Henderson to make the real Russian attitude known in this country on his return. Unfortunately his efforts were made fruitless by the same methods of "political strategy."
But the missions were, after all, only an incident, and people soon forgot them after their departure. Much more weight was carried by the official conduct of the Allied diplomacy. First there were the speeches of the leading statesmen on the question of foreign policy; secondly, the question of calling an inter-Allied conference for the revision of war-aims. Later on a third element was added in the struggle against the Stockholm conference.
It is not necessary to dwell on the speeches at great length. It is sufficient to say that every speech on foreign policy in the French and British Parliaments was received with an outburst of enthusiasm in Russian imperialistic circles and was the cause of great distress to the Russian democracy. Every speech showed how infinitely far away the ideals of the Russian democracy were from the real programme of the Allied diplomacy. Every speech lessened the hopes of an early peace, every speech shook the faith of the Russian democracy in the possibility of joint Allied action towards peace, and correspondingly assisted the disintegration of the Russian army. Miliukov's party was jubilant, and with good reason, for the Allied diplomacy, while diverging more and more widely from the ideas of the Russian democracy, became more and more closely in agreement with the views of the Russian imperialists. For example, Miliukov's organ, the Rech (on the 6/19th of May) welcomed Lord Robert Cecil's speech in the following terms: "In the House of Commons Lord Robert Cecil answered Snowden's proposal to welcome Russia's declaration on the renouncement of imperialistic conquests and territorial gains. While the German Chancellor's reply, to which we referred the other day, did away with the illusion of German readiness for peace. Lord Robert Cecil's reply will undoubtedly help to
