"On the international situation and foreign policy of the USSR". May 31, 1939 - Molotov
May 31, 1939
Comrade deputies! The proposal of the deputies to hear the report of the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs at the session of the Supreme Council is quite understandable. Serious changes have taken place in the international situation recently. These changes, from the point of view of the peace-loving powers, significantly worsened the international situation.
We are now dealing with the well-known results of the policy of aggressive states, on the one hand, and the policy of non-interference on the part of democratic countries, on the other. The representatives of the aggressive countries are now not averse to boasting about the results already achieved by the policy of aggression. Whatever one may say, there is no lack of boasting here. Representatives of democratic countries that have turned their backs on the policy of collective security and pursued a policy of non-resistance to aggression are trying to downplay the significance of the deterioration that has taken place in the international situation. They are still mainly engaged in "calming" public opinion, pretending that nothing significant has happened recently.
The position of the Soviet Union in assessing current events in international life differs from the position of both sides. The Soviet Union, as everyone understands, no case can be suspected of any sympathy for the aggressors. It is also alien to any glossing over the really worsened international situation. It is clear to us that attempts to hide from public opinion the real changes that have taken place in the international situation must be countered with facts. Then it will become obvious that "soothing" speeches and articles are needed only by those who do not want to interfere with the further development of aggression in the hope of directing aggression, so to speak, in a more or less "acceptable" direction.
Until recently, the authoritative representatives of Britain and France tried to calm the public opinion of their countries by glorifying the successes of the ill-fated Munich agreement. They said that the September agreement in Munich had prevented a European war by means of comparatively small concessions on the part of Czechoslovakia. Even then it seemed to many that the representatives of England and France in Munich went further in their concessions at the expense of Czechoslovakia than they had the right to do. The Munich Agreement was, so to speak, the culminating point of the policy of non-intervention, the culminating point of conciliation with the aggressive countries. And what are the results of this policy? Did the Munich Agreement stop the aggression? Not at all. On the contrary, Germany did not confine herself to the concessions received in Munich, that is, to receiving the Sudetenland areas inhabited by Germans. Germany went further, simply liquidating one of the large Slavic states - Czechoslovakia. Not much time had passed since September 1938, when the Munich conference was held, and in March 1939 Germany had already put an end to the existence of Czechoslovakia. Germany managed to carry it out without opposition from anyone, so smoothly that the question arises, what, in fact, was the real purpose of the meeting in Munich?
In any case, the liquidation of Czechoslovakia, contrary to the Munich agreement, showed the entire world what the policy of non-intervention had led to, which reached, one might say, its highest point in Munich. The failure of this policy became obvious. Meanwhile, the aggressor countries continued to adhere to their policies. Germany took away Memel and the Memel region from the Republic of Lithuania. As you know, Italy also did not remain in debt. In April, Italy put an end to the independent state of Albania.
After this, there is nothing surprising in the fact that at the end of April, in one of his speeches, the head of the German state destroyed two important international treaties: the maritime agreement between Germany and England and the non-aggression pact between Germany and Poland. At one time, these treaties were given great international significance. However, Germany very simply finished with these treaties, regardless of any formalities. Such was Germany's response to the proposal of President Roosevelt of the United States of America, a proposal permeated with peace-loving spirit.
The case was not limited to the termination of two international treaties. Germany and Italy went further. Recently, the military-political treaty concluded between them was published. This treaty is fundamentally offensive. According to this treaty, Germany and Italy must support each other in any hostilities launched by one of these countries, including any aggression, any offensive war. Until very recently, the rapprochement between Germany and Italy was allegedly covered up by the need for a joint struggle against communism. For this, a lot of noise was made about the so-called "anti-Comintern Pact". The anti-Comintern hype played a well-known role in its time as a distraction. Now the aggressors no longer consider it necessary to hide behind a screen. In the military treaty between Germany and Italy there is no longer a word about the fight against the Comintern. On the other hand, statesmen and the press of Germany and Italy definitely say that this treaty is directed precisely against the main European democratic countries.
It seems clear that the facts cited indicate a serious deterioration in the international situation.
In this regard, the very policy of the non-aggressive countries of Europe has also seen some changes in the direction of counteracting aggression. How serious these changes are, we'll see. It is not yet possible to even say whether these countries have a serious desire to abandon the policy of non-intervention, the policy of non-resistance to the further development of aggression. Will it not happen that the current desire of these countries to limit aggression in some areas will not serve as an obstacle to unleashing aggression in other areas? Such questions are also raised in some organs of the bourgeois press abroad. Therefore, we must be vigilant. We stand for the cause of peace and for preventing further development of aggression. But we must remember the position put forward by Comrade Stalin:
“Be careful and not let our country be drawn into conflicts by provocateurs of war."
* This provision was contained in the Report of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks to the XVIII Party Congress (March 10, 1939). Only in this case will we be able to fully defend the interests of our country and the interests of world peace.
There are, however, a number of signs that the democratic countries of Europe are increasingly coming to the realization of the failure of the policy of non-intervention, are coming to the realization of the need for a more serious search for measures and ways to create a united front of peace-loving powers against aggression. In a country like England, speeches began to be heard loudly about the need for a drastic change in foreign policy. We certainly understand the difference between verbal statements and actual politics. Still, it must be noted that these speeches are not accidental. Here are some facts. There was no mutual assistance pact between England and Poland. Now the decision on this pact has been made {{** See doc. 254. }}. The significance of this agreement is only reinforced by the fact that Germany broke the non-aggression pact with Poland. It must be admitted that the mutual assistance pact between England and Poland is bringing about a change in the European situation. Or further. There was no mutual assistance pact between England and Turkey, but recently the well-known agreement on mutual assistance between England and Turkey has already taken place. And this fact brings its change into the international situation.
In connection with these new facts, one of the characteristic features of the last period should be recognized as the desire of the non-aggressive European powers to enlist the USSR in cooperation in counteracting aggression. It is clear that this desire deserves attention. Proceeding from this, the Soviet government accepted the proposal of Britain and France for negotiations aimed at strengthening political relations between the USSR, Britain and France and establishing a peace front against the further development of aggression.
How do we define our tasks in today's international environment? We believe that they follow the line of interests of other non-aggressive countries. They consist in stopping the further development of aggression and for this purpose creating a reliable and effective defensive front of non-aggressive powers.
In connection with the proposals made to us by the British and French governments, the Soviet government entered into negotiations with the latter on the necessary measures to combat aggression. This was back in mid-April this year. The negotiations that began then are not over yet. However, even then it could be seen that if they really want to create a capable front of peace-loving countries against the onset of aggression, then at least the following minimum conditions are necessary for this:
an effective pact of mutual assistance against aggression,a pact of an exclusively defensive in nature should be concluded between England, France and the USSR, which is ; England, France and the USSR guaranteeing the states of Central and Eastern Europe, including without exception all the European countries bordering the USSR, againstany attack by aggressors.
This is our opinion, which we do not impose on anyone, but which we stand for. We do not require acceptance of our point of view and we do not ask anyone to do so. We believe, however, that this point of view really meets the security interests of peace-loving states.
It would be an agreement of an exclusively defensive nature, acting against attack by the aggressors, and fundamentally different from the military and offensive alliance recently concluded between Germany and Italy.
It is clear that the basis of such an agreement is the principle of reciprocity and equal duties.
It should be noted that in some Anglo-French proposals this elementary principle did not find a favorable attitude towards itself. Having guaranteed themselves against a direct attack by aggressors by pacts of mutual assistance between themselves and with Poland, and providing themselves with assistance from the USSR in the event of an attack by aggressors on Poland and Romania, the British and French left open the question of whether the USSR, in turn, could count on assistance from them in the event of a direct attack on it by the aggressors, as well as leaving open another question - whether they can take part in guaranteeing the small states bordering the USSR, covering the northwestern borders of the USSR, if they are unable to defend their neutrality from the attack of the aggressors.
It turned out, thus, an unequal position for the USSR.
In recent days, new Anglo-French proposals have been received. In the event of a direct attack by aggressors, these proposals already recognize the principle of mutual assistance between Britain, France and the USSR on conditions of reciprocity. This is, of course, a step forward. Although it should be noted that it is surrounded by such reservations - even a reservation about certain points of the Charter of the League of Nations - that it may turn out to be a fictitious step forward. As regards the issue of a guarantee for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, here , if you look at the matter from the point of view of reciprocity, the proposals mentioned do not make any progress. They provide assistance to the USSR in relation to those five countries to which the British and French have already given a promise of a guarantee, but they say nothing about their assistance to those three countries on the northwestern border of the USSR,
But the Soviet Union cannot assume obligations with respect to these five countries without receiving guarantees with respect to the three countries located on its northwestern frontier.
Such is the case with regard to negotiations with Britain and France.
While negotiating with England and France, we do not at all consider it necessary to renounce business ties with such countries as Germany and Italy. At the beginning of last year, at the initiative of the German government, negotiations began on a trade agreement and new loans. At that time, Germany made a proposal to us for a new loan of 200 million marks. Since we did not agree on the terms of this new economic agreement then, the issue was dropped. At the end of 1938, the German government again raised the question of economic negotiations and a loan of 200 million marks. At the same time, the German side expressed readiness to make a number of concessions. At the beginning of 1939, the People's Commissariat of Foreign Trade was notified that a special German representative, Shnur-re, was leaving for Moscow for these negotiations. But then, instead of Mr. Schnurre, these negotiations were entrusted to the German ambassador in Moscow, Mr. Schulenburg, which were interrupted due to disagreements. Judging by some indications, it is possible that negotiations may resume.
I can also add that a trade agreement for 1939, beneficial to both countries, was recently signed with Italy.
As is known, in February of this year a special report was published confirming the development of good neighborly relations between the USSR and Poland. A certain general improvement should be noted in our relations with Poland. On the other hand, the trade agreement concluded in March may significantly increase the trade turnover between the USSR and Poland.
Our relations with friendly Turkey are developing normally. Comrade Potemkin's recent trip to Ankara for informational purposes was of great positive significance.
Among the number of international questions which have lately assumed great importance for the USSR, one should dwell on the problem of the Åland Islands. You know that these islands belonged to Russia for more than 100 years. As a result of the October Revolution, Finland gained independence. Under an agreement with our country, Finland also received the Åland Islands. In 1921, 10 countries - Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, England, France and Italy - signed a convention prohibiting, as it was before, the arming of the Åland Islands. The governments of the capitalist countries did this without the participation of Soviet representatives. In 1921, the Soviet Republic, undermined by war and foreign intervention, could only protest against this lawless act against the USSR.
The importance of the Åland Islands lies in their strategic position in the Baltic Sea. Armaments of the Aland Islands can be used for purposes hostile to the USSR. Being located not far from the entrance to the Gulf of Finland, the armed Aland Islands can serve to close the entrances and exits to the Gulf of Finland for the USSR. Therefore, now that the Finnish government, together with Sweden, wants to carry out a large plan for the armaments of the Åland Islands, the Soviet government has asked the Finnish government for information on the aims and nature of the planned armaments. Instead of meeting this completely natural desire of the Soviet Union, the Finnish government refused to give the USSR the relevant information and explanations. The ensuing references to military secrets, as it is easy to understand, are completely unconvincing. The Finnish government communicated its plan for the armaments of the Åland Islands to another government, the government of Sweden. And not only informed, but attracted him to participate in the implementation of this entire armaments plan. Meanwhile, according to the 1921 convention, Sweden does not enjoy any special rights in this regard. On the other hand, the interest of the Soviet Union in the issue of arming the Åland Islands is not only not less, but greater than that of Sweden.
At the suggestion of the Finnish and Swedish governments, the issue of revising the 1921 convention was discussed at the just completed Council of the League of Nations, without whose sanction this convention cannot be revised, since the convention of ten states was concluded on the basis of the corresponding decision of the Council of the League of Nations of June 24, 1921 of the year. In view of objections from the representative of the Soviet Union in the Council of the League, there was no possibility of unanimity necessary for the decision of the Council. The results of the discussion in the Council of the League are known. The Council of the League of Nations did not approve the proposals of Finland and Sweden. He did not authorize the revision of the 1921 convention. The Finnish Government must draw the appropriate conclusion from this situation. In the light of recent international events, the Åland question has taken on particularly serious significance for the Soviet Union.
I will dwell very briefly on the questions of the Far East and on our relations with Japan.
Our talks with Japan on the fishery issue have had the greatest significance here this year. As you know, in Primorye, in the Sea of Okhotsk, on Sakhalin and Kamchatka, the Japanese have a large number of fisheries in our country. By the end of last year, they already had 384 fishing sites. Meanwhile, the term of the convention, on the basis of which the Japanese received these fishing areas, has already expired. For many fishing sites, the previously established lease periods have also expired. In this regard, the Soviet government entered into negotiations with Japan on the fishery issue. It has been stated on our part that a certain number of plots whose lease has expired can no longer be placed at the disposal of the Japanese in view of our strategic considerations. Despite the obvious validity of our position, On the Japanese side, great resistance was shown to the Soviet point of view. As a result of lengthy negotiations, 37 fishing sites were withdrawn from the Japanese, and 10 new sites were transferred to them elsewhere. After that, the convention was extended for another year. This agreement with Japan on the fisheries issue is of great political importance. All the more so since Japanese reactionary circles did everything in order to emphasize the political side of this matter, up to all sorts of threats. The Japanese reactionaries could, however, once again be convinced that the threats against the Soviet Union did not reach their goal, and that the rights of the Soviet state were under firm protection.
Now about border issues. It seems that it is time for anyone to understand that the Soviet government will not tolerate any provocations from the Japanese-Manchurian military units on its borders. Now it is necessary to recall this in relation to the borders of the Mongolian People's Republic. According to the mutual assistance treaty between the USSR and the Mongolian People's Republic, we consider it our duty to provide the Mongolian People's Republic with due assistance in protecting its borders. We are serious about things like the Mutual Assistance Treaty signed by the Soviet government. I must warn that the border of the Mongolian People's Republic, by virtue of the treaty of mutual assistance concluded between us, we will defend as resolutely as our own border. It's time to understand that accusations of aggression against Japan, raised by Japan against the government of the Mongolian People's Republic are ridiculous and absurd. It is also time to understand that there is a limit to all patience. Therefore, it is better to stop in time the provocative violations of the border between the USSR and the MPR by the Japanese-Manchurian military units, which are repeated over and over again. We also issued a corresponding warning through the Japanese ambassador in Moscow.
I don't need to talk about our attitude towards China. You are well aware of Comrade Stalin's statement of support for the peoples who have become victims of aggression and are fighting for the independence of their homeland {{ * See doc. 177. }} . This fully applies to China and its struggle for national independence. We are consistently pursuing this policy in practice. It is in line with the tasks that confront us in Europe, namely, with the tasks of creating a united front of peace-loving powers against the further development of aggression.
The USSR is not what it was, say, in 1921, when it had just begun its peaceful, creative work. We have to remind you of this, because until now even some of our neighbors, apparently, cannot understand this. It is impossible not to admit that the USSR is no longer the same as it was only 5-10 years ago, that the forces of the USSR have become stronger. The foreign policy of the Soviet Union must reflect the presence of changes in the international situation and the increased role of the USSR as a powerful factor in peace. There is nothing to prove that the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is fundamentally peace-loving and directed against aggression. This is best known to the aggressive countries themselves. It is with great delay and hesitation that certain democratic powers come to realize this simple truth. Meanwhile, in the united front of peace-loving states that really oppose aggression, the Soviet Union cannot butoccupy the foremost place.
Print. on : Documents and materials on the eve of the Second World War ... T. 2. S. 105 - 11З.
printed according to the book: Year of the Crisis. 1938-1939.
Documents and materials in two volumes. Compiled by the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 1990. Document No. 386.
Translated from Russian
Svitlana M
.jpg)
No comments