Kalmakoff, and the Americans, by protecting and organising enemies, made
it practically impossible for the Omsk Government to maintain its
authority or existence. The most that could be expected was that both
would see the danger of their policy in time to avert disaster. One did;
the other left when the evils created had got beyond control. Koltchak
has not been destroyed so much by the acts of his enemies as by the
stupidity and neglect of his Allied friends.

As the Bolshevik rabble again sweeps over Siberia in a septic flood we
hear again the question: "How can they do so unless they have a majority
of the people behind them?" I answer that by asking: "How did a one-man
government exist in Russia from 'Ivan the Terrible' to Nicholas II?"
Both systems are autocratic; both exist by the same means--"Terror."
There is, however, this difference. The autocracy of the Tsars was a
natural product from an early form of human society. The Bolshevik
autocracy is an unnatural product, and therefore carries within itself
the seed of its own destruction. It is an abortion, and unless it
rapidly changes its character cannot hope to exist as a permanent form
of organised society. It is a disease which, if we cannot attack, we can
isolate until convalescence sets in. There is, however, the possibility
that the patient during the progress of the malady may become delirious
and run amok; for these more dangerous symptoms it would be well for his
neighbours to keep watch and guard. This madness can only be temporary.
This great people are bound to recover, and become all the stronger for
their present trials.

JOHN WARD.

February, 1920.