Reaching peace agreements is the only way to avoid casualties and bloodshed in military clashes. At all times, the governments of the defending countries sought to put an end to destruction and killings. To achieve peace, the parties always resort to negotiations. And only through compromises is an outcome suitable for all parties to the conflict possible.
Conversation
The concepts of an arrangement, taking into account the interests of each of the parties involved in the communication process, are called negotiations. During the discussion of a problem or a controversial issue, the views are considered and the opinions of opponents are heard. Based on the goals pursued by the parties, a conflict situation ensues, the solution of which lies in the search for compromises. Usually negotiations lead to a settlement of disputes.
In the modern world, discussions and agreements are resorted to everywhere. At a meeting of company boards, in everyday life and at work. The term “negotiation” is usually referred to as a mutual desire to reach agreement. But there are situations in which the parties do not find an acceptable solution.
In world practice, negotiations are ongoing between national governments. So, this is very true in military conflicts or in disputes related to the economic and territorial stability of countries.
There are such types of negotiations:
The first of the species can take place in soft or hard forms, and the second is considered more effective. Soft negotiations only lead to endless concessions and inefficiency in the negotiation process. A tough form guarantees success for any of the participants or, to a lesser extent, for all opponents.
Rational negotiations are considered the most appropriate type of debate. Indeed, as a result of such, the parties receive a result equal to their concessions. That is, each compromise is regarded commensurate with the proposals of the second side.
Separate negotiations are another way to reach agreement. The difference is that several participants create a kind of isolated society secretly from military allies. One of the members of the association enters into negotiations with the enemy, defending his interests.
Separate negotiations
The essence of communication between opponents lies in their secrecy or, rather, separation from other participants. So negotiations can take place on the merger, sale and resale of individual business branches.
So, separate negotiations, what does it mean? More often than not, this is a discussion of reaching consensus between opponents without involving allies in these negotiations. The main goal of such discussions is to defend their interests and protect against attackers, while departing from the agreements concluded earlier.
History knows many such facts, and they can be called a betrayal to some extent. But separate negotiations between the warring coalitions pursue a single goal - the preservation by the state of its integrity and independence, saving the lives of citizens and eliminating the risks of material losses. A party wishing to conclude a separate peace accepts some neutrality and undertakes not to oppose the aggressor.
History examples
In what separate negotiations can be understood from the lessons of the past. The most striking example was the discussion of the world of Russia with Germany during the First World War. The Soviet Union was looking for an alternative solution to resolving relations with the Fourth Union.
The Brest talks indicate that the USSR sought to protect itself and defend its interests during the war. Also in 1941, the Union held talks with Nazi Germany, which did not lead to anything, as you know.
Separate negotiations with Germany
The Soviet Union tried to reconcile with the enemy during two world wars. Negotiations were conducted by Russia in 1918 separately from the Entente; Germany, to a lesser extent Austria-Hungary, spoke out from the Fourth Union.
The Bolshevik leadership announced that an independent peace was based on agreements on self-determination of states and national integrity. Thus, the Union tried to somehow smooth out its intentions to accept the conditions of the enemy.
In turn, Germany stated that it was absolutely not against supporting the proposals of the USSR, but on the condition that the Entente countries would also adhere to them. The members of the Fourth Union were well aware that neither England nor France would agree to this.
Terms of the Brest-Litovsk Agreement
The basic principles put forward by the USSR were:
- the exclusion of forced access of the conquered lands;
- independence of peoples oppressed during the war;
- political independence of peoples;
- granting the full right of self-determination to national groups on joining the territories of a country;
- the establishment by national minorities of their laws and the protection of their own interests;
- the exclusion of military duties at the end of hostilities, none of the parties is financially obligated to the other;
- guide the principles outlined in self-determination of colonies.
The Union sought to preserve the lands lost by Tsarist Russia during the war. Attach the Baltic countries and Poland. Thus, the Bolsheviks built protection from the capitalist system of Europe.
German Separate Peace Offer in World War II
The confrontation with Nazi Germany had a classic course of development. At the beginning of the war, when the Union was not ready for an attack, the government began to conduct separate negotiations with the Reichstag. After, in 1945, the situation changed radically, and Hitler sought to make peace with the USSR.
In 1941, Stalin made great concessions, offering Hitler the Baltic states, Moldova, and later Belarus and Ukraine as compensation. What the Reichstag did not agree to, many German politicians considered this refusal a mistake.
Until 1944, separate negotiations between the allies and Germany continued. But conditions became less attractive to the aggressor.
In general, we can say about separate negotiations that this is a natural process in any military confrontation. It is always present and is a rational decision of the rival countries to get out of the conflict with acceptable losses.