763.72119/1059
The Secretary of State to President Wilson
My Dear Mr. President: The communication of the Bolsheviks to “the peoples and governments of the Allied countries”, contained in Mr. Francis’ telegram No. 2163 of December 31st,31 impresses me with the adroitness of the author whose presentation of peace terms may well appeal to the average man, who will not perceive the fundamental errors on which they are based.
The address from beginning to end is to a class and not to all classes of society, a class which does not have property but hopes [Page 347] to obtain a share by process of government rather than by individual enterprise. This is of course a direct threat at existing social order in all countries.
In the second place the address discusses the rights of nationalities (though it does not use the term) without defining what a nationality is, and at the same time advances doctrines which make class superior to the general conception of nationality. Is the Bolshevik idea of nationality based upon blood, habitation of a particular territory, language, or political affinity? Accurate definition of the word is necessary to interpret the terms proposed, otherwise they are too vague to be intelligently considered.
If the Bolsheviks intend to suggest that every community (though they state no unit as a basis for independent action) can determine its allegiance to this or that political state or to become independent, the present political organization of the world would be shattered and the same disorder would generally prevail as now exists in Russia. It would be international anarchy.
Though founded entirely on the assertion of legality, the right of communities within a constituted federal union to determine their allegiance was denied by the Government of the United States in 1861 and the denial was enforced by military power. We, as a nation, are therefore committed to the principle that a national state may by force if necessary prevent a portion of its territory from seceding without its consent especially if it has long exercised sovereignty over it or if its national safety or vital interests would be endangered.
I can see that, where a particular region lies between the territories of two nations which the world has recognized as sovereign states, there may justly arise the question as to which nation should incorporate the region into its territory and that the decision may properly rest with the inhabitants of the region, but I do not see that the same question arises in the event that the inhabitants of a territory already under the sovereignty of a nation have the same right to become an independent state and to be admitted into the family of nations by a mere expression of popular will. Such a theory seems to me utterly destructive of the political fabric of society and would result in constant turmoil and change. It simply cannot be done if social order and governmental stability are to be maintained.
The suggestions of the Bolsheviks in regard to Ireland, India, and other countries which have been and are integral parts of recognized powers are in my opinion utterly untenable if it is desirable to preserve the present concept of sovereign states in international relations. However justified may be the principle of local self-government, the necessities of preserving an orderly world require [Page 348] that there should be a national authority with sovereign rights to defend and control the communities within the national boundaries.
It is apparent, as I said at the outset, that the Bolsheviks are appealing in this address to a particular class of society, which they seek to arouse against the present order of things, enticing them with the possible abolition of the institution of private property and the possible control by that class of accumulated wealth and of its distribution. The document is an appeal to the proletariat of all countries, to the ignorant and mentally deficient, who by their numbers are urged to become masters. Here seems to me to lie a very real danger in view of the present social unrest throughout the world.
Of course the enforcement of the will of the ignorant, indifferent to all save their own pleasures, would be the worst form of despotism, especially as that class has always been controlled by violent and radical leaders. It would be a species of class-despot, which would have far less regard for private rights than an individual despot. This seems to be the present social program of the Bolsheviks, and they appear to be putting it into operation in Russia. It is essentially anarchistic rather than socialistic in character and will, wherever adopted, break down every semblance of social order and public authority.
I think in considering this address it might properly be asked by what authority the Bolsheviks assume the right to speak for the Russian people. They seized the Government at Petrograd by force, they broke up opposition in the army by disorganizing it, they prevented the meeting of the Constituent Assembly chosen by the people because they could not control it, they have seized the property of the nation and confiscated private property, they have failed to preserve public order and human life, they have acted arbitrarily without pretense of legality, in fact, they have set up over a portion of Russia a despotic oligarchy as menacing to liberty as any absolute monarchy on earth, and this they maintain by force and not by the will of the people, which they prevent from expression.
In view of present conditions I believe it would be unwise to make reply to this insidious address; but, if it seems advisable not to ignore it, I think the only course should be to state frankly the false premises upon which it is based and the vagueness of the unit of independent communal power which they propose to set up. In view of the threat against existing governments and the promised aid to revolutionists I would personally prefer to see the communication unanswered whatever the consequences might be. Lenine, Trotsky and their colleagues are so bitterly hostile to the present social order in all countries that I am convinced nothing could be said which would gain their favor [Page 349] or render them amenable to reason. I feel that to make any sort of reply would be contrary to the dignity of the United States and offer opportunity for further insult and threats, although I do not mean that it may not be expedient at some time in the near future to state our peace terms in more detail than has yet been done.
Faithfully yours,