Academic literature on the topic 'Brest-Litovsk, Treaty of, March 3, 1918 (Russia)'

On 9 February 1918, at Brest-Litovsk, the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire) concluded an unusually favorable treaty with the government of the Ukrainian Central Rada. By its terms, in exchange for diplomatic recognition and military support against a Russian Bolshevik invasion of the Ukraine, Rada negotiators placed at the disposal of the Central Powers, but primarily Germany, a surplus of foodstuffs and agricultural products estimated at 1,000,000 tonnes. The Brotfrieden, or bread peace, as this arrangement is generally known, had three significant repercussions. First, it greatly undermined Leon Trotsky's bargaining position and obstructionist tactics, forcing the Bolsheviks to accept German terms on 3 March 1918. Second, by acquiring a rich granary, and thus no longer fearing defeat through starvation, it enabled Germany to break the iron ring of the Allied blockade. And, third, it made it impossible for the Ukraine to receive a favorable hearing or reception from the Western (French, English and American) Allies at the peace conference.

Brest Treaties of the Central States with Russia and Ukraine as a Prelude to the Treaty of Versailles In his article, the author discusses the reasons for the conclusion of peace treaties by the Central Powers with the Ukraine and Russia in February and March 1918. The article analyses the war goals of the Central Powers, especially Germany, and Austria-Hungary. It also depicts the situation of Russia and the Central Powers in the years 1917-1918. Furthermore, it describes the reasons that led individual countries to the Brest negotiating table, and presents the goals that these countries tried to achieve as the result of peace talks. An extensive part of the article constitutes a description of talks with the government of the Ukrainian People's Republic, a description of the peace agreement concluded with the Ukraine on February 9, 1918 and its significance. It led to far-reaching consequences as it resulted in breaking the concept of the so-called the Austro-Polish solution and in the decisive turn of Poles against the Habsburg monarchy and the Ukrainians. On the other hand, Austria-Hungary failed to obtain supplies, grain and raw materials granted by this agreement. The Ukraine was to supply 1 million tons of grain and a number of other resources. It was not viable as the country did not possess them. Nevertheless, it was the first international treaty to which the Ukraine was a signatory, and hence its great importance. It constituted international recognition of the Ukraine. A month later, on March 3, 1918, a peace treaty was signed with Soviet Russia. That was a confirmation of Russia's defeat in World War I. The country was unable to continue the war and had to sign it. The Soviet government signed a peace treaty knowing that they would break it at the first opportunity and did so immediately after the surrender of Germany on November 11, 1918. The author of the article presented the content of this treaty, the subsequent Soviet-German agreements of 1918 and their consequences - including details of the agreements with Turkey, as a result of which, on the one hand, Turkey tried to become the proverbial "regional power" in the Caucasus, and on the other, German troops entered Georgia. Autor w swoim artykule omawia przyczyny zawarcia przez państwa centralne w lutym i marcu 1918 r. traktatów pokojowych z Ukrainą i Rosją. Artykuł omawia cele wojenne państw centralnych, a zwłaszcza Niemiec, oraz Austro-Węgier, zaś w latach 1917-1918 ich sytuację oraz sytuację Rosji. Charakteryzuje przyczyny, które doprowadziły poszczególne państwa do stołu rokowań w Brześciu, a także przedstawia cele, jakie państwa te usiłowały osiągnąć w wyniku rozmów pokojowych. Obszerną część artykułu stanowi opis rozmów z rządem Ukraińskiej Republiki Ludowej, charakterystyka zawartego z Ukrainą 9 II 1918 r. układu pokojowego i jego znaczenie. Miał on ogromne następstwa, bowiem w jego wyniku doszło do zerwania koncepcji tzw. rozwiązania austro-polskiego i zdecydowanego obrócenia się Polaków przeciwko monarchii habsburskiej i Ukraińcom. Z drugiej strony Austro-Węgrom nie udało się uzyskać z tej strony zaopatrzenia, zboża i surowców; układ przewidywał, iż Ukraina dostarczył 1 mln ton zboża i szereg innych surowców. Nie mogła się z tego wywiązać, bo ich nie posiadała. Niemniej jednak był to pierwszy traktat międzynarodowy, którego sygnatariuszem była Ukraina, i stąd jego ogromne znaczenie, stanowił bowiem międzynarodowe uznanie Ukrainy. W miesiąc później, 3 III 1918 r., został podpisany układ pokojowy z Rosją Radziecką, który stanowił potwierdzenie klęski Rosji w I wojnie światowej, lecz ta nie była w stanie prowadzić dalej wojny i musiała go podpisać. Rząd radziecki podpisywał traktat pokojowy ze świadomością, że przy pierwszej nadarzającej się okazji zerwie go i uczynił to zaraz po kapitulacji Niemiec 11 XI 1918 r. Autor artykułu przedstawił treść tego układu, następne po nim układy radziecko-niemieckie z 1918 r., oraz jego konsekwencje, w tym szczegóły układów z Turcją, w wyniku których z jednej strony Turcja usiłowała stać się przysłowiowym „mocarstwem regionalnym” na Kaukazie, a z drugiej weszły do Gruzji wojska niemieckie.

The research reveals appointment, competence and type of activities of the authorized representatives of the Council of Lithuania delegated to represent the Council of Lithuania, Lithuania’s interests or affairs abroad (in neutral and “belligerent countries”) from 22 October 1917 to 11 November 1918. The Entente Powers include the United States, Great Britain, France and also Italy in some cases. Russia, which also belonged to the Entente, is left outside the scope of the research, because after Soviet Russia signed the Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (3 March 1918), it did no longer fight on the side of the Entente. The research on the diplomacy of the Council of Lithuania in the Entente Powers was carried out on the basis of published (press, memoirs, published documents) and unpublished sources (from the Lithuanian Central State Archives, Manuscripts Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences). The study employed the methods of analysis and comparison, the descriptive method, and the comparison of sources and literature. While processing the primary sources, in particular in French and German languages, the logistic-analytical method was applied (the notional content and information analysis was carried out). The research consists of two parts. In the first part of investigation the author analyzes the appointment and competence of the authorized representatives of the Council of Lithuania in neutral and “belligerent countries” and concludes, that the analysis of the circumstances of appointment and chronology of the authorized representatives of the Council of Lithuania in neutral and “belligerent countries” as well as the content of their authorizations made it clear that permanent authorized representatives, Juozas Purickis and Vladas Daumanatas-Dzimidavičius, who were appointed on 22 October 1917, had their residence in Lausanne and constituted a part of the collegial body of Lithuanian National Council, were authorized to represent the Council of Lithuania; however, only Purickis’ authorization included the phrase “to represent Lithuania’s interests abroad”; there was no indication as to what countries were meant. An equivalent wording – “to represent Lithuania’s interests abroad” – was also included in the texts of authorizations of non-permanent authorized representatives – Augustinas Voldemaras and Konstantinas Olšauskas. The material contained in the minutes of the meetings of the Council of Lithuania entails that “representation in belligerent countries” also meant representation in the Entente Powers, though no direct indication was included. In the second part of the study the author reveals the specific type of activities of the authorized representatives of the Council of Lithuania (October 1917 – November 1918) and states, that Permanent representatives of the Council of Lithuania, who were based in Lausanne and formed a part of the collegial Lithuanian National Council, did not always coordinate their diplomatic steps in the Entente Powers or in their embassies in Bern; hence, the Council of Lithuania had to deny or dissociate itself from certain statements made by the Lithuanian National Council (in Lausanne) (the declaration of separation from Russia of 25 December 1917; the protest telegram of June 1918). Both permanent and non-permanent representatives of the Council of Lithuania authorized to represent Lithuania’s interests abroad shared the same goal of seeking “the recognition of the right to self-determination for the Lithuanian nation” and the recognition of independence declared by the Council of Lithuania (on the basis of Part I of the Act of 11 December 1917 and the Act of 16 February 1918).

The Treaty of Versailles - the Vision of the Civilization of Peace The Treaty of Versailles, the details of which were ironed out at the Paris Peace Conference, officially brought to an end World War I. The Conference represented the first international debate on the problem of peace. Twenty-seven victorious nations participated. The defeated states of Germany, Austria, Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria were not allowed to take part in the deliberations – their only role was to sign separate versions of the treaty put before them. Bolshevik Russia was also not invited to the peace conference. On March 3, 1918, the latter signed its own peace accord in Brest with Germany and Austria, Hungary and their allies - Bulgaria and Turkey - thus violating its commitments to the Entente. This was because attendance at the peace conference depended not only on the attitude of the participants to the warring central states, but also on the moral norms recognized as binding in achieving peace. The Treaty was a testament not only to the expectations of its signatories towards their defeated opponents, but also to their intellectual and ethical aspirations with regard to attaining peaceful coexistence. It established many new borders on the map of Europe and introduced a new order on the continent, one that was not only political in form, but also cultural and civilizational. Its foundations were to be built on the values of peace and justice. Therefore, there are grounds for describing the new order created on their basis as the civilization of peace. Wypracowany na paryskiej konferencji pokojowej traktat wersalski zakończył oficjalnie I wojnę światową. Konferencja ta pierwszą międzynarodową debatą poświęconą problemom pokoju. Uczestniczyło w niej 27 zwycięskich państw oraz z nimi sprzymierzonych i stowarzyszonych. Pokonane Niemcy oraz Austria i Węgry, Turcja i Bułgaria nie zostały dopuszczone do obrad - przedstawiono im jedynie do podpisu oddzielne wersje traktatu. Na konferencję pokojową nie zaproszono również bolszewickiej Rosji, która 3 marca 1918 roku podpisała w Brześciu traktat pokojowy z Niemcami i Austrią, Węgrami oraz ich sprzymierzeńcami - Bułgarią i Turcją – łamiąc tym samym porozumienia sojusznicze Ententy. Uczestnictwo w konferencji pokojowej uwarunkowane było bowiem nie tylko stosunkiem do prowadzących wojnę państw centralnych, ale również do norm moralnych, uznanych za obowiązujące w osiąganiu pokoju. Traktat był świadectwem nie tylko oczekiwań jego sygnatariuszy wobec pokonanych przeciwników, ale również ich aspiracji intelektualnych i etycznych, ukierunkowanych na pokojowe współistnienie. Ustanowił wiele nowych granic międzypaństwowych na mapie Europy oraz zaprowadził w jej przestrzeni nowy ład, nie tylko polityczny, ale również kulturowo-cywilizacyjny. .Jego fundament stanowić miały wartości pokoju i sprawiedliwości. Istnieją zatem podstawy, aby tworzony na ich gruncie ład nazwać cywilizacją pokoju.

After February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, the nations of the previous Russian Imperium began their efforts to get their independency, among them were three nations of Transcaucasia: Armenians (Armenia), Azeris (Azerbaijan), Georgians (Georgia). After the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk of 3rd March 1918, Bolshevik Russia in reality handed over the territory of Transcaucasia to Germans and Turks. Especially Turkey became aggressive and expansive. Armenia together with Azerbaijan and then together with Georgia set up Trans-caucasian Federal Democratic Republic which collapsed soon. There were significant discrepancies among the nations. Azerbaijan wanted to get union with Turkey, but Georgia preferred Germany and Armenia counted on “white” Russia (ge¬neral Denikin). Each of these three countries set up own independent republics, among other Democratic Republic of Georgia. Soon Germany and Turkey lost the First World War, but north Caucasus was attacked by troops of General Denikin supported by England and France. Later on, in 1920, Bolsheviks entered this territory. The Red Army of Bolsheviks conquered each of the independent republics one by one, set up own governments and in¬corporated the territories into Russian Socialistic Federal Soviet Republic [RSFSR]. On 16 March 1921, RSFSR signed friendship agreement with Turkey. As a result of this agreement, Russia and Turkey divided the territory of Transcaucasian between them.

After the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, the former nations of the Russian Empire searched for the possibility of forming their own independent countries. The situation was the same with three nations of Transcaucasia, namely Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. After the separatist Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (signed on the 3rd of March 1918), Bolshevik Russia in practice gave away the Transcaucasia region to Germany and Turkey. Especially Turkey assumed an aggressive and annexationist stance at the time. And it was the Armenians who mainly put up the resistance. Armenia, together with Azerbaijan and Georgia, first created the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic. However, the state was short-lived and it soon collapsed due to different approaches to preserving independence by the three countries. Azerbaijan tried to unite with Turkey, Georgia with Germany,while Armenia counted on the White movement Russians (led by General Denikin). Each of the three countries formed separate independent republics and one of them was the First Republic of Armenia. Germany and Turkey lost the First World War soon after but Caucasia was first attacked from the north by the White General Anton Denikin, who was supported by England and France. And later (in 1920) the country was invaded by the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks, thanks to the military might of the Red Army, overthrew the independent governments of those republics one by one. Subsequently, they introduced their own governments and annexed the countries into the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The RSFSR signed the Treaty of Brotherhood with Turkey on the 16th of March 1921, which was mainly directed against Great Britain and France. In order to realize this alliance, Russia and Turkey divided between themselves the Armenianlands.