Leon Trotsky Richard von Kühlmann et al:

Session of Committee on Territorial Questions, 11 January

[Proceedings of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference. Washington 1918, p.70-79]

[From the (British) Daily Review of the Foreign Press, 22 January, 1918, p. 650.]

The Petrograd account of the negotiations of Jan. 12, now to hand, reports the discussion which followed on lines generally in accordance with the German account printed in the Daily Review (Jan. 16, p. 599), but the more detailed report given of the debate on the evacuation of Persia has some interest. In the course of the debate on the evacuation of occupied territories, M. Trotsky asked permission to make an alteration in the proposed agreement on this point, which includes the sentence:

Russia withdraws her troops from the territories occupied by them in Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Persia. The Persian Charge d’Affaires in Petrograd had objected to Persia being thus coupled, as she was not the Ally of any of them, and he (M. Trotsky) consequently proposed to eliminate the word Persia and substitute for it the words: “ Russia pledges herself within the shortest possible time to withdraw her troops from neutral Persia.”

Baron von Kühlmann, taking note of this, said:

“An immediate definition of our respective points of view is probably not necessary. I do not doubt that the misgivings of the Persian Ambassador (sic) regarding the wording proposed by the Russian delegation are based on some foundation. Nevertheless, as I have said, it would be difficult to express oneself Immediately on so vast a question. We will express our point of view if the Russian proposal is communicated to us in writing.”

M. Trotsky. “I would only add that our only object in suggesting the change is to emphasize the crying injustice done by our former Government to a neutral country.”

Baron von Kühlmann. “I welcome this declaration the more inasmuch as the greatest sympathy is entertained by the Central Powers for the Persian people as the representative of an ancient civilization, and we hope that it may be able to promote its national civilization without being subjected to oppression from its neighbors.”

[Note. – The following passage does not appear in the German report at all.]

M. Trotsky. “We, on our part, will supplement such a declaration if it is made on behalf of Turkey.”

Baron von Kühlmann. “I am not empowered to speak in the name of Turkey. I will, however, mention the matter to our Turkish allies, and I can already promise that if the President of the Russian Delegation will ask his British friends also to evacuate Persia, then not a single Turkish soldier will long remain on Persian soil.”

M. Trotsky. “I can not enter into obligations with a country which is not taking part in the pourparlers, and if the question were given a wider basis, then it would be necessary to put it forward in connection with some other neutral countries – Belgium, for example.”

Baron von Kühlmann objected to this digression, and the delegations then proceeded to discuss the question of evacuation of the occupied territories from the points of view of neutrality and time. While the Russians considered that evacuation and demobilization should take place simultaneously on both sides, the Austrian and German delegations said they could not consent to this for two reasons, firstly, because while a conclusion of peace between the countries represented would mean the end of the war for Russia, the Central Powers would still have to fight on; and, secondly, they would have no security against changes in Russia which might alter the situation to their detriment. M. Trotsky said:

“We quite understand the ideas expressed by the President of the German Delegation regarding possible changes. We on our side anticipated them also in the natural order of things, but we reckon that any changes resulting from the ordeal of the war will conduce not to an exacerbation of the relations between peoples, but, on the contrary, to an ever-growing elimination of the danger of fresh conflicts. We are, therefore, of the view that that consideration should in no way be an obstacle to the simultaneity of evacuation and demobilization.”

Again, no decision is recorded, and on the motion of Baron von Kühlmann the discussion of the extent of the occupied territories to be evacuated and demobilisation.

Again, no decision is recorded, and on the motion of Baron von Kuhlmann the discussion of the extent of the occupied territories to be evacuated was taken up.

[Note. – The Russian account here closely follows the German account already published of the speech of Baron von Kuhlmann on the point, but a much longer account is given of the speech of M. Trotsky.]

The President of the Russian Delegation, replying to Baron von Kühlmann said:

“We must categorically reject the interpretation given to the view of the President of the German Delegation regarding the votes of what he called really plenipotentiary organs. These " really plenipotentiary organs ” could not correspond to the principles proclaimed by us, for these principles had a purely democratic basis constructed by the will of the peoples affected. At the same time we consider that the will of the people can only be expressed freely and without restraint on condition that the foreign troops are first evacuated from the occupied territories. We understand by foreign troops and troops of occupation the German and Austro-Hungarian troops, and similarly the Russian troops after the withdrawal of the German and Austro-Hungarian armies. The occupied territory does not correspond to the real boundaries of the regions inhabited by the peoples affected, but we, as we have often laid down, are ready to give the same right of self-determination to the inhabitants of the provinces adjoining the occupied provinces on condition that the corresponding institutions, upon the character of which an understanding must be reached, shall guarantee that the line indicating the whole of the territory of the peoples who are freely to determine their own fate shall go beyond the limits of occupation.”

[Note. – Owing to the fact, it is pointed out from Petrograd, that Baron von Kühlmann spoke in German, the Russian stenographic report now becomes very confused, and it differs from the German account, the Russian account continuing, as follows:]

After further discussion, Baron von Kühlmann, speaking in German, observes:

“I have said that the limited boundaries of the occupation of Lithuania or Courland should not be confounded with the ethnographical limits of Russian territory; that they should he provisionally fixed by bodies with sufficient powers to determine subsequently the free national frontiers; and that this question should be solved by means of a referendum. For the moment I do not wish to discuss the question just touched upon by the previous speaker, because that would lead us outside the limits of the matter which I wished to present for discussion. At the present moment we find ourselves engaged in a discussion on the fundamental question of all our debates, especially what preliminary steps are indispensable for the declaration of a people wishing to separate itself in carrying out its right of self-determination. The President of the Russian Delegation made his declaration, at least, with the implication that the source of the right of self-determination was found in the will of the Russian people. This declaration was made without any indication of conditions or any terms whatsoever, and it created for this reason such a judiciary position that it can by no means be said that its consequences will be limited exclusively to the internal relations of the Russian State. On the contrary, this question without doubt affects in a very important degree questions of international relations.”

[From the (British) Daily Review of the Foreign Press, 23 January, 1918, p. 663 .]

A further section of the Russian stenographic report of the sitting of the peace delegations at Brest-Litovsk on Jan. 11/12 is telegraphed by the Petrograd Telegraph Agency under date Jan. 21. The following is a continuation of Baron von Kühlmann’s speech, part of which was printed in the Daily Review (Jan. 22). It should again be noted that, as the Petrograd Agency points out, the text of Baron von Kühlmann’s speech, which was delivered in German, is in many places obscure.

Baron von Kühlmann continued:

“According to the most substantial views, to the right of self-determination there also belongs, without doubt, the possibility of defining in a certain degree the people's international relations, for this right appears automatically at the moment when the people springs into being as a separate entity. From the moment when the new State has expressed its will to enter into international relations with States situated outside the borders of the Russian State, new and grave international questions arise. We have already witnessed such cases. For example, we have heard the proclamation of independence made by Finland. Finland immediately communicated to the foreign States her decision to enter into international relations, and has already obtained to a wide extent an acknowledgment of her independence.

Yesterday, thanks to the significant declaration of the Ukrainian delegation, a similar question, but of much greater importance and gravity, arose before our intimate circle. By a thorough analysis of the difference in the conceptions of the Chairman of the Russian delegation and those of the Allied (Central) Powers, it is evident that there is no agreement as to the exact moment when a new people’s independent legal condition and full power of action appear. Our opinion amounts to this: That the national individuality of a people carries with it the right to declare its necessary legal constitution, and that the principles of its individual existence should be accepted as soon as this constitution is declared by some representative institution adopted by the masses of the people, and really capable by reason of its origin to appear as representing the expression of the will of an overwhelming majority of the people and demonstrating its free character by its leaning toward justice.

It seems to me that our conception approaches considerably nearer the character and excessive gravity of the right of free disposal than the conception set forth, albeit in general terms, by the representative of the Russian delegation, for although he declared to us that such an explanation should in his view be made on a democratic basis, nevertheless he did not tell us what should be the manner of the formation or the nature of the composition of the body which will be obliged to undertake in the midst of peoples not yet organized, but tending toward individuality, the organization of an inquiry on the most extensive basis, destined, according to the Russian representative, to be the preliminary to the formation of such a legal entity.

In my view this is one of the most important of the preliminary fundamental questions, for the questions placed in the forefront by the Chairman of the Russian delegation, as to how much the presence of armed forces in the voting may influence the result of the polls, appears to be a question which can only be discussed as supplementary to that of the presence of troops. If the Chairman of the Russian delegation wishes it, I shall suggest the opening of a discussion of this question: When, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Russian delegation, such a people makes its appearance, what are, according to him, the means by which such a people, which has recently made its appearance, can set forth in a form which he allows to be satisfactory its desire for its independence in general and its separation in particular?”

M. Trotsky replied:

“Morally, the Chairman of the German delegation is perfectly right, and I note the divergence of opinions when he spoke of what should be the reply to the question: At what juncture precisely do new nationalities and new States appear in the international arena?”

Baron von Kühlmann. “You refer to the legal form of the State.”

M. Trotsky. “In any case, I can not agree – and this is the view of our Government – that anybody affected by the occupation of the territory in question, and which regards itself as the appointed organ of the people concerned, while using as its support the claims of foreign troops which are in solid occupation, can be concerned, or that it ought to be so recognized. In any case, especially where a State is created by the people and not artificially formed by the superior authority of such or such powerful empire, if the body which claims to represent the will of the people has always the means of exercising control, then the will of that body can only be considered as the expression of personal policy. Control should consist in an inquiry put to the whole population convoked to exercise the right of free self-determination. Such an inquiry is called a referendum.

As to the provinces which interest us, it is just in them that are to be found bodies incomparably more competent than those of which the Chairman of the German delegation spoke – competent by reason of their support from the mass of the people, whom they encourage to express themselves just before they depend on their support. Thus we arrive at the theory that each body is historically evolved which first expressed itself in the name of the people; this theory is the principle, or rather the right of free self-determination. And now, at a time when a decisive significance attaches to bodies historically evolved, the right of self-determination has not been asserted at all, and can not be asserted. As regards Finland, it is here that we have the most favourable example for the purpose of illustrating our idea. Finland was not occupied by foreign troops. The will of the people, expressed through democratic channels, formulated itself immediately.

As to the Ukraine, there this democratic self-determination is not yet complete. But as in the Ukraine there are no foreign troops, and neither we nor the Ukrainians doubt that the Russian troops will withdraw themselves from Ukrainian territory and set no obstacle in the way of the self-determination of the Ukraine, and as this is purely a technical and not a political question, accordingly we find absolutely no reason why the self-determination of the Ukrainian people should not become a declaration of the independence of the Ukrainian Republic. The scheme elaborated by the President of the German delegation excludes in practice, in the present state of the masses of the people, the possibility of a solution to this question. A solution can not be reached in practice, because the will of this or that Landtag may come into conflict with the opposite will of other sections of the population which have a proper and organised means of social and political expression.”

[From the (British) Daily Review of the Foreign Press, 25 January. 1918, p. 683.]

A further section of the Russian stenographic report of the sitting of the peace delegations at Brest-Litovsk, on the 11th inst., is telegraphed by the Petrograd Telegraph Agency, under the date Jan. 22. The following is the continuation of Trotsky’s speech, part of which was printed in the Daily Review (Jan. 23, p. 664). The German version is given in the Daily Review (Jan. 16, pp. 599-601).

M. Trotsky continued:

“★ ★ ★ And we shall not find any other means of settling a conflict between the wills of an entire people. Let us take as a single example the question of Riga. The former municipality there was replaced by a new one, and as a result the whole question of the will of the people of Riga depended upon which of the two representations we should have to consider as being the most faithful interpretation of the will of the urban population; and if it is remembered that all the provinces of Russia were undergoing at the moment of occupation a process of complete democratization it is, because from the point of view of the President of the German Delegation, the destiny of these territories would depend on the date and moment of the invasion of the provinces by the occupying troops and on the political regime they found in these provinces. Such a solution of the question would ruin the future relations of the State, no matter how stable that State may be.

We are of opinion that in order that the will of the people in the new provinces may be expressed without respect of persons it is indispensable to create an organ of revision which would represent the State and its social and political organizations and groups with sufficient fullness and that the immediate problem would be to institute referenda of the peoples in order that they should decide their own destinies.

Kühlmann. “Regarding the last point which the speaker had brought up, I must ask who would be responsible for the creation of this organ and from whom it would receive its commands and its authority for the creation of such organs? Who would give the creator of these organs the right to impose a referendum on these people? In the opinion of the last speaker, it is a perfect ideal; but it is quite possible that it will correspond neither with the desire nor the disposition of these peoples.”

Trotsky. “I am taking part with much interest in the debates on these questions, which, thanks to the kindly forethought of the President of the German Delegation, are reaching ever-increasing proportions. As regards the legal difficulties brought forward by the President of the German Delegation, it may be pointed out, if we pursue this example, that none of the Diets have received from anyone the right to settle the political fate of their provinces, and if one or other of the Diets expressed its wishes regarding the existence of an independent State, that would constitute an infraction of an absolutely revolutionary character. I say that not as an objection to such infringements of law. As regards the Russian Delegation, that is understood. The question for us is simply this: In what form and by whom can legal continuity be interrupted in the interest of the peoples concerned ? We take into account the fact that these social organizations, which represent large masses of people, have a right much greater than a revolutionary right to interrupt the continuity of a State and to take the initiative in a referendum of the people, in the name of the classes on which they rely. If it is shown that the people reject the referendum, then the people will always have the power by their votes of conferring their plenary powers on a suitable Diet. I do not know, however, a single instance in history where it has seemed good to the people, or where they have ever claimed, that the right of voting or a referendum imposed from outside has not been in accordance with their ideals. If this danger threatened us, therefore, I think the matter could be settled to our mutual advantage without any difficulty whatsoever.”

Kühlmann. “Judging from the tone of his remarks, the President of the Russian Delegation does not appear to wish that the scope of our negotiations should be extended.”

Trotsky. “On the contrary.”

Kühlmann. “In view of the exclusive importance of these questions which we are debating and the great responsibility which is imposed on us in their solution, I admit it is necessary to discuss them thoroughly from the theoretical point of view. In answer to my questions whence these authorities obtained their power to grant the peoples such and such a form of government, the President of the Russian Delegation replied that even a revolution should not impose its will on others. I think that the President shares my opinion that a revolution bases its justice on force. The object of our negotiations, however, is to pass from the region of force into the region of understanding.”

Trotsky. “I am absolutely in agreement, and my entire argument is based on that. In other words, I suppose that, if one or other of the provinces was formed, not on the definite will of the people, which had time to evidence itself, but on a will imposed from an outside source, or even on a hereditary and out-of-date organization, then there will always remain for that people the right of appeal and revolution. But just on that account I find that the problem of the negotiations consists in freeing a people from the extremely difficult task of restoring its lost rights by revolutionary means. To (?for) that reason we propose to create such organs as will give to the people themselves the responsibility of choosing the form of self-determination which they desire.”

Kühlmann. “The reason why I referred to the source from which these new organizations and institutions might be founded is that I affirm that, in the cases where representative and historical organs are wanting, the present representatives must be accepted temporarily as representation of the people. I must deny as totally without foundation all reproaches that these organs are formed by an external influence, or that their decisions are influenced by external pressure.”

Baron von Kühlmann proceeded to propose the establishment of representative organs, the details and forms of which would have to be settled, and dealt with the bases of a wider referendum for the expression of the will of the peoples, who were still, though theoretically, a part of the Russian people.

“Our standpoint is now, and must continue to be, that failing other representative organs, the existing organs and those which have arisen in the process of historical development must be presumed to express the will of the people, especially as regards the vital question of the nation’s desire to maintain its individuality.”

M. Trotsky said:

“In order to avoid possible misunderstandings, to which my attention has been drawn by my colleague, M. Kamenev, and others, I think it is absolutely necessary to repeat exactly what our position is. Owing to the fact that the peoples to which we refer belong to the Russian Empire, we desire to make no suggestion which might in the smallest degree limit or prevent freedom of action on the part of the peoples themselves. The question for us is entirely a matter of securing that the free expression of the peoples in the future shall be really a free and unhindered expression. At the same time I am obliged to draw the attention of the Commission to the fact that differences of opinion exist, not only regarding the constitution but also the powers of these provisional organs. For example, the President of the German Delegation agrees with us as to the possibility of there being no organs endowed with full powers for the expression of the peoples’ will on a particular territory. He finds it absolutely necessary, in view of the absence of such organs, to accept the competency for the time being of the existing organs as regards other purposes than those for which they were established. But he immediately proceeds to enlarge this competency to an extent which is not called for by the circumstances of the case. Instead of proposing to acknowledge these organs as qualified to cooperate with the other organs which serve to express the popular will, he acknowledges their declarations as being in themselves adequate expressions of the people's will. For our part, as regards the provisional institutions which we shall find it indispensable to create, we propose – as accords naturally with their position – to look upon their task as serving solely toward a more complete expression of the popular will. With reference to the protests against the assertion that the ideas or, if you like, the will of the “Landtag” would be subjected to external pressure, I conceive it necessary to point out the essential fact of the situation, which is incontestable, namely, that these organs represent very scanty populations, and that they voice their opinions at a moment when foreign troops are in occupation of the territory for which they speak; that, to our view, contains the whole gist of the matter.”

Baron von Kühlmann. “I should like to point out that before the pourparlers were interrupted the Russian Delegation was disposed to acquiesce in our contention that the existing organs of popular representation ought to be accepted as representative bodies entitled to express the will of the people. This was one of the things which enabled me to take an optimistic view as to the final issue of the negotiations. Our point of view has been made sufficiently clear by what I have said.”

[From the (British) Daily Review of the Foreign Press, 26 January, 1918, p. 696.]

The following message is a continuation of the Russian stenographic report of the sitting of the peace delegates at Brest-Litovsk on the 11th inst. It follows on the long report printed in the Daily Review (Jan. 25). which concluded with a statement by Baron von Kühlmann.

Baron von Kühlmann continued:

“I would hail it as a distinct result of our debates on this question if the President of the Russian delegation would take the same point of view as it seemed the delegation was ready to take.

If, in spite of my hopes and desires, that does not take place, I should be very grateful if the President of the Russian delegation would make known to us his exact proposals and tell us who is to form these temporary administrative organs, and in what relation they must stand to the already existing representative bodies. Does the President desire to give a reply immediately, or later? I have begged the Russian delegation briefly to explain why it is unwilling to take up the point of view, which it adopted before the Christmas interruption, and in clear terms asked it to consent to recognize the existing administrative organs as a convenient instrument for the expression of the will of the people who, in the opinion of the Russian delegation, ought to appoint these provisional administrative organs to the existing organs, and what are the precise problems of the new organs?”

Trotsky. “As regards the Christmas interruption of the negotiations, which has been twice called here an interruption which had a political significance, that is an entirely unfounded statement. I think that my old friend, M. Joffe, will he able to give a better reply, and he will do it immediately. I ought to say, for my part, that the delegation returned home to Petrograd before the Christmas interval with two proposals, in which could be perceived the extent of the divergence of views between us and the delegation of the other side – a divergence of views which still exists.”

M. Joffe. “I desire to supplement what has been said by the President of the Russian Delegation in my capacity as its previous President. It is my duty to testify that the records of our sittings before Christmas show that the Russian Delegation demonstrated beyond any question the inadmissibility of the taking of a vote in the occupied territories while actually invaded by foreign troops, and that it declared the impossibility of regarding a vote so taken as an acceptable expression of the will of the people. Taking up this standpoint we insist that the two formulas bring out strongly the divergence of our views on the matter.”

Baron von Kühlmann. “What M. Joffe has just told us does not altogether meet my objections. What he has said is perfectly correct, but I have an impression that, although the fact was not actually recorded in the protocol, the gentlemen of the Russian Delegation were disposed to recognize the provisional organs as organs that could be held qualified to express the will of the people.”

Count Czernin. “I should like to add to what my German colleague has said that, although the fact was certainly not recorded in the prosolution, we did understand in the course of our private conversations that such a temporary solution might help to carry matters a step forward.”

M. Joffe. “Naturally. I can not be responsible for the German and Austro-Hungarian delegation, but I would emphasize once more that both in the informal conversations and during the official discussions none of us ever gave the slightest reason for the supposition that the proposals contained in Nos. 1 and 2 of the Austro-German draft could be accepted in any form by the Russian Government.”

Baron von Kühlmann. “That clearly appears to be the impression made on Count Czernin, and I would ask the President of the Russian Delegation to give a reply to the questions which I have put, or, if he pleases, to postpone it until later.”

M. Trotsky. “Before replying to this question I would like to say a few words: For us all the declarations of a Landtag are of the greatest political importance. We do not exclude the common will of the people from this party, which is represented by the Landtag, and, even if there had been no occupation, such a Landtag would have declared that it demanded for Lithuania or Courland an independent existence. We have deemed it sufficient to put the question of a referendum on the order of the day. In this matter we are all united, independently of the Christmas interruption. As to the questions put here, they are not without their importance, but they have more of a technical and subordinate significance, and we will give our written reply as soon as we have formulated it. It seemed, however, to us to be absolutely necessary to have a preliminary discussion of the guiding principles governing the creation of such a provisional organ.”

Baron von Kühlmann. “I have nothing to object to in that. I would merely like to assure myself that I have properly understood the preceding speaker.

As I understand him, he suggests, with regard to Courland and Lithuania, that, if the occupation had not taken place, he for his part would have agreed to recognize the existing organs as provisional organs which could have full power to hold the next public elections, which he calls the referendum. I would be glad if that could be stated perfectly clearly so as to avoid all misunderstanding.”

M. Trotsky. “As regards the general question of the future fate of a people, forming part of a present State, it is necessary that, from the midst of this people, an authoritative expression of opinion as to its destiny should be made.

Similar demands may take different forms. In one case it may be a rebellion, as in India and Ireland; in another, it may take the form of declarations by a Landtag or by municipalities and Zemstva, and we should regard the voice of the Landtag as an expression of opinion on the part of a certain influential party of the people just as if such declarations were made in the same country, let us say, by representative bodies of peasants, by unions of workmen or professional men, or by political parties. All that would enable us to understand that there existed among a certain people a feeling of discontent with its position. The only possible deduction would be that an inquiry would have to be instituted by the authorities as to the definite opinion of the people themselves, and, for that purpose, it would be absolutely necessary to establish such a provisional organ which, in the conditions given, would effectively assure a free vote of the people interested.”

Baron von Kühlmann. “I think it is now necessary to adjourn the sitting, and I propose, in order not to lose time, to continue it to-day after dinner at 5.30. That means that we will meet again at 5.30 p. m.”

The sitting was adjourned at 1.15.

[From the (British) Daily Review of the Foreign Press, 21 January, 1918, p. 643.]

The following purports to be a Russian wireless message regarding the above session:

Brest-Litovsk, Jan. 12.

The meeting to-day, during the further discussion of the Russian Delegation’s point of view regarding the manner of the self-determination of the population in the Russian regions occupied by the Germans, showed clearly still greater divergence upon this question of both sides. The solutions of the contested questions as proposed by the Russian Delegation caused a sharp protest by General Hoffmann, who even said that the suggested solutions could be accepted only by a defeated side. The meeting ended with the proposal to ask the approval of the Governments concerned in the newly created situation.

The date of the continuation of the negotiations was not fixed.

(Signed) Samoilo.