Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T18:17:41.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Russian-American Relations, 1917–1933: An Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Malbone W. Graham
Malbone W. Graham
Affiliation:
University of California at Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The assumption by the government of the United States of diplomatic relations with the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on November 16, 1933, closed a long and unique chapter in the annals of American diplomacy. Now that this phase has become historic and a new era in Soviet-American relations has been officially inaugurated, it is possible to review and appraise the highly contentious and illucid interval between 1917 and 1933 with some degree of accuracy and finality. The purpose of this discussion is, therefore, to examine the whole period candidly, objectively, dispassionately, by means of an analysis of the attitude of the United States government, as officially expressed in diplomatic documents or the utterances of responsible statesmen in the period since tsardom fell in Russia. It is desirable, however, to relate those statements, and the positions taken, to the historic attitudes of both Russia and the United States in the course of the last one hundred years; for it is only as the policy of the United States is seen in its full historic setting, in relation to the principles of international law long espoused and followed in American diplomatic practice, that the more recent phases of that policy can adequately be judged.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , June 1934 , pp. 387 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1934

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 In the light of this historic precedent, it is not amiss to point out that the American naval demonstration in the Pacific (1932–33), while resented by Japan, was not protested, even indirectly, by the U.S.S.R. It was, in fact, an objective evidence, not entirely disconnected with diplomacy, of an impending political rapprochement between the United States and the U.S.S.R.

2 Francis to Lansing from Petrograd, March 18, 1917, No. 1107. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918, Russia, I, pp. 5–6Google Scholar.

3 Lansing to Francis, March 20, 1917, No. 1271. Ibid., p. 12. Francis to Lansing, March 22, 1917, No. 1124. Ibid., pp. 12–13.

4 Francis to Lansing, November 22, 1917, No. 2006. Ibid., p. 244.

5 Francis to Lansing, November 22, 1917, No. 2007. Ibid., p. 245. Francis was instructed to exchange views with the Allies, but was told “that we would not bind ourselves to a course which might look to Russia as a measure of compulsion.” Lansing to Francis, November 24, 1917, No. 1864. Ibid., p. 248.

6 Lansing to Francis, December 1, 1917, No. 1875. Ibid., p. 254.

7 Bakhmeteff to Lansing, December, 7, 1917. Ibid., p. 255.

8 Francis to Lansing, December 2, 1917, No. 2057. Ibid., p. 282.

9 Lansing to Francis, December 6, 1917, No. 1883. Ibid., p. 289.

10 Lansing to J. R. Mott, December 7, 1917. Ibid., p. 290.

11 Ibid., p. 317.

12 Francis to Lansing, December 24, 1917, No. 2138. Ibid., pp. 324–325.

13 Francis to Lansing, January 9, 1918, No. 2212. Ibid., p. 336.

14 U. S. Grant-Smith to Lansing from Copenhagen, January 14, 1918, No. 1823. Ibid., pp. 337–338.

15 Trotsky, Leon, Lenin, p. 15Google Scholar.

16 For the text of the correspondence with Admiral Kolchak, cf. Cumming, C. K. and Petit, Walter W., Russian-American Relations, pp. 337–343Google Scholar.

17 It is worthy of note that the attitude expressed by the Allied governments at the time of the signing of the Peace of Brest-Litovsk declaring that “peace treaties such as these we do not and cannot acknowledge” set a distinct precedent for that part of the Stimson Doctrine dealing with non-recognition of certain types of treaties. Cf. the statement issued by the British Foreign Office on March 18, 1918, on behalf of the Allied governments. Page to Lansing from London, March 25, 1918, No. 8633. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918, Russia, I, pp. 438–439Google Scholar.

18 Francis to Lansing, February 5, 1918, No. 2336. Ibid., pp. 368–369.

19 G. V. Chicherin to Francis, Francis to Lansing from Petrograd, June 5, 1918, No. 1. Ibid., p. 551.

20 Francis to Lansing from Vologda, May 2, 1918, No. 140. Ibid., p. 521.

21 Francis to Lansing from Vologda, June 3, 1918, No. 239. Ibid., pp. 550–551.

22 Lansing to Francis, June 12, 1918, No. 177. Ibid., p. 562.

23 Francis to Lansing from Murmansk, July 31, 1918, No. 342. Ibid., p. 624. Francis was perfectly candid, after the fact, in declaring to his government that the Archangel government, from the outset, rested on Allied bayonets: “Found new government here,” he cabled, “but realize same would not have succeeded if Allied forces had not landed, neither would it survive if Allied troops taken away.” Francis to Lansing from Archangel, September 3, 1918, No. 379. Ibid., p. 518.

24 Draft Treaty drawn up by Representatives of the Soviet Government and William Bullitt, in Russia on behalf of President Wilson, March 12, 1919, Art. I. The Soviet Union and Peace. Document 17, pp. 66–67.

25 Russian-American Relations, pp. 320–329.

26 Dennis, A. L. P., Foreign Policies of Soviet Russia, p. 468Google Scholar.

27 Fischer, Louis, The Soviets and World Affairs, Vol. I, p. 306Google Scholar.

28 Wilson to Paul Hymans, January 18, 1921. New York Times, January 21, 1921.

29 International Conciliation, October, 1920, p. 465Google Scholar.

30 The American Secretaries of State and their Diplomacy, Vol. X, “Bainbridge Colby,” by Spargo, John, pp. 206–207Google Scholar.

31 Hughes to the American consul at Tallinn, March 25, 1921. New York Times, March 26, 1921.

32 The American Secretaries of State and their Diplomacy, Vol. X, “Charles Evans Hughes,” by Hyde, Charles Cheney, Chap. IX (Relations with Russia, pp. 280–282)Google Scholar.

33 State Department press release, July, 1922.

34 Hughes to Samuel Gompers, July 19, 1923. New York Times, July 20, 1923. It is interesting to note that of the four outstanding issues mentioned by Hughes, three figured prominently in the Soviet-American settlement of November 16, 1933. Hughes' pronouncement, it can now be seen in retrospect, marked the beginning of a realization that the basic issues dividing the two countries were legal and economic rather than moral. This despite the subsequent outburst of neo-Puritanism on the part of the President of the United States.

35 “The Recognition Policy of the United States, with Special Reference to Soviet Russia,” Foreign Policy Association Information Service, Supplement No. 3, November, 1926, pp. 25–26Google Scholar.

36 “The United States and the Other American Republics: A Discussion of Recent Events,” Publications of the Department of State, Latin American Series, No. 4, pp. 6, 8Google Scholar.

37 Hackworth, Green H., “The Policy of the United States in Recognizing New Governments during the Past Twenty-five Years,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1931, p. 131Google Scholar.

38 A check by the reported activities of these pressure groups reveals that their “spring offensive” opened on April 8 with the onslaught of the “Paul Reveres” and closed on April 20 with a broadside by the Rev. Dr. E. A. Walsh. Cf. New York Times, April 9–21, 1933.

39 Press release of the assistant secretary to the President, May 16, 1933.

40 In Quest of a Law of Recognition (University of California Press, 1933), pp. 20–21Google Scholar.

41 “A profound hope of the people of my country impels me, as the head of their government, to address you, and through you the people of your nation.”

42 “I have received your message of political and economic peace to all States. … The Soviet government, expressing the will of the peoples of the Soviet Union, has never ceased, etc.” Soviet Union Review, Vol. XI, No. 6, p. 137 (June, 1933)Google Scholar.

43 As released on Friday, November 17, by President Roosevelt, these consisted of five exchanges of notes, two declarations, and one joint statement. These are given in the Department of State's Eastern European Series, No. 1, “Establishment of Diplomatic Relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Washington, Govt. Prtg. Off., 1933).

44 The settlements most closely resembling that with the United States are the Soviet settlement with China (May 31, 1924) and Japan (January 20, 1925). The former included two treaties, seven joint declarations, and one exchange of notes; the latter, one treaty, three protocols, one unilateral declaration, one set of notes, and one annexed note, together with a protocol of signature. League of Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 37, pp. 175–201, and Vol. 34, pp. 31–53. Cf. American Journal of International Law, Supplement, Vol. 19, No. 2 (April, 1925), pp. 53–62, 78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 The only comparable situation was that of Czechoslovakia, which denied the existence of any state of war between the Czechoslovak Republic and Soviet Russia. In reply to an offer of peace negotiations by Chicherin in March, 1920, Dr. Beneš stated that, there never having been a state of war between the two countries, no such move was necessary. Cf. Gazette de Prague, Vol. I, No. 1, April 24, 1920Google Scholar.

46 The only mention of recognition in any of the collateral documents occurs in a note from Acting Secretary of State Phillips to Serge Ughet, the residuary legatee of the Kerensky régime, referring, under date of November 16, to “the recognition of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by the Government of the United States,” but without specifying when the recognition took place. New York Herald-Tribune, November 18, 1933.

47 Treaty with Tripoli (November 4, 1796), Art. XI. Malloy, W. M., Treaties, Conventions, etc. between the United States and Other Powers, Vol. II, p. 1786Google Scholar.

48 Cf. the statement issued by the Department of State on August 3, 1918: “… the Government of the United States wishes to announce to the people of Russia in the most public and solemn manner that it contemplates no interference with the political sovereignty of Russia, no intervention in her internal affairs—not even in the local affairs of the limited areas which her miltiary force may be obliged to occupy—and no impairment of her territorial integrity, either now or hereafter. … The Japanese Government, it is understood, will issue a similar assurance.” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918, Russia, II, p. 329Google Scholar.

49 It need hardly be recalled that the agenda of the Washington Conference of 1921 placed the territorial and administrative integrity of Siberia first on the topics to be discussed after China had been dealt with. Obviously the United States had in mind guarantees for Siberia quite comparable to those given China in the Nine Power Pact. Cf. Report of the American Delegation, in Senate Document 126, 67th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 790.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.