Comrades Liu, Zhou, Deng, Peng, Kang, Chen, and Lengxi, for your review. Please provide your opinions in preparation for revision.

Mao Zedong
March 25, 1964
After reading, return to Mao.
Send to Comrade Chen Yi for review, then return to Mao.

This document is sent to Comrades Xie Fuzhi, Li Jingquan, and Tao Zhu for review. Please provide your opinions so that revisions can be made. Among its contents, the issue regarding the illegitimacy of the Provisional Central Committee was already omitted from the "Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party" adopted at the Central Committee meeting prior to the Seventh National Congress in 1945, thereby acknowledging its legitimacy. Doing so was beneficial to the entire Party. The document also mentions the name of the Premier, which should likewise be deleted, because throughout his life, the Premier’s correct actions have far outnumbered his mistakes. This article was not published in the past, nor is it suitable for publication now. Whether it will be published in the future (decades later) shall be decided by future comrades. I wrote it in 1941 (probably in the spring of that year, since the text makes no mention of the European war) and showed it only to Comrades Bishi and Shaoqi. I myself had forgotten about it. In 1964, someone suddenly brought me a photograph of the original manuscript (found in the Museum of Revolutionary History) for my inspection, and only then did I recall that I had indeed written this article.

Mao Zedong
January 2, 1965
IV
This article was written in Yan’an and was shown to Comrades Liu Shaoqi and Ren Bishi, but was never published. After it was sent out, I forgot about it. In 1964, someone retrieved the original manuscript of this article from the archives and brought it to me for review, and only then did I remember that this had indeed happened. The reason it was not published in Yan’an, nor even circulated among the members of the Central Committee, but was only shown to two members of the Political Bureau and then never mentioned again, was probably because the article was written too sharply and was not conducive to uniting with comrades who had made mistakes. Now, with the passage of many years, this issue that was detrimental to unity...