130
The intention of this is obvious. What is wanted is to neutralise the effect of the many outrages committed by the Red. They were wholly and solely the natural consequence of the behaviour of the White! As regards the methods of war of the White, they must undoubtedly be characterised as stern. As they had to do with an enemy who murdered and maimed all their enemies, as all the bodies of the fallen were plundered, and as they knew what cruelties the Red had been guilty of behind the front, it was difficult to make room for any leniency. The White fought against insurgents and traitors; their war was a war of liberation against Russians and ruffians; they were really no army at war, but a hastily collected number of volunteers who had gone out to punish malefactors and enemies of their country. No wonder then if they sometimes made short work of the trial; if exasperation led to severity, harshness, and—if you will—to brutality. But this is one thing; the cruelties and torture spoken of by the Red Press, another. Of such things the White army was innocent, but the Red army, guilty.
During the world-war it has been seen more than once how difficult it is to verify all the tales of cruelties committed. Besides, in themselves they only prove that there are some individuals who are able to commit any atrocity in their frenzy. By such things an army cannot be judged, nor—as in this case—a mass movement in its entirety. The thing to be considered is the mentality of the fighting masses as a whole, the discipline and self-control to be found, and the punishments the malefactors were subjected to in their own ranks. In the posthumous papers of the Red we get a sufficiently clear image of the spirit reigning among them to be able to convict them. They were not all robbers and murderers, but those who were not did nothing, absolutely
