November 11, 1918 at 11 o'clock. in the morning, a truce was solemnly proclaimed at the front. Cheering crowds filled the squares and streets of capitals and cities: the infamous war that claimed 10 million lives and crippled 20 million people ended. But in the stately offices of the victors, there was a sense of unease - the moment had come for the division of what they had won. They had to decide how much to recover from the defeated, who would get their colonies, and what to do with the new states that had emerged from the ruins of defeated empires. Each of the victorious countries claimed its share of the spoils, and the revolutionary events in Russia, which marked the beginning of the world's revolutionary upsurge, cast doubt on possible solutions and, moreover, threatened the very existence of capitalism.

The results of the First World War were summed up by the Paris Peace Conference (18.I.1919 - 21.I.1920), which ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles - the most important of the treaties that formed the basis of the Versailles system, which consolidated the redistribution of the capitalist world in favor of the victorious powers, but did not eliminate the fundamental imperialist contradictions.

Each of the countries that belonged to the winning camp made their own claims and demands." French imperialism did not win the war easily. Millions of citizens died or became disabled, which was especially noticeable for a country that had not experienced population growth for decades. Significant areas were ravaged, including the carboniferous ones. The national economy has fallen into disarray. Recovery of losses required huge material resources and incredible efforts of the masses. The ruling elite reassured the people: the defeated enemy will pay for everything. The German bill has already been drawn up. It was necessary to present it, and at the same time defend it from the allies in the war, who were also preparing their claims.

The main requirement of France was to ensure its own security. In less than half a century, the country has been attacked twice by Germany. To disarm the enemy forever - this was the goal of Paris: to crush the military power of Germany, deprive it of its army, take away the navy and establish permanent control over the 100 thousand military contingent left to Germany (and only from volunteers). France also demanded a revision of the borders with Germany. It wanted to take its left-bank districts on the Rhine, create a new state from them, and on the right bank - to demolish fortresses, to form a demilitarized zone. France demanded huge amounts of money from Germany to rebuild destroyed areas, as well as pay pensions to military personnel, widows and disabled people. Amounts that are expected to be paid-

page 3

If they were supposed to be collected from Germany, they were hypocritically called not an indemnity, but reparations (from the Latin reparatio-restoration).

France did not limit itself to demanding the establishment of a new western border of Germany - along the Rhine, but also "took care" of its eastern borders. In the pre-war period, France's security in the east was guaranteed by its ally, Tsarist Russia. But tsarism was overthrown, and Soviet power was established in Russia. The French imperialists waged an undeclared war against it and insisted on continuing and intensifying their intervention. At the Paris Peace Conference, there was not a single problem that was not connected with the need to eliminate the Soviet government. And not just Marshal F. Foch, like Cato, who insisted on the destruction of Carthage, ended each of his speeches with a demand to move the liberated allied troops to Moscow, but all the participants in the conference expressed their hatred for the power of the workers and peasants in Russia.

About the anti-Bolshevism of the French imperialists, Lenin wrote at the end of 1918: "One of the French writers, which published the newspaper and called it "a Victory," said the little French victory over the Germans that she needs to defeat Bolshevism and that the campaign against Russia is not offensive in Germany and the campaign against Bolshevik revolutionary proletariat and against the infection that is spreading across the world," 1 . Lenin also quoted the frank confession of another reactionary organ, L'Echo de Paris:" We are going to Russia to break the power of the Bolsheviks. " 2 At the same time, the French imperialists were solving not only the military and strategic task of having an ally against Germany, but also of ensuring that Russia's debts would be collected, and most importantly, that the socialist system established there, which they considered a threat to capitalism, would be eliminated.

But the Soviet country withstood the unequal struggle with the imperialists and became stronger every day. France was preparing a new guarantor of its interests in the East - a strong Poland, with an army equipped with modern weapons. Bourgeois-landlord Poland was conceived as a guarantor against Germany and as a barrier between Russia and Germany to prevent the Russian revolution from uniting with the German revolutionary movement. "From Poland," Lenin assessed this measure, "the Peace of Versailles created a buffer state that should protect Germany from a clash with Soviet communism and which the Entente considers as a weapon against the Bolsheviks." 3
The same goal was to serve the Baltic states (where France was trying to establish the power of the bourgeoisie) and the newly created states-Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, which together with Romania were supposed to be united in the pro-French Union (it was created later and received the conditional name of the Little Entente).

Not content with crushing Germany's military power, France also sought to crush its economic power. Bearing in mind that their country quickly paid the indemnity imposed on it by Germany after the victory in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871, the French leaders feared that Germany, even with the largest reparations, would quickly regain its strength, in which it might be helped by the allies. France insisted on taking away Germany's colonies (it wanted to appropriate the African ones), depriving it of world markets, and taking away most of the German merchant fleet. The winner was also going to cut off part of the German territory in favor of

1 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 37, p. 118. We are talking about the ardent chauvinist G. Herve, who published a newspaper in which the White emigrant V. L. Burtsev was in charge of the Russian department.

2 Ibid., p. 165.

3 Ibid., vol. 41, pp. 323-324.

page 4

Belgium and Denmark. The return of Alsace and Lorraine to France was taken for granted. This was the maximum program put forward by the bankers, industrialists, and generals of France. It had to be defended not so much before the enemy (Germany, although not without a murmur, waited for its fate), but before the allies, who were afraid that France would not deprive them. French Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker Clemenceau, in response to the recommendations of D. Lloyd George to make moderate demands on Germany, summed up the main goals of France as follows: "All her colonies, all her military fleet, a significant part of the merchant fleet and all the foreign markets in which she has hitherto dominated must be taken away from Germany. In this way, it will be hit in the most vulnerable place, while there are still people who believe that it can be neutralized by easing territorial conditions. " 4
The French delegation to the Paris Peace Conference was led by Georges Benjamin Clemenceau, a 78-year-old experienced statesman and skilled diplomat. In his youth, he joined the radical Republican movement, but over the years he became an ardent representative of French imperialism. A brilliant orator, sarcastic and resourceful polemicist, Clemenceau repeatedly participated in the change of governments and acquired the characterization of"overthrower of ministries". For perseverance and perseverance in achieving the goal, he was nicknamed "tiger". He devoted all his political activities to the struggle for revenge and revenge of Germany for the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian war, and with the emergence of Soviet power, he became its implacable and persistent enemy. In November 1917. Clemenceau was appointed Prime Minister and declared the principle of his policy to be a merciless war "inside and outside" - against Germany and against the revolutionary movement in Russia.

The second member of the French delegation, Stephane Jean Marie Pichon, whom the prime minister himself called his "faithful dog", was also a match for Clemenceau. Pichon, 62, had a wealth of diplomatic experience: he was Ambassador to the Congo, Brazil, China, and Foreign Minister in several governments. Clemenceau also invited him to join the Government as Foreign Minister. At the peace conference in Paris, Pichon lived up to the nickname "faithful dog", diligently fulfilling the will and instructions of the boss.

Great Britain suffered less from the war than France, but its claims were no more modest than those of France. The British imperialists now sought to implement the plan that was one of the causes of the world War - to destroy the German fleet and remain the mistress of the seas. German warships were transferred to British ports. In fact, the merchant fleet was also subject to liquidation. It seemed to the British imperialists that they had got rid of the threat of losing their naval hegemony. It was self-evident in the calculations of Great Britain that the colonies would be taken away from Germany and the Ottoman Empire divided, with significant parts of it falling into the hands of the British imperialists. The British colonial Empire was to grow immeasurably.

In crushing German military power, the interests of Great Britain coincided with those of France. However, it did not support French plans to exclude Germany from the list of great powers, permanently suppressing its economic power. London was not at all happy with France becoming the hegemon of Western Europe: this situation upset the balance of power on the continent, which for decades was the basis of British policy. Weaken Germany - yes, reduce it

4 Cit. by: Novak K. F. Versailles, L. 1930, pp. 100-101.

page 5

on the level of a minor power - no, - England spoke from this position, protesting on every issue of France's claims to Germany. Great Britain was opposed to taking away areas with a significant number of German populations from Germany. London covered its "anti-French" objections with the argument that the transfer of these areas to other countries would cause constant hostility, strengthening Germany's desire to return its compatriots to its rule. In fact, this argument masked British resistance to a direct weakening of Germany. By the way, the contradictions between the allies in the division of production were rooted in the future origins of the revival of German imperialism, which in 20 years unleashed a new world war.

While imperialist Britain was taking measures to eliminate the German threat, a new and incomparably stronger threat was emerging: the revolutionary movement was spreading irresistibly throughout Europe. The revolution swept through Germany and Austria-Hungary, and its waves rolled further west. The news of the success of Russian workers and peasants inspired workers and working people all over the world. The colonial peoples began to move. A large part of their population participated in the war, learned to use weapons, now they could be directed against the colonizers. The revolution threatened not only the colonial rule of England, but also the very existence of imperialism.

While Britain and France shared the same assessment of the scale of the Bolshevik danger, they differed on the question of the forms of struggle against Soviet Russia. The French imperialists, as mentioned above, sought the restoration of old Russia as their ally against Germany. But for the U.K., it meant a resurgence of its old rivalries with Russia, mainly over Central Asia.

The British delegation to the Paris Peace Conference was led by 66 - year-old David Lloyd George, a liberal-leaning, experienced statesman, a clever, sophisticated diplomat. Having lost his father, a teacher in Wales, at an early age, he was brought up in the family of an uncle, a village shoemaker and preacher of one of the Baptist religious sects. In the life of young Lloyd George, this played a well-known role. Having become acquainted with the situation of the masses and their needs, he learned to channel the discontent of the working people into small demands. The subsequent career as a lawyer enriched Lloyd George with the art of polemics. From the Welsh Liberals, Lloyd George went to Parliament, gradually turning into a bourgeois political businessman. Its distinctive feature was the art of compromise - getting off with small concessions to the working people, but retaining all power for the capitalists. Lenin described this clever master of compromise as follows:: "I would call this system Lloyd Georgism... A first-class bourgeois businessman and political rascal, a popular orator who can make any kind of speech, even revolutionary ones, to a working-class audience, and who is able to make large handouts to the obedient workers in the form of social reforms (insurance, etc.), Lloyd George serves the bourgeoisie perfectly and serves it precisely among the workers, exerts its influence precisely in the proletariat, where where it is most necessary and most difficult to morally subjugate the masses. " 5
Hater of socialism and the October Revolution, Lloyd George at the Paris Peace Conference sought the dismemberment of Russia in the hope that the small states formed as a result of this would inevitably fall under the influence and domination of England. The weak point of Lloyd George's policy was that he was prime minister of the Liberal - Conservative coalition government:

6 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 30, p. 176.

page 6

he had to constantly look back at his distrustful partners and take their opinions into account. As you know, the conservatives, finding that the prime minister, in general, had already fulfilled the role of a servant of the imperialists, later refused to support him, and his political career ended.

The second representative of England at the peace conference was Arthur James Balfour. He was descended from the aristocratic Cecil - Salisbury family, which supplied ministers and other senior statesmen. For almost half a century, Balfour was a Conservative Member of Parliament, held a number of ministerial posts, and at the beginning of the twentieth century was Prime Minister of Great Britain. He took part in several actions that went down in the history of diplomacy-at the end of the XIX century. in the division of spheres of influence in China, in the creation of the Entente, in the development of preliminary conditions for peace with Germany, in drawing up a declaration on the Jewish home in Palestine, and many others.

In February 1919, due to Clemenceau's illness and the departure of Wilson and Lloyd George, Balfour was chairman of the peace Conference. Lloyd George, although he found Balfour somewhat indecisive, appreciated his diplomatic experience. Balfour supported his boss at the conference, but apparently informed his conservative colleagues in the government about the prime minister's behavior in a timely manner. As a result, the Cabinet disagreed with Lloyd George on some issues, such as the convening of a conference of all Russian "warring groups".

The United States suffered the least losses in people and material resources during the war. They won the most. They entered the war as a debtor, and came out as a creditor, to whom Britain and France owed many billions for weapons, ammunition and food. The United States had an army of several million men by the end of the war. True, she had no combat experience (she had lacked this before), but she remained fresh and well-supplied, which gave her a great advantage over the bloodless allied armies. The United States built a powerful military and merchant navy during the war, which greatly worried England.

The United States did not need overseas colonies, having at hand the vast expanses of South America and thanks to the stability and high dollar exchange rate, its industrial advantages penetrated any market in the world. Hence the insistent demands for "freedom of the seas". In short, the United States appeared to its allies as a powerful power openly striving for world hegemony. Washington's claims were reinforced by the presence of more than 2 million US troops in Europe. The United States also had contradictions with Japan: They had been accumulating for decades because of its dominance in the Pacific, but the United States hoped to overcome them by relying on its growing power, the strength of its fleet, and collusion with its allies. "The American billionaires," Lenin wrote in the autumn of 1918 in a Letter to the American Workers, " were almost the richest of all and were in the safest geographical position. They profited the most. They have made tributaries of all countries, even the richest ones. " 6
But American billionaires also faced difficulties-the impact of the ideas of the October Revolution that spread across Europe and the growing struggle of workers inside the United States. After unleashing ferocious terror on the rising proletariat at home, imprisoning outstanding worker leader Eugene Debs and hundreds of other internationalists, the American capitalists opposed the revolution in Russia even before October, and after that they took all measures against the Soviet government-from the publication of false slanderous articles.

6 Ibid., vol. 37, p. 50.

page 7

the "Sisson documents" and the transformation of its embassy in Russia into an organizational center for espionage and counter-revolutionary forces, up to an armed invasion along with its allies in the north of Russia and the Far East. "Just now," Lenin wrote in the same letter, " the American billionaires, these modern slaveholders, have opened a particularly tragic page in the bloody history of bloody imperialism by agreeing-whether directly or indirectly, openly or hypocritically-to an armed campaign by the Anglo-Japanese beasts with the aim of strangling the first Socialist republic 7. The United States has been refusing to recognize Soviet power for the longest time.

Great Britain, France, and other capitalist powers abandoned this policy in the early 1920s; 1924 was the year of recognition of the Soviet Union, and the United States established diplomatic relations with the USSR only in 1933. The US government was both the most insidious in its methods of anti-Soviet struggle and the most hypocritical and deceitful in its "arguments" used in it. Even the executors of the American administration's will were often confused by its directives. It is enough to refer to the testimony of the commander of the American Expeditionary Force in Siberia, General W. Graves: he lamented that the State Department had ordered no interference in Russian internal affairs, while the War Department, on the contrary, insisted on active military action. "So it turned out," the general wrote in his memoirs, "that from the very beginning of military operations in Siberia, representatives of the United States Department of State and representatives of the Military Department acted on the basis of conflicting instructions." 8 Entangled in conflicting instructions, Graves could not understand that the very presence of one and a half tens of thousands of soldiers in Russia, without the consent of the Soviet authorities, is an armed intervention.

While implementing it, the United States at the same time strongly denied its participation in it. Advocates of American "innocence" in the intervention often refer to the fact that, they say, in December 1917, Britain and France divided the spheres of action (I emphasize: spheres of action, not influence!): the French were assigned Moldavia and Ukraine, the British - the Don and the Caucasus, while the United States did not participate in the intervention treaty. It is true that the United States did not sign this agreement, but they were well aware of it, did not object to it, because they did not want to tie their hands and aimed at a bigger prize - Siberia and the Far East, the objects of their long-standing desires, and finally, they themselves directly participated in the intervention.

The head of the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference was 63-year-old President Woodrow Wilson. The son of a Presbyterian pastor, he received a liberal arts education and in 1890 became a professor of history and public law, then - rector of Princeton University. In 1911, Wilson became governor of New Jersey, and in 1912 was elected as a Democratic candidate for president. With the outbreak of World War I, he declared US neutrality, hoping to trade with both warring blocs. But the difficulty of communication with Germany, its aggressive naval policy-submarine warfare turned the United States into a military arsenal of the Entente, which provided them with unprecedented enrichment. On April 6, 1917, fearing the weakening of the Entente due to the revolution that began in February in Russia, Wilson declared war on Germany.

The American president met the October Revolution with extreme hostility. On January 8, 1918, he published the "peace program", which included-

7 Ibid., p. 48.

8 Graves U. The American Adventure in Siberia (1918-1920), Moscow, 1932, p.40.

page 8

I write a story called "14 points". In this program, the sixth item was devoted to Russia. Formulated very vaguely, containing hypocritical statements about preserving the integrity and sovereignty of our country, this point was later openly deciphered as a plan for the dismemberment of Russia. Wilson's "peace program" actually turned out to be a political flair that covered up the class interests of the overseas imperialists. Hypocrisy and pharisaism were Wilson's principles as a statesman and diplomat.

Wilson was a distrustful man (he did not share his plans and plans even with his Secretary of State, R. Lansing) and clearly prone to megalomania. The solemn meetings given to him in the capitals of Europe gave him confidence that the all-powerful dollar and the president's own will will make him the arbiter of the fate of the world. However, Wilson's position in his own country was not very reliable. On November 5, 1918, elections to the US Congress were held, which brought victory to the Republicans (in both chambers). Wilson's position was shaken: he had to conduct state affairs, encountering congressional resistance. And it was increasingly critical of the president's decision to send American troops to Russia without the consent of the Senate. The idea of creating a League of Nations was not supported by him: one of the paragraphs of its charter required military assistance to any country that was attacked, and this could involve the United States in a new war. In addition, Wilson did not have serious diplomatic experience (he came straight from the university department to the White House) and met in the person of Clemenceau and Lloyd George very skilful and clever rivals. Describing the situation at the Paris Peace Conference, Lenin said: "Keynes clearly exposed how stupid Wilson was, and all these illusions were shattered at the first contact with the business, business, merchant policy of capital in the person of Messrs. Clemenceau and Lloyd George." 9 It is known that the US Senate never approved the Versailles Peace Treaty, and in the 1920 elections, Wilson was blackballed.

The second prominent member of the American delegation, and Wilson's de facto deputy in his absence, was Secretary of State Robert Lansing , a diplomat who had studied government and law. Lansing took a more decisive position than Wilson in relation to Germany, seeking a declaration of war against it. But in general matters of foreign policy, the distrustful Wilson either took matters into his own hands or turned over Lansing's head to other figures. As for the "Russian question", Lansing never deviated from the militant course and always supported Wilson.

Another participant of the Paris Peace Conference - Italy was a member of the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy) for a long time, but did not take the side of Germany in the World War. The Entente persistently sought its separation from the Triple Alliance. Italy held secret negotiations with both warring parties, seeking more favorable terms for entering the war. In April 1915. Great Britain, France and Russia signed the Treaty of London with Italy, which promised it extremely favorable territorial acquisitions and the immediate provision of an English loan of 50 million pounds sterling. According to the treaty, Italy was to receive Trentino, Tyrol to Brenner, Dalmatia and other territories as compensation for going over to the Entente side. It was promised colonies in Africa and a part of the divided Ottoman Empire.

9 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 41, p. 224.

page 9

At the peace conference, Italy demanded not only to give her the full compensation promised, but also to transfer Fiume to her in addition. However, its position was extremely unfavorable: it suffered defeats in the war and almost capitulated to Germany and Austria-Hungary. Therefore, the peace conference paid little attention to the exhausted ally: Britain, France and the United States not only refused Italy a Referendum, but also questioned the fulfillment of the promised compensation under the London Treaty. Offended and annoyed by the intransigence of the conference leaders, the Italians left Paris on April 24, 1919. But this diplomatic threat did not affect the "dictatorship of the three"; on the contrary, it made Italy's situation difficult, as Wilson sent a special letter to the Italian people condemning the behavior of his delegation. Fearing that the peace treaty would be signed without Italy, her delegation returned to Paris ten days later as unnoticed as when it left.

Italy was represented at the Paris Peace Conference by Prime Minister Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, 59, and Foreign Minister Giorgio Sidney Sonnino. They were prominent statesmen, diplomats, and both had served as ministers and heads of government. However, they did not play a special role in the peace conference, obediently following the triumvirate. Only in two cases did they show greater activity: in the rigidity of the anti-Soviet position and in defending claims to part of the loot after the victory over Germany and its allies. Orlando proposed to organize a "cordon sanitaire" around the Soviet government as a measure to eliminate it. Pointing out the danger of Bolshevism, he said: "In order to prevent the spread of the epidemic, orderlies erect a cordon sanitaire. If the same measures were taken against the spread of Bolshevism, it can be defeated, since to isolate Bolshevism would be to stifle it." Sonnino not only shared the idea of an anti - Bolshevik "cordon sanitaire", but also insisted on providing all possible assistance to the Russian White Guards-military, food and financial 10 .

The Japanese delegation was the most silent at the peace conference. However, when it came to Japanese claims, its members were long, monotonous, and insistent: they insisted on the transfer of the Shandong Peninsula in China and the islands in the Pacific Ocean captured by Germany to Japan. The transfer of Shandong was strongly opposed by China, an Entente ally in the World War. The United States reluctantly agreed with him, fearing the strengthening of Japan in this area. But on her side was Great Britain, which promised her a part of Chinese territory as payment for support in the fight against German submarines. At the conference, Japan kept pace with Britain and the United States, but remained silent about its struggle against the Soviet country: the Japanese army, in agreement with the United States and together with them, invaded the Soviet Far East. The Japanese were also silent about the fact that they needed Shandong for further introduction into China and for providing the rear of their occupation army in the Far East and Siberia. Japan hoped that its demands were a price to pay for its intervention in Russia. American troops in Siberia and the Far East were about 15 thousand, and Japan increased the number of its invading army to almost 100 thousand.

The head of the Japanese delegation to the Paris Peace Conference was 70-year - old Saionji Kimmochi, a statesman,

10 Shtein B. E. "The Russian Question" at the Paris Peace Conference. (1919-1920). Moscow, 1949, p. 81.

page 10

an influential genro( member of the Council of Elders), a prominent diplomat. He twice served as Prime Minister. Saionji actively defended the policy of intervention in Soviet Russia and only in 1920 declared the need to withdraw the invaders from there, because they did not achieve anything.

These were the plans and calculations of the winners. But it was not easy to implement them: it was necessary to overcome the conflicting interests of the allies, and the international situation was constantly changing: a revolutionary upsurge was growing in the world.

Participants of the conference started coming to Paris long before it started. They were accompanied by a large staff: officials of various departments, specialists in individual problems, historians, economists, lawyers, experts, statisticians, translators, stenographers, typists. The staff of the American delegation, for example, exceeded 1 thousand people.

Representatives of various White Guard organizations flocked to Paris. In order to combine their demands, requests and claims, a "Russian Political Conference" was created consisting of former tsarist ambassadors, representatives of the Provisional Government and leaders of some counter-revolutionary formations (G. E. Lvov, S. D. Sazonov, V. A. Maklakov, N. V. Tchaikovsky). Representatives of the White Guards beat down the doorsteps of the conference leaders, begging for increased assistance to the counter-revolution in Russia, and the behavior of some of these "figures" sometimes took on the character of a political joke. So, on February 5, 1919, the American delegation received a telegram from the US envoy to Switzerland, informing that a representative of the so-called Republic of the Union of Peoples of Circassia and Dagestan, which claimed the territory of the entire North Caucasus from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea, but was expelled by the rebellious workers, had come to see him. This mythical adventurous "government" begged that the United States take it under its protection, since Washington was to receive a mandate for this area from the League of Nations .11
In anticipation of profit, all sorts of scammers flooded into Paris, adventurers came here. Hotels and private boarding houses were crowded. "Pure pandemonium!" Parisians complained as they watched the bustling, multi-lingual crowd. Representatives of many countries were meeting in the crowded offices and halls of the conference itself. Only under the final text of the peace treaty developed by the conference, 27 signatures of the allied and associated Powers were assumed. Its official languages - not without controversy (the Italians insisted on their own language) - were recognized as French and English. There weren't enough translators for everyone. Some of the speakers spoke in official languages so distorted that they didn't understand what they were saying.

President Wilson arrived in France on the George Washington. Lloyd George was not in a hurry - he appeared in Paris on January 10, 1919. But before that, there was a lively correspondence between the two leaders, which outlined general guidelines for the leadership of the conference. Both leaders were accompanied by numerous security guards. Wilson, like Lloyd George, brought back a huge archive. This showed that the peace conference had been prepared for a long time and thoroughly, having been created for this purpose by special committees on the composition of the commission.

As soon as the leaders arrived, a meeting was held at which, in addition to approving the official languages, a long-developed plan for organizing and holding the conference was adopted. Its highest body was the plenum, which, however, received already prepared SOPs-

11 Ibid., p. 104.

page 11

In total, from the opening of the conference to the signing of the terms of peace by Germany, ten plenums were held from January 18 to June 24, 1919. The main work on developing peace conditions was carried out in the Council of 10, consisting of the heads of Government and foreign ministers of the five powers-France, Great Britain, the United States, Italy and Japan. There were so many issues discussed that it was soon necessary to create an additional body-the Council of 5 Foreign Ministers. But in fact, the main work was concentrated in the "Big Four", where France, England, the United States, Italy were represented, and in fact - in the hands of the" triumvirate": Clemenceau, Lloyd George and Wilson. This triumvirate of the early twentieth century was similar to the triumvirates of Ancient Rome and, like the previous ones, it was torn apart by mutual hostility.

In all these associations, as well as in dozens of committees and commissions on certain issues, lengthy discussions were held. Passions flared to such an extent that Wilson and Lloyd George threatened to leave the conference, and the impressionable Orlando once resorted to a reception that did not fit into diplomatic etiquette-the Italian prime minister burst into tears at the meeting. After a long and acrimonious exchange, it was possible to outline the order of discussion of the main issues - the League of Nations, reparations, new states, borders, colonies and the charter of the conference.

At one of the first meetings of the Soviet on January 10-12, even before the official opening of the conference, Foch unexpectedly made a declaration: he proposed to send the Entente armies that had not yet been demobilized to a new campaign - to transfer them to Poland, and then move them to Moscow to eliminate Bolshevism. None of the" triumvirate " objected to the destruction of Bolshevism. On the contrary, each of the "triumvirs" had its own plan for this. But they had called a conference to sign peace, and the impatient marshal was turning the conference into a treaty of war. As a result, Foch's plan was postponed without discussion 12 .

President Wilson insisted that the League of Nations be discussed first. In literature, its creation is usually attributed to the work of Wilson. But this is not true. The horrors of the war, its duration, and the involvement of millions of working people in it caused pacifist ideas to strengthen not only among the masses of the people, exhausted by the world slaughter, but also among a significant part of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia and even in the bourgeois strata. Bourgeois and petty-bourgeois pacifists argued that the end of the world war should be the last in the history of mankind, that it was necessary to start making peace and create an international body that would curb the aggressors once and for all, erecting obstacles for unleashing new wars. It is not difficult to discover the class meaning of these pacifist ideas: the war aroused not only horror, but also hatred among the broad masses, who began to understand the criminality of war generated by the selfish interests of capitalists. The bourgeois pacifists were increasingly afraid that the masses of the people might break out of obedience and start fighting the war. In many countries, there were plans to create a world institution to save humanity from wars. These peculiar forerunners of the League of Nations idea appeared in Great Britain, France, and the United States. A researcher on the creation of the League of Nations counted at least 50 such organizations .13 All of them were vague and indeterminate.

According to Lloyd George, Wilson himself and his adviser, Colonel E. M. House, did not support the League of Nations until 1917 .14
12 Novak K. F. UK. soch., p. 40.

13 Ivanov L. N. League of Nations, Moscow, 1929, pp. 15-18.

14 Lloyd-George D. The Truth about Peace Treaties, vol. 1, Moscow, 1957, p. 517.

page 12

Fearing the growth of peaceful sentiment among the masses, Wilson, who had already prepared the United States for entering the war, decided to take advantage of the idea of the League of Nations, taking the matter of its preparation into his own hands. 15 As a specialist in State law, he proposed his own draft of the League of Nations. At the same time, he proceeded from the state acts of the United States of the era of their struggle for independence. He carefully studied other projects, selected the provisions that corresponded to his idea, and gradually compiled them into a single system.

Wilson sought to include his draft League of Nations in the future peace treaty as an integral and integral part of it. This satisfied not only his author's ego - it was already being said everywhere that the League of Nations plan was " President Wilson's gospel." But, filled with general phrases about virtue, about the civic duty of the great powers, about getting rid of the curses of war, etc., this plan actually provided for the transformation of the League of Nations into an organ of the omnipotence of the victors: Germany and its allies were not allowed to join it, its door was also closed to Soviet Russia - a convincing example of " justice and universal prosperity"! Such a League of Nations covered up the world hegemony of the United States. Clemenceau and Lloyd George listened in amazement to Wilson's sermons, filled with evangelical images and abstract ideas of universal peace and friendship of peoples. They understood that the Wilson plan led to the establishment of US hegemony, but they were more concerned with the specific issues of the post-war structure. They feared that the premature creation of the League of Nations under the leadership of the United States could not only affect their plans, but also disrupt their implementation. Therefore, they slowed down the decision on the League issue.

Recognizing Wilson's lack of experience as a diplomat, the skilful rivals hoped to weaken its role in the discussion of the League of Nations charter. "How long will the draft charter be prepared?" Wilson was asked by his fellow members of the triumvirate. When they were told that it would take a couple of weeks to finalize the charter, Lloyd George and Clemenceau, satisfied, agreed to set up a nine-member commission headed by Wilson for this purpose. The Commission worked at the Crillon Hotel, which was the headquarters of the American delegation, not far from the Wilson residence and connected to it by a special wire. With his head full of work on completing his project, Wilson met the deadline and announced the charter of the League of Nations at the plenum of the conference on February 14. Its highest body was to be the assembly (general meeting) of all its members, which approved the admission of new members, the budget and the election of representatives to the League Council, which, in fact, became its governing body. The Council consisted of five permanent members (representatives of the five Powers-the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan) and four non-permanent members who were elected for a fixed term. All issues, except for procedural ones, were resolved unanimously: procedural issues were resolved by a majority vote. The League of Nations had a secretariat, and under a secret agreement between Great Britain and France, the Secretary-General and his first deputies were elected from among the representatives of these countries. An autonomous International Labour Organization was established under the League of Nations.

According to the Charter, the League of Nations was bound to oppose any war or threat of war. All its members were to cut ties with the country declared aggressor, prepare the necessary military forces to support the decisions made, and impose economic sanctions on those who disobeyed. The most important requirement of the charter was the mutual guarantee of the League's members ' territorial integrity.

15 For more information, see: Ilyukhina R. M. League of Nations. 1919-1934. Moscow, 1982, pp. 22-38.

page 13

countries. It was this clause of the charter that caused objections from the US Senate, who feared that by signing it, they might be involved in a new war. An important point of the charter, which clearly characterizes the hypocrisy of the winners, was the principle of the system of mandates. Wilson's official motive for dividing the colonies taken from Germany and the territories taken from the defeated Turkey was his claim that these colonies could not govern themselves and therefore should be placed under the mandate of one of the great Powers. Such a nominal refusal to directly divide the colonies ensured, first of all, the interests of the United States, which had the opportunity to use the dollar to penetrate these "liberated" countries. But the real reason for the introduction of the mandate system was, firstly, that the peoples of some colonial countries took part in the war and, having learned to use weapons, could direct them against the enslavers, and secondly, and this is the main thing, that the ideas of the October Revolution about the self-determination of nations, the free development of all peoples they seized the consciousness of the enslaved masses in these countries and roused them to fight the imperialists.

As he reported to the conference's plenary on the completion of the charter of the League of Nations, and accompanied each of its points with his own explanations, Wilson ended his speech with a lofty tirade: "Peoples who have harbored distrust and hostility towards each other can now live in friendship and harmony, can form a single family, and they are full of desire that this should be so. The veil of distrust and intrigue was lifted. People look each other in the face and say: we are brothers, and we have a common goal. We didn't realize it before, but now we are aware of it. And here is our contract of brotherhood and friendship. " 16 The plenary session of the conference was held in a solemn atmosphere. Everyone praised Wilson and his project. However, despite the grandiose phrases and frequent references to the categories of morality and fraternity, the charter of the League of Nations, as well as its subsequent activities, brought to mind the reactionary Holy Alliance created after the defeat of Napoleonic France. Just as then, only a few - only five-victorious Powers dominated the League of Nations. It could approve not only wars, but also interference in the internal affairs of any country, declaring any revolutionary action a threat of war, punishing disobedient members of the League by all possible means-breaking off relations, economic and military sanctions.

The representative of Hijaz persisted in asking what the mandate system was and whether it would lead to the suppression of the independence of small nations. No one answered him. It is not by chance that the influential British representative R. Cecil found it necessary to dissociate himself from historical parallels with the Holy Alliance .17 After the approval of the League of Nations charter, a triumphant Wilson left France for the United States amid the thunder of guns and cheers of mourners. But having won in France, Wilson was defeated at home: the US Senate did not agree to the establishment of the League of Nations and did not ratify the peace treaty at all. When Wilson left Paris, he left Lansing and his personal friend Colonel House as his adviser. Lloyd George also left for London, leaving Balfour in his place and sending W. Churchill to Paris in addition. Clemenceau os-

16 Cit. by: Novak K. F. UK. soch., p. 57.

17 Looking ahead, here is one very striking piece of evidence that confirms the comparison of the League of Nations with the Holy Alliance: during the 20 years of its existence, which formally ended in 1946, the League of Nations did not withdraw a single aggressor from its membership, but in 1939 it expelled the USSR , the only country that systematically and persistently fighting for world peace.

page 14

he stayed on the spot as chairman of the conference, although he was bedridden, wounded by an anarchist, and received conference participants at home for some time, but after recovering, he again actively led the meetings.

The Conference continued to discuss issues of colonies and reparations. As the League of Nations charter suggested, the colonies were distributed according to their mandates. Voices kept coming from the boardroom: this colony will go under the mandate of such and such a power. As expected, most of the distributed colonies were ceded to Great Britain and France, and some territories, including all of Armenia, were given under the US mandate. There were also clashes between the winners: Italy, as mentioned above, demanded what the Entente had previously promised her, persuading her to leave the Triple Alliance, and Japan insisted on the transfer of the Shandong Peninsula to it, which China strongly objected to.

The problem of reparations turned out to be more complicated. The conference, as already noted, did not mention the collection of indemnity, for fear of being accused of open robbery. Instead, they talked about compensating the defeated for losses in the areas that were occupied - destroyed cities and villages, coal mines, railways, etc. The victors could not agree on how much to recover from Germany, the famous English economist J. M. Keynes, on behalf of the British government, with a group of specialists, calculated that Germany for 25 years would be able to recover from Germany. - 30 years must and is able to pay from 10 to 15 billion dollars. The slogan of the electorate in the English parliamentary elections was Lloyd George's statement: "They must pay every last farthing, and we will search all their pockets!" 18 . The British prime minister himself promised to get 150 billion dollars out of Germany. Lloyd George mentioned this huge amount of reparations during the parliamentary election campaign in December 1918, when he promised to " turn out the pockets of the Germans." But even that didn't seem enough for France. Clemenceau demanded to include in reparations not only losses from destruction, but also pensions and allowances for the wounded and disabled, families of war victims. As a result, the amount of reparations was raised to $ 200 billion .19 The German government, on the other hand, estimated that restoring the damage would cost between $ 7.5 billion and $ 9 billion. and, in addition, that the reparations should include the cost of the colonies taken from her. It was not possible to agree on the opposite points of view, and it was decided to create a reparations commission, which was to determine the amount of reparations and the terms of their payment after a thorough study at the end of the conference.

The issue of the Saar coal basin caused even more controversy. France demanded to give it to her in compensation for the ruined French coal mines. This was strongly opposed by Wilson, supported by Lloyd George. Clemenceau insisted sharply. There was a crisis. The conference was on the verge of failure. Clemenceau's clever maneuver helped. He knew that Wilson had returned from the United States worried: his opponents in the Senate were demanding that the Monroe Doctrine ("America for Americans") be included in the charter of the League of Nations. Clemenceau said that this doctrine does not fit into the framework of the charter and even contradicts its main point-guarantees of inviolability of territories and the obligation to come to the aid of any member of the League in the event of an attack on it. Clemenceau strongly objected to the inclusion of the Monroe doctrine in the charter. The fate of the League hung in the air. At this critical moment, Clemenceau went to see Wilson.

18 Cit. By: Churchill U. Mirovoi krizis [World Crisis], Moscow, 1932, p. 25.

19 Novak K. F. UK. soch., p. 82.

page 15

A secret conversation took place, as a result of which Clemenceau withdrew his objection to the inclusion of the Monroe doctrine - the charter decided to indicate that it did not contradict the general idea of the League of Nations - and Wilson agreed to transfer the Saar Basin to France for 15 years and then hold a referendum to decide whether the Saar remains part of Germany or not. in possession of France. In diplomacy, such a maneuver is called " do ut des "(I give you to give).

But the problems of reparations and the Saar Basin did not exhaust all the conflicts at the conference. There wasn't a single issue that wasn't controversial. Now the Japanese delegates called "silent partners" appeared on the scene demanding Shandong, then the Italian delegation in passionate speeches spoke not only for receiving the territories promised before entering the war, but also swung at Fiume. To all these disputes and quarrels we must add Foch's belligerent statements about the spread of the revolution across Europe and the need to move the allied armies on a campaign against Soviet Russia.

The overwhelming claims of the victors, especially France, threatened to split the conference. Lloyd George tried to save the sinking ship. On March 25, 1919, in the privacy of Fontainebleau near Paris, the British prime Minister prepared a declaration-it went down in history as the "Document from Fontainebleau". Lloyd George already had information about the socialist revolution in Hungary. "The whole of Europe," he wrote, " is saturated with the spirit of revolution. A deep sense of not only discontent, but also anger and indignation reigns in the working environment against the conditions that existed before the war. The whole modern system, with its political, social, and economic structure from one end of Europe to the other, no longer satisfies the masses. In some countries, such as Germany and Russia, the ferment takes the form of open rebellion; in others, such as France, Great Britain, and Italy, it takes the form of strikes and a general reluctance to return to normal work. " 20
Lloyd George went on to emphasize that the Bolsheviks had created a disciplined army that was aware of what it was fighting for, and summed up: "The greatest danger of the present situation is, in my opinion, that Germany may incline to the side of Bolshevism and place all its resources, all its spiritual vanguard, and its grandiose organizational talent at the disposal of the Bolsheviks. fanatics of the revolution who dream of subjugating the whole world to Bolshevism " 21 . If the Spartacists came to power in Germany and joined forces with the Bolsheviks, the British prime Minister believed, then in a few years the multi-million Red Army would descend on Western Europe. The only way to avoid this danger is to relax the demands on Germany, preserve its status as a great power, demand reparations that will burden only the current generation of Germans, and at the same time allow Germany to participate in trade on world markets. At the same time, it is necessary to create and strengthen the League of Nations by including Germany in its membership. "If we want," Lloyd George continued, "to offer Europe a different choice from Bolshevism, we must make the League at the same time the defender of those nations that are willing to maintain honest relations with their neighbors and threats to those who will violate the rights of their neighbors, whether they are imperialist empires or Bolshevik imperialism." 22
20 Cit. by: ibid., p. 92.

21 Cit. by: ibid., pp. 92-93.

22 Lloyd-George D. UK. op., p. 351.

page 16

In the conclusion of the document, to which the "outline of peace conditions" was also attached, Lloyd-George again returned to the "Bolshevik danger": "If the conference really wants peace and wants to propose a project of an entirely new order that can be accepted by all reasonable people as an alternative, preferable to anarchism, then we will have to deal with Russian a question. Bolshevik imperialism threatens not only the states bordering Russia. It is equally formidable to all of Asia and no less dangerous to America than it is to France. " 23 This is the source of the slanderous slogan that has been circulating throughout the anti-Soviet press since the Lloyd George document up to the present day!

The threatening picture of the spread of Bolshevism in Europe and all over the world, drawn by the British Prime Minister, was necessary for him not only to intimidate France and get her to soften the demands made on Germany, but it was a real expression of the British politician's fear of the development of the revolutionary movement. Moreover, it was not only his personal mood - the fear of revolution seized the "triumvirate", as well as the entire peace conference, which was gripped by class hatred of Bolshevism. "We all have a natural aversion to the Bolsheviks," Wilson said at a meeting of the Council of 10 on behalf of the heads and foreign Ministers of the five imperialist powers .24
Lloyd George's admonition had no effect on Clemenceau: while he accepted the danger of a rising revolution, he did not want to give up his demands for Germany. He had forgotten the fable of the monkey who put his paw through the narrow throat of a bottle and grabbed a handful of nuts at the bottom of it: it was impossible to pull the paw with the nuts through the throat of the vessel, and greed did not allow him to open his fist and leave the captured prey. To this Clemenceau quipped that by depriving Germany of the fleet, England retained its naval power, and France is deprived, deprived of the opportunity to protect itself. Lloyd George did not remain in debt: if France does not notice that the English memorandum contains serious concessions (half of the reparations are provided to France, England and the United States undertake to come to its aid in the event of a possible German attack, etc.), then he takes back his concessions. Wilson supported Lloyd George. Angry, Clemenceau announced that he was leaving the conference. A crisis has broken out. The fate of the conference once again hung in the balance. Similar disagreements and violent quarrels occurred on many other issues.

Despite its solemn proclamations about the role of the League of Nations, fraternity and equality of peoples, concern for the territorial integrity of States and the protection of their sovereignty, the peace conference shredded States, transferred entire regions of them from one victor to another, and redrawn borders in favor of major Powers. All this took place in the quiet of offices where officials of the foreign ministries, mostly of low rank, drew borders on the map, regardless of the composition of the population, but guided only by the interests of the great powers. One of the secretaries of the British delegation, G. Nicholson, describes this "fair" where living souls were sold: "Map, pencil and carbon paper. I lose my courage at the thought of people whose fate depends on our pencils; we are playing with the fate of several thousand people. " 25
23 Cit. by: Novak K. F. UK. soch. p. 96.

24 Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States. Paris Peace Conference 1919 (hereinafter - PPC). Vol. III. Washington. 1943, p. 648-649 (given in the book: Stein B. E. UK. soch., p. 80 in an inaccurate translation).

25 Nikolson G. How the world was made in 1919, Moscow, 1945, p. 212.

page 17

The only point on which there was agreement was the organization of the struggle against Soviet power. However, even here there were different opinions on how to conduct this struggle - whether by using armed force, as Foch always insisted, or by using a "cordon sanitaire" or a blockade that threatened to starve millions of men, women and children. In practice, as you know, all methods were used.

The main thing common to the entire conference was the desire to put an end to the revolution. This motive was also present when deciding the fate of small countries. The Hungarian revolution in the center of Europe greatly increased the fear of the leaders of the conference: there was a problem of who to entrust the massacre of revolutionary Hungary to. Royal Rumania and Czechoslovakia were forced to oppose it. The first of them has already once proved its readiness to play the role of executor of the will of the great powers. During the First World War, Romania, as is known, intended to take the side of the Triple Alliance, but the Entente, which promised territorial concessions, managed to win it over to its side. After the October Revolution, the Entente, hoping to use Romania as a springboard for the struggle against Soviet power, insisted on its invasion of Bessarabia .26 The literature contains a lot of data confirming that the initiative to seize Bessarabia by Royal Romania came from the Entente. Here is just one document that coincides not only in its content, but also in its presentation with the speech of the President of the Council of Ministers of Romania, N. Bratianu, at the peace conference. The Romanian ambassador to the United States, Angelescu, as soon as it became clear that the Red Army had defeated the Romanian interventionists, sent a letter to the State Department: "The extremely difficult state of affairs (in Romania - I. M.) is one of the consequences of the military measures of the Romanian government.. which were demanded of him in writing and very forcefully by representatives of all our allies, including the American Ambassador." The Romanian ambassador ends the letter with the message that he is fulfilling the instructions of his Government: "My government orders me to draw the attention of the US government to the situation created for us. Romania has once again fallen victim to the consequences of measures that are not solely our responsibility. " 27
When it became clear that the adventure with the capture of Bessarabia was failing, the Romanian government concluded peace with Soviet Russia on March 5-9, 1918, expressing official consent to clear Bessarabia within two months. But the promise that was not fulfilled by the invasion of Germany to the Soviet Union, Romania sided with Germany and signed with her new world on 7 may 1918. Only literally "at the end", on November 9, 1918, two days before the surrender of Germany, did Royal Rumania break with it again and even declare war on it, however, without taking any military actions. The Entente, still hoping that Romania would serve as a springboard for intervention in Russia, accepted the "repeated defector" into its ranks and invited him to participate in the Paris Peace Conference. The Entente paid Romania with Bessarabia for the transition to its side - this was also a payment for Romania's consent to participate in the suppression of the Hungarian revolution.

But the Entente leaders were in no hurry to comply with the request of the Romanian government, trying to check in practice whether Romania would come up with a missile defense system.-

26 For more information, see: Mints I. I. Istoriya Velikogo Oktyabrya [History of the Great October], Vol. 3, Moscow, 1979, 571-576.

27 Ibid., p. 573.

page 18

tiv of revolutionary Hungary 28 . This operation was not immediately successful: Hungary defended itself heroically. Concerned by its firm determination to resist intervention, and especially by the fact that socialist revolutions had also taken place in Bavaria and a number of other places in Germany, the leaders of the Paris Peace Conference decided to oppose the revolution openly (until now they had hidden behind the backs of their dependent countries, tried to suppress it with someone else's hands). Clemenceau, on behalf of France, Great Britain, the United States and Italy, sent an ultimatum to Hungary at the beginning of June 1919: if Hungary did not agree to surrender within four days, occupation troops would be sent to the country. The blood of the fallen Hungarian revolutionaries and the sacrifices of the Hungarian working people, who were once again returned to the yoke of imperialism, are on the conscience of the Versailles "peacemakers".

The line of suppression of Bolshevism and the struggle against the revolutionary movement was also pursued by the peace conference when discussing the fate of the Baltic peoples. All measures were taken to eliminate Soviet power in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and turn these countries into bastions against Soviet Russia. The leaders of the conference, while working out the terms of peace with Germany and seeking to turn it into a minor power, nevertheless did not disdain to use their former enemy against the revolution: Riga was captured on May 22, 1919 by the combined forces of Latvian counter-revolutionaries, Russian White Guards and the German "iron division" of von der Goltz. Thus, by participating in the struggle against the revolution, Germany begged for concessions from the Entente.

W. Churchill recognized that the participants of the peace conference more than once had to act as punishers. Its leaders, the "triumvirate of three governments," more than once gave orders to the Supreme Military Council of the Entente to urgently send a detachment of troops or an authorized commission, accompanied by heavy security, to areas where class struggle was raging and revolutionary uprisings were breaking out. "From time to time there were riots in Europe that threatened to explode," Churchill wrote. "The newly founded Polish Republic was at war with the population of Eastern Galicia, and the Supreme Military Council had to intervene. The Soviet sent a special commission to Poland... Despite the danger of the road, the international commission reached Warsaw and somehow managed to establish a truce between the Poles and the Ukrainians. Similar events took place in Teshin. The Allies had to intervene to prevent a war between the Poles and Czechoslovaks. In April, after the Bolshevik revolution, the Allies again had to intervene in the affairs of Hungary, which was headed by Bela Kun, which threatened the greatest dangers. " 29 Churchill gave only a few facts of "intervention", regretfully adding that Great Britain did not have enough soldiers, but, as is known, both British and French troops, as well as troops from other countries, participated in operations related to these "interventions".

The Versailles Peace Treaty, which forms the basis of the Versailles system, actually had two points: one was directed against Germany, completing the division of the world in favor of the Entente, the other (although this was not written down on paper) - against Soviet Russia and the world revolutionary movement. In short, this treaty meant peace with Germany, but war with Soviet Russia.

28 It was decided to set up a commission to study the issue. The Commission supported the annexation of Bessarabia to Romania, but this decision was made only the following year.

29 Churchill U. UK. op., pp. 88-89.

page 19

Despite the lengthy preliminary preparation of the peace treaty, it took almost four months to finalize its terms. Only after intense work, sharp fights and arguments, reproaches and threats to leave the conference, the "peacekeepers" invited the German delegation to hear the verdict by April 25. Filled with the hatred of Germany that had accumulated throughout his life, Clemenceau was not without mockery at the time of signing the peace treaty: he sent a telegram to Germany, demanding that a delegation be sent not to discuss the treaty,but to hand it the finished text. In response, the German Foreign Minister, not without sarcasm, said that several employees and two ministerial servants were being sent to adopt the text. When reading the German response to the conference leaders, Clemenceau omitted the mention of sending ministers. He was forced to send a second telegram to Germany inviting its delegation with the same powers as those of the other participants in the conference. 30
It would be wrong to assume that a defeated Germany was waiting meekly for its fate to be decided. German imperialism did its best to survive the dark days and even acted as an accomplice of the Entente: by mercilessly cracking down on the revolutionary movement in its own country, it proved by deeds that it was ready to participate in the struggle against the Soviet country. The German authorities closely followed the course of the disputes at Versailles and tried to enter into negotiations with the delegations of individual countries represented there. When the German delegation, having received the blessing of the generals at the headquarters of the German Army in Spa, was on its way to Paris, Wilson visited it on the train, recommending the signing of a peace treaty. Germany's attempts to contact representatives of other Powers did not stop. The German delegation, headed by an experienced diplomat U. von Brockdorf-Rantzau (later ambassador to the Soviet country) was preparing to defend her positions, but on May 7 she was handed a huge volume and asked to express her objections in writing. Taking advantage of this, she literally flooded the conference with a flood of her counter-proposals. However, they were ignored and the text of the peace treaty was preserved in the same form.

The peace treaty consisted of 440 articles and one protocol. They covered three groups of issues: military, territorial and economic.

Under military conditions, Germany was deprived of all its power. It was forbidden to have a standing army, and conscription was abolished. To maintain order in the country, it was allowed to create an army of 100 thousand volunteers and 4 thousand officers. All border fortresses were destroyed. The General Staff was disbanding. The Rhenish zone was demilitarized. On the left bank of the Rhine and 50 km to the east of it, all the fortifications were destroyed. It was forbidden to have German troops in this zone. The German navy was transferred to England, to the harbor of Scapaflow, and the submarine fleet was destroyed. The production of weapons (except for a few factories) and the purchase of them were prohibited. They were not allowed to have military aircraft. Germany could have only 6 battleships, each no more than 10 thousand tons of displacement, 6 light cruisers and 12 counter-mine carriers and destroyers. Special military commissions of the Entente were created to monitor the implementation of military conditions.

In terms of territorial conditions, Germany has decreased by 1 / 8th part compared to 1914, and in terms of population - by 1 / 10th part. She

30 Novak K. F. UK. soch., p. 127.

page 20

lost all the colonies-Alsace and Lorraine returned to France. It also included the Saar coal basin for 15 years as compensation for the French mines destroyed during the war (after this period, a referendum was to decide on the ownership of the Saar basin). Belgium had two districts (Eupen and Malmedy) and the Moraine territory, while Denmark had Schleswig. Although Poland received a part of Upper Silesia inhabited by Poles, there were still at least 100 thousand square kilometers of Polish land under German rule, the fate of which was to be decided by a referendum. Germany was giving up its rights to Danzig, which was becoming a free city under the protection of the League of Nations. The Treaty of Versailles defined Poland's western border with Germany, while the eastern border with Soviet Russia was not marked. The Entente clearly suggested to its satellite, bourgeois-landowner Poland: the road to the East is open, oppose Soviet Russia and seek a border with it that is advantageous for you. Germany: Recognized the independence of the newly created states of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia).

The terms of the Treaty of Versailles undermined the German economy. Recognizing her guilt for the outbreak of World War II, the contract required her to pay reparations for the losses caused, the amount of which, due to contradictions between the winners, was not established: they were to be determined by a special Reparation commission. Germany pledged to give the winners gold and valuables received from Russia under the Brest Peace and other economic agreements, from Romania - under the Bucharest Peace, from Turkey and Austria-Hungary-received as collateral for loans. Germany pledged to lift import bans on goods from the victorious countries and recognize their most-favored-nation rights. The treaty required freedom of transit through Germany of goods from the victorious countries and their citizens. Germany was obliged to recognize Luxembourg's independence and allow it to withdraw from the German Customs Union.

These were the most essential terms of the Treaty of Versailles. In their severity, they cannot be compared with the conditions of the Peace of Brest-Litovsk in 1918. "The latter," Lenin said of Anglo - French imperialism, "imposed on Germany conditions of peace far worse and more severe than those imposed by Germany on us at the conclusion of the Brest Peace." 31 The German masses met the Treaty of Versailles with indignation. Protest demonstrations were taking place everywhere. Under the influence of the mass movement, even the right-wing leaders of social democracy swore not to sign the treaty. Minister Scheidemann told demonstrators on May 12, 1919 :" Let their hands wither before they sign such a peace treaty. " 32
But the German imperialists reasoned in their own way: if the peace was not signed, the Entente forces would occupy Germany, and foreign intervention would cause a popular uprising. The German imperialists understood that they had to crack down on the revolutionary movement and keep power in their hands. In addition, they believed, you can promise to fulfill all the conditions of the peace treaty, but in reality you can maneuver and delay, sabotage them in every possible way. So, the military fleet issued to England, German teams sank even before the signing of peace. The General Staff was formally disbanded, but its entire staff was retained, distributed among the editorial offices of individual volumes of the planned history of the World War. The editors and authors included captains, colonels, and generals of the General Staff. A significant part of the officers took refuge in fiz-

31 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 37, p. 396.

32 Cit. In: History of Diplomacy, vol. III. Ed. 2-E. M. 1965, p. 159.

page 21

cultural and sports societies as instructors. The demand to reduce the military fleet in Berlin was forced to accept, but, taking advantage of the development of technology, Germany began to build ships that were small in size, but superior in terms of armament to large battleships. And under other terms of the agreement, the rich experience of deceiving their opponents was widely used. Fearing the further development of the revolution in the country, the majority of the German National Assembly, despite popular protests, voted for the adoption of the Treaty of Versailles (except for the point about Germany's guilt in unleashing the First World War, but the victors remained adamant and demanded the adoption of this point).

On June 28, 1919, in the very hall of the Palace of Versailles where Bismarck, after his victory in the Franco - Prussian War of 1870-1871, proclaimed the creation of the German Empire, peace was signed. Having concluded a treaty with Germany, the victors signed the Peace of Saint-Germain with Austria on September 10, 1919, the Treaty of Neuilly with Bulgaria on November 27, 1920, the Treaty of Sevres with Hungary at the Trianon Palace of Versailles on June 4, 1920, and the Treaty of Sevres with Turkey on August 10, 1921. All these documents were tailored according to the Versailles model, i.e. they reduced the territory, reduced military forces to a minimum, and undermined the sovereignty of the defeated countries. With the introduction of the mandate system, millions of colonial residents remained under the rule of the imperialists. The Versailles treaties caused the displacement of millions of people: the Germans moved out of areas that passed into the possession of other countries, the Slavs left places that were transferred to other states - in short, people were forcibly relocated to new places.

Lenin, in October 1920, when the redivision of the world in favor of the Entente was completed, said of the Treaty of Versailles: "This is an unheard-of, predatory peace, which puts tens of millions of people, including the most civilized, in the position of slaves. This is not peace, but conditions dictated by robbers with a knife in their hands to a defenseless victim. Under the Treaty of Versailles, all her colonies were taken from Germany by these opponents. Turkey, Persia, and China have been turned into slaves. The result is a situation in which 7/10 of the world's population is enslaved. These slaves are scattered all over the world. " 33
The Treaty of Versailles was signed by representatives of 25 powers out of 27 that participated in the peace conference. It was not signed by China, which protested against the transfer of its Shandong Province to Japan. The United States signed the treaty, but the Senate, which was dominated by isolationists who feared the country's involvement in new wars, refused to approve it. In August 1921, the US Government signed a special treaty with Germany, similar to the Versailles Treaty, but without including articles on the League of Nations. Hijaz and Ecuador also refused to ratify the treaty they signed.

Let us now turn to the question of the orientation of the Treaty of Versailles against the revolution, against the Soviet power. Two articles - 116 and 117-were directly related to Russia, which just reveal the anti-Soviet orientation of the treaty. The first of these articles read: "Germany recognizes and undertakes to respect, as permanent and inalienable, the independence of all territories that were part of the former Russian Empire by August 1, 1914." 34 It seemed that the Treaty of Versailles thereby recognized the independence and sovereignty of Russia and obliged Germany to finally recognize "the abrogation of the Brest-Litovsk Treaties, as well as all other treaties, agreements or conventions concluded by it with the maximalist government in Russia" - so

33 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 41, p. 353.

34 Versailles Peace Treaty, Moscow, 1925, p. 55.

page 22

The official name in the Treaty of Versailles was Soviet Power. Moreover. In the same article, it was written that "The Allied and Associated Powers formally stipulate the rights of Russia to receive from Germany any restitution and reparations based on the principles of this Treaty." Here it seems to be very accurately recognized that Russia, which suffered the most losses in the war with Germany in all other countries, retains all rights to recover them from the defeated, to the corresponding part of reparations. But the very next article actually rejected the hypocritical, false statements about Russia's sovereignty: "Germany undertakes to fully recognize the force of all Treaties or Agreements that the Allied and Associated Powers would conclude with States that have formed or are forming in all or part of the territories of the former Russian Empire as it existed on August 1, 1914, and to recognize the borders of these States as they will be established accordingly." 35 .

Indeed, the powers that dictated the terms of the Treaty of Versailles acted in this case according to the Roman proverb: "What is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to the bull."

They ordered Germany: "Hands off Russia!", and they themselves divided it and demanded to recognize in advance this robbery and division of Russia! This is how clause 6 of Wilson's "14 points of peace" was actually interpreted, not in speeches or statements made by individual politicians, but in an official treaty signed by 25 capitalist countries. From a struggle for the division of spoils, the peace conference turned into a war against the Soviet country, against the world revolutionary upsurge. "We were right," said Lenin, "to base our policy on an accurate, clear and correct account of all the consequences of the four - year war, which turned from a war of the capitalists for the division of the spoils into a war between them and the proletariat of all countries." 36
Soviet Russia was the only country that openly opposed the predatory Treaty of Versailles. The People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the RSFSR, G. V. Chicherin, prepared a radio message addressed to the Central Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies of Germany and to all Soviets condemning the Peace of Versailles and expressing sympathy for the German workers and peasants. On May 11, the radio message was discussed with Lenin, who wrote a "Supplement to the draft appeal to German workers and peasants who do not exploit other people's labor." 37 On May 16, the radio message was sent to Berlin. "An unheard-of robbery, an unheard-of enslavement," it said, "is what the so - called peace treaty means for the German working people, which is cynically imposed on them by brutal victors." 38 In conclusion, Soviet radio noted that " the guarantee of the liberation of Germany lies in the non-stop development of revolutionary solidarity and international revolutionary unity of the workers of all countries."

The world imperialist war for the redivision of the world, which had been prepared for decades, ended with the Peace of Versailles. Germany and its allies were defeated. Above the vanquished, the victors rose proudly to become the rulers of most of the world. They ruled the destinies of peoples with impunity, reshaped States for their own interests, and fiercely and mercilessly crushed and crushed revolutionary movements in their countries and around the world. In 1919, in-

35 Ibid.

36 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 37, p. 341.

37 Ibid., vol. 38, pp. 379-380.

38 Published in the Leipzig organ of the independent Social Democratic Party of Germany, Freiheit, on May 17, 1919.

page 23

The intervention of world imperialism against Soviet Russia has taken a particularly dangerous and organized form in comparison with 1918.

As you know, one of the weaknesses of the Entente strategy in the World War was the lack of a unified leadership of combat operations. This was widely used by Germany: having a single military leadership, having a widely branched network of railways, it quickly concentrated its forces in a certain place and delivered rapid strikes against the enemy, often putting him in a difficult position. Only in November 1917 was a single body of military leadership of the Entente created-the Supreme Military Council. His plans also included the fight against Soviet Russia, but the forces for this were clearly not enough, then it was still difficult to remove them from the front. Each of the Entente countries acted against the Soviet country on its own, proceeding from its own interests, in separate detachments. Of course, coordination of efforts took place, but it was not possible to create a single leadership staff: the imperialists watched each other, did not allow the positions of their rivals to strengthen.

The situation changed with the start of the Paris Peace Conference: it became the political headquarters of world imperialism, which also directed the activities of the Entente Supreme Soviet. The triumvirate of victors ran this headquarters. Undermined from within by the growing revolutionary movement and corroded by contradictions from without, world imperialism in 1919 threw all its might on the young system of socialism, which was gradually becoming stronger. World imperialism could not feel calm and confident as long as the center of socialism remained, from which came the calls for freedom and happiness of peoples. The time of imperialism's undivided rule over the world is over. He hoped to maintain his dominance over the world only by winning a single battle with the Soviet government. And the Country of Soviets accepted the challenge. It withstood the onslaught of the Entente campaigns and won a victory over the interventionists and White Guards.

page 24

Permanent link to this publication: