V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:LS/v39;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

REPLY TO HERR FERNAU¹

LENIN'S REPLY TO HERR FERNAU

[Not earlier than December 5—not later than December 23, 1917 (December 18, 1917—January 5, 1918)]

In an open letter published in the *Journal de Genève* of December 18, you attempt to find a contradiction between the appeal of the Russian Council of People's Commissars to the working masses of the belligerent states and the negotiations it is conducting with the governments and militarists of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

You quote our words: "The government of a victorious revolution does not need recognition from the professionals of capitalist diplomacy. But we ask the peoples: Does reactionary diplomacy express their thoughts and aspirations? Do the peoples agree to allow diplomacy to miss the great opportunity for peace opened up by the Russian revolution?" And you comment on them as follows:

"We ask the peoples" means: we must reject the answer that all monarchs, ministers, and diplomats, not elected or authorised by the peoples, would give us. Then you kindly inform me that the question of war and peace is decided not by the German people but by their emperor, that the will of the German people in these matters has never been taken into account, and so on and so forth. Allow me to tell you that I already knew this. And I knew that the same is the case in all the belligerent countries. It makes no difference whether they have some semblance of elections, parliamentary control, etc., or not. This is well known to us, and therefore we provide in the most important article of our future constitution for the possibility of the recall by the electors of any representative whose actions contradict the mandate entrusted to him. Lord Bryce,² who is, of course, well acquainted with this question, wrote that in England, the "mother of all parliaments", the most important affairs of state are actually conducted by a dozen irresponsible persons. A purely monarchical regime can be credited with being at least frank.

Yes, we asked the peoples whether they want "to continue this senseless and aimless slaughter, blindly heading for the destruction of all European culture". One does not say *culture*, Herr Fernau, but *civilisation*: allow me to give you this hint on the French language in exchange for the lesson in constitutional law you are giving me. Yes, we would like to save civilisation, and that is why we appeal to all peoples.

But the peoples do not answer us, because their governments, monarchical or pseudo-democratic, do not give them the floor; we would like to save our people, who are perishing from the war, to whom peace is absolutely necessary. Do you demand that, if other peoples still allow themselves to be destroyed, our people should do the same out of a spirit of solidarity? Do you understand honour as the Japanese of the feudal era understood it: the insulted person ripped open his belly with a sword, and the insulter was obliged to do the same if he did not want to be despised as a coward?

You say to me, addressing me personally as if I were a monarch: "You put a question to the peoples, Herr Lenin! You are answered by Count Hertling,³ State Secretary Kühlmann,⁴ Count Czernin,⁵ Minister von Seidler.⁶ To take these gentlemen for the genuine and responsible representatives of the peoples would be clearly to betray all your democratic principles. Why do you not first demand a nationwide referendum of the Germans, to whom you would put the question: Should the supreme right of concluding peace and declaring war remain with the German emperor?"

But, Herr Fernau, I beg you, please take account of the real relations. Above all, we need peace. We offered peace to all. Two governments are concluding it with us: do you think this is happening against the will of their peoples? And if other governments will not hear of it, what can we do about it? Propose that they consult their peoples, or appeal to these peoples to take their own affairs into their own hands? But we have already done that. Demand? But what means do we have at our disposal to make any demands whatsoever?

You know as well as I do that the state of war, with the terrible means of repression it places in the hands of governments, is an almost insurmountable obstacle to the democratic revolution which you desire as much as I do. The Russians were able to overthrow tsarism only when the war had reached a certain—how do you say it in your language?—*abflauen*?⁷ it seems. And M. Clemenceau⁸ fears most for his power what he calls defeatism. You are quite right in saying that the defeat of the Germans would be beneficial for your people. But in that case it would be disastrous for the victors! You very kindly acknowledge my "relentless logic". Do not force me to say that you want the defeat of the Germans in the interests of the German people, because you are a German, *gerade weil ich ein Deutscher bin*,⁹ for that, is it not, is the title of one of your books.¹⁰ And that you would like the victory of the Russians because you care very little about the welfare of the Russian people. That would not be humane, Herr Fernau.

*Wir sind ja alle Gottesgeschöpfe*,¹¹ said your great Heine.¹² We are of one mind with you, and we want for all the defeat of militarism, i.e., peace, joy. *Alle Menschen werden Brüder, wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt*,¹³ said your great Schiller.¹⁴ As for war, the combinations of diplomacy, pseudo-democratic oligarchy, etc., *Mich langweilt's, denn kaum ist's abgetan, So fangen sie von vorne wieder an;... Sie streiten sich, so heisst's, um Freiheitsrechte; Genau besehn, sind's Knechte gegen Knechte*,¹⁵—said your great Goethe.¹⁶

We have had enough of this, and we are stopping the war. And others are doing or will do as we do. Little by little, one after another: Rumania, Portugal, who next? I do not know, and neither do you. I regret that they did not want to conclude a general peace a year ago, at the moment when all armies, to one degree or another, had been beaten, and all peoples could have simultaneously enjoyed the benefits which, as you and I agree, accompany defeat. You perhaps know our proverb: health goes out by the pound and comes in by the ounce. So it is with peace: it took only a few days to break the alliances in 1914; how long will it take now to get out of the difficulty? Who can say? In any case, someone must begin; example is contagious.

Militarism has existed up to now because everyone declared himself ready to disarm if his neighbour disarmed; it will disappear when one of the powers disarms first, and the others (sooner or later) follow its example.¹⁷ Read, Herr Fernau, the statutes of the Pacifist League recently founded among our Scandinavian neighbours: it demands above all disarmament in Scandinavia itself, without waiting for the disarmament of others. And also read or re-read in Tolstoy's *Tale of Ivan the Fool*¹⁸ the story of the tsar whose soldiers, meeting no resistance from the conquered people, acquire a disgust for such a completely one-sided war and return home to till their fields. That is the reality of tomorrow, Herr Fernau: work with us for its success, do not clutter your vigorous mind with the chimeras of a bloody past, the traces of which will soon disappear if all honest people apply their efforts to it.

Yours faithfully,
Lenin