HISTORY

FAILURE OF ANTI-BOLSHEVIST CAMPAIGNS. The downfall of the Anti-Bolshevist leaders in Russia who figured in 1919, was indicated in the preceding YEAR BOOK, though it was not at that time complete. Early in the year the overthrow of Admiral Kolchak (q.v.), who had been defeated in the preceding year was completed and he was executed, February 7. The rout of Gen. Denikin, which began before the end of 1919, was completed early in 1920. By the beginning of the year, the Bolsheviki had captured the city of Ekaterinoslav, and were holding the Donetz coal basin. During the winter months, Denikin's forces were completely demoralized and in the spring, he fled to Constantinople, whence he embarked for England on a British warship, April 8. Semenov, the successor to Kolchak was unable to offer any effective resistance. General Yudenitch in the northwest, had completely failed before the close of 1919, and at the beginning of 1920 the northwestern government which was believed by the British interventionists to be a bulwark against Bolshevism, ceased to be of any importance. On the west there remained the Poles and in the south the forces of General Wrangel, both of which were ready to take the aggressive. In the spring the Polish forces entered the Ukraine and captured the city of Kiev against the advice which had been given to them by the British government. The Soviet forces quickly rallied and drove the Polish army back. For an account of the Soviet invasion of Poland, its failure, and the resulting Treaty, see WAR OF THE NATIONS; see also POLAND. By the first of April 20,000 Czechs had already sailed from Vladivostok. To the west of that city there still remained a considerable number of them and further to the west there were some 2000 Serbians and 2500 Rumanians. Poles to the number of about 2500 left Vladivostok early in April.

JAPAN AND SIBERIA. After the failure of Admiral Kolchak, Japan, declaring that she was defending her interests in the Far East and protecting Korea and her own country from Bolshevism, sent more troops into Siberia, who by January 8, had penetrated as far as Lake Baikal, where they were stationed. After the American forces withdrew, a Japanese contingent seized Vladivostok (April 5). Meanwhile, additional forces were landed on the Siberian coast in February and March. While taking this action, Japanese government officials declared that the troops in Siberia were merely for the defense of Korea and Manchuria, and that Japan had no design of holding the occupied territory, or any other motive than the preservation of peace and order. By midsummer, it was ported that Japan had a force of about 100,000 men in Eastern Siberia.

re

ALLEGED DECLINE OF BOLSHEVIST POWER. From about the middle of the year there were

constantly recurring reports of the approaching fall of the Soviet government in Russia. Similar reports, to be sure, had appeared at short intervals in the anti-Bolshevist press from the very moment of the accession of the Bolshevists to power and it was found that in almost every case these predictions of disaster were simply due to the natural desire that these disasters should occur. In 1920, however, the reports became more circumstantial and what was more important, rested on the authority of apparently

impartial witnesses. It appeared that a large number of the officials had fled into Germany; also that a considerable amount of wealth had been invested by prominent Bolshevists in foreign countries. Moreover the appeals to the workingmen of other countries to come to the aid of Russia were becoming more emphatic and assuming a tone of supplication. There were reports of a mutiny of marines at Petrograd, of a revolt of the peasants, of demonstrations among the Red troops on behalf of an immediate peace at any price. These things were attributed not only to the defeat of the Red armies on the Polish front and to the advance of General Wrangel in the south, but to the failure of the Bolshevik social experiments and the bankA notable fearuptcy of the revolution itself. ture of the commentaries on Bolshevism during the year was the change of attitude on the part of well-known and thorough-going Socialists who repeatedly pointed out the failure of the Bolshevists to realize true Socialist aims. The most generally cited of these criticisms owing to the great attainments and fine character of the critic was the exposé by Mr. Bertrand Russell which he published in the British press after a visit to Russia. (See the article SOCIALISM.) In October the Soviet situation was described in the Allied press as follows: Repulsed on all its frontiers; incapable of organizing new armies or equipping the troops that remained; powerless to impose its authority on the masses of workingmen and peasants who now realized that they had been deceived; powerless also to alleviate the sufferings of the people or to end the civil war or to enter into relations with other Powers; the Soviet government was facing the severest winter that it had ever endured.

THE RECOGNITION OF WRANGEL. The French government recognized the government of General Wrangel, August 11. This course was much applauded in the press and high hopes were expressed of the success of the new aspirant. Ever since the revolution of 1917 every Anti-Bolshevist leader in Russia was hailed by those among the Allies who believed in intervention as the savior of Russia and certain to succeed. Detailed account of successive victories which in each case turned out to be more of the nature of defeats were given in the leading newspapers of France, England, and the United States. When one of the leaders was overthrown and

disappeared the same policy in respect to the next was followed in the Allied press until his disappearance. The successive disappearances of

Anti-Bolshevist chiefs came therefore somewhat. as a surprise to the public at large, until they learned the habit of the newspapers in this particular. In every case the new leader was said to have learned from the faults of his predecessors and it was prophesied that he would overcome the Bolshevists. After this had gone on during nearly two years without change and after welcoming with the greatest of enthusiasm always with the same result, that is to say, each new leader predicting his inevitable success and witnessing his failure, the same thing began all over again in the case of General Wrangel, the anti-Bolshevist chief of South Russia. In regard to General Wrangel it was said that his leadership differed from that of all his predecessors and that this time at all events success was assured. The following extract illustrates the point of view of the French sup