Leon Trotsky, Richard von Kühlmann et al:

Session of Committee on Territorial Questions, 15 January

[Proceedings of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Conference. Washington 1918, p.99-103]

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

The following is the official Russian Account of the session of the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian Delegations in the Territorial Commission at Brest-Litovsk on Jan. 15. The German version is given in the Daily Review (Jan. -21 and Jan. 22).

The President, Baron von Kühlmann, opened the sitting at 11.25. He said:

“We shall continue the pourparlers, particularly, as was arranged yesterday, on the four points which were formulated yesterday. I should like to propose a change in the order of the discussion on these points and to postpone the question of territories to the last, for the following reasons: I think that the question of territories will he the least disputed of all. Moreover, there has been a certain exchange of opinions between the delegations which, perhaps, will not be without influence on the solution of the question of territories. Thus I propose to pass to the discussion of the second point regarding the preliminary political conditions which will serve as a basis for deciding the destiny of these peoples and these territories. I request the President of the Russian Delegation to express in detail his point of view on the questions indicated by the second point.”

M. Trotsky thereupon rose and said:

“Before expressing my opinion on the question of the new order of the discussion which has been proposed I must return to a proposal made by the other side. The German and Austro-Hungarian delegations at a recent session proposed to include the collaboration in the peace pourparlers of certain representatives of these occupied territories, which, according to these delegates, are already in the ranks of State organizations, having sufficiently demonstrated their wish for an independent State existence. We could not give our reply immediately because we wished first to ascertain what criterion was regarded by the other side as decisive for defining the legality or illegality of the bodies which claim to express the will of the people. As I said yesterday, the replies to our questions appear to be essentially contradictory and indicate the handing over to the occupying Power of the full and unlimited right based exclusively on physical force, to decide arbitrarily the destiny of the occupied territories and to dispose of such and such bodies without taking into account the moment of their appearance, their social basis, and what is their real political weight. If, however, the Governments of the other side continue, at least in the peace pourparlers, to characterize these bodies as the free representatives of the will of peoples which have already freely decided their own destiny, we consider it desirable in the highest degree to invite these bodies to collaborate with us. The representation of these bodies might base its rights and claims, disputed by us, on the claims made by corresponding territories in face of all the world. In this way might be eliminated, if not the contradiction, at least its most striking expression, which consists in the defence of the right of certain bodies protected by the Austro-Hungarian and German Governments to express the will of the people at the very time when these quasi-sovereign bodies remain powerless under the regime of occupation.

We are ready to accept the proposal twice repeated by the other side to invite here representatives of such bodies, to the declarations of which the German and Austro-Hungarian Delegations refer. Baron von Kühlmann has remarked that I have made our consent to the participation in the pourparlers of representatives of these nations conditional on the fact that their presence here would imply the recognition on the part of the Russia Delegation of the State existence of these peoples, i call attention to the fact that the President of the Russian Delegation indicated at previous pourparlers that the Russian Delegation would consent to regard an expression of opinion by a Landtag as an expression of the will of certain influential groups among the population. The admission of these representatives in itself excludes anything which does not require prolonged explanation. These representatives will come here as public criers of these peoples. We must then come to an understanding on the point whether these peoples are firm units or whether their representatives will come here as private individuals. In the latter case they have nothing to do at the pourparlers.

If these preliminary conditions are accepted by the President, of the Russian Delegation, then I consent immediately to begin pourparlers with our representatives on the question whether the Russian Delegation desires to admit representatives of these territories, and, if so, in what form. We can not decide or regard as decided a question which is for the moment the principal subject of our diversities of opinion. If we have declared that the opinion of the Landtag appears as the opinion, namely, that although these groups are very influential, thanks to their economic position, they embrace, according to the German Press, only from 3 to 7 per cent of the population. The will of the people must everywhere be expressed by the people and not by economically privileged groups. That would he a complete abnegation of the principles which are the essence of our program if, directly or indirectly, we should have a pretext to tell the masses in Poland and Lithuania and the Letts that we were ready to admit the representation of the upper and privileged classes of their country and their peoples. If the President of the German Delegation does not find it possible to create a provisional regulation for the admission of these representatives, the proposal made by me falls to the ground of itself. We have seen that it has no connection with the admission we have already made of the power of these bodies. I do not dispute the declaration. I say thnt we do not regard it as connected with this question.”

The message is incomplete.

[From the (British) Daily Review of the Foreign Press, 28 January 1918, p. 706]

The following is a continuation of the Russian official account of the session of the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian delegates at Brest-Litovsk on Jan. 15. following on that printed in the Daily Review (Jan. 21).

Baron von Kühlmann said:

“I can not immediately indicate this passage in the protocol, but I remember finite well that this standpoint was expressed very clearly and exactly. I will read afterwards the passage indicated. It seems to me that we are beginning to turn in a vicious circle in the course of these pourparlers. The last speaker complained of the absence of the representatives of these peoples. If he meant by that that these units have been created and that they are capable of expressing their right of self-determination, for my part I willingly consent to that absolute condition and I accept this proposal of the Russian delegation. As I have just said. I am under the impression that we are turning in a vicious circle. My point of view has been explained many times by myself, and I have indicated that the representative bodies speak in the name of insufficiently large classes of the population, but that there does not yet exist a similar representative body which, according to their opinion, could fulfill these functions. This dispute is to a certain extent a historic one. In any case, I think that, during the forthcoming discussions we shall not approach our solution. For my part, the forthcoming discussions have no other problem than that of clearly explaining the point of view of the two parties and endeavoring to unite them. If, after all, the subject is discussed, it will be clear on what points an understanding is possible and what points divide the parties. If the discussion reaches such a position, the parties will have fulfilled their duty and it will remain for the deciding authorities in the State to draw such conclusions as seem necessary.

The admission of new delegations for the groups cited in the declaration is joined with conditions which are not acceptable to the Russian delegation. From the remarks of the preceding speaker. I have received the impression that in various cases he was not sufficiently informed regarding the composition of the bodies concerned. If he is of opinion that similar information as to the composition of these representative organs would help him in certain conditions to accept our position toward the said representative bodies, I, for my part, would agree to supply the Russian delegation with information as to their composition and explain the mandates which they hold. If the Russian delegation is inclined not to accept under any circumstances their presumptive character, then the supply of information would he pure loss of time and it would be better to give up the idea. To any ease it would be necessary, as already said, to confine myself to merely noting the fact in future discussions that such contradictions can not lead to a conciliatory point of view. If an agreement should be arrived at as to whether the expression of the popular will should be regarded as a constitutional question or be regarded as of a binding character, there would be no justification for a rupture of the negotiations, with all its far-reaching consequences. I would accordingly propose to pass to the discussion of the question as to the formulation of what is to be regarded as indispensable for the expression of the will of a people on a broad basis.

The first Russian proposal enunciated at the discussion held before the Christmas adjournment claimed that, in accord with the principles of the Russian Government, which proclaimed the right of all peoples inhabiting Russia, without exception, to dispose freely of themselves, including the separation of such territories, the latter will have the opportunity, within a fixed and not distant period, of freely deciding the question of their incorporation in such or such State or else of founding an independent State. Our task now consists in deliberating as to the interval which ought to be fixed. In my opinion the opportunity for their decision should last until, indeed, goes without saying, and the interval should last until the time when one may feel assured that before the end of the term it will be possible to eliminate the results and factors incident to the war, and which, in Russian opinion, are capable of stifling the perfectly free expression of opinion by these peoples. What has to be done is to find a term after the conclusion of a general peace which will be sufficiently short to avoid delay and, at the same time, sufficient to bring about the circumstances indicated by me as indispensable. That is what we should have discussed, and we should have decided, for example, that the interval fixed by the Russian demand should commence at the moment of the conclusion of peace with Russia and finish with the expiry of a year after the conclusion of a general peace. Perhaps the President of the Russian delegation would give his views regarding these ideas and also regarding my concrete proposal.”

(A telegraph section is missing here, and it is assumed that what follows is a reply of M. Trotsky.)

“Taking it for granted that the peoples interested have the right to the free expression of their will, then, for the practical solution of the question, it would be a matter of indifference what organ of, such or such Government was presumably recognized, at a certain previous date. Now, at bottom, the matter is simply how to assure this freedom of expression of the popular will. One of the most important factors connected with this expression of free will is the question of evacuating troops from the territories concerned.”

The President of the German delegation, in order to supply a concrete subject for debate, proposed the evacuation of the territories from the moment of the conclusion of peace with Russia until a year after the conclusion of a general peace.

Baron von Kühlmann. “I said it would be necessary to discuss in advance the period during which the expression of the popular will should quickly declare itself. At the following discussions we should debate the conditions necessary for securing this expression of the popular will. Excuse me for interrupting you; I only wished to make the point clear.”

Trotsky. “I am much obliged for the explanation; indeed, I am at a loss to understand how such a misunderstanding arose in my mind. Possibly it was caused by our deep conviction that a general vote would be impossible without a preliminary evacuation of the territories concerned.

In any case I suppose that in order to settle the destiny of the territories the question as to which originated with the events on the Western front, neither party has sufficient grounds for confounding them formally and inseparably with the course of Ihe whole war. Russia, by relinquishing the war will, in the event of peace being concluded, have established, both for herself and for the whole of Germany, pacific relations on this front. Naturally that does not, unfortunately, exclude the continuation of the war on the other fronts, but seeing that Germany's position in regard to her other enemies will not. in any case, be aggravated by the conclusion of peace with Russia, the populations of the occupied territories find it difficult to understand why its relations must pass under so harsh a form – a form dependent on the occupation, the form of a transitory regime – with all the consequences entailed by a continuation of the universal war. ln such a presentment of the question their very existence would he called in question for an unlimited period, for at the present moment, however sympathetic a view we may take, we have no grounds for calculating with any precision the moment of the conclusion of universal peace, and, in view of the absence of my previous indication of a time limit, we concluded that the question of the settlement of the destiny of the occupied territories was to lie settled in coordination witlih the conclusion of peace on the Western front and the subsequent liquidation of all the results of the war which have weighed on the occupied territories. Should it be accepted its a principle that those territories, independently of the form of their future existence. are not to he involved in the future progress of the universal war, except so far as that is indispensable for the liquidation of the results of the war on the Western front, then a time limit might be fixed by combinations of all the circumstances having a technical connection with the question.”

Baron von Kuhlmann, speaking in German, said:

“I can not agree with the last speaker in his exposition. We have already indicated in the course of the discussions on the proposals formulated in Art. I our view that, in accordance with the opinions of our military specialists, our consent to the evacuation of territories, independent of the future progress of the universal war, must he considered as a great concession. That was the solo point of variance in the discussion of Art. I, and that variance was due to the Russian Delegation having expressed the desire that the proposed evacuation of the proposed territories should be carried out according to a precise plan simultaneously with the Russian demobilization. I do not deny the possibility of a rapprochement in our respective points of view on this question if we reach an understanding on other points. The preceding speaker contended that after the conclusion of peace with Russia the continuation of the war on the other fronts can in no way influence the course of events on the Western (? i. e. Russian) front.”

(The message ends here.)