I am sending my comments. In the absence of principled disagreements, decide for yourselves. My advice: use it for propaganda, for it is clear that there can be no other purpose. Exceedingly courteous with Nansen, exceedingly insolent with Wilson, Lloyd George, and Clemenceau—this is very useful; only such a tone is right with them.

6/V. Lenin

In my opinion, both replies are quite correct, in proposing a meeting and thanking Nansen.

But it seems to me that the propagandistic aspect should be developed more, using the fact that the Entente, easily concealing all our other documents*, cannot conceal this reply as an exception.

Therefore, I would advise using it for propaganda and developing in more detail the separation (.) of the humanitarian and (.) political aspects.
(.) You refer to the humanitarian (it seems, even only humanitarian?) nature of the proposal? For this, all kinds of thanks and compliments to Nansen personally.

If humanitarian goals, do not mix in politics, dear sir, but bring directly (underline this). Bring directly! We are even ready to pay three times the price and will gladly let you in for control and give you all kinds of guarantees. Develop this, elaborate, explain. Appoint a place and time for negotiations!

But if it is a truce, then it is politics! After all, you are an educated person, Mr. Nansen, you perfectly understand that any war and any truce is politics.

So, you have combined "humanitarian"

* Referring to repeated official appeals to the Entente powers with a proposal for peace (see V. I. Lenin. Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 39, p. 366). Ed.

To G. V. CHICHERIN and M. M. LITVINOV. 6 MAY 1919 with "political," you have mixed them together! Explain to him, as to a 16-year-old girl, why a truce is politics.

(.) Is it good to mix "humanitarian" with "politics"? No, it is bad, because it is hypocrisy, in which you are not guilty, and we do not accuse you. Because one must speak about politics openly, not under the guise of "humanitarianism."

And since you have spoken about politics, then excuse us, we are obliged to answer you substantively.

(.1) If the truce is for peace, then you know perfectly well that we are for it. We agreed to the Prince's (even!) Islands, we confirmed this to Bullitt, who, unfortunately, turned out, like all American policy, to be in the clutches of Clemenceau and Lloyd George, for what Bullitt promised us, assuring that America would force Clemenceau and Lloyd George to comply, remained unfulfilled (useful to "tease" Wilson!) 364 *.

The Prince's Islands were not thwarted by us, but by the monarchists and the pogromists of Jews, the restorers of landlord land—explain, develop, prove these three points, that Denikin and Kolchak 1) are monarchists; 2) massacre Jews; 3) restore landlord land, introduce redemption for peasants.

We agreed to a truce for peace negotiations, of course, with the real instigators of the war, not with pawns, i.e., England, France, America. Explain in detail that they are waging the war, their ships, their guns, their cartridges, their officers. Expose in detail the extremely false "renunciation of intervention" while supporting (and inciting) Estonians, Finns, Poles.

(.2) Furthermore, if the truce is not for peace, but for a political game, we do not want it. One does not play with peace. No one will succeed in deceiving us. And develop this.

* If everyone is against, throw it out (probably referring to the text enclosed by V. I. Lenin in square brackets—Ed.). But in my opinion, it is practically very useful to quarrel Wilson with them, stating that
Wilson is a pawn in the hands of Clemenceau and Lloyd George, obeying these two, this "majority"!!

Conclude with a summary: if it is politics, then we offered a truce for peace, we agree, we did not thwart the Prince's Islands, we will always go to negotiations with the real instigators of the war.

If it is not politics, but humanitarian, we thank, accept, invite, come, control, and we will go anywhere (time, place) and pay even triple the price in timber, ore, ships.

Truly, we cannot miss the opportunity to respond to Nansen in such a way that the propaganda turns out to be good 365.