Paris Peace Conf. 183.9 Russia/3
The Secretary of State to President Wilson
My Dear Mr. President: I have received your note of November 20 in which you ask if it is feasible to have Russia represented at the peace table or to admit a part of her by recognizing and receiving delegates from the Omsk Government.
The whole question is certainly difficult but perhaps not more so than we may have to solve in other cases. To begin with, ought we not consider that we have taken a lead in regard to Russia? We resisted extraordinary pressure to sanction a purely military intervention; we have steadily declined to recognize separate movements or governments. We have said we wish to serve Russia, not to use her, and have expressed a constant desire to help wherever we may find ourselves able to do so. To my mind, we have defined conditions which we should not chance obscuring in the later discussion of intricate problems of peace.
I confess I have been perplexed by the many complications. It is, however, evident that if the associated governments undertake for themselves to settle Russia’s affairs and judge the interests of the Russian people from the Baltic to Vladivostok and from the Persian frontier to Finland, the responsibility is heavy. I believe we must [Page 271] devise a means to bridge the difficulty and am confident that if we make the attempt in advance we shall save much confusion later.
First of all, I would suggest we inform the French, British, Italians and Japanese that we will use our best efforts to see to it that Russia’s interests are safeguarded and that we propose to urge that Russian questions be considered as parts of a whole and not as separate problems resulting from what may prove, for the most part, temporary disintegration. At the beginning of the war, no army excelled in spirit that of Russia; no army to the same extent perforce replaced its lack of artillery by the devotion of simple men. Russia played a part as a great nation in staving off the early victory of Germany and to that extent her people have earned a right to assistance and counsel in their present attempts to establish control of their own affairs.
The second point I would suggest, would be a statement that only delegates from a Constituent Assembly or from some general government of Russia based on democratic principles will be admitted as signatories to the peace treaty; that in the interim approved representatives from existing elements of order in Russia will be welcomed to appear before the conference and will be heard on all questions relating to their affairs and where Russian interests may be concerned. A special section of the conference would be charged exclusively with Russian affairs and with the duty of ascertaining the wishes of the people of various parts of Russia. In this way the full session of the conference will be able to speak on Russian affairs not only with knowledge but also after a sympathetic effort to obtain a basis of authority.
I believe a third point should be insisted upon, namely, that in distinguishing between representatives of order and any others, we do not at all oppose socialistic movements or governments as such but only where they are definitely undemocratic and unrepresentative of the majority will.
Finally, it seems to me vital that we should not only offer but carry out immediate economic assistance wherever we can come in contact with elements desiring to maintain democratic principles. In other words, while we must set our faces sternly against anarchy and the class tyranny and terror of Bolshevism, we must at the same time cut to the root of the sore and relieve the misery and exhaustion which form such a fertile soil for its rapid growth.
I have ventured to write you at such length only because it has proved impossible to state the problem more briefly and I shall be grateful to know what your judgment may be.
Faithfully yours,