History and facts of the territorial redistribution of the revolution and civil war.
Today it is obvious that all the successive, though outwardly malosvyazannye software installation western policy towards the processes in the Soviet Union served as erosion barriers to entry in NATO's historic parts of Russia. The most important of them was the recognition of the Baltic states are not as separated parts of the Soviet Union, as well as the restoration of the pre-war state. The adoption of the Russian government is this concept was very important for the West.
This concept is violating the agreed position of the OSCE in the Final Act adopted in 1975g. Helsinki, for one of the most important decisions of this forum was to confirm the legitimacy and territorial integrity of all post-war European states. By signing the Final Act of Helsinki, Europe has recognized the legitimacy of the territorial integrity of all states in the post-war borders of Yalta and Potsdam, that is, the fact that the Baltic republics - of the Soviet Union. However, only the United States signed this important post-war multilateral instrument, with the caveat that the United States still does not recognize the recovery of the Baltic States as a territory of the USSR. US thus pursued the goal - creation between Russia and Germany from the Baltic to the Black Sea and the smaller tier of weak states under Anglo-Saxon influence. However, as all of this corresponds to the norms of international law?
AN Yakovlev - "GM restructuring": it was marked in the Baltic States
The US, and then the total western strategic concept in 1991 year was the restoration of the pre-war Baltic states. Legally, it is justified by the fact that the ruling Supreme Council of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia 1940 years to join the Soviet Union have no legal force, as these councils were elected in conditions of "the Soviet occupation".
Application of this concept allows to declare the Russian occupier, on the basis of her 40% of the population of Baltic (Russian) they have been deprived of civil and political rights and human rights. Partizan Kononov and today Savenko defendant be tried according to the laws of the state of today's action, which does not qualify as a crime in the State in which committed these acts. The Russian army and navy, were subjected to unconditional withdrawal. What is a serious blow to Russia's security, and has led to enormous material costs. At the same time, it is very important that the area was legally removed from the common military-strategic space of the Soviet Union, which Russia inherited under contracts in the field of disarmament. It is this concept served as the legal basis for the dismantling of the Skrunda radar station is located there on the ABM Treaty, the 1972 and the Protocol thereto (1974).
Thus, the historical program installation of the West in the twentieth century - to perpetuate the results of the post-revolutionary Brest peace, take irreversible destruction of historical Russia the Bolsheviks, not to recognizerecoverylost territories, declaring its "aggression" of the Bolsheviks. The role of the so-called "AN Yakovlev's commission" (a member of the Politburo of the CPSU) in making this particular an extremely disadvantageous for Russia it is impossible to overestimate the concept.
Let us remember that it was this man with his article "Against anti-historical," published in "Pravda" in 1972 year, I tried to initiate a real ideological pogrom "Russian nationalism" and "great-power chauvinism." The future of perestroika in the spirit of Marx's work "The Secret diplomatic history of the XIX century" and the Trotskyist Bolshevik-reproach "tsarist" attacked the elements of continuity in the Russian Soviet state ideology and great-power national line of the CPSU leadership. Interestingly, it is AN Yakovlev and similar ideology within the Communist Party, were carefully, though implicitly opekaemy West. That is not surprising, because the orthodox Marxist-Leninist historical materialism and Western European liberalism, are within the same spiritual and philosophical concepts.
Before you lead the restructuring and become an ardent advocate of US policy and Western values, ANYakovlev had published another masterpiece - a book in which the spirit is not even pozdnebrezhnevskoy (time detente was the ideology), but in the spirit pozdnehruschevskoy noisy propaganda denounced the "savage grin "of US imperialism and the" bosses "of private property. Despite this, it was he was assigned to head a commission to review the Soviet-German treaty of 1939, known as the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact, which can hardly be regarded as accidental. Too important was the concept for the West, which could be the basis for consideration of the Treaty.
From this or that concept depended on the West and future legal and geopolitical opportunities retraction Baltic military-strategic configuration of NATO, and even the parameters of military-strategic space. Yakovlev, "justified the confidence", and under his leadership the Commission declared the main conceptual basis of their work the idea that the Treaty will be considered by it exclusivelyper se- By itself, without any connection with the events before and after.
All arguments and the presentation of the historical facts leading into discussion other parameters, swept aside. Also rigidly suppressed, any attempt to trace the history and origin of the legal basis of independence and territory of the Baltic states as a result of civil war, intervention of the Entente and territories bargaining Bolsheviks conquered power for the sake of the rest of the country. Of course, a fully-overs remained and events on the international scene, immediately preceding the conclusion of the Treaty between the USSR and Germany in August 1939 years. Truly "the principle of anti-historical" in action!
The Commission considered the independence of the Baltic states as a result, as the absolute datum, and the Soviet invasion of the Baltics regarded as if it were France or Denmark. The international situation, the Soviet Union's foreign policy efforts with a view to conclude an agreement on collective security with Western powers - all rejected as irrelevant.
Note that the installation of western program of the twentieth century in relation to the USSR fully coincide with Lenin and Trotsky: Russia considered irreversible destruction committed in 1917, as a result of the revolution, and not without the help of the West. But if we recognize that Russia, which has spread to half the world, existed in reality to 1917 years, it is necessary to recognize the fact that the decision "undemocratic" the Supreme Soviets of the Baltic 1940 years of reunification with the "occupier" - the USSR completely legitimate.
It is obvious that the thesis of the "undemocratic" election of the Supreme Council of the Baltic 1940 years belongs to those who can neither be proved nor disproved, although neither the lawyer failed to find the characteristics of the occupation regime in these republics. But the soothing background for the "Legitimist" research in this case is an interpretation of "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact," in which "two totalitarian predator" shared legal and full-fledged independent state.
Applying the same standard that offered Baltic politicians (with the filing of their patrons) for events 1940 years, it can be much more certainty to the conclusion that in 1920, with the signing of the Treaties of Soviet Russia with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, no legal, legitimate branch of the Baltic from Russian Empire was not. Ulmanis, the dictator of fascist type, generally unelected, came to power on the bayonets of the German under the German occupation of this part of the Russian Empire. The same applies to Lithuania and Estonia. The legal side of the acquisition and recognition of independence of a member of the absurd inconsistencies.
If the whole concept of the independence of the Baltic States today is built on the recognition of the Soviet-German treaty null and void from the outset, it must be a new territorial demarcation, because today the territory of Lithuania received only by the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" - Treaty 23 August. 1939 year, a guaranteed non-interference of Germany, if the USSR undertake restoration of the lost during the revolution and civil war areas. In addition, it is "shameful" secret protocol stated that "the interests of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by both sides." Facts from the archives testify not ashamed of the Treaty, and that, having received the ensuing Treaty of Vilna in Lithuania with the USSR on October 10. 1939 of soon after this protocol, Lithuania rejoiced, people took to the streets with national flags and hugging! If Lithuania - the pre-war state, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact "criminal", debunked and found non-existent, the Lithuanian territory to be revised.
With anyone else worked Allies - with White or Red?
In light of this understanding completely different looks topic so-called Allied intervention in Russia, whose purpose is not to crush the Bolsheviks and the communist ideology, and not to help the White movement to restore the old Russian single. Soviet historiography emphasized the class and ideological motives of the Western powers. But these motives have always been geopolitical and military-strategic, and this explains the alternating cooperation or partnership with the Red Army against the White, on the contrary, which ended in betrayal of the whole Entente was the White Army. Policy of the Entente was a model of baseness towards its ally Russia, and reflected the predatory attitude to it, precisely repeated in 1991 year.
We should pay particular attention to the fact that it is itself the Allies took the decision to abandon the German troops in the Baltic States after the surrender of Germany. France, saved only by Russia and its victims on the Eastern Front, included in the text of the Compiegne armistice was 1918 click on the conservation troops of Imperial Germany in the Baltic States, at their simultaneous withdrawal from all the occupied territories. The German troops were withdrawn from there only after they were replaced by the British in order to maintain and consolidate the independence of the Baltic States and to ensure the separation of these territories covered by Russian revolution.
In 1918 year before Germany's surrender Entente landed their landings in Russia only in the hope of restoring the German eastern front, the Germans and prevent use of military-strategic advantages granted by the Bolsheviks in the Brest peace. Now it is clear that this is really "obscene" (Lenin) The contract allowed to take shape in the German bayonets Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian quasi-state structures and processes has become a fundamental principle in the Baltic States, which led to 90-ies to persistent anti-Russian Baltic level.
Documents and White emigre archives convinced that none of the promises of assistance from the Entente, these representatives of various anti-Bolshevik formations have not been fulfilled even at the first stage, when the Red Army was still poorly organized, and the outcome of the struggle was not predetermined. But this is not included in the plans of England and the United States. In the Baltics, the British appeared in December 1918 years, immediately after the departure of the Germans, but not in order to restore become unnecessary eastern front, and for the formation of controlled precisely their cordon from the Baltic to the Black Sea, which needed the independence of the Baltic government .
In August 1919, the British emissary to a predefined list of appointed North-Western government under General Yudenich, and writes M.Margulies, personally participated in the drafting of the government required all members to sign the sheet, which means "the recognition of the independence of Estonia" otherwise the Entente would cease assistance. "But help was not followed, even in the days of the offensive Yudenich and independent Estonian government, in response to a request for a response," it would be unforgivable stupidity on the part of the Estonian people, if he did it. "
Allies and did not recognize any of the White emigre governments of Russia, which, unlike the Bolsheviks categorically refused to trade areas. However, writes bitterly Anton Denikin in his book "World events and the Russian question", at the same time that they "willingly and quickly recognized the new states that emerged on the outskirts of Russia." This is confirmed not only the White emigre books, but also notes by Russian Foreign Ministry employee G.Mihaylovskogo, then served under the Provisional Government and Denikin and Wrangel found in the manuscript ten years ago. They are made directly during the events and did not subjected to processing on the basis of the later generalizations, remaining a fount of information about the situation around the foreign policy objectives of the White movement. "Complications with the British - in his testimony -" took place on the basis of indisputable duplicity of their policies. If one hand they supported Denikin in South Russia, and in Siberia - Kolchak, then the other - open enemies of Denikin and Russia in general ... on the shores of the Baltic Sea, our Baltic margin found in Britain a powerful support to their separatist aspirations ... This general tone of English politics expressis verbis has been defined by Lloyd George in the British Parliament, where he explicitly said that he doubted the profitability for England restore the former powerful Russian " .
At the last Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov, which is located in Paris, was the information delivered through the former Russian Embassy in London, on "grand plan of England, whose aim was to dismember Russia. The Baltic states have been completely cut off Russia from the Baltic Sea, the Caucasus should be a buffer, completely independent from Russia, between it, on the one hand, and Turkey and Persia - the other; the same was to be independent and Turkestan, to once and for all bar the way to India. Persia fell completely under the rule of England and "independence" of the Caucasus, Turkestan and the Baltic States would be limited to the practical British protectorate over these areas. "(GN Mikhailovsky. From the history of the Russian Foreign Ministry. 1914-1920. M., 1993, 2 book. Page. 209-210.)
The Bolsheviks, vitally interested "in a peaceful respite" proved to be more beneficial for the partners of the Entente and the self-proclaimed government in the territory of historical Russia than White.
In the Archive of Foreign Policy of the USSR there is a letter of the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs GV Chicherin, which eloquently demonstrates the utilitarian attitude of the Bolsheviks to the declared their "democratic" principles, as well as a cynical bargaining territories to achieve their goals: "Self-determination is a principle that applies generally, not in separate geographic locations," - doctrinaire Chicherin, - "in all our agreements, not only in Brest, but also in all of our past contracts, we respect the individual localities violated this principle. We gave Estonia a purely Russian piece we gave Finland Pechenga, where the population of the persistently did not want to, we did not ask Latgale during transmission Latvia, we have given a purely Belarusian Polish countryside. "
What follows is a very pragmatic explanation for expediency in applying this principle as a standard tool Realpolitik: "This is all due to the fact that under the current general situation in the fight against the Soviet republic with the supreme principle of capitalist encirclement is the self-preservation of the Soviet Republic, as a citadel of the revolution. For the sake of this supreme principle we have to make agreements with the bourgeois states in which our principles are not implemented. For this same principle must insist on holding any geographical points necessary to the very existence of the Soviet Republic, ie, for the supreme principle of its conservation. We are guided not nationalism, but the interests of the world revolution. "(WUA USSR, p. 04.op.51, p.N321a, d. 54877, l. 21.)
How "democratic" came the independence of Baltic
Facts of the territorial redistribution of the revolution and civil war demonstrates the failure of the legal concept of restoring the pre-war state to gain independence in the Soviet republics 1991g. on the basis of the alleged illegitimacy of events 1940 years. In 20-ies Bolshevik Joffe, signs an agreement with Latvia and Estonia, representing the government, does not control the entire territory of the country and no one recognized in the world. A contract undoubtedly contained the secret and oral section. For Ulmanis was transferred Latgale - part of the Vitebsk province in exchange for aid to the Bolsheviks in the environment and the elimination of the White Army.
The self-proclaimed government of Estonia, whose independence from the north-west the white government demanded to the British representative, took part in the most significant disarmament and surrounded by white army of General Yudenich, who had recently refused to help. At the request of Trotsky, who were with him in the entente cordiale "bourgeois-landlord" Estonian authorities interned and put white compound behind barbed wire, where thousands of people were killed. For Estonians it received from the Bolsheviks about 1000 square. Russian km of land for peace agreement on February 2 1920 years. Now Estonia claims to these lands.
Lithuanian state emerged contrary to the intentions of England and France, and they were not slow to recognize Lithuania, hoping to create a "strong anti-Soviet Poland" near the borders of Soviet Russia, which would be on a federal basis and entered Lithuania. Lithuanian office, which declared independence in December 1917 years, first set out to establish the "eternal alliance strong ties with Germany." But in Lithuania it was diarchy. The October Revolution, the November revolution in Germany, the defeat of Germany by the end of the war was the background against which it was proclaimed in Vilnius and other Soviet government that declared its solidarity with Soviet Russia, and even then made a decision about the connection in one republic Belarus.
But when Vilna advice fell under the blows of Pilsudski, and only left the government in Kovno, the Allies unequivocally sided with Poland in its dispute with Lithuania because of the Vilnius region. Only Soviet Russia has been consistently in the Agreement with Lithuania in all foreign documents repeated that he believes Vilnius region Lithuanian territory illegally seized by Poland. But the idea is the western outpost of "strong" or "powerful" Poland has been repeated in the British postwar plan in 1944, the - There is a constant goal, especially the Anglo-Saxons, but also Europe as a whole, which can be seen today.
According to modern criteria of "democratic" legitimacy, it is the Vilna Council, proclaimed Soviet power, then combine with the Belarusian Soviet Republic, and finally fallen under the blows of the Polish troops Yu.Pilsudskogo had some semblance of legitimacy, as it appeared in December 8 1918 years, although in the presence of German troops, but after the surrender of Germany, when the troops were no longer the occupying power and the expected output. A so-called Council of Lithuania in Kaunas, proclaimed the "restoration" of independence and "perpetual strong allied relations" with Germany, was delivered in December 1917 years is Kaiser occupying authorities and had no legitimacy in terms of the state of law as a fact and today's time . However, with this structure today Lithuania counts its independence.
In the spring, the 1919 on the territory of Lithuania, with the consent of the Entente immediately invaded the Polish Legions and Yu.Pilsudskogo 21 April 1919g. captured Wilno. Polish occupation has undergone exactly the part that is focused on Russia, and Pilsudski was more comfortable that she was - "Soviet" means not recognized powers and a draw. After a while, when using Wrangel struck in the rear of the Bolsheviks, Yu.Pilsudsky Budennogo stopped, he said he did not see any point in being so, in turn, to help Wrangel. "Let Russia still would rot 50 years under the Bolsheviks, and we will stand on their feet and okrepnem!". Those were his words.
Of the facts of the territorial redistribution of the revolution and civil war demonstrates the failure of the legal concept of restoring the pre-war state and even under very strange departure from the territory of Lithuania, received after the Treaty 10 October. 1939g. and finally fixed as a Lithuanian is only part of the USSR. The inter-war status of the Baltic states is legally flawed and events 1940 years, however unpleasant may seem their shape (the Soviet invasion) - have pravovosstanovitelny act, for no legitimate separation from the Russian Empire was not, and had a temporary loss of territory as a result of civil war and revolution .
The obvious failure of "democratic" Kozyrev's foreign policy in this important region, threatens Russia uncompensated loss of access to the sea in the Baltic Sea and the transformation of the region into a zone of US strategic initiatives and NATO, of course, plan to make these republics members of the North Atlantic Alliance. The flagrant violation of the rights of Russian, as well as the humiliation of Russian troops with indifference and even the promotion of European human rights organizations clearly demonstrates a double standard with regard to European Russia.
But no sporadic sharp statements of the Russian leadership are unable to radically change the situation, as long as the concept of "separation" of the Baltic republics imposed by the Popular Front, supported by Europe and meekly accepted by Russian diplomacy will not be revised in accordance with international law.
A bit of history, which is useful for the future
The Soviet Union and today's Russia - the successor of historical Russia have indisputable rights to this territory arising from international legal conditions of their entry into Russia.
Great Northern War between Russia of Peter the Great and the Kingdom of Sweden ended with the defeat of Charles XII and the signing of the contract Nishtatskogo 1721g. At that time, Latvians and Estonians were not the subjects of history and citizenship were "Crown Sveyskoy". They not only have never had their own state, but were not even literary language, its own national elite, for all the local nobility was of German origin, also taught in German in schools. Only under Alexander II were schools with instruction in Latvian. Artwork while replacing geographical indications on the current Russian reformers "prison of nations" called Russification, forgetting that the old signs were in German ...
Nishtatsky peace treaty of 1721part of the body of international legal instruments, on which the legitimacy of the territory of many countries of the world. The current boundaries of the United States, Sweden, France or Spain and are based, among others, a very ancient international legal instruments, and no one today is not disputed. Under this agreement,Russia received these territories forevernot just as a winner in the Northern War,but due to their purchase."His Majesty is pledged to pay the Kingdom of Sweden for five years," two million yefimki properly without any deduction and of course by HRH with proper and authorized receipts snabdennym authorized ... "(Under the banner of Russia. Collection of archival documents. M., 1992, s.122)- By the standards of a considerable amount of silver through the Bank of Amsterdam, which had already carried out the global financial "monitoring". This amount can be compared with the prices of the treasury of a small state.
It is obvious that Russia's position may not change significantly against the Baltic states without changing the concept. If from the very beginning was the basis and carried to all the clear understanding that Russia will not have to deal with pre-war states, and with parts of the Soviet Union, that is, with the former Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, wish to become independent states, many things would be different today, especially in the military-strategic area,
as well as in the field of human rights for Russian in semifascist modes of these new "superdemokraticheskih" countries. The West, especially the United States, of course, do not wish to overcome the double standards brazenly applied to the problems of the former USSR. But without such a conceptual review of the strategy can hardly be expected capacity to effectively protect the interests of Russia and the Baltic states to prevent the entry into the North Atlantic structures that Russia will return to the position before the Livonian War.
It would be useful to start this difficult and not promising quick results, but necessary work. If Europe does not want to be held hostage to the Anglo-Saxon Atlantic globalist ventures, it must realize that serious and constructive cooperation with Russia for the stability and predictability of European processes themselves must be the recognition of the historical continuity of Russia's geopolitical interests in the traditional habitat of its influence.