How far could the historian make use of Sources 3 and 4 together to investigate the problems associated with the
foreign intervention in Russia after the Bolshevik takeover?
In this essay I will be comparing sources 3 and 4 together to find if they could be effectively used by a historian
to investigate problems associated with foreign intervention in Russia after the Bolshevik takeover.
Source three a confidential report by British diplomat bases in Russia to the British Government, meaning that
the report is likely non-bias and an honest account of the situation, on the 22 December 1917. This source shows
the Difficulty and hesitance that the British government were showing towards intervention in the Russian civil
war, “Does not Commit us in any way”. The British Government at the time were unsure how and even if they
should aid the white forces against the Bolsheviks. The worry for the British Government at this point on the 22
of December 1917 was that if they supplied the Bolsheviks, they would put into jeopardy the alliance that they
had formed for the first world war and a break down in relations would result in the possibility of Russia signing
a treaty with Russia which we know happens in 1918 at the treaty of Brest Litovsk’s. From this source three
shows some of the difficulty and reasons for hesitance in the British showing problems associated with the
foreign intervention. Another point that can be taken form the source would be it shows what would have been a
possibility if the Ally’s had committed fully to intervention. The British diplomat who is Based in Russia and
therefore has a first had account of the situation and the mentality of the Russian people suggests that an
advantage of “Open assistance would be of great moral encouragement to all parties who are opposed to the
Bolsheviks.” And that it would help swell support from officers and support from the people. Another problem
with the foreign intervention that the source shows is in aiding the white armies through money and supply’s.
“We can provide secret assistance, chiefly in the form of money” the allies believed that simply providing aid in
the form of money and supplies would be enough. This shows the historian that the allies did not fully
understand the nature of the situation in Russia. The money that was supplied proved to be useless as even in
rare instances that peasants were willing to trade for currency were nothing of real use to the army’s other than
bread to be bought. The main problem the white armies faced was a lack of means of production meaning that it
was highly difficult to secure ammunition and guns. And in the cases were this was directly supplied by the
allies it was poorly distributed and even sometimes fell into Bolshevik hands as in one instance Trotsky wrote a
letter to the British government thanking them for the supplies that had fallen into their hands from retreating
white armies.
foreign intervention in Russia after the Bolshevik takeover?
In this essay I will be comparing sources 3 and 4 together to find if they could be effectively used by a historian
to investigate problems associated with foreign intervention in Russia after the Bolshevik takeover.
Source three a confidential report by British diplomat bases in Russia to the British Government, meaning that
the report is likely non-bias and an honest account of the situation, on the 22 December 1917. This source shows
the Difficulty and hesitance that the British government were showing towards intervention in the Russian civil
war, “Does not Commit us in any way”. The British Government at the time were unsure how and even if they
should aid the white forces against the Bolsheviks. The worry for the British Government at this point on the 22
of December 1917 was that if they supplied the Bolsheviks, they would put into jeopardy the alliance that they
had formed for the first world war and a break down in relations would result in the possibility of Russia signing
a treaty with Russia which we know happens in 1918 at the treaty of Brest Litovsk’s. From this source three
shows some of the difficulty and reasons for hesitance in the British showing problems associated with the
foreign intervention. Another point that can be taken form the source would be it shows what would have been a
possibility if the Ally’s had committed fully to intervention. The British diplomat who is Based in Russia and
therefore has a first had account of the situation and the mentality of the Russian people suggests that an
advantage of “Open assistance would be of great moral encouragement to all parties who are opposed to the
Bolsheviks.” And that it would help swell support from officers and support from the people. Another problem
with the foreign intervention that the source shows is in aiding the white armies through money and supply’s.
“We can provide secret assistance, chiefly in the form of money” the allies believed that simply providing aid in
the form of money and supplies would be enough. This shows the historian that the allies did not fully
understand the nature of the situation in Russia. The money that was supplied proved to be useless as even in
rare instances that peasants were willing to trade for currency were nothing of real use to the army’s other than
bread to be bought. The main problem the white armies faced was a lack of means of production meaning that it
was highly difficult to secure ammunition and guns. And in the cases were this was directly supplied by the
allies it was poorly distributed and even sometimes fell into Bolshevik hands as in one instance Trotsky wrote a
letter to the British government thanking them for the supplies that had fallen into their hands from retreating
white armies.
