Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

  Selected Secret Documents from Soviet Foreign Policy Documents Archives - 1919 to 1941

Concentrated on 1st and  2nd WW Correspondence and Meetings related to Turkey, Balkans and Iran, with some additions from Afghanistan and India.

Download PDF
 

From the Report of the Peopleʹs Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the RSFSR G.V. Chicherin at a meeting of the All‐Russian Central Executive Committee on June 17, 1920 

[...] The current session of the All‐Russian Central Executive Committee is gathering at an extremely difficult moment of a new crisis, the last attempt of our opponents, who once again directed at us all the forces at their disposal, once again straining all their efforts to strangle us. .Our enemy, i.e., world imperialism, i.e. in fact, all capitalist governments around the world act against us not only by violence, not only by military offensive, but also by diplomatic maneuvers, not only by open attack, but also by the appearance of peacefulness, the appearance of friendly actions, requiring on our part constant caution, the greatest vigilance.

Our policy is, as usual, the policy of peace, and everyone knows that. We want one. We want not to be hindered from developing the way we wish, to build our new socialist society in the world. We do not carry our own system, NʹI our power on bayonets, and everyone knows this, and nevertheless, more and more enemies are being set on us. Our policy is a policy of peace, but it is not a policy of surrender. We want peace, agreement, but a valid agreement, mutually beneficial on equal terms. We reject the insidious smiles that hide the dagger hidden behind our backs. We reject the poisoned goblet of false assurances that hide behind a friendly appearance a new attack. Our first responsibility is vigilance and firmness. The most sophisticated representatives of the state Nskuostv, accumulated over many generations, are up in arms against us. Noble lords think that they can deceive us as simpletons, that they can lull us to sleep with false peace‐loving assurances, but communist diplomacy responds to these attempts with unswerving vigilance and firmness. Communist diplomacy is armed with the analysis provided by Marxism, which for the first time analyzes social relations to the end. Communist diplomacy is armed with the fighting strength that the proletariat it represents, inspired by class hatred of its enemies, gives it. Communist diplomacy is armed with that trickdefying realism offered by the working class it represents, the only class that stands face to face with the reality of the struggle against nature. Communist diplomacy does not for a moment retreat from its vigilance, from its firmness. It responds to a blow with a blow, to machinations it responds by exposing them, it responds to insidiousness by appealing to the broad masses of other countries. It responds by exposing to the working class of all countries the insidious plans that the ruling classes of all countries are directing against it.

The political situation in which we have to work is difficult and complex at this moment, when we are convinced that the last wave of the ninth has stood against us, when we need to strain our last efforts in order to take the lead in unhindered development and peaceful labor.

At the beginning of the year it seemed to us that we had already approached the period of the peaceful policy that we are striving for. Our policy is and remains a struggle for peace, and our enemies are responsible for our struggle to strangle us. At the beginning of the year, it seemed to us that our struggle for peace had already achieved such results that provided us with the opportunity to devote all our strength to our internal construction. Our slogan was and remains the same: peaceful coexistence with other governments, whatever they may be. Reality itself has led us and other states to the need to create lasting relations between the workers ʹand peasantsʹ government and the capitalist governments. These long‐term relationships are imperatively imposed on us by economic reality. Economic reality requires the exchange of goods, entering into permanent, regulated relations with the whole world, and the same economic reality demands the same from other governments, no matter how much they hate our system. And at the beginning of the year the moment came when we seemed already close to this goal. This was at the time when we were making peace with Estonia, when prospects for peace negotiations with our other neighbors were opening up, when the imperialist governments decided to lift the blockade, when a decision was then made to enter into trade relations with us. ... Then it seemed that the implementation of our peace program was already near. We still stand on the basis of this program [...]

Our task is a peaceful duel in the struggle against devastation by our socialist means, our labor service, our general labor discipline. And we will see how the capitalist governments, with their anarchy, with their increasingly rebellious working class, with their increasingly crumbling finances, will fight this growing chaos. This peaceful duel on the basis of the struggle against devastation is that necessary stage through which we have to go through and within which we have to establish our relations with the capitalist states by diplomatic means. But the capitalist governments did not confine themselves to this, were not content, they took a different path, they strained their efforts once more to try once more to strangle us by violent means. And we think, and we are convinced, we see that by this they accelerate their own destruction, accelerate the process of the collapse of the capitalist world, the process of increasing devastation and the growth of revolutionary consciousness among the masses of the capitalist countries, through which they must go through before reaching the moment of the final revolutionary rise and seizure of power. We think that this policy of the capitalist governments hastens their demise. This is their business. But for now, this policy means new sacrifices for us, new hard efforts, new calamities that we have to reckon with and fight within our own country.

Why did they use this technique again? We think there were two main reasons that prompted them to change their tactics. Firstly, our policy of peaceful restoration of the economic life of our society on new socialist principles was completely new to the bourgeois governments. And our labor service policy has made a tremendous impression in all countries. For the first time, the working class saw what it meant to build a new society the day after it seized power. And for the first time the ruling classes saw that we had new opportunities in our hands that they had not foreseen before. And they decided to prevent this by all means. Precisely because they incite more and more enemies against us, because they hope this way, distracting us from our peaceful construction, preventing us from exerting all our forces to restore our economic life, to continue the devastation still prevailing in Russia, and thus they still hope to bring us one way or another until the final crisis. Reality will deceive them. Our future is in our hands, and our job is to show them that they are wrong. But for now, this means for us a new struggle, new sacrifices. Another fact, which undoubtedly had the strongest effect on them, is the development of the revolutionary movement, or, I would say, the liberation movement in the East. This movement threatens the very foundations of the capitalist economy, threatens the very existence of those capitalist groups that dominate the leading imperialist countries. This movement develops by itself, it develops because the peoples of the East are awakening, because the oppression that lies on them becomes too unbearable. And at the same time, the very existence of Soviet Russia, the very example of our construction work, our successful uprising against the oppression of Western capital, is for them the greatest incentive to follow the path of uprising against the despotism of Western imperialism and Western capital. And this is what the imperialist governments know.

And therefore, one of the constant leitmotifs of Churchillʹs speeches is the danger in the East. Churchill supported Denikin and Kolchak precisely for this reason, as he himself repeatedly said that Denikin and Kolchak, in his opinion, were the defenders of the interests of England in Persia and India. And gradually our advance to the East, the approach to these sensitive points of British diplomacy and, on the other hand, the growth, the invincible powerful growth of the liberation movement among the Eastern peoples, undoubtedly prompted the governments of the West once again to exert all their strength in order to try to strangle and destroy us. ... Poland served as their weapon, with which we are now waging a hard fight. But they operate not only in Poland, we know about those intrigues that they are engaged in in other neighboring states. And the best remedy against their intrigues is our constant appeal to the broad masses of the people. If these intrigues do not succeed, if instead of setting 14 states against us again, instead it is achieved only that Finland enters into negotiations with us, and Latvia and Lithuania continue negotiations with us, and Estonia remains with us in the most peaceful, friendly relations, the reason is that the broad masses of these countries realize that they have no motive for war against us, that everything forces them to be at peace with us. These intrigues against us are being carried out everywhere in the West and in the East. In relation to ourselves, they take the form of peace‐loving assurances, they aim to lull us to sleep, while behind them, in reality, hostile actions in Poland, hostile actions in Crimea are hidden. We see these intrigues among our neighbors in the West, the Middle East and the Far East, right up to imperialist Japan, which, undoubtedly, with the knowledge of the Entente, is once again attacking us, the Far Eastern Republic, closely connected with us. Our instrument is our policy of peace. We are ready at any time for a peace agreement. The broad masses of the Entente countries know this. This is our main weapon in that diplomatic duel, which has been going on for a long time, without interruption for a single minute. But in the hands of England, our imperialist enemy, the policy of peace is also a means to try to bind us, to try to deprive us of the freedom of action necessary in our struggle.

Before us, as before, is a complex coalition of imperialist governments, and as before the main and leading force is the British government. If we look at the politics of England, we see extreme complexity in it. There are numerous currents, as if hesitation, eternal zigzags and seemingly internal contradictions in her policy, but at the same time, if you look at her as a whole, she represents an amazing unity. The ruling classes of England, with their traditions of diplomatic art, represent a profound unity of politics in a variety of apparent contradictions. And her various voices turn out to be the notes of one melody, the main line, which has the goal, as at the moment it is manifested, on the one hand, to try to strangle us, on the other hand, to try to deprive us of freedom of action, to bind us and at the same time to put us to sleep, try to take away the vigilance we need. The foundations of Englandʹs policy are clear to us. Its goal is to let us bleed to death, to excite one enemy after another, so that we are always busy at the fronts and cannot calm down and cannot devote all our strength to internal construction. This is a policy of our constant distraction from our life tasks, it is a policy that has the goal, as I said, to let us bleed to death. This policy takes many forms. On the one hand, weapons are given to Poland, protection is given to Wrangel, on the other hand, peaceful assurances are made to us with a kind air, they are promised us an agreement at the moment when the same government sets our enemies against us and arms them against us. We are going to an agreement with England, we are ready for it, but let it be a valid agreement binding both sides, let it be real negotiations. We donʹt want to be the victims of deception. Our goal is quite definite. Our goal is the actual lifting of the blockade, both maritime and financial. One lifting of the naval blockade is invalid, it is necessary to remove the financial blockade. It is necessary to give us the opportunity to pay in other countries with our customers, sellers and buyers of our goods. We need to enable us in other countries to monitor the market and protect our trade interests. Therefore, lifting the blockade means not only the passage of ships with our goods, it means a real restoration of relations. Words donʹt matter to us. Official recognition is secondary for us. We need a factual, valid recognition, the lifting of the ban on us, which lies on us, as a result of which we cannot penetrate anywhere, except for individuals with special permission, who are under the threat of expulsion and return to Russia every minute. We need a real lifting of the blockade, both personal, naval, and financial, and only this will give to us the possibility of real exchange of goods and real economic relations with other countries. We are ready for an agreement, and for a political agreement, we want, we are looking for a political agreement, we recognize that one trade agreement without a political one is impossible. But this political agreement must be reciprocal. It should not only bind us, it should not consist in the fact that we give everything, that we promise everything, and the other side is not tied up in anything and continues to set our enemies against us, continue the previous policy against us. This onesided policy is unacceptable, we do not want to be deceived by simpletons. We want peace, but let it be on both sides, and not only on one side. We are ready to give up full freedom of action, but let the other side also give up hostile actions and attacks on us. This is our policy.

Our program is clear and simple. Everyone knows her. Nevertheless, the British Government has not yet agreed to that real and sincere agreement, to the consistent peace negotiations that we are seeking. In our negotiations with England, the question of preventing our diplomatic representative Litvinov from entering England plays an important role. We were reproached for allegedly posing as an ultimatum the question of a trip to England. We do not pose this question as an ultimatum. On the contrary, when the moment came for the trade delegation, the delegation of the Tsentrosoyuz, to go there, we agreed that the delegation should go without Litvinov. However, we must say that the question of removing our representatives is of much more serious importance to us than the personal question of Comrade Litvinov. The question of the withdrawal of our experienced comrades], competent in foreign diplomacy, who played a role abroad, is extremely serious. All of them are under the same alleged charges that Litvinov is under. He is accused of allegedly interfering in the internal affairs of England. In fact, when Litvinov was in England, he behaved in the most careful manner. Everyone knows that. Nevertheless, he was then accused in the same way as Comrade. Vorovsky in Sweden, Comrade Berzin in Switzerland and comrade. Joffe in Berlin and all our representatives in general who were abroad, in interference in the internal affairs of these countries. The accusation is directed not against Litvinov alone, but against all comrades who are experienced in foreign politics and have experience in foreign diplomatic activity. This question would mean depriving us of all our comrades experienced in foreign diplomatic activity. Meanwhile, only persons who have been abroad for a long time, who have looked closely at foreign policy for a long time, only they can, step by step, expose all the machinations that every government puts up against us every day. This would mean our exhaustion on the world stage. 

But there is something even more serious about this. We said to England: we offer open diplomatic negotiations on the basis of reciprocity, reciprocity, equal rights. We bind ourselves and you must bind yourself. What is England doing? She invites Comrade Krasin for trade negotiations, and under the guise of trade negotiations she tries to push through diplomatic negotiations and bind us without tying herself. History of negotiations comrade Krasin abroad is as follows: a delegation arrived in Copenhagen, ʹbegan negotiations with the economicʹ representatives of the Entente. She was told then we will conduct trade negotiations when diplomatic issues are resolved. Fine, in that case we will conduct diplomatic negotiations. When they started diplomatic negotiations, she was told it is premature, first we will resolve these or those trade issues. This diplomatic circle lasted week after week. After that, a new meeting of the Supreme Council of the Entente took place in St. Decisions were made, and our delegation without com. Litvinova, without our diplomatic representative, went to London. There our trade delegation, the delegation of the Centrosoyuz, is received by Lloyd George. They talk with her about the restoration of trade relations. And Lloyd George says Comrade. Krasin about what obstacles supposedly prevent you from starting a correct trade. But under the pretext of listing obstacles to trade, he speaks of our entire policy, he demands that we abandon our active policy in Europe, the Caucasus, and throughout Asia. He demands that we surrender all along the line. Instead of diplomatic negotiations, where a certain political trade would take place, they want to bind us, take everything from IAS and give us only a problematic promise to enter into trade negotiations with us. We do not agree to such machinations, and we declare: “We insist on real political negotiations, which would be conducted on the basis of reciprocity, ʹequality of both sides. We refuse to let ourselves be bound one‐sidedly. ʺ We see what the policy of England is. It consists in economically skimming the cream off us. The blockade will not be lifted from us. We will not be able to communicate freely with other countries. We will not be able to observe the markets, conclude all the deals that are beneficial today for Soviet Russia. England will hold Ias in hand. . Only those transactions that are beneficial to her will be allowed.

She will pump out our raw materials, give us what she desires and benefits. Why do Western states come to an agreement with us in general? One of the main reasons is the need for economic communication with us. Economic reasons are pushing the capitalist countries to an agreement with us‐ We need them, and they need us And now, Englandʹs machination is to try to pump out all that we can give from us, to seize the whole mechanism of economic communication with us. Since there is no real lifting of the blockade, there is no complete real reconciliation, England will set us economic conditions and will completely dispose of economic relations between us and other countries [...}

She wants us to give everything, and for her part she gives us nothing but problematic promises, except for the possibility of such a trade, which in reality is skimming the cream from us. And this is when at the same time she is setting Poland on the pass and patronizing Wrangel. At the same time, in the same conversation with Krasin, Lloyd George said that England was not taking part in Polandʹs attack on Russia. Eye to eye with Comrade Krasin, he declares that England does not sympathize with Polandʹs attack on Russia. And at the same time, as you know, Bonar Law declares in Parliament that England is sending Poland the very equipment that was promised to her in September. A deal was made in September, and now the deal cannot be taken back. England, as an honest merchant, fulfills the deal made in September, and sends Poland the weapons that it then pledged to send. The working class of England is opposed to this, the transport workers are fighting against this, although, unfortunately, not always; we know that the Executive Committee of the railway workers has withdrawn this ban, but the working masses continue to fight. We know that on the Jolly George ship the crew refused to carry equipment to Poland. So, England is supplying Poland with weapons, while with Comrade. Krasin Lloyd George is negotiating and politely declares that England does not sympathize with the attack on us.

The same is true for Wrangel. Our press published the notes with which

England intervened in our struggle against the last remnants of the Denikinites in order to protect them from us. We know that Britain and the Entente in general continue to support them and, nevertheless, the British government is now declaring in parliament that Britain does not sympathize with Wrangelʹs offensive against Soviet Russia. It claims that it allegedly provided equipment before, but now does not, while we now actually know that Wrangelʹs troops continue to receive equipment from England and other Entente countries. And this while the British government in Parliament declares that it does not sympathize with Wrangelʹs offensive, which is being carried out by the weapons of England itself. We have now posed to England the question of what real measures it is taking to turn its disagreement with Wrangelʹs adventure into real facts.

 She does not sympathize ‐ it is something subjective. How will this disagreement be expressed practically? We put this question to England. We are still waiting for an answer to this question, and I think that we will not get an answer to this question until we ourselves cope with Wrangel. This is the policy of England. But we, being invariably vigilant and invariably exposing its machinations, invariably appealing to the broad masses of all countries with an indication of these machinations of the imperialist governments, we nevertheless continue to adhere to the old position, to our policy of peace. We are ready at any moment for a valid agreement and negotiations, and we want these negotiations. We demand political negotiations with Britain, we insist on them. If these negotiations do not begin, then the fault is not ours, but solely our opponents.

France is located next to England. It seems to be in many ways deviating from the policy of England. France is our consistent enemy. At a time when England was talking to us about reconciliation, about an agreement, France invariably opposed this policy. But if we look at the balance of forces, at the relations that really exist between us, we will have to say to ourselves that France plays this role in international relations only because certain elements of the British government itself support it and want it. Financially and militarily, France is playing its present role because there is a stream in British politics itself that wants France to play this role. In reality, this role of France is, in essence, an auxiliary role, and we know that on the day when the British government, under the pressure of its own masses, under the pressure of the economic crisis, will finally have to come to an agreement with us, we know ‐ France it wonʹt hurt him then. France has always been interested most of all in the position of the loan holders, and now France has raised a big fuss over the issue of exporting our gold, with which we must pay for goods. This gold is supposed to be intended to pay off the French holders of our loans. And we heard that France even turned to Sweden with a protest for the fact that Sweden allowed us to export a certain amount of gold as a guarantee for future payment for the goods that Sweden will send us. In the meantime, we think that these protests cannot be taken so seriously. We are convinced that on the day when England finally wants to conduct trade with us, these protests by France against the export of gold will not interfere with England. As for the French protest in Sweden, today we have already received a refutation. Sweden, I must say, is so interested in trade with us that the absence of such a means for her complete economic insanity and threatens with the most serious consequences for her economic life and her domestic policy. For Sweden it is the main question of life that we enter into trade relations with it. Gold was exported there to cover the cost of goods, and now France protested against this and demanded the alleged imposition of a ban, sequestration of this gold. Today we have received a refutation that France does not demand a sequestration for this gold, but only expresses a wish that Sweden does not forget about French loan holders, and we are convinced that we cannot treat these French protests so wastefully.

With France, we concluded an agreement on the return of our soldiers from France, those soldiers who, as you know, were subjected to terrible repressions, persecutions, the most cruel treatment there ‐ to exchange them for those French citizens who remained in Russia and who are returning on the basis of a prisoner agreements gradually in exchange for all returning soldiers from France. There has been a hitch in this process of returning soldiers lately. Just when the Polish offensive began, when our opponents were inspired by new hopes, just then for some reason the return of our soldiers from France stopped. But, obviously, our victories over the Poles had a beneficial effect in this respect, and today we have received news from Millerand that several thousand of our soldiers are returning from France to replace French citizens who are to return to France on the same ships. And this fact testifies that the impression of our victories is also there in France, and we are convinced that its results will be more significant than just resuming the return of soldiers. We know that French officers play a big role in the Polish army. The French government denied this. We received an official note stating that the French officers had been withdrawn. Nevertheless, according to the testimony of Polish prisoners and on the basis of documents that fell into our hands after the Polish defeats, we can establish with complete certainty that it is not true that responsible posts in the Polish army are occupied by the French military. France plays the role of the main military leader, inspirer in the Polish army, and in reality, in our struggle with Poland and militarily, we have not only Poland before us, but the French military organization with which we are facing face to face.

Nitti said that a parliamentary commission representing all parties in Italy is going to Russia. However, this commission has been traveling for six months, and no one still knows where it went. When the socialists, who play a big role there, appear in Italy, the Italian government speaks out towards us in the most friendly way, and when it comes to turning these friendly wishes into reality, the Italian government fades away and disappears behind the Entente collective. The Entente has a single policy, and in this policy, Italy disappears, there is no special policy, its friendliness does not go beyond the ministerʹs answer to the socialists. We have a purely trade agreement with Italy. Our Tsentrosoyuz has concluded an agreement with Italian cooperatives, and on the basis of this agreement, our cooperatives have the right to open an office in Italy, and, conversely, Italian cooperatives

‐ with us. And now, when Comrade Borovsky was appointed representative of the Tsentrosoyuz in order to travel to Italy on the basis of this agreement, the Italian government is still denying him the right to cipher, the right to send radio telegrams and the right to communicate with us: by couriers. Nevertheless, we entered into a certain preliminary agreement with Italy. In the south of Russia, bread is ready for export to Italy in exchange for the necessary machines that Italy will supply to us. This deal is beneficial for IAS and beneficial for Italy. The Italian people suffer from the lack of this bread. The Italian government knows this, and, nevertheless, this dispatch is delayed because the Italian government does not give the right to code to our representative, while Litvinov and Krasin have this right. What is the matter ‐ we do not know. Moreover, Italy sends airplanes and uniforms to Poland. In general, we can say that all the friendly assurances of the Italian government are nullified when it comes to turning them into reality. Italy is obscured by the united collective of the Entente, which is our constant and consistent enemy. We can say that the whole policy of Italy boils down to the words: ʺItaly tooʺ ‐ Italy ʺtooʺ is a great power, Italy ʺtooʺ is a member of the Entente. The Italian ruling classes do not want to be recognized as something inferior, separate from the leading imperialist governments of the main imperialist countries. And now Italy wants to pursue the policy pursued by the Entente as a whole by all means. Let the Italian people starve without bread, which they can get from Russia ‐ the main thing is that Italy ʺtooʺ should be a member of the Entente, that she ʺtooʺ sit in the Supreme Council, so that she ʺalsoʺ supposedly determines the fate of all countries, while in fact, it is only in the wake of the leading powers of the world.

And therefore, until the Italian masses force their government to get down to business, we will be in a strange position in relation to Italy. We will face the same riddle that we receive assurances and promises, and when we move on to fulfilling these promises, we do not receive actual fulfillment. But we expect that the growing pressure of the Italian broad masses will compel the Italian government, the new government that will be formed, whatever it is called, will compel to come to a real agreement with us, and we hope that soon we will be able to enter with Italy, despite the machinations and pressure from the Entente, into a truly lasting relationship.

America is a completely different picture. Italy also wants to be among the great powers. America is obscuring, it does not want to play a role among the European powers. America is a typical example of the fact that the absence of political experience accumulated over many generations makes it impossible to use the full extent of their own strength and their own power. American diplomacy suffers from some kind of provincialism, insufficient knowledge of world relations. This very first capitalist power is far from playing the role that it could play if it possessed ʺthat amazing diplomatic skill that is the property of the British ruling strata. And we see that while England is negotiating with us, trying to skim the cream off us and trying to enter into an economic agreement with us and use our wealth, America is missing all these opportunities. It is now, when we have a hitch with England, it would be the most opportune moment for America to enter into economic relations with us to take the place that England, due to their machinations, hesitates to take. Nevertheless, America does not. We see the same in the Far East, where Japan is trying to seize Eastern Siberia. The vital interests of American capital are violated by the fact that diplomatic peace America does not possess that huge mass traditional art that has been developed by generations following each other layers of politicians. And in relation to America we are faced with a different kind of riddle than in relation to Italy. Why is America still keeping aloof, therefore not taking advantage of the broad opportunities that relations with Soviet Russia would represent for it? These opportunities exist. We are waiting for America to take advantage of this. We think that this moment will come soon. Some representatives of American capital are feeling the ground. And we are convinced that, despite the extreme shortsightedness of the American government, which is missing out on the best opportunities, American capital will soon seize these opportunities. We see this by individual signs, by the way representatives of influential capitalist groups are already probing the soil from our representatives abroad. We think that soon England will have a rival ‐ America. It will be in the very near future. Then England will accelerate the pace of restoring economic relations with us. When America takes the place that belongs to her by her economic nature, then England will be forced to accelerate the pace of rapprochement and restoration of economic relations with us.

The picture is completely different in Japan. Japanʹs mainstream groups are hard‐core realists who grab and try to grab whatever lies within their reach. The Japanese ruling classes are capturing too much, and we think that they are hurting themselves with these unnecessary captures. Their entire policy in the Far East in recent months shows that too large seizures that do not correspond to their own power lead to the opposite results. We think that, despite Japanʹs renewed desire to seize the entire Far East up to Irkutsk, such a task exceeds its strength, and its ruling classes falsely assess the degree of their own power. And we think that this deep mistake of the Japanese ruling classes will lead to fatal results for them and accelerate the process of revolutionizing Japanese society, which is still progressing too slowly.

Side by side with these ruling powers of world politics, Germany is completely obscured. We can say that it has no politics. She seemed to want, in contrast to the Entente, to enter into economic relations in dreams, and at the same time she was afraid of it. On the other hand, there are elements in Germany who would like to actively participate in the ʺstruggle against the Bolsheviks.ʺ But they are not strong enough either. There are elements that are aware of the opposing interests of the ruling classes of Germany and Poland, which require the use of the current conjuncture of our struggle with Poland. But they donʹt. The whole policy of Germany is some kind of continuous empty space. Germany seems incapable of having a foreign policy in one direction or the other. We wish, we are ready to enter into economic relations with Germany, we wish to maintain friendly relations with it, but, unfortunately, all our steps are not crowned with success, and until now the German government cannot get out of that extreme passivity, as a result of which it does not even responds to our attempts to establish economic relations beneficial to both sides.

Further, there is a number of those secondary states that are the arena for the intrigues of the world politics of the ruling powers. And here our strength is our policy of peace, which is recognized by the broad masses, who understand that we do not threaten them, that our entire policy is based on striving for the mutual benefit of both our country and the country with which we enter into relations. We have concluded an economic agreement with Sweden through the representation of cooperatives. We are not completely satisfied with it. But we are confident that the restoration of our relations with Sweden will not stop there. We need Swedish products and Sweden needs our market. We are convinced that life itself will force the Swedish government to go further, to agree to a more consistent and effective economic agreement with us.

Norway takes the friendliest position towards us. The Norwegian government has entered into relations with us in the North; it is already supplying coal to our North, which is in dire need of it. It agreed to the restoration of representation in our North and in the Norwegian North, it posed to us a number of questions regarding the settlement of mutual relations. And we offered him diplomatic negotiations that would cover all these issues. In Copenhagen, our representative, Comrade Litvinov, and we suggested that Norway on all these issues, linking them together, to contact Cde. Litvinov, who has full instructions and authority from us. And we are convinced that quite friendly relations with Norway will soon improve, and easier than with Sweden. And the whole tone of the Norwegian government towards us was incomparably more conciliatory and friendly than the tone of other capitalist governments.

As for Denmark, there is so far only a private trade agreement with individual firms. But, of course, Copenhagen plays such a large role in the trading world that when economic relations with the West are improved, Denmark will not lag behind other countries.

Closer to us are those small states that separated from the former Russian Empire. And in relation to them, the whole strength of our policy lies in the fact that their masses are well aware that we are the only consistent sincere friends of small nations. That is why Estonia made peace with us, that is why now Latvia, Lithuania and Finland are negotiating with us, that is why Kolchak and Denikin succeeded so little in mobilizing these small states against us, precisely because we alone from the very beginning stood on the basis of complete and unconditional recognition of their independence.

And they know, that is, their ruling strata and their masses know that this is not an empty phrase, that we recognize their independence not in words, but in deeds. And therefore, we recognize it, that we proceed from the political consciousness and interests of our working masses and their working masses. There is no contradiction, no conflict between the interests of their working people and our working masses. Since we need to communicate with them, in so far as they need to communicate with us. Estonia is a transit country, Estonia needs to serve as a transit country for us, and we need Estonia as a transit country. This is its benefit, this is also our benefit, and our peaceful and friendly relations are based on this mutual benefit, because we proceed from the interests of the working masses, between whom there is no conflict. And that was what brought to naught Churchillʹs famous plan for the campaign of 14 states. And now, when intrigues against us continue, when there are elements in Estonia itself that are extremely antipathy towards friendly relations with Soviet Russia, nevertheless, this is what makes Estonia develop friendly and good‐neighborly relations with us, which are becoming more and more consolidated. This also leads to the fact that, despite all the intrigues, other neighboring states are negotiating with us, making peace with us and, despite all the obstacles, will undoubtedly come to complete and final peace with us.

Our relations with Finland have gone through a number of successive stages, and we have invariably stood on the basis of the unconditional recognition of the complete independence of Finland without the semivassal relations that once existed. Finland responded to this with exorbitant claims, both territorial and financial. When in 1918 our first conference with Finland took place, it demanded almost the entire Kola Peninsula and the Olonets province, it demanded such financial sacrifices that were really inconsistent with anything. Last fall, just at the moment when the Entente was trying to raise 14 states against us, and together with others, Finland, on September 11 we offered Finland to conclude peace with us. She didnʹt go for it then. But the consciousness that we are ready for peace, that we offer it, it is precisely this consciousness that prevented the Finnish ruling classes from raising the Finnish masses against us and leading them into battle against us. This is what prevented Mannerheim from drawing Finland into the war with Soviet Russia.

Last year, the ruling circles of Finland wanted to involve it in a war with us. But they did not succeed. The Finnish masses did not want this, because they realized that by doing so they would help their worst enemies, that is, the Russian reactionaries, and they would go against those who alone in Russia are consistent and true defenders of complete Finnish independence and alone stand for sincere and consistent reconciliation and agreement with the Finnish people.

In April we tried to conclude an armistice with Finland, but these negotiations ended in failure, because the very atmosphere of the armistice negotiations responded extremely unfavorably to those concessions, to that political trade, which is necessarily connected with all negotiations. When peace negotiations take place, one government offers concessions to the other. The truce negotiations did not allow this. And nevertheless, a future peace seemed to be behind the terms of the truce. The terms of the armistice were seen as a preliminary stage, as the initial forms of the future peace. In this situation, it was not possible to come to terms with Finland, and we went for something else: we proposed real peace negotiations, which opened the other day in Yuryev, on June 12. Of course, great difficulties lie ahead both in territorial and financial relations. First, the issue of Eastern Karelia presents a difficulty. Eastern Karelia, that is, several districts of Olonets and Arkhangelsk provinces, are inhabited by Karelians, a people related to the Finns by their origin. We stand on the basis of selfdetermination of any nationality, and we also stand on the basis of selfdetermination of the Karelians, the Karelian nationality. The Karelian Labor Revolutionary Committee has already been created, which prepares the Congress of Karelian Soviets on the basis of the national autonomy of the Karelian people. We meet her halfway to the extent required by the interests of the working masses of Karelia. They will be given the full opportunity for their national development. The Karelian Congress of Soviets will establish the forms that are necessary for it, and the forms of relations with the Soviet Republic as a whole.

But we know that something else was done there. There, White Finns campaigned among the local possessing elements, the exploiters: it was these local possessing elements that created the so‐called Provisional Government of Eastern Karelia. This government has told us and is still sending us several times over the radio, demanding complete secession, and behind this secession there is another plan ‐ to then join Finland. This is openly expressed. This intrigue did not begin today, and it has been waged for a long time, by representatives of the Finnish greatpower imperialism among the possessing elements of Karelia, who want to rely on bourgeois Finland to protect their economic interests. We are receiving protests against this policy from the broad masses of

Karelia, who admit that the interests of the working masses of Karelia require that the possessing class of Karelia in no case subordinate them to the Finnish capitalist government. When Finland, in negotiations with us, speaks of its sympathies for the kindred friendly Karelian people, we point out that the kindred Karelian people have full possibility of national self‐determination. The Congress of Soviets, which will soon take place, will give him this opportunity. Our negotiations in Yuryev will show how much we will be able to come to an agreement on this basis with Finland, which, as we know, has a plan to subjugate it after the establishment of independence of Karelia. We will appeal to the broad masses of Finland and find out to them that the interests of the working masses of Karelia are quite satisfied with the fact that now we will do our best to talk to them.

Another difficult question with regard to Finland is the question of Pechenga, that is, a small territorial area where we come into contact with Norway. This territory is inhabited partly by Russian colonists, partly by Lapps and only to a small proportion by Finns, who, as we know, do not at all sympathize with the imperialist policy, the greatpower policy of the current Finnish government. The Finnish government refers to the fact that Finlandʹs economic interests require access to the ocean. We are ready to consider these economic interests. In Yuryev, we can talk with the Finns about how to satisfy the real interests of the Finnish people, while at the same time not violating the interests of the Russian working masses. We are convinced that on the basis of mutual recognition of the interests of the working people of both countries, this agreement is quite possible. If an agreement is difficult, we will also appeal to the masses of Finland, pointing out that it is quite possible to peacefully reconcile their interests and the interests of the working masses of Russia. There are financial claims on the part of Finland, which will be considered in Yuryev. Financial claims, in our opinion, are not vital for the broad masses to justify waging war. We stand guard over the interests of the working masses of Russia, we are convinced that the working masses of other countries may well make peace with us on the basis of a mutually beneficial agreement. We are convinced that this agreement with Finland is quite possible.

Negotiations with Latvia have been underway for a month and a half. First of all, we faced significant territorial difficulties. In principle, we stand on the same basis as the government of Latvia, on the basis of an ethnographic basis for the demarcation between the two states. We have recognized this basis. We acted with the same sources, relying on the same scientific research. Nevertheless, our disputes continued for a very long time, and only recently ended in an agreement. In general, we proposed a border along the border of three counties ‐ Lyutsinsky, Dvinsky and Rezhitsky. In addition, the Latvian government wanted to receive from us a part of the neighboring counties ‐ Ostrovsky, Sebezhsky, Opochetsky and Drissensky. Having carefully considered the ethnographic composition of the population, we agreed to annex to Latvia a whole strip of the Ostrovsky district of the Pskov province, moreover, we agreed to annex the Pytalovsky railway. node for economic reasons, because the [railway] road of Latvia would hang in the air if Latvia did not have this railway. knot. On the contrary, we resolutely opposed the joining of neighboring sections of Opochetskiy, Sebezhskiy and Drissenskiy u [rides] to Latvia, where the population is Belarusian. Latvia gave up its claims, with the exception of the question that took the most time, the question of the neighboring corner of the Drissensky district with Latvia. This corner cuts between Latvia and those Belarusian areas that are occupied by the Polish army. After long disputes, finally, it was quite transparently indicated to us that the occupation of this corner of Driessenskiy near [riding] by Latvia was required by Poland so that the flank of the Polish army could be defended from this side by the army of Latvia. Therefore, the question of this corner of the Driessen district was reduced to the question of Latviaʹs participation or non‐participation, in one form or another, in Polandʹs struggle against us and, finally, to the question of Latviaʹs neutrality. The question of this pivotal area of the Driessen district was reduced to the question of Latviaʹs observance of its neutrality. In principle, the dispute was resolved by the consent of both parties to a plebiscite, but the question of the withdrawal of Latvian troops from this sector remained. The chairman of our delegation, Comrade Joffe said in this regard that ʺthe clash of weapons on the western Russian front affects the mood of the Latvian delegation.ʺ In response to this, the chairman of the Latvian delegation said that ʺthe clash of weapons at the front interests the Latvian delegation insofar as it wants to ensure its neutrality.ʺ

Thus, after lengthy negotiations, the Latvian delegation has definitely declared to us the observance of neutrality. As a result, a commission was created to discuss the issue of this section in connection with the issue of Latviaʹs observance of its neutrality. As a result of the commissionʹs work, the first articles of the peace treaty were worked out, which had already been adopted by both delegations. In these articles, for the first time, the conditions of the plebiscite are elaborated in detail, ensuring complete freedom of the popular vote. An agreement was reached on all points, with only one exception. One controversial point remained and remains unresolved and open. We talked about voting by workers. The Latvian delegation speaks of voting with the inclusion of those who exploit the wage labor of others. Our project says: ʺif voting is attended by the entire population, with the exception of those who exploit other peopleʹs labor for profit.ʺ The Latvian version suggests deleting these words. This is the only point of difference between us and the Latvian delegation. In all other respects, the detailed conditions of the plebiscite are a model, worked out to the smallest detail, of guarantees of complete freedom of the population from any pressure from outside during voting.

As for the controversial issue of the withdrawal of Latvian troops and Latviaʹs preservation of its neutrality, we have come to the following conciliatory formula: the withdrawal of Latvian troops will take place as soon as, by mutual agreement of the contracting parties, martial law on the Russian western front is recognized as allowing it, but in any way if no later than the cessation of hostilities on this front. After a month and a half of negotiations with the Latvian delegation, territorial issues have been resolved, and this extremely difficult issue related to Latviaʹs neutrality has also been resolved. Now financial issues are to be resolved. The claims of the Latvians are significant. Meanwhile, we refuse to take the point of view that it is necessary to take from us because they are small people, and Soviet Russia is big. We approach the issue of financial obligations from the point of view of the mutual benefit of the working masses of both sides, and we are convinced that the interests of the Latvian working masses and ours clash with one another, and they can be completely reconciled.

The same applies to negotiations with Lithuania. We have great sympathy for the Lithuanian government because it is also the object of imperialism of the Polish ruling strata. The Polish government denies Lithuaniaʹs right to independence. Lithuania in its fight against Poland is fighting for its self‐determination. But at the same time, in its negotiations with us, this very Lithuanian government reveals such financial appetites that we can in no way agree to, and we are convinced that the Lithuanian delegation will eventually agree to a mutually beneficial agreement with us. The initial draft submitted to us by the Lithuanian delegation included, among other things, an obligation on our part to denationalize and return to Lithuanian citizens their property; further, we would have to give Lithuania a proportional part of its population of the Russian military and merchant fleet. As far as we know, Lithuania is not a maritime power, so compensation is clearly meant here. Further, part of the state capital and property abroad, for example, embassy buildings, was required from us.

After considering this draft, the Lithuanian delegation itself took it back, and we are convinced that, especially under the pressure of the broad Lithuanian masses, we will be able to find an outcome with Lithuania that is beneficial for both sides, and that the interests of the working masses of Lithuania will prevail over the tendencies of individual groups her ruling layers.

Azerbaijan, red Baku, presents a completely different picture. We do not impose by force of bayonets either our domination or our system. We are not bringing communism anywhere by force, and our neighbors know this; they know that we do not threaten them with either attack or forcible imposition of our system. But we were not mistaken when we expected from such a large industrial center as Baku that the red proletariat itself, by its own forces, would seize power, meet us halfway and enter into the closest fraternal alliance with Soviet Russia. And indeed, as soon as we succeeded in putting an end to Denikinʹs army in the south, the red Baku proletariat revolted, seized power, and a Soviet government was created in Azerbaijan, which entered into a close alliance with us between two fraternal Soviet governments.

Now after that, the changed situation affected Georgia as well. This is one of the most sensitive knots of world politics, and in Georgia we have set ourselves two goals. One goal is that the territory of Georgia does not serve to prepare any attacks against us and does not serve as an arena for troops hostile to Soviet Russia. On the territory of Georgia there are not only the remnants of Denikinʹs troops, but there are also Entente troops in Batum, and under an agreement with us, Georgia pledged to return us both the equipment and the remnants of Denikinʹs troops that ended up in this territory, and pledged to clear the territory of Georgia from the Entente troops ... A Mixed Commission with our participation will oversee this item. Another goal is to provide the Georgian communists with a legal position, and this is achieved by another article of the amnesty treaty by howling communists. And our office in Georgia ʹwill make sure that this point does not remain an empty word. Thus, we are convinced that conditions have been created in Georgia for peaceful relations between the Georgian government and our government.

For Georgia we came into contact with Armenia. There is also a bourgeois government in Armenia, nevertheless, in Armenia the pressure of the broad masses leads to the fact that the government is going to reconcile with us, to friendly relations with us more than with the governments of the Entente. And in Armenia, we also set the goal of protecting the communists from persecution, and as soon as we enter into those permanent relations with Armenia that are being prepared by the talks that have begun, our representation in Armenia will also monitor this and think that the communists in Armenia have the opportunity to activity and free agitation.

But more than that, we are everywhere in these countries peacekeepers and arbitrators of territorial disputes between warring nationalities, and they all agree that our troops occupy disputed territories and that mixed commissions under our chairmanship decide questions about disputed territories. They all know that Soviet Russia is a disinterested friend of every small nationality, that only in Soviet Russia can every nationality find protection and patronage against an attack, against a threat to its national existence. And we will play the same role between Armenia and Turkey, just where there has been a constant massacre for generations, just there only Soviet Russia, thanks to its prestige, thanks to its influence on the masses of both people, only it is in able to keep both sides from the national massacre, from the desire to slaughter another nation.

We enter into relations with the Turkish government, which is fighting for its existence in Asia Minor against the predatory governments of Antanta. We have addressed this government with a note that has already been published. We expected to send our representative office to Asia Minor in the near future. The famous Turkish leader Halil Pasha, representing the Turkish revolutionary government of Asia Minor, is in Moscow. We know that precisely because the Turkish people fell prey to the predation of the Entente, that is why they look at Soviet Russia as their only friend who is completely disinterested. But we enter into friendly relations with Turkey only on those conditions so that mutual delimitation is established between Turkey and neighboring peoples, like the Armenian one, and mutual massacre stops.

We are also peacekeepers there, and Turkey, just like Armenia, already agrees that we are mediators, so that under our influence those still‐irrelevant contradictions between the Turkish and Armenian peoples that have poisoned their existence for so long are eliminated ...

Thus, gradually in the East, we come into direct contact with peoples fighting for liberation from the oppression of capital. We touched the Persian masses when the remnants of Denikinʹs fleet escaped in Anzeli. We made a landing only to end these remnants of the Denikin fleet, and we have already cleared Anzeli. Our troops and navy left Persian territory and Persian waters [...]

Our position in Afghanistan is not without difficulties. Afghanistan is fighting against British imperialism, and in this struggle, it has met in us with full support, but at the same time we know that there are also hostile influences of reactionary elements, those layers that fear the growth of the revolutionary movement. On the other hand, the broad masses in Afghanistan treat us, Soviet Russia, with such sympathy, seeing us as the main defenders of the preservation of their independence, and at the same time, influential mountain tribes, exerting strong pressure on the policy of the Afghan government, are so resolutely for a close alliance with us, and the Emir himself is so clearly aware of the British danger that, in general, our friendly relations with Afghanistan are becoming more and more consolidated. In recent public speeches, the emir clearly spoke in favor of close friendship with the Soviet government against the aggressive policy of England. By force of things, Afghanistan is drawn into the struggle against Britain and is forced to defend itself against British imperialism. Negotiations with England in Mysore ended in nothing. Despite some difficulties, we still have a friend and ally in Afghanistan, and we are convinced that these friendly relations with Afghanistan will develop in the future.

We managed to enter into direct contact with the Chinese government as well. In general, a broad wave of sympathy for Soviet Russia is developing in China, it is expressed in constant resolutions adopted in different places with expressions of enthusiasm for the Soviet Republic. The local Chinese authorities have already entered into direct relations with our authorities. So, it was in Semirechye and Uryankhai. In addition, a special Chinese delegation has now arrived in Siberia to settle a number of issues of broader importance. The Chinese government is extremely fearful because of the pressure exerted on it by the European imperialists. But the further we gain a foothold in Asia, the more by the power of things the Chinese people will turn into reality the community of interests that they have with us and which the broad masses of the Chinese people associate with complete clarity.

As for Japan, it has recently been in talks with the so‐called Far Eastern Republic. We recognized this Far Eastern Republic at the request of Japan itself. Its territory extends to the whole of Eastern Siberia, from Lake Baikal to the Pacific Ocean. After that, Japan negotiated partly with us and partly with the government of the Far Eastern Republic, namely about the neutral zone, about the occupation of certain areas by the Japanese, about the evacuation of certain areas by them.

Over time, Japan became more and more demanding, and now the Japanese government has declared that it considers the Far Eastern Republic insufficiently authoritative. The negotiations suffered a hitch, and at the same time a new advance of Japanese troops began in Eastern Siberia. The Japanese captured port facilities in Vladivostok, Northern Sakhalin, port de Kastri, Nikolaevsk‐on‐Amur and are preparing to seize Kamchatka. They actually control the East Zhntai railroad. etc., they are transferring new divisions along it with the definite intention of a lasting occupation of the territory of the Far Eastern Republic. Unfortunately, the military clique has now gained the upper hand in Japan, but there not only the mass of workers, but also the broad bourgeois elephant are fighting against this new widespread intervention. The Japanese military clique is putting forward a plan for the occupation of Eastern Siʹbnrn up to Irkutsk, but we are convinced that this plan exceeds the actual forces of the Japanese, that on this path the Japanese will not make themselves anything but endless difficulties, military failures, tens of thousands of lives of Japanese soldiers who will be sacrificed. It is on this basis in Japan itself that the movement against the domination of the current extremely reactionary military clique will undoubtedly grow. The landowners who have gained the upper hand in parliament are pursuing this policy, and we think that on this policy they will break their neck. We think that this policy is not durable for NNH.

Korea is already slipping out of their hands. Korea has the strongest revolutionary movement directed against Japan, a movement that takes the form of a social movement, with a program close to communism [...]

Of course, the situation in the East is not the same as in Europe. The East still has a long and complicated process ahead of it. The East is only at the first steps of its revolutionary development. But in the East, there are already elements for a revolutionary movement that will at the same time know the same world struggle. Thus, looking at the world arena, we can say that we stand, as a world force, in the center of the historical process. We stand guard over the interests of the Soviet Republic, the working masses of Russia, and at the same time we are a world force opposing world imperialism. He strains all his forces, makes his last efforts to “strangle you, acts with both military violence and diplomatic machinations, acts by deception, acts with a false semblance of reconciliation, which is not valid. We oppose it with a clear program of our policy of peace, we oppose it with the demands of a real agreement, a real peace that would be mutually beneficial, which would be rooted in the interests of the working masses of both sides. We stand for peace, but not for surrender. We wish, we demand peace. On this basis, we wish to negotiate with the imperialist governments. We believe that negotiations are possible, that they will lead to the goal. We are convinced that when governments are convinced that their last attempt did not lead to the goal, when our valiant Red Army has dealt with our last enemy, we are convinced that then we will come to the agreement that we are seeking. Then our Peace Policy will become a reality, and we will ensure ourselves the possibility of peaceful construction and the implementation of our program of socialist reconstruction of the entire life of our society, our new socialist construction, which will be the first example for all peoples of the whole world.

Print. according to the brochure “Report of the Peopleʹs Commissar for Foreign Affairs GV Chicherin at a meeting of the All‐Russian Central

Executive Committee on June 17, 1920. (Transcript) ʺ, NKID, M. 1920. November 6, 1920, from Stalin report delivered at a celebration meeting of the Baku Soviet

In the east, the red armyʹs successes started a ferment which, for instance in Turkey, developed into an outright war against the entente and its allies.

...

And it is not by chance that the leader of the second international, Herr Kautsky, has been thrown out of Germany by the revolution, and that he has been forced to seek asylum in backward Tiflis, with the Georgian social innkeepers. 

Lastly, whereas three years ago we observed in the countries of the oppressed east nothing but indifference to the revolution, now the east has begun to stir, and we are witnessing a whole number of liberation movements there directed against the entente, against imperialism. We have a revolutionary nucleus, a rallying centre for all the other colonies and semi‐colonies, in the shape of the Kemal government, a bourgeois revolutionary government but one which is waging an armed struggle against the entente.

Whereas three years ago we did not even dare to dream that the east might stir into action, now we not only have a revolutionary nucleus in the east, in the shape of bourgeois revolutionary Turkey; we also possess a socialist organ of the east—the committee of action and propaganda.

All these facts indicating how poor we were in the revolutionary sense three years ago and how rich we have become now; all these facts furnish us with grounds for affirming that Soviet Russia will live, that it will develop and defeat its enemies.