Wilson accepts Lenin's Decree on Peace

Dekret_o_mire.png



Secretary of State Robert Lansing was not a happy man.

In the late autumn of 1917, President Wilson had had a small stroke. It had been successfully covered up, and physically the president seemed to be back to normal. But there had been something slightly odd about his behavior. Not odd enough, though, to prepare Lansing for this:

"Lansing, " said the president, "I have been reading the Decree on Peace which the Russian Soviet has adopted on the recommendation of Mr. Lenin. This may surprise you, but I think the Decree is entirely sound, and I think we should accept it."

"Mr. President," Lansing exploded, "surely you can't be serious."

"I am serious," the President replied. "And don't call me Shirley."

Oh, boy, he's really gone now, Lansing thought.

"Here," said the president, "let's look at the Decree:"

***

The workers' and peasants' government, created by the Revolution of October 24-25 and basing itself on the Soviet of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, calls upon all the belligerent peoples and their government to start immediate negotiations for a just, democratic peace.

By a just or democratic peace, for which the overwhelming majority of the working class and other working people of all the belligerent countries, exhausted, tormented and racked by the war, are craving — a peace that has been most definitely and insistently demanded by the Russian workers and peasants ever since the overthrow of the tsarist monarchy — by such a peace the government means an immediate peace without annexations (i.e., without the seizure of foreign lands, without the forcible incorporation of foreign nations) and without indemnities.

The government of Russia proposes that this kind of peace be immediately concluded by all the belligerent nations, and expresses its readiness to take all the resolute measures now, without the least delay, pending the final ratification of all the terms of such a peace by authoritative assemblies of the people's representatives of all countries and all nations.

In accordance with the sense of justice of democrats in general, and of the working class in particular, the government conceives the annexation of seizure of foreign lands to mean every incorporation of a small or weak nation into large or powerful state without the precisely, clearly, and voluntarily expressed consent and wish of that nation, irrespective of the time when such forcible incorporation took place, irrespective also of the degree of development or backwardness of the nation forcibly annexed to the given state, or forcibly retained within its borders, and irrespective, finally, of whether this nation is in Europe or in distant, overseas countries.

If any nation whatsoever is forcibly retained within the borders of a given state, if, in spite of its expressed desire — no matter whether expressed in the press, at public meetings, in the decisions of parties, or in protests and uprisings against national oppression — is not accorded the right to decide the forms of its state existence by a free vote, taken after the complete evacuation of the [aggressive] troops of the incorporating or, generally, of the stronger nation and without the least pressure being brought to bear, such incorporation is annexation, i.e., seizure and violence.

The government considers it the greatest of crimes against humanity to continue this war over the issue of how to divide among the strong and rich nations the weak nationalities they have conquered, and solemnly announces its determination immediately to sign terms of peace to stop this war on the terms indicated, which are equally just for all nationalities without exception.

At the same time the government declares that it does not regard the above-mentioned peace terms as an ultimatum; in other words, it is prepared to consider any other peace terms, and insists only that they be advanced by any of the belligerent countries as speedily as possible, and that in the peace proposals there should be absolute clarity and the complete absence of all ambiguity and secrecy.

The government abolishes secret diplomacy, and, for its part, announces its firm intention to conduct all negotiations quite openly in full view of the whole people. It will proceed immediately with the full publication of the secret treaties endorsed or concluded by the government of land-owners and capitalists from February to October 25, 1917. The government proclaims the unconditional and immediate annulment of everything contained in these secret treaties insofar as it is aimed, as is mostly the case, at securing advantages and privileges for the Russian landowners and capitalists and at the retention, or extension, of the annexations made by the Great Russians.

Proposing to the governments and peoples of all countries immediately to begin open negotiations for peace, the government, for its part, expresses its readiness to conduct these negotiations in writing, by telegraph, and by negotiations between representatives of the various countries, or at a conference of such representatives. In order to faciliate such negotiations, the government is appointing its plenipotentiary representative to neutral countries.

The government proposes an immediate armistice to the governments and people of all the belligerent countries, and, for its part, considers it desirable that this armistice should be concluded for a period of not less than three months, i.e., a period long enough to permit the competition of negotiations for peace with the participation of the representatives of all peoples or nations, without exception, involved in or compelled to take part in the war, and the summoning of authoritative assemblies of the representatives of the peoples of all countries for the final ratification of the peace terms.

While addressing this proposal for peace to the governments and peoples of all the belligerent countries, the Provisional Workers' and Peasants' Government of Russia appeals in particular also to the class-conscious workers of the three most advanced nations of mankind and the largest states participating in the present way, namely, Great Britain, France, and Germany. The workers of these countries have made the greatest contributions to the cause of progress and socialism; they have furnished the great examples of the Chartist movement in England, a number of revolutions of historic importance effected by the French proletariat, and, finally, the heroic struggle against the Anti-Socialist Law in Germany, and the prolonged, persistent and disciplined work of creating mass proletarian organisations in Germany, a work which serves as a model to the workers of the whole world. All these examples of proletarian heroism and historical creative work are a pledge that the workers of the countries mentioned will understand the duty that now faces them of saving mankind from the horrors of war and its consequences, that these workers, by comprehensive, determined, and supremely vigourous action, will help us to conclude peace successfully, and at the same time emancipate the labouring and exploited masses of our population from all forms of slavery and all forms of exploitation.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/25-26/26b.htm

***

"Now, Lansing," the president continued, "how can I object to this? 'Peace without annexations or indemnities'--didn't I say in my war message to Congress 'We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves...' https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Wilson's_War_Message_to_Congress Maybe this Lenin is as bad as you say he is--maybe he's even a German agent--but we can't reject a reasonable proposition because of its source. Applying the principles of the decree would mean that Germany would have to give up Alsace-Lorraine and Posen, that a genuinely independent Polish state would be created, and so on. We can hardly call that pro-German."

"But Mr. President," Lansing continued, "the Soviet says that holding *any* territory against its people's will--even in backward areas like Asia and Africa--counts as 'annexation.' That would include the Philippines!"

"So? You know I favor Philippine independence. We Democrats have pledged it in every one of our platforms since 1900..."

Lansing sighed. Obviously, he was getting nowhere with the president.

"Mr. President," he finally said, "maybe *we* can accept the terms of the Soviet's decree, but do you really expect our European allies to give up their colonial empires?"

"I can see why they might not want to, " Wilson replied, "but I'm not sure why we should fight for their empires. In any event, the decree itself says it's not intended as an ultimatum, so there might be room for flexibility there. What I do want to say--and in public--is that we Americans for ourselves have no objections to the Decree..."

"Mr. President, can't you see that this Decree is a propaganda stunt? Lenin is counting on the Allies to reject its terms, and this will just give him an excuse for making peace with the Central Powers."

"Well, then," replied Wilson, "why not surprise him and deprive him of that excuse by accepting the Decree?..."

"But Mr. President, look at that last paragraph. He's suggesting that the workers of England, France, and Germany should *force* their governments..."

"To make a just peace? Maybe the workers *should* have a few things to say if their governments are too selfish to accept reasonable peace terms..."

---

OK, I don't really expect Wilson to do this; in fact, I make a small stroke the POD to avoid accusations of extreme implausibility. But there is a serious point here: the Decree on Peace was--by Bolshevik standards--a surprisingly moderate document. Some months earlier Lenin had ridiculed *Pravda* for demanding the Provisional Government renounce annexations. It's ridiculous to ask an imperialist government to renounce annexations, Lenin said at the time. Yet here he is asking that they do exactly that. There is no call to "transform the imperialist war into a civil war," no requirement that capitalist governments be overthrown and replaced by socialist ones as a precondition for peace. And it is explicitly stated that the decree is not an ultimatum, that the Soviet is open to other peace proposals, etc. As R. Craig Nation writes in *Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991,*, p. 8:

"A willingness to make concessions in pursuit of peace was made evident by the very first act of the revolutionary government, the famous 'Decree on Peace' promulgated by the 2nd Congress of Soviets on 8 November (25 October) 1917. For those familiar with the fiery proclamations once issued by the Zimmerwald Left, the decree struck a surprisingly moderate tone. Calling for a 'just and democratic peace' without annexations or contributions, urging a ceasefire as a prelude to negotiations, and expressly stating that Soviet conditions were not ultimatums but merely suggested points of departure, it was an earnest plea for a general armistice quite free of revolutionary rhetoric. The decree was a 'diplomatic' text, though it was not necessarily perceived as such by those to whom it was addressed. Although the Bolsheviks themselves were probably dubious about the decree's prospects, by asserting the will to peace they had demonstrated good intentions and provided a veneer of legitimacy for the politically unpalatable but potentially necessary step of a separate peace with the Central Powers..." https://books.google.com/books?id=WK18-OoR0pIC&pg=PA8

Similarly, E. H. Carr has observed that "the peace decree approved by the second All-Russian Congress of Soviets on the morrow of the revolution was far more Wilsonian than Marxist in language and inspiration, and deserves to be regarded not as some remote descendant of the Communist Manifesto, but rather as the immediate precursor of the fourteen points issued just two months later; indeed the part indirectly played by the declaration in inspiring Wilson’s fourteen points speech is well attested. It was a proposal for the immediate conclusion of peace, addressed 'to all the belligerent peoples and their governments' and broadcast throughout the world. It demanded not a socialist, but a 'just, democratic' peace — a peace without annexations or indemnities, a peace based on the right of self-determination for all nations by 'a free vote' It declared secret diplomacy abolished, and announced the intention of the government to publish the secret treaties of the past and conduct all future negotiations 'completely openly before the whole people.' Nothing was said of capitalism as the cause of war or of socialism as its cure. The one faint hint of world revolution occurred in its concluding sentence in which the workers of England, France and Germany were invited to assist their Russian comrades 'to bring to a successful conclusion the work of peace and also the work of liberating the labouring and exploited masses of the population from every kind of slavery and exploitation ', A resolution of the second All-Russian Congress of Peasants’ Deputies passed on December 3/16, 1917, on the occasion of the armistice negotiations with the Central Powers did not even go so far. It appealed to 'the peasants, workers and soldiers of Germany and Austria' merely to 'oppose an uncompromising resistance to the imperialist demands of their governments and in this way to guarantee the most rapid conclusion of a people’s peace.'..." https://books.google.com/books?id=1laU3T9HWYsC&pg=PA10
 
Last edited:
It's not necessary that Lenin demand civil wars or replacement goverment, even the last janitor in goverment service (but not necessary Wilson) will understand that a peace of this kind, mean that revolution will start once the soldiers will come home as all this years of warfare and hardships for basically...nothing, mean that people will be upset, a lot upset.
 
BTW, George Kennan had noted the similarity of Wilson's address and Lenin's decree in *Russia Leaves the War.* This evidently annoyed a Soviet reviewer, as Kennan later noted in *Russia and the West Under Lenin and Stalin*, p. 38:

"The Soviet reviewer referred to Wilson's words as a 'banal and mendacious phrase,' which 'obligated no one to anything.' 'What could there be in common,' he asked, 'between the cloudy phraseology of empty Wilsonian irrelevancies and the hard precision of Lenin's decree?' It just goes to show how differently people's minds work. I had thought there was a similarity between Lenin's phrase 'without annexations' and Wilson's reference to 'no conquest, no dominion.' And the phrase 'no indemnities,' after all, was identical in each case..."

Robert Daniels also noted the relative moderation of the Decree on Peace: "It was to prove significant that many more declarations in the revolutionary vein emanated from Trotsky than from Lenin. 2 The Decree on Peace of October 26 had a relatively moderate tone: the appeal was for peace through negotiation among existing governments, while the threat of revolution was only implied. 3 On the other hand, violently inflammatory statements were not uncommon; barely a week after the October coup, I. N. Stukov, a member of the Moscow Regional Bureau of the party, addressed to the Central Committee a declaration demanding "revolutionary war" against German imperialism. 4 Trotsky himself declared bluntly that despite the talk of negotiation, "a genuine democratic" peace would come only through revolution. 5" http://fignissimo.ru/books/4.PDF
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
Even if the U.S. accepts this decree, what exactly is it going to do if the other Entente powers say no? Withdraw its troops from Europe?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if Wilson had his mini-stroke earlier and said it was his position to say the US wished the Pope luck and success in his Peace Proposal of August 1917?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What if Wilson had his mini-stroke earlier and said it was his position to say the US wished the Pope luck and success in his Peace Proposal of August 1917?
Well, what did this papal peace proposal look like?

Also, as a side note, this Bolshevik decree is a bit contradictory; after all, it speaks of no annexations but some annexations are necessary in order to adhere to the principle of national self-determination--for instance, the Trentino and Trieste for Italy and possibly Alsace-Lorraine for France.

Also, given the Bolsheviks' championing of national self-determination, I don't think that either the German, Austro-Hungarian, or Ottoman Empire could survive even under the peace terms of this Lenin decree. After all, if Russia's various ethnic groups have a right of secession (as the Bolsheviks claimed), why not the various ethnic groups of the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires as well?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Question--couldn't Germany try playing a trick on Lenin and Wilson and also *cautiously* endorse this peace push? After all, even if Germany loses a few of its territories (Alsace-Lorraine, Malmedy, the Polish Corridor, Posen Province, et cetera), surely this would be compensated by the possibility of increased German influence in the Baltics, Poland, and Ukraine, no? Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised to see Germany test Lenin's resolve by asking him to withdraw from Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine, and perhaps even the Caucasus and Central Asia so that all of the peoples there can determine their own fates.
 
Question--couldn't Germany try playing a trick on Lenin and Wilson and also *cautiously* endorse this peace push? After all, even if Germany loses a few of its territories (Alsace-Lorraine, Malmedy, the Polish Corridor, Posen Province, et cetera), surely this would be compensated by the possibility of increased German influence in the Baltics, Poland, and Ukraine, no? Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised to see Germany test Lenin's resolve by asking him to withdraw from Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine, and perhaps even the Caucasus and Central Asia so that all of the peoples there can determine their own fates.
I doubt it. Without the German push into the East (Eleven Days Offensive or something?) and the subsequent German fanning of right-wing dissent the territories might have leftist revolutions of their own, especially since the ideas of a USSR are, now, a Union of equal republics and not the Russia-dominated one we know. Germany wouldn't allow that.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I doubt it. Without the German push into the East (Eleven Days Offensive or something?) and the subsequent German fanning of right-wing dissent the territories might have leftist revolutions of their own, especially since the ideas of a USSR are, now, a Union of equal republics and not the Russia-dominated one we know. Germany wouldn't allow that.
Wasn't it Bolshevik idiocy that caused the Ukrainians to declare independence in early 1918, though?
 
Wasn't it Bolshevik idiocy that caused the Ukrainians to declare independence in early 1918, though?
Which, as far as I know, happened after White soldiers and other right wing forces were able to effectively take over the country while it was under German occupation
 
Even if they are independent, that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't go left, especially with a successful revolution right next door.

The rightists can only whip up nationalist fervor, socialists can do so to a slightly lesser extent AND seriously offer economic freedom for peasants. I highly doubt that without the Germans allowing Whites to settle into the country in Ukraine and Poland and the Baltics that they would have stayed rightist republics and would have probably either joined the USSR as an equal SSR (which at the time was a real idea and not a "just in theory" thing) or been closely tied to the Union after a socialist revolution.

The entire continent was agitated from war and oppression, this region especially could have easily been independent and then decided that the USSR was its best bet
 
Last edited:
Top