Date: 1921-10-24
Source: ru:LS/v23

Source: ru:LS/v23

THE STRUGGLE AGAINST HUNGER
1 61
93 3
NOTE TO L. B. KAMENEV*.
October 24, 1921 – To Comrade Kamenev!
I propose that we respond as follows: “Letter received; I fully sympathize. The Hoover administration has already authorized the sending of parcels; we will gladly grant permission to you as well—provided that the American government does not subsequently prohibit it.” Lenin.
Please share your thoughts:
Should we add anything further?
Or perhaps we ought to first pass the relevant legislation?
Lenin.
1 The draft reply was composed by Lenin in response to a letter he had received from the daily cooperative newspaper “Russian Voice” in the United States of America and Canada, in which the newspaper, on behalf of the Russian diaspora, requested permission to allow private parcels from Russians residing in America to be sent to relatives in Russia.

NOTE TO THE SECRETARY.
[October 25, 1921]
Please arrange a call with Kamenev.
The decree concerning parcel shipments has not yet been published¹; no official instructions have been issued either.
3) Please submit the resolution to the Council of Labor and Defense tomorrow.
1 The Decree on the Procedure for the Payment and Dispatch of Foodstuffs and Other Parcels Originating from Countries That Have Not Concluded Agreements with the RSFSR was adopted by the Council of Labor and Defense on September 20, 1921 (see Izvestia, No. 242, October 28, 1921).
At its session on September 30, 1921, the Council of Labor and Defense reaffirmed its decision to permit private parcels to be sent from abroad.

LETTER TO V. M. MOLOTOV**.

December 1921
Comrade Molotov!
I believe we should agree without delay—and, for good measure, send a telegram about this matter both through Krassin and via Berlin and Christiania¹.
* The note was written by Lenin at the end of the “Russian Voice” letter. On the first page of the letter, Lenin made the following annotations: “To Comrade L. B. Kamenev. Letter regarding… — Lenin.” And in the upper left corner: “Received October 24, 1921.” Ed.
** Printed from a typewritten copy; the letter bears the secretary’s notation: “Forwarded to Molotov via Yenukidze.” Ed.
Lenin Collection XXIII


The terms of payment and oversight remain somewhat unclear to me, based on the telegram I have read. While the deadline is set for the 26th, it may still be possible to secure an additional review and clarification—but under no circumstances should we let such an opportunity slip away. It is especially important to ensure that this grain can be used not only to aid the starving but also to support spring sowing.
I earnestly request that Molotov and Kamenev call me this very evening.
_
Leppin. 1
1 It appears that the discussion concerns the British government’s proposal to provide grain to the famine-stricken provinces. A corresponding telegram confirming the Soviet government’s agreement was sent to Krassin the following day.

G. FISH INDUSTRY

NOTE TO A. I. RYKOV AND V. M. MOLOTOV*.
To Comrades Rykov and Molotov.
July 13, 1921
I ask that you briefly inform me as to how matters have progressed regarding Glavryba and Potyayev¹. I have just received another letter from S. Elizaryova, head of the Scientific and Technical Department at Glavryba, who has also submitted a passionate defense of Potyayev to the Control Commission—though she disagrees with him on several key points—and pointed out that all the leading experts stand firmly behind Potyayev.
Chairman of the Sovnarkom, V. Ulyanov (Lenin).
1 For details on the conflict between the Chairman of Glavryba, A. I. Potyayev, and the People’s Commissariat for Trade over the question of integrating Glavryba into the system of the VSNKh, see Lenin Collection XX, pp. 290–291, as well as pp. 288–300.

LETTER TO A. I. POTYAYEV**.
To Comrade Potyayev
August 5, 1921
I harshly reprimand you for your whining and lack of professional conduct. Regarding Meisner¹, you should have formally requested a written inquiry from Bryukhanov—and, in the event of his disagreement (including a copy of his response), you should have brought the matter before the Council of Labor and Defense.
There is no need to drag things out: it is precisely from such delays that rumors flourish, to which you so readily succumb. You must draw upon your inner strength and stop complaining. By tomorrow, I expect to receive your official telegram concerning Meisner.
As for the Party’s request to officially submit the matter to the Organizational Bureau—and to do so without undue delay—this does not concern me directly. You are free to appeal to the Politburo if you wish.
I have not yet read the “Plan.” Please prepare for me, in just two pages, a detailed account of the disagreements between N. M. Knipovich³ and Meisner.
With comradely greetings, Lenin.
1 V. I. Meisner was the head of the Administration at Glavryba.
* N. M. Knipovich was a specialist in scientific and commercial fisheries research.
* Printed from a typewritten copy. The letter bears the secretary’s notation: “Forward via telegram, with the instruction that V. I. would like to receive a response this very evening.” Ed.
** Printed from a typewritten copy. Ed.


TELEGRAM TO N. M. KNIPPOVICH  \
To Nikolai Mikhailovich Knipovich (Bolshoy Kozikhinsky Lane, No. 8).
August 5, 1921
I deeply regret that, due to illness, I was unable to speak with you when you visited Nadezhda Konstantinovna. If it does not trouble you, I would be grateful if you could write to me in brief terms:
1) Your assessment of Meisner—first, from the standpoint of integrity; second, from a political perspective; third, in terms of his knowledge of the field; fourth, with regard to his administrative capabilities. 2) Your disagreements with Glavryba. 3) Any proposals you might have—should they exist—for decentralizing the fishery industry and relocating its operations to Murmansk.
[669]
Lenin.

NOTES ON N. M. KNIPPOVICH’S LETTER.
[September 3, 1921]
To Chairman of the Sovnarkom, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.
Your telegram dated August 5, No. 669, was delivered to me yesterday—and I feel it my duty to respond to you immediately, with complete candor and, to the best of my ability, with objectivity.
The most difficult question you raise is your assessment of V. I. Meisner. I have known him for many years; among other things, he served as my assistant and deputy during the Caspian expeditions of 1912—and the remarkable success achieved by that small expedition that year was, to a large extent, due to Meisner’s contributions, rather than to mine. I held him in very high regard until recent years, when I was forced to experience considerable disappointment in him in certain respects.
…He is strongly inclined toward the tendency—regrettably shared by almost every department—to seize as much power as possible; in this case, he seeks to take into his own hands whatever pertains to the fishery industry, to suppress anything that does not fly under the banner of Glavryba or that does not personally suit him. In his quest to establish some kind of peculiar monopoly, V. I. Meisner often acts improperly, unjustly, and imprudently, provoking sharp and widespread discontent toward Glavryba, fostering hostility toward the organization, and encouraging employees to either leave their posts or to work in ways that minimize contact with Glavryba. As evidence of his lack of integrity, I consider the appointment—made on the basis of personal connections—of someone to the position of head of the hydrological division within the Department of Fish Farming and Scientific–Commercial Fisheries Research…
* Printed from a typewritten copy. Ed.