V. I.

Lenin

MORE ON THE SUBJECT OF ANNEXATIONS

The editors of Izvestia , a paper controlled by the
Narodnik and Menshevik bloc, are beating all records of
muddledom. In that paper’s issue No.67 for May 16, they try to
chop logic with Pravda , without, of course, mentioning
its name—a usual ill-mannered “ministerial” practice. Pravda , we are told, has a foggy, misleading
idea of annexations.

Begging your pardon, citizen-ministers and ministerial editors,
but facts are facts, and the fact is that our Party was the
only one to give a definition of annexation in official
and carefully worded resolutions. Annexation means keeping an
alien people by force within the bounds of a given state. No
person able to read and understand Russian could fail to understand that on reading the Supplement to No. 13 of
Soldatskaya Pravda (resolutions of the All-Russia
Conference of April 24–29, 1917). [1]

What exception do the Narodnik and Menshevik editors of
Izvestia take to this? Simply this: that if our view were adopted it would be necessary to “keep on fighting until
Germany is reduced to the Duchy of Brandenburg, and Russia to
the Principality of Muscovy”! Annexation, the editors explain
for the edification of their readers, “is the forcible seizure
of territory which, on the day war was declared, belonged to
another country” (in short: no annexations means status quo,
that is, a return to the state of affairs that existed before
the war).

It is careless, most careless, on the part of the Narodnik and
Menshevik leaders of the Soviet’s Executive Committee to put
such muddle-headed people in charge of a newspaper.

Let us apply to their definition the argument they used against us. Would we have to “keep on
fighting until Russia recovered Poland, and Germany Togoland and
her African colonies”? Palpable nonsense, nonsense from the
practical as well as the theoretical point of view, since no
soldier anywhere would think twice about dismissing any editors
who argued in this way.

The flaw in their argument is this:

(1) The theoretical definition of annexation involves the
conception of an “alien” people, that is, a people that has
preserved its distinctive features and its will towards
independent existence. Ponder this, fellow-citizens, and if
it is still not clear to you, read what Engels and Marx had
to say about Ireland, about Germany’s Danish territories,
and the colonies—and you will realise how confused you are. The Duchy of Brandenburg and the Principality of
Muscovy have nothing to do with it.

(2) To confuse the idea of annexation with the question
of how long “to keep on fighting” is ridiculous; it means
failure to grasp the connection that exists between war and
the interests and rule of definite classes; it means abandoning the standpoint of the class struggle for
the philistine “non-class” standpoint. So long as the capitalist class is in power the nations are bound “to
keep on fighting” as Long as that class wants it. To think
that one can escape this by wishes, demands, or conferences
is the illusion of a petty bourgeois.

(3) So long as the capitalist class is in power, their peace is bound to be “an exchange of
annexations”—Armenia for Lorraine, colony for colony, Galicia for Kurland, and so on. We can pardon an ignorant
man for failing to see this, but not the editors of
Izvestia .

(4) When the proletariat comes to power—and that is what
the war is leading up to everywhere—then and only then will “peace without annexations” become possible .

When our Party speaks of “peace without annexations” It always
explains—as a warning to muddle-headed people—that this slogan must be closely linked with the proletarian
revolution. Only in connection with this revolution is it true
and useful; it pursues only the revolution’s line, and works only for the revolution’s growth and development. To
vacillate weakly between hopes in the capitalists and hopes in
the workers’ revolution is to condemn oneself to impotence and
muddle in the question of annexations.

P.S. Dyelo Naroda for May 17 agrees with
Izvestia that “no annexations” is equivalent to status quo. Try and say that, gentlemen of the S.R. or Menshevik fold,
say it clearly, precisely, and straightforwardly in the name of
your party, your Petrograd Committee, your congress!

---
Notes:
[1]


— Lenin