THE WAR AGAINST THE WEST
On his return from his diplomatic trip to Italy, Dr. Suedekum wrote in
the _Vorwaerts_ that the Italian comrades did not sufficiently
comprehend the nature of Czarism. We agree with Dr. Suedekum that a
German can more easily understand the nature of Czarism as he
experiences daily, in his own person, the nature of Prussian-German
absolutism. The two "natures" are very closely akin to each other.
German absolutism represents a feudal-monarchical organization, resting
upon a mighty capitalist foundation, which the development of the last
half-century has erected for it. The strength of the German army, as we
have learned to know it anew in its present bloody work, consists not
alone in the great material and technical resources of the nation, and
in the intelligence and precision of the workman-soldier, who had been
drilled in the school of industry and his own class organizations. It
has its foundation also in its Junker officer caste, with its master
class traditions, its oppression of those who are below and its
subordination to those who are above. The German army, like the German
state, is a feudal-monarchical organization with inexhaustible
capitalistic resources. The bourgeois scribblers may chatter all they
want about the supremacy of the German, the man of duty, over the
Frenchman, the man of pleasure; the real difference lies not in the
racial qualities, but in the social and political conditions. The
standing army, that closed corporation, that self-sufficing state within
the state, remains, despite universal military service, a caste
organization that in order to thrive must have artificial distinctions
of rank and a monarchical top to crown the commanding hierarchy.
In his work, "The New Army," Jaures showed that the only army France
could have is an army of defense built on the plan of arming every
citizen, that is, a democratic army, a _militia_. The bourgeois French
Republic is now paying the penalty for having made her army a
counterpoise to her democratic state organization. She created, in
Jaures' words, "a bastard regime in which antiquated forms clashed with
newly developing forms and neutralized each other." This incongruity
between the standing army and the republican regime is the fundamental
weakness of the French military system.
The reverse is true of Germany. Germany's barbarian retrograde
political system gives her a great military supremacy. The German
bourgeoisie may grumble now and then when the pretorian caste spirit of
the officers' corps leads to outbreaks like that of Zabern. They may
make wry faces at the Crown Prince and his slogan, "Give it to them!
Give it to them!" The German Social Democracy may inveigh ever so
sharply against the systematic personal ill-treatment of the German
soldier which has caused proportionately double the number of suicides
in the German barracks of that in any other country. But for all that,
the fact that the German bourgeoisie has absolutely no political
character and that the German Socialist party has failed to inspire the
proletariat with the revolutionary spirit has enabled the ruling class
to erect the gigantic structure of militarism, and so place the
efficient and intelligent German workmen under the command of the Zabern
heroes and their slogan, "Give it to them!"
Professor Hans Delbrueck seeks the source of Germany's military strength
in the ancient model of the Teutoburgerwald, and he is perfectly
justified.
"The oldest Germanic system of warfare," he writes, "was based
on the retinue of princes, a body of specially selected
warriors, and the mass of fighters comprising the entire nation.
This is the system we have to-day also. How vastly different
are the methods of fighting now from those of our ancestors in
the Teutoburgerwald! We have the technical marvels of modern
machine guns. We have the wonderful organization of immense
masses of troops. And yet, our military system is at bottom the
same. The martial spirit is raised to its highest power,
developed to its utmost in a body which once was small but now
numbers many thousands, a body giving fealty to their War Lord,
and by him, as by the princes of old, regarded as his comrades;
and under their leadership the whole people, educated by them
and disciplined by them. _Here we have the secret of the
warlike character of the German nation_."
The French Major, Driant, looks on at the German Kaiser in his White
Cuirassier's uniform, undoubtedly the most imposing military uniform in
the world, and republican by constraint that he is, his heart is filled
with a lover's jealousy. And how the Kaiser spends his time "in the
midst of his army, that true family of the Hohenzollerns!" The Major is
fascinated.
The feudal caste, whose hour of political and moral decay had struck
long ago, found its connection with the nation once more in the fertile
soil of imperialism. And this connection with the nation has taken such
deep root that the prophecies of Major Driant, written several years
ago, have actually come true--prophecies that until now could only have
appeared as either the poisonous promptings of a secret Bonapartist, or
the drivellings of a lunatic.
"The Kaiser," he wrote, "is the Commander in Chief ... and
behind him stands the entire working class of Germany as one
man.... Bebel's Social Democrats are in the ranks, their
fingers on the trigger, and they too think only of the welfare
of the Fatherland. The ten-billion war indemnity that France
will have to pay will be a greater help to them than the
Socialist chimeras on which they fed the day before."
Yes, and now they are writing of this future indemnity even in some
_Social Democratic (!)_ papers, with open rowdy insolence--an indemnity,
however, not of ten billions, but of twenty or thirty billions.
Germany's victory over France--a deplorable strategic necessity,
according to the German Social Democrats--would mean not only the defeat
of France's standing army; it would mean primarily the victory of the
feudal-monarchical state over the democratic-republican state.
For the ancient race of Hindenburgs, Moltkes and Klucks, hereditary
specialists in mass-murder, are just as indispensable a condition of
German victory as are the 42 centimeter guns, the last word in human
technical skill.
The entire capitalist press is already talking of the unshakable
stability of the German Monarchy, strengthened by the war. And German
professors, the same who proclaimed Hindenburg a doctor of All the
Sciences, are already declaring that political slavery is a higher form
of social life.
"The democratic republics, and the so-called monarchies that are
under subjection to a parliamentary regime, and all the other
beautiful things that were so extolled--what little capacity
they have shown to stand the storm!"
These are the things that the German professors are writing now.
It is shameful and humiliating enough to read the expressions of the
French Socialists, who had proved themselves too weak to break the
alliance of France with Russia or even to prevent the return to
three-years' military service, but who, when the War began, nevertheless
donned their red trousers and set out to free Germany. But we are
seized with a feeling of unspeakable indignation on reading the German
Socialist party press, which in the language of exalted slaves extols
the brave heroic caste of hereditary oppressors for their armed exploits
on French territory.
On August 15, 1870, when the victorious German armies were approaching
Paris, Engels wrote in a letter to Marx, after describing the confused
condition of the French defense:
"Nevertheless, a revolutionary government, if it comes soon,
need not despair. But it must leave Paris to its fate, and
continue to carry on the war from the south. It is then still
possible that such a government may hold out until arms and
ammunition are bought and a new army organized with which the
enemy can be gradually pushed back to the frontier. That would
be the right ending to the war--for both countries to
demonstrate that they cannot be conquered."
And yet there are people who shout like drunken helots, "On to Paris."
And in doing so they have the impudence to invoke the names of Marx and
Engels. In what measure are they superior to the thrice despised
Russian liberals who crawled on their bellies before his Excellency, the
military Commander, who introduced the Russian knout into East Galicia.
It is cowardly arrogance--this talk of the purely "strategic" character
of the War on the Western front. Who takes any account of it? Certainly
not the German ruling classes. They speak the language of conviction
and of main force. They call things by their right names. They know
what they want and they know how to fight for it.
The Social Democrats tell us that the War is being waged for the cause
of national independence. "That is not true," retorted Herr Arthur Dix.
"Just as the high politics of the last century," wrote Dix,
"owed its specially marked character to the _National Idea_, so
the political-world events of this century stand under the
emblem of the _Imperialistic Idea_. The imperialistic idea that
is destined to give the impetus, the scope and the goal to the
striving for power of the great (_Der Weltwirtschaftskrieg_,
1914, p. 3).
"It shows gratifying sagacity," says the same Herr Arthur Dix,
"on the part of those who had charge of the military
preparations of the War, that the advance of our armies against
France and Russia in the very first stage of the War took place
precisely where it was most important to keep valuable German
mineral wealth free from foreign invasion, and to occupy such
portions of the enemy's territory as would supplement our own
underground resources" (Ibid., p. 38).
The "strategy," of which the Socialists now speak in devout whispers,
really begins its activities with the robbery of mineral wealth.
The Social Democrats tell us that the War is a war of defense. But Herr
Georg Irmer says clearly and distinctly:
"People ought not to be talking as though the German nation had
come too late for rivalry for world economy and world
dominion,--that the world has already been divided. Has not the
earth been divided over and over again in all epochs of
history?" (_Los vom englischen Weltjoch_, 1914, p. 42.)
The Socialists try to comfort us by telling us that Belgium has only
been temporarily crushed and that the Germans will soon vacate their
Belgian quarters. But Herr Arthur Dix, who knows very well what he
wants, and who has the right and the power to want it, writes that what
England fears most, and expressly so, is that _Germany should have an
outlet to the Atlantic Ocean_.
"For this very reason," he continues, "we must neither _let Belgium go
out of our hands_, nor must we fail to make sure that the coast line
from Ostende to the Somme shall not again fall into the hands of any
state which may become a political vassal of England. We must see to it
that in some form or other _German influence_ is securely established
there."
In the endless battles between Ostende and Dunkirk, sacred "strategy" is
now carrying out this programme of the Berlin stock exchange, also.
The Socialists tell us that the War between France and Germany is merely
a brief prelude to a lasting alliance between those countries. But here,
too, Herr Arthur Dix shows Germany's cards. According to him, "there is
but one answer: _to seek to destroy the English world trade, and to deal
deadly blows at English national economy_."
"The aim for the foreign policy of the German Empire for the next
decades is clearly indicated," Professor Franz von Liszt announces.
"'Protection against England,' that must be our slogan" (_Ein
mitteleuropaeischer Staatenverband_, 1914, p. 24).
"We must crush the most treacherous and malicious of our foes,"
cries a third. "We must break the tyranny which England
exercises over the sea with base self-seeking and shameless
contempt of justice and right."
The War is directed not against Czarism, but primarily against England's
supremacy on the sea.
"It may be said," Professor Schiehmann confesses, "that no
success of ours has given us such joy as the defeat of the
English at Maubeuge and St. Quentin on August 28."
The German Social Democrats tell us that the chief object of the War is
the "settlement with Russia." But plain, straightforward Herr Rudolf
Theuden wants to give Galicia to Russia with North Persia thrown in.
Then Russia "would have got enough to be satisfied for many decades to
come. We may even make her our friend by it."
"What ought the War to bring us?" asks Theuden, and then he answers:
"_The chief payment must be made us by France_.... France must
give us Belfort, that part of Lorraine which borders on the
Moselle, and, in case of stubborn resistance, that part as well
which borders on the Maas. If we make the Maas and the Moselle
German boundaries, the French will some day perhaps wean
themselves away from the idea of making the Rhine a French
boundary."
The bourgeois politicians and professors tell us that England is the
chief enemy; that Belgium and France are the gateway to the Atlantic
Ocean; that the hope of a Russian indemnity is only a Utopian dream,
anyway; that Russia would be more useful as friend than as foe; that
France will have to pay in land and in gold--and the _Vorwaerts_ exhorts
the German workers to "hold out until the decisive victory is ours."
And yet the _Vorwaerts_ tells us that the War is being waged for the
independence of the German nation, and for the liberation of the Russian
people. What does this mean? Of course we must not look for ideas,
logic and truth where they do not exist. This is simply a case of an
ulcer of slavish sentiments bursting open and foul pus crawling over the
pages of the workingmen's press. It is clear that the oppressed class
which proceeds too slowly and inertly on its way toward freedom must in
the final hour drag all its hopes and promises through mire and blood,
before there arises in its soul the pure, unimpeachable voice--the voice
of revolutionary honor.