Current History: A Monthly Magazine of the New York Times, May 1918: Vol. VIII, Part I, No. 2Various
History
Current History: A Monthly Magazine of the New York Times, May 1918: Vol. VIII, Part I, No. 2
Various
World War, 1914-1918
I am not sure that it was not my honorable friend (Mr. MacCallum Scott)
who said exactly the same thing happened in France. The same thing
really did not happen in France. I do not say we cannot find in this or
that episode parallels to the French Revolution, but the total effect of
the Revolution was not the disintegration of France but its integration.
The units out of which modern France was constructed were no doubt
compacted into a nation under the old monarchy, but the divisions
between these units were still obvious; they still remained in the
institutions of the country, and it was not until the Revolution that
France became homogeneous from end to end and all the old provincial
distinctions were swept away.
Precisely the opposite has happened in Russia. The revolution comes and
immediately all the old divisions between populations, between different
regions, between different creeds, suddenly become marked and
prominent. First this body and then that body threatens to fall way, and
it must inevitably take time before we see the end of that process and
know clearly how much of the old Russia, if any, ought to cease to form
part of the new Russia and how the new Russia will be constituted. A
very difficult process in time of peace, a very difficult process in
time of prosperity, but how are you going to carry it out in time of war
when you have at your gates an enemy remorseless, persevering, quite
unscrupulous, like that which is dealing at its own sweet will with
Russia at the present moment? That is the real difficulty which we have
always had to deal with and to think over to the best of our ability
when we consider some of the problems raised by the honorable gentleman
who initiated this debate.
JAPAN AND SIBERIA
[The speaker then took up an inquiry regarding a suggestion of Japanese
intervention in Siberia. He said the hypothesis that whenever one
country sends troops into another country those troops invariably stay
where they are sent, and annexation is the result, was false; if such
were the case there would be a bad outlook for the north of France. He
argued that if the Japanese did intervene it would be as friends of
Russia and enemies of Germany, to preserve the country from German
domination, and he proceeded thus:]
Russia lies absolutely derelict upon the waters, and now it has no power
of resistance at all; there can be a German penetration from end to end
of Russia, which, I think, will be absolutely disastrous for Russia
itself, and certainly will be very injurious to the future of the
Allies. I suspect that at this moment a German officer is much safer
traveling at large through Russia than an allied officer. Why? Not
because the Russians love the Germans, but because, as a matter of fact,
the German penetration has really struck at the root of Russian power. I
was informed the other day that only one bank was allowed at Moscow.
That bank is a German bank.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account