THE DEBACLE 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 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.”

This is an instance of what Germans call Rueckversicherung, 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, 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.”

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 of militarism, but otherwise they have always been unanimous that military training should be compulsory and universal. Their British Genössen (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.

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 uneingeschraenktes 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 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.

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 L400 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 Rueckversicherung.

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 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.

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."

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!"

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."

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 Rueckversicherungsvertrag 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 Rueckversicherung: (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.

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 Vorwaerts 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 Fraenkische 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. 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’ will do their duty, and in doing it, will allow themselves to be surpassed in no wise by the patriots,” Muenchener Post, August 1st.

“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 Vorwaerts (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: “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.

“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."

“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."

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 Koenigin 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 Genössen.

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 Genössen 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. (Loud applause.)

“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.)"

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."

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. In short, nothing was omitted which goes to make Stimmung.

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."

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. Suedekum, 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 Vorwaerts for September 12th: “The meeting lasted from 3.30 p.m. till 7 p.m. Suedekum 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. 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.

“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. Suedekum 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 in Italy.

“Finally Suedekum 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, Jaure’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 ueber alles and you have not opposed it; but you have published in the Vorwaerts 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.

“’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.’”

Suedekum had no words with which to answer this terrible indictment, and the Vorwaerts 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 Vorwaerts 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."

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 Genössen 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." These gentlemen invariably receive polite mention, but French Socialists are evidently in disfavour presumably because they know too well the German game.

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.

“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."

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.

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;" its author is a Socialist member of the Reichstag.

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” .

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? .

“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 .

“International Socialism has not the slightest interest in helping to bolster up this supremacy .

“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 .

“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 .

“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 .

“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 lé 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, ueber 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 .

“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” .

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."

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 debacle; let them now begin the task of humanizing Germany. They have all evidently forgotten the German proverb: Kehr vor deiner eignen Tuer! (Sweep first before your own door.)