from 14 different countries were alsonon Russian soil at one time or another,nincluding 73,000 Japanese, 60,000nFrench, and, oddly enough, 60,000nCzechs. The Red Army numbered fivenmillion at the end of the war, while thensix major White armies that roamednSiberia, the Baltics, the Crimean Peninsula,nthe Ukraine, and northern Russianwere never greater than 500,000nmen at any one time.nThe traditional Soviet line on thencivil war has been to emphasize thenCommunist effort to thwart the counterrevolutionnof czarist and bourgeoisnremnants led by capitalist interventionnfrom abroad. In fact, by the time ansmall contingent of British marinesnlanded in northern Russia (in Murmansk)nin early March 1918, the anti-nBolshevik Volunteer Army had beennactive in southern Russia for threenmonths. When the British did land innthe north, they did so with the blessingnof Trotsky, then Commissar of ForeignnAffairs. The reason was simplenenough. The Cermans were pushingneastward while they were negotiatingnwith the Russian government about thenamount of land they would get innreturn for peace.nEven after the German-Soviet Treatynof Brest-Litovsk was signed onnMarch 3, there remained the matter ofnthe 160,000 tons of unpaid-for warnmateriel that the British had deliverednthe previous October to Archangel tonhelp Kerensky in the fight against thenCermans. The Allies, still at war withnCermany, had an interest in protectingnthis war cache from the Germans andnthe Finns, who were engaged in theirnown civil war. In addition, the Alliesnhad an interest in keeping open thenEastern front and were deeply fearfulnof what the Russian departure from thenwar would do to their efforts on thenWestern front. To be sure, the Alliesnhelped the Whites even after the Armisticenwith Germany was signed innNovember 1918. Still, the Soviet protestationnof foreign intervention rings anbit hollow, considering that it was thenGermans who provided Lenin safenescort back to Russia in order to weakennRussian morale, if not to take hernout of the war.nOne institution crucial to the oldnorder was the Russian OrthodoxnChurch. In the course of the warnLenin did all that he could to destroy itn40/CHRONICLESnwithout unnecessarily arousing the resentmentnof the people. But accordingnto Lincoln, “Russia’s peasant millionsnhad grown suspicious of Orthodoxy”nand “many more churchmen seem tonhave died at the hands of hostilencrowds or as punishment for leadingnlocal anti-Soviet uprisings than as anresult of capricious executions.” Thesenrepresentations, however, are not wellnsupported, and widely regarded churchnhistorians like Dimitry Pospielovskynand others have reached different conclusions.nTwenty-eight bishops werenexecuted between 1918-20 and churchnbaptisms and attendance were surprisinglynstrong in the 1920’s, despitenvicious persecution. Furthermore, Lincolnndoes not mention that Lenin shutndown 37,000 church schools, 291 hospitals,nand 1,113 homes for the aged.nWho was suspicious of these, othernthan the Bolsheviks? The church wasntightly woven into the fabric of Russiannsociety and it is a miracle that todaynthere are, despite the persecution ofnmore than seventy years, about fifty tonsixty million Russian Orthodox believersnin the Soviet Union.nIn his chapter “The Ukraine in Ferment”nLincoln writes of “the bitteriynanti-Semitic people of the Ukraine”nand states that “All across the Ukraine,nanti-Semitism poisoned the minds ofnmen …” Even the greatest Ukrainiannnationalist would, if he were honest,nhave to admit that anti-Semitism hasnplayed a significant role in Ukrainiannhistory. Nonetheless, it should also benmentioned for the record that thenUkrainian Central Rada (Council),nwhich was formed in June 1917 andnwhich became the Ukrainian NationalnRepublic in 1918, had three specificncabinet positions for Russians, Poles,nand Jews, and that the currency issuednwas written in Ukrainian on one sidenand in Russian, Polish, and Yiddish onnthe other.nFurthermore, while Lincoln is surelyncorrect to discuss Ukrainian leadersnlike monarchist hetman Skoropadskynand General Petliura, surely deservingnof some mention were MikhailonHrushevsky, the founding president ofnthe Ukrainian Republic and distinguishednhistorian, and other Ukrainiansnwho were attempting to establish andemocratic country where anti-nSemitism had no place. It is a uniquelynUkrainian tragedy that they did notnnnsucceed, since Stalin starved and killednan estimated seven million Ukrainiansnin the early I930’s, a decade after thencivil war. Still, Lincoln was not writingna history of modern Ukrainian nationalism,nand maintaining perspective onnthe epic civil war must have been nonsmall challenge for him. As he pointsnout, the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, wasnoccupied 16 times by various forces.nSelecting from the record what is trulynimportant is the responsibility of thenhistorian, but in this regard the RussiannCivil War provides a myriad of difficultnproblems.nOn balance, then. Red Victory is annastounding achievement of primarysourcenresearch and good writing. Itnprovides an excellent background fornunderstanding the enormous problemsnMikhail Gorbachev faces today as henstruggles to keep the Empire together.nMichael Warder is associate publishernof Chronicles.nThe Value ofnTheorynby Irving Louis HorowitznValues and Value Theory innTwentieth-Century America: Essaysnin Honor of Elizabeth FlowernEdited by Murray G. Murpheynand Ivar BergnPhiladelphia: Temple UniversitynPress; 301 pp., $39.95nThis volume in tribute to ElizabethnFlower is loosely organized, withnscarcely a mention of Flower’s work—nthe presumption doubtless being thatnthe general sentiments and character ofnher work are best captured by such angestaltist approach. While there isnsomething to be said for such a loosenorganization, that only makes the readerngrateful for the bio-bibliographical notenon Professor Flower, which nicely andnclearly in two pages summarizes whatnshe has meant as a teacher and scholar.nIn words one suspects were largelyncrafted by her husband, Abraham Edeln(himself the recipient of an earliernfestschrift called Values, Science, andnDemocracy), we are told that: “Persuadednthat the scientific was valueladennand the genuinely normativen