THE DÉBÂCLE OF THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS
In the second paragraph of the Social Democratic programme published
after the Halle Congress in 1890, we read: "The German workmen's
socialistic party, although working for the present on national lines,
is aware of the international character of the workmen's movement, and
is determined to fulfil all duties accruing thereby to the working
classes, in order to make the brotherhood of all men a reality."
At that meeting--the first to be held after the repeal of Bismarck's
anti-socialist law--the president claimed that they had secured more
votes at the Reichstag election than any other party; they were the
strongest political party in Germany.
Since that year they have consistently increased their power, till in
the present Reichstag they have no fewer than one hundred and eleven
members, giving them almost an absolute majority.
It seems an irony of fate that at Halle in 1890 one of the speakers who
dilated on international brotherhood and the inseparable bonds which
bound Belgian and German workmen--was a Belgian delegate! Singer, in
reporting on the doings of the representatives in the Reichstag, said:
"We consider peace among the nations to be an indispensable preliminary
for the improvement of social conditions. We vote against expenditure
for military purposes, because we are convinced that this continuous
arming, accompanied by the constant improvement of murderous weapons,
must be ended. It is contradictory to the civilizing task of the nations
for them to be armed to the teeth, lying in wait for the moment when
they can devour each other.
"Militarism is an evil for the nations; its burdens cannot be borne for
ever, and even to-day the nations are collapsing under them. Modern
conditions are unbearable; out of them spring ever-increasing armaments,
and at last a time will come when war must break out, because the state
of modern armed peace will one day have become impossible."
Another authoritative pronouncement from the report[63] of the Social
Democratic Congress in Erfurt, 1891, deserves mention. It is a passage
from a speech delivered by the elder Liebknecht in the Reichstag: "As
regards the defence of the Fatherland all parties will be united when it
is necessary to meet an outside enemy. In that moment no party will
shirk its duty."
[Footnote 63: "Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des Parteitags der Soz.
Dem. Partei Deutschlands zu Erfurt, 1891."]
This is an instance of what Germans call _Rückversicherung_, or a
covering insurance. Having pledged themselves never to leave the
Fatherland in the lurch--and the pledge was repeated on many
occasions--they were free to babble to French, English and Italian
Socialists about the blessings of internationalism, general strikes, and
eternal peace. But there is no single instance on record to show that
German Socialists considered any other benefits of internationalism,
except those which served the purposes of their own nationalism.
At Halle, 1890, Liebknecht said: "These ideas are indisputably correct.
Nobody,[64] no matter how enthusiastic he may be for the international
cause, will dare to maintain that we have no national duties. National
and international are not opposing principles. The word 'national' must
be rightly understood. It includes only a certain, limited portion of
international humanity. The part belongs to the whole, and international
merely means going beyond the boundary-posts of the nation, the narrower
limits of the native land; to extend one's horizon to include the whole;
to consider humanity as one family and the world as a home."
[Footnote 64: Liebknecht was wrong. There are dupes who hold that their
international obligations come before their national duties, and
unfortunately in the ranks of these traitors, English M.P.'s may be
found, who receive £400 per annum from the British State, presumably to
aid them in injuring the British cause.]
The error into which British Socialists have fallen--or been led--is
their attitude towards militarism. German Democrats have never denounced
the bearing of arms; they have admitted that arms will always be
necessary, pre-supposing that the world continues along the same lines
of development as heretofore.
They have only objected to the existing _form_[65] of militarism, but
otherwise they have always been unanimous that military training should
be compulsory and universal. Their British _Genossen_ (comrades) have
either misunderstood or wilfully perverted these teachings. German
Socialists have unswervingly insisted upon every man learning the use of
arms, while their British followers have preached absolute disarmament
and done their utmost to betray this country into weakening herself
below the minimum necessary to guard the land, and to maintain the
country's pledges to the world.
[Footnote 65: Kautsky: "Die Internationalität und der Krieg" (Vorwärts
Publishing House, Berlin, 1915), p. 26. "We have fought against the
military system not to make the land defenceless, but in order to
introduce another system in its place, which will give us the necessary
guarantees that the army will always be the tool of the civil
authorities and never their master. When the latter is the case we call
such a condition 'militarism,' and it is against that alone that we
fight." Seeing that military power is absolutely subordinated to the
civil authorities in the case of Great Britain (Mutiny Acts), then
according to the principles of German Socialists their British
colleagues were wrong in all the efforts which they have made against
the armed powers of these islands.]
In Halle, Herr Bebel made this statement: "I have already made it clear
that I consider the efforts of the so-called peace friends towards
disarmament to be useless (_aussichtslos_), because it is unthinkable
that the rival States would agree to legal restrictions concerning
disarmament. If such were made, each would endeavour by secret
preparations to out-do the other. War and national enmity are necessary
products of society, and the existing class distinctions."
The Germans were quite logical in this matter; in effect they said--the
existing States and forms of government make militarism necessary, and
war inevitable. Therefore we declare war to the knife on every existing
government, including Russian Czarism, British constitutionalism, German
autocracy and American republicanism. They are one and all rotten,
unjust and inhuman. Our programme includes their complete overthrow and
the erection in their stead of a _Volksstaat_ (People's State).
The position is perfectly simple, and to those who are sufficiently
ignorant and naïve this programme promises an universal salvation, as
delirious in its joy as that expected by African races when bending the
knee before images of wood and stone. German Socialists are pledged just
as irrevocably to the doctrines of brute force as are the Junker and
military powers in the German Fatherland. What is their industrial and
class warfare but an attempt to enforce the doctrine of might is right?
In the official programme drawn up at Erfurt, 1891, there is a paragraph
stating a claim for _uneingeschränktes Koalitionsrecht_ (absolute and
unlimited right of coalition), which means that the masses may unite to
enforce what they will, and annihilate whom they please. The same rights
of coalition are denied to anyone else, and in the coal-strikes in South
Wales[66] we have a lurid example--such instances could not be found in
Germany--of the absolute and unlimited right of coalition at the risk of
undoing any and every other right.
[Footnote 66: The strikes during the present war.--Author.]
The point is this: German Socialists have declared their intention to
give no allegiance to any existing form of government and to overthrow
them at the earliest possible moment. Do British Socialists accept this
part of the programme?
Throughout German Social Democratic literature we find Mr. Ramsay
Macdonald referred to as _Genosse_ Ramsay Macdonald, which means that he
is considered a full member of the brotherhood. If that is really the
case, and if he accepts their programme as one to be followed here he
would be favouring the substitution of the _volksstaat_ for the British
constitutional monarchy.
In face of this it may be asked why do British members of the Socialist
party take an oath on entering the House of Commons, and why do they
accept £400 per annum to support a national State, if they have pledged
themselves internationally to overthrow it?
The author admits his inability to solve the riddle, but during the
years 1902-1914 he has heard members of all non-Socialist German parties
assert that the German Socialists do not recognize any religious oath,
and sections of the Socialists admit this position. As a party they are
professedly atheistic; therefore when the might of the German State
compels them to take an oath--they take it with an inward
_Rückversicherung_.
In a word, false-swearing is permitted, when one is obliged by
circumstances, to take an oath to authorities whose right and might the
oath-taker does not admit. So long ago as 1892 the Social Democrats were
publicly charged with condoning perjury in order to rescue fellow
members from the results of breaches of the law. Judge Schmidt in a
court at Breslau said in that year: "Social Democrats have never
concealed the fact that they are hostile to any religious form of oath.
For them the religious importance and responsibility of an oath has no
meaning whatever." Numerous German judges and authors have expressed
themselves in a similar strain.
Readers who are interested in the point are referred to the report[67]
of the Socialist Congress held in Berlin, October, 1892. The party
leaders endeavoured to gloss the matter over with righteous indignation
and ambiguous phrases, but it nevertheless remains a fact that the
desire to counteract effectively, a tendency to perjury among Socialists
led the German Government a few years later to make perjury punishable
by penal servitude up to ten years.
[Footnote 67: All these reports may be seen in the British Museum
Reading Room. Press mark is: 08072d.]
Before leaving the _Volksstaat_ the author only wishes to state that it
lays the axe on every conception of morality, religion and social order
which we esteem. In the place of existing conditions, it would erect a
mob tyranny more degrading to the individual than Czarism or
Republicanism. The mines of Siberia and the tinned-meat factories of
Chicago may enslave the body, but the _Volksstaat_, as portrayed by
Socialist writers and speakers, promises an intellectual
tyranny--hopeless alike to body and soul; and those who have had an
opportunity to observe the brutal tyranny called "party discipline"
which rules the German Social Democrats, will bear the present writer
out in saying that its like, could only be found inside the German army.
The strongest, best organized and most thoroughly disciplined political
party in the world has repeatedly expressed its unalterable
determination to place national before international interests, whenever
these two should seem to be at variance. In the light of these
declarations, the action of German Socialists in giving unreserved
support to the German Government in this war, is not altogether
surprising.
Furthermore, this foundation-stone in their policy ought never to have
been left out of consideration when pondering over their ecstatic
utterances on peace and internationalism.
The communistic manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, first
published in London in the German language in 1847, contains the
following: "Men say that we Communists wish to destroy the nationality
of the native land. Workmen have no Fatherland. It is impossible to take
away what they do not possess. The Communists scorn to conceal their
views and intentions. We declare openly, that their aims can only be
attained by the violent overthrow of all existing social orders. Let the
ruling classes tremble before a communistic revolution. The proletarians
have nothing but their chains to lose, while they have a world to
gain."[68]
[Footnote 68: "Envy and greed are the two powerful levers by which the
Social Democrats are endeavouring to lift the world off its hinges. They
live by the destruction of every ideal." Treitschke in the "Preussische
Jahrbücher," vol. 34.]
German Socialists have incorporated these principles _in theory_ in
their programme, but _in practice_ they do not hold them, especially if
their own skins are endangered, together with the Government which is
threatened by "violent overthrow." That is the sum total of their
extensive defence--literature published _since_ the outbreak of the
present war. In its naked reality that is what the guarantee-insurance
policy covered. So long as no danger threatened their own lives, goods
and chattels, such eloquence as the following extracts were shouted into
the world; but when they personally stood face to face with the Moloch
upon which for years they had heaped contemptuous abuse, then national
(_i.e._, personal) interests came first.
Herr Fischer, in his capacity as president of the Socialist Congress in
Berlin, 1892, said:
"The reception of French delegates at Halle, and of Liebknecht at
Marseilles, have proved incontrovertibly that the struggling French
proletarians are of one mind and heart with German Social Democracy. Let
the chauvinists, burning with hate on this and that side the Rhine, urge
us on to war; let the diplomats and Governments of both countries
sacrifice the well-being of the two nations to militarism and the
war-bogey. The working-men in the two countries stretch out their hands
to each other over the frontiers as pioneers of true culture and
morality. They are convinced that there is only one enemy which
separates them, and that it is their common task to fight against and
annihilate this one enemy--capitalism."
"Now as ever, we Social Democrats reply to the Government's military and
economic policy this parole: Not a man and not a farthing will be voted
for this system!"[69]
[Footnote 69: Social Democrat members of the Reichstag in their report
to the annual congress held in Cologne, 1893.]
These quotations have been intentionally taken from speeches, etc.,
published in the early nineties of the last century. If necessary, it
would be an easy matter to fill several volumes of similar matter from
the annual congress reports down to 1913; from the vast mass of German
Social Democratic literature published between 1890 and 1914; and from
the hundred party newspapers and reviews circulated in the Fatherland,
Yet in the face of all these assurances it seemed to us that the German
Socialists had shamefully betrayed their principles on August 4th, 1914,
by giving their unreserved support to "Germany's Holy War."[70]
[Footnote 70: In all Germany, and among all classes, this has become the
popular designation of the European war: "_Unser_ heiliger Krieg."]
Probably the betrayal was not so shameful as it seemed, because the fact
was not made known in this country that the German Socialists had but
imitated Bismarck's policy with Russia and Austria. (Bismarck concluded
a treaty, with the one Power, then behind that Power's back he concluded
a _Rückversicherungsvertrag_ with the other, _i.e._, a covering
insurance policy intended to protect him against all risks.)
During a quarter of a century, German Social Democrats have been the
most ardent and insistent pioneers of internationalism and
anti-militarism. But it has not been so generally known that they too
have protected their rear by a _Rückversicherung:_ (1.) They have
consistently taught that every man must learn to bear arms, and that
both man and woman must be prepared to make any sacrifice for their
Fatherland. (2.) They have always held that national interests must be
considered before international palaver.
In Chapter I. we have seen that up till July 28th, 1914, the German
Social Democratic Party considered Austria and Germany to be entirely
responsible for the European crisis. They had then no shadow of doubt,
that Austria alone was guilty for bringing the danger of a European war
to their very doors; from that point we again take up the story.[71]
[Footnote 71: In all the mass of literature published by German
Socialists during the war I have found only one mention of their first
attitude to the war danger. On the first anniversary of the ultimatum to
Serbia (July 23rd, 1915) the _Leipziger Volkszeitung_ contains these
lines in a leading article: "To-day we may not repeat that which we
wrote about the ultimatum in our issue of July 24th, 1914. But there was
no doubt in any section of the Press, that Europe stood on the brink of
war from the moment that ultimatum was despatched."]
Three days later they tacitly agreed that Russia was the guilty party
and acquiesced in the mobilization of the German army. On August 1st
this proclamation occupied the front page of their seventy-seven daily
papers:
"PARTEIGENOSSEN! Military law has been proclaimed. Any hour may bring
with it the outbreak of the world war. Thereby the severest trials
will be imposed upon, not only our nation, but upon the whole of our
continent.
"Up till the last minute the internationalists have done their duty,
and on the other side of our frontiers every nerve is being strained
to preserve peace and to make war impossible.
"If our earnest protests, our repeated endeavours have been without
success, it is because the conditions under which we live have once
again proved stronger than our will, and the will of our workmen
brothers. Hence, whatever comes, we must now face it with firmness.
"The horrible self-laceration of the European peoples, is the cruel
confirmation of our warnings to the ruling classes for more than a
generation; we have spoken admonishingly and in vain.
"_Parteigenossen_ (comrades), we shall not live through coming events
in fatalistic indifference; we shall remain true to our cause; we
shall hold firmly together, permeated by the sublime greatness of our
cultural mission.
"The women, on whom the burden of events presses two and threefold,
have above all, in these serious times, the task of working in the
spirit of Socialism for the high ideals of humanity, so that a
repetition of this dreadful catastrophe may be averted, and this war
may be the last.
"The stern regulations of martial law strike the workmen's movement
with terrible force. Imprudent actions, useless and falsely-conceived
sacrifices, damage in this moment not only the individual, but also
our cause.
"Comrades, we appeal to you to persevere in the unshakable confidence
that the future belongs, in spite of all, to nation-binding Socialism,
to justice and humanity.
"DER PARTEIVORSTAND.
(The leaders of the party.)
"Berlin, July 3ist, 1914."
With these words, millions of German Socialists, represented by four and
a quarter million voters and a hundred and eleven members of the
Reichstag, tacitly denied their previous protestations, that Austrian
Imperialism was letting loose the war-fury on Europe. There are rumours
of a secret consultation with the German Chancellor, but that is of
little import in this place. The leaders of this huge party proclaimed
on July 25th that Austria was the blood-guilty power and maintained this
attitude in spite of bloodshed till 11 p.m. on July 28th. By what
lightning-change Austria's original guilt was transferred to Russia by
July 31st is not recorded.
With regard to the text of the above proclamation, there are variations
to be noted. In the _Vorwärts_ it runs "within and without our
frontiers" in the second paragraph; the text as I have given it is taken
from the _Leipziger Volkszeitung_. In the fifth paragraph the Nuremberg
_Fränkische Tagespost_ gives "capitalistic" for "fatalistic."
A few extracts from Socialist newspapers will suffice to illustrate the
complete change of front which happened in three days:
"We Social Democrats in this solemn hour are at one with the whole
German nation, without distinction of party or creed, in accepting the
fight forced upon us by Russian barbarism, and we are ready to fight
till the last drop of blood for Germany's national independence, fame
and greatness." _Der Folksfreund_ (Karlsruhe), August 1st.
"We desired peace and we have done everything humanly possible to secure
that end. But when war is forced upon us by Russian Czarism, then,
whatever the final decision may be, we must drop all class distinctions
and differences of every kind, to form a single, determined people,
prepared to defend Germany's independence and greatness against the
enemy--even to the last drop of blood." _Volksstimme_ (Mannheim), July
31st.
"A defeat would mean collapse, annihilation and horrors most dreadful
for all of us.[72] Our imaginations revolt at such a possibility. Our
representatives in the Reichstag have unanimously declared on
innumerable occasions that the Social Democrats could not leave their
Fatherland in the lurch when the hour of destiny strikes; the workmen
will now redeem the promise given by their representatives. The
'Fatherlandless fellows'[73] will do their duty, and in doing it, will
allow themselves to be surpassed in no wise by the patriots," _Münchener
Post_, August 1st.
[Footnote 72: These sentiments did not occur to this journalist when
Germany began a ruthless war of invasion on Belgium.--Author.]
[Footnote 73: A phrase of contempt employed by the Kaiser when speaking
of the Social Democrats in 1889, and which became proverbial.]
"Whatever our opponents have done to us, at this moment we all feel the
duty to fight against Russian knout-rule. Our women and children shall
not be sacrificed to Russian bestiality, nor the German people become a
booty for the Cossacks." _Die Volksstimme_ (Chemnitz), August 2nd.
It is possible that even at the end of the war no explanation will be
forthcoming for this astounding change of attitude. Some have suggested
that the Russian or Slavonic danger caused it. Yet just these journals,
and this party, had maintained, so long as any degree of free speech was
permitted, that Austria had provoked the danger, and they were fully
aware that the German Government had from first to last approved of and
openly assisted in provoking, nay challenging, Russia on a question
which involved the latter's prestige and diplomatic existence.
Bethmann-Hollweg gave the alleged Russian mobilization as the immediate
cause of the war, but doubtless the Social Democrats knew full well that
for several days before Russia's mobilization was announced, Germany had
been secretly mobilizing her army. From July 26th till July 30th German
papers contained many reports that Russia was mobilizing; they may have
been true or not, but the diplomatic correspondence published by Austria
and discussed on page 63 shows conclusively that the Central Powers were
baiting Russia into taking that step, and when the greatest Slavonic
power had made the desired move, Germany replied with an ultimatum which
brought about the war, so ardently desired by the great majority of
Germany's warlike tribes.
Britishers who sympathize with German Social Democracy may advance the
plea: If Germany's military preparations were secret, how could the
Social Democrats know of these proceedings? The answer is direct and
simple: Every individual Social Democrat--and men, women, and children,
they number some twenty millions--has for years past been a spy and
informer in the interests of the _Umsturzpartei_ (overthrow-party). All
the happenings of the workshop, barracks, farmyard, shop and office have
been systematically reported to the local Press, and local committees of
the Democratic Party; the ammunitions thus obtained have been just as
systematically employed to fire insidious paragraphs and Press articles
at governments, local authorities, employers, officers, and even the
employers of servant-girls. Of late years it has been dangerous to have
a difference even with a maid-servant; a few days later the inevitable
insidious, anonymous attack would certainly appear in one or other of
the S.D. journals.
One instance will suffice to illustrate the everyday routine of the
class-war (_Klassenkampf_) in which the whole energies of the Social
Democrats have been absorbed for a quarter of a century. An acquaintance
of the author's, Major Schub, in the 19th Infantry Regiment, stationed
in Erlangen, dared some years ago to send his orderly with a she-goat to
a peasant in the district who kept the indispensable he-goat. Two days
later he was pilloried in a Furth paper for calling upon a private
soldier to fulfil such a degrading office. German workmen do not read
the _Vorwärts_ (its circulation is well under 100,000), but they read
one or other of the seventy purveyors of filth and class hatred which
form the stock-in-trade of the Social Democratic Party.
The author of this work, knew as early as July 25th, that reserve
officers had been warned to hold themselves in readiness; on succeeding
days he saw tangible evidence that mobilization was proceeding
stealthily, and it would be ridiculous for him to claim greater
knowledge than the hundred and eleven S.D. members of the Reichstag, and
the seventy-seven editors of their party papers--especially when these
have an army of millions of spies at their command.
In order to obtain a correct judgment of the motives which actuated
German Social Democrats in their complete support of the German
Government it is necessary to consult the works published by them during
the war. Karl Kautsky writes:[74] "That which under these circumstances,
was most immediate and pressing in determining the attitude to war, not
only for the masses, but also many of our leaders, was the fear of a
hostile invasion, the urgent necessity to keep the enemy out of our
territory, no matter what the causes, object or results of the war may
be. This fear was never greater and more justified than on this
occasion; never have the devastating results of invasion been more
terrible. Belgium and East Prussia speak plainly.
[Footnote 74: "Die Internationalität und der Krieg." Berlin, 1915; p.
32.]
"The increased size of the armies greatly extends the unavoidable
desolation of war, and in addition to this a second strongly-working
popular motive decides the attitude of a nation to war, viz., the
interest of the entire people in the fate of an army in which every
family is represented."
It thus becomes evident that no motives of justice, right or wrong, or
politics played any part in the decision arrived at, but merely a great
fear which impelled the Social Democrats to consider first and foremost
how to save their own skins.
All protest meetings were cancelled on August 1st, and the Press
restricted itself to chronicling rumours and events. The sitting of the
Reichstag was awaited with impatience as that was expected to bring more
light on the crisis. The effect which Bethmann-Hollweg produced upon his
hearers was to convince them that Russia alone was to blame. "The
question of supporting the war by voting a loan was all the easier for
us to decide, because the provocation had come, not from France or
England, but from Russia. I admit openly that while I was travelling to
Berlin to the Reichstag I had very little time to hunt for precedents in
the party's history to determine my vote. For me the force of
circumstances alone was decisive; the material interests of the working
classes and the entire nation; common sense and the realization of a
practical policy."[75]
[Footnote 75: "Die Kriegssitzung des deutschen Reichstags" ("The War
Sitting of the Reichstag"), by Karl Hildenbrand, Member for Stuttgart.
Published 1915; p. 13.]
"At the time of voting on August 4th, we were not in a position to take
England into consideration, because at the moment she had not yet
declared war. But by England's intervention our attitude on August 4th
has been still more emphatically justified."[76]
[Footnote 76: Ibid., p. 16.]
This statement is a gross distortion of the truth. It is true that
England had not yet declared war, but Sir Edward Grey had made England's
attitude quite clear on the previous day. His speech had been published
in the Berlin papers. Furthermore, the Chancellor informed the Reichstag
that England's position was perfectly clear, although he suppressed the
fact that Germany had begun preparations for war with this country five
days before, by ordering civilians to leave Heligoland, and despatching
the _Königin Luise_ to lay mines on our coasts.
In any case, the action of the Social Democrats on that occasion is an
example of unfaithfulness to principles. Accepting the invasion fear as
a ground for voting a loan for a war of defence, there is still no
evident reason why they should vote funds for a war of aggression
against Belgium. On the surface, there is no explanation for their
cheers when Bethmann-Hollweg announced the invasion of two neutral
States by Germany's armies.
Had they been tricked into supporting an alleged defensive war, there
was still time to protest against German hordes overrunning two weak
neighbouring countries. In spite of their terror that they personally
might suffer through the horrors of war, their vaunted humanitarianism
led to no outcry against those same horrors being wilfully and
ruthlessly forced upon their Belgian _Genossen_.
The only anxiety which the speech of their chosen spokesman, Herr Haase,
betrays, is the anxiety to avoid responsibility. "In the name of my
party I am empowered to make the following declaration: We are standing
in an hour of solemn destiny. The consequences of the imperialistic
policy--which brought about an era of armaments and made international
difficulties more acute--have now fallen upon Europe like a storm-flood.
"The responsibility for this recoils upon the leaders of that policy; we
decline to accept it. Social Democracy has fought against this ominous
development with all the forces at its command. Up to the very last hour
we have worked for the maintenance of peace through mighty
demonstrations in every land, especially in intimate cooperation with
our French brothers. (Applause from the Social Democrats.) Our efforts
have been in vain.
"Now we are face to face with the stern reality of war. We are
threatened by the terrors of a hostile invasion. To-day we have not to
decide either for or against war, but only concerning the necessary
means for the defence of our country. Now we have to think of the
millions of our _Genossen_ who are innocently swept into this fate. They
will suffer most through the devastations of war. Our ardent wishes
accompany also our brothers who are called to the flag without
distinction of party. (Loud applause.)
"We think, too, of the mothers who must give their sons and of the women
and children who are robbed of their bread-winners, and to whose fear
for their loved ones is added the dread of hunger. Tens of thousands of
wounded and mutilated warriors will soon be added to these. We consider
it our most compelling duty to help them, to lighten their burdens and
relieve their distress.[77] (Loud applause.)
[Footnote 77: There is every reason to believe that the party has worked
hard to keep this promise.--Author.]
"In case of a victory for Russian despotism, which is already stained
with the blood of Russia's best sons, much--if not everything--is at
stake for our people and our free future. It is a question of averting
this danger, and of securing the culture and independence of our own
country. (Loud applause.)
"Now we will redeem our oft repeated pledge: In the hour of danger we
shall not leave our Fatherland in the lurch. (Loud applause.) Thereby,
we feel ourselves in unison with the principles of internationalism
which have always admitted the right of each single people to national
independence and national defence. We condemn, as internationalism does,
every war of conquest.
"We demand, that, as soon as the goal of security has been attained and
our enemies are inclined to make peace, the war shall end by a peace
that will make friendship with neighbouring countries possible. We
demand this, not only in the interests of the international solidarity
for which we have uniformly fought, but also in the interests of the
German nation.
"We hope that the cruel school of war's sufferings will awaken a horror
for war in new millions, and win them over to the socialistic ideal and
international peace. Guided by these principles we vote in favour of the
war loan. (Loud applause.)"[78]
[Footnote 78: _Leipziger Volkszeitung_, August 5th.]
A short historical comparison will assist in making the Social
Democratic action still clearer. In 1870, when Bismarck asked the
Reichstag for a war credit to prosecute the campaign against France, the
Socialists were few and helpless. Yet Liebknecht and Bebel refused to
vote in its favour. "Their moral demonstration was in itself perfectly
logical, for Bismarck's and Napoleon III.'s intrigues equally deserved
condemnation."[79]
[Footnote 79: Kautsky: "Die Internationalitat und der Krieg," p. 19.]
Apparently it did not occur to the Democrats in 1914, that probably
Germany had again been guilty of intrigues. It is noteworthy, however,
that the small party in 1870 protested when a national issue was at
stake, while the mighty party of 1914 made no protest whatever,
although, as they had previously announced and denounced, the issue had
been raised by the unjust actions and vile intrigues of Austrian
imperialism.
The campaign against Russia conducted by the nationalist Press up till
August 1st was taken up by the organs representing Social Democracy,
immediately war broke out. Their papers were flooded with appalling
pictures of Russian (generally termed Asiatic) barbarism, tyranny and
misrule. Passages from the speeches and writings of Bebel, Liebknecht
and others were quoted to show the fiendishness of Russian policy, and
the justice of every German doing his utmost to smash Czarism and
deliver millions of fellow workmen from its thrall. Even a
blood-and-thunder story of the Russian police was turned on as a serial
story in their daily papers.[80] In short, nothing was omitted which
goes to make _Stimmung_.
[Footnote 80: "Der Polizeimeister, ein russischer Polizeiroman," by
Gabryela Zapolska. The story commenced in the Nuremberg party organ on
August 11th, and in Kautsky's _Leipztger Volkszeitung_ on August 18th.]
Had they been honestly impartial a still blacker picture of Austria,
painted by one of the founders of the workmen's movement, might have
been quoted, yet it might have been indiscreet to tell Germans what
Lassalle wrote. "Austria? Russia is a mammoth, barbarian Empire which
its despotic rulers endeavour to civilize, just so far as suits their
despotic interests. In that country barbarism is excusable, because it
is a national element. But the case is very different with Austria.
There it is the government which represents the barbaric principle and
crushes beneath it by artifice and violence, the civilized peoples under
its rule."[81]
[Footnote 81: Bernstein's edition of Lassalle's "Reden und Schriften,"
vol. I., p. 306.]
With the exception of a few Britishers, the Socialists of all countries
have unanimously condemned the attitude of the German party. Not the
least interesting is the condemnation expressed by the Italian section.
Dr. Südekum, Reichstag member for Nuremberg, was sent to Italy to
discuss the situation with Italian Socialists and justify their own
action in supporting the war. The following account of the meeting
appeared in the _Vorwärts_ for September 12th: "The meeting lasted from
3.30 p.m. till 7 p.m. Südekum declared that he had come to inform their
Italian comrades of the situation in which the German Socialists found
themselves, and in order to learn whether the Italians had taken any
steps to keep up communications with Democrats in other lands.
"We hold firmly to the contention that the German Socialists could have
done nothing except what they did. My presence here is a proof that we
Germans are aware of our duties towards internationalism.[82] We
believed that the German Government had given proof of its peaceful
tendencies and was forced into war against its will. Therefore, the
Social Democratic Party supported it.
[Footnote 82: There is no evidence to show that Südekum's Italian visit
had any other purpose than winning over the sympathies of Italian
Socialists and with them, the whole Italian nation for the purposes of
German nationalism.--Author.]
"Delia Seta answered that this was no justification for giving their
support. The Italian Socialists would not have given their assistance
under the same circumstances, just as they had refused to vote in favour
of the Libyan war.
"Dr. Südekum replied that the German Socialists were compelled to defend
their Fatherland against Czarism. Further, he repeated Haase's
declaration in the Reichstag and continued: 'I am astonished that the
Italian Socialists are able to believe, that so strong a party as the
German Democrats, had denied their ideals, and been untrue to their
task. You must admit that no other way was open to us, except to grant
the credit demanded.'
"After this, he asserted the nationalist Press of France and Italy was
working against Germany, and it seemed as if the Italian comrades were
in agreement with Italian nationalists in endeavouring to maintain the
existing condition of affairs[83] in Italy.
[Footnote 83: "The existing condition of affairs" seems to mean Italian
neutrality.--Author.]
"Finally Südekum concluded by pointing out that the German Democrats had
neither the intention, nor the right, to influence the attitude of the
Italian Socialists, but were merely endeavouring to link up hearty
international intercourse again.
"In reply Delia Seta said he found it remarkable that the German
Socialists had appealed to their Italian comrades in this solemn hour,
all the more remarkable because intentions might easily be ascribed to
this intervention. 'This is a serious motive which impels us to state
our opinions with unreserved frankness.'
"He continued: 'Your defence does not convince us. You speak of France
being allied with us, and of England, Germany's enemy. But we speak of
our France, revolutionary France, Jauré's France. The French Socialists
opposed the military preparations made by France, you Germans did not do
the same in your country, or at least, only up to the point where the
imperialistic feelings of the Kaiser and his party might be hurt.
"'The point of view of German Democrats coincides with that of German
imperialism. German predominance means for us a far greater danger than
Czarism, because Czarism prevents the German army from marching on
Paris, and thus protects the banner of France, which in spite of all
mistakes and errors, is still the most revolutionary.
"'Germany's motto is: _Deutschland über alles_ and you have not opposed
it; but you have published in the _Vorwärts_ an appreciation of the
Kaiser alleging that he had worked during twenty-five years for peace.
"'You speak of German civilization being in danger. But in this
civilization we can find no trace of culture, when you attack and
torture neutral Belgium, and complete the destruction of Louvain. Taken
as a whole, German Socialists are just as plausible and use the same
excuses as the Ministers of the German Government.[84]
[Footnote 84: Might not this also be said of Messrs. Morel, Macdonald,
Bernard Shaw, etc., and the _Labour Leader_, whose writings on the war
have been scattered broadcast throughout Germany during the last six
months?]
"'We are enraged at the terrible fact that Germany has violated
Belgium's neutrality, and you have not even protested. We tell you quite
openly that we honour and weep for devastated Belgium, and tremblingly
follow the fate of France.'"
Südekum had no words with which to answer this terrible indictment, and
the _Vorwärts_ could only add the following comment:
"We consider the judgment of our Italian comrades to be one-sided, but
for reasons easy to understand, desist from discussing it in the present
situation. Unfortunately we must recognize the fact, however, that the
Italian view is widespread among the Socialists of other neutral
countries."
Germany's revolutionary party lost no time in hoisting the banner of "no
annexations." The _Leipziger Folkszeitung_, second in importance only to
the _Vorwärts_ nailed down a phrase in the Kaiser's speech from the
throne, which stated: "We are inspired by no desire for conquest." In
commenting on this phrase, Kautsky's organ said:
"The part of the speech which excites most sympathy in us is the
admission that Germany cherishes no lust for conquest. At the proper
time we shall refer to that again.
"It is with sincere regret that we see the French Government on the side
of the criminal Powers, which have enslaved and robbed the Russian
people. If Germany, in a delirium of victory, should raise claims which
mean annexation, then we shall--that must be repeated again--recall the
speech from the throne of the German Kaiser on August 4th, 1914."[85]
[Footnote 85: _Leipziger Volkszeitung_, August 4th.]
During the first year of war a split among the Social Democrats has
become evident, and it appears certain that it is the annexation
question which is causing the cleavage. In December last Liebknecht
abstained from voting when the second war loan was granted by the
Reichstag. Evidently doubts have arisen in a small section of the party
either as to the origin of the war, or in regard to the objects which
the German Government hopes to attain.
On August 20th, 1915, Dr. Liebknecht put this question in the Reichstag:
"Is the Government prepared to enter into immediate peace negotiations
on the basis that Germany renounces all annexation claims and assuming
that the other Powers in question are willing to negotiate?" Von Jagow
replied: "I believe the great majority of the members will agree with
me, when I refuse to answer the question, as being at present beside the
purpose."
The reply evoked a hurricane of "bravos."
A parallel may be found in the year 1870. The central committee of
German Social Democrats passed a resolution that: "It is absolutely
necessary for the party to organize simultaneously in all parts of the
country great popular demonstrations against the annexation of
Alsace-Lorraine, and pass resolutions in favour of an honourable peace
with the French republic."
Nothing came of the movement, for on September 9th the committee was
placed under arrest and prosecuted. If Germany should be victorious in
this war, it is to be assumed that the Socialists would again prove
powerless to prevent annexation. What the allies cannot hinder, the
Social Democrats would be still more helpless to prevent; especially as
the great majority of them are unreservedly on the side of the Kaiser
and his Government. When in need, the latter flattered and persuaded the
Democrats to vote for an alleged war of defence; but should German arms
be victorious the German Government would neither seek, nor accept
advice on her national projects, from her quondam internationalists.
There are grounds for suspicion that the party is playing a game desired
by the Berlin Government. For some months past they have tried every
means possible to arrange personal interviews with the leaders of the
corresponding party in France--the French "comrades" have refused to
meet them. The _Leipziger Volkszeitung_ for July 16th, 1915, contains
more than a column about "We and the French," in which the German party
spreads the usual Teutonic lime of sophistry and empty phrases.
One passage betrays the entire intrigue. They wish their "French
brothers" to agree to a peace without annexations, which means, in so
many words, that the French Socialists are to renounce Alsace-Lorraine
for ever. Had they been, or should they be in the future, so foolish as
to enter this German mouse-trap, then before the war has reached a
decisive conclusion, a large section of the French nation would be
pledged to renounce the lost provinces even in case of a German defeat.
This is an excellent instance of the manner in which German Social
Democracy works in an enemy country to assist its own Government. In
like manner, the Independent Labour Party and Union of Democratic
Control are forces exceedingly sensitive to German influence, and in a
decisive moment can be set in motion by the German "comrades."
The hundred and eleven Social Democrats in the Reichstag have no real
power in Germany. If they possess any degree of power, then fear for
their own skins, prevents them from risking its exercise. Their real
opinion concerning Alsace-Lorraine appeared in the same journal four
days later. "According to our opinion it would be a crime, if France
made the return of these provinces a condition of peace." In the same
article an accusation of one-sidedness is made against the Socialists in
France for supporting the French Government. After which, it is not
surprising that every time the names of the _Genossen_ Macdonald,
Snowden, Hardie and Newbold occur in the _Leipziger Volkszeitung_, they
are mentioned with awe and reverence.
"Besides Ramsay Macdonald and Philip Snowden, our friend J.T. Walton
Newbold has got on the nerves of the English patriots."[86] These
gentlemen invariably receive polite mention, but French Socialists are
evidently in disfavour--presumably because they know too well the German
game.
[Footnote 86: _Leipziger Volkszeitung_, July 23rd, 1915.]
The peace programme of the German Socialists has been published. An
official declaration of the party which appeared on August 23rd, 1915,
gives the following conditions.
"While caring for the national interests and rights of our own people,
and at the same time respecting the vital interests of all nations,
German Social Democracy strives for a peace which bears the guarantee of
permanence, and will bring the European States closer together in
matters of justice, culture, and commerce. In this sense we have drawn
up the following scheme:
"I. The security of German independence and the entirety of the German
Empire, which implies the rejection of all annexation plans on the part
of our opponents. That includes the French plan to re-incorporate
Alsace-Lorraine with France, no matter in what form that end may be
sought.
"II. In order to secure free economic development for the German nation,
we demand:
"(_a_) The 'open door,' _i.e._, equal rights for commercial and
such-like activities in all colonial territories.
"(_b_) The inclusion of the most-favoured-nation clause in the articles
of peace of all the nations now at war.
"(_c_) The furthering of an economic entente by abolishing tariffs,
etc., as far as possible.
"(_d_) The equalization and improvement of the social-political
institutions according to ideals aimed at by the workmen's international
party.
"(_e_) The freedom of the seas is to be guaranteed by an international
treaty. To this end the right of capture at sea must be abolished, and
all straits and narrows of importance for world commerce, must be
internationalized.
"III. In the interests of Germany's security and the free exercise of
commercial and economic efforts in South-Eastern Europe, we reject all
the warlike aims of the Quadruple Alliance to weaken or disintegrate
Austria-Hungary and Turkey.
"IV.--In consideration of the fact that the annexation of territories
inhabited by another race transgresses the rights of nations to govern
themselves; furthermore because thereby, the unity and strength of
Germany would be weakened and her foreign relations seriously and
permanently injured, we oppose the plans in that direction cherished by
shortsighted conquest-politicians.[87]
[Footnote 87: There are two and a half lines of dots at this point.
Probably the German censor has cut out a sentence.]
"V.--The terrible destruction and sufferings brought upon humanity by
this war have won over millions of hearts to the ideal of a world peace,
permanently secured by an international court of justice. The attainment
of this end must be recognized as the highest moral duty of all those
who are appointed to the work of framing a peace. Therefore we demand
that an international arbitration court shall be created which shall
settle all future difference between the nations."[88]
[Footnote 88: _Leipziger Volkszeitung_, August 23rd, 1915.]
This imaginary peace-treaty is what Germans would call a _Zankapfel_
(apple of discord). It may represent the serious opinions of Germany's
greatest political party, but the German Government will welcome it
because it will give Germany's sympathizers in France, England, Italy
and Russia an excellent weapon with which they can attack their
respective Governments, and hamper them in protecting their national
interests. It will doubtless be an inspiration to the members of the
I.L.P. and the U.D.C.[89]
[Footnote 89: Above prophecy written end of August; fulfilled in the
_Labour Leader_ October 28th.--Author.]
If the German Government seriously formulated such proposals, the author
believes that all Britishers worthy of the name would simply answer:
"Fight on!" On this assumption the proposals deserve no discussion.
Yet the document is interesting as revealing the mind of Social
Democratic Germany. These sublime Pharisees are unconscious of Belgium's
wrongs and Germany's crimes. The former deserve no compensation and the
latter no penalty. Here we are on the bed-rock of their ideas of justice
and humanitarianism. Still we are not altogether surprised, because the
Democratic newspaper organs have openly defended and justified the
atrocities committed by German soldiers, and whenever any particularly
damning evidence has been produced their parole has consistently been:
"At any rate, now is not the time to discuss it." According to their
comprehension the only time for discussion is when Europe is under the
German heel. They are willing to discuss--when discussion can no longer
injure the Fatherland, when Germany has gained all she wants.
The most remarkable metamorphosis which the German Democrats have
undergone, is shown in their changed attitude to England. This country
gave a home to Marx and Engels; the former is buried in Highgate
cemetery. For many decades the party professed enthusiastic admiration
of British institutions and our ideals of personal freedom. Their
admiration for England was not always convenient to the German
Government, and was certainly a thorn in the side of the Kaiser.
In 1898 the party published a "Handbook for Social Democratic Voters,"
which contains lengthy explanations of their entire policy. Therein they
justify their opposition to German naval expansion, and while conceding
that naval supremacy is vital and indispensable to England, continue:
"Boundless plans are veiled beneath the Navy Bill (1897). The hotspurs
among the water-patriots dream of a first-class navy which might rival,
yes, even surpass the British fleet.
"For the water-patriots the Navy Bill means an instrument to further
their unlimited _Weltpolitik_ and schemes of conquest; a weapon with
which to realize their mad imaginings of a greater Germany. They desire
to employ it as a tool for their absolutist plans and adventurous world
enterprises.
"It increases the risk of foreign conflicts. At the same time it
brightens the prospects of success of those influential circles
which--impelled by an overpowering impulse to deeds, and inspired by a
diseased longing for prestige--press on from excitement to excitement,
from daring to daring, and from crisis to crisis."
This remarkable prophecy has been verified by history, but with its
realization, the party which made it has been converted to the side of
their former opponents. To-day the Social Democrats are just as hearty
in the desire to see Britain overthrown and British naval supremacy
smashed as is the Kaiser's Government.
No impartial thinker dare deny that the British fleet has been the
principal factor in preventing Europe's subjugation to German autocracy,
and the world to German militarism. Yet the so-called party of freedom
prays earnestly that this fleet may be destroyed. This represents the
tone of their daily Press, and the change of attitude has been proved to
be scientifically correct in various books published by their leaders
during the present year. One of these works will be quoted at
considerable length, because of its importance in showing what the
"pioneers of liberty" wish, may be the end of the "home of liberty." The
work bears the title, "German Social Democracy and the World War;"[90]
its author is a Socialist member of the Reichstag.
[Footnote 90: "Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie und der Weltkrieg," by Dr.
Paul Lensch, published by the Vorwärts Publishing House. Berlin, 1915.]
In dealing with England he refers to their former admiration for this
country and proceeds to prove that it was wrong--wrong in the interests
of Germany, and the world. England's fight against Napoleon for European
freedom Dr. Lensch disposes of in a sentence: "Consumed by greed,
England took the long-yearned-for opportunity and fell upon her rival,
France" (p. 16).
He informs his readers that England and Russia are two beasts of prey.
England's disarmament proposals were only intended to secure her naval
supremacy, because Germany seemed to be escaping from the strangulation
cord which. England had drawn tight round her throat. Therefore three
problems present themselves to Dr. Lensch, which the war must solve:
(1.) Shall the German people continue to exist as an independent nation?
(2.) Shall the danger of Czarism continue to threaten West European
culture?
(3.) Shall Britain's naval supremacy be eternalized or overthrown,
seeing that Britain only allows other nations to develop, so far as they
are compatible with her national interests? (p. 15).
"England's oft-praised freedom is based upon the enslavement of the
world; the peoples now recognize that England's wealth, freedom, and
greatness are merely the corollary to their poverty, slavery and
wretchedness (p. 20).
"International Socialism has not the slightest interest in helping to
bolster up this supremacy (p. 22).
"When this monopoly is broken the English working classes will lose
their present privileged position. They will be reduced to the same
level as the workmen of other lands. Then Socialism will flourish in
England (p. 23).[91]
[Footnote 91: The author had fondly imagined that the British workman
stood foremost as the result of his own battles. In any case, it is to
be hoped that British Socialists will be grateful for "Genosse" Lensch's
prayers for their downfall.]
"No party stands to lose more by a British victory than Social
Democracy. The overthrow of England's world-position would clear the way
for the continuation of the world's progress on the right historical
lines, and its economic development (p. 25).
"In the present world war the interests of the internationalists are
bound up in a German victory. Hence a German victory would be a victory
for Marx's internationalism, and only then, would the hearts and heads
of English workmen be open to the intellectual schooling of the
Socialistic idea (p. 27).
"As early as the eighties in the last century, Friedrich Engels proved
that the ruin of England's industrial monopoly had begun. What the
scientist had foretold, became evident to all eyes two decades later.
The social system of the greatest, world-ruling industrial State was
shaken to its foundations. International Socialists had every reason to
welcome this peaceful downfall of England's world power" (pp. 21-22).
"Marx once wrote that war is like a locomotive in the history of the
world. May this war have that effect and under full steam lead to a
finish the work which peaceful development had already commenced,
_i.e._, the downfall of English supremacy. If the war hastens and
concludes this process, then the sacrifices in blood and treasure will
not have been in vain. A great stumbling-block to human progress and
especially to the proletarian fight for freedom will have been hurled
out of the way" (pp. 27-8).
Having failed during a peaceful fight of over forty years, to hurl
German autocracy and militarism out of the world, these hot-headed
pioneers of liberty (Kaiserdom?) wish to destroy the very State which
was their place of refuge when German "liberty" overwhelmed them with
its kindly attentions.
Still we cannot be too grateful to Dr. Lensch for his lucid statement.
It is an effective reply to Germany's sympathizers in this country, and
if British workmen should ever see these lines, it will interest them to
know that German Socialists are anxious to pull them down a little, in
the belief that if British workmen are cut short in their luxuries they
will become better Socialists and Internationalists.
Dr. Lensch has only one step more to take, and he will certainly gain
the highest German order--_pour le mérite_. The famous Communist
manifesto of Marx and Engels concludes with the words: "Proletarians of
all lands, unite!" It is much to be desired that Dr. Lensch should amend
this by adding to Marx's phrase a few words, so that the amended form
would run:
"Proletarians of all lands, unite to sing 'Deutschland, Deutschland,
über alles.'" By this simple means the learned doctor would condense the
entire teachings of his book into a single sentence.
"The position to-day is that the interests of freedom and democracy are
utterly at variance with a French victory (p. 42).
"Greater Prussia was founded by the war of 1866, while the 1870 struggle
established a Little Germany. Through the present war Great Germany will
be created" (p. 46).
On another page this Socialist-Chauvinist proclaims that "the freedom of
the oppressed must be the work of the oppressed themselves," which is a
principle that the I.L.P. and U.D.C., etc., would do well to note. "The
peculiarity of our situation is to be found in the fact that
extraordinarily advanced ideals have penetrated into our unripe
conditions."[92]
[Footnote 92: Louis Bamberger in an essay on German Social Democracy in
the _Deutsche Rundschau_, vol. 14, p. 243.]
It is to these "unripe conditions" that Lensch, Liebknecht, David,
Hildenbrand and the remaining leaders of German Social Democracy should
give their undivided attention. Last year the Berlin Government
published a record of crimes committed in Germany. It is the most awful
record of any nation in the world, and the above gentlemen would do well
to study Volume 267 of the _Vierteljahrshefte_. There were hundreds of
thousands of brutal crimes committed in Germany by German proletarians
during the year 1912.
For half a century Marx, Lassalle, Bebel, Liebknecht and their
successors have been busily engaged in intellectualizing Germany's
proletarians; now it is advisable for the Socialist party to begin the
work of humanizing them. Their efforts to internationalize the world
have resulted in a hopeless _débâcle_; let them now begin the task of
humanizing Germany. They have all evidently forgotten the German
proverb: _Kehr vor deiner eignen Tür!_ (Sweep first before your own
door.)