BOLSHEVISM.

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 15977, 20 November 1919, Page 5

BOLSHEVISM.

REGIME OF ATROCITIES.

BRITAIN’S POLICY DISCUSSED,

Australian Cable Association LONDON, November 17.'

In the House of Commons, Lord Eobert Cecil said that Bolshevism had been a regime of atrocities, cold-blooded murder and outrage, and one of the most brutal and bloodiest despotisms that had ever stained history. Armed foreign intervention was absolutely impossible. He hoped that Deniten and Koltchak would abandon the Moscow expedition aud reorganise the territories already occupied, establishing a stable Government. This would speedily have au overwhelming moral effect upon their Bolshevik neighbours. Lord Cecil urged the Government to be absolutely clear and definite, displaying no ambiguity or vacillation.

Mr Henderson re-stated Labour’s position, emphasising its opposition to intervention in Russia, and declared that the Allies’ policy had strengthened reactionary efforts. He appealed to the Government to withdraw material support from Koltchak and Deniken. Colonel Ward pointed out that the question of intervention or non-initer-ventioi' did not affect Britain alone. Colonel Ward said that Koltchak was a democrat. Ho concluded by saying that Britain weut to Russia for her own purposes and thereby saved the lives of perhaps hundreds of thousands of her own men. Our solo aim in going to Russia was to save our men, and we made promises accordingly. Therefore we ought not now to repudiate them. Replying, Mr Lloyd George said that he was glad the debate bad shown that all were agreed as regards the horrors of both the practice and the principle of Bolshevism. It was undemocratic and did not represent freedom. He emphasised this by quoting from a Bolshevik proclamation stating: _ “We raised the standard of discipline in_ the army and must now raise Labour discipline.” Tliis proved that the Bolshevik notion of freedom for the workin classes was compulsory labour. The Premier defended his describing Bullett’s disclosures as a “tissue of lies.” It was an obligation of honour to help men who assisted to reconstruct the Eastern front against Germany. We had fully discharged that obligation, but there were others of the Allies who were m a better position to support Koltchak than ourselves, and any failure there had been did not lie at our door. We helped Deniken and fhe policy was successful. The regions of the Don and Ukraine were anti-Bolshevik, but it was clear that whenever armies marched into central Russia beyond a certain point they failed, though hone could say what Central Russia wanted. Britain, however, could not finance civil war in Russia indefinitely. Our first concern was for our own country, where the shortest road to Bolshevism was financial bankruptcy. Britain had contributed more than any other country to anti-Bolshevism. She had contributed more than France, Japan and America combined- He boasted of our action iu this connection because it was to meet an obligation of honour. Franca and Britain had come to a similar view, namely, that the Government could not burden the taxpayers further in respect to operations in Russia. The present difficulties were the fact that Koltchak and Deniken were fighting for a reunited Russia, whereas Esthonia, Latvia and Lithuania were fighting for independence, while other great anti-Bol-shevik forces were fighting for a local independent nationality. Therefore, it was most difficult to lay down a policy. He pointed out that those favouring intervention iu Russia opposed intervention iu Armenia and vice versa-.

Mr Lloyd George added furUier that the Germans were still in the Baltic provinces They must be cleared out. Otherwise the peace of Europe would ht unsafe. He asked who advocated the. terrible responsibility of restoring order in a country which was a continent, in which every nation, every armv, which had been interested hitherto had harvested disaster. He refused the responsibility. (Cheers).