Leon Trotsky, Richard von Kühlmann et al:

Session of 15 January, Afternoon

[From the (British) Daily Review of the Foreign Press, 29 January, p. 723. Proceedings of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference. Washington 1918, p. 105-108]

The following is the official Russian account of the session of the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian delegates at Brest-Litovsk. commencing at a quarter past five on the afternoon of Jan. 15. The session was opened by Baron von Kühlmann. who spoke as follows:

“Gentlemen: We now continue the pourparlers interrupted before lunch today. We to-day discussed the question of a time limit, and, to our regret, we have been obliged to note that, in spite of the persuasive force of our explanations, had not been obtained. We will now pass to the discussion of point two; that is, a discussion of the questions regarding the common preliminary political conditions which ought to serve as a basis for a resolution. The decisive point in considering a solution of the said questions will certainly be in what measure the presence of troops occupying these territories might influence the free vote or ballot of the deciding body. This question will be the kernel for the discussion of all the questions which are submitted for our consideration. The similar features of the standpoint shared by all the Allied Delegations are known to you. The Allied Delegations are actuated by the very sincere desire to build up for the vote or ballot conditions of perfect political liberty within as wide,limits as circumstances will permit.

The whole question is in its essential parts also a military affair. The limits within which we can discuss this question are created by circumstances and combinations of a military character which we can not exceed. The following points of view may be taken as setting the bounds for its discussion: The exact number of armed and disciplined troops necessary for the maintenance of public order; the organised forces which are for the moment militarily indispensable for maintaining the existence of the economic enterprises of the country. On our side, a promise will be given, couched in obligatory terms, that the presence of these organisations in the said territories will involve no interference in the political life of the country and the troops will have no right to exert pressure on its politics. On the other hand, we resolutely maintain the standpoint that their presence can in no way impair the liberty of the ballot. If the Russian delegates consent to debate the question with my proposals as a basis. I beg them to enunciate their standpoint and their proposals, in order to determine if there is any means of attaining approximation of convergence in our respective suggestions.”

M. Trotsky then replied as follows:

“Before to-day's adjournment we explained the rout of the differences which separate us. In this, at the first glance, practical question, the President of the German Delegation set up as a fundamental criterion for a solution of this question the criterion of military guarantees. This principle has, naturally, its claims, but it does not carry the debate any further on to other ground. Above all. it is necessary to make things clear from the beginning, because in recognizing the principle of the free self-determination of peoples, one may well say: 'Although I should have certain military advantages in exploring the territories of these peoples, nevertheless, in view of the fact that I have acknowledged their right to an independent existence I renounce all such advantages.' That is one position. One other is possible – that formulated to-day by the President of the German Delegation.

The military advantages of a given position are to be the supreme criterion, and discussion is only held to be possible within these limits. In that way the question is given an appearance which is purely deceptive. Certain explanations are indispensable in order to put the position of the German Delegation in its proper light. Thus, before the adjournment, the President of the German Delegation suggested as an example or a debatable proposal that the territories in question might attain a full and definite expression of independence not later than a year after the termination of the war. I understood that this would more or less coincide with, or would be preceded by, the evacuation of these territories by foreign troops. On this ground a certain misunderstanding arose, which has not yet been finally explained. Does the President of the German Delegation mean that at the moment of the final constitution of the new peoples the evacuation of their territories by foreign troops will have been definitely completed? If that is his identical standpoint, then it seems to me the question before us will find a very simple solution. If we accept, of course, conditionally, the time limit proposed by the president – that is. exactly a year after the termination of the world war – we imagine that only a few months would elapse before the operation of the evacuation of the territories was accomplished. And the vote which is to determine the final form of sovereignty of the new peoples would he taken under those conditions. I beg the President of the German Delegation to give an explanation on these points, in order to simplify the ensuing debates.

["The official communication here states that at this point there is a number of sentences much mutilated.]

Baron von Kühlmann. “You have misunderstood what I have just said. If this morning I proposed as a time limit a year after the conclusion of a universal peace, it was to be understood that the occupying Powers would he obliged to carry out the vote in these territories subject to the observance of the conditions which I before indicated. A time after the conclusion of a universal peace was chosen in consideration of the fact that after a universal peace the circumstances will he favourable for the conditions of voting which have been accepted by us. These conditions which, from my point of view, should be laid down for the vote. I have already explained.

The conditions which, in my view, should be established for the vote have been set forth clearly and with sufficient fullness, and I do not think it necessary to go into details. They represent the maximum to which we can consent. Subject to the given circumstances and within the limits indicated, I could find it possible to discuss the question, but discussions which exceeded those limits may attain political results which are not practicable.

M. Trotsky. Whether a practical result is attained or not, we must, above all, endeavour to make the position clear. Even after the recent friendly explanation of the President of the German Delegation, it is not clear what the final term for the evacuation of the foreign troops from the new territories would be.”

Baron von Kühlmann. “The whole time we are not debating the question of the definite evacuation of the troops, but pourparlers for the creation of such conditions for the taking of the vote as would enable it to he announced, by our mutual consent, as an effective vote. I wish, most emphatically, to limit the field of the discussion in this direction. We are discussing the question of conditions under which a vote could be taken, which, in the opinion of both sides, would be an obligatory character, and would not be considered as having been taken under the pressure of armed force. I think that that is absolutely clear. We have indicated the number of organised armed forces which would be compatible with such a free vote without any pressure. It is on this that I would ask you to deliberate, if such is your good pleasure.

Above all, I should like to put forward for discussion the question of public order. We consent, in conformity with the proposals made yesterday by the Austrian Delegation, to begin the organisation of a gendarmerie from among the national forces. But for anyone with experience of such a question it is clear that during the time limit which we desire, and during which, if to-day you accept our conditions, we should be obliged to take the vote, it would be impossible to entrust to such a gendarmerie formed from national forces the maintenance of order on such a large scale and in territories so vast and so devoid of security. I should like to put the question as to what number of organised armed forces would he necessary, in the opinion of the President of the Russian Delegation, In maintain order in these territories at the time of the ballot, and at the same time would be compatible with the liberty of the vote.”

Mr. Trotsky. “I would remind the President that he is not only the President of the present assembly, but that he is also the representative of the opposing party, and that to arrive at an agreement it is absolutely indispensable to agree as to the order of the discussions and their form. I should find it difficult to give a direct reply to the last question put by the German President, if in order to explain all parts of questions which interest us we had not the right to put in the forefront all indispensable considerations and to receive necessary information. In the space of a few minutes the President of the German Delegation has proposed, firstly, to discuss only the conditions of the freedom of the ballot, and at the same time, without waiting for my reply, proposed to pass on to the conditions for the maintenance of order and the policing of the country. I am convinced that if the part of the discussions that has already taken place were brought to the knowledge of the peoples interested and submitted to the public opinion of the world, without further explanations, it might cause the most serious misunderstanding, and it is for that reason, in strict connection with the question of State politics and the order of the day, and with the question of the proposals of a free vote, that I have touched on the question of the conditions and time limit for the definite evacuation of the troops, for not only rational decisions are possible. For example, if I put forward a practical alternative – that the withdrawal of the troops should take place within two years after the conclusion of a universal peace, and the deciding vote within one year – that would be a possibility.

Another possibility is that evacuation may be carried out in two years and the decisive vote within a year and three months. Faced with such an alternative. I would vote for the second. Naturally, the German President is entitled to decline to reply to this question.”

Baron von Kühlmann. “I can find no ground for the presumption that I desire unreasonably to limit the subject of discussion. I am as interested as the President of the Russian Delegation in having full light thrown on the questions under discussion from all sides and to the very bottom. I was under the impression that the question of a time limit had already been sufficiently elucidated at this morning's sitting as far as was possible in the course of a debate. In any case. I can not take the responsibility of guaranteeing that, in the course of any time limit of practical importance for the solution of the question of the vote, military combinations will make the total evacuation of the troops from those territories possible. Such a deduction might have been made by the President of the Russian Delegation from my proposal regarding a certain limit, “a lapse of a year after the conclusion of general peace is indicated," and from our strictly minimum program for the activity of the organized forces in those territories. That minimum program has been elaborated with careful coordination of the military circumstances, and we agree to follow that program and to discuss it in detail. It seems to me that from the fact of a country putting forward a minimum program it logically follows that it is not in a position to deal with proposals from the other side which go too far. I must return to the previous proposal to proceed to the discussion of the amount of organized forces indispensable for the maintenance of order without in any way imposing this proposal on the Russian President.”

M. Trotsky. “Yes; I think that it will conduce to clearness if we again spend some time on the question recently put forward in the proposal formulated by the Austrian and German Delegations: 'The evacuation of the troops is impossible during the general war, but it will be possible to aspire to a reduction of their number indispensable for the maintenance of order and of the productive equipment indispensable to the country.'

It is indispensable to introduce in the terms of the peace treaties guarantees against the fettering of the lives of these peoples with a period of uncertainty as regards the continuation of the common war. In this we foresee the greatest danger from the maintenance of a state of war which can not guarantee to the territories recently convoked for self-determined pacific relations of a normal character any more than to the neighboring countries. I venture to say, however, that the inhabitants of these territories, as well as the inhabitants of the colonies already mentioned, have the right to live in their country without being forced to suffer from universal war more than is necessitated by inevitable and indisputable causes.”

Baron von Kühlmann. “I think, gentlemen, that we mast interrupt the sitting and continue our speech at 3 this afternoon.”

The sitting ended at 2 o’clock.