Information

Brest-Litovsk Treaty Treaty


Lenin demobilized the Russian Army and announced that he planned to seek an armistice with Germany. In December, 1917, Leon Trotsky led the Russian delegation at Brest-Litovsk that was negotiating with representatives from Germany and Austria. Trotsky had the difficult task of trying to end Russian participation in the First World War without having to grant territory to the Central Powers. By employing delaying tactics Trotsky hoped that socialist revolutions would spread from Russia to Germany and Austria-Hungary before he had to sign the treaty. (1)

Trotsky commented: "The circumstances of history willed that the delegates of the most revolutionary regime ever known to humanity should sit at the same diplomatic table with the representatives of the most reactionary caste among all the ruling classes. How greatly our opponents feared the explosive power of their negotiations with the Bolsheviks was shown by their readiness to break off the negotiations rather than transfter them to a neutral country." (2)

Arthur Ransome reported in The Daily News. "I wonder whether the English people realize how great is the matter now at stake and how near we are to witnessing a separate peace between Russia and Germany, which would be a defeat for German democracy in its own country, besides ensuring the practical enslavement of all Russia. A separate peace will be a victory, not for Germany, but for the military caste in Germany. It may mean much more than the neutrality of Russia. If we make no move it seems possible that the Germans will ask the Russians to help them in enforcing the Russian peace terms on the Allies." (3)

Trotsky later wrote: "It was obvious that going on with the war was impossible. On this point there was not even a shadow of disagreement between Lenin and me. But there was another question. How had the February revolution, and, later on, the October revolution, affected the German army? How soon would any effect show itself? To these questions no answer could as yet be given. We had to try and find it in the course of the negotiations as long as we could. It was necessary to give the European workers time to absorb properly the very fact of the Soviet revolution." He hoped that Russia's socialist revolution would spread to Germany. This idea was reinforced when Trotsky heard the rumour on 21st January 1918, that a workers' soviet headed by Karl Liebknecht had been established in Berlin. This story was untrue as Liebknecht was still in a German prison. (4)

Leon Trotsky recalled in his autobiography: "On 21st February, we received new terms from Germany, framed, apparently, with the direct object of making the signing of peace impossible. By the time our delegation returned to Brest-Litovsk, these terms, as is well known, had been made even harsher. All of us, including Lenin, were of the impression that the Germans had come to an agreement with the Allies about crushing the Soviets, and that a peace on the western front was to be built on the bones of the Russian revolution."

Lenin continued to argue for a peace agreement, whereas his opponents, including Leon Trotsky, Nickolai Bukharin, Andrey Bubnov, Alexandra Kollontai, Yuri Piatakov, Karl Radek and Moisei Uritsky, were in favour of a "revolutionary war" against Germany. This belief had been encouraged by the German demands for the "annexations and dismemberment of Russia". In the ranks of the opposition was Lenin's close friend, Inessa Armand, who had surprisingly gone public with her demands for continuing the war with Germany. (5)

After nine weeks of discussions without agreement, the German Army was ordered to resume its advance into Russia. On 3rd March 1918, with German troops moving towards Petrograd, Lenin ordered Trotsky to accept the terms of the Central Powers and signed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. "Russia had lost the Ukraine, Finland, her Polish and Baltic territories. In the Caucasus she had to make territorial concessions to Turkey... Three centuries of Russian Territorial expansion was undone." (6)

Trotsky later admitted that he was totally against signing the agreement as he thought that by continuing the war with the Central Powers it would help encourage socialist revolutions in Germany and Austria: "Had we really wanted to obtain the most favourable peace, we would have agreed to it as early as last November. But no one raised his voice to do it. We were all in favour of agitation, of revolutionizing the working classes of Germany, Austria-Hungary and all of Europe." (7)

Herbert Sulzbach recorded in his diary: "The final peace treaty has been signed with Russia. Our conditions are hard and severe, but our quite exceptional victories entitle us to demand these, since our troops are nearly in Petersburg, and further over on the southern front, Kiev has been occupied, while in the last week we have captured the following men and items of equipment: 6,800 officers, 54,000 men, 2,400 guns, 5,000 machine-guns, 8,000 railway trucks, 8,000 locomotives, 128,000 rifles and 2 million rounds of artillery ammunition. Yes, there is still some justice left, and the state which was first to start mass murder in 1914 has now, with all its missions, been finally overthrown." (8)

Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belorus, and Ukraine now became independent countries. The treaty deprived "Russia of a territory nearly as large as Austria-Hungary and Turkey combined, with 56,000,000 inhabitants, or 32 per cent of her whole population; a third of her railway mileage, 73 per cent of her total iron ore, 89 per cent of her total coal production; and more than 5,000 factories and industrial plants. Moreover, Russia was obliged to pay Germany an indemnity of six billion marks." (9) The historian, John Wheeler-Bennett commented that the treaty was a "humiliation without precedent or equal in modern history." (10)

It was obvious that going on with the war was impossible. It was necessary to give the European workers time to absorb properly the very fact of the Soviet revolution.

On 21st February, we received new terms from Germany, framed, apparently, with the direct object of making the signing of peace impossible. All of us, including Lenin, were of the impression that the Germans had come to an agreement with the Allies about crushing the Soviets, and that a peace on the western front was to be built on the bones of the Russian revolution.

On 3rd March our delegation signed the peace treaty without even reading it. Forestalling many of the ideas of Clemenceau, the Brest-Litovsk peace was like the hangman's noose. On 22nd March the treaty was ratified by the German Reichstag. The German Social Democrats gave their approval in advance to the future principles of Versailles.

The final peace treaty has been signed with Russia. Yes, there is still some justice left, and the state which was first to start mass murder in 1914 has now, with all its missions, been finally overthrown. arms.

Bloody Sunday (Answer Commentary)

1905 Russian Revolution (Answer Commentary)

Russia and the First World War (Answer Commentary)

The Life and Death of Rasputin (Answer Commentary)

The Coal Industry: 1600-1925 (Answer Commentary)

Women in the Coalmines (Answer Commentary)

Child Labour in the Collieries (Answer Commentary)

Child Labour Simulation (Teacher Notes)

The Chartists (Answer Commentary)

Women and the Chartist Movement (Answer Commentary)

Road Transport and the Industrial Revolution (Answer Commentary)

Canal Mania (Answer Commentary)

Early Development of the Railways (Answer Commentary)

Health Problems in Industrial Towns (Answer Commentary)

Public Health Reform in the 19th century (Answer Commentary)

Richard Arkwright and the Factory System (Answer Commentary)

Robert Owen and New Lanark (Answer Commentary)

James Watt and Steam Power (Answer Commentary)

The Domestic System (Answer Commentary)

The Luddites: 1775-1825 (Answer Commentary)

The Plight of the Handloom Weavers (Answer Commentary)

1832 Reform Act and the House of Lords (Answer Commentary)

Benjamin Disraeli and the 1867 Reform Act (Answer Commentary)

William Gladstone and the 1884 Reform Act (Answer Commentary)

(1) Lionel Kochan, Russia in Revolution (1970) page 280

(2) Leon Trotsky, My Life: An Attempt at an Autobiography (1970) page 383

(3) Arthur Ransome, The Daily News (1st January, 1918)

(4) Adam B. Ulam, The Bolsheviks (1998) page 392

(5) Harrison E. Salisbury, Black Night, White Snow: Russia's Revolutions 1905-1917 (1977) page 556

(6) Adam B. Ulam, The Bolsheviks (1998) page 406

(7) Leon Trotsky, My Life: An Attempt at an Autobiography (1970) page 406

(8) Herbert Sulzbach, diary entry (3rd March, 1918)

(9) William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1964) page 81

(10) John Wheeler-Bennett, Hindenburg: The Wooden Titan (1967) page 131


Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Earlier Brest-Litovsk)


The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a treaty signed between delegations of the German Empire and Bolshevik Russia, marking the withdrawal of Russia from the war and an end to hostilities on the Eastern Front. It was signed in the aforementioned city on January 15th, 1918.

The treaty was the result of Lenin's insistence that Communist Russia, in its current state, was unable to cause the global revolution it had sought. Thus, Lenin went against popular opinion in the Party, giving Trotsky strict orders in order to save what territory he could. Peace talks started on December 22nd, 1917, a week after the ceasefire on the Eastern Front started.

Representatives from Germany were pleasantly surprised by the Bolsheviks willingness to make peace with the Central Powers. The German state secretary Richard von Kühlmann noted: „The level of cooperation during the meetings was quite surprising to us. Here were peasants, workers and revolutionaries, who had openly admitted their willingness to export their socialist revolution and yet were willing to sit down and work things out with representatives of entire empires. Simply astonishing!“ Trotsky was angered by Lenin's strict orders and had repeatedly argued against any peace, but later noted:“Although I was furious by the Treaty initially, looking back at it now, I can see the cunning that was at play during the meetings and our leaders reasoning behind it. This was a pivotal moment that helped us and I truly doubt what our ability to hold power would have been were it not for this agreement with the German old order.“


Early Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

During the negotiations for a peace between Germany and the fledgling Russian Soviet Republic, Germany asked for (compared to what they got) very light concessions - the surrender of Lithuania and Poland to the German sphere of influence. This was very light compared to the final treaty (created because of the Soviets' attempted sustained armistice), which forced the Soviets to recognize the independence of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine and Lithuania. While the treaty soon became defunct, the Ukraine was the only territory they managed to retake.

Would the Soviets have been in a better post-war position, had they signed the treaty earlier?

Grimm Reaper

No, as Germany was going to take what it wanted to take regardless of any so-called treaty.

Indeed, since Germany went beyond even the massive concessions gained under Brest-Litovsk, there is widespread belief in the historical community that had Germany not been defeated in the west a THIRD series of demands would have been imposed on Russia.

This has come up a few times before:

Brest-Litovsk-lite would almost definitely include Courland and Riga. Its possible that it might not be included. but it would take some good diplomacy that I don't think the Soviets had. You'd need someone else doing the talking instead of Trotsky. Maybe if the Germans gave over Riga to the Russians. that's probably the absolutely best that the Soviets could get without some diplomatic genius.

I'll repeat what I've said before concerning this scenario: no German occupation of Ukraine means a stronger Spring Offensive in the order of 20 extra divisions. When Germany falls, the Soviets are that much closer to the Baltics and Poland. maybe close enough to take some or all of them. Lots of changes here.

I Blame Communism

Source? After all, Ukraine was hardly a starting war aim. Germany, as Hnau points out, was working against its own best interests by occupying the place out of a reckless greed made possible by the poor diplomacy of the Soviets.

Grimm Reaper

Germany had already occupied more of Ukraine than permitted, a belt in eastern Belarus/western Russia for alleged 'communication' purposes AND pushed into the Caucausus including Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and more so unless you can imagine why the Germans wasted manpower and resources to occupy territories they didn't want. and it wasn't poor diplomacy but the fact that the Soviets didn't have a bargaining position in the first place.

Nor was Germany operating against her own interests as it is very doubtful that the second-line units involved, and 20 divisions in 1918 would have mustered slightly over 280K men, could have made a difference on the Western Front, even assuming they wouldn't be sent to some other failing front instead.

Oh, and the Soviets DID accept the first treaty only to see the second imposed on them so obviously negotiations didn't work out too well.

I Blame Communism, perhaps you could explain the suggestion that noting Germany's historical behavior in 1918 is 'like the genocide'?

That's just not true. The Germans never pushed into the Caucasus.

They accepted it just as the Germans decided to increase their demands. That was after months of negotiating where the Bolshies deliberately wanted to stretch out negotiations to provide time for a worker's revolution in Germany and elsewhere.

You better start coming up with some sources, Grimm.

Grimm Reaper

1) The entire Caucausus region was occupied so you're wrong on that.

2) The Bolsheviks did not stretch out negotiations for months and, indeed, they could not. Lenin and his thugs needed desperately an edge, consisting of declaring the war over with the implicit support of Germany for the regime surrendering instead of White factions not ready to quit.

3) The Germans would not allow negotiations to stretch out at all. They needed a settlement fast so they could throw everything they had left before the American forces arriving became an unstoppable flood.


Sources? Look up any map of the front lines and occupation zones in mid-1918 and you'll see where the Germans were, including the Caucausus.


Incidentally Germany parked far more than 20 divisions in the territories acquired, briefly, from Russia as they first assumed that they could not fail to win in the west and then developed this deranged view that having won in the East that the UK/France/US would allow them to keep the spoils instead of treating them like the defeated power they were.

Germany sent troops to Georgia, to help them against the Red Army and keep the Ottomans from invading, but they most certainly did not occupy the country or "the Caucasus".

This explains quite a bit about the brief affair Georgia had with Germany, and the first time I've seen the Democratic Republic of Georgia described as a protectorate of Germany, but still, there was no German invasion and occupation of Georgia, nor of the rest of the Caucasus.

Provide some sources saying that the Germans invaded the entire Caucasus and occupied it. Because, what REALLY happened was that the Ottoman Empire invaded Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Maps of 1918 in the Caucasus are hard to come by, but I have yet to see one where the Germans are in control of the entire Caucasus. Prove it by finding one and showing it to me, because I don't have any atlases of that time and place, and I've Googled for the past half hour.

Sure. But only 20 divisions occupying the Ukraine and the other territory gained after the two-week offensive following the collapse of negotiations at Brest-Litovsk.

"Several difficulties plagued the new occupation [of Ukraine], starting with its emergence as almost an afterthought to the Brest negotiations, with little or no prior planning and no division of responsibilities between Germany and Austria-Hungary."

It also mentions 300,000 soldiers occupying the Ukraine after the invasion. I've also seen reports of a million soldiers. There's no easy rule to determine the size of a German division, but I've rounded it to 20 divisions.

And I quote from Robert Service's A History of Twentieth Century Russia:

Negotiations were held at Brest-Litovsk, the town nearest the trenches of the Eastern front's northern sector on November, and a truce was soon agreed. The Soviet government expected this to produce an interlude for socialist revolutions to break out in Central Europe. Around New Year 1918 Lenin asked his colleagues whether it was really possible to fight the Germans. Trotski saw the deserted Russian trenches every time he travelled to and from Brest-Litovsk. A Russian army no longer existed to repel attack. In this situation, as Trotski contended, Sovnarkom could not fulfil its commitment to waging a 'revolutionary war'. And yet Trotski also argued against signing a separate peace with the Central Powers, a peace that was intolerable not only to the Bolsheviks but also to all other Russian political parties. His recommendation was that Bolsheviks should drag out the negotiations, using them as an opportunity to issue calls to revolution which would be reported in Berlin as well as in Petrograd.

"Despite his professional inexperience, Trotski proved a match for Richard von Kuhlmann and Otto von Czernin who parleyed on behalf of the Central Powers. His tactic of 'neither war nor peace' was so bizarre in the world history of diplomacy that his interlocutors did not immediately know how to reply. But in January 1918 the Central Powers gave their ultimatum that, unless a separate peace was quickly signed on the Eastern front, Russia would be overrun.

Lenin counselled Sovnarkom that the coalition had no choice but to accept the German terms, and that procrastination would provoke either an immediate invasion or a worsening of the terms of the ultimatum. All the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries rejected his advice. Successive meetings of the Bolshevik Central Committee, too, turned it down. As the ill-tempered deliberations proceeded, Trotski's policy of neither war nor peace was temporarily adopted.

Lenin concentrated upon persuading fellow leading Bolsheviks. On 8 January he offered his 'Theses on a Separate and Annexationist Peace' to the party's faction at the Third Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Cossacks' Deputies. Only fifteen out of sixty-three listeners voted for him. He secured Trotski's private consent that he would support Lenin if and when it came to a straight choice between war and peace.

Steadily Lenin gained ground in the Central Committee. Sverdlov, Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev backed him strongly, and Bukharin and the Left Communists began to wilt in the heat of Lenin's assault.

As Lenin had warned, the Germans were not fooled by Trotski's delaying tactics. On 18 February they advanced from Riga and took Dvinsk. that evening, at last, a shaken Central Committee adopted Lenin's policy of bowing to the German terms. Germany and Austria-Hungary, however, increased their demands. The Soviet government had previously been asked to relinquish claims of sovereignty over the area presently occupied by the German and Austrian armies. Now Lenin and his colleagues were required to forgo all Ukraine, Belorussia, and the entire south Baltic region to the eastern edge of the Estonian lands.


Contents

By 1917, Germany and Imperial Russia were stuck in a stalemate on the Eastern Front of World War I and the Russian economy had nearly collapsed under the strain of the war effort. The large numbers of war casualties and persistent food shortages in the major urban centers brought about civil unrest, known as the February Revolution, that forced Emperor (Tsar/Czar) Nicholas II to abdicate. The Russian Provisional Government that replaced the Tsar in early 1917 continued the war. Foreign Minister Pavel Milyukov sent the Entente Powers a telegram, known as Milyukov note, affirming to them that the Provisional Government would continue the war with the same war aims that the former Russian Empire had. The pro-war Provisional Government was opposed by the self-proclaimed Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, dominated by leftist parties. Its Order No. 1 called for an overriding mandate to soldier committees rather than army officers. The Soviet started to form its own paramilitary power, the Red Guards, in March 1917. [8]

The continuing war led the German Government to agree to a suggestion that they should favor the opposition Communist Party (Bolsheviks), who were proponents of Russia's withdrawal from the war. Therefore, in April 1917, Germany transported Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin and thirty-one supporters in a sealed train from exile in Switzerland to Finland Station, Petrograd. [9] Upon his arrival in Petrograd, Lenin proclaimed his April Theses, which included a call for turning all political power over to workers' and soldiers' soviets (councils) and an immediate withdrawal of Russia from the war. At around the same time, the United States entered the war, potentially shifting the balance of the war against the Central Powers. Throughout 1917, Bolsheviks called for the overthrow of the Provisional Government and an end to the war. Following the disastrous failure of the Kerensky Offensive, discipline in the Russian army deteriorated completely. Soldiers would disobey orders, often under the influence of Bolshevik agitation, and set up soldiers' committees to take control of their units after deposing the officers.

The defeat and ongoing hardships of war led to anti-government riots in Petrograd, the "July Days" of 1917. Several months later, on 7 November (25 October old style), Red Guards seized the Winter Palace and arrested the Provisional Government in what is known as the October Revolution.

A top priority of the newly established Soviet government was to end the war. On 8 November 1917 (26 October 1917 O.S) Vladimir Lenin signed the Decree on Peace, which was approved by the Second Congress of the Soviet of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. The Decree called "upon all the belligerent nations and their governments to start immediate negotiations for peace" and proposed an immediate withdrawal of Russia from World War I. Leon Trotsky was appointed Commissar of Foreign Affairs in the new Bolshevik government. In preparation for peace talks with the representatives of the German government and the representatives of the other Central Powers, Leon Trotsky appointed his good friend Adolph Joffe to represent the Bolsheviks at the peace conference.

On 15 December 1917, an armistice between Soviet Russia and the Central Powers was concluded. On 22 December, peace negotiations began in Brest-Litovsk.

Arrangements for the conference were the responsibility of General Max Hoffmann, the chief of staff of the Central Powers' forces on the Eastern Front (Oberkommando-Ostfront). The delegations that had negotiated the armistice were made stronger. Prominent additions on the Central Powers' side were the foreign ministers of Germany, Richard von Kühlmann, and Austria-Hungary Count, Ottokar Czernin, both the Ottoman grand vizier Talaat Pasha and Foreign Minister Nassimy Bey. The Bulgarians were headed by Minister of Justice Popoff, who was later joined by Prime Minister Vasil Radoslavov. [10] [11]

The Soviet delegation was led by Adolph Joffe, who had already led their armistice negotiators, but his group was made more cohesive by eliminating most of the representatives of social groups, like peasants and sailors, and the addition of tsarist general Aleksandr Samoilo and the noted Marxist historian Mikhail Pokrovsky. It still included Anastasia Bitsenko, a former assassin, representing the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries who were at odds with the Bolsheviks. Again, the negotiators met in the fortress in Brest-Litovsk, and the delegates were housed in temporary wooden structures in its courtyards because the city had been burnt to the ground in 1915 by the retreating Russian army. They were cordially welcomed by the German commander of the Eastern Front, Prince Leopold of Bavaria, who sat with Joffe on the head table at the opening banquet with one hundred guests. [12] As they had during the armistice negotiations, both sides continued to eat dinner and supper together amicably intermingled in the officers' mess.

When the conference convened Kühlmann asked Joffe to present the Russian conditions for peace. He made six points, all variations of the Bolshevik slogan of peace with "no annexations or indemnities". The Central Powers accepted the principles "but only in case all belligerents [including the nations of the Entente] without exception pledge themselves to do the same". [13] They did not intend to annex territories occupied by force. Joffe telegraphed the marvelous news to Petrograd. Thanks to informal chatting in the mess, one of Hoffmann's aides, Colonel Friedrich Brinckmann, realized that the Russians had optimistically misinterpreted the Central Powers' meaning. [14] It fell to Hoffmann to set matters straight at dinner on 27 December: Poland, Lithuania and Courland, already occupied by the Central Powers, were determined to separate from Russia on the principle of self-determination that the Bolsheviks themselves espoused. Joffe "looked as if he had received a blow on the head". [15] Pokrovsky wept as he asked how they could speak of "peace without annexations when Germany was tearing eighteen provinces away from the Russian state". [16] The Germans and the Austro-Hungarians planned to annex slices of Polish territory and to set up a rump Polish state with what remained. The Baltic provinces were to become client states ruled by German princes. Czernin was beside himself that this hitch that was slowing the negotiations self-determination was anathema to his government and they urgently needed grain from the east because Vienna was on the verge of starvation. He proposed to make a separate peace. [17] Kühlmann warned that if they negotiated separately, Germany would immediately withdraw all its divisions from the Austrian front Czernin dropped that threat. The food crisis in Vienna was eventually eased by "forced drafts of grain from Hungary, Poland, and Romania and by a last moment contribution from Germany of 450 truck-loads of flour". [18] At Russian request, they agreed to recess the talks for twelve days.

The Soviets' only hopes were that time would make their allies agree to join the negotiations or that the western European proletariat would revolt and so their best strategy was to prolong the negotiations. As Foreign Minister Leon Trotsky wrote, "To delay negotiations, there must be someone to do the delaying". [19] Therefore Trotsky replaced Joffe as the leader.

On the other side were significant political realignments. On New Year's Day in Berlin, the Kaiser insisted that Hoffmann reveal his views on the future German-Polish border. He advocated taking a small slice of Poland Hindenburg and Ludendorff wanted much more. They were furious with Hoffmann for breaching the chain of command and wanted him to be dismissed and sent to command a division. The Kaiser refused, but Ludendorff no longer spoke with Hoffmann on the telephone since the communication was now through an intermediary. [20]

The German Supreme Commanders were also furious at ruling out of annexations, contending that the peace "must increase Germany's material power". [21] They denigrated Kühlmann and pressed for additional territorial acquisitions. When Hindenburg was asked why they needed the Baltic states he replied, "To secure my left flank for when the next war happens." [22] However, the most profound transformation was that a delegation from the Ukrainian Rada, which had declared independence from Russia, had arrived at Brest-Litovsk. They would make peace if they were given the Polish city of Cholm and its surroundings, and they would provide desperately needed grain. Czernin no longer was desperate for a prompt settlement with the Russians.

When they reconvened Trotsky declined the invitation to meet Prince Leopold and terminated shared meals and other sociable interactions with the representatives of the Central Powers. Day after day, Trotsky "engaged Kühlmann in debate, rising to subtle discussion of first principles that ranged far beyond the concrete territorial issues that divided them". [23] The Central Powers signed a peace treaty with Ukraine during the night of 8–9 February even though the Russians had retaken Kiev. German and Austro-Hungarian troops entered Ukraine to prop up the Rada. Finally, Hoffmann broke the impasse with the Russians by focusing the discussion on maps of the future boundaries. Trotsky summarised their situation "Germany and Austria-Hungary are cutting off from the domains of the former Russian Empire territories more than 150,000 square kilometers in size". [24] He was granted a nine-day recess for the Russians to decide whether to sign.

In Petrograd, Trotsky argued passionately against signing and proposed that instead, "they should announce the termination of the war and demobilization without signing any peace." [25] Lenin was for signing rather than having an even more ruinous treaty forced on them after a few more weeks of military humiliation. The "Left Communists", led by Nikolai Bukharin and Karl Radek, were sure that Germany, Austria, Turkey, and Bulgaria were all on the verge of revolution. They wanted to continue the war with a newly-raised revolutionary force while awaiting for these upheavals. [26] Consequently, Lenin agreed to Trotsky's formula—a position summed up as "no war – no peace"—which was announced when the negotiators reconvened on 10 February 1918. The Soviets thought that their stalling was succeeding until 16 February when Hoffmann notified them that the war would resume in two days, when fifty-three divisions advanced against the near-empty Soviet trenches. On the night of 18 February, the Central Committee supported Lenin's resolution that they sign the treaty by a margin of seven to five. Hoffmann kept advancing until 23 February when he presented new terms that included the withdrawal of all Soviet troops from Ukraine and Finland. The Soviets were given 48 hours to open negotiations with the Germans, and another 72 to conclude them. [27] Lenin told the Central Committee that "you must sign this shameful peace in order to save the world revolution". [28] If they did not agree, he would resign. He was supported by six Central Committee members, opposed by three, with Trotsky and three others abstaining. [29] Trotsky resigned as foreign minister and was replaced by Georgy Chicherin.

When Sokolnikov arrived at Brest-Litovsk, he declared "we are going to sign immediately the treaty presented to us as an ultimatum but at the same time refuse to enter into any discussion of its terms". [30] The treaty was signed at 17:50 on 3 March 1918.

Signing Edit

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed on 3 March 1918. The signatories were Soviet Russia signed by Grigori Sokolnikov on the one side and the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Ottoman Empire on the other.

The treaty marked Russia's final withdrawal from World War I as an enemy of her co-signatories, on severe terms. In all, the treaty took away territory that included a quarter of the population and the industry of the former Russian Empire [31] and nine tenths of its coal mines. [32]

Territorial cessions in eastern Europe Edit

Russia renounced all territorial claims in Finland (which it had already acknowledged), Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), most of Belarus, and Ukraine.

The territory of the Kingdom of Poland was not mentioned in the treaty because Russian Poland had been a possession of the white movement, not the Bolsheviks. The treaty stated that "Germany and Austria-Hungary intend to determine the future fate of these territories in agreement with their populations." Most of the territories were in effect ceded to Germany, which intended to have them become economic and political dependencies. The many ethnic German residents (Volksdeutsche) would be the ruling elite. New monarchies were created in Lithuania and the United Baltic Duchy (which comprised the modern countries of Latvia and Estonia). The German aristocrats Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach (in Lithuania), and Adolf Friedrich, Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (in the United Baltic Duchy), were appointed as rulers.

This plan was detailed by German Colonel General Erich Ludendorff, who wrote, "German prestige demands that we should hold a strong protecting hand, not only over German citizens, but over all Germans." [33]

The occupation of Western Russia ultimately proved a costly blunder for Berlin, as over one million German troops lay sprawled out from Poland nearly to the Caspian Sea, all idle and depriving Germany of badly needed manpower in France. The hopes of utilizing Ukraine's grain and coal proved abortive in addition, the local population became increasingly upset at the occupation. Revolts and guerrilla warfare began breaking out all over the occupied territory, many of them inspired by Bolshevik agents. German troops also had to intervene in the Finnish Civil War, and Ludendorff became increasingly paranoid about his troops being affected by propaganda emanating from Moscow, which was one of the reasons he was reluctant to transfer divisions to the Western Front. The attempt at establishing an independent Ukrainian state under German guidance was unsuccessful as well. However, Ludendorff completely ruled out the idea of marching on Moscow and Petrograd to remove the Bolshevik government from power.

Germany transferred hundreds of thousands of veteran troops to the Western Front for the 1918 Spring Offensive, which shocked the Allied Powers but ultimately failed. Some Germans later blamed the occupation for significantly weakening the Spring Offensive.

Russia lost 34% of its population, 54% of its industrial land, 89% of its coalfields, and 26% of its railways. Russia was also fined 300 million gold marks.

Territorial cessions in the Caucasus Edit

At the insistence of Talaat Pasha, the treaty declared that the territory Russia took from the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), specifically Ardahan, Kars, and Batumi, were to be returned. At the time of the treaty, this territory was under the effective control of Armenian and Georgian forces.

Paragraph 3 of Article IV of the treaty stated that:

The districts of Erdehan, Kars, and Batum will likewise and without delay be cleared of Russian troops. Russia will not interfere in the reorganization of the national and international relations of these districts, but leave it to the population of these districts to carry out this reorganization in agreement with the neighboring states, especially with the Ottoman Empire.

Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia rejected the treaty and instead declared independence. They formed the short-lived Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic.

Soviet-German financial agreement of August 1918 Edit

In the wake of Soviet repudiation of Tsarist bonds, the nationalisation of foreign-owned property and confiscation of foreign assets, the Soviets and Germany signed an additional agreement on 27 August 1918. The Soviets agreed to pay six billion marks in compensation for German losses.

ARTICLE 2 Russia shall pay Germany six billion marks as compensation for losses sustained by Germans through Russian measures at the same time corresponding claims on Russia's part are taken into account, and the value of supplies confiscated in Russia by German military forces after the conclusion of peace is taken into account. [34]

The amount was equal to 300 million rubles. [35]

The treaty meant that Russia now was helping Germany win the war by freeing up a million German soldiers for the Western Front [36] and by "relinquishing much of Russia's food supply, industrial base, fuel supplies, and communications with Western Europe". [37] [38] According to historian Spencer Tucker, the Allied Powers felt that "The treaty was the ultimate betrayal of the Allied cause and sowed the seeds for the Cold War. With Brest-Litovsk, the spectre of German domination in Eastern Europe threatened to become reality, and the Allies now began to think seriously about military intervention [in Russia]." [39]

For the Western Allied Powers, the terms that Germany had imposed on Russia were interpreted as a warning of what to expect if the Central Powers won the war. Between Brest-Litovsk and the point when the situation in the Western Front became dire, some officials in the German government and the high command began to favor offering more lenient terms to the Allied Powers in exchange for their recognition of German gains in the east. [ citation needed ]

The treaty marked a significant contraction of the territory controlled by the Bolsheviks or that they could lay claim to as effective successors of the Russian Empire. While the independence of Poland was already accepted by them in principle, and Lenin had signed a document accepting the Finnish independence, the loss of Ukraine and the Baltics created, from the Bolshevik perspective, dangerous bases of anti-Bolshevik military activity in the subsequent Russian Civil War (1918–1922). However, Bolshevik control of Ukraine and Transcaucasia was at the time fragile or non-existent. [40] Many Russian nationalists and some revolutionaries were furious at the Bolsheviks' acceptance of the treaty and joined forces to fight them. Non-Russians who inhabited the lands lost by Bolshevik Russia in the treaty saw the changes as an opportunity to set up independent states.

Immediately after the signing of the treaty, Lenin moved the Soviet government from Petrograd to Moscow. [41] Trotsky blamed the peace treaty on the bourgeoisie, the social revolutionaries, [42] Tsarist diplomats, Tsarist bureaucrats, "the Kerenskys, Tseretelis and Chernovs". [43] the Tsarist regime, and the "petty-bourgeois compromisers". [44]

Relations between Russia and the Central Powers did not go smoothly. The Ottoman Empire broke the treaty by invading the newly created First Republic of Armenia in May 1918. Joffe became the Soviet ambassador to Germany. His priority was distributing propaganda to trigger the German revolution. On 4 November 1918, "the Soviet courier's packing-case had 'come to pieces ' " in a Berlin railway station [45] it was filled with insurrectionary documents. Joffe and his staff were ejected from Germany in a sealed train on 5 November 1918. In the Armistice of 11 November 1918 that ended World War I, one clause abrogated the Brest-Litovsk treaty. Next, the Bolshevik legislature (VTsIK) annulled the treaty on 13 November 1918, and the text of the VTsIK Decision was printed in the newspaper Pravda the next day. In the year after the armistice following a timetable set by the victors, the German Army withdrew its occupying forces from the lands gained in Brest-Litovsk. The fate of the region, and the location of the eventual western border of the Soviet Union, was settled in violent and chaotic struggles over the course of the next three and a half years. The Polish–Soviet War was particularly bitter it ended with the Treaty of Riga in 1921. Although most of Ukraine fell under Bolshevik control and eventually became one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union, Poland and the Baltic states re-emerged as independent nations. In the Treaty of Rapallo, concluded in April 1922, Germany accepted the Treaty's nullification, and the two powers agreed to abandon all war-related territorial and financial claims against each other. This state of affairs lasted until 1939. As part of the secret protocol of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union advanced its borders westward by invading Poland in September 1939, taking a small part of Finland in November 1939, and annexing the Baltic States and Romania (Bessarabia) in 1940. It thus overturned almost all the territorial losses incurred at Brest-Litovsk, except for the main part of Finland, western Congress Poland, and western Armenia.

Emil Orlik, the Viennese Secessionist artist, attended the conference, at the invitation of Richard von Kühlmann. He drew portraits of all the participants, along with a series of smaller caricatures. These were gathered together into a book, Brest-Litovsk, a copy of which was given to each of the participants. [46]


Which WWI peace treaty was harsher?Versailles or Brest-Litovsk?

. The Austrians? They did not get dismembered. They were forbidden from Anschlussing to Germany, which was dodgy, but otherwise they were not punished. Or if you mean the whole Empire. well, I hate to break to you, but feudalism was over, the nationalities were no longer a Habsburg fiefdom - they wanted to break away, and they did even before the war ended, the peace just recognized the fact. The Austrian empire stopped existing before the November ceasefire already, there was nothing left to dismember.

As for Hungary, well, once again, the minorities wanted to go. Entente hypocrisy and a fear of the Reds in Hungary ensured that they got the short end of the stick and some purely Hungarian territories also got detached - but keeping up a Hungarian nation where Hungarians were a minority yet everyone else was a second-class citizen would not have worked. Mind you, the concept of ethnic nationalism and the idea that ethnically homogenous nation states have to be established - or else - is quite bankrupt now, but at the time it seemed like a sensible alternative to one nationality oppressing several others (the reality of a lot of European empires pre-WWI).

Lukedalton

Admiral Halsey

Lukedalton

Magnificate

Caesar Biden

Kung Zog

Brest Litovsk was much harsher. It aimed to annex and/or puppet as much territory as possible. During the Paris negations on the other hand, which becomes really apparent when reading the minutes, the victors were quite limited in what they wanted. French demands for Rhineland is the only thing that comes close, and it is still far away from Brest-Litovsk.

While the territory taken by Germany from Russia was not really "Russian" territory, it was definitely not German. It aimed to cripple Russia economically and create numerous colonies to extract resources from and settle Germans in.

Brundlefly

All in all, I'd say Brest-Litovsk was harsher.

In terms of territory, though, I'd say that both treaties were actually less harsh than they sounded. For instance, the loss of the German colonies was more a loss of prestige than an economic one. And Brest-Litovsk may have included a large territorial loss for Russia, but not necessarily for Soviet Russia. Back in 1917, the Soviets only controlled Moscow and the larger area surrounding Moscow. The areas conceded to Germany according to the Treaty were not controlled by the Red Army yet. So basically Trotsky could have gone for a gamble: signing the treaty, consolidating the Soviet power in Moscow, and speculating on a future German defeat, which would have left the German-occupied areas open subjects at the Paris conference..

Perfidious Albion

(A) Why is that relevant? This isn't the 21st century. The Russian Empire wasn't "Russia" as we might nowadays understand a nation-state it was not the territory consisting of ethnic Russians and them only. The Russian Empire was the domain ruled by the House of Romanov, just as Austria-Hungary was the domain ruled by the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, and the Ottoman Empire for that matter was the domain ruled by the House of Osman. Your mindset was made a standard by Woodrow Wilson and his (highly inconsistently applied) principle of self-determination, after Brest-Litovsk came into effect and after Brest-Litovsk was made redundant by the defeat (yes, it was a defeat) of Imperial Germany by the Entente. Judging Brest-Litovsk by that principle is like judging Napoleon Bonaparte for not abiding by the Geneva Convention. The leaders of Imperial Germany certainly wouldn't have cared about such things. Imperial Germany merely sought to weaken Russia, as it weakened France after defeating it and imposing the Treaty of Frankfurt upon it.

(B) Even if that mindset were true, this would still be inaccurate. There were plenty of ethnic Russians in the territories taken from Russia real-life ethnic boundaries aren't just lines on a map where you can say "everyone of Nationality X is on this side of this line". Meanwhile, Schleswig contained plenty of Danes, Alsace-Lorraine never wanted to be German to begin with (judging by the behaviour of the people whom the people of Alsace-Lorraine elected to office) and the lands given to Poland were mostly Polish lands that Prussia had taken from Poland long before. The Saarland one could reasonably say shouldn't have had anything happen to it and one can argue about Silesia, but for the most part the political borders drawn up at Versailles between Germany and Denmark, Poland and France corresponded to ethnic boundaries as well as could reasonably have been done.

By that definition, if the German democrats had managed to prevent the National Socialists from taking power, this would retroactively mean that Versailles was less harsh than it was in OTL, even though it's the exact same treaty. Easy reductio ad absurdum.

Such a retroactive definition is, frankly, silly.

Mirage

Kung Zog

Perfidious Albion

I agree that Austria has far, far more of a case for having been treated harshly by the Entente than Germany does—later, dubious propaganda about having been an unwilling victim of the National Socialists notwithstanding.

Austria started off the First World War as a great power and ended it as a scarcely relevant state, with even lands that it could reasonably claim to be core Austrian territories taken away for the sake of expedience, in spite of the principle of self-determination which was supposed to govern Wilson's peace. Whether by the old way of looking at territories of houses or the new way of nationalist self-determination, both of which are equally valid when considering Versailles, Trianon et cetera, Austria was treated extremely poorly.

Fasquardon

The Germans very much wanted to turn Russia into a quasi-colony, and Brest-Litovsk was explicitly a step in that direction.

By comparison, the British and Americans explicitly wanted to preserve Germany as a great power.

The only reason Brest-Litovsk comes off looking so good is because the Germans were defeated in the West before they were able to actually enforce more than 1/10th of it. Even so, that 1/10th was worse than Versailles.

Napoleon IV

Matteo

Brest-Litovsk was a treaty between a victorious Great Power and an utterly defeated power with no ability to resist and about to engage in Civil War. Or perhaps more accurately, it was an agreement with a group that never existed before claiming it controlled Russia.

Versailles was a treaty between Great Powers. Germany was beaten, but it was still on foreign territory and was retreating in good enough order that the Entente was fighting for every mile. Casualty totals for the 100 days show what kind of a price would be payed if the Entente choose to push onto Berlin and prolong the war another year. In negotiations you pay for what you want. The Entente didn't want those casualties so it got less then Germany got from Russia.

The german imperial general staff tried to make believe that the Army was retreating in good order. In fact it was in the verge of collapsing and was forced not only to retreat but also to quickly ask for peace.

They used this propaganda lie to build the back-stabbing lie.

Kung Zog

The Germans very much wanted to turn Russia into a quasi-colony, and Brest-Litovsk was explicitly a step in that direction.

By comparison, the British and Americans explicitly wanted to preserve Germany as a great power.

The only reason Brest-Litovsk comes off looking so good is because the Germans were defeated in the West before they were able to actually enforce more than 1/10th of it. Even so, that 1/10th was worse than Versailles.

Richter von Manthofen

I am just wondering if you know what the "Treaty of Brest-Litovsk" actually said. I get the Feeling you only look at the wiki map and think "WOW they took a large piece out of the Russian Empire".

I agree that the territorial losses of Germany (not including colonies) are not as vast as the territories that the Russian Empire lost. But the overwhelming part of those territories were not transferred to the Central powers, but were territories that wanted to break away from the Russian Empire (Ukraine, Finland, some Baltics). Thats comparable (by Quality and probably quantity) to the territory Austria Hungary lost)

Now to other (selected and comparable) issues.

Navy ships - Germany had to surrender (most and best) of theirs, Russia could Keep them
Army - Germany was limited in Army size, Russia had to demobilize
Germany was prohibited to use (modern) weapons - no such Limit on Russia

Russia lost a sizeable part of Industry and mines (most went to sucessor states, or probablle sucessor states like Poland) - Germany lost for example the Saar coal mines (not the territory but the mines were now French property)

War guilt - well no such thing in the treaty with Russia.

War cost - both sides took their cost in B-L without demands to the other side. Versailles Germany had to agree to take on teh war cost eof the Entente (later it was fixed to around 269 Billion Goldmark). In an addition (August 1918) to B-L Russia agreed to pay 6 Billion Goldmark. (but this Addition had additional Agreements, some of which benefitted Red Russia - The russians even considered to ask Germany to send soldiers to fight against the Entente Forces on Russian soil ! - that Highlights the severness of German demands - the loser actually considered to INVITE the former enemy to help out

Sure B-L was not a light peace (and the Russians later said they should have taken Germanys original terms, because B-L later was harsher - maybe because Ukraine had made peace with Germany and wanted support from Germany ), but it let Russias sovereignity of the remaining territory fully intact. Versailles grossly limited Germanys sovereignity.

Russia could negotiate the terms, GErmany was FORCED to take the terms.

B-L had under 20 articles, Versailles 440!

What about the patents and rights Germany lost at Versailles?

True Russia lost more percent of ist European territory.

BTW did you know that only the English and French VErsions of Versailles were "binding" - For B-L the Russian text stood equal to the German. if questions would arise.

Richter von Manthofen

GrafZahl

Hello folks,
this beeing my first I hope I can add something to the discussion.

Do you have any facts to back up this argument? Such as russian obligations beyond reparations? With "russian" I mean "sowjet russia" in post Brest-Litowsk borders?

A nation allowed an army of 100.000 men, with now heavy weapons, no tanks, no airforce at all and an navy of up to 6 pre-dreadnought battleships as max allowed strenght is hardly a great power. It is not even a mediocre power. It is playing in the same league as luxembourg.

If someone wants to compare Versailles and Brest-Litowsk in terms of harshness, it is necessary to define a point of view first.
Like defining if peoples self determination is a principle to be embraced, or not? (moral question)
Also it would be necessary to determine the weight of the different dimensions? What is more important? Loss of people? Loss of territory? Forced disarming? Loss of sovereignity? Occupation? Reparations?

That said, I think the concept of peoples self determination is a valid and good concept. That said the loss of germanys colonies wasn't that harsh. This also applies to the sowjet "losses".
The sowjet government was not imperial russia. Territories belonging to the russian empire, like ukraine, finnland, the baltics, poland, belorussia never belonged to a "Sowjet Union" before. They were not inhabited by russians, but other ethnic groups. And those wanted to be no part of a Sowjet Union. The wanted their own states, even before the war.
It is comparable to the hungarians, the czechs, croats etc. in austro-hungary.
Brest-Litowsk gave those people independence. Of course they would have been german puppets somewhat, as this status fits the interests of both sides (the new states seeking protection agains sowjet russia, germany is glad to have buffer states against the former russian colossus).

To put things short: I do not see the border changes in the east as harsh in any way.
If you deny the right of self determination and see the sowjet government as legit successor to imperial russian rule and put emphasis on the value of territory, instead of percentage of total territory (Sowjet Union still largest country on earth), then B-L is indeed very harsh in terms of territory.
As far as I know (could be that I am wrong here) germany annexed no (or next to none) russian territory.
On the other hand Versailles saw huge losses of german territory, with majority german population to other nations. These were also important parts of germany. The only part with german minority germany ceeded was poznan. Every other part was 80-95% german.
Also germany paid far more reparations, had his military crippled, was occupied for decades (Rhineland, Saar, Ruhr), with german citizens degraded to somewhat downtrodden lesser humans, bullied by largely african french colonial troops, including quite some cases of rape.
Also germany was no longer a sovereign nation. It was widely viewed as a total disgrace. What it was and is.

By the way: Germany and Great Britain today are puppets of the USA, no matter what they tell you. And both countries (and many others to) have no more independence than a puppet ukraine had from germany.


Treaty of Brest Litovsk

The ruined fortress town of Brest Litovsk, deep behind German lines in occupied Poland, was selected by the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey) as the site to conduct negotiations with the new Soviet government. There, on December 2, 1917 an armistice was signed, but it would not be until March 3 (NS), 1918 that a formal treaty was issued. Even thereafter, military action continued for several months, as the German army pushed further and further into territories nominally under Soviet control.

Initially, the Soviet government’s strategy, as articulated by Trotsky, its commissar for foreign affairs, was “neither war nor peace.” That is, assuming that the capitalist world was on the brink of exhaustion and that Soviet defiance would rouse the oppressed masses of Europe to revolution, Trotsky argued (against the opposition of Lenin) that the negotiations should be used for propaganda purposes. However, after the Germans resumed military operations on February 18 (NS) and presented stiffer demands that included an end to the Soviet presence in Ukraine and the Baltic provinces, Lenin achieved a majority in the party’s Central Committee in favor of accepting the enemy’s terms. Thus, the Treaty of Brest Litovsk provided the fledgling Soviet government with a “breathing spell,” in effect buying it time by sacrificing space.

This bow to expediency did not go down well with many Bolsheviks, not to speak of their sympathizers in Europe or Russia’s war-time allies who had feared just such a separate peace. At the Bolsheviks’ Seventh Congress, the treaty was denounced by Nikolai Bukharin and other so-called Left Communists as a capitulation to imperialism. It also was anathema to the Left SRs who, having supplied several commissars to Sovnarkom in December, withdrew them in protest and voted against the treaty at the Fourth Congress of Soviets. Their assassination of the German ambassador, Count Mirbach, in early July was preliminary to an uprising in Moscow, and the simultaneous but separately organized seizure of Yaroslavl’. In the meantime, the German army rolled across Ukraine, easily defeating the isolated soviet “republics” that had been established in Odessa, Kiev, and the Donets-Krivoi Rog, and installing General P. P. Skoropadskii as “Hetman” (Chieftain) of a thoroughly dependant Ukrainian state. The collapse of the German and Austrian-Hungarian empires in November 1918 left Ukraine once again up for grabs among the Ukrainian nationalist Rada, the Soviet Red Army, various peasant-based anarchist groups, and eventually. Poland. The German army would return in 1941.

/>
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


Treaty of Brest Litovsk

ARTICLE 1. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey on the one hand and Russia on the other declare that the condition of war between them bas ceased. They have decided to live in peace and accord in the future.

ARTICLE 2. The contracting parties will refrain from all agitation or propaganda against the governments or all state and military institutions of the other side …

ARTICLE 3. The territories lying to the west of the line determined by the contracting powers and which formerly belonged to Russia will no longer be under her sovereignty. Russia gives up all interference in the internal affairs of the said countries. Germany and Austria-Hungary intend to determine the future fate of the said territories with the consent of their inhabitants.

ARTICLE 4. Germany is ready, as soon as general peace is established and Russian demobilization will have completely taken place, to vacate the territories lying east of the line mentioned in article 3. Russia will do all in her power to have the provinces of eastern Anatolia promptly evacuated and returned to Turkey. The territories of Ardakhan, Kars and Batum will also be cleared without delay of Russian forces .

ARTICLE 5. Russia will, without delay, proceed to demobilize her army, including those army units newly formed by her present government. Moreover, Russia will either bring her warships into Russian ports and keep them there until general peace is concluded, or will disarm them at once.

ARTICLE 6. Russia undertakes to conclude peace at once with the Ukrainian people’s republic and to recognize the treaty of peace between the state and the powers of the Quadruple Alliance. The territory of the Ukraine must be, at once, cleared of Russian troops and the Russian Red Guard. Russia ceases all agitation or propaganda against the government or the public institutions of the Ukrainian people’s republic. Estonia and Lithuania must also be immediately cleared of Russian troops and the Russian Red Guard Finland and the Aland Islands will also be, without delay, cleared of Russian troops and the Russian Red Guard and Finnish ports of the Russian fleet and of Russian naval forces. Russia ceases all agitation or propaganda against the government or public institutions of Finland.

ARTICLE 7. The contracting parties bind themselves to respect the political and economic independence and the territorial inviolability of Persia and Afghanistan.

ARTICLE 8. The prisoners of war of both parties will be allowed to return home .

ARTICLE 9. The contracting parties mutually renounce all indemnifications for their war expenses, that is, for government expenses for conducting the war, including all requisitions made in the enemy’s country.

ARTICLE 10. Diplomatic and consular relations between the contracting parties are resumed at once after ratification of the treaty of peace. The question of allowing consuls of both parties free entrance will be decided by a separate agreement.

ARTICLE 11. The economic relations between the powers of the Quadruple Alliance and Russia are regulated by decisions contained in Appendices II to V, which determines the relations between Germany and Russia, between Austria-Hungary and Russia, between Bulgaria and Russia and between Turkey and Russia.

ARTICLE 12. The reestablishment of public and private legal relations, the exchange of war and civil prisoners, the question of amnesty as well as the question regarding merchant ships which have been seized by one or the other side, will be provided for in separate treaties with Russia, which form an important part of the present peace treaty, and as far as it is possible come into force simultaneously with the latter.

ARTICLE 13. In interpreting this treaty the authentic texts for relations between Germany and Russia shall be the German and Russian texts, between Austria-Hungary and Russia the German, Hungarian and Russian texts, between Bulgaria and Russia the Bulgarian and Russian texts, between Turkey and Russia the Turkish and Russian texts.

ARTICLE 14. The present peace treaty must be ratified. Exchange of ratification documents must take place in Berlin as soon as possible. The Russian Government binds itself to execute the exchange of ratification documents in the course of two weeks.


Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

History of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk The following commentary about Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in the Churchill Era is produced by the Churchill College (Cambridge): Peace treaty between Germany and Bolshevik Russia signed on 3rd March 1918. Russia surrendered huge areas, including the Ukraine, […]

Buy your UK Vintage Company Today

  • UP TO DATE. All our vintage ready-made companies are up to date, with dormant statutory filing.
  • AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY. Company number is available for immediate use.
  • COMPETITIVE PRICES. Vintage company prices vary depending on date of formation, but we have the best prices.
  • 17-Jun-03: £4.900
  • 25-Jun-03: £4.900
  • 30-sep-03: £4.800
  • 04-Jan-05: £3.900
  • 17-Oct-05: £3.700
  • 17-Oct-05: £3.700
  • 13-Jul-07: £2.900

Related Entries of the International Encyclopedia:

    Embracing mainstream international law, this section on brussels treaty organization explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "brussels treaty organization" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of [. ].South-east Asia Treaty Organization South-east Asia Treaty Organization Embracing mainstream international law, this section on south-east asia treaty organization explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources See Also International Organization [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties conclusion explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, conclusion" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties denunciation explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, denunciation" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties depositories explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, depositories" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties invalidity explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, invalidity" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties repudiation explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, repudiation" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties reservations explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, reservations" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties validity explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, validity" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties most ratified explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, most ratified/acceded to" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on jay treaty explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "jay treaty" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (currently, the [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties termination and suspension explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, termination and suspension" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties territorial application explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, territorial application" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on travaux préparatoires of treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, travaux préparatoires" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on test-ban treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "test-ban treaties" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties correction explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, correction" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties definition explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, definition" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaties mistake explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, mistake" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on law-making treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "law-making treaties" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on leonine treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "leonine treaties" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Pluralistic (treaties) Embracing mainstream international law, this section on pluralistic (treaties) explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "pluralistic (treaties)" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on st. germain treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "st. germain treaties" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on unequal treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "unequal treaties" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on amendment treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, amendment" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on authentication treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, authentication" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on error in treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, error" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on initialing treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, initialing" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on observance of treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, observance of" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on third parties and treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, third parties and" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of [. ].Legislative History (of Treaties) Embracing mainstream international law, this section on legislative history (of treaties) explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "legislative history (of treaties)" in the [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on entry into force of treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, entry into force" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on provisional application of treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, provisional application" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on constitutive treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "constitutive treaties" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on registration of treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "registration of treaties" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on revision of treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "revision of treaties" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on conventions on the law of treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, conventions on the law of" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on interpretation of treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaties, interpretation of" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of [. ].Signature ad referendum and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Signature ad referendum provided by the European Union Commission: A representative may sign a treaty "ad referendum", i.e., under the condition that the signature is confirmed by his state. In this case, [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on western european union explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Western European Union and the European Union Resources See Also International Organization Foreign Relations Intergovernmental [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on ecb explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. ECB and the European Union Resources See Also European Central Bank Resources Further Reading The entry "ecb" in the Parry and Grant [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on nuclear test ban treaties explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "nuclear test ban treaties" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on charter on fundamental rights of the european union explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "fundamental rights of the european union, charter on" in the [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on personal union explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Embracing mainstream international law, this section on personal union explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on political union explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Embracing mainstream international law, this section on political union explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on real union explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Embracing mainstream international law, this section on real union explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. [. ].History of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919 The following commentary about Treaty of Versailles, 1919 in the Churchill Era is produced by the Churchill College (Cambridge): Peace treaty signed in 1919 which officially ended the First World War, after six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace [. ].Treaty on European Union and Maastricht Treaty and the European Union Resources See Also TEU.Summary of Treaty Treaty in International Law A formal, written compact entered into by sovereign nations. Customarily, an agreement provides that the treaty will not come into force until it has been ratified, i.e., approved by each government in accordance with its respective [. ].Treaty Of Rome Summary of Treaty Of Rome The document, signed at Rome in 1957 (effective January 1, 1958), by which the six founding states established the European Economic Community (read this and related legal terms for further details). (Main Author: William J. Miller) The Treaty of [. ].Introduction to Treaty ContentOn the international level, the scope of the treaty-making power of a state is practically unlimited. It includes the acquisition of foreign territory, the cession of domestic territory, the delimitation and rectification of boundaries, the promise of mutual as.Treaty Conclusion and Ratification Introduction to Treaty Ratification International law prescribes neither a fixed form for a treaty nor any fixed procedure for its conclusion. It may be concluded by an exchange of diplomatic notes incorporating an agreed-upon text signed by authorized [. ].Introduction to Treaty TerminationTreaties may be terminated in various ways. The treaty itself may provide for its termination at a specified time or it may allow one party to give notice of termination, effective either at the time of receipt or following the expiration of a specified per.Types of TreatiesIntroduction to Treaty TypesMany treaties can be classified as either political or commercial agreements. Political treaties may relate to mutual defense in case of armed attack to guarantees of a particular status, such as neutrality or to the preservation of ex.Principal Organs, Subsidiary Organs, Treaty Bodies Further Reading A concise encyclopedia of the United Nations (including Treaty Bodies , H Volger, KA Annan -2010) The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations (TG Weiss - 2007) International Law: A Dictionary (including Treaty Bodies , Boczek, [. ].Adoption and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Adoption provided by the European Union Commission: "Adoption" is the formal act by which the form and content of a proposed treaty text are established. As a general rule, the adoption of the text of a treaty takes place [. ].Amendment and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Amendment provided by the European Union Commission: The term "amendment" refers to the formal alteration of treaty provisions affecting all the parties to the particular agreement. Such alterations must be effected with [. ].Authentication and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Authentication provided by the European Union Commission: The term "authentication" refers to the procedure whereby the text of a treaty is established as authentic and definitive. Once a treaty has been [. ].Notification and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Notification provided by the European Union Commission: The term "notification" refers to a formality through which a state or an international organization communicates certain facts or events of legal importance. [. ].Objection and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Objection provided by the European Union Commission: Any signatory or contracting state has the option of objecting to a reservation, inter alia, if, in its opinion, the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of [. ].Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Treaty of Amsterdam provided by the European Union Commission: The Treaty of Amsterdam is the result of the Intergovernmental Conference launched at the Turin European Council on 29 March 1996. It was adopted at the [. ].Party and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Party provided by the European Union Commission: (to an international treaty) A party to a treaty is a State, International Organisation or other entity with treaty making capacity that has expressed its consent to be bound by that [. ].Reservation and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Reservation provided by the European Union Commission: A reservation is a declaration made by a state by which it purports to exclude or alter the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that [. ].Signature and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Signature provided by the European Union Commission: Signature not subject to ratification ( see Definitive signature) &bull Simple signature ( see Signature subject to Ratification, Acceptance of Approval) &bull Signature ad [. ].Summary and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Summary provided by the European Union Commission: A treaty summary contains: &bull General Data : title type (bilateral or multilateral) place and date of signature objective remarks subject matter key words depositary [. ].Treaty Bargaining: International Incident In the book "International Incidents for Discussion in Conversation Classes", in relation to terminox, L. Oppenheim wrote in 1909: States A and B enter into a new commercial treaty in which, among other stipulations, it is agreed that state [. ].Cross References of Treaty Affairs in International Law Consular Notification and Compliance Act, information on Consular Assistence, Judicial Assistece and Related Issues in this legal Encyclopedia.A.2.c. Bermuda Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, information on International Criminal Law in [. ].Conclusion, Entry Into Force, and Reservations In relation to the international law practice and conclusion, entry into force, and reservations in this world legal Encyclopedia, please see the following section: Treaty Affairs About this subject:Arms Trade Treaty Note: there is [. ].Litigation Involving Treaty Law Issues In relation to the international law practice and litigation involving treaty law issues in this world legal Encyclopedia, please see the following section: Treaty Affairs About this subject:Constitutionality of MARPOL Amendment ProcedureNote: [. ].Denunciation of the Treaty of 2 November 1865 Between China and Belgium Embracing mainstream international law, this section on denunciation of the treaty of 2 november 1865 between china and belgium explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources [. ].Interpretation of Article 3(2) of the Treaty of Lausanne Case Embracing mainstream international law, this section on interpretation of article 3(2) of the treaty of lausanne case explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Embracing mainstream international [. ].Modification (in Treaty Law) Embracing mainstream international law, this section on modification (in treaty law) explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "modification (in treaty law)" in the Parry and Grant [. ].Reconsideration (of Treaties) Embracing mainstream international law, this section on reconsideration (of treaties) explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "reconsideration (of treaties)" in the Parry and [. ].Redintegration (of Treaties) Embracing mainstream international law, this section on redintegration (of treaties) explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "redintegration (of treaties)" in the Parry and Grant [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaty of tlatelolco explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "tlatelolco, treaty of" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaty collections explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaty collections" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaty event explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaty event" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (currently, the [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaty handbook explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaty handbook" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaty of berlin explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "berlin, treaty of" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Treaty of Brussels and Europe There is an entry on treaty of brussels in the European legal encyclopedia. Resources See Also Further Reading Entry "Treaty of Brussels" in the work "A Concise Encyclopedia of the European Union from Aachen to Zollverein", by Rodney Leach [. ].Treaty of the Elysée Treaty of the Elysée and Europe There is an entry on treaty of the elysée in the European legal encyclopedia. Treaty of the Elysée and the European Union Resources See Also Elysée Treaty Resources See Also Further Reading Entry "Treaty of the [. ].Treaties and Treaty Interpretation in International Economic Law This section provides an overview of treaties and treaty interpretation within the legal context of Sources of Law in international economic law . Resources Further Reading Isabelle Van Damme, "Treaties and Treaty [. ].Treaty of Maastricht and the European Union Resources See Also Maastricht Treaty and Treaty on European Union.Article I GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This Treaty establishes the regime, to be known as the Open Skies regime, for the conduct of observation flights by States Parties over the territories of other States Parties, and sets forth the rights and obligations of the States Parties relating [. ].Conclusion, Entry Into Force, and Reservations In relation to the international law practice and conclusion, entry into force, and reservations in this world legal Encyclopedia, please see the following section: Treaty Affairs About this subject:Multilateral Nuclear Environment Programme [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaty of versailles 1919 explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "versailles, treaty of, 1919" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaty of peace of westphalia 1648 explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "westphalia, peace of, treaty of, 1648" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaty of neuilly case explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "treaty of neuilly case" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International [. ].Maastricht Treaty and Treaty on European Union and the European Union Resources See Also International Organization Foreign Relations Intergovernmental Organization Regional Organization Regional Integration Resources See Also Treaty of Maastricht.Guadalupe Hidalgo - Treaty Resources See Also Gadsden Purchase.Article I 1. Each State Party shall carry out the obligations set forth in this Treaty in accordance with its provisions, including those obligations relating to the following five categories of conventional armed forces: battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, artillery, combat [. ].Interpretation of Article 24 of the Treaty of Finance and Compensation of 27 November 1961 Embracing mainstream international law, this section on interpretation of article 24 of the treaty of finance and compensation of 27 november 1961 explores the context, history and effect of the area of [. ].ContentsTreaty LawThe Concept of Treaty in International Law (book)NotesSee AlsoReferences and Further ReadingAbout the Author/s and Reviewer/sMentioned in these EntriesBuy your UK Vintage Company Today Treaty Law The Concept of Treaty in International Law (book) Whether or not a certain norm is legally binding upon international actors may often depend on whether or not the [&hellip].The Antarctic Treaty (AT) Note: for information about the Antarctic Treaty system, please click here. In General By Vito De Lucia The Antarctic Treaty "shall apply to the area south of 60° South Latitude, including all ice shelves" (Art. VI), and its main objective is [. ].Introduction to Treaty ValidityThe usual conditions essential to the valid conclusion of a treaty are that the contracting parties must have the requisite capacity to enter into international engagements, the plenipotentiaries who negotiate the treaty must be properly authorized, and freedo.Treaty of Nice and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Treaty of Nice provided by the European Union Commission: Adopted at the Nice European Council in December 2000, and signed on 26 February 2001, the Treaty of Nice entered into force on 1 February 2003. It is the result of [. ].Registration and Publication and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Registration and Publication provided by the European Union Commission: Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that "every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any [. ].Revision and the Treaties of the European Union Description of Revision provided by the European Union Commission: Revision has basically the same meaning as amendment. However, some treaties provide for a revision additional to an amendment (i.e., Article 109 of the Charter of the United [. ].Conclusion, Entry Into Force, and Reservations In relation to the international law practice and conclusion, entry into force, and reservations in this world legal Encyclopedia, please see the following section: Treaty Affairs About this subject:Objection to Reservation by Namibia [. ].Reconfirmation (of Treaties) Embracing mainstream international law, this section on reconfirmation (of treaties) explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "reconfirmation (of treaties)" in the Parry and Grant [. ].Renewal (of Treaties) Embracing mainstream international law, this section on renewal (of treaties) explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "renewal (of treaties)" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaty of utrecht explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "utrecht, treaty of" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on treaty of trianon explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "trianon, treaty of" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Meaning of Treaty of Paris Here is a very short concept of treaty of paris in the European Union framework: The first of Europe's three founding Treaties, concluded in 1951 and establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. It is due to expire in July 2002. Resources Notas y [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on tilsit peace treaty explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "tilsit peace treaty" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].ContentsTreaty CitationFinding Treaty Citation: How to Find a Treaty When You Have a CitationCommon AbbreviationsUpdating Treaties, Reservations, PartiesFinding Treaties No Citation: How to Find a Treaty When You Don’t Have a Citation Correct Citation Form in BluebookBuy your UK Vintage Company Today Treaty Citation Finding Treaty Citation: How to Find a Treaty When You Have [&hellip].The Maastricht Treaty (a/k/a the "Treaty of Maastricht" or the "Treaty on Economic Union") created the Euro as Europe's single currency. The treaty was signed Feb. 1, 1992 and came into force Nov. 1, 1993, although the Euro didn't come into use until 1999. The Treaty is [. ].Commercial Treaty in International Trade Meaning of Commercial Treaty, according to the Dictionary of International Trade (Global Negotiator): An agreement between two or more countries setting forth conditions under which business between or among the countries may be transacted. It may [. ].New Start Treaty in 2011 United States views on international law (based on the document "Digest of U.S. Practice in International Law"): On February 5, 2011, the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and [. ].U.S. Joins Patent Law Treaty as a Contracting Party in 2013 United States views on international law Ώ] in relation to U.S. Joins Patent Law Treaty as a Contracting Party: On September 18, 2013, U.S. Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Betty King deposited the U.S. instrument of ratification [. ].Definition of ANZUS Treaty (Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty) Within the context of international organizations, the following is a brief meaning of anzus treaty (australia, new zealand, united states security treaty): ANZUS is a loose military alliance which is pledged to [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on cfe treaty explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "cfe treaty" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (currently, the [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on conclusion of treaty explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "conclusion of treaty" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on dispositive treaty explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "dispositive treaty" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on framework treaty explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "framework treaty" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on hay–pauncefote treaty explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "hay–pauncefote treaty" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on hay–varilla treaty explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "hay–varilla treaty" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on lateran treaty explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "lateran treaty" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (currently, [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on moon treaty explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "moon treaty" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (currently, the [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on non-proliferation treaty explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "non-proliferation treaty" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of [. ].Embracing mainstream international law, this section on renunciation of war treaty explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here. Resources Further Reading The entry "renunciation of war treaty" in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of [. ].

Law is our Passion

This entry about Treaty of Brest-Litovsk has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0) licence, which permits unrestricted use and reproduction, provided the author or authors of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk entry and the Encyclopedia of Law are in each case credited as the source of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk entry. Please note this CC BY licence applies to some textual content of Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and that some images and other textual or non-textual elements may be covered by special copyright arrangements. For guidance on citing Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (giving attribution as required by the CC BY licence), please see below our recommendation of "Cite this Entry".


Contents

Signing

Borders drawn up in the treaty.

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed on 3 March 1918. The signatories were Soviet Russia signed by Grigori Yakovlevich Sokolnikov on the one side and the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Ottoman Empire on the other.

The treaty marked Russia's final withdrawal from World War I as an enemy of her co-signatories, on severe terms. In all, the treaty took away territory that included a quarter of the population and industry of the former Russian Empire and nine-tenths of its coal mines.

Territorial cessions in eastern Europe

Russia renounced all territorial claims in Finland (which it had already acknowledged), Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Belarus, and Ukraine.

The territory of the Poland was not mentioned in the treaty, because Russian Poland had been a possession of the white movement, not the Bolsheviks. The treaty stated that "Germany and Austria-Hungary intend to determine the future fate of these territories in agreement with their populations." Most of these territories were in effect ceded to Germany, which intended to have them become economic and political dependencies. The many ethnic German residents (volksdeutsch) would be the ruling elite. New monarchies were created in Lithuania and the United Baltic Duchy (which comprised the modern countries of Latvia and Estonia). The German aristocrats Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach (in Lithuania), and Adolf Friedrich, Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (in the United Baltic Duchy), were appointed as rulers.

Territorial cessions in the Caucasus

At the insistence of Talaat Pasha, the treaty declared that the territory Russia took from the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), specifically Ardahan, Kars, and Batumi, were to be returned. At the time of the treaty, this territory was under the effective control of Armenian and Georgian forces.

Russian-German financial agreement of August 1918

In the wake of Russian repudiation of Tsarist bonds, nationalization of foreign-owned property and confiscation of foreign assets, the Russians and Germans signed an additional agreement on August 27, 1918. Russia agreed to pay six billion marks in compensation to German interests for their losses.


The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918)

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed March 3rd 1918, ended hostilities between Russia and Germany and its allies. It was a punitive treaty that forced Russia to surrender large amounts of territory.

Article 1. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, for the one part, and Russia, for the other part, declare that the state of war between them has ceased. They are resolved to live henceforth in peace and amity with one another.

Article 2. The contracting parties will refrain from any agitation or propaganda against the Government or the public and military institutions of the other party…

Article 3. The territories lying to the west of the line agreed upon by the contracting parties which formerly belonged to Russia, will no longer be subject to Russian sovereignty the line agreed upon is traced on the map submitted as an essential part of this treaty of peace. The exact fixation of the line will be established by a Russo-German commission… Russia refrains from all interference in the internal relations of these territories. Germany and Austria-Hungary purpose to determine the future status of these territories in agreement with their population.

Article 4. As soon as a general peace is concluded and Russian demobilization is carried out completely Germany will evacuate the territory lying to the east of the line… Russia will do all within her power to insure the immediate evacuation of the provinces of eastern Anatolia and their lawful return to Turkey…

Article 5. Russia will, without delay, carry out the full demobilization of her army inclusive of those units recently organized by the present Government. Furthermore, Russia will either bring her warships into Russian ports and there detain them until the day of the conclusion of a general peace, or disarm them forthwith… In the Baltic sea, and as far as Russian power extends within the Black sea, removal of mines will be proceeded with at once…

Article 8. The prisoners of war of both parties will be released to return to their homeland…

Article 9. The contracting parties mutually renounce compensation for their war expenses…

Article 10. Diplomatic and consular relations between the contracting parties will be resumed immediately upon the ratification of the treaty of peace…

Article 14. The present treaty of peace will be ratified. The documents of ratification shall, as soon as possible, be exchanged in Berlin…

Executed in quintuplicate at Brest-Litovsk, March 3rd 1918.


Watch the video: EU Wahl am 07. Juni 09. EU Parlament und Vertrag von Lissabon. (December 2021).