V. I.

Lenin

Novaya Zhizn for May 7 publishes interviews with ministers of the “new” government. Prime Minister Lvov has
declared that “the country must have its weighty say and send
its army into battle”.

This is the sum and substance of the new government’s “programme”. An offensive, an offensive, an offensive!

Defending this imperialist programme, now accepted by the
Chernovs and the Tseretelis, Minister Lvov in tones of deepest
moral indignation fulminates against the “ virtual armistice that has been established at the front ”!

Let every Russian worker, let every peasant give careful thought
to this programme of offensive , to these violent ministerial diatribes against the “virtual armistice”.

Millions of people have been killed and crippled in the
war. Untold sufferings have fallen to the lot of the people,
particularly the working masses, as a result of the war. The
capitalists are making scandalously high profits out of the
war. The soldiers are utterly worn out.

What is wrong with a virtual armistice? What is wrong with
having the slaughter stopped? What is wrong with the soldiers
getting at least a brief respite?

We are told that an armistice has been established only on one
front, and therefore there is a danger of a separate peace. But
this argument does not hold water. If neither the
Russian Government nor the Russian workers and peas ants
want a separate peace with the German capitalists (our
Party, as we know, through Pravda and in the resolution
passed at our
Conference, [1] which spoke in the name of the

Party as a whole, has repeatedly protested against such a peace)—if no one in
Russia wants a separate peace with separate capitalists, how
then, by what miracle, can such a peace come? Who can impose
it?

The objection is clearly untenable. It is sheer invention, an
attempt to throw dust in our eyes.

Further, why should a virtual armistice on one front imply the
“danger” of a separate peace on that front, and not the danger of such an armistice spreading to all fronts?

A virtual armistice is an unstable transitional state of
affairs. This is incontrovertible. Transitional to what? It
cannot lead to a separate peace so long as there is no mutual agreement between the two governments or two nations. But
why could not such an armistice lead to a virtual truce on
all fronts? Surely this is what all nations agree with, despite all or most of their governments!

Fraternisation on one front can and should lead to fraternisation on all fronts. A virtual armistice on one front
can and should lead to a virtual armistice on all fronts.

The nations would thus gain a respite from the carnage. The
revolutionary workers in all the countries would raise their heads still higher; their influence would increase, and
faith in the possibility and necessity of a workers’ revolution
in the advanced capitalist countries would become strengthened.

What is wrong with such a transition? Why should we not help to
bring it about as far as it is in our power to do so?

We may be told that a virtual armistice today on all fronts
would help the German capitalists, who have snatched more loot
than anybody else. This is not true. For one thing, the British
capitalists have grabbed more (the German colonies in Africa,
German islands in the Pacific, Mesopotamia, part of Syria, etc.)
and, unlike the German capitalists, have lost nothing. Secondly,
if the German capitalists had shown greater obstinacy than the
British capitalists, the growth of the revolution in Germany
would have only been accelerated. The revolution in Germany is
obviously mounting. An offensive by the Russian troops would
check this growth. The “virtual armistice” hastens the rise of
this revolution.

Thirdly, what with growing hunger, ruin, and disorganisation,
Germany is in desperate straits, being worse off than any other
country, especially since the United States has entered the
war. A “virtual armistice” would not remove this fundamental source of Germany’s weakness; on the contrary, it is
likely to improve the position of the other countries (greater
freedom for bringing up supplies) while worsening that of the
German capitalists (who have nowhere to bring supplies up from
and will have greater difficulty in hiding the truth from the
people).

The Russian people have two programmes to choose from. One is
the programme of the capitalists, adopted by the Chernovs and
Tseretelis. This is the programme of offensive, the programme
for dragging out the imperialist war, dragging out the carnage.

The other programme is that of the world’s revolutionary
workers, advocated in Russia by our Party. This programme says:
stimulate fraternisation (but do not permit the Germans to
deceive the Russians); fraternise by means of proclamations;
extend fraternisation and a virtual armistice to all fronts;
help to spread these in every possible way, thereby hastening
the proletarian revolution in all the countries, giving at least
a temporary respite to the soldiers of all the belligerent
countries; hasten in Russia the transfer of power to the Soviets
of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies, and thereby
hasten the conclusion of a really just, really universal peace
in the interests of the working people, and not in the interests
of the capitalists.

Our government, with the Chernovs and Tseretelis, the Narodniks
and the Mensheviks, is for the first programme.

The majority of the Russian nation and of all the nations within
Russia (and outside Russia), i.e., the majority of the workers
and poor peasants, undoubtedly stand for the second programme.

The victory of this second programme is drawing nearer every day.

---
Notes:
[1]


— Lenin