Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:21:44.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-Determination vs. Territorial Integrity

Conflict within the American Delegation at Paris over Wilsonian Policy toward the Russian Borderlands∗

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Linda Killen
Linda Killen*
Affiliation:
Radford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The protection of Imperial Russian territorial integrity was, when the peace conference convened in Paris, one of the firmest and least ambivalent elements of Woodrow Wilson's Russian policy.1 The Russia to which he applied this policy was in fact an empire, including nationality groups incorporated, often forceably, during the 17th and 18th centuries. Many of these ethnic nationalities — and especially those with which Wilson and his fellow peacemakers were familiar — were concentrated along the borders of European Russia. Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine were perhaps the best known of the ethnic nationalities, each with defined geographic areas, which had formed part of imperial Russia. Such nationality centers, many of which had long established administrative borders which changed little as a result of the peace conference, are the Russian borderlands to which this paper refers.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 1982 , pp. 65 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by the Association for the Study of the Nationalities (USSR and East Europe) Inc. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See, for example, Fike, Claude E., “The United States and Russian Territorial Problems, 1917-1920,” Historian, XXIV (May 1962).Google Scholar

2. Lansing to Wilson, 2 January 1918, Woodrow Wilson Papers, Library of Congress (hereafter referred to as Wilson papers); see also Lansing diary, 7 December 1917, Robert Lansing Papers, Library of Congress (hereafter referred to as Lansing diary or papers). Support of Russia's territorial integrity did not mean that Lansing was opposed to redrawing the map of Europe in some instances. For example, see George Barany, “Wilsonian Central Europe: Lansing's Contribution,” Historian, XXVIII (1966).Google Scholar

3. Cited in Baker, Ray Stannard, Woodrow Wilson: Life and Letters (New York: Doubleday, Doran, 1939), VIII, 175; Lansing diary, 4 July 1918. The Allies did not necessarily agree with America's position. Walter Lippmann told Colonel House of a British official's statement “that the United States was the only country even partially committed to the territorial restoration of Russia.” Lippmann to House, 21 March 1918, Edward House Papers, Edward House Collection, Yale University (hereafter cited as House papers).Google Scholar

4. For evidence of this belief in the emergence of a “restored” Russia see Linda Killen, “The Search for a Democratic Russia: the Wilson Administration's policy toward Russia, 1917-1921,” (, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1975); Wilson to Lansing, 21 October 1918, cited in Baker, VIII, 495.Google Scholar

5. Smith, Daniel, Aftermath of War: Bainbridge Colby and Wilsonian Diplomacy, 1920-1921 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1970), pp. 55, 61.Google Scholar

6. Mathis, Willie Josephine, “The Problem of Russian Representation and Recognition at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919,” (, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1947), pp. 82, 85; memorandum, Ambassador Bakhmetev to House, 2 March 1919, House papers.Google Scholar

7. Levin, N. Gordon Jr., Woodrow Wilson and World Politics: America's Response to War and Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 3 footnote.Google Scholar

8. Cited in Lansing, Robert, The Peace Negotiations — A Personal Narrative (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1921), p. 83 (hereafter cited as Lansing, Peace Negotiations). Note to Japan, 5 March 1918, cited in Baker, VIII, 12; see also Grew to Polk, 16 March 1918, 861.00/6456, State Department Records Relating to Internal Affairs of Russia and the Soviet Union, 1910-1929, Record Group 59, National Archives, (hereafter cited by 861. — document number only).Google Scholar

9. See Gelfand, Lawrence, The Inquiry: American Preparations for Peace, 1917-1919 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), and Edward House and Charles Seymour, eds., What Really Happened at Paris — The Story of the Peace Conference, 1918-1919 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1921). It has been impossible to determine how much attention Wilson gave to Inquiry recommendations either before or during the conference. Colonel House was given free rein in supervising the Inquiry's preconference spadework. Charles Seymour, ed., The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1928), IV, 5–6.Google Scholar

10. Miller, David Hunter, My Diary at the Conference of Paris with Documents (New York: Appeal Printing Co., 1924), XVI, 247 (hereafter cited as Miller, Diary). Google Scholar

11. Mezes, S. E. to Executive Committee of the Inquiry, “‘What was Russia’ at the Settlement,” 14 June 1918 (stress added), Inquiry Document #662, Record Group 256, American Commission to Negotiate Peace, National Archives. (National Archives Inquiry papers hereafter will be cited as ACNP. The primary peace conference documents will be referenced by use of their 18-. — decimal numbers.) Inquiry memorandum, undated, concerning revision of eastern treaties, Inquiry Document #887, ACNP.Google Scholar

12. See Lord, Robert H., et al., “Special Report on Western Russia and Poland,” 11 November 1918, Inquiry Document #348, ACNP (hereafter cited as Lord, “Special Report”).Google Scholar

13. Lord, , “Special Report”; Lansing to Wilson, 2 January 1918, Wilson papers; Lansing, Peace Negotiations, pp. 99–100.Google Scholar

14. Morison, Samuel E., “Finland,” 24 July 1918, American Peace Commission to Versailles, 1918-1919, Box 34, Library of Congress, pp. 366-74.Google Scholar

15. Lord, , “Special Report,” see Golder's study of the Ukraine, p. 62.Google Scholar

16. The following summary of the Lippmann-Cobb commentary is based on House to Wilson, cable, 29 October 1918, Wilson papers.Google Scholar

17. Wilson to Spring Rice, 3 January 1918, cited in Beatrice Farnsworth, William C. Bullitt and the Soviet Union (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967), p. 18; Lansing, Peace Negotiations, p. 97. For more discussion of Wilson's concept of self-determination see: Bailey, Thomas A., Wilson and the Lost Peace (New York: Macmillan, 1944), pp. 25–26, 316-319, and Paul Birdsall, Versailles Twenty Years After (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941), pp. 7-8, 192-193, 226-232. For more detail on how Lansing perceived the dangers of self-determination and its conflict with other American policies see Lansing, Peace Negotiations, pp. 99–100.Google Scholar

18. Wilson to House, 30 October 1918, House papers.Google Scholar

19. Lippmann to House, 18 December 1918, House papers; Miller, Diary, entry for 24 November 1918, I, 12.Google Scholar

20. Lord to Harrison, 25 April 1919, 186.3111/148; also 181.213201/23.Google Scholar

21. Lord to Lansing, 17 July 1919, 186.3111/264; Commission on Polish Affairs Recommendations, as redrafted 25 March 1919, 181.213201/14; 181.213201/1.Google Scholar

22. Report by Lord and Morison, cited in Miller, Diary, XVI, 175-177, 218. Google Scholar

23. The United States did grant de facto recognition to Finland. Peace conference records suggest that the prodding of Herbert Hoover and the exigencies of his relief program contributed to this decision. Miller, Diary, XVI, 213, 218, and entries for 11 and 12 April 1919 and the referenced documents; Hoover, Herbert, The Ordeal of Woodrow Wilson (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958), pp. 123–126 (hereafter cited as Hoover).Google Scholar

24. For Lansing's request to Wilson and the reply, see Lansing to Wilson, 1 May 1919, Lansing papers, and Wilson to Lansing, 3 May 1919, cited in Hoover, p. 125; Miller, , Diary, XVI, 247.Google Scholar

25. , Miller, Diary, XX, 159.Google Scholar

26. Captain Gregory to Hoover, enclosed in Hoover to House, 20 May 1919, House papers.Google Scholar

27. That same day Wilson said he thought the conference could settle the boundary between Ukraine and Poland. Since this particular boundary was the cause of active military conflict, Wilson apparently put the need for stability above Russian rights in this instance. Council of Four minutes, 8 May 1919, 180.03401/1.Google Scholar

28. Article 117 is cited in Wheeler-Bennett, John, Brest-Litovsk: The Forgotten Peace (New York: MacMillan, 1966), Appendix XII, 451; see also Miller, Diary, XIX, 140.Google Scholar

29. “Questions Remaining to be Settled After German and Austrain Peace Treaties are Disposed of, “House to Wilson, 22 May 1919, House papers; House diary, 13 May 1919.Google Scholar

30. Minutes of the Council of Four, 23, 24, and 27 May 1919, cited in Mathis, pp. 86–93. Wilson's position may be explained in part by his unwillingness to draw sharp lines in the already very tenuous inter-allied division of interests. See Seymour, IV, 475.Google Scholar

31. Minutes of American Commissioners, 23 July 1919, 184.00101/121.Google Scholar

32. House (in Paris) via Phillips (at State Department) to Wilson (in Los Angeles), 20 September 1919, Wilson papers.Google Scholar

33. Minutes of American Commissioners, 16 June 1919, 184.00101/89; Poole to Phillips, 4 November 1919, 861.00/5498; Lansing desk diary, 2, 11 and 13 December 1919 and 15 January 1920, Lansing papers.Google Scholar

34. , Lansing, Peace Negotiations, pp. 99–100, 190–212.Google Scholar

35. House diary, 28 April 1917, 19 September and 28 October 1918.Google Scholar