Leon Trotsky’s Writings on Britain
Volume 1

The Decline of British Imperialism


The Two Britains



ORDER

Of the Chairman of the Revolutionary War Council of the Republic and the People’s Commissar for War and Naval Affairs to the Red Army and the Red Navy.

24th October 1919/No.159/Detskoe Selo (formerly Tsarskoe)

Red Warriors! On all fronts you are encountering the hostile machinations of Britain. Counter-revolutionary forces are firing on you from British artillery. In the dumps at Shenkursk and Onega [1] and on the Southern and Western Fronts you are finding supplies of British manufacture. Prisoners that you have taken wear British uniforms. Women and children of Archangel and Astrakhan are being killed by British pilots using British dynamite. British vessels bombard our coastline. British gold sows depravity by corrupting dishonest elements on the front and in the rear. British wireless lies and slanders our workers” and peasants” Russia day in and day out and attempts to poison the whole world with its lies.

Soldiers! Sailors! Your hearts have on many occasions overflowed with hate for predatory, lying, hypocritical bloody Britain. And your hate is just and sacred. It will multiply your energies in the struggle against the enemy tenfold.

Yet even now at the moment of our ferocious battles against Britain’s hireling Yudenich [2] I demand of you: never forget that two Britains exist. Alongside the Britain of profit, violence, corruption and bloodthirstiness there exists the Britain of labour, intellectual might, and great ideals of international solidarity. Against us fights arrogant and dishonest stock-exchange Britain. Labouring people’s Britain is behind us. We firmly believe that the latter will soon raise itself to its full height and put a strait-jacket on the criminals who are currently leading plots against the toiling masses of Russia. Driven on by this unshakeable confidence let us shout in the fire and smoke of the struggle: Death to the plunderers of imperialism! Long live workers” and labouring people’s Britain!

Order No.159,
published in Pravda and Izvestia, 25th October 1919

* * *

The advantages that the bourgeois counter-revolution had in the struggle against us came down to the fact that they were guaranteed, absolutely everything necessary, and of course on the technical side, they had greater possibilities than we had. Who transported those, legions from Archangel? The British Navy of course. Tanks came into”, Yudenich’s hands. Who brought these tanks? Britain. Who drove these tanks? British specialists trained in military science. Who bombarded Krasnaya Gorka [3] with heavy artillery? British vessels and monitors armed with 15-inch guns – the last word in naval artillery technique, only introduced in 1916. Our sailors defended Krasnaya Gorka under fire from those terrible shells. I have in my hands a wireless communiqué stating that Krasnaya Gorka must be taken today or tomorrow, and there is a communiqué stating that Kronstadt had fallen under the blows from British monitors. They thought that our sailors could not withstand bombardment from 15-inch artillery, but our sailors held out and Krasnaya Gorka and Kronstadt are more firmly in our hands than ever before.

Let me repeat: they had prepared for this campaign, they had awaited this decisive moment. In the first days of October, even before Yudenich’s thrust against Yamburg [4], one of the bourgeois papers wrote that Yudenich’s offensive against Petrograd was imminent in a few days and it would be decisive – this did not reach us at the time for we received the newspaper late. Obviously the British newspaper had given away a military secret, but they were so impatient to promise and propose the toppling of Soviet power that they did this even when it meant damaging their own military interests. British imperialists of the Churchill [5] type had tied their fate too closely to the fate of intervention, and the desperate bourgeoisie put pressure on Churchill and said: “you have squandered over two thousand million francs on the campaigns of the Russian bourgeoisie – and that is merely the military expenditure of British imperialism – this expenditure has brought us nothing except the strengthening of the military might of the Russian Red Army”. He, Churchill answered: “just wait a bit, another week or two or three and General Yudenich will do what that deceitful Kolchak didn’t do and Denikin couldn’t manage. [6] He will take Petrograd and in Petrograd his first job will be to form a mighty army for an offensive deep into Russia.” A Swedish paper had spoken of this plan before the start of the campaign: a short decisive blow at Petrograd, the seizure of Petrograd, securing bases, regrouping and then a thrust from Petrograd to Moscow. Everything had been carefully planned.

Certainly Britain had wanted the thrust to come simultaneously from two sides, from Estonia and from Finland. And throughout October the whole British Press was goading on Finland: for example the British newspaper The Times wrote in its leading article about “the moral duty” of Finland to take part in a robber campaign and that this would raise her international prestige. [7] Mighty Britain, in whose hands lie all favours and all retribution, applied the whole force of concrete threats and bribes in order to involve Finland in an adventure in support of Yudenich. Finland. all the while hesitated and wavered and she has not to date made up her mind, and the explanation of this indecision we find in the Finnish bourgeois press. I have here the most interesting evidence of the growth and rebirth of the communist movement in Finland. This is what the paper Karjala says: “Until recently, Bolshevik newspapers have been distributed here underground, the publications coming from Petrograd, but over the last months our own workers” press has taken on a purely Bolshevik tone. There are a whole number of legal publications which would directly and openly threaten us with revolution in the event of an offensive against Soviet Russia.’

From a report to the Central Executive Committee, 7th November 1919

* * *

This evening’s radio brought us a document which we have long awaited, a document which expresses the attitude of the Entente imperialists towards the Soviet government. You will know that over the last weeks and even months the governments of the Entente countries have been discussing the question of their attitude towards the Soviet government. They came to the conclusion that this attitude must be changed and that Soviet Russia could not be squashed by the military force of Kolchak, Yudenich and Denikin. Millerand, a one-time socialist, the successor to the French prime minister Clemenceau [8] and an advocate of a ruthless armed struggle against Soviet Russia, appeared to tend towards the viewpoint of the British prime minister Lloyd George [9] who has come to the conclusion that a deal with the Soviet government is necessary ... I shall read you this literary work written in the intricate language of bourgeois diplomacy which, it was said long ago, possesses language designed to conceal or distort its original thoughts. This what the memorandum says: The Allied powers have come to an agreement regarding the following points: If the states which hay been formed on the frontiers of Soviet Russia – i.e. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, whose independence is recognized de facto (i.e. in practice) by the Allied powers ask the latter (i.e., Britain and France) what their policy should be” relation to Soviet Russia, then the Allied governments will reply that they cannot take on the responsibility of advising them to continue a war whose outcome could damage their vital interests in the extreme.

That is the intricate beginning to an intricate document. Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Nitti [10] and other, lesser ones who are with them say: if Poland, if Latvia and if Finland ask us how they should act with regard to Soviet Russia, then we Britain, France, Italy now are unable to give the advice: go to war! No, now we will say to them: don’t go to war, for a war will threaten your vital interests.

What a turnabout, in the name of heaven! Britain and France did not make war on us, they gave “advice” to Denikin, Kolchak, Yudenich, the Estonians, White Latvia, the White Finns and the White Rumanians, saying to them: we advise you to rob Soviet Russia of Bessarabia; they said to Yudenich, Denikin and Kolchak: we advise you to put down the workers and peasants. And in order that the advice was not too “lean” they spiced it up with money, artillery, machine-guns and all the necessary war supplies. It was no secret to any of us – the British minister Churchill spoke about this for all to hear – that Britain was mobilizing fourteen nations against us. He stated as much: “fourteen nations under Britain’s leadership are at present in action against Soviet Russia. Now not a trace of this talk is left. Of course Britain neither mobilized, armed nor incited anyone against us but merely gave advice. Now she gives different advice: she says that war against Soviet Russia can damage their vital interests, i.e. the Red Army has become sufficiently powerful for the stock merchants of all countries to realize that a war by Poland against us would mark the death of the Polish landlord, the death of the Polish bourgeoisie and consequently great damage to the interests of the ruling class.

Thus the Anglo-French stock exchange says: don’t make war! We all try to approach the matter from another angle. Which angle? The document states further on: “The Allied powers cannot, in view of (their) past experiences, enter into diplomatic relations with the government of the Soviets until they can be certain that the Bolshevik outrages have ended and the Moscow government feels prepared to make its conduct conform to the conduct of all civilized governments.”

Isn’t that good? They are telling us: ’we will not enter diplomatic relations with the Soviet government because it has bad manners, a bad character and a bad education. But if it was like us, diplomats of Britain and France, if it corrected itself in that direction and drew closer to the methods of the governments of the ‘civilized’ nations, we would enter diplomatic relations with it. Thus they are looking at us both ways: at present we won’t enter into relations with you, but if you correct yourself in the course of time, have a wash and comb your hair, then we will enter into relations with you.”

We are grateful for the kindness. So they recommend that we make our conduct conform to the conduct of all civilized governments. Here it should be said that the experiences that Britain and France had here in Russia were very unpleasant. Many of you have probably forgotten these experiences. We had a British representative here. I must admit I’ve forgotten his name, although in his time he often visited the Commissariat for War. [11] This gentleman, (we cannot say “character” for we must be polite, as they demand of us) this gentleman organized nothing less than a conspiracy (in which the former SR Savinkov [12] played first fiddle) which had the aim of destroying bridges, cutting railway lines, staging an insurrection in the Kremlin and killing Lenin and other officials of Soviet power. They were acting in accordance with the methods of civilized nations but we were acting like barbarians: we caught them red-handed with all their papers giving precise and detailed documentary evidence. In Petrograd one of the agents of this criminal band (I beg you not to record the phrase “criminal band” for Lloyd George might be offended) at the moment of, arrest one of the agents of this band put up armed resistance and was killed in the hotel were he was living …

They have suggested that the British and Swiss governments found themselves compelled to expel the representatives of the Soviet government from their territory because they abused their privileges. Thus Litvinov [13]who was in London as a semi-official envoy of the Soviet government maintained open contact with revolutionary working class organizations, for which he was deported.

But let me repeat: these gentlemen are silent about the fact that their own representatives here in our country tossed out gold right and, left to organizers of counter-revolutionary mutinies.

But we can reconcile ourselves to that. It is still not so long ago that first the German and then the Anglo-French imperialists promised, not only promised but actually prepared to crush us. This was a little more serious than Churchill’s chatter about fourteen armies being mobilized against us or Britain’s intention to crown Kolchak. This was a little more serious than the phrase about us having “bad manners”. Of course they would have come to like us more if we were nice and black. But we are red. Won’t you deign to prefer us nice and red? For we are not going to change our colour.

From a speech in Ekaterinburg, 28th February 1920
(The General Position of the Republic and the Tasks of the First Labour Army)

* * *

The Western Front forms a passive front. Standing against us there are little states which had split off from the former Tsarist empire. They now form vassals of the Entente: Britain and France. At, the present moment they reflect all the fluctuations in our military successes on the one hand, and the policies of Britain, France and to some extent America on the other. You all recall how Estonia offered us peace talks and while our peace delegation was preparing to set out (that was at the beginning of October), Estonian forces made a thrust for Petrograd. Now after they have been thrown back and we are drawing close to Narva, they are holding armistice negotiations. Latvia, Poland and Finland are conducting basically the same policy with slight variations. We are, of course, as ready today as we were at the beginning of October to meet them in any negotiations. You will know that Comrade Litvinov has just left for negotiations which could take on a very great importance. In Copenhagen he met a British trade unionist, O’Grady [14] by name. This British social-chauvinist, who is playing the role of an agent of the imperialist government, is at the same time a trade unionist, the leader of a workers” organization. He is thus a most suitable man for the British government, for on the one hand he is an agent of the government, and on the other a workers” leader whose words can be disowned on the grounds that he did not say them as a representative of the British government. So Britain has found a suitable person. The talks must deal only with the question of hostages and prisoners of war, i.e. not a matter of primary political importance. It is clear however that in embarking on these negotiations Britain is pursuing some other object, for she has so far regarded the fate of the hostages quite calmly yet now she suddenly begins to be interested in this question. Lloyd George’s statement, now familiar to you, replaced Churchill’s statement.

Churchill represents the extreme, rabid wing of the British imperialists. He spoke of the fourteen countries that Britain was mobilizing against us and predicted the inevitable fall of Petrograd in a week or two. After Yudenich had faltered he also stated that a new factor would soon appear which would upset the balance at Petrograd. This factor remains as yet a secret of Churchill but his speech was highly typical in the period of our tough military position. Now Churchill seems to have fallen silent while the sly old fox Lloyd George takes over, making two or three extremely expressive statements to the effect that he maintains his old opinion or conviction that Soviet power cannot be crushed by force of arms. We shall not inquire how this ties up with the whole past policy of the government headed by Lloyd George, but he has now put it before the British parliament; moreover, in the last statement to reach us, he said that Denikin had seized tens of thousands of square miles but was still unable to create a proper state- administration. This is, as it were, an open dethronement, not only of Kolchak but also of Denikin, a refusal to place a stake on his card. Lloyd George’s statement has for us, of course, a colossal importance. The watershed in British imperialism’s policy is at this moment reflected in the behaviour of the little states which live on our western fringe. To be sure they intend no good towards us, but they are in themselves incapable of great ill.

From a report to the 16th Moscow Provincial Conference of the Russian Communist Party, 25th March 1920
(The Party Faced with New Economic Tasks)


Volume 1, Chapter 2 Index


Footnotes

1. Towns recaptured from the British and White forces on the Northern Front during 1919.

2.Nikolai Nikolaevich Yudenich (1862-1933) Tsarist general during World War I, commander of the counter-revolutionary White Army in the Baltic area of Russia, which was poised to take Petrograd in August and September 1919.

3. Fortress on the southern shore of the Gulf of Finland west of Petrograd.

4. Now Kingisepp near the Russian-Estonian border.

5. Winston Churchill (1874-1965), British politician, started as a Conservative, switched to the Liberals in 1904, returning to the Conservatives in 1924, served as minister in various positions in both Liberal and Conservative governbments; served as prime minister 1940-1945 und again 1951-1955.

6. Alexander Kolchak (1874-1920), Russian admiral and leader of the counter-revolutionary White forces in Siberia, captured and executed in 1920. – Anton Ivanovich Denikin (1872-1947), Tsarist general, organiser and commander of counter-revolutionary Volunteer Army in South Russia, 1918-1920.

7. Finland and the Bolsheviks, The Times, 24th October 1919.

8. Alexandre Millerand (1859-1943), French socialist politician; his membership of the Waldeck-Rousseau cabinet in 1899as Minister of Commerce alongside Gallifet, the butchewr of the Paris Commune, provoked a heated debate within the international socialst movement about “ministerialism”; expelled from the Socialist Party in 1903 he mopved to the right, becoming prime minister for 8 months in 1920 and president of the French Republich 1920-24. – Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929), leading French bourgeois politician. He emerged as a radical during the period of the Paris Commune (1871). In the 1890s he became popular through his part in the case of Dreyfus, defending him along with Zola and Jaurès. As a prominent deputy Clemenceau more than once occasioned the fall of a government with his energetic speeches, being nicknamed “the breaker of ministries”. From 190 he held Cabinet office, for part of the time as Prime Minister. In this office from 1917 to 1920 Clemenceau was hailed as the “architect of victory” and was the leading figure at the Versailles peace conference in 1919. In the same period, he was the inspirer of intervention against Soviet Russia.

9. David Lloyd George (1863-1945), Welsh Liberal politician, responsible as Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) for the introduction of old age pensions, unemployment benefit and sickness benefits; prime minister from 1916 to 1922.

10. Francesco Saverio Nitti (1868-1953), Italian economist and Radical party politician, Italian Prime Minister from June 1919 to June 1920.

11. A Letter to Our French Comrades in The First Five Years of the Communist International, Volume 1 (New Park Publications, 1973).

12. Boris Savinkov (1879-1925), Russian revolutionary terrorist, leader of the Fighting Organisation of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, responsible fpor a series of spectacular assassinations of Tsarist officials in 1905-05; Assistant War Minister in Kerensky’s Provisional Government; expelled from the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the government for his role in Kornilov’s attempted putsch; organised severql armed uprisings against the bolsheviks during the Civil War; during the Polish invasion in 1920 he attempted to organise a counter-revolutionary force to support the Poles; lured back to Russia in 1925 to meet with false conspirators, he was arrested and sentenced to death; this was later commuted to 10 years’ imprisonment, but he committed suicide by jumping from a window of the lubyankja Prison in Moscow (the official version) or was killed in prison by GPU officers (Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s version).

13. Maxim Litvinov (1876-1951), Russian revolutionary and Soviet diplomat; Bolshevik since 1903; editor of the first legal Bolshevik paper, Novaya Zizhn in St. Petersburg (1905-06); went into exile in Britain in 1906; after the October Revolution appointed as the Soviet government’s representative in britain; arrested in 1918 and exchanged for Bruce Lockahrt, a British diplomat qand secret agent arrested in Russia; worked as roving ambassador of the Soviet government for the next decade; Commissar for Foreign Affairs from 1930 to 1939, represented the USSR at the League of Nations (1934-38); Ambassodor to the United States (1941-43).

14. James O’Grady (1866-1934), British trade unionist and Labour politician; president of the TUC in 1898; staunch supporter of British participation in World War I; organised an exchange of prisoners between Britain and revolutionary Russia in 1919 and was active in trade union efforts to relieve the Russian famine in 1921; offered the post of British ambassador to the Soviet Union by Ramsay MacDonald’s government in 1924, but did not take up the job as the governments decided to postpone the exchange of ambassadsors; instead he became Governor of Tasmania (1924-30), the first Labour politician to be appointed as a colonial governor; served as Governor of the Falkland Islands from 1931 to 1934.


Volume 1 Index

Trotsky’s Writings on Britain


return return return return return

Last updated on: 1.7.2007