TO G. V. CHICHERIN AND M. M. LITVINOV

Dear comrades! I am sending you my remarks. In the absence of differences of principle, decide for yourselves. My advice: utilise it for propaganda, for it is clear that there can be no other use. Extremely courteous with Nansen, extremely impudent with Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau, that is very useful, with them that is the only way — that is the correct tone.

6/V. Lenin

In my opinion, both replies are perfectly correct, proposing a meeting and thanking Nansen. But it seems to me that the propaganda side should have been developed more, taking advantage of the fact that the Entente, while easily concealing all our other documents*, will, as an exception, be unable to conceal this reply. I would therefore advise utilising it for propaganda and developing in greater detail the separation of the (.) humanitarian and the (.) political aspect. (.) You refer to the humanitarian (seemingly, only humanitarian?) nature of the proposal? For that, all manner of thanks and compliments to Nansen personally. If humanitarian aims are involved, my dear sir, don’t drag politics into it, just bring them straight here (underline this). Bring them straight here! We are even prepared to pay and at triple the price, and we shall willingly admit you for control and give you every guarantee. Develop this, elaborate, explain. Fix a time and place for negotiations! But if an armistice is involved, well, that is politics! After all, you are an educated man, Mr. Nansen, you perfectly understand that every war and every armistice is politics. So, you have combined the “humanitarian”

* The reference is to the repeated official appeals to the Entente powers with proposals for peace (see V. I. Lenin, Works, 5th ed., Vol. 39, p. 366).—Ed.

with the “political”, you have mixed them together! Explain to him, as to a 16-year-old girl, why an armistice is politics. (.) Is it good to mix the “humanitarian” with “politics”? No, it is bad, for it is hypocrisy, in which you are not guilty and we do not accuse you. For one must speak of politics bluntly, and not under the cover of “humanitarianism”. And since you have spoken about politics, excuse us, we are obliged to reply to you on the substance. (.1) If an armistice is for peace, then you know perfectly well that we are for it. We agreed to the Princes’ Islands (even!), we confirmed this to Bullitt, who, unfortunately, proved to be, like all American policy, in captivity to Clemenceau and Lloyd George, for what Bullitt promised us, assuring us that America would compel Clemenceau and Lloyd George to submit, remained unfulfilled (it is useful to “tease” Wilson!)*. The Princes’ Islands were wrecked not by us but by the monarchists and the pogrom-makers against the Jews, the restorers of landlord landownership — explain, develop, prove these three points, that Denikin and Kolchak are 1) monarchists; 2) beat up Jews; 3) restore landownership by landlords, impose redemption payments on the peasants. We agreed to an armistice for peace negotiations, of course, with the real culprits of the war, not with pawns, i.e., with Britain, France, America. Explain in detail that they are waging the war, their ships, their guns, their cartridges, their officers. Expose in detail the most false “renunciation of intervention” given their support of (and their incitement of) the Estonians, Finns, Poles. (.2) Further, if the armistice is not for peace but for political game-playing — we do not want it. One does not joke with peace. No one will succeed in fooling us. And develop this.

* If everyone is against, delete (probably this refers to the text enclosed by V. I. Lenin in square brackets — Ed.). But in my view, it is practically extremely useful to set Wilson at odds with them by declaring that Wilson is a pawn in the hands of Clemenceau and Lloyd George, submitting to these two, to this “majority”!!

V. I. LENIN

End with a résumé: if politics, then an armistice for peace we proposed, we are in agreement, we did not wreck the Princes’ Islands, we shall always go to talks with the real culprits of the war. If not politics but humanitarian, we thank you, we accept, we invite you, come, control, and we will go anywhere (time, place) and will even pay triple the price in timber, ore, ships. Indeed, we must not miss the chance to reply to Nansen in such a way that the propaganda turns out well.