France;
but if France fights a war of defence against an aggressive attack by
Germany, she is engaged in an "imperialist war." Similarly, if India
rises against Britain, the people will be fighting a just war; but if
Britain supports France and Belgium against German imperialism, she is
carrying on an "imperialist war." Hence it follows that, if the
Central Powers had won the war, and Belgium had been subjugated by
Germany, Belgium would have been fully justified in fighting to
recover her independence; but in defending that independence which she
would have a right to recover, if deprived of it, she was taking part
in an "imperialist war "! Such is Leninist logic when brought down to
actual facts.

In short, Lenin, like Bakunine, loves ideas more than men. This may be
said of all the honest Bolshevist fanatics. There are others--many of
them. And even the genuine fanatics appear to have reached a stage of
mental "impossibilism" where the end not only justifies the means, but
any means must necessarily help to achieve the end. We know the
Bolsheviks were conveyed to Russia in April, 1917, via Germany in
sealed carriages with the consent of the German authorities. The Swiss
Bolshevik, Platten, arranged the affair with the German Government.
That the German Government expected that the Bolshevist mission to
Russia would be of advantage to Germany cannot be questioned;
otherwise the Bolshevist refugees would not have been allowed to go to
Petrograd through Germany. The Bolsheviks themselves knew that their
actions in the Russian Revolution would help Imperialist Germany, for
the "Berner Tagwacht" announced, after they had left Switzerland, that
they were "perfectly well aware that the German Government is only
permitting the transit of those persons because it believes that their
presence in Russia will strengthen the anti-war tendencies there." It
is the same with whatever money was supplied by Germany to the
Bolsheviks. It would all help to establish the "dictatorship of the
proletariat."

It is necessary to refer also to Leo Trotzky. Some who are convinced
of Lenin's honesty of purpose do not hold the same view of Trotzky.
Lenin is the implacable theorist in whose nostrils compromise of any
sort stinks. Trotzky is not of that character. He is much more
adaptable. And he has changed opinions on war issues more than once
during the war. In the autumn of 1914 or the beginning of 1915,
Trotzky wrote a brilliant pamphlet