I'm leaning towards self-interest as it started during ww1 when the allies wanted to resurrect an eastern front and prevent the central powers getting materials sent by the allies to russia. On the other hand the allies had clear distain against Bolshevism and continued their war even though WW1 had ended. Then theres also the split answer where they didnt want Russia to be communist / socialist cause that might mean losing a trade partner and former "anti-german" ally. Anyone have an idea?
ps. With Allies I'm particularly interested in the US,UK and France
Edit: I formulated my conclusion I would appreciate any and as much feedback as possible on it.
"I believe the allied intervention was a quest out of self-interest. Despite some historians believing in the notion that the allies were engaging in an ideological fight against Bolshevism on the basis that the intervention persisted past the first world war delegitimizing the original justifications given for the intervention. As such they believe the allies lingered in Russia until 1920 so that the Bolsheviks had to concentrate on the internal struggle and could not support the revolutionary waves of socialist and communist uprisings such as the ones in german,hungary and italy or even further exacerbate the first red scare in the US, therefore following a policy of containment.
I however cant fully agree with this thesis while it would be naive to assume the allies wouldnt have rather seen russia stay a liberal-capitalist society and how they did possess a certain degree of disdain for the bolsheviks and their ideology which saw them denounce all Tsarist foreign debts and would nationalize industries the allies had invested in. Had the allies really wanted to engage in an ideological fight against bolshevism they would invested much more into the intervention,not have deployed their theaters of operation far removed from the Bolshevik-controlled heartland,and have striked in 1919 when the whites had the most probable chance of winning. Furthermore the allies would not have arranged the deceleration of truce among the different contending factions in early 1919. With Lloyd George stating he was ready to deal with the bolsheviks as the de facto government and “the one thing to spread bolshevism was to try and suppress “. Therefore I believe there was never anything resembling "imperialist intervention" in the sense of a concerted, purposeful drive of the Western powers to crush the Communist regime and that the intervention was rather rooted in strategic considerations of beating the central powers in world war 1,recouping otherwise lost investments in which a incidental defeat of the bolsheviks would have been the cherry on top."
Source: reddit post