentioned may not interest our expedition in the least. This I was aware of when sending them, but I felt it was better to err on the side of fullness than the other way. I am strictly obeying my orders to keep out of local affairs and avoid giving advice, but I must say that it is very hard not to jump in and manage this government entirely.
The problems which the Omsk government has to face are not at all intrinsically different from those which prevail in every movement of the kind known to history, but the besetting problem in this instance is that Admiral Kolchak has to work with the materials available for his purposes, namely the Russian people of today, who are so thoroughly disorganized and lifeless as a result of the last three years , that they are unable even to think for themselves far less govern themselves.
In the first place, the coup of Admiral Kolchak’s friends whereby he assumed the role of Supreme Governor was absolutely necessary if the whole of Siberia was not to fall ripe into the hands of the Bolsheviks. That visionary set of impractical theorists with whom I spent an evening in a railroad car at a Manchurian station — Messrs Avksentiev [former Minister of Interior in the Kerensky Cabinet] and company — were far worse than out and out anarchists, for they were weak dreamers who could not even maintain the ordinary police security necessary to life in any community. Crime was rife in the streets of Omsk, murders and hold ups were of nightly occurrence in this city on the [?] streets and the Bolshevik city governments throughout Siberia were running things their own way just as they are in Vladivostok today.
It is of course difficult to legalize Admiral Kolchak’s position, in fact it is impossible, for while it was done by the decree of the so called government of the time, it was simply a coup d’etat. His status however is as good according to Russian law as that of any of the revolutionary governments which preceded him.
In the beginning and of necessity his acts for the restoration of order were autocratic; he depended on the support of the army and the officers especially, and he put down local disorder with a high hand…
Ever since then however, he has shown himself in so far as he could safely do so, more and more liberal, and I have no hesitation is saying that I firmly believe that his own opinions and frame of mind are far more liberal than the outside world gives him credit for. He is unfortunate in this that he has had to depend upon the mailed fist to maintain his position and to keep his government from being overridden by the Bolshevik elements which are numerous in every city in Siberia.
It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United, States, but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type, who have been in the United States and there absorbed every one of the worst phases of our civilization without having the least understanding of what we really mean by liberty. (I do not mean the use of the word liberty which has been so widespread in the United States since the war began, but the real word spelt the same way), and the real Russian realizes this and suspects that Americans think as do the loathsome specimens with whom he now comes in contact. I have heard all sorts of estimates as to the real proportion of Bolsheviks to that of the population of Siberia and I think the most accurate is that of General Ivanov-Rinov who estimates it as two per cent. There is hardly a peasant this side of the Urals who has the slightest interest in the Bolshevik or his doings except in so far as it concerns the loss of his own property and, in fact, his point of view is very much like that of our own respectable farmers, when confronted with the I [?] ideal.
Unfortunately, a few of our people in the United States, especially those with good lungs, seem to think that the Bolsheviks are as deserving of a hearing as any real political party with us. This is what the Russian cannot understand and I must say that without being thought one sided, I should not hesitate to shoot without trial if I had the power, any persons who admitted for one moment that they were Bolsheviks. I would just as soon see a mad dog running about a lot of children.
You will think I am hot about this matter but it is, I feel sure, one which is going to bring great trouble on the United States when the judgment of history shall be recorded on the part we have played . It is very largely our fault that Bolshevism has spread as it has and I do not believe we will be found guiltless of the thousands of lives uselessly and cruelly sacrificed in wild orgies of bloodshed to establish an autocratic and despotic rule of principles which have been rejected by every generation of mankind which has dabbled with them.
There have been times during the past month when I have been afraid that the Kolchak government would not last until the next morning. I have had I suspect, the closest connection with the leaders here of any foreigner in Omsk and my sources of information are so many and so varied that I am pretty sure to hear the different points of view on every imaginable question. The announcement of the Princes’s Island conference with Bolsheviks came as a clap of thunder to the government, in fact it so took the wind out of their sails, that I believe they would have thrown up the government and run away if it had not been for [page 3] timely and cool headed advice which they received. Then the news became more widely known there was a fairly strong reactionary movement started by Cossack officers and adherents of the old regime. This was discovered and allowed to die a natural death with very good results. With the failure of the Princes Island conference, the government began to get back a little of the strength it had lost and today I believe it will hold on for some time,. provided it does not get another series of hard knocks from the Allies or the United States.
The very clever and most unscrupulous Japanese propaganda which has been carried on here is one of the most interesting I have ever seen carried out by that country. The way the Japanese took over Korea and we made a scrap of paper of our solemn treaty with that poor little miserable people was child’s play to the present methods of procedure in regard to K_x Siberia. Admiral Kolchak hates the Japanese, the latter naturally are not unaware of that feeling and cordially reciprocate it and the combination of their propaganda with that of the Bolsheviks in the United States and elsewhere is very powerful. I can understand how people who know nothing of our foreign relations or of the Russian people can be carried off their feet by it, but how responsible men can listen to it I do not know. If the feelings of the Russian people are to be consulted and the future of their own country is to be in their hands, there will be no Bolshevik future for this land. They have submitted to it first, from the very good reason that they did not know how to go about fighting it and second, because it came at the psychological moment when the morale of the people had been so shaken that they were ready to endure anything in order to be allowed to be let alone.
The scheme now being worked out for a popular assembly for all parts of Siberia will, I am sure, be of service and even if only partially successful — and I do not see at present how it can be more — will do much towards proving the sincerity of Kolchak in his promises.
Please do not get the idea that I am enthusiastically in favor of the present government, that I consider it ideal or even good, for it is not; but I do consider that it has already united more varied and more numerous elements of the Russian people than any other government which might take its place would do. The question of the moment is not an ideal government but one that will last for the next few weeks and will restore order enough so that any elections may have a fair chance of being carried out without force and fraud and graft.
Personally, I am fairly comfortable here; Cushing and I have each a room requisitioned by the government and it will be impossible to carry out the recommendations made by the Adjutant in a recent telegram because there are no rooms to be had and we have had applications for two months already. With kind regards to all friends,
I am, Very sincerely yours,
Lt. Col. Barrows, Vladivostok
Prioritizing Prestige Over Accomplishment: Britain from 1950 to 1956
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
Biden and Bibi
Remembering Louis-Ferdinand Céline (May 27, 1894–July 1, 1961)
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 2: „Věčný nacista“
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 5, Part 1: Democracy Against the People
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 4, Part 1: The Post-War Consensus
Orgasmus coby zbraň? Pornografie jako židovský antifašistický aktivismus a kulturní terorismus, část 1