V. I. Lenin

Notes On The Tasks Of Our Delegation At The Hague [1]

On the question of combating the danger of war, in connection
with the Conference at The Hague, I think that the greatest difficulty lies
in overcoming the prejudice that this is a simple, clear and comparatively
easy question.

“We shall retaliate to war by a strike or a revolution” that
is what all the prominent reformist leaders usually say to the working
class. And very often the seeming radicalness of the measures proposed
satisfies and appeases the workers, co-operators and peasants.

Perhaps the most correct method would be to start with the sharpest
refutation of this opinion; to declare that particularly now, after the
recent war, only the most foolish or utterly dishonest people can assert
that such an answer to the question of combating war is of any use; to
declare that it is impossible to “retaliate” to war by a strike,
just as it is impossible to “retaliate” to war by revolution in
the simple and literal sense of these terms.

We must explain the real situation to the people, show them that war is
hatched in the greatest secrecy, and that the ordinary workers’
organisations, even if they call themselves revolutionary organisations, are
utterly helpless in face of a really impending war.

We must explain to the people again and again in the most concrete manner
possible how matters stood in the last war, and why they could not have been
otherwise.

We must take special pains to explain that the question of “defence
of the fatherland” will inevitably arise, and that the overwhelming
majority of the working people will inevitably decide it in favour of their
bourgeoisie.

Therefore, first, it is necessary to explain what “defence of the
fatherland” means. Second, in connection with this, it is necessary to
explain what “defeatism” means. Lastly, we must explain that the
only possible method of combating war is to preserve existing, and to form
new, illegal organisations in which all revolutionaries taking part in a war
carry on prolonged anti-war activities—all this must be
brought into the forefront.

Boycott war—that is a silly catch-phrase. Communists must take part
in every war, even the most reactionary.

Examples from, say, pre-war German literature, and in particular, the
example of the Basle Congress of 1912, should be used as especially concrete
proof that the theoretical admission that war is criminal, that socialists
cannot condone war, etc., turn out to be empty phrases, because there is
nothing concrete in them. The masses are not given a really vivid idea of
how war may and will creep up on them. On the contrary, every day the
dominant press, in an infinite number of copies, obscures this question and
weaves such lies around it that the feeble socialist press is absolutely
impotent against it, the more so that even in time of peace it propounds
fundamentally erroneous views on this point. In all probability, the
communist press in most countries will also disgrace itself.

I think that our delegates at the International Congress of Co-operators
and Trade Unionists should distribute their functions among themselves and
expose all the sophistries that are being advanced at the present time in
justification of war.

These sophistries are, perhaps, the principal means by which the
bourgeois press rallies the masses in support of war; and the main reason
why we are so impotent in face of war is either that we do not expose these
sophistries beforehand, or still more that we, in the spirit of the Basle
Manifesto of 1912, waive them aside with the cheap, boastful and utterly
empty phrase that we shall not allow war to break out, that we fully
understand that war is a crime, etc.

I think that if we have several people at The Hague Conference who are
capable of delivering speeches against war in various languages, the most
important thing would be to refute the opinion that the delegates at the
Conference are opponents of war, that they understand how war may and will
come upon them at the most unexpected moment, that they to any extent
understand what methods should be adopted to combat war, that they are to
any extent in a position to adopt reasonable and effective measures to
combat war.

Using the experience of the recent war to illustrate the point, we must
explain what a host of both theoretical and practical questions will arise
on the morrow of the declaration of war, and that the vast majority of the
men called up for military service will have no opportunity to examine these
questions with anything like clear heads, or in a conscientious and
unprejudiced manner.

I think that this question must be explained in extraordinary detail, and
in two ways:

First, by relating and analysing what happened during the last war and
telling all those present that they are ignorant of this, or pretend that
they know about it, but actually shut their eyes to what is the very pivot
of the question which must be understood if any real efforts are to be made
to combat war. On this point I think it is necessary to examine all the
opinions and shades of opinion that arose among Russian socialists
concerning the last war. We must show that those shades of opinion did not
emerge accidentally, but out of the very nature of modern wars in
general. We must prove that without an analysis of these opinions, without
ascertaining why they inevitably arise and why they are of decisive
significance in the matter of combating war—without such an analysis
it is utterly impossible to make any preparations for war, or even to take
an intelligent stand on it.

Secondly, we must take the present conflicts, even the most
insignificant, to illustrate the fact that war may break out any day as a
consequence of a dispute between Great Britain and France over some point of
theft treaty with Turkey, or between the U.S.A. and Japan over some trivial
disagreement on any Pacific question, or between any of the big powers over
colonies, tariffs, or general commercial policy, etc., etc. It seems to me
that if there is the slightest doubt about being able at The Hague to say
all we want to say against war with the utmost freedom, we should consider
various stratagems that will enable us to say at least what is most
important and to publish in pamphlet form what could not be said. We must
take the risk of our speaker being stopped by the chairman.

I think that for the same purpose the delegation should consist not only
of speakers who are able, and whose duty it shall be, to make speeches
against war as a whole, i.e., to enlarge on all the main arguments and all
the conditions for combating war, but also of people who know all the three
principal foreign languages, whose business it shall be to enter into
conversation with the delegates and to ascertain how far they understand the
main arguments, what need there is to advance certain arguments and to quote
certain examples.

Perhaps on a number of questions the mere quoting of facts of the last
war will be sufficient to produce serious effect. Perhaps on a number of
other questions serious effect can be produced only by explaining the
conflicts that exist today between the various countries and how likely they
are to develop into armed collisions.

Apropos of the question of combating war, I remember that a number of
declarations have been made by our Communist deputies, in parliament and
outside parliament, which contain monstrously incorrect and monstrously
thoughtless statements on this subject. I think these declarations,
particularly if they have been made since the war, must be subjected to
determined and ruthless criticism, and the name of each person who made them
should be mentioned. Opinion concerning these speakers may be expressed in
the mildest terms, particularly if circumstances require it, but not a
single case of this kind should be passed over in silence, for
thoughtlessness on this question is an evil that outweighs all others and
cannot be treated lightly.

A number of decisions have been adopted by workers’ congresses
which are unpardonably foolish and thoughtless.

All material should be immediately collected, and all the separate parts
and particles of the subject, and the whole #8220;strategy” to be
pursued should be thoroughly discussed at a congress.

On such a question, not only a mistake, but even lack of thoroughness on
our part will be unpardonable.

December 4, 1922

Endnotes

[1] The Hague International Peace Congress, December 10-15, 1922, was convened
by the Amsterdam International Federation of Trade Unions as a result of
pressure brought to bear by the working class with the purpose of combating
the threat of another world war. The Soviet delegation, invited to the
congress on the demand of revolutionary trade unions and co-operatives in
face of the resistance of the opportunist majority at the congress, set
forth the tasks of the proletariat with regard to war. It spoke in the
spirit of the suggestions given to it by Lenin. The congress rejected the
programme of action proposed by the Soviet delegation.