Leon Trotsky, Ottokar Graf Czernin, Richard von Kühlmann et al:

Session of 31 January

[From the( British) Daily Review of the Foreign Press, 12 February, 1918, p. 842. Proceedings of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference. Washington 1918, p. 128-131]

The Russian wireless (9 February) sends out the following:

To All:

The following is a transcript of the shorthand notes of the session of the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian Delegations on 31 January, 1918:

Czernin. I open the session. (? At the sitting on) 11 January the President of the Russian Delegation replied to General Hoffmann. He said: I must point out that General Hoffmann was entirely right when he said that our Government is based upon might. In the whole of history there can not be found any other basis of government, because the States are composed of classes struggling against each other. If the Secretary of State is desirous of saying that he does not agree with our ideas as they have been materialized in the institutions of the Russian Republic, then I have nothing to which I need reply.

Von Kühlmann. I will not discuss to-day the principles upon which the Russian Government is founded, so far as it is represented by the Council of the People's Commissaries, and I will also not reply to the questions raised as to the Right v. Might philosophy of Hegel, but I think it is necessary to read to you the minutes, because I have found in those minutes various affirmations and restrictions which were indicated by the President of the Russian Delegation as to the manner in which the Russian Government is basing itself upon force, and also upon something else.

Trotsky. “I may point out that the citation as made public here is not in strict accord with that which was made by the Secretary of State before the Reichstag Committee. With the object of supporting his affirmation he found it necessary to add to the word 'might' the words 'exclusively upon might.'

I have explained that our authority is based upon force, but not exclusively upon force. I do not think that the Secretary of State will deny that the German Government rests upon force, but I do not think that he would assert that it rests exclusively upon force, I have nothing more to say.”

Von Kühlmann – “Similarly, as I do not believe that commentaries upon our minutes can accelerate our negotiations, I also have nothing more to say.”

Trotsky. – “In the newspapers of to-day, or rather in the newspapers received by us to-day, there is a report which it is believed might have a bad effect upon our further negotiations. In this report the Petrograd Agency says that at the end of my speech at the third All-Russian Congress of the Councils of Workmen's, Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies I reported upon the hence negotiations here. It is quite true that I did this, but in this report it is said that I declared that the Russian Delegation would not conclude a separate peace. Such a statement is an invention and the direct opposite of what I really did say. By a small opposition group in this Congress I was requested In promise that our Delegation would not sign a separate pence. I replied (I have not the shorthand minutes with me, but I am sure of the exact meaning of the words which I used) : “We have done on our side all in our power to induce all the belligerent countries to take part in the peace negotiations. If now the negotiations proceed to a separate peace, the responsibility will be entirely with those Governments which decline to participate in the peace negotiations.” If I had given such a promise as is reported not to sign a separate peace, it would have meant that I had promised that the Russian people would continue the war whilst the British, American, and other Imperialists desired it. That would have meant that we were continuing to follow the false policy of the last Governments. I have categorically refused to give such a promise. We have come to Brest-Litovsk with the object of struggling for an honest democratic peace, and we shall sign such a peace when our conscience tells us that it is open to us in a form that is consistent with our point of view and in harmony with the interests of our peoples and of other peoples.

Czernin. – “If false and incomplete information is published in the Austrian and German Press it is in no case with the approval of the Austria and German Governments. If this information has appeared in the Austrian Press, I am ready to make the necessary inquiries so as to ascertain by whom the falsification has been made if there has been falsification.”

Von Kühlmann. “I think that after the interesting explanation of the President of the Russian Delegation the Delegations of the Allied Powers would be pleased if they could have before them the authentic text of this speech which the Commissary for Foreign Affairs delivered at Petrograd. It is not possible to say now how the erroneous report may have come about, but I also on my side shall make inquiries.”

Trotsky. “I have said nothing about falsification, because in this matter a misunderstanding is possible. As in the case of the first message, which also created a misunderstanding, I did not raise the question until inquiries made it necessary for me to do so. It seems to me quite natural and in our mutual interests that the negotiations should not be more difficult by the spreading of false information, which causes confusion and hinders our work. If the President of the German Delegation is now proposing that speeches of plenipotentiaries engaged in these negotiations which they have made before responsible Institutions in their own countries should be added to the records of this Congress, I should certainly agree that there should be no exception as regards my speeches.”

Czernin. “I am also of the opinion of the Russian Delegation that it is unnecessary to complicate our negotiations by taking account of all the inventions of journalists. I, on my part, shall try to discover the source of the information which has been spoken of. Now, I think we can return to our Order of to-day. Until the present the Commission which is called the Territorial Commission has studied the question of those regions under German occupation.

I have made the proposal with the full approval of my neighbor on my right that to-day there should be a clear understanding concerning the regions which are in Austro-Hungarian occupation. The regions occupied by the Austro-Hungarian troops are marked on this map with a yellow line. But before we begin the detailed discussion of this subject I should like to clear up the question as to who has the requisite competence to negotiate in regard to it. The President of the Russian Delegation is aware that the representatives of the Ukraine assert that they alone are competent to discuss and settle this matter. I beg the President of the Russian Delegation to express to us his view and give us a chance of considering it.”

Trotsky. “I protest emphatically in the name of our Delegation and our Government against the theory that the Delegation of the Kiev Rada has the right to solve territorial questions alone. I may remind you that at the session at which I, in the name of our Delegation, declared In the presence of the representatives of the Kiev Rada that on all territorial questions an agreement is necessary between our Delegation and the Delegation of the Kiev Rada, the representatives of the Kiev Rada did not make any objection. I do not know when or at what session the representatives of the Kiev Rada claimed the right to solve the territorial questions independently. At the present time the position which we have taken up is much strengthened by the participation in our Delegation of two representatives of the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee. Such is the formal side of the question. Concerning its real side, I am of opinion, in view of our latest information, and particularly after the last message of all received by me, that the question of the participation of the Kiev Rada in the character of an independent Delegation must be regarded as a question of the past, and that their right can not now or in future be recognized.”

Czernin. “I am of opinion that the views on these questions are widely different as between the representatives of the Petrograd Government and those of the Ukraine. I think that the representatives of the Petrograd Government will agree when I say that this question needs to be cleared up. I propose to call as soon as possible a plenary session, at which we could discuss this question, which is regarded differently at Petrograd and at Kiev. So as to be the better able to understand it, I beg an explanation. So far as I remember, at the first sessions when the territorial questions were discussed between Petrograd and Kiev, I understood that conflicts could arise only on the settlement of the question as to which region should be under the Petrograd and which under the Kiev administration. But I never believed that the frontier between Poland and Ukraine could create friction between Petrograd and Kiev. I never believed that the Russian territory, in respect to which the Petrograd Government had claims, could reach so far. What I ask is: If the point of view of the President of the Russian Delegation is one of principle, can it then be said that the Ukraine has no right at all to speak for the regions of the independent Ukraine, or that for the discussion of all territorial questions it needs a preliminary agreement with Petrograd?”

Trotsky. “I recall that the President of the Austro-Hungarian Delegation asked me at an earlier session if I could indicate where the disputable and where the indisputable frontiers of Ukraine could he found. I replied that until the frontiers between the Ukrainian Republic and the Russian Republic are established by agreement of both sides, all the territorial questions as between the Russian Republic and the Ukrainian Republic on the one side and the Central Powers on the other can be solved only by a common agreement. Certainly if Ukraine had existed in the past and should exist in the future as an independent Republic, in no way bound with the Russian Republic, then, after the establishment of the frontiers, it, like every other State, would solve independently all questions affecting it, including the territorial questions. But the Ukrainian Government, which is represented on our Delegation, and which will state its views at the next plenary session, when this question will be strictly discussed, has the view that Ukraine is a part of the Federal Russian Republic, in accordance with the decisions of the last All-Russian Congress of the Councils of Workmen’s, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ deputies. A common solution of territorial questions is necessary, not only because that is an arrangement which would accord with the real situation but also because it would be in harmony with the rights of the newly created Russian Republic. If in the past an agreement was necessary between our Delegation and the Ukrainian Delegation, then at the present such agreement is much more obligatory, since it is imposed by the Federal Constitution of the Russian Republic.”

Czernin. “I thank the President of the Russian Delegation for bis explanation, and I believe that this question is now in such a position that it becomes impossible to solve it without the participation of the Ukrainian Delegates. I reserve to myself the right to repeat this proposal.”

Von Kühlmann. “The President of the Russian Delegation has spoken about a telegram to which he attaches great importance. Certainly it would be of great interest to our Delegation if he could communicate to us the exact text of this telegram.”

Trotsky. The statement of this telegram is that the greater part of the Kiev garrison has passed over to the side of the Ukrainian Council and that the existence of the Rada is now likely to be of very short duration.”

Czernin. “I propose to have a plenary session tomorrow at half past five o’clock, when we can discuss the territorial questions which are in dispute between the representatives of Petrograd and of Kiev. Does anyone wish to make any remark on this subject? I consider my proposal accepted, and I close this session.”

Trotsky. “I have learned from newspapers that the Secretary of State has promised in a letter to the President of the Polish Kukarzhevsky Ministry that he intends to raise the question of the participation of the representatives of this Ministry in the peace negotiations. Is it to be understood that this question will be raised at one of the next sessions?

Von Kühlmann. “We shall put this question forward for discussion when we consider it opportune. My attitude in regard to the principle has been already explained at past sessions.”

Trotsky. “I have no desire to embarrass the Secretary of State in his choice of the opportune moment. I only wish to obviate the possibility of any misunderstanding or the supposition that we are making difficulties by desiring to put this question upon the Order of the Day as soon as possible. We are very much interested that this question should be considered as soon as possible, because our real views are entirely different from those attributed to us in the message that I have named.”

Von Kühlmann. “Divergencies of principle are clearly shown in the records of our discussions, as the Commissary for Foreign Affairs has himself admitted. If there were a clear understanding of the views of the Russian Delegation concerning the political position of these regions it would be a big step forward to the solution, so much desired, of this question. I hope it will be possible to bring this matter up for discussion at the earliest possible time.”

Trotsky. “Up to the present I have said nothing as to a change in our point of view. I have said merely that our point of view has undergone a change only in the manner in which it is explained by the Secretary of State.”

Czernin. “I on my part say that I should see with much pleasure the invitation extended to the above-named Polish representatives, so that they might take part in the negotiations under the present conditions. I close the session.”

The next plenary session will be to-morrow at half past five o’clock.

(Signed) A. Karahan.