Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  Look at the map again. You will see that Russia is completely cut off from western Europe by a string of States—Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Rumania. As I have told you, most of these States were not formed by the Versailles treaties, but were the result of the Soviet revolution. Nonetheless they were welcomed by the Allies, as they formed a line separating Russia from non-Bolshevik Europe. They were a cordon sanitaire (by which infectious diseases are isolated) which would help in keeping off the Bolshevik infection! All these Baltic States are non-Bolshevik; otherwise they would of course join the Soviet Federation.

  In western Asia parts of the old Turkish Empire tempted the Western Powers. During the war the British had encouraged an Arab revolt against Turkey by promising to create a united Arab kingdom extending over Arabia, Palestine, and Syria. While this promise was being made to the Arabs, the British were making a secret treaty with France partitioning these very territories. It was not a very creditable thing to do and a British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, called it a tale of “crude duplicity”. But this was ten years ago, when he was not a minister, and so could afford, sometimes, to tell the truth.

  There was almost a stranger sequel still when the British Government played with the idea of breaking not only its promise to the Arabs, but also its secret treaty with France. Before them rose the dream of a great Middle-Eastern empire, stretching from India to Egypt, an enormous block joining their Indian Empire to their vast African possessions. It was a tempting and tremendous dream. And yet it did not seem then very difficult to realize. At that time, in 1919, British troops held all this vast area—Persia, Iraq, Palestine, parts of Arabia, Egypt. They were trying to keep out the French from Syria. The city of Constantinople itself was in British possession. The dream vanished as the years 1920 and 1921 and 1922 unfolded what they had in store. The Soviet background and Kemal Pasha in the foreground put an end to these ambitious schemes of British ministers.

  But still Britain held on to a great deal in western Asia—Iraq and Palestine—and tried to influence the course of events in Arabia by bribery and other means. Syria fell to the lot of the French. Of the new nationalism of the Arab countries and their struggle for freedom, I must tell you some other time.

  We must go back to the Treaty of Versailles. This treaty laid down that Germany was the guilty party in causing the war, and the Germans were thus forced to admit their own war guilt by signing the treaty. Such forcible admissions have little value; they create bitterness, as they did in this case.

  Germany was also called upon to disarm. She was allowed to keep only a small army, more or less for police purposes, and had to surrender her fleet to the Allies. As the German fleet was being taken for this surrender, its officers and men decided, on their own responsibility, to sink it rather than hand it over to the British. And so, in June 1919, at Scapa Flow, within sight of the British, who were making ready to take over, the whole German fleet was scuttled and sunk by its own crews.

  Further, Germany was to pay a war indemnity and to make good the losses and damage caused to the Allies by the war. This was called “Reparations”, and for many years the word hung like a shadow over Europe. No definite sum was fixed by the treaty, but provision was made for the fixing of this sum. This undertaking to make good the war losses of the Allies was a stupendous affair. Germany was a conquered and ruined country at the time, faced with vast problems to make both ends meet for her domestic purposes. In addition to this, to have to shoulder the burden of the Allies was an impossible task, incapable of fulfilment. But the Allies were full of hatred and the spirit of revenge, and wanted not only their “pound of flesh”, but almost the last drop of blood from Germany’s prostrate body. In England Lloyd George had won an election on the cry of “Hang the Kaiser”. In France feelings were even bitterer.

  The whole purpose of all these clauses of the treaty was to tie up Germany in every possible way, to disable her, and to prevent her from becoming strong again. She was to remain for generations the economic serf of the Allies, paying vast sums as annual tribute. The obvious lesson of history that it is impossible to tie up a great people for long in this way did not strike the wise super-statesmen who laid the foundations of this peace of vengeance at Versailles. They are repenting it now.

  Lastly, I must tell you of President Wilson’s child, the League of Nations, which the Treaty of Versailles presented to the world. This was to be a league of free and self-governing States, and its purpose was “to prevent future wars by establishing relations on the basis of justice and honour and to promote co-operation, material and intellectual, between the nations of the world”. A very praiseworthy purpose! Each member-State of the League undertook never to go to war with a fellow-State until all possibilities of a peaceful settlement had been exhausted, and then only after an interval of nine months. In case a member-State broke this pledge, the other States were pledged to discontinue financial and economic relations with that State. All this sounds very fine on paper; in practice it has turned out to be very different. It is worth noting, however, that even in theory the League did not try to end war; it sought to put difficulties in its way, so that the passage of time and efforts at conciliation might soothe away war passions. Nor did it try to remove the causes of war.

  The League was to consist of an Assembly, where all its member-States would be represented, and a Council in which the great Powers were to have permanent representatives and some additional ones were to be elected by the Assembly. There was to be a secretariat with its headquarters, as you know, at Geneva. There were also other departments of activity: an International Labour Office dealing with labour matters; a Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague; and a Committee for Intellectual Cooperation. The League did not begin with all these activities. Some of them were added subsequently.

  The original constitution of the League was contained in the Treaty of Versailles. This is called the “Covenant of the League of Nations”. In this covenant it was also laid down that armaments should be reduced by all States to the lowest point consistent with national safety. German disarmament (which of course was compulsory) was held to be the first step in this direction, the other countries were to follow. It was further stated that in case of aggression by any State, steps should be taken against it. But it was not stated what constituted aggression. When two people or two nations fight, each blames the other and calls it the aggressor.

  The League could only decide important matters unanimously. Thus if even one member-State voted against a proposition, it fell through. This meant that there was to be no coercion by a majority vote. It further meant that national sovereignties remained as independent and almost as irresponsible as before; the League did not become a kind of super-State over them. This provision weakened the League greatly and made it practically an advisory body.

  Any independent State could join the League, but four countries were definitely excluded: Germany, Austria, and Turkey—the defeated Powers—and Russia, the Bolshevik Power. It was laid down, however, that they might come in later under certain conditions. India, curiously enough, became an original member of the League, in flat contradiction of the provision that only self-governing States could be members. Of course by “India” was meant the British Government in India, and by this clever dodge the British Government managed to get an extra representative. On the other hand, America, which was in a sense a parent of the League, refused to join it. The Americans disapproved of President Wilson’s activities and of European intrigues and complications, and decided to keep away.

  Many people looked up to the League with enthusiasm and in the hope that it would end, or at any rate greatly lessen, the discords of our present-day world and bring an era of peace and plenty. League of Nations societies were founded in many countries to popularize the League and to spread, it was said, the habit of looking at things internationally. On the other hand, many other people described the League as a pious fraud, meant to further the
designs of the great Powers. We have now had some actual experience of it, and perhaps it is easier to judge of its utility. The League started functioning on New Year’s Day 1920. Its life has been a brief one so far, and yet it has been long enough to discredit it entirely. Undoubtedly it has done good work in various byways of modern life; and the mere fact that it has brought nations, or rather their governments, together to discuss international problems has been an advance on old methods. But it has failed completely in achieving its real object, the preservation of peace or even lessening the chances of war.

  Whatever may have been the original intention of President Wilson about it, there can be no doubt that the League has been a tool in the hands of the great Powers, and especially of England and France. Its very basic function is the maintenance of the status quo—that is, the existing order. It talks of justice and honour between nations, but it does not inquire whether the existing relationships are based on justice and honour. It proclaims that it does not interfere in the “domestic matters” of nations. The dependencies of an imperialist Power are domestic matters for it. So that, as far as the League is concerned, it looks forward to a perpetual dominance by these Powers over their empires. In addition to this, fresh territories, taken from Germany and Turkey, were awarded to the Allied Powers under the name of “mandates”. This word is typical of the League of Nations, as it signifies the continuation of the old imperialist exploitation under a pleasant name. These mandates were supposed to be awarded in accordance with the wishes of the people of the mandated territory. Many of these unhappy peoples even rebelled against them, and carried on a bloody fight for long periods till they were bombed and shelled into submission. Such was the method of finding out the wishes of the people concerned!

  Fine words and phrases were used. The imperialist Powers were “trustees” for the inhabitants of the mandated territories, and the League was to see that the conditions of the trust were fulfilled. As a matter of fact this made matters worse. The Powers did just what they liked, but they put on a more sanctimonious garb, and thus lulled the consciences of the unwary. When some little State offended in any way, the League put on a stern aspect and threatened it with its displeasure. When a great Power offended, the League looked away as far as possible or tried to minimize the offence.

  Thus the great Powers dominated the League, and they used it whenever it served their purpose to do so, and ignored it when this was found more convenient. Perhaps the fault was not the League’s; it lay with the system itself, which the League, by its very nature, had to put up with. The very essence of imperialism was bitter rivalry and competition between the different Powers, each of them bent on exploiting as much of the world as possible. If the members of a society are continually trying to pick each other’s pockets and sharpening their knives in order to cut each other’s throats, it is not likely that there will be much co-operation between them, or that the society will make remarkable progress. It is not surprising therefore that, in spite of an imposing array of sponsors and godparents, the League languished.

  In the course of the treaty discussions at Versailles, it was posed on behalf of the Japanese Government that a clause recognizing racial equality be introduced into the treaty. This was not accepted. Japan was, however, consoled by the gift of Kiauchau in China. The “Big Three” were generous at the expense of a weak and humble ally like China. Because of this China did not sign the treaty.

  Such was the Treaty of Versailles, which put an end to “the war which was to end war”. Philip Snowden, who later became Viscount Snowden, and a Cabinet Minister in England, made the following comment on the Treaty:

  The Treaty should satisfy brigands, imperialists, and militarists. It is the death-blow to the hopes of those who expected the end of the war to bring peace. It is not a peace treaty, but a declaration of another war. It is the betrayal of democracy and of the fallen in the war. The Treaty exposes the true aims of the Allies.

  Indeed, the Allies, in their hatred and pride and greed, overreached themselves. They began to repent in after years when the consequences of their own folly threatened to overwhelm them. But it was too late then.

  156

  The Post-War World

  April 26, 1933

  At last we have reached the last stage of our long wandering; we are on the threshold of today. We have to consider the post-war world, the world after the Great War. We are now in our own times, indeed your times! It is the last stage, and a very short one as time goes, but still a difficult one. It is just fourteen and a half years since the war ended, and what is this tiny fraction of time to the long periods of history we have considered? But we are in the very thick of it, and it is difficult to form correct opinions of events at such close range. We can neither get the right perspective nor the calm detachment which history demands. We are too excited about many happenings, and little things may seem big to us, and some of the really big things may not be fully appreciated. We may lose ourselves in a multitude of trees and miss seeing the woods.

  And then again there is the difficulty of knowing how to measure the importance of events. What yardstick should we use for this purpose? It is obvious enough that much will depend on the way we look at things. From one point of view an event may seem important to us, from another it may lose all importance and seem trivial. I am afraid I have to some extent evaded this question in the letters I have written to you; I have not answered it fairly and squarely. But still my general outlook has coloured all that I have written. Another person writing about the same periods and events might write something very different.

  Now, I am not going into the question here of what our outlook on history should be. My own on the subject has changed greatly in recent years. And just as I have changed my views on this and other matters, so have many others. For the war gave a terrible shaking to everything and everybody. It upset the old world completely, and ever since then our poor old world is trying painfully to stand up again, without much success. It shook the whole system of ideas on which we had grown up and made us begin to doubt the very basis of modern society and civilization. We saw the terrible waste of young lives, the lying, violence, brutality, destruction, and wondered if this was the end of civilization. The Soviet rose in Russia—a new thing, a new social order, and a challenge to the old. Other ideas also floated in the air. It was a period of disintegration, of the breaking up of old beliefs and customs; an age of doubt and questioning which always come in a period of transition and rapid change.

  All this makes it a little difficult for us to consider the post-war days as history. But while we may discuss and question various beliefs and ideas, and not accept any of them simply because it is said to be old, we cannot make this the excuse for just playing with ideas and not taking the trouble to think our hardest, so that we may know what to do. Such periods of transition in the world’s history especially call for activity of mind and body. They are the times when the dull routine of life is livened up and adventure beckons, and we can all take our part in the building up of the new order. And in such times the youth have always played a dominating part, for they can adapt themselves to changing ideas and conditions far more easily than those who have grown old and hardened and fixed in the ancient beliefs.

  Perhaps it will be as well to examine this post-war period in some detail. But in this letter I should like you to make a general survey of it. You will remember our survey of the nineteenth century after the fall of Napoleon. Inevitably one thinks of the Peace of Vienna of 1815 and its consequences, and compares it with the Peace of Versailles of 1919 and its consequences. The Peace of Vienna was not a happy one; it laid the seeds of future wars in Europe. Not learning by experience, our statesmen made the Versailles peace a far worse one, as we saw in the last letter. Over the post-war years has lain heavily the dark shadow of this so-called peace.

  What are the outstanding events then of these past fourteen years? First in importance, I think, and most striking of all, has been t
he rise and consolidation of the Soviet Union, the U.S.S.R. or the Union of Socialist and Soviet Republics, as it is called. I have told you already something of the enormous difficulties which Soviet Russia had to face in its fight for existence. That it won in spite of them is one of the wonders of this century. The Soviet system spread all over the Asiatic parts of the former Tsarist pro-Empire, in Siberia right up to the Pacific, and in Central Asia to within hail of the Indian frontier. Separate Soviet republics were formed, but they federated together into one Union, and this is now the U.S.S.R. This Union covers an enormous area in Europe and Asia, which is about one-sixth of the total land area of the world. The area is very big, but bigness by itself does not mean much, and Russia, and much more so Siberia and Central Asia, were very backward. The second wonder that the Soviets performed was to transform great parts of this area out of all recognition by prodigious schemes of planning. There is no instance in recorded history of such rapid advance of a people. Even the most backward areas in Central Asia have gone ahead with a rush which we in India might well envy. The most notable advances have been in education and in industry. By vast Five Years’ Plans the industrialization of Russia has been pushed on at a feverish pace and enormous factories have been put up. All this has meant a very great strain on the people, who have had to do without comforts, and even necessaries, so that the greater part of their earnings might go in this building up of the first socialist country. The burden has fallen especially on the peasantry.