Leon Trotsky, Richard von Kühlmann et al: Session of 10 January

[Proceedings of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference. Washington 1918, p. 61-64]

[From the (British) Daily Review of the Foreign Press, 15 January, 1918, p. 590.]

The following is a complete report of the statement made by the Russian delegation at the resumption of the peace negotiations at Brest-Litovsk on Jan. 11:¹

“Before dealing with the questions raised by the declaration of the Quadruple Alliance, we deem it necessary to dissipate the misunderstandings which have arisen in regard to the progress of the official pourparlers at the sittings of Dec. 27.

In response to the first and second paragraphs of the Austro-German proposal, the Russian delegation opposed the wording of these two paragraphs dealing with the destiny of the occupied territories, and intimated that the Russian Government could not regard as the will of the people a declaration made by privileged classes in these territories.

We confirm the official protocol of the last sitting as published by the German newspapers reporting a speech by the President of the Russian delegation, which report corresponds with what took place at the sitting of Dec. 27.

With regard to the telegram of the Petrograd Telegraph Agency, of which we find mention in the German newspapers, and which is unknown to us, as also with regard to the statement of Baron von Kühlmann, it is impossible for us, without further information on the subject, to determine which telegram can be referred to as a correction and addition to the protocol of the sittings of Dec. 27. In our opinion, the reference made to this telegram has no reference whatever to any statement by the Russian delegation at Brest-Litovsk, but to the resolution passed by the Central Executive Committees in Petrograd after the report made by our delegation on the progress of the pourparlers, being in perfect accord with the delegation in having resolutely declined the German point of view, by which the will of the people was in reality replaced by the will of a privileged group acting under the control of the authorities administering the occupied territories.”

The Russian delegation then proceeded to deal with the essential points of the statements of Baron von Kühlmann and Count Czernin, and declared notably:

“In the first place, we confirm, in full accord with our previous resolution, that we propose to continue the peace negotiations regardless of the adhesion, or otherwise, of the Entente Governments therein. Taking cognizance of the declaration of the Quadruple Central Powers that the bases for a general peace, as formulated on December 25, have become null and void, the Entente Powers not having adhered thereto in the course of the ten days’ suspension of negotiations, we now declare for our part that we shall not cease to defend the democratic principles of peace proclaimed by us without taking into account any delays whatever.”

With regard to the question of the transfer of the scene of the conference to a neutral country, the Russian delegation explained that, by this proposal, they sought to place both sides in analogous positions which would favor the normal course of the pourparlers and expedite the conclusion of peace. The delegation said:

“We share the view of the President of the German delegation that the atmosphere in which the negotiations are conducted is of the greatest importance. Without seeking to establish to what extent the atmosphere at Brest-Litovsk facilitates in the case of the opposite side the conclusion of peace, we are, however, of the undoubted opinion that for the Russian delegation the stay in the fortress of Brest-Litovsk, at the Headquarters of the enemy Armies under the control of the German authorities, creates all the disadvantages of an artificial isolation which is in no way compensated for by the enjoyment of a direct telegraph wire. This isolation, while creating an atmosphere unfavorable to our labors, is at the same time causing alarm and uneasiness in the public opinion of our country.”

The delegation then pointed out that all these considerations acquired the more importance, as precisely during the recent sittings there had arisen profound divergencies of views on the subject of the political future of the Polish, Lithuanian, Lettish, and other peoples. The statement continued:

“Therefore, we consider it very undesirable to continue these labors in conditions which might justify the allegation that we are taking part in a settlement of the future of existing peoples, isolated from all sources of information regarding the public opinion of the world and without any guaranty that our opinions and declarations reach the peoples of the Quadruple Alliance. With regard to the fears expressed by Count Czernin that agents of Russia’s Allies might engage in intrigues with the object of bringing about the failure of the negotiations, the Russian delegation points out, on the contrary, that the Russian Revolutionary power has sufficiently shown its independence in regard to diplomatic intrigues tending to the oppression of the laboring masses.”

The delegation then reviewed the efforts made to effect peace ever since the Russian troops victoriously entered Galicia until the Maximalists assumed power in defiance of the warnings and threats of the Allied Embassies. Says the statement:

“We replied, and we continue to reply, by severe repression to all counterrevolutionary intrigues and maneuvers of the Allied diplomatic agents in Russia, seeking to render abortive the cause of peace. We do not believe that Allied diplomacy can operate on neutral territory with greater success than at Petrograd. As to the sincerity of our aspirations for peace we think that in this domain account must be taken of facts in preference to indulgence in psychological conjecture. The sincerity of our aspirations for peace is sufficiently proved by our attitude in regard to the free right to development of Finland, Armenia, and Ukrainia. The hostile side has, therefore, only to show an analogous attitude to the regions occupied by it. We see, then, no political or technical reason for binding the fate of peace to Brest-Litovsk. We can not pass over in silence the argument advanced yesterday by the Chancellor of the Empire, namely, his statement with regard to the powerful position of Germany. The position in the world of a country is defined not only by its present state, by its technical machinery, but by its internal resources, which, once recalled to life, manifest their power sooner or later. Our Government has placed at the head of its program the word “Peace,” but it has engaged itself at the same time before its people to sign only a democratic and just peace. The Russian delegation then entered into considerations on the sympathies of the Russian people for the working people of Germany and her Allies, and showed that years of war has not hardened the hearts of the Russian soldiers, who, moved by the sentiment of fraternity, had stretched out their hands to the peoples on the other side of the trenches. 'The refusal of the delegations of the Central Powers,' they said, 'to transfer the conference to a neutral country is only explicable by the desire of their Governments and their powerful annexationist circles, based not on principles tending to the reconciliation of all nations, but on the war map.' But war maps disappear while peoples remain. We rejected as tendentious the assertions of the German Press that the refusal to transfer the conference was of the nature of an ultimatum. We thought that there could be no question of an ultimatum, but of a practical agreement arrived at in good faith. We were wrong. An ultimatum was delivered to us – pourparlers at Brest-Litovsk or no pourparlers. This ultimatum is a proof that the elements of the Quadruple Alliance, which pursue a policy of annexation, regard as more favorable to that policy a rupture of pourparlers on technical grounds than a settlement of the political future of Poland, Lithuania, Courland, and Armenia. A rupture of pourparlers on technical grounds would make it more difficult for the working masses of Germany and her Allies to understand the causes of the dispute and would facilitate the efforts of the semiofficial annexationist agitators who are seeking to make the German people believe that behind the open and frank policy of Russia is to be found a British or other manager. In view of these considerations. we think it necessary to declare that we accept the ultimatum handed to us. We remain, therefore, here at Brest-Litovsk so that the slightest possibility of peace may not be left unexhausted. Notwithstanding the extraordinary attitude of delegates of the Quadruple Alliance, we think it our duty to the peoples and armies of all countries to make a fresh effort to establish clearly and distinctly here at the headquarters of the Eastern front whether immediate peace with the Quadruple Alliance is possible without violence to the Poles, Lithuanians, Letts, Esthonians, Armenians, and other nationalities to whom the Russian Revolution assures on its side full right to free development without reservation, without restriction, without arrière pensée.”

★

Another account

[From the (British) Daily Record of the Foreign Press, 10 January, 1918, p. 599.]

The following passage relating to the Note submitted by the Ukrainian Delegation on Jan. 11² to the delegates of the Powers represented at Brest-Litovsk has just been received from Petrograd:

Regarding the fixing of the frontiers of the Ukraine, the Note particularly mentions the Black Sea regions and says that the frontiers of the country must be determined if the Black Sea was to be discussed with representatives of the Ukrainian Delegation. M. Trotsky in reply said that the question of the Ukrainian frontiers could not be considered as definitely settled because the Ukraine Republic was still in process of formation, and questions regarding frontiers, and especially those of the Black Sea, could not become the cause of conflict between the Russian and Ukrainian Delegations, because in case of a divergency of opinions this question could be settled by a referendum of the populations concerned. To this statement Baron von Kuhlmann answered:

“I did not wish to discuss here the litigious question of frontiers, but I want to know precisely the character of the relations existing between the two Delegations.”

M. Trotsky replied:

“I consider that all these questions can be solved successively for each particular case. An agreement will be reached between our delegation and the Ukrainian, and thus no difficulties will arise for the enemy delegations.”

Baron von Kühlmann. “It is not a question of particular questions, but we must clearly understand the general attitude of the Russian Delegation toward the Ukrainian Delegation, so that we may know how to reply to the highly important declaration made to-day by the Ukrainian Delegation. The question to be decided is: Are we to consider the Ukrainian Delegation as a section of the Russian Delegation or as representing a separate State?”

Trotsky. “As the Ukrainian Delegation has acted here as an independent delegation, and as we have recognized its participation without reserve or restrictions, it seems to me that this question no longer exists.”

Baron von Kühlmann. “I thank the representative of the Russian Delegation for the statement he has just made. This statement will serve as a basis to decide the character of the participation of the Ukrainian Delegation at the Conference.”

The President of the Ukraine Delegation, M. Goloubovitch, declared he was satisfied with the explanations of the Russian Delegation, which determined the character of the plenipotentiaries of the Ukrainian Delegation.

In all verbal transactions, he added, “we shall figure at two completely independent representations of the old Empire of Russia."

This question having been settled, M. Trotsky read the declaration telegraphed yesterday accepting the proposal of the Central Empires to continue the negotiations at Brest. M. Trotsky then expressed the hope that his declaration would be brought to the knowledge of the nations, with whom the Russian people wish to live in peace. M. Goloubovitch, having expressed a desire to ask for more complete instructions as to the attitude of the Ukrainian Delegation to the points raised at the meeting, Baron von Kuhlmann insisted on the negotiations being continued as rapidly as possible, and, although M. Trotsky’s declaration probably necessitated a discussion by the representatives of the Quadruple Alliance, the German Secretary of State said he considered that there was no reason to suspend the sittings while waiting for a reply.