Date: 1917
Source: ru:PSS/v32

In the newspaper “New Life”{32}, dated May 7, interviews with ministers of the “new” government were published. Minister-President Lvov declared: “The country must speak its authoritative word and send its army into battle.”

This is the essence of the new government’s “program”: Offensives—offensives—offensives!

And in defending this imperialist program—now embraced by Chernovs and Tseretelis—Minister Lvov, in tones of deepest moral indignation, thundered against the “de facto truce that has taken hold along the front lines”!

Let every Russian worker, let every peasant, think long and hard about this offensive program, about these thunderous pronouncements by the ministers against the “de facto truce.”

Millions of people have been slaughtered and maimed in war. The calamities inflicted upon humanity by the war—and especially upon the toiling masses—are unprecedented. Capitalists reap scandalously high profits from the war. Soldiers are tortured and exhausted to the utmost degree.

What, then, is wrong with a de facto truce? What is wrong with the fact that the slaughter has come to a temporary halt? What is wrong with the soldiers finally receiving even a brief respite?

We are told that the truce has been established only on one front—and that, for this reason, it threatens a separate peace. But this objection is plainly untenable. For if neither the Russian government nor the Russian workers and peasants desire a separate peace with the German capitalists—and our Party, as we know, has protested against such a peace time and again, not only in the articles of Pravda but also in the resolution of our conference{33}, which spoke on behalf of the entire Party—if no one in Russia wants a separate peace with separatist capitalists, then how, from where, by what miracle could such a peace possibly come about?? Who could possibly impose it??

This objection is patently untenable; it is nothing more than a transparent fabrication, an attempt to cloud people’s vision.

Furthermore: Why does a de facto truce on a single front “threaten” a separate peace on that very front, rather than threatening to spread the de facto truce to all fronts?

A de facto truce is an unstable, transitional state. That is beyond dispute. Transitional to what? It cannot lead to a separate peace—unless there is mutual consent between two governments or two peoples. But why should such a truce not be a transition toward a de facto truce on all fronts? After all, surely there is consensus among all peoples, against all others—or at least among the majority of governments—to achieve just that?

Brotherhood on one front can—and indeed must—be the stepping-stone to brotherhood on all fronts. A de facto truce on one front can—and indeed must—be the stepping-stone to a de facto truce on all fronts.

The peoples would rest from the slaughter. Revolutionary workers in every country would raise their heads even higher; their influence would grow stronger, and their faith in the possibility and necessity of a workers’ revolution in the advanced capitalist countries would be reinforced.

What is wrong with such a transition? Why shouldn’t we, to the best of our ability, help bring about this transition?

Some will object that a de facto truce on all fronts would now benefit the German capitalists, since they have already amassed greater spoils. This is incorrect, for the British capitalists have plundered even more (German colonies in Africa, German islands in the Pacific, Mesopotamia, parts of Syria, and so on)—and unlike the German capitalists, they have lost absolutely nothing. That is one point. And secondly, had the German capitalists shown greater intransigence than the British, the revolutionary movement in Germany would have grown even more powerful. The revolution in Germany is clearly gaining momentum. The advance of Russian troops would hinder this growth. The “de facto truce,” on the contrary, accelerates the development of this revolution.

Thirdly, from the standpoint of mounting hunger, collapse, and devastation, Germany’s situation is the most desperate and the most hopeless—worse than in any other country, especially after America entered the war. The “de facto truce” will not eliminate this, the fundamental source of Germany’s weakness; on the contrary, it will likely improve the situation in other countries (by facilitating the free flow of supplies) while worsening the position of German capitalists (with no means to import supplies, and with increasing difficulty in concealing the truth from the people).

Two programs stand before the Russian people. One is the program of the capitalists, adopted by Chernovs and Tseretelis. It is a program of offensives—a program of prolonging the imperialist war, of dragging out the slaughter.

The other is the program of revolutionary workers throughout the world, defended in Russia by our Party. It is a program to foster brotherhood—not allowing the Germans to deceive the Russians—through the exchange of appeals, to extend both brotherhood and the de facto truce to all fronts, to aid this extension in every possible way, to accelerate the growth of the workers’ revolution in every country, to grant soldiers of all warring nations at least a temporary respite, to hasten the transfer of power in Russia into the hands of Soviets of workers’, soldiers’, and peasants’ deputies, and thereby to speed up the conclusion of a truly just, truly universal peace—in the interests of the working people, not in the interests of the capitalists.

Our government—with Chernovs and Tseretelis, with the Populists and the Mensheviks—is committed to the first program.

The vast majority of the Russian people—and of all the peoples of Russia (and not only Russia), that is, the majority of workers and the poorest peasants—will undoubtedly rally behind the second program.

Each passing day will bring its victory ever closer.

“Pravda,” No. 52, May 22 (9), 1917

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Pravda.”