with local matters, but not with main points of policy, which the Central Soviet kept in their own hands. Nor was there any disposition to follow the lead of the Murman Provincial Council and repudiate the authority of the Central Soviet, nor would the Bolshevist garrison of Archangel have allowed them to do so. News of the events at Kem and western shores of the White Sea arrived at Archangel a few days later by a coasting steamer. The Soviet asked me to meet them, gave their version of the affairs in question, which was the first intimation I had received, expressed their wish to go to Kem to ascertain facts, and asked me for a guarantee of safety. I readily complied, and, further, expressed my intention of accompanying them in the Salvator. Their representatives embarked in a Russian armed ship, and we left in company. On arrival I held an inquiry in their presence. I found that high-handed action, though not of a serious nature, had been taken with regard to the national flag of certain Russian merchant ships belonging to Archangel, which had been forcibly, but unavoidably, appropriated temporarily to remove (voluntarily) some starving Russian refugees. The matter was satisfactorily arranged in a written agreement between the Soviet and myself.
As regards the shooting of three members of the Kem Soviet, the facts are as follows:—In accordance with certain military requirements, it had been mutually agreed that certain of the Russian Red or Railway Guards at Kem should surrender their arms to the Allied military authorities. The three members of the Soviet were shot while in the act of offering armed resistance to the surrender. There was nothing in the nature of punishment or reprisal. These occurrences in no way prejudiced local arrangements with the Archangel Soviet. As related above, these had already been satisfactorily arranged and given effect to. One word with regard to the date of Captain Cromie's death. Here Mr. Young is right and I am wrong. The statement put forward in my article of December 13 does not, therefore, hold good. This point, however, does not affect the other points put forward, including the imprisonment and ill-treatment of Allied subjects.
I will now deal with the suggestion of charges brought by Mr. Young against the British Government. These suggestions are as follows:—(a) That the British Government "allowed matters to drift from an anti-German policy to a policy obviously anti-Soviet." (b) That British representatives, with or without the sanction of the British Government, gave the Soviet Government "good grounds for suspecting us of deceiving them and of playing a deliberate double game."
With regard to (a), I know of no justification for this suggestion. In my opinion, any change of policy was due entirely to the hostile attitude of the Soviet Government itself. This attitude came to a climax in the ultimatum of the Allied forces to evacuate Murman and in the ever-growing pro-German policy of the Soviet Government and its agents. Up to the point when the policy of the Soviet Government became openly and definnitely hostile, resulting in the occupation of Archangel and subsequent operations, the attitude of the British Government had been conciliatory to the last degree. They were goaded into action by the gross illegalities of the Soviet Government.
With regard to (b), I know of no such cases, and unless Mr. Young has proof this suggestion should never have been made. Other suggestions made by Mr. Young are as follows:—(a) That events in Murman were dictated by superior force. This is untrue. Up to the time reinforcements arrived in the spring of 1918, Russian material forces were superior to Allied. At no time were events dictated by force, but by the free and unfettered will of the people of the province for whom Allied forces stood as a guarantee of protection. (b) That the Bolshevist elements at Archangel were patriots ready to defend their country against unprovoked aggression. With a few exceptions they were cowardly bandits. With an adequate garrison and all warlike material at hand to make a strong position impregnable, they fled at the approach of a small Allied force, taking with them many millions of roubles stolen from public and private funds. (c) that 150,000 people within the zone of Allied occupation had been deprived by the occupation of food supplies from the interior. This is a gross misrepresentation, Petrograd and Moscow are starving even though Vologda, their northern junction for Siberia, is in their hands and their
8
