10.II.1922.

Dear t. Chicherin!

I rejoiced today when I read "Pravda" - not the editorial, of course, which spoiled the most splendid subject - but the teleegram about Henderson's "step".

Henderson is as stupid as Kerensky, and therefore helps us1.

The first reason to rejoice.

The second: You must see how right I was in putting forward the "broad" Genoa Prospect approved by the Central Committee.

I hope you can see that now, after the Gendersonian step?

We will put forward the broadest program of Genoa, at the same time kindly emphasizing that we do not put an ultimatum, and in Genoa there can be no question of subordination to the majority, but only of agreement of all. Do you disagree? Your will. We're going to the narrow road! (Insert more in the broad one: international labor legislation; measures to combat unemployment, etc.).

Further. Archisecret. It is to our advantage to have Genoa thwarted, but not by us, of course. Think it over with Litvinov and Ioffe and write to me. Of course, you can't write that even in secret papers. Return this to me, I will burn it2. We'll get the loan better without Genoa, if it's not us who ruin Genoa. We must think of more subtle maneuvers so that it is not us who will ruin Genoa. For example, the fool Genderson and Co. will help us a lot if we push them smartly. Has Krasin been summoned? Has it been verified that he has been summoned? When is he leaving? Speed it up, double check.

Everything will fly at "them". It's a total collapse (India and so on). We have to push the faller with our own hands.

Salut!

Your Lenin.

P.S. Show this to Litvinov and Ioffe.

Fond 2, op. 2, d. 1119 - autograph.

1In the newspaper "Pravda" of February 10, 1922 there was a report about the appeal of the leader of the British Labor Party A.Genderson to the government to include in the agenda of the Genoa Conference the issue of granting independence to Georgia. L.D.Trotsky also responded to this report, sending a letter to the Politburo with a proposal to speak in the press against Genderson's initiative. V.I.Lenin disagreed with Trotsky and proposed to the members of the Politburo in "Izvestiya VTsIK" to support Genderson "for the "happy idea" to expand the program of the conference, but to expand it, of course, not only with Georgia, but with all nations and colonies" (The Trotsky papers. 1917-1922. V. II, p. 680).

2In response to the published letter, G.V.Chicherin wrote to V.I.Lenin on February 10, 1922: "The question of Georgia can by no means be put in such a way: 'you have India, we have Georgia'. It is necessary to say: "in Georgia the workers have thrown out counter-revolution, just as in Russia they threw out counter-revolution, but you dare not impose it on Russia, but you dare to impose it on little Georgia; appeals to self-determination in your mouth are hypocritical, for India, etc.".

Idiot Henderson's appeal to Lloid George is not yet Lloid George's appeal to us. If Lloyd George talks to us about Georgia, then we will talk about Amritsar in return, but if we start talking about Amritsar ourselves beforehand, we will simply sabotage our relations." On the issue of attitude to the Genoa Conference Chicherin wrote: "I am not an economist. But all the economists say that we desperately, ultra-really need the help of the West, a loan, concessions, economic agreement. I have to believe them. And if it is true, we should not quarrel, but agree.... You are certainly mistaken if you think we can get a loan without Genoa, if we spit with England. It's not the governments with their deficits, but the capitalists, the business community. Now they see in us the best possible government under the given conditions in Russia. But if we break glass in Genoa, they will recoil from us. The broadest bourgeois-pacifist program will not repel them, on the contrary it will strengthen us, but if they are naive, they will discredit us. If Genoa clearly shows two irreconcilable worlds, such a rupture will make any economic agreement impossible." (RCCHIDNI, f. 5, op. 1, d. 1952, l. 38-39).