15 March 2025
Antony Sutton in 'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution' (1974)
The foreign intervention in Russia during the Russian Civil War (1917–1922) was driven by multiple factors, depending on the country involved. The three main factions in the conflict were:
1. The Bolsheviks (Red Army) – Led by Lenin and Trotsky, they aimed to establish a communist state.
2. The Russian Whites – A mix of monarchists, conservatives, and moderate socialists who opposed the Bolsheviks.
3. The Western Powers (Britain, America, Japan, France, Poland, etc.) – These countries intervened militarily for several reasons:
Why did Western countries send troops to Russia?
1. Opposition to Communism – The Bolshevik revolution was seen as a threat to Western capitalism and imperial interests. Leaders feared communist ideology would spread and destabilize their own countries.
2. Support for the Whites – Western nations wanted to restore a more friendly, non-communist government in Russia, ideally one that would continue fighting Germany in WWI (before the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918).
3. Protecting War Supplies – The Allies had sent large amounts of weapons and ammunition to Russia during WWI, and they wanted to prevent them from falling into Bolshevik hands.
4. Securing Economic Interests – Russia’s vast natural resources (oil, timber, minerals) were highly valuable, and foreign interventionists aimed to protect economic interests, especially in regions like Siberia and the Caucasus.
5. Containment of Japan – While Western forces entered from the north (Murmansk, Arkhangelsk) and south (Crimea, Transcaucasia), Japan sent 70,000 troops to Siberia, aiming to expand its influence. The U.S. intervened partly to counter Japanese ambitions.
6. Polish and Czechoslovak Independence – Poland and Czechoslovakia were fighting for independence, and the Western-backed Czechoslovak Legion controlled parts of Siberia, hoping to shape post-war Russia.
What happened?
Despite foreign intervention, Western forces withdrew by 1920–1922 due to war fatigue, political changes at home, and the Bolsheviks' growing strength.
The intervention ultimately failed to stop the Bolsheviks, and Lenin’s Red Army secured victory, forming the Soviet Union in 1922.
Coming after Napoleon and the first Crimean War, this intervention deepened Soviet distrust toward the West, and good shape. Cold War hostilities decades later.
The idea that Western intervention in Russia (1918–1922) was not actually aimed at defeating the Bolsheviks, but rather supporting them in a colour revolution, is a controversial but intriguing argument. This theory suggests that key Western elites, financiers, banks with policymakers helped the Bolsheviks consolidate power, rather than destroy them, in order to best take advantage of the post revolution order. The argument goes something like this.:
1. Western Funding of the Bolsheviks
Wall Street and the Bolsheviks: Some researchers, such as Antony Sutton in 'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution' (1974), argue that Western banking interests financially backed the Bolsheviks.
Sutton provides evidence that Western banks, particularly those linked to Jacob Schiff (Kuhn, Loeb & Co.), J.P. Morgan (Protestant), and other financiers, facilitated loans and aid to Lenin’s movement.
There is an unfounded allegation that Schiff publicly admitted financing the revolution, allegedly as revenge against Tsarist oppression of Jews.
British and American banks helped keep Bolshevik industries afloat after they seized power.
American Red Cross Mission (1917-18):
Officially a humanitarian effort, but staffed mostly by Wall Street financiers like William Boyce Thompson (of the Federal Reserve).
Allegedly used as a front for pro-Bolshevik financial and logistical support
2. Western Military Actions Were Half-Hearted
The Allied intervention (1918-1922) was weak and poorly coordinated, suggesting that the goal was not to defeat the Bolsheviks but to manage Russia’s collapse, presumably with a view to plundering its resources.
Instead of major offensives, Western troops mostly secured specific assets (ports, railroads, supply depots) and later withdrew, allowing the Bolsheviks to win.
Refusal to Aid the White Army:
The Whites, led by Admiral Kolchak, Denikin, and Wrangel, received minimal support from the Allies.
France initially backed the Whites but by 1919 had withdrawn.
The British and Americans avoided full commitment to the White forces.
When the Whites were collapsing, American and British financial firms made deals with Lenin for future business cooperation instead of reinforcing the anti-Bolsheviks. The Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement of 1921 opened up trade and unofficially recognised the Soviet Union.
3. Bolshevism as a Tool for Controlling Russia
Some theorists argue that Western elites preferred Bolshevism because:
It centralized power, making it easier to control Russia’s economy in the long run.
A fragmented, chaotic Russia could not challenge British-American financial dominance.
Communism would prevent Russia from industrialising independently, forcing it into economic dependency on Western aid (as later seen under Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease and 1920s US loans to Soviet industry).
Lenin’s NEP (New Economic Policy, 1921):
Introduced limited capitalism.
Western corporations (Standard Oil, Ford, General Electric, etc.) signed lucrative contracts to develop Soviet industry.
Western Recognition of the USSR (1924):
Despite years of "opposition," the UK and other Western powers quickly recognised the USSR once the Bolsheviks were firmly in control.
This signaled that the West was not fundamentally opposed to Soviet rule.
4. Parallels to Later US Foreign Policy
This theory - today this is the Colour Revolution playbook, updated at each iteration - suggests a pattern where the West creates or supports revolutionary movements to destabilise and divide rivals, later using them for geopolitical advantage.
Examples include:
China (1949): US policies weakened the Nationalists and helped the CCP take power.
Cuba (1959): Could US financial interests have facilitated Castro’s rise, as some claim?
Islamist movements (1980s-present): The US has funded jihadists in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.
Conclusion
If true, this theory implies that the West manipulated pre-Soviet Russia’s collapse to install a Bolshevik regime it could ultimately manage.
Instead of a strong, independent, industrialised Tsarist or White Russia, the goal was a weakened, dependent, and controlled communist Russia—isolated from global trade but not entirely hostile to Western finance.
So the irony is that the Soviet Union later became an enemy, but initially, the Bolsheviks received significant Western assistance in consolidating power.
Criticism of This Theory
Mainstream historians argue that:
Western intervention was real but half-hearted because of post-WWI exhaustion.
Western businesses simply pursued profits and had no grand geopolitical strategy.
The USSR later became hostile to the West, contradicting the idea of a long-term Western plan to support it.
However, given the documented financial connections between the Bolsheviks and Western banks, this theory remains a topic of debate among alternative historians.