慶祝沙皇的垮台
1917年3月22日，沙皇及其一家人全部被捕，前途未卜——英國則迅速承認了革命政府。
勞合・喬治在當天向新任俄羅斯總理洛夫親王發出了賀電，他說：
“大不列顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國人民與帝國領地的屬民懷著無比欣慰的心情聽聞，他們的偉大盟友俄羅斯如今也加入了那些以負責任的政府作為立國之本的國家...我深信這場革命...說明了一個根本的真理：這場戰爭歸根結底是一場為了追求民選政府與自由的鬥爭。”（註132）
同一天，前首相阿斯奎斯也在下議院宣布：
“俄羅斯現在與世界上最偉大的民主國家們站在了一起...我們...感到無比的榮幸，能夠成為率先恭賀她的解放並歡迎她加入自由人行列的國家之一。”（註133）
英國媒體則不忘向讀者們保證，俄羅斯的新臨時政府不會退出戰爭，不會與德國單獨媾和。米留科夫本人在3月23日的記者會上很明確地表達了這一點。
“我們將繼續忠於過去的所有同盟...”他說。“俄羅斯有責任繼續鬥爭...既是為了她的自由，也是為了全歐洲的自由...從今以後，所有關於單獨媾和的謠言都必須被一律斥為無稽之談...”（註134）
英國的秘密議程
“我唯一關心的就是該如何讓俄羅斯繼續參戰，”布坎南在1923年的回憶錄中寫道。
當他在1923年寫下這些話時，輿論的風向已經變了。布坎南現在因為他在推翻沙皇的鬥爭中所扮演的角色而備受抨擊。面對所有的批評者，他總是一再地以相同的辯解作為回應。布坎南說，最大的問題在於沙皇的搖擺不定。沙皇正在考慮單獨與德國議和。為了協約國的勝利，無論如何都必須阻止他。
布坎南堅稱英國大使館別無選擇，只能支持革命。
他在回憶錄中寫說：“我們宣傳部的負責人休・渥波爾（Hugh Walpole）...曾經懇求我在一些必須發言的公開集會上，用慷慨激昂的語氣表明我全心全意站在革命這一邊。我當然也照做了。但是，當我難掩激動地談論著俄羅斯新獲得的自由時...這其實是為了讓我隨後的呼籲變得更能被人們接受，即俄軍應該繼續堅守崗位，繼續與德國人作戰，而不是媾和。我唯一關心的就是該如何讓俄羅斯繼續參戰。”（註135）
從英國自身利益的角度來看，讓俄羅斯繼續參戰當然是合理的。但這真的是布坎南的目標嗎？
“我們將會...見證一連串的革命與反革命...”
1917年4月10日，布坎南在寫給米爾納勳爵的一封信中承認，他根本不相信俄羅斯還有餘力繼續參戰。
“這裡的軍事前景令人沮喪，”他寫道：“我個人已經放棄了對俄羅斯在今年春天的攻勢能取得進展的希望。我對這個國家的前景同樣不樂觀。俄羅斯尚未成熟到足以建立民主政府，未來幾年我們恐怕將會見證一連串的革命與反革命...像這樣一個幅員遼闊、種族多元的帝國，絕無可能在共和體制下維持長久的安定。我料定，它的解體早晚一定會發生...”（註136）
既然如此，為什麼英國卻還是要支持革命呢？假如讓俄羅斯繼續參戰從來就不是一個現實的想法，那麼這一切到底是為了什麼？
我們不禁要懷疑，布坎南真正的目的是否從一開始其實就是為了讓俄羅斯輸掉戰爭——如同基欽納勳爵早已設想好的——並確保俄羅斯帝國永遠無法再挑戰英國的“世界霸權”，這也是維多利亞女王當年的夙願。
從這個角度來看，我們就很容易能理解為什麼沙皇一死，英國人就立刻開始密謀推翻臨時政府了。
“解體”
1917年英國的對俄政策所造就的結果，就是讓布坎南的預言真的應驗了——持續多年的“革命”、“反革命”，以及最後是“解體”。
或許這一切本來就是故意的。
1917年7月1日，臨時政府履行了對英國的承諾，發起了大規模攻勢。布魯西洛夫將軍（General Brusilov）率軍直撲加利西亞的奧地利軍隊，但他的攻勢在短短三天內就潰敗了。超過四十萬俄羅斯士兵陣亡、受傷或被俘，逃兵的數量更是同樣不少（註137）。
一切就如同布坎南的預測，布魯西洛夫的進攻實際上摧毀的是俄羅斯自己的民主實驗。回想一下，布坎南曾在4月10日寫給米爾納勳爵的信中坦承，他“放棄了對俄羅斯的攻勢能取得進展的希望”，並且他還預測俄羅斯的民主將會失敗（註138）。
我不相信布坎南的預測神準是因為他真的有先見之明，更不是因為他有什麼異於常人的稟賦或遠見。布坎南很了解接下來會發生什麼，因為正是他親自促成了這些事的發生。
布坎南的陰謀所導致的結果是，俄軍現在已經處於全面失控狀態。在7月16−30日這段期間，彼得格勒的街頭擠滿了武裝暴動的士兵、水兵與工人，他們紛紛要求結束戰爭。這次兵變又被稱為“七月危機”。
洛夫親王在7月20日辭去了總理之職，接替他的人是社會主義者亞歷山大・克倫斯基。
科尼洛夫政變
1917年9月10日，俄軍總司令拉夫爾・科尼洛夫（Lavr Kornilov）突然自封為獨裁者，並對外宣稱要推翻克倫斯基的臨時政府（註139）。
克倫斯基指責是英國人煽動了這場政變。有大量的證據表明他是對的。
8月15日，布坎南在日記中寫道，要重整軍隊的紀律，“科尼洛夫將軍是唯一一個有能力做到的人”（註140）。9月8日，布坎南繼續寫道：“我不覺得克倫斯基是一位稱職的總理，雖然他在過去有過貢獻，但他已明顯心有餘而力不足。”（註141）
9月10日，政變爆發。科尼洛夫以鎮壓布爾什維克起義為藉口，讓克雷莫夫將軍（General Krymov）率領一支大軍前往彼得格勒。然而，克雷莫夫真正的目的卻是要來推翻克倫斯基。
克倫斯基在1927年的回憶錄《大災難》（The Catastrophe）中指責英國人——特別是米爾納勳爵——在幕後支持這場政變。他寫道：
“莫斯科的街頭到處都有人在分發一本題為《民族大救星科尼洛夫》的小冊子，它們是由英國軍事使團出資印刷，並通過英國武官諾克斯將軍（General Knox）的火車從英國駐彼得格勒大使館直接運送到莫斯科。差不多就在這個節骨眼上，前杜馬議員阿拉丁（Aladin）從英國歸來了...還帶著一封英國陸軍大臣米爾納勳爵寫給科尼洛夫將軍的信，信中表達了他對實施軍事獨裁統治的贊同與祝福。不用說，這封信極大地鼓舞了那群造反分子。”（註142）
英國還向科尼洛夫提供了一支裝甲車隊，由身穿俄羅斯軍服的英國士兵負責駕駛，率領車隊的人是海軍少校奧利弗・洛克−蘭普森（Oliver Locker-Lampson，註143）。
這場政變最終沒有成功，但它卻重挫了克倫斯基政府的威信，為布爾什維克的奪取鋪平了道路。
或許，這才是它真正的目的。
托洛茨基接過指揮權
這時，托洛茨基卻又再次出現了。
在“七月危機”後，托洛茨基曾一度被克倫斯基臨時政府逮補。
然而，9月17日，即科尼洛夫發動政變四十天後，克倫斯基卻決定釋放托洛茨基。這是托洛茨基在五個月內第二次獲釋，此時恰好也是革命最需要他的時候（註144）。
從監獄獲釋後，托洛茨基便立刻開始指揮布爾什維克抵抗運動。
他在10月8日獲選為彼得格勒蘇維埃主席。10月10日，托洛茨基領導的蘇維埃投票通過了武裝革命決議。
因此，當托洛茨基後來在1917年11月6−7日的夜晚採取行動，領導布爾什維克發動政變時，就一點也不令人意外了。
1918年11月6日，史達林在《真理報》的一篇文章中承認了托洛茨基對政變的重大貢獻。他寫道：
“所有與組織起義相關的實際工作，都是在彼得格勒蘇維埃主席托洛茨基同志的直接領導下完成的。可以肯定地說，黨首先要感謝的對象就是托洛茨基同志，因為是他號召駐軍迅速倒向蘇維埃，並有效地組織了軍事革命委員會...”（註145）
1918年3月14日，托洛茨基被任命為陸軍和海軍人民委員，實際上就是紅軍與紅軍艦隊的總司令（註146）。
越南之前的越南
接下來發生的事情可以說是歷史上最大的謎團之一——它就是令人霧裡看花的俄國內戰。
布爾什維克在1917年11月6−7日的深夜發動政變，並奪取了少數幾座城市的控制權。但龐大的俄羅斯帝國仍尚未被征服。紅軍花了整整五年的時間，造成一千多萬人死亡，才終於平定了全國其餘地區（註147）。
1918年12月，俄國內戰正酣，三十餘萬名白軍在十八多萬名協約國軍隊的支援下，與同樣大約三十萬的紅軍進行著激戰。紅軍一度遭到包圍，被困在莫斯科和彼得格勒周圍的一個小區域內，就連補給線也遭到截斷。“布爾什維克正在每一個戰線上節節敗退，幾乎只能退守莫斯科，”馬丁・吉爾伯特（Martin Gilbert）在《水深火熱的世界》（World in Torment，1975）中寫道（註148）。
布爾什維克最後是怎麼反敗為勝的呢？
可以說，俄羅斯就是越南之前的越南，越南之所以落入共產黨的統治，不是因為共產黨真的有多麼不可戰勝，而只是因為反共勢力遭到了背刺。
當帕列伊公主在1924年寫下回憶錄的時候，俄國內戰尚未結束。僅存的反布爾什維克游擊隊仍在中亞進行著垂死掙扎。
公主寫道：“俄羅斯的苦難始終無法結束，這難道不該歸咎於英國嗎？英國故意支持...蘇維埃政府，為的就是不讓真正的俄羅斯，民族的俄羅斯，再次崛起。”（註149）
公主說得是對的嗎？紅軍與“蘇維埃政府”的勝利真的是因為英國的支持嗎？
有大量的證據顯示，事實確實如此。
打敗俄羅斯民族主義者
英國歷史學家馬丁・吉爾伯特曾在1975年出版的《水深火熱的世界：溫斯頓・邱吉爾，1917−1922》一書中指出，首相勞合・喬治其實從未想過要與布爾什維克為敵。
在勞合・喬治看來，英國真正的敵人始終是俄羅斯的民族主義者和君主主義者。
這種考量也是有理由的。
1917年，英國的高級政治家們正在密謀一項計畫，企圖將俄羅斯一分成數個緩衝國，並將高加索地區的油田置於英國的控制之下。
米爾納勳爵甚至考慮過要與德國共同瓜分俄羅斯。
“一直以來，肢解俄羅斯就是英國的國策，”美國歷史學家路易斯・費雪（Louis Fischer）在《石油帝國主義：國際石油鬥爭史》（Oil Imperialism: The International Struggle for Petroleum，1926）中寫道。“正是出於這個緣故，它才向鄧尼金（Denikin）和高爾察克（Koltchak）這些反革命領導人提供武器、彈藥、軍官、資金和建議...英國的目的是分裂這些地區，然後成為它們的庇護者和保護者。”（註150）
英國與白軍不是盟友
另一方面，白軍的指揮官都是民族主義者。他們反對分裂帝國，更不打算恢復最初領導革命的自由派杜馬。他們有許多人支持羅曼諾夫王朝復辟，建立君主立憲制（註151）。
這是勞合・喬治絕對無法接受的。
因此，白軍指揮官始終無法和他們背後的英國支持者就最基本的戰爭目標達成一致。
他們在資金、補給、彈藥和軍事顧問方面幾乎完全依賴於英國，正是導致白軍最終失敗的原因。他們每一步的行動都必須與英國戰爭部事先協調與磋商過（註152）。
當英國最終決定切斷補給和資金時，白軍的末日也就來臨了。
協約國干預的神話
在整個俄國內戰期間，總計有超過二十萬名外國軍隊被派赴到俄羅斯帝國的土地上。其中包括將近六萬名英國士兵、七萬名日本士兵，以及少量的美國、法國、捷克及其它國家的士兵（註153）。
整整七十年來，蘇聯宣傳部門一直在宣揚這樣一個神話，即當初全世界的“帝國主義”國家曾一度聯合起來，就是為了剿滅布爾什維克革命。但這從來就不是真的，假如協約國真的想要剷除布爾什維克，它們完全有能力輕易做到這一點。
英國調派兵力前往俄羅斯——並且說服其它國家也這麼做——不為的不是打擊布爾什維克主義，而是另有其它目的。
只要德國還在繼續打仗，英國的首要任務就是要維持住東線戰場，繼續與德皇作戰。
哪怕在1918年11月11日德國投降之後，英國人仍將他們視為巨大的威脅。一旦德國人和俄羅斯人決定聯手，俄羅斯就可能會出現一個親德政府。
英國試圖透過干預俄國內戰來遏止德國的影響力，讓白軍的領導人倒向他們，而不是向德國求助。
然而，英國人給予的只不過是虛假的承諾。英國完全無意幫助白軍恢復俄羅斯帝國，而這恰恰才是真正的目標。
肢解俄羅斯帝國
如前所述，英國真正的目的其實是要瓜分俄羅斯帝國，將它的邊境地區分裂個數個“緩衝國”。
這才是協約國決定介入的主因。
分離主義將會削弱俄羅斯，使英國更容易掌控這些地區。因此，協約國一直在努力幫助從前的俄羅斯省份爭取獨立。
這些努力在芬蘭、波蘭及其它波羅的海國家取得了成功，它們紛紛開始獨立建國。然而，烏克蘭、高加索和其它地區的獨立卻只是曇花一現，紅軍很快就重新征服了這些地區（註154）。
協約國實際上很少直接介入衝突。就算真的參與交戰，它們的敵人也不總是布爾什維克。只有在白軍的行動目標符合它們利益的時候，它們才會提供援助。有時，協約國甚至會主動幫助紅軍。
很少有人知道，第一批登陸俄羅斯的協約國部隊是一支英國皇家海軍陸戰隊，他們後來與紅軍並肩作戰，擊敗了一支反布爾什維克的波蘭軍隊。
甚至連托洛茨基本人也曾請求英國出兵相助。
托洛茨基的電報
摩爾曼斯克（Murmansk）是一座重要的北極海港，它在一戰時堪稱是俄羅斯的生命線。
1918年3月1日，托洛茨基向摩爾曼斯克蘇維埃司令阿列克謝・米哈伊洛維奇・尤里耶夫（Alexei Mikhailovich Yuryev）發送了一封電報，謊稱與德國的和平談判“已經徹底破局”，並命令後者“保衛摩爾曼斯克鐵路”並“接受協約國使團的一切援助。”（註155）
托洛茨基為什麼要下達這道命令？
官方的說法是，托洛茨基不知何故誤以為和平談判已無指望，因此他擔心德國會入侵摩爾曼斯克，問題是托洛茨基本人就是負責和平談判的外交委員，他不可能不知道談判的進展其實十分順利（註156）。
托洛茨基聲稱談判“破局”只是一個藉口。真正的問題在於和平條約本身。
《布列斯特−立陶夫斯克條約》將大片俄羅斯領土割讓給了德國。德國佔領軍將會迅速進駐並接管這些地區。
當時英國有大量的物資與彈藥存放在摩爾曼斯克，英國自然不希望它們落入德國人或德國的任何盟友手中，例如芬蘭白衛軍。
這很有可能才是托洛茨基在3月1日急電尤里耶夫與協約國合作的原因。他這麼做是為了幫助英國人（註157）。
因此，托洛茨基再次扮演了他最熟悉的角色，即一邊保衛英國的利益，一邊宣稱自己是在為無產階級國際主義而戰。
援助紅軍
英國需要一個可以名正言順地佔領摩爾曼斯克的藉口。托洛茨基提供了它。但他的行事方式十分謹慎。
托洛茨基沒有直接與英國人溝通，而是透過尤里耶夫來提出請求。
托洛茨基發給尤里耶夫的電報，後來成為了1937年針對他的叛國罪審判中的證據（註159）。
令人震驚的是，托洛茨基僅憑一己之力就打開國門放協約國進來，而且還是讓布爾什維克軍官尤里耶夫去主動邀請英國人。
第一批英軍在1918年3月6日正式登陸摩爾曼斯克（註160）。
他們在5月2日參與了第一場戰鬥，並且是與布爾什維克並肩作戰。
芬蘭白衛軍佔領了鄰近的佩琴加（Pechenga）鎮，他們很可能是在為德軍預先打頭陣。
於是在5月2−10日，皇家海軍陸戰隊與紅軍一同出擊，將芬蘭人趕出了佩琴加（註161）。
邱吉爾 vs 勞合・喬治
溫斯頓・邱吉爾並不是這個故事裡的英雄。
儘管如此，在局面混亂不堪的俄國內戰中，邱吉爾卻還是非常難得地發出了清醒而理性的聲音。他從一開始就認識到，布爾什維克缺乏群眾支持，隨時都有可能崩潰。
不幸的是，邱吉爾從未有機會凝聚像他一樣的反對派力量。
1918年12月31日，邱吉爾在戰時內閣會議上提議，應該用武力強逼布爾什維克在協約國的監督下舉行大選。因為他非常有把握布爾什維克一定會慘敗（註162）。
勞合・喬治極力反對這一提議，事實上，他反對的是任何可能會導致布爾什維克垮台的計畫。
“LG（勞合・喬治）反對消滅布爾什維克主義，”在與勞合・喬治會面後，亨利・威爾遜爵士（Henry Wilson）在他的日記中寫道。威爾遜是首相的首席軍事顧問（註163）。
在1月20日與邱吉爾共進晚餐後，威爾遜又寫道：“溫斯頓對布爾什維克沒有任何好臉色，因此，在這一點上，他與LG同樣不對付。”（註164）
不要支持“反動派”
馬丁・吉爾伯特在《水深火熱的世界》中令人信服地證明了，邱吉爾在作為陸軍大臣的時候曾竭盡全力想要與布爾什維克開戰，以徹底剷除他們。我認為沒有理由懷疑這一點。假如邱吉爾當初能夠放手去做，他很可能將有機會拯救俄羅斯免於未來長達七十年的共產主義統治。
但勞合・喬治卻在處處阻撓他。
這位首相使用了與過去對付沙皇同樣的方式來對付白軍。他聲稱白軍是“反動的”，幫助他們就是在打臉英國對於“民主”、“人民自決”及其它崇高理想的承諾。
因此，當邱吉爾在1919年5月5日致電勞合・喬治，請求緊急援助高爾察克進攻莫斯科時，這位首相卻回覆說，他無意幫助高爾察克在俄羅斯建立一個“反動軍政府”（註165）。
換言之，勞合・喬治是在拿他從未對布爾什維克提出的條件來要求高爾察克——對自由民主的承諾。
於是，邱吉爾不得不請求高爾察克做出實質承諾，任命一個經民主選舉產生的制憲會議、允許波蘭和芬蘭獨立、將俄羅斯與其它分離省份的爭端交由國際聯盟裁決，例如愛沙尼亞、立窩尼亞、拉脫維亞、立陶宛、喬治亞和亞塞拜然（註166）。
毫不令人意外的是，高爾察克拒絕了這些要求（註167）。
聽其言而觀其行
後來，當鄧尼金準備從南部進兵莫斯科時，勞合・喬治又再次出手了。
邱吉爾試圖為鄧尼金籌措其急需的資金，包括為他提供商業貸款並開放與其勢力範圍的貿易。1919年7月25日，勞合・喬治在戰時內閣會議上否決了此一計畫，理由是他很懷疑“鄧尼金和他手下的官兵們是否有足夠的見識”（註168）。
這位首相聲稱，鄧尼金“身邊都是具有反動傾向的人”，其中一些人甚至妄圖“復辟沙皇政權”（註169）。
勞合・喬治明確地表示，他不會允許俄羅斯君主制復辟，哪怕是以“溫和”的君主立憲形式（註170）。
這樣的反君主制立場似乎與他本人在1918年7月22日向戰時內閣發表的聲明互相矛盾。那時首相是這麼說的：“俄羅斯民族有權擁護任何他們想要的政府。不管他們是選擇共和政府、布爾什維克政府還是君主政府，都與我們無關。”（註171）
言行一致從來就不是勞合・喬治的強項，特別是在與俄羅斯有關的問題上。但有一個問題他卻是始終沒有改變過態度。勞合・喬治支持布爾什維克，而不是其它任何正在俄羅斯爭奪權力的派系。
“處於戰爭”卻不挑起戰爭
1919年7月4日，當白軍的尤登尼奇將軍（General Yudenich）即將兵臨彼得格勒時，內閣會議上有人提出應該讓英國海軍通過波羅的海和芬蘭灣來為其提供支援。
對此勞合・喬治的回應是，雖然英國在技術上“與布爾什維克處於戰爭狀態”，但他的政策是“不挑起戰爭”，因此他不能批准任何針對彼得格勒的海軍攻擊行動（註172）。
勞合・喬治的這段話可以說是十分有力地概括了英國對俄國內戰的總體政策，亦即“不挑起戰爭”。
英國的作壁上觀也連帶影響了其它協約國遠征軍，包括美軍。
從1918−1919年，大約有一萬三千名美軍士兵被派往俄羅斯，最後有三百四十四人死亡，一百二十五人留在那裡。大部分的美國人從未明白他們為什麼會被送去那裡（註173）。
“我們國家對俄羅斯的政策到底是什麼？”加州參議員海勒姆・約翰遜（Hiram Johnson）在1918年12月12日的一次演說中質問道。“我根本不知道我們有政策，我相信其他人也不知道我們有什麼政策可言。”（註174）
1919年被派赴俄羅斯的美國第339團中尉約翰・庫達希（John Cudahy）後來寫道，當最後一支美軍於1919年6月15日從俄羅斯的阿爾漢格爾港（Archangel）撤離時，“仍然沒有一個士兵知道，他們到底是為何而來，為何要離開，又為何許多戰友被留下——被埋葬在木製的十字架下。”（註175）
喪鐘為誰而鳴
最後一支英軍是在1919年10月撤出俄羅斯（註176）。
1919年12月12日，英法政府切斷了對白軍的所有援助，並宣布他們將不再向“俄羅斯的反布爾什維克分子提供任何幫助，無論是人力、物資還是經濟援助...”（註177）
高爾察克遭到出賣，並被移交給布爾什維克，最後在1920年2月7日黎明升起前夕被槍決——二十四個小時後，邱吉爾的那篇文章就會登上《星期日先驅報》（註178）。
弗蘭格爾將軍（General Wrangel）——最後一位率領大批白軍部隊的指揮官——在1920年11月14日撤出了俄羅斯（註179）。
白軍仍一直在西伯利亞東部的庫雅特地區負隅頑抗直到1923年6月，但他們已經沒有任何翻盤的希望。弗蘭格爾的退出徹底終結了推翻布爾什維克的最後一絲可能。
1921年3月16日，英國與布爾什維克簽署了《英蘇貿易協定》。
1921年3月21日，布爾什維克政府頒布了新經濟政策（NEP），允許俄羅斯恢復有限度的資本主義，並不再排斥外國投資。
1924年2月1日，英國正式承認新成立的蘇聯政權。
就像我們現代的許多戰爭一樣，到頭來還是沒有任何人能夠搞懂這場戰爭。
托洛茨基的秘密
至少，托洛茨基對自己的選擇從未有過懷疑。他的自負也不允許他這麼做。
1940年2月27日，當時正在墨西哥城流亡的他寫下了一份“遺囑”，他在裡面反思了自己戎馬一生所留下的結果。
“如果讓我從頭來過，我當然會設法避免犯下這樣或那樣的錯誤，”托洛茨基寫說：“但我的人生基本上不會有太大改變。我依然將以無產階級革命家、馬克思主義者、辯證唯物主義者、因而也是堅定不移的無神論者的身份死去。我對人類未來實現共產主義的信心比起年輕時沒有絲毫減弱，事實上，它反而變得更加堅定了。”（註180）
因此，我們可以說，至少他這一生走得無怨也無悔。
1940年8月20日，一名蘇聯秘密警察特工用冰鎬襲擊了托洛茨基。冰鎬是一種登山工具，它的一端是木鎬，另一端是扁斧（註181）。
這位西班牙裔的刺客拉蒙・麥卡德（Ramón Mercader）將冰鎬砸進托洛茨基的頭顱裡，足足有將近三英寸深。
與托洛茨基結髮三十七年的妻子娜塔莉亞・謝多娃（Natalia Sedova）一直陪伴著他，直到他生命的最後一刻。
據報導，托洛茨基與娜塔利亞在墨西哥產生了“嚴重的婚姻裂痕”，他們頻繁爭吵的其中一個原因與托洛茨基在很久以前的婚外情有關，而他的出軌對象就是英國間諜、邱吉爾的表妹克萊兒・謝里丹，羅伯特・瑟維斯（Robert Service）在《托洛茨基傳》（Trotsky: A Biography，註182）中對此有詳細敘述。
無論托洛茨基與英國情報部門之間究竟有過什麼交易，他最終都將這個秘密帶進了墳墓。
邱吉爾的亡魂
今天，邱吉爾的雕像正在英國各地遭到破壞和羞辱。
人們說他是“種族主義者”、“帝國主義者”、“反猶主義者”和“白人至上主義者”。
我一點也不想加入這場愚蠢的狂熱。
歷史上很少有比邱吉爾更令我欽佩的人物了。
我選擇原諒他所犯下的過錯。
儘管如此，歷史的錯誤還是必須得到修正。
犯錯的勇氣
1898年，年僅二十三歲的邱吉爾在恩圖曼（Omdurman）參加了英國歷史上最後的其中一次大規模騎兵衝鋒，他所展現出的是我們如今這個時代早已忘記的勇氣（註183）。
當他在1920年向《星期日先驅報》投稿的時候，他展現出的是另一種截然不同的勇氣，而它也被我們今天的時代給遺忘了。
沒有什麼比種族仇恨更難化解、更黑暗，也沒有什麼比斯拉夫人和猶太人彼此之間的仇視更令人哀傷的了，一千年來這樣的敵意已經將草原染紅成了鮮紅色無數次（註184）。
介入別人的仇恨需要勇氣，坦然地直抒己見同樣也需要勇氣。
邱吉爾展現出了極大的勇氣，儘管他的故事並不完全是正確的。
我們仍必須給予他最大的肯定。
恢復真相
正因為邱吉爾有勇氣說出他的想法，一百年後的我們同樣也不應該避諱於說出真相。
或許，我們要試著提出一些過去我們從未敢問的問題，而我們或許會因此收穫一些預料之外的答案。
一百年來的謊言掩蓋了有關於世界上第一個共產主義國家的許多真相。
光是這篇文章還不足以讓所有真相重見天日。
但如果本文能讓更多人開始去主動探索真相，我就心滿意足了。
____________________
FOOTNOTES
1
Winston Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, p5
2
“Russian Civil War,” Encyclopedia Britannica / Britannica.com, Last updated November 27, 2022
Werth Nicolas, "Crimes and Mass Violence of the Russian Civil Wars (1918-1921)," SciencesPo.fr, March 21, 2008
3
“Parliamentary Paper, Russia. No. 1: A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, Great Britain, Foreign Office (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, April 1919)
4
Alan Sarjeant, The Protocols Matrix: George Shanks and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (2021), page 21
5
Sarjeant, The Protocols Matrix (2021), abstract
6
Sarjeant, The Protocols Matrix (2021): "George Shanks, the man who published the first English translation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in January 1920 was working as a clerk in the Chief Whip's Office at 12 Downing Street under Coalition Whip, Freddie Guest. A closer look at Shanks' background also reveals he was the nephew of Aylmer Maude, the famous friend and translator of Tolstoy who became a leading voice in the pro-Interventionist movement of the Russian Affairs Committee during the Russian Civil War of 1917 to 1922. Maude’s colleagues at this time included former members of Britain’s wartime propaganda bureau in Petrograd, Harold Williams, Bernard Pares and Hugh Walpole... A brand new find also reveals that Shanks co-translator, Major Edward G.G. Burdon was serving as Secretary to the United Russia Socities Association under House of Commons Speaker, James Lowther and alongside members Sir Bernard Pares, John Buchan and Hugh Walpole in support of White Russia's war against the Bolsheviks..." (abstract); "[Robert Hobart] Cust went on to reveal that Shanks, who had served in both the Royal Navy Air Service and the Anglo-Russia supplies committee during the war, had been assisted in the translation by Edward Griffiths George Burdon OBE, a decorated Temporary Major previously attached to the 4th Northumberland Fusiliers." (page 159)
7
Sarjeant, The Protocols Matrix (2021): "Shanks is alleged to have solicited an original Russian copy of the book from the British Museum in autumn of 1919, carried out a translation and then approached the highly respectable government printers, Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd with an order to produce a staggering 30,000 copies of the book at his own expense (by contrast only 20,000 copies of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby were pressed by Charles Scribner’s Sons during its initial run in June 1925)." (page 20); "Robert Hobart Cust was a friend of Major Edward Griffiths Burdon OBE, the man who had helped George Shanks translate The Protocols from Russia into English. Cust claims to have introduced Shanks to Eyre & Spottiswoode, ‘His Majesty’s’ printers." (page 177): "The choice of Eyre & Spottiswoode may well have been a reflection of the proximity of the Cust family to His Majesty, Edward VII. Robert’s cousin was Lionel Cust, son of Sir Reginald Cust, who had served not only as Director of the National Portrait Gallery but also as ‘Gentleman Usher’ to the King and Surveyor of the King’s Pictures. Eyre & Spottiswoode was ‘His Majesty’s’ printers, and attached to the Stationery Office of the British Government (the HMSO). Since 1901, the company would have handled practically anything relating to public information including government white papers and the various Gazettes. In any other circumstances, the link between The Protocols and the King’s Printers would be a fairly casual connection, but the Cust family’s reputation and status in the Royal household would certainly account for the clinching of a deal with such a highly regarded printing house from such unproven authors." (page 261)
8
Sarjeant, The Protocols Matrix (2021), page 20
9
Sarjeant, The Protocols Matrix (2021), page 20
10
Advertisement, Evening Standard (London), July 20, 1920, page 11
11
"'The Jewish Peril': A Disturbing Pamplet: Call for Inquiry," The Times (London), May 8, 1920, page 15: "What are these 'Protocols'? Are they authentic? If so, what malevolent assembly concocted these plans, and gloated over their exposition? Are they a forgery? If so, whence comes the uncanny note of prophecy, prophecy in parts fulfilled, in parts far gone in the way of fulfillment? Have we been struggling these tragic years to blow up and extirpate the secret organization of German world dominion only to find beneath it another more dangerous because more secret? Have we, by straining every fibre of our national body, escaped a 'Pax Germanica' only to fall into a 'Pax Judaica'? The 'Elders of Zion,' as represented in their 'Protocols' are by no means kinder taskmasters than William II. and his henchmen would have been."
12
Richard Pipes: "Solzhenitsyn and the Jews, revisited: Alone Together," The New Republic, November 25, 2002; Richard Pipes, "Solzhenitsyn's Troubled Prophetic Mission," The Moscow Times, August 7, 2008; “Parliamentary Paper, Russia. No. 1: A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, Great Britain, Foreign Office (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, April 1919)
13
Richard Norton Taylor, "MI5 detained Trotsky on way to revolution: Public records: Russian was arrested on British orders in 1917 on a boat in Canada but released after intervention by MI6," The Guardian, July 5, 2001: "Leon Trotsky, the creator of the Red Army, was detained on the orders of MI5... Trotsky was arrested with five Russian comrades. There he could have remained, had it not been for the intervention of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6. Claude Dansey, an MI6 officer, had also just landed at Halifax. ... Dansey reported: 'I told Wiseman he had better be discharged at once, and he said that he was going to do so.' Within four weeks of his arrest, to MI5's chagrin, Trotsky and his fellow revolutionaries boarded another ship heading for Russia."
George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Volume II (London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne: Cassell and Company, Ltd, 1923), pp 120-121: In his memoirs, George Buchanan claims that it was he who gave the order to release Trotsky, and that he did it to appease British socialists and the Labour Party. "I am anxious to conciliate the Labour party and the Socialists...I then reminded him [Foreign Minister Miliukoff] that I had, early in April, informed him that Trotzky and other Russian political refugees were being detained at Halifax until the wishes of the Provisional Government with regard to them had been ascertained. On April 8 I had, at his request, asked my Government to release them and to allow them to proceed on their journey to Russia."
Richard B. Spence, "Interrupted Journey: British Intelligence and the Arrest of Leon Trotskii, April 1917," Revolutionary Russia, Volume 13, No. 1, June 1, 2000, pp 1-28
[From abstract] "Among its findings is that Trotskii's arrest was the work of one branch of British intelligence, but his return to Russia was facilitated by another. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the same agency [MI6] sought to recruit or manipulate Trotskii as an agent of influence in revolutionary Russia."
Robert Service, Trotsky: A Biography (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, 2009), page 159
Richard B. Spence, "Hidden Agendas: Spies, Lies and Intrigue Surrounding Trotsky's American Visit of January-April 1917," Revolutionary Russia, Volume 21, Issue 1, 2008, pages 33-55: [From abstract] "Trotsky was surrounded by a web of intrigue and agents of various stripes throughout, and even before, his American stay. He became a pawn, knowingly or not, in assorted plots. Trotsky was the target of a scheme by elements of the British intelligence services to secure his cooperation in revolutionary Russia."
14
Keith Jeffery, MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service 1909-1949 (London: Bloomsbury, 2010); Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (West Hoathly, UK: Clairview Books, 2012), page 25
15
Anita Leslie, Cousin Clare: The Tempestuous Career of Clare Sheridan (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1976) pp 116-126; Robert Service, Trotsky: A Biography (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, 2009), page 264-266
16
P.J. Capelotti, Our Man in the Crimea: Commander Hugo Koehler and the Russian Civil War (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 1991), pp 173-174
17
Norman B. Deuel, “Claims Trotsky was British Spy,” United Press International, March 5, 1938.
18
George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Volume II (London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne: Cassell and Company, Ltd, 1923), pp92-106, 140
19
Princess Paley, “Mes Souvenirs de Russie,” Revue de Paris, June 1, 1922
20
Princess Paley, Memories of Russia 1916-1919 (London, Herbert Jenkins Limited, 1924), page 42
21
Maurice Paléologue (Last French Ambassador to the Russian Court), An Ambassador's Memoirs, Volume III (August 19, 1916-May 17, 1917), translated by F.A. Holt, O.B.E. (London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd, 1925), pp 129-130
22
Andrew Cook, To Kill Rasputin: The Life and Death of Grigori Rasputin (Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK; The History Press, 2006), pp 213-221; George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Volume II (London, New York, Toronto and Melbourne: Cassell and Company, Ltd, 1923), page 51: "...having heard that His Majesty suspected a young Englishman, who had been a college friend of Prince Felix Yusupoff, of having been concerned in Rasputin's murder, I took the opportunity of assuring him that the suspicion was absolutely groundless. His Majesty thanked me and said that he was very glad to hear this."
23
The Great War: The Standard History of the All-Europe Conflict, Vol. 9, editors H.W. Wilson, J.A. Hammerton (London, The Amalgamated Press Ltd, 1917), page 117.
24
Princess Paley, Memories of Russia 1916-1919 (London, Herbert Jenkins Limited, 1924), pp 295-300, 313
25
Princess Paley, Memories of Russia 1916-1919 (1924), pp 41-42
26
Lancelot L. Farrar, Jr., Divide and Conquer. German Efforts to Conclude a Separate Peace, 1914-1918 (Boulder, Colorado, East European Quarterly, 1978), page 18
27
“Constantinople Agreement," Encyclopedia Britannica / Britannica.com, Last updated November 27, 2022: The secret Constantinople Agreement between France, Britain and Russia was worked out in a series of diplomatic communications from March 4 to April 10, 1915. Opinions vary as to the date when the Agreement actually became operative. The Encyclopedia Britannica gives the date of the treaty as March 18, 1915, which corresponds to the date of telegram No. 1226, sent by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Sazonov to Alexander Izvolsky, the Russian Ambassador to Paris, stating, "Now the British Government has given its complete consent in writing to the annexation by Russia of the Straits and Constantinople within the limits indicated by us, and only demanded security for its economic interests and a similar benevolent attitude on our part towards the political aspirations of England in other parts." The text of this telegram appears in F. Seymour Cocks, The Secret Treaties and Understandings (London: Union of Democratic Control, 1918), pp 17-18. It should be noted that Cocks's The Secret Treaties and Understandings gives the date of the Constantinople Agreement as March 20, 1915 (see page 15). Also on page 15, the substance of the treaty is summarized thus: "Britain consents to the annexation by Russia of the Straits and Constantinople, in return for a similar benevolent attitude on Russia's part towards the political aspirations of Britain in other parts. The neutral zone in Persia to be included in the British sphere of influence. The districts adjoining Ispahan and Yezd to be included in Russian sphere, in which Russia is to be granted 'full liberty of action.'"
28
Princess Paley, Memories of Russia 1916-1919 (1924), pp 41-42
29
David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (New York: Henry Holt & Company LLC, 1989), page 98: “In Kitchener's view, Germany was an enemy in Europe and Russia was an enemy in Asia: the paradox of the 1914 war in which Britain and Russia were allied was that by winning in Europe, Britain risked losing in Asia. The only completely satisfactory outcome of the war, from Kitchener's point of view, was for Germany to lose it without Russia winning it—and in 1914 it was not clear how that could be accomplished. So the War Minister planned to strike first in the coming postwar struggle with Russia for control of the road to and into India.”
30
Malcolm Yapp, "The Legend of the Great Game," Proceedings of the British Academy: 2000 Lectures and Memoirs, vol. 111, May 16, 2000), Oxford University Press, pp. 179–198; Seymour Becker, "The ‘Great Game’: The History of an Evocative Phrase." Asian Affairs 43.1 (2012): 61-80
31
"The Muscovy Company: World’s first joint stock company," tbsnews.net, July 25, 2021
32
Jeremy Black, British Foreign Policy in an Age of Revolutions, 1783-1793 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994). p. 290; John Ehrman, The Younger Pitt, Volume II: The Reluctant Transition (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996) pp xx.
33
Christine Hatt, Catherine the Great (London: Evans Brothers, Ltd, 2002) pp 32, 35, 59
34
Bernard Pares, A History of Russia (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926), pp 28-30, 87-98
35
See footnote 32.
36
George Finlay, LL.D., History of the Greek Revolution, Volume I (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1861), p 68, 121, 123, 164-168, 189-191, 239-240
37
Edward Hertslet (1875). "General treaty between Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia and Turkey, signed at Paris on 30th March 1856: The Map of Europe by Treaty showing the various political and territorial changes which have taken place since the general peace of 1814, with numerous maps and notes.” Vol. 2. London: Butterworth. pp. 1250–1265.
38
David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (New York: Henry Holt & Company LLC, 1989), page 27: “Defeating Russian designs in Asia emerged as the obsessive goal of generations of British civilian and military officials. Their attempt to do so was, for them, ‘the Great Game,’ in which the stakes ran high. George Curzon, the future Viceroy of India, defined the stakes clearly: ‘Turkestan, Afghanistan, Transcaspia, Persia… they are the pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for the dominion of the world.’ Queen Victoria put it even more clearly: it was, she said, ‘a question of Russian or British supremacy in the world.’”
39
George Earle Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli Earl of Beaconsfield, Volume VI, 1876-1881 (London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, W., 1920), page 148; cited in Edward E. Slosson, “The Unveiling of Victoria,” The Independent, November 6, 1920, pp 189-190.
40
Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli Earl of Beaconsfield, Volume VI, 1876-1881 (1920), pp 189-190.
41
Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli Earl of Beaconsfield, Volume VI, 1876-1881 (1920), pp 189-190.
42
Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli Earl of Beaconsfield, Volume VI, 1876-1881 (1920), pp 189-190.
43
Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli Earl of Beaconsfield, Volume VI, 1876-1881 (1920), pp 189-190.
44
Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe, The Eastern Question (London: John Murray, 1881) p. xix
45
L.L. Farrar, Jr., Divide and Conquer. German Efforts to Conclude a Separate Peace, 1914-1918, Boulder 1978, pp. 13-56; Stevenson, David: The First World War and International Politics, New York 1988, pp. 92-95; Fischer, Fritz, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, New York 1961, pp. 184f, 189.
46
Sir George Buchanan to Sir Edward Grey 1/1/15; in Winston S. Churchill, vol. 3, Companion, Part I, Documents, July 1914—April 1915, ed. Martin Gilbert (London: Heinemann, 1972), pp. 359–60; cited in Prior, Robin. Gallipoli: The End of the Myth (p. 253). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.
47
Harvey Broadbent, “Gallipoli: One Great Deception?” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, April 23, 2009
48
Broadbent, “Gallipoli: One Great Deception?” ABC, April 23, 2009
49
See footnote 26
50
Proceedings of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference, 21 November, 1917-3 March, 1918 (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1918), page 49; Louis Fischer, Oil Imperialism: The International Struggle for Petroleum (New York: International Publishers, 1926), pp 212-214
51
“Attack on the Kremlin," The Times (London), November 19, 1917, page 8.
52
F. Seymour Cocks, The Secret Treaties and Understandings (London: Union of Democratic Control, 1918), pp 12
53
“Lenin’s Peace Decree Ready for Issue,” The Times (London), November 26, 1917, page 8
54
“Statement by Trotsky on the Publication of the Secret Treaties,” November 22, 1917, reprinted in Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy, Vol. 1 (1917–1924), edited by Jane Degras (New York: Oxford University Press, 1951), p31
55
Cocks, The Secret Treaties and Understandings (1918), page 25
56
Proceedings of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference, November 21, 1917 - March 3, 1918 (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1918), page 49; Louis Fischer, Oil Imperialism: The International Struggle for Petroleum (New York: International Publishers, 1926), pp 212-214
57
A. R. Begli Beigie, "Repeating mistakes: Britain, Iran & the 1919 Treaty," The Iranian, March 27, 2001; “Anglo-Persian Agreement,” Wikipedia
58
Louis Fischer, Oil Imperialism: The International Struggle for Petroleum (New York: International Publishers, 1926), page 218
59
Winston Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, p5
60
Richard Poe, "How the British Invented Color Revolutions," RichardPoe.com, May 13, 2021
61
Micah Alpaugh, “The British Origins of the French Jacobins: Radical Sociability and the Development of Political Club Networks, 1787-1793,” October 2014, European History Quarterly, Volume 44, No, 4, pp 593-619
62
Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, founders.archives.gov, 14 February 1815
63
Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, founders.archives.gov, 31 January 1815
64
Alpaugh, “The British Origins of the French Jacobins,” October 2014, European History Quarterly, pp 593-619
65
Alpaugh, “The British Origins of the French Jacobins,” October 2014, European History Quarterly, pp 593-619
66
Alpaugh, “The British Origins of the French Jacobins,” October 2014, European History Quarterly, pp 594-596
67
Alpaugh, “The British Origins of the French Jacobins,” October 2014, European History Quarterly, pp 594-595
68
"News of a political act-the king's dismissal of his reformist Finance Minister Necker—had fired the original unrest in Paris. Nine days after the Bastille fell the Paris mob hung Necker's successor, and political authority was restored by the Marquis de Lafayette. He arrived on a white horse—literally as well as symbolically—and took military command of Paris on July I5 [1789]... Yet this seeming guarantor of continuing order amidst revolutionary change was soon denounced not just by the Right, but by the Left as well. Burke's conservative attack on the French Revolution listed 'Fayettism' first among the 'rabble of systems.' On the revolutionary side, 'Gracchus' Babeuf, just a year after the fall of the Bastille, excoriated Lafayette as a conceited and antidemocratic brake on the revolutionary process. Later revolutionaries, as we shall see, repeatedly raged against him. ... (page 21) ... Lafayette... was soon drowned out by the more bellicose and radical Brissot. The Brissotists, or Girondists, were in turn swept aside by the more extreme Jacobins in the late spring of 1793. The relatively moderate Jacobinism of Danton was then supplanted by Robespierre; his reign of terror claimed some forty thousand domestic victims in 1793-94. ... (page 22) ...The new republican Constitution of 1 795 was far less radical than that written in 1793 (but never put in effect). Two years later the attempt of the Babeuf conspiracy to organize a new revolutionary uprising was crushed by the five-man Directory with no difficulty. (pp 22-23) ... The revolutionary egalitarianism of Babeuf, Marechal, and Restif de la Bretonne is the progenitor of modern Communism-and of revolutionary socialism, the rival ideal of revolutionary nationalism (page 71)....Babeuf was arrested and the conspiracy destroyed on May 10, 1796. (page 77)
James H. Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith (New York: Basic Books, 1980), pp21-23, 72-78
69
"A generation later, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels built on Buonarrotti's heroic narrative by naming Babeuf the first modern communist." Laura Mason, The Last Revolutionaries: The Conspiracy Trial of Gracchus Babeuf and the Equals (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2022), page 4
70
"Babeuf repeatedly used the word communauté (and inventions like communautistes) in the revolutionary manner of Restif." Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men (1980), page 83
71
"In 1785, Restif published a review of a book describing a communal experiment in Marseilles. He cited a letter of 1782 from the book's author [Joseph-Alexandre-Victor Hupay de Fuve] who described himself as an auteur communiste-the first known appearance in print of this word. ...In February 1793, Restif used the term communism as his own for the first time to describe the fundamental change in ownership that would obviate the need for any further redistribution of goods and property. His detailed exposition of communism (and regular use of the word) began the following year with a "Regulation . . . for the establishment of a general Community of the Human Race" in his Monsieur Nicolas or the human heart unveiled. ... Restif's three-volume Philosophie de Monsieur Nicolas of 1796 called for a communauté universelle, and talked about "the Communists" as if they were active and numerous in the real world. The question of whether Restif was alluding to, or in some way connected with, Babeuf's concurrent conspiracy takes us deeper into the occult labyrinths of Paris where modern revolutionary organization began." Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men (1980), pp 79-85
72
"While no public suggestion of a link between Babeuf and Restif was raised at the former's public trial, the authorities, as they prepared their case, apparently believed that such a link existed... A more serious link almost certainly lies in Maréchal, the journalistic protector and sponsor of Babeuf's early career who knew Restif well before the revolution and before meeting Babeuf. Maréchal's still obscure role in the conspiracy-like Restif, he escaped prosecution altogether despite his direct involvement-leads back in turn to the links that Babeuf, Restif, and Marechal all had with Bonneville's Social Circle." Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men, page 83
73
“The term ‘communism’ in the France of the 1840s denoted… an offshoot of the Jacobin tradition of the first French revolution,” wrote Marxist historian David Fernbach in 1973. “This communism went back to Gracchus Babeuf’s Conspiracy of Equals… This egalitarian or 'crude' communism, as Marx called it originated before the great development of machine industry. It appealed to the Paris sans-culottes—artisans, journeymen and unemployed—and potentially to the poor peasantry in the countryside.” David Fernbach, "Introduction" to Karl Marx, The Revolutions of 1848 (New York: Random House, 1973), pp 17-18.
74
Fernbach (1973), pp 17-18
75
Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, March 11, 1840, cited in Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men, page 246, 583
76
Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men, pp 71-72, 530
77
Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men, pp 72-73
78
Hélène Maspero Clerc, "Samuel Swinton, éditeur du Courier de l'Europe à Boulogne-sur-Mer (1778–1783) et agent secret du Gouvernement britannique", Annales de la Révolution française, no. 266, oct–déc. 1985, p. 527-531.
79
“Jeanie Wishart of Pitarrow came of the family of the Earls of Argyll who played such a big role in the history of Scotland… The younger branch of the family, to which Jeanie Wishart of Pitarrow belonged—she was the fifth child of George Wishart, an Edinburgh minister—also produced a number of prominent men. William Wishart, Jenny’s great-grandfather, accompanied the Prince of Orange to England, and his brother was the celebrated Admiral James Wishart. Jenny’s grandmother, Anne Campbell of Orchard, wife of the minister, belonged to the old Scottish aristocracy too.”Boris Nicolaievsky and Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Karl Marx: Man and Fighter (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1936), pp 21-22; “Baron Ludwig von Westphalen, a senior official of the Royal Prussian Provincial Government, was a man of doubly aristocratic lineage: his father had been Chief of the General Staff during the Seven Years’ War and his Scottish mother, Anne Wishart, was descended from the Earls of Argyll.” Francis Wheen, Karl Marx: A Life (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999), page 18.
80
"The Communist League, which was the organized expression of the movement, was an international secret society with its headquarters in London. ... The headquarters of the movement, in 1847, were in London, where an Arbeiter Bildungsverein—Workingmen's Educational Club—had existed for seven years. The London Communistische Arbeiter Bildungsverein was founded in February, 1840, by three German exiles.... The organization prospered and, because of its rather unusual prosperity and stability, and the fact that there was much greater freedom in London than on the Continent, it became, naturally, the central organization." John Spargo, Karl Marx: His Life and Work (New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1912), pp 93-94
81
Franz Mehring, Karl Marx: The Story of His Life, translated by Edward Fitzgerald (London: George Allin & Unwin Ltd, 1936), page 243-244
82
Gertrude Robinson, David Urquhart: Some Chapters in the Life of a Victorian Knight-Errant of Justice and Liberty (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1920), pp 22, 320
83
Robinson, David Urquhart (1920), pp 12-15
84
John Spargo, Karl Marx: His Life and Work (1912), pp 198-199; Franz Mehring, Karl Marx: The Story of His Life (1936), page 244
85
Francis Wheen, Karl Marx: A Life (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999), pp 207-213
86
Francis Wheen, Karl Marx: A Life (New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999), page 212
87
John Spargo, Karl Marx: His Life and Work (1912), page 198
88
David Urquhart, Wealth and Want (London: John Ollivier, 1845), page 14-17
89
John Spargo, Karl Marx: His Life and Work (1912), page 198
90
David Urquhart, Wealth and Want (London: John Ollivier, 1845), page 14-17
91
"Mr W. B. Ferrand, on the other hand, a Yorkshire squire, and John Manners' colleague and life-long friend, boldly attributed all the miseries of England to the greed and selfishness of the manufacturers. His eagle eye detected an immoral alliance between the Poor Law and the factory system. There was a deep-laid design, he was sure, concocted between the wealthy cotton-spinners and the Poor Law Commissioners to undo the country. The proprietors of large estates, he declared, set the very best example by their conduct toward the suffering poor, while the manufacturers made vast fortunes by the sweat of their labourers. In a speech which he made in 1842... he pictured the working men and women receiving money-payment for their wages in one room, and then driven into another in which they were compelled to spend every farthing in the purchase of food and clothing. ... The Chartists made a third party to the quarrel. ... They had the sense to perceive that the [Anti-Corn-Law] League was supported by the omnipotent middle-class, and that cheap bread meant low wages. ... Lord John, meanwhile, was doing his best to advocate a happier, more humane life for the people... '[T]he mists are rolling away [Manners wrote in 1842] and the alternaitve will soon present itself—a democracy or a Feudalism.' Thus he comes back always to a simple faith in a restored feudalism. ... 'Let us show the people, i.e. the lower orders... that we are their real friends... In a word, let society take a more feudal appearance that it presents now.' [Manners wrote in 1842]." Charles Whibley, Lord John Manners and His Friends (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1925), pp 121-123, 136-137
92
Rutland, John James Robert Manners, 7th Duke of (1818- ____), Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 32, (Edinburgh and London, Adam & Charles Black, 1902), pp 352-353
93
Charles Whibley, Lord John Manners and His Friends (Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1925), pp 121-125;
[Arnold Toynbee, 1884] "Now, who really initiated these movements, and who opposed them? Robert Owen was the founder of co-operation... Again, who passed the factory legislation? Not the Radicals; it was due to Owen, Oastler, Sadler, Fielden, and Lord Shaftesbury, to Tory-Socialists and to landowners. And let us recognise the fact plainly, that it is because there has been a ruling aristocracy in England that we have had a great Socialist programme carried out." Arnold Toynbee, Lectures on the Industrial Revolution in England (London: Rivingtons, 1884), p 214;
[Joseph Rayner Stephens, 1868] "You know what a hard, up-hill battle we have had to fight, and after what fearful opposition at last we won the day. But we did win it; and by whose help did we bring the struggle to a peaceful issue? I need hardly tell you. With the exception of a few noble-hearted men in the ranks of Radicalism such as Fielden, Brotherton, Hindley, and one or two more — our patrons and co-adjutors were found amongst the Tories. When we wanted help, it was not to Cobden and Bright and the political economists that we went to seek it. It was to the ‘bloated’ aristocrat, to the much-maligned clergyman and country gentleman that we made our appeal, and from them that we obtained active assistance and influential patronage." Joseph Rayner Stephens, The Altar, the Throne, and the Cottage: A Speech (Stalybridge: John Macleod, 1868), page 9.
94
Whibley, Lord John Manners and His Friends (1925), 133-135
95
Whibley, Lord John Manners and His Friends (1925), 134-135
96
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company, 1906), page 34
97
"Statement of Hon. Daniel F. Cohalan, Justice of the Supreme Court of New York," (August 30, 1919), United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings on the Treaty of Peace with Germany (First Session), Sixty-Sixth Congress (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1919), pp 761, 768
98
Cohalan, U.S. Senate, August 30, 1919, page 761
99
Cohalan, U.S. Senate, August 30, 1919, page 770
100
Cohalan, U.S. Senate, August 30, 1919, page 770
101
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company, 1906), page 16
102
Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), pp 130-134
103
“Kerensky on Allied Intrigues,” Soviet Russia: Official Organ of the Russian Soviet Government Bureau, Vol. II (New York, The Russian Soviet Government Bureau, January-June, 1920), page 619
104
Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), pp 130-134
105
"A View of Socialism by the Late Viscount Milner," The National Review, No. 575, January 1931, pp 36-58
106
Arnold Toynbee, Lectures on the Industrial Revolution in England (London: Rivingtons, 1884), p 213
107
Toynbee, Lectures on the Industrial Revolution in England (1884), p 214
108
Viscount Alfred Milner, “German Socialists,” lecture at Whitechapel, 1882; published posthumously in The National Review, No. 578, April 1931, pp 477-499.
109
Viscount Alfred Milner, “German Socialists,” lecture at Whitechapel, 1882; published posthumously in The National Review, No. 578, April 1931, pp 477-499.
110
"A View of Socialism by the Late Viscount Milner," The National Review, No. 575, January 1931, pp 36-58
111
Viscount Alfred Milner, “German Socialists,” lecture at Whitechapel, 1882; published posthumously in The National Review, No. 578, April 1931, pp477-499.
112
“Czar’s Stubbornness Caused his Downfall: Refused to Listen to British Statesman Who was Sent to Advise Him,” Evening Star (Washington, DC), March 16, 1917
113
P.A. Lockwood, "Milner’s Entry into the War Cabinet, December 1916," The Historical Journal, VII, I, (1964), p.123
114
Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Vol. 2 (1923), page 52; The Great War: The Standard History of the All-Europe Conflict, Vol. 9, editors H.W. Wilson, J.A. Hammerton (London, The Amalgamated Press Ltd, 1917), page 117.
115
The Great War: The Standard History of the All-Europe Conflict, Vol. 9, editors H.W. Wilson, J.A. Hammerton (London, The Amalgamated Press Ltd, 1917) pp 121-122
116
“On January 29 the Allied delegates arrived, and a preliminary meeting was held in the afternoon under the presidency of the Foreign Minister, Pokrowski. Great Britain was represented by Lord Milner, Lord Revelstoke, General Sir Henry Wilson and myself…” Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia and Other Diplomatic Memories, Vol. 2 (London, Cassell and Company, Ltd, 1923), page 52; “On February 27th, 1917, the Conference of the Allies at Petrograd… came to an end, and the chief British representative, Lord Milner, left for England in a troubled frame of mind.” The Great War: The Standard History of the All-Europe Conflict, Vol. 9, editors H.W. Wilson, J.A. Hammerton (London, The Amalgamated Press Ltd, 1917), page 117.
117
“Revolution in Russia: Progress of Revolt,” The Daily Telegraph (London), March 17, 1917, page 7
118
Maurice Paléologue, An Ambassador’s Memoirs: Last French Ambassador to the Russian Court (Volume III, August 19, 1916-May 17, 1917), trans. F.A. Holt, O.B.E., (London, Hutchinson & Co., 1925), p 232
119
“Revolution in Russia: Progress of Revolt,” The Daily Telegraph (London), March 17, 1917, page 7
120
Paléologue, An Ambassador’s Memoirs (1925), p 167
121
Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia and Other Diplomatic Memories, Vol. 1 (Boston, Little, Brown and Company, Ltd, 1923), pp 67-71
122
Mark D. Steinberg and Vladimir M. Khrustalev (eds), The Fall of the Romanovs (Yale University Press, 1995), p. 91; Romanov Autumn: Stories from the Last Century of Imperial Russia, page 342; "Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Rodzianko and the Grand Dukes' Manifesto of 1 March 1917," Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, Vol. 18, No. 2 (June 1976), pp. 154-167
123
Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Vol. 1 (1923), page 68
124
Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Vol. 1 (1923), page 68
125
Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Vol. 1 (1923), page 68
126
Princess Paley, “Mes Souvenirs de Russie,” Revue de Paris, June 1, 1922
127
“Sir G. Buchanan Cheered,” The Times (London), March 16, 1917, page 7
128
“Britain’s Envoy is Active Real Power for Entente: Newspaper Correspondent Describes Buchanan as a Dictator,” The Salt Lake Tribune (Salt Lake City), March 25, 1917, page 17
129
“An Attempt to Avert Revolution: Lord Milner’s Mission,” The Guardian (London), March 16, 1917, page 5
130
Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons official report, Volume 91, By Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons, 1917, page 1938
131
“Lord Milner and the Rebellion,” The North Star (Durham, England), March 23, 1917, page 1; Parliamentary Debates. House of Commons, March 22, 1917, Vol 91, Col 2093
132
The Times History of the War, Volume XIII (London: The Times, 1917), page 108
133
Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons official report, Volume 91, By Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons, 1917, page 2087
134
“Foreign Policy: ‘All Rumours of a Separate Peace Must Vanish’,” Evening Standard (London), March 24, 1917, page 2
135
Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Vol. 1 (1923), p 99
136
Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Vol. 1 , pp 113-114
137
Prit Buttar, Russia's Last Gasp: The Eastern Front 1916-17 (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2017), pp 138–155
138
Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Vol. 1 (1923), pp 114
139
Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Vol. 1 (1923), pp 179-181
140
Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Vol. 1 (1923), page 166
141
Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Vol. 1 (1923), page 173
142
Alexander F. Kerensky, The Catastrophe: Kerensky's Own Story of the Russian Revolution (New York and London: D. Appleton and Company, 1927) p 315
143
"Oliver Locker-Lampson had gone to Russia with a British armoured-car squadron, whcih had been sent as a gesture of Allied solidarity in the fight against Germany, and had been wounded. This eccentric but admittedly brave man involved himself in political intrigues from the moment he arrived in the country, even to the extent of, so he claimed, being invited to help to murder Rasputin. It was not surprising, therefore, that the commander-in-chief of the Russian army, a tough Cossack called Lavr Kornilov, strongly urged Locker-Lampson to help him stage a counter-revolution. Locker-Lampson agreed, and plans were finalised. The British Ambassador, Sir George Buchanan, knew about the plot, did nothing to stop it, and got himself well out of the way by arranging to spend the day on the British residents' golf course." Philip Knightley, The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth-Maker from the Crimea to Iraq (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), p 156; "[When] Kornilov ordered the troops under his command to march on the capital to unseat the government, one of the few units which proved faithful to him was a British armoured-car squadron, under Commander Oliver Locker-Lampson, whose members were furnished with Russian uniforms for the occasion. Warth speculates that Knox arranged for their participation..." Richard Henry Ullman, Anglo-Soviet Relations, 1917-1921, Volume 2: Britain and the Russian Civil War, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), pp 11-12; "They hoped that I would assist them by placing the British armoured cars at their disposal and by helping them to escape should their enterprise fail. I replied that it was a very naïve proceeding on the part of those gentlemen to ask an Ambassador to conspire against the Government to which he was accredited and that if I did my duty I ought to denounce their plot. Though I would not betray their confidence, I would not give them either my countenance or support. I would, on the contrary, urge them to renounce an enterprise that was not only foredoomed to failure, but that would at once be exploited by the Bolsheviks. If General Korniloff were wise he would wait for the Bolsheviks to make the first move and then come and put them down." Sir George Buchanan, My Mission to Russia, Vol. 1 (1923), p 175-176
144
Leonard Schapiro, The Origin of the Communist Autocracy: Political Opposition in the Soviet State, First Phase 1917-1922, (London: Macmillan/Palgrave, 1977), p 52
145
Joseph Stalin, “The October Revolution," Pravda, No.241, November 6, 1918, cited in Joseph Stalin, The October Revolution (Moscow, 1934), page 30
146
Steve R. Dunn, Battle in the Baltic: The Royal Navy and the Fight to Save Estonia & Latvia 1918-1920 (Barnsley, UK: Seaforth Publishing, 2020), p 34
147
Gilbert, World in Torment (1975), p 229
148
"By the end of December 1918 there were more than 180,000 non-Russian troops within the frontiers of the former Russian Empire, among them British, American, Japanese, French, Czech, Serb, Greek, and Italian. Looking to these troops from military and moral support, and depending on them for money and guns, were several anti-Bolshevik armies of 'White' Russians, amounting to over 300,000 men. On every front, the Bolsheviks were being pressed back towards Moscow." (p 227) "On December 31, 1918 Lloyd George invited Churchill to attend a meeting of the Imperial War Cabinet... (p 228)... The minutes of the meeting recorded [Lloyd George saying]... "The Bolsheviks had raised their forces to 300,000, which might exceed 1,000,000 by March, and had greatly improved their organisation." (pp 229-230); Gilbert, World in Torment (1975), pp 227-230
149
149. Princess Paley, Memories of Russia 1916-1919 (London, Herbert Jenkins Limited, 1924), pp 41-42
150
"England's policy has always been the dismemberment of Russia. It was for this reason that it supplied with arms, ammunition, officers, money and advice such counter-revolutionary leaders as Denikin and Koltchak. ... Britain wished to divide and then be the patron and protector of the parts." Louis Fischer, Oil Imperialism: The International Struggle for Petroleum (New York: International Publishers, 1926), p 32; "There is a possibility that he [Lloyd George] hoped for the ultimate division of Russia into a number of independent states, each too small to cause trouble." Robert W. Sellen, "The British Intervention in Russia, 1917-1920," Dalhousie Review, Volume 40 (1960-61), page 525; Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), pp 234-235, 228-229; "Without Russia, Alfred Milner feared, the Allies might not be able to defeat Germany. And the spread of revolution could prove a more dangerous enemy to the established order than the Germans. Why, he wondered, should Britain and France not settle their differences with the Germans—and then partition Russia among themselves? Britain's share, it hardly need be said, would include the central Asian parts of the Russian Empire that adjoined Persia and Afghanistan, strategic borderlands to India. If Germany were willing—and, also willing, of course to withdraw from France and Belgium—there were many interesting ways in which Russia could be divided. For a full year to come, Milner quietly but doggedly promoted this idea. There is no clear evidence that he or anyone else ever approached the Germans and his proposal apparently never moved beyond the realm of confidential talk within the British government, but it bears a strange resemblance to the world of abruptly shifting superpower alliances that George Orwell would later imagine in 1984." Adam Hochschild, To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion 1914-1918 (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2011), pp. 293–294; "Churchill again envisaged a compromise peace... in which the Bolsheviks would accept the permanent existence of a non-Bolshevik South Russia, with Kiev as its capital, and the Black Sea as its southern frontier. Once a secure dividing line were reached, Britain could sponsor negotiations between Lenin and Denikin." Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), p 329.
151
Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), page 288, 291, 296-297, 306-309
152
Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), page 241, 254.
153
Nearly 60,000 British troops served in the Russian Civil War, most in the oil-rich Caucasus (40,000), a lesser number in North Russia (14,378), with smaller numbers in Siberia (1,800), Trans-Caspia (950), and elsewhere. “By January 1919… the British presence in the Caucasus totalled 40,000, the largest of all British intervention contingents in Russia.” Timothy C. Winegard, The First World Oil War (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016), p. 229;
For British troop strength on other fronts, see the following:
Clifford Kinvig, Churchill's Crusade: The British Invasion of Russia 1918–1920 (London: Hambledon Continuum, 2006), p. 35;
Michael Sargent, British Military Involvement in Transcaspia: 1918–1919 (Camberley: Conflict Studies Research Centre, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, April 2004), p. 33;
Damien Wright, Churchill's Secret War with Lenin: British and Commonwealth Military Intervention in the Russian Civil War, 1918-20 (Solihull, UK: Helion & Company Limited, 2017), pp 305-306, 394, 526-528, 530-535.
154
[See footnote 150 for additional sources on British plans to break up the Russian Empire.] "Churchill wrote to Lloyd George on 17 June 1918: ... 'It we cannot reconstitute the fighting front against Germany in the East, no end can be discerned to the war. Vain will be all sacrifices of the peoples and the armies.'" (page 221) "Lloyd George was opposed to using Allied troops to destroy Bolshevism, or to force the Russians to negotiate with each other. The farthest he was prepared to go was to help those border States in the Baltic and the Caucasus which were struggling to be independent from Russia, and which contained non-Russian majorities." (page 229) "On January 13 [1919], the Imperial War Cabinet met in Paris, with Lloyd George in the chair, to discuss future action in Russia. Sir Henry Wilson, who was present, wrote in his diary: 'It was quite clear that the meeting favoured no troops being sent to fight Bolshevists but on the other hand to help those States which we considered were Independent States by giving them arms, etc.'" (p 234). Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), pp 221, 229, 234; [Churchill speech, February 15, 1920] "Now Russia is no longer available. She is no longer the great counterpoise to Germany. On the contrary, she is very likely to go over to the other side, very likely to fall into the hands of the Germans and make a common policy with them. Out interest has been to try to secure a Government in Russia which will not throw itself into the hands of Germany. ... It is also in our interest not to drive Germany into the arms of Russia." "Mr. Churchill on Bolshevism," The Times (London), February 16, 1920, page 7.
155
Richard H. Ullman, Anglo-Soviet Relations, 1917-1921, Volume I: Intervention and the War (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp 116-119
156
Ullman, Anglo-Soviet Relations, 1917-1921, Volume I (1961), pp 116-119
157
Ullman, Anglo-Soviet Relations, 1917-1921, Volume I (1961), pp 116-119
The consistency with which Trotsky acted in British interests—as opposed to German ones, as in the matter of the Yuryev telegram—casts doubt on the long-held belief that German intelligence controlled the Bolsheviks. While the Germans did provide funding for the Bolsheviks and even arranged for Lenin’s transport from Zurich to Petrograd in April, 1917, it appears German spymasters were never able to gain operational control over the Bolshevik leadership, because the British influence on them was stronger. Indeed, the man who persuaded the Germans to help the Bolsheviks in the first place—one Alexander Parvus—appears to have been a British agent, for which reason, it seems likely that German operations in support of the Bolsheviks had been penetrated and compromised from the beginning by British intelligence. See, for instance, Nathan Goldwag, “The Extraordinary Life of Alexander Parvus,” Goldwag’s Journal on Civilization, September 4, 2019: "There is a persistent rumor that he [Parvus] was working for the British intelligence services... After WWI began in 1914, Parvus approached von Wangenheim with an ambitious plan: Germany should support and fund... revolution against the Czar."
158
Damien Wright, Churchill's Secret War with Lenin: British and Commonwealth Military Intervention in the Russian Civil War, 1918-20 (Solihull, UK: Helion & Company Limited, 2017), page 21.
159
Wright, Churchill's Secret War with Lenin (2017), p 21
160
Wright, Churchill's Secret War with Lenin (2017), p 22
161
Wright, Churchill's Secret War with Lenin (2017), pp 23-25
162
Martin Gilbert, World in Torment: Winston S. Churchill 1917-1922 (London: Minerva, 1990; originally 1975 by William Heinemann Ltd), pp 228-22
163
Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), page 234
164
Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), pp 234-235
165
Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), page 288
166
Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), page 291
167
“On June 4 Kolchak replied to an Allied note of May 26, refusing the Allied demand to summon the Constituent Assembly of 1917, and giving an evasive answer about the future sovereignty of Finland and the Baltic States, both of which had been Russian before the revolution. … [D]espite Kolchak’s refusal to accept the Allies’ democratic demands, both Churchill and his War Office advisers continued with the Kotlas plan to link Kolchak’s forces with those in North Russia.” Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), pp 296-297; Jonathan Smele, The "Russian" Civil Wars, 1916–1926 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 111–112.
168
Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), pp 306-309
169
Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), p 309
170
Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), p 306-309
171
Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), p 224
172
Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), 307-308
173
Erick Trickey, “The Forgotten Story of the American Troops Who Got Caught Up in the Russian Civil War,” Smithsonian Magazine [online], February 12, 2019
174
Trickey, “The Forgotten Story of the American Troops Who Got Caught Up in the Russian Civil War,” Smithsonian Magazine [online], February 12, 2019
175
Trickey, “The Forgotten Story of the American Troops Who Got Caught Up in the Russian Civil War,” Smithsonian Magazine [online], February 12, 2019
176
"The last British troops left Archangel on September 27, 1919, and Murmansk on October 12, sealing the fate of North Russia. ... The British mission in Siberia was abolished in March, 1920. ... The tiny British force at Batum was finally withdrawn in July, 1920." Robert W. Sellen, "The British Intervention in Russia, 1917-1920," Dalhousie Review, Volume 40 (1960-61), page 524, 527
177
Martin Gilbert, World in Torment (1990), page 362.
178
Boris Egorov, "How a French General Betrayed the Supreme Ruler of Russia," Russia Beyond, August 16, 2021
179
P.J. Gapelotti, Our Man in the Crimea: Commander Hugo Koehler and the Russian Civil War (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1991), page 168
180
David Renton, Trotsky (London: Haus Publishing, 2004), page 143
181
Pavel Sudoplatov and Anatoli Sudoplatov, Special Tasks: The Memoirs of an Unwanted Witness—A Soviet Spymaster (New York: Little, Brown & Company, 1994), page 65-86; Enrique Soto-Pérez-de-Celis, "The Death of Leon Trotsky," Neurosurgery, Volume 67 Number 2, August 1, 2010, pp 417–423
182
"The rumour spread that they were having an affair. Although she did not confirm this in her memoir she gave a lot of tactile details which in inter-war Britain fell only just inside the boundaries of the seemly—and the liaison would be brought up by Natalya against Trotsky when they had a serious marital rift in Mexico. The rest of his entourage in the 1930s shared the suspicion about the relationship with Sheridan. Nothing was ever proved; and if an affair took place it was a brief one. In mid-1920, when he had to rejoin the Red Army on its Polish campaign, Trotsky invited her to go along with him on his train but she refused. Instead she left for England, published her diary and went on a publicity tour of America." Robert Service, Trotsky: A Biography (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2009), page 266
183
"The charge of the 21st Lancers at the Battle of Omdurman on Friday, 2 September 1898, was the largest British cavalry charge since the Crimean War forty-four years earlier. Although there were a few afterwards in the Boer War and Great War, it was the last significant cavalry charge in British history. Churchill, riding a 'a handy, sure-footed, grey Arab polo pony', commanded a troop of twenty-five lancers. Many of the Dervishes they attacked were hidden in a dried-out watercourse when the regiment set off, and it was after the charge had begun that the regiment realized they were outnumbered by approximately ten to one." Andrew Roberts, Churchill: Walking with Destiny (New York: Penguin Books, 2019), page 57
184
“Parliamentary Paper, Russia. No. 1: A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, Great Britain, Foreign Office (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, April 1919)
沒有留言:
張貼留言