First published in 1964 in Collected Works, Fifth (Russian) Ed., Vol. 46.
Sent from Munich to Paris.
Printed from the original.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, , Moscow, Volume 43, pages 72b-74a.
Translated: Martin Parker and Bernard Isaacs
Transcription\Markup: R. Cymbala
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
Other Formats: Text • README
I hasten to reply at once to your letter which I just received.
Really, you are not being quite ... objective about the “incident”. Since you did disclose a secret to a not too discreet person, some measure of indiscretion there evidently was. Of course, this can happen to anyone, and please do not think that I am repeating this for any other reason than to close the incident once and for all. But you must admit that we had some very unpleasant moments and explanations to face not through any fault of our own, for it was not we who told Leib... things that could not but make the “gentleman” blow up.
And now as to the substance of the matter. Once the “gentleman” learned (in whatever way) that the League had decided against him (or that a League member had voiced the opinion that it was necessary to take a reserved attitude toward him, that is, the “gentleman”, which amounts to the same thing), the League was involved in the affair. This is something that cannot be undone, any more than you can recapture a word that has been spoken.
And for heaven’s sake do not add another mistake to the first: do not say now that “the League has nothing to do with it”!
The League is already involved, and the only question now is how to disentangle it.
The “gentleman” wanted to apply to the League concerning himself (you evidently did not quite understand me on this score), i.e., concerning the grounds on which League members had cast aspersions on him.
We persuaded him that nobody had cast any “aspersions”, and as regards its reservations, the League is not accountable to anyone.
This finishes the personal question concerning the “gentleman”. But there still remains the public question of the Ruma affair, about which we have long been receiving letters urging that it be cleared up.
The reservations in relation to the “gentleman” were as a matter of fact due to his “involvement” in this affair.
Therefore, the “gentleman” had to be advised to under take an “inquest and investigation” of all aspects of the Ruma affair.
Since he agreed to do so, it is up to us to help him; first, because it is unquestionably in the interests of the movement to throw full light on the methods used and the web woven by the provocateur Ruma; secondly, because we League members are a little bit to blame for the fact that the League caused the “gentleman” so much trouble, which he may not have fully deserved.
You must agree that it is our right and duty to have reservations as regards X, Y and Z, but X, Y and Z should not be told about them. Once the “sin” has been committed there is nothing for it, you know, but to own up.
We should not add one mistake to another by saying that it is “none of our business” now, after we ourselves brought things out into the open....
P.S. Greetings to Yefron. Is he pleased with the out come of the conference and the establishment of the League?
 See previous document.—Ed.