Bucharin followed Chicherin. A little eager figure in his
neat brown clothes (bought, I think, while visiting Berlin as a
member of the Economic Commission), he at least makes
himself clearly heard, though his voice has a funny tendency
to breaking. He compared the present situation with the
situation before Brest. He had himself (as I well remember)
been with Radek, one of the most violent opponents of the
Brest peace, and he now admitted that at that time Lenin had
been right and he wrong. The position was now different,
because whereas then imperialism was split into two camps
fighting each other, it now showed signs of uniting its forces.
He regarded the League of Nations as a sort of capitalist
syndicate, and said that the difference in the French and
American attitude towards the League depended upon
the position of French and American capital. Capital in
France was so weak, that she could at best be only a small
shareholder. Capital in America was in a very advantageous
position. America therefore wanted a huge All-European
syndicate in which each state would have a certain number
of shares. America, having the greatest number of shares,
would be able to exploit all the other nations. This is a fixed
idea of Bucharin's, and he has lost no opportunity of putting
out this theory of the League of Nations since the middle of
last summer. As for Chicherin's Note, he said it had at least
great historical interest on account of the language it used,
which was very different from the hypocritical language of
ordinary diplomacy. Here were no phrases about noble
motives, but a plain recognition of the facts of the case.
"Tell us what you want," it says, "and we are ready to buy