Reprinted from "THE TIMES," December 19, 1919.
THE ALLIES IN NORTH RUSSIA.
MR. YOUNG'S REPLY.
Sir,—In your issue of December 13 there appears an article under the title "The Allies in North Russia—a Defence of Intervention," by Rear-Admiral J. W. Kemp, R.N. (retired), lately British S.N.O. in the White Sea, with whom I have been associated in most friendly relations in North Russia during the past three years.
In his closing paragraph Admiral Kemp claims authority to speak on current events in Russia. If he limits his claim to speak regarding events on the Murman coast, I admit his authority. But if he claims to speak regarding Anglo-Russian relations at Archangel under the Bolshevist régime, I must strongly demur, in view of the fact that Admiral Kemp left Archangel on December 17, 1917, when the Admiralty and Ministry of Shipping hurriedly and completely evacuated their ships and personnel from Archangel, leaving me as British Consul in sole charge of British interests at that place. With the exception of a few days in July, Admiral Kemp did not return to Archangel until the arrival of the Allied Expeditionary Force on August 2 last, and I therefore claim to be the only British official representative competent to express an authoritative opinion upon the whole course of events at Archangel from December 17, 1917, until August 7 last.
Upon the first part of Admiral Kemp's article relating to events in Murmansk I make no comment, as I was not there, beyond saying that I believe it to represent exactly what occurred. Murmansk was in an entirely peculiar position owing to two facts—that it is a remote spot in the far north, containing only a few workmen's barracks and being practically out of touch politically with the rest of Russia; and that we had throughout maintained and never surrendered an overwhelming superiority as regards material force which put us in a position to dictate terms.
In the latter part of his article, however, Admiral Kemp makes certain statements, quite in good faith I am sure, which in the interest of truth and honest dealing require authoritative correction. It is true that the attitude of the Central Soviet Government changed, possibly "under strong German pressure," but may not the change have occurred because we allowed ourselves to drift from an anti-German policy to a policy obviously anti-Soviet?
Admiral Kemp passes over this phase of events rather hurriedly, and then makes the startling statement that Allied subjects "had been" imprisoned, that Captain Cromie "had been" murdered with the official sanction of the Soviet Government. Does he seriously suggest that Allied subjects had been imprisoned, that Captain Cromie had been murdered, before the Allied occupation of Archangel, when in fact these things only took place more than a month later? Is he not aware that, according to a statement published in an Anglo-Russian paper in London and attributed to Mr. Lockhart's own secretary, the position of the British even in Moscow "was not made uncomfortable until August 4," two days after that occupation?
Admiral Kemp divides British opinion on the Russian situation into two classes only, interventionists and pro-Bolshevists. Does he not realise that there is a considerable body of thoughtful men, Unionists and Liberals, as well as Labour men, of no less patriotism than himself, who are anti-interventionist by conviction and who feel that our dealings with the Soviet Government do not accord with the British tradition of fair play and honest dealing even with an ignoble foe? Can he not admit that the actions of certain British representatives in Russia, with or without the
5
