ABSTRACT
As the debates between the military interventionists and the Wilsonian liberals raged during 1919, a third alternative arose from the extreme regions of anticommunism. A curious convergence developed between extreme laissez-faire conservatives and some liberal radicals – in America called the peace progressives – both of whom were adversely impressed by the emerging image of totalitarianism and determined to arrest its further unfolding. The military interventionists were the first ones to suffer a significant defection. As a result of the composite nature of ‘Bolshevism’, as it was understood by conservatives, the laissez-faire section of the movement could not after the First World War regard a military intervention backed up by limited social reform as the simple panacea to the compound problem. In fact Sherman’s assertion did flow naturally from the conviction that Wilson was an autocrat who was intent on using all possible methods, even the seemingly contradictory, to force socialism on America.
