The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1918-01-31
PROGRESS OR REACTION?

'f@e 'hHaiaF AbsAhAs
Every old question that confrontee
men and nations IN 1914 has beer
changed or revoluUoniscd BY the war
and score of new quest ons hay,
been brought forward for answer
. Those who would answer these ques
tions. whether old or new, in terms o
20 circumstances Of the moment aut
regardless Of the effect Of those ans
wers on the permanent good order an,
happiness Of mankind, would do n,
good to the world. The only answer.
10 these questions that can be really
helpful are those which take account
Of fundamental principles, Of tenden
cits operating over long period OF
time, and Of the ultimate effect of dc.
ciaions now taken.
The gravest issue now presented tc
the world may be stated in a short
question; Shall we choose progress OF
shall We choose reaction?
When the war began this choice APP
peared to be little more than a deci-
sion between autocracy and free gov
eminent. This contrast and this is
sue were made as plain as possible by
the German Government not only by
its planning and its mode of entering
on the war but by its acts and policies
in conducting the war In 1914 it
seemed clear enough that the choice
between progress and reaction involv-
ed only the choice between autocracy
and free, representative, democratic
government.
In 1918 the situation is much more
complicated and our question cannot
be quite so simply answered.
When the several nations aligned
themselves for the war, there was one
obvious embarrassment in interpret
ing the contest as a struggle between
autocracy and free government. This
embarrassment arose from the fact
that Russia was fighting side by side
with England and France. The con
tradiction was too plain to escape
worldwide notice and to raise world
wide questionings. Russia was not
only ruled by an autocraic Tsar, but
its vast masses of people were held in
veritable bondage to tyranny, to
bureaucracy, to corruption and to ex-
ploitation. On reflection it seemed that
the presence Of Russia fighting in op
position tothe Central Empires must
be accounted for in some other way
than by assigning the same reasons
which explained the presence of Eng
land and of France on the battle line
of freedom.
Looking back it seems not unlikely
that the autocratic government of
Russia was not wholly averse to for
eign war, even a war against fellow
autocracy, for the purpose and in the
hope Of heading Off social and polit-
ical revolution at home. There had
been rumblings in Russia for many
years, and since the events of 1905
these rumbling had grown louder and
more ominous. The Duma might be
dissolved, but the effect Of its having
been called into existence remained |
The basis for the election Of the Duma |
might be altered but the mere fact
that the Duma convened was some
thing which could be seen and inter
preted by large masses of people.
German corruption in Russia and
treason in Russia's high places, made
Russia's participation in the war
against Germany increasingly ineffec-
tive and calamitous. The Zemstvos
and their leaders were straining every
nerve to supply the Army and to keep
the economic life Of the Empire prop
erly nourished. All their efforts were
well-nigh in vain, because at Petro-
grad the German hand, filled with
coin, was buying its way in the high
EST Offices of state. First suspicion of
all this and then knowledge of it,
coupled with chagrin and WEAKNESS at
he progress of the war on the East
,rn front, led to the Notwithstanding
vents of March, 1917. 1t has been
asserted that the Russian revolution
vas made in Germany, and that Ger
many brought about a revolution in ;
Russia because the means which it
lad previously taken to weaken and to
halter Russian Military power were
ot adequate or were rot quick enough {
Whatever measure of truth there may
e in this assertion, the fact is that s
he Russian revolution played into the c
ands of Germany for the time at =
east. c
The Russian revolution began with \
ronlise of marked success, as well as il
{ the establishment of a stable gov
able to maintain the integrity r
f the nation and to represent it ef- r
The progress from Lyoff il
nd Miliukoff to Kerensky, and from i