International socialism and the war

[1ST ERNATIONAL SOCIALISM

HE WAR

A.W. HUMPHREY

THE LIBRARY

OF

THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES

icu'

INTERNATIONAL

SOCIALISM AND THE

WAR

BY

A. W. .HUMPHREY

AUTHOR OF

'A HISTORY OF LABOUR REPRESENTATION" "ROBERT APPLEGARTH
TRADE UNIONIST, EDUCATIONIST, REFORMER "

LONDON

P. S. KING AND SON LTD.
ORCHARD HOUSE, WESTMINSTER
. . . . . i 9 \ 5

. • . • » •* '. •* r *. ' ?-»»•. J » • . • .. •>

PREFACE

IN the following pages there are dealt
r_ with only those organisations affiliated to

5~ the International Socialist Bureau. No

, ...

•2 attempt is made to present opinion in any

wider sense ; nor do any organisations out-
side the International Bureau come within
the scope of this short study.. It is for that
reason that, in the British section, no refer-
|- ence is made to the Church Socialist League,
i the University Socialist Federation, the
*"* Socialist and Labour Church Union, and
ei other smaller Socialist bodies. These
omissions would not, I think, affect any
conclusions which might be drawn from
the facts contained herein, inasmuch as the
organisations dealt with are of a thoroughly
representative character, embracing as they
, do every type of Socialist and people of
£= every social grade. Moreover, the member-
II. ship of many of the Socialist organisations
in this country overlaps to an appreciable

7 77

iv International Socialism and the War

degree. So far as the Continental countries
are concerned, in all those of which I have
written all the Socialist organisations
properly so called are affiliated to the Inter-
national Bureau.

I have confined myself to the pronounce-
ments of organisations and official organs
in the press, and to those of people known
to represent a body of opinion. Views
which, so far as can be ascertained, are
merely the expression of individual opinion
have been omitted. This has been done
for the sake of clearness and because any-
thing but the general outlook belongs to a
more detailed survey, which cannot be made
while the war is in progress.

A. W. HUMPHREY.
January 1915.

CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE

I. INTRODUCTORY . . . . . i
II. STRIKING ROOT .... 3

III. THE "OLD INTERNATIONAL" . . 7

IV. THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR : A PROPHECY 10
V. THE "NEW INTERNATIONAL" . -15

VI. THE INTERNATIONAL'S ATTITUDE TO WAR 17

VII. STRENGTH OF THE PARTIES . . .20

VIII. INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNIONISM . . 25

IX. WAR AND THE GENERAL STRIKE . . 28

X. THE EVE OF THE WAR . . .31

XI. THE GERMAN VIEW . . . -34

XII. THE AUSTRIAN VIEW . . . .64

XIII. THE ITALIAN VIEW . . . .68

XIV. THE FRENCH VIEW . . . .77
XV. THE RUSSIAN VIEW . . . .88

XVI. THE BELGIAN VIEW . . . .100

XVII. THE BRITISH VIEW . . . .103

XVIII. THE TIME FOR PEACE . . .141

XIX. CONCLUSION . . . . .146

APPENDICES : — (i) THE SECOND GERMAN
WAR CREDITS ; (2) THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT'S DOMESTIC POLICY ;
(3) THE SERVIAN VIEW ; (4) PEACE
PROPOSALS ; (5) WOMEN AND THE WAR 157
INDEX . . . . . .165

Millions of men who ask only to live in peace will be dragged
without their consent into the most appalling of butcheries by
treaties to which they have not agreed, by a decision with which
they have had nothing to do.

Manifesto of the Belgian Socialist Labour Party.

Had these men any quarrel? Busy as the devil is, not the
smallest ! . . . How then ? Simpleton ! Their governors had
fallen out, and instead of shooting one another had the cunning
to make these poor blockheads shoot.

Carlyle.

I am alone in the whole house and don't know what to do. . . .
The Kovascek family came from Pest yesterday crying, because
Eugene and Julius were taken by the soldiers. Everybody wishes
they were in America. If it lasts much longer I will go crazy.
. . . Starvation and privation is in store for me and everybody
else if the war continues. Everybody is sad here in Budapest.
Everybody is crying ; everybody lost somebody.

A Hungarian Woman to friends in New York.

vii

INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM
AND THE WAR

I

INTRODUCTORY

This little volume is not intended as a complete
account of the International Socialist movement
in connection with the present war, nor as a
complete exposition of the motives which have
guided the various Socialist bodies to the positions
they have taken up. Reliable information is not
easily obtainable, and only when the gun-fire has
ceased will it be possible to tell the full story. As
with other aspects of the war, the bloodshed comes
first and the full facts afterwards. The information
available, however, is sufficient to reveal the broad
principles upon which the Socialists concerned have
acted, the main facts which have influenced them,
and how they stand in relation to their respective
Governments. To sketch those principles, present
those facts, and show in what direction Socialist
political effort is being directed during the war is
all that is aimed at in these pages.

The fact that Socialists are fighting — and, in
i

2 International Socialism

some cases, fighting with ardour, for what they
hold to be a righteous cause — has been regarded
by many as a great apostasy. There appears to
have been a popular notion that the Socialists
" wouldn't fight," and that, in the case of any war
whatever, Socialists — particularly on the Continent
— would declare a general strike — a course to which
the International has never been committed. At
the root of this error is the mistaken idea that
the Pacifism of the Socialist movement takes the
form of adherence to the doctrine of Non-Resist-
ance ; and that because the movement rejects the
specious patriotism which consists of shifting the
landmark of one's neighbour, the idea of Nationalism
has no place in its conceptions. On the other hand
it must be confessed that besides a sincere mis-
understanding of the Socialists' motives, there has
not been lacking deliberate misrepresentation of
their attitude to the war. Because of this mis-
understanding on the one hand and distortion on
the other, it is believed that these pages are not
untimely.

To a proper understanding of the actions of the
Socialist parties concerned, some account of the
past history of International Socialism, its attitude
in previous wars, its principles relating to war in
general, and the strength of the various organisa-
tions is necessary. The most essential facts, there-
fore, will precede the consideration of the view
taken of the present war by the Socialist bodies
in the belligerent countries.

II

STRIKING ROOT

The roots of International Socialism extend back
to the eighteen-forties. They spring from the
Communist League. The Communist League was
originally German, but developed into an inter-
national secret society, with headquarters in London.
It then took the name of International Alliance.
Secrecy was unavoidable in view of the political
conditions then prevailing on the Continent. The
methods favoured by the organisation were con-
spiracy and insurrection, activities which were
varied by the planning of Utopias such as those
with which are associated the names of Owen in
this country and Fourier in France.

In 1847, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were
asked to reorganise the movement. Both were of
opinion that such a reorganisation was due, and on
lines which would lead to a political movement
the aims of which would be frankly acknowledged ;
which would work in the open and abandon the
old ideas of freedom gained through insurrection
or the planting of model communities by bands of

4 International Soda/ism

idealists. The sequel to the request to Marx and
Engels was the drawing up of the famous Com-
munist Manifesto, on the instruction of a Congress
of the International Alliance held in London in
November 1847. Henceforward the organisation
was known by its old name — the Communist
League.1

The Manifesto was first issued on January 24th,
1848, the day the revolution broke out in Paris.
It appeared first in German, and was translated
into French the same year. Not until 1850 did an
English version appear, but prior to that Danish
and Polish editions had been issued.

The interest of the Manifesto in connection with
the subject of these pages is twofold. To begin
with, it represents the first expression of a
philosophy which was declared to be, and which
then, and to an increased extent later on, proved
to be, equally applicable to, and acceptable by,
the working-class of various nationalities. Here, for
the first time, was a platform on which the work-
men of the world could unite. And just as the
principles of the Manifesto were a rallying-point
for the European proletariat so were those principles
the object of the common hatred of the governing

1 It may be explained that time has reversed the relative
meanings of Socialism and Communism. When the Manifesto
was written Communism stood for a political movement
based on economic analysis, while Socialism was the creed
of those who planned Utopias and dreamed of persuading
all mankind to enter into them. To-day, as is well known,
the meaning of the terms is reversed.

Striking Root 5

classes. As the opening sentences of the Manifesto
summed up the position : — •

A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of Com-
munism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered
into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre : Pope and
Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and
German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been
described as communistic by its opponents in power ?
Where the Opposition that has not hurled back the
branding reproach of Communism against the more
advanced opposition parties, as well as against its re-
actionary adversaries ?

Communism is already acknowledged by all European
Powers to be in itself a Power.

A secondary interest possessed by the Manifesto,
in relation to our subject, is that it laid down that
Communism — Socialism — was not opposed to the
idea of nationality. Socialists were then, as to-
day, Internationalists but not anti-Nationalists.
The Manifesto answered the reproach that Com-
munists desired " to abolish countries and nation-
alities." It argued thus. The business of the
proletariat was to become politically supreme ;
"it must constitute itself the nation . . . though
not in the bourgeois sense of the word." As class
antagonism within the nation vanished so would
the antagonism of nations. But nations there still
would be.

Clearly, this reasoning implies the right of the
Communist to defend his country from aggression ;
against the exploitation by a governing class, not

6 International Socialism

only of the people within its own borders but also
of the people of another land.

The Communist League was short-lived. With
the failure of the revolutionary movement in
France it was again compelled to revert to the
methods of the secret society. Many secret
organisations came into existence on the Continent,
but they were rigorously repressed. After the
arrest of the members of the Central Board of
the League, at Cologne, in April 1851, their trial
eighteen months later, and the imprisonment of
seven of their number, the League was dissolved.

MI

THE "OLD INTERNATIONAL"

Twelve years later the International reappeared.
On September 28th, 1864, the International Work-
ing Men's Association was founded in St. Martin's
Hall, Long Acre, London. It originated in
fraternal gatherings of British trade unionists and
French and German artisans, when the latter
were sent to visit the International Exhibition
which was held in London in 1862. Some of the
Frenchmen had been members of the Communist
League and were known to Marx, who was mainly
responsible for the new movement.

It was through the International Working Men's
Association that the European working-class first
developed a policy in regard to militarism and
war. In the Address issued at the inauguration
of the Association and written by Marx, the work-
men were urged to take an interest in international
politics, to watch diplomacy, and to use their
influence on behalf of any nation struggling for
self-government. Conquest was an evil. The
interests of the workmen lay in peace ; in raising
their political and economic status; not in going

8 International Socialism

out to shoot workmen over the frontier in order
to extend the dominions of the ruling class and
increase the area of exploitation of the capitalist
class.

Let us have a perfect understanding with all men
whose prospects are in peace, in industrial development,
in freedom and human happiness all over the world;
that the strong and brave, instead of being led forth with
fire and sword to kill and destroy to satisfy the craving
desire of trade for gold, ministers for place and despots
for conquest, may live to make their homes happy, and
use their strength to assist the weak, the aged, and the
destitute, with the consolation of being free from the
miseries produced by war.

So ran the Address of the British trade unionists
to the foreign visitors at the first meeting in 1862,
and such — perhaps crudely expressed — was the
spirit of the International.

But the right of nationalities to independent
existence was always staunchly maintained. The
Frenchmen expressed the idea in their reply when
they declared :

We must have no more Coesars .... dividing
among themselves peoples spoiled by the rapine of the
great and countries devastated by savage war.

Once more has Poland been stifled in the blood of her
children, and we have remained powerless spectators.
One stink by oppression puts all other peoples in danger.
In the name of his own dignity every free man and
every man who wishes to be free is bound to give
assistance to his oppressed brothers.

With the general work and development of the
International we are not concerned. Suffice it to

The " Old International" 9

say that it grew in influence until 1870; that while
its practical work was hampered by lack of funds,
it had, according to the late August Bebel, " great
moral influence " ; J that it gave the organised sec-
tion of the European working-class a European
outlook. At the Congress at Bale, in 1869,
delegates attended from England, France,
Germany, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, and
America.

1 Autobiography.

IV

THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR:
A PROPHECY

In July 1870 there broke out the Franco-
Prussian War. The war contributed considerably
to — but was far from being the only factor in — the
break-up of the International Working Men's
Association, which had little influence after 1871
though it lingered until 1876. But while the war
was partly responsible for the break-up of the
movement, the movement made its voice heard,
and subsequent developments have shown that it
spoke on the right side.

War was declared on July ipth, and on the 23rd
the General Council of the International issued a
Manifesto declaring that the war was one of
defence so far as Germany was concerned,1 but
warning the working-class against the danger of
its becoming a war of aggression against France
to the injury of the working-class of both
nations. And when that danger appeared another

1 When the Manifesto was written the Council would not
know what the inner history of the war has since revealed —
that Bismarck deliberately engineered the crisis.

The Franco- Prussian War : a Prophecy 1 1

Manifesto was issued. The beginning of Septem-
ber brought the French defeat at Sedan, and
the 4th of the month the proclamation of the
French Republic. Marx wrote on the following
day to the Brunswick Committee arguing that
then was the time for an honourable peace.
Prussia had accomplished her defence; a con-
tinuance of the war could only mean aggression on
her part. Four days later the authorities dissolved
the Brunswick Committee and took its members
in chains to the fortress of Boyen.1

The letter of Marx is of special interest at the
present time inasmuch as in it he foretold the
alliance of France and Russia against Germany,
the growing militarism of the last-named country,
and the present conflict between the three as a
result of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. The
passage is as follows : —

But, we are told, it will be at least necessary that we
take Alsace and Lorraine from France. The war
camarilla, the professors, the burghers, and the tavern
politicians claim that this is the only way to protect
Germany for all time from a French war. On the
contrary, it is the surest way to transform this war into a
European institution.

It is the infallible medium to immortalise the military
despotism of the new Germany forced by the necessity
of holding a western Poland, that of Alsace and Lorraine.

It is the infallible means of controverting the coming
peace into a truce to be broken as soon as France has
recuperated sufficiently to recapture the lost territory.

1 Karl Marx: His Life and Work. By John Spargo
(New York, 1910).

12 International Socialism

It is the infallible means to ruin France and Germany
through self-slaughter.

The knaves and fools who claim that they have
discovered a guarantee for eternal peace should have
learned something from Prussian history, from the
Napoleonic horse-medicine after the peace of Tilsit —
how these violent measures for the pacification of a
virile nation produce the exact opposite result. And
what is France even after the loss of Alsace and Lorraine
as compared with Prussia after the peace of Tilsit ?

Whoever is not totally stupefied by the noise of the
moment, or has no interest to stupefy others, must
realise that the war of 1870 bears within its womb the
necessity of a war with Russia, even as the war of 1866
bore within its womb the war of 1870.

I say necessarily inevitably, except in the doubtful
event of a Russian revolution.

If this doubtful event does not take place, then the
war between Germany and Russia must be treated as an
accomplished fact.

If they take Alsace-Lorraine, then Russia and France
will make war on Germany. It is superfluous to point
out the disastrous consequences.1

A few days after this communication to the
Brunswick Committee of the International, the
General Council issued a Manifesto to all sections.
The Manifesto — which was in all probability also
the work of Marx — is an equally interesting
example of keen political insight. In it the
present struggle between united Slav and Latin
races against Teutonic Germany was foretold in the
following trenchant passage : —

Do the Teutonic patriots seriously believe that the
independence, liberty, and peace of Germany may

1 Justice, October isth, 1914, quoting from The New
York Call.

The Franco -Prussian War : a Prophecy 1 3

be secured by driving France into the arms of
Russia ?

If the luck of arms, the arrogance of success, and the
intrigue of the dynasties lead to the robbing of French
territory, then there are only two ways open for Germany.

It either must pursue the dangerous course of a tool
for the furtherance of Russian aggrandisement, a policy
which coincides with the tradition of the Hohenzollern,
or it must, after a short pause, prepare itself for a new
defensive war. Not one of those new-fangled " localised "
wars, but a race war, a war with the united Slav and
Latin races. This is the peace prospect held out by the
brainless patriots of the German middle class.

History will not measure her retribution by the
circumference of the square miles conquered from
France, but by the intensity of the crime of having
re-established in the second half of the nineteenth
century the policy of conquest.1

Mass meetings were held in France, Germany,
Austria, England, the United States, and Italy,
protesting against the annexation of Alsace-
Lorraine and a policy of conquest generally on the
part of Germany. When the war broke out only
Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht2 voted against the
war estimates, the other five of the seven Socialists
in the North German Reichstag supporting the
credits on the grounds of national defence. But
now, when Germany was pursuing a policy of
conquest, they voted to a man against further
supplies for the war.3 Bebel and Liebknecht were

1 Justice > October 22nd, 1914.

* Not to be confused with his son, Dr. Karl Liebknecht,
the present leader of the German Socialists.
3 Karl Marx : His Life and Work.

14 International Socialism

imprisoned for their part in the agitation ; the
former for two years and nine months, and the
latter for two years.

The British trade unionists were very active.
At a meeting on September I4th, Robert Apple-
garth moved a resolution of " protest against any
dismemberment of France as likely to lead to
future complications in Europe," and George
Howell moved one congratulating the French on
declaring a Republic and calling on the British
Government to recognise it. On September ipth
there was a demonstration of trade unionists in
Hyde Park, and on the 24th a great gathering at
St. James's Hall, where Professor E. S. Beesly —
who presided at the inaugural meeting of the
International — and Charles Bradlaugh were
amongst the speakers. A few days later a
deputation from over a hundred working-class
organisations in London and the provinces waited
on Gladstone in support of the same cause.1

Thus did the International seek to save Europe
from laying up that store of hatred, rivalry, and
lust for revenge which are the common fruits of
conquest.

1 See the present writer's Robert Applegarth : Trade
Unionist^ Educationist^ Reformer (Manchester, 1914).

THE "NEW INTERNATIONAL"

" Let us give our fellow- workers in Europe a little
time to strengthen their national affairs and they
will surely soon be in a position to remove the
barriers between themselves and working-men of
other parts of the world."1 Thus ran a passage
in the valedictory document of the International
Working Men's Association, issued at Philadelphia
on July i $th, 1876. Twelve years later the move-
ment for international combination was begun
again.

From a movement originating almost simul-
taneously among the Socialists of France, England,
Germany, and Holland sprang the International
Socialist Congress, which held its first meetings in
'Paris in 1889. That year there were two rival
Congresses convened by the two sections — Marxist
and " Possiblist " — of the French Socialists ; but a
united Congress was held in Brussels in 1891, and
united it has continued. It is now held triennially,
and at the last, at Bale, in 1910, the delegation

1 Karl Marx : His Life and Work.
13

1 6 International Socialism

consisted of 887 representatives from thirty-three
nations.1

In 1900 the International Socialist Bureau was
instituted, as a permanent means of communica-
tion and co-operation. It meets once a year, but
special meetings are called in emergencies. Twenty-
six national sections are at present affiliated to the
Bureau, and nine other sections keep in touch with
the Secretary. The Chairman of the Bureau is
M. Emile Vandervelde ; the Secretary, M. Camille
Huysmans ; and its headquarters are at Brussels.

To-day, when the great ideal of a United States
of Europe is being brought to the notice of a wider
public, it is especially interesting to note that since
1906 a branch of the Socialist International has
been the Inter- Parliamentary Committee, on which
fourteen nations are represented, including all those
involved in the present war. The purpose of this
Committee is " to keep the Socialist and Labour
Parliamentary groups in European Parliaments in
touch with each other, to afford an intimate means
of discussing international affairs, and especially to
be prepared to take action in the event of disputes
or threatenings of war arising between the Govern-
ments of any of the nations." 2

1 The 1913 Congress was postponed until 1914, when, in
Vienna, it was to have celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the
" Old International." The war caused it to be abandoned.

3 The Socialist Year Book,

VI

THE INTERNATIONAL'S ATTITUDE TO
WAR

What, to-day, is the attitude of International
Socialism to war ? The last declaration was that
of the Stuttgart Congress, in 1907, which has not
since been amended or rescinded. It was carried
unanimously, and after a preamble runs : —

If war threatens to break out it is the duty of the
working-class in the countries concerned and of their
Parliamentary representatives, with the help of the
International Bureau as a means of co-ordinating their
action, to use every effort to prevent war by all the means
which seem to them the most appropriate, having regard
to the sharpness of the class war and to the general
political situation.

Should war none the less break out, their duty is to
intervene to bring it promptly to an end and with all their
energies to use the political and economic crisis created
by the war to rouse the populace from its slumbers, and
to hasten the fall of capitalist domination.

Mr. H. N. Brailsford in The War of Steel and
Gold has sketched the main ideas of the debate
which led to the passing of this resolution. The
French view was that the duty of a Socialist Party

1 8 International Socialism

was to attack the aggressive Government, no
matter which Government it might be, and that if
there were difficulty in deciding which was the
aggressive Government, that Government which
refused to submit its case to arbitration would stand
branded as the aggressor. The Germans, however,
took the view that it would not always be the duty
of Socialists to throw their weight against the
aggressor. Japan was the technical aggressor in
the Russo-Japanese War, but it was not the duty
of Socialists to support the Czar. In no war over
Morocco would it be the duty of Socialists to
defend Germany even if she were attacked.
" Bebel went so far as to say in the heat of the
debate that if Germany attacked Russia he for one
would be the first to shoulder a rifle because the
event of such a war would be to liberate the work-
ing-classes of Russia and to weaken the reaction
even in Germany itself." But while these views
represent a difference in theory they both imply
that the attitude of Socialists in the event of an
outbreak of war would be determined, not by
national interests, but by the interests of Labour
all the world over, and in any specific case they
would act in concert through the Socialist Bureau.
It may be noted, in passing, that special
meetings of the Bureau were held in Zurich at the
time of the Morocco crisis, and at Bale in
November 1912, in connection with the Balkan
War. In the former case the war-cloud had passed
by the time the delegates met. In the latter case

The International's Attitude to War 19

a resolution was passed demanding the independ-
ence of the Balkan States and calling upon the
International's organisation to oppose any designs
of the Powers for increased territory or political
influence in the Balkans. On Sunday, November
1 7th, simultaneous International demonstrations
against war were held in eight European capitals.
From that time onward there has been much
anti-militarist propaganda throughout Europe, the
British effort taking the form of the anti-Conscrip-
tion campaign of the Independent Labour Party.

VII
STRENGTH OF THE PARTIES

Before proceeding to deal with the part played
by the Socialist movement when the war-clouds —
since burst with such frightful consequences —
gathered over Europe last July, it is necessary to
glance at the numerical strength of the Socialist
parties in the belligerent countries,1 and note the
extent of their representation in their respective
Legislatures. The following are the figures of
membership in 191 2 :2 —

German Social-Democratic Party . .' 970,112
Austrian Social-Democratic Labour Party . \ „
Czech-Slav Social-Democratic Labour Party /
Italian Socialist Party ..... 40,000
Servian Social-Democratic Labour Party . . 3,000
French Socialist Party . . . . . 80,000
Russian Social-Democratic Party (1907) . 168,000
Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party . Unknown
Belgian Socialist Labour Party . . . 222,000
British Labour Party .... 1,539,092
British Socialist Party ..... 20,000

1 Italy is included as a member of the Triple Alliance.

* The statistics and other facts concerning the parties are
taken mainly from The Socialist Year Book> /p/j, edited by
J. Bruce Glasier.

Strength of the Parties 2 1

Some comments on these figures should be
helpful. The German Party is famous for the
efficiency of its organisation and the loyalty
and discipline of the members. It is the best
organised political party in the world. The extent
of its activities may be gauged from the fact that
it owns 89 daily papers and 59 printing establish-
ments. In 1912 the subscribers numbered 1,479,042.
It spent, in 1912, £16,082 on "general agitation,"
apart from £1152 under the head of "education"
and £2034 for party schools.

The French Party has only five daily papers,
and in organisation and equipment is far behind
the German. Yet in proportion to its numbers
it exercises a greater influence. At the General
Election of 1912 the German Party polled in round
figures 4,250,000 votes, or five votes for every en-
rolled member of the party, whereas the French
poll of 1,125,877 at the General Election of 1910
represented about eighteen votes for every party
member.

The great variety of races in Austria has been
a source of great difficulty in the organisation of
the party. Recently, the party split into the two
sections indicated above, the Czech-Slav party
being the organisation of Bohemia and Moravia.
In the Imperial Parliament there are three groups :
German, Bohemian, and Polish ; but Dr. Victor
Adler is recognised as the head of the Parliament-
ary forces.

The influence of the Italian Party, like that of

22 International Socialism

the French, is out of all proportion to its numbers.
With a membership of 40,000, it polled 328,865
votes at the General Election of 1909 and returned
40 representatives to the House of Deputies. In
130 cities, towns, and communes the Socialists are
in a majority on the governing body. A feature
of the party is the extent to which it has attracted
to its ranks the professional classes, including many
distinguished men. When it had 37 representatives
in the House of Deputies ten were lawyers, seven
were professors and teachers, three were journalists,
three commercial men, and three working-men or
small traders.

The reason that no figures are available of the
membership of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary
Party illustrates the conditions in which the move-
ment has to carry on its work in that country.
When, in 1912, Professor Roubanovich, the repre-
sentative of the party on the International Socialist
Bureau, was asked if he could supply such figures
he replied : " The only figures I can give you are
the number of members of our party who are
prisoners of the Czar and are confined in fortresses,
in prisons, and places of exile. We reckon their
number at 30,000, among whom are 10,000 women." *

In addition to the Social-Democratic parties
of Russia there is a Labour Party, which in the
Third Duma (1907) had 14 members. It originated
in the 107 artisans, peasants, and village teachers
who were elected to the First Duma ; but its
1 The Socialist Year Book, /p/3.

Strength of the Parties 23

numbers dwindled when the constitution of that
assembly was altered to the disadvantage of the
working-class movement, and it has now but little
organisation. Besides the two main bodies of
Russian Socialists there are the separate organisa-
tions of the Lettish Socialists, the Polish Socialists,
and the Jewish Socialists. The parties, to a
considerable extent, have to work secretly. The
two main bodies are obliged to have their head-
quarters in Paris.

The Belgian and British parties are federations
of Trade Unions, Socialist societies, Co-operative
societies, and other Labour organisations. The
Belgian Party, as its name implies, is distinctly
Socialistic, but in the British Labour Party the
Socialists are in a minority, both in the Parliament-
ary Party and the general body of members. The
two Socialist bodies affiliated to the Labour Party
— the Independent Labour Party (I.L.P.) and the
Fabian Society — have an approximate membership
of 35,000 and 5000 respectively. The British
Socialist Party, which is not affiliated to the Labour
Party, has a membership of about 20,000.

The relative influence of the parties under
discussion will be gauged best by the following
table showing the votes polled at the General
Elections indicated and their numbers in the
national Legislatures.

International Socialism

Votes polled.

Number of
Socialist Re-
presentatives.

Total of
Members in
Parliament.

Germany .

4,250,329 (1912)

I 10

397

Austria

1,000,000 (igii)1

82

5i6

Italy

338,865 (1909)

42

508

Servia

25,000 (1912)

2

1 66

France

1,400,000(1914)

IOI

595

Russia

800,000 (1912)*

8

442

Belgium .

600,000(1912)*

39

i85

Great Britain * .

37°.*°* O

42

670

1 The votes of the German and Bohemian groups totalled
925,000. It is estimated that the votes of the four members
of the Italian group, the figures of which are not available,
would bring the vote to a million.

8 Estimated from First and Second Duma elections.

8 Estimated from an election on a proportional ballot,
which showed 241,895 Socialist votes and 794,238 joint
Liberal and Socialist votes.

4 The British Socialist Party has no Parliamentary
representatives sitting as its nominees, though one of its
members — Mr. Will Thome — sits as a Labour member.

VIII
INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNIONISM

To the foregoing sketch of the International
Socialist movement must be added some account
of International Trade Unionism. The economic
organisation corresponding to the political Inter-
national Socialist Bureau is the International
Federation of Trades Unions. In 1912, twenty-two
National Centres, embracing 7,394,461 Trade
Unionists, were affiliated to the Federation, the
headquarters of which are at Berlin.

While the Federation is much less in the public
eye than ,the political organisation, its influence in
developing a sense of solidarity among the
European working-class has undoubtedly been
very great. In preventing the importation of
foreign labour during strikes and lock-outs, and in
lending financial aid in trade disputes — to name
only two of its activities — it has greatly strengthened
the Unions in their struggles.

The rapid growth of International Trade Union-
ism is itself sufficient evidence of its need and its

utility. A world Trade Unionism is bred by a

23

26 International Socialism

world market. The modern movement began in
the early eighteen-nineties as the outcome of the
formation of the International Socialist Congress
and extended until, to-day, a large number of
trades are federated internationally. In 1913, at
the International Miners' Congress, 148 delegates
from seven countries, including Great Britain and
America, represented 1,373,000 workers ; the
International Metal Workers' Federation has a
membership of 1,106,003 ; and other trades which
are federated internationally are the transport
workers, wood workers, factory workers, brewery
workers, printers, boot and shoe makers and
leather workers, textile workers, carpenters, stone
workers, painters, workers in public services,
bakers, bookbinders, lithographers, hat workers,
glass workers, hotel and restaurant workers,
saddlers, potters, diamond workers, farriers, and
hairdressers. All the organisations of a particular
trade in the various countries are not always
affiliated to the International organisation, nor
all the Unions of the various countries affiliated
to the National Centre, which is linked with the
International Federation. For example, there are
now close upon 4,000,000 Trade Unionists in this
country, but it is the General Federation of Trade
Unions which is affiliated to the International
Federation, and the General Federation represents
only 1,006,904 Trade Unionists. The following
table indicates the number of all Trade Unionists in
the countries involved in the war in 1912, and the

International Trade Unionism 27

number among them who were affiliated to the
International Federation.1

Germany
Austria
Italy8. .
Servia

France .
Russia .
Belgium
Great Britain

Total

Total number
of all Trade
Unionists.

Trade Unionists
affiliated to Inter-
national Federation.

3>3i7,27i
649,082
860,502

2,553,162
540,662
320,912

S.ooo
1,064,413

No statistics

5,ooo
387,000
No statistics

231,805
3.023,173

116,082
861,482

9,146,746

4,778,300

1 The statistics, and other facts relating to the Inter-
national Federation, are taken from the Tenth International
Report of the Trade Union Movement ', 1912.

8 Included as member of Triple Alliance.

IX
WAR AND THE GENERAL STRIKE

During recent years, the question of the general
strike against war has been increasingly discussed
and has met with increasing favour. The British
Section and a portion of the French Section were
responsible for bringing before the International
Socialist ^Congress at Copenhagen, in 1910, the
question of whether the workers should adopt the
general strike as a method of preventing war,
especially in industries which were concerned with
furnishing armaments and other supplies for armies
and navies. After discussion, the matter was
referred back to the sections. It was to have
come up again at the Congress which was aban-
doned last August owing to the war, when it
would have been supported by the French Party,
which, at its last conference, adopted a resolution
in favour of the general strike against war by 1690
to 1174 votes.

The idea of a strike to prevent war is strongly
favoured in France. The French miners at the
International Miners' Congress at Salzburg in 1907
proposed that an international strike of miners

War and the General Strike 29

should be declared in the event of an outbreak of
war, but the proposal " was rejected, since same
was outside the programme of the Congress."1
In October 1912 — during the Balkan crisis — the
General Confederation of Labour of France called
a special Congress and arranged for a general
24-hours' strike on the following December i6th
as a practical demonstration against war. Reports
were received from 41 provinces, and it is estimated
that 600,000 workers — more than the membership
of the Confederation — " downed tools " on the
appointed day.

The same weapon meets with considerable
support in Italy, where the whole Socialist and
Trade Union movement is characterised by a strong
anti-militarism. As a protest against the Italian
war in Tripoli a 24-hours} strike was declared, with
varying success in different towns. In some places
almost all work ceased. Attempts were made to
interfere with the railway service, women even
throwing themselves across the rails. At one of
these disturbances at Langhirano the police fired
on the crowd and killed the people.

The idea behind both the French and the Italian
strike was that it would make clear the position
of the organised workers and educate the people
themselves. It was not expected directly and im-
mediately to influence the conduct of Governments.

Then, too, at the British Trade Union Congress

1 Report of the International Trades Union Movement,

3O International Socialism

at Manchester, last year, the following resolution
was passed :—

That this Congress strongly condemns any action likely
to lead to war between nations, and pledges itself to do
everything possible to make war impossible ; and further
instructs the Parliamentary Committee to confer with
the British Miners' Federation, the National Transport
Workers' Federation, and the National Union of Rail-
waymen with a view to opening negotiations with foreign
Trade Unions for the purpose of making agreements and
treaties as to common international action in the event
of war being forced upon us.

The German Party, however, has to be careful
in handling this question. When the resolution
was before the Copenhagen Congress it was ex-
plained that if the German delegates supported it
they would run the risk of having their organisations
suppressed.

Very knotty indeed is the question of a general
strike against war, but the fact that the principle
has been approved by the workers of France and
Italy and seriously considered in this country — the
British Section were unanimous in their decision
to bring it before the International Congress — is
evidence of an instinctive feeling that Labour has
the power to say " No " to the War Lords, and a
determination to tackle the practical difficulties.

But last August the question was still in the
realms of discussion.

THE EVE OF THE WAR

So rapidly moved the events which led to the war
that in all the Continental countries which were
likely to be involved the Socialist organisations
were working for peace before the International
Bureau had met. It will be convenient, however,
to see first what was done by the Bureau, and then
deal separately with the efforts of the affiliated
bodies, between the time when war became a
grave possibility and the time when it was an
awful fact, and with their views of the situation.

Following its usual custom of calling a special
meeting in time of emergency, the Bureau met at
Brussels on July 29th. The representatives of the
British Section were Mr. Keir Hardie, M.P., Mr.
J. Bruce Glasier, and Mr. Dan Irving. It will be
recollected that events were then far advanced.
Austria had declared war upon Servia the day
previous. The same day Russia ordered a partial
mobilisation. On July 3ist Russia ordered a
general mobilisation, which resulted in Germany's
ultimatum to Russia the same day and also the

32 International Socialism

proclamation of " Kriegsgefahr." * The day follow-
ing that (August 1st) a general mobilisation was
ordered by Germany and war was declared by that
country against Russia. Two days later, Germany
and Austria, Great Britain, France, Russia, and
Servia were at war.

The Bureau met on the morning of the 29th,
and the members separated early on the following
day. The points of the discussion, which are
usually made public, it was deemed advisable not
to reveal on this occasion. The following state-
ment of conclusions was issued : —

In Assembly of July zgth the International Socialist
Bureau has heard declarations from representatives of
all nations threatened by a world war, describing the
political situation in their respective countries.

With unanimous vote the Bureau considers it an
obligation for the workers of all nations concerned not
only to continue but even to strengthen their demon-
strations against war in favour of peace and a settlement
of the Austrian-Servian conflict by arbitration.

The German and French workers will bring to bear
on their Governments the most vigorous pressure in order
that Germany may secure in Austria a moderating
action, and in order that France may obtain from
Russia an undertaking that she will not engage in con-
flict. On their side, the workers of Great Britain and
Italy shall sustain these efforts with all the power in
their command.

The Congress urgently convoked in Paris will be the

1 " Imminence of War." It signifies " the taking of
certain precautionary measures consequent upon strained
relations with a foreign country " (White Paper, No. 112).

The Eve of the War 33

vigorous expression of the absolutely peaceful will of the
workers of the whole world.1

The same evening between six and seven
thousand people gathered at an anti-war meeting
in the Cirque, over which M. Emile Vandervelde,
Chairman of the Bureau, presided. Enthusiasm
was at a high pitch. Herr Hugo Haase, who
spoke for Germany, was received with a storm of
cheers, and Mr. Keir Hardie, Jean Jaures, and
other speakers met with similar receptions. And
afterwards thousands paraded the streets bearing
banners, singing songs, and displaying the motto
"War against War."

Two days later, Jaures was assassinated in a
Paris cafe by a war fanatic, and Europe and the
world lost a personal force for peace and civilisa-
tion than which none was greater.

We have seen the decision of the Bureau of
the International. A consideration of the activities
of the Socialists in the countries concerned will
reveal that that decision had been anticipated.

1 The final paragraph refers to the International Socialist-
Congress which was to have been held in Vienna in August
and the venue of which was changed to Paris when war
threatened. Ultimately it was unavoidably abandoned.

XI
THE GERMAN VIEW

It is indicative of the alertness of German Social-
Democracy that two days after Austria submitted
the now-historic Note to Servia the Executive of the
Social-Democratic Party spoke, with no uncertain
voice, of the approaching danger. By a Manifesto,
issued on July 25th, it called to arms the whole
German working-class for the war against war.
The following are the Manifesto's terms : —

The fields of the Balkans are not yet dry from the
blood of those who have been massacred by thousands ;
the ruins of the devastated towns are still smoking ;
unemployed hungry men, widowed women, and orphan
children are still wandering about the country. Yet once
more, the war-fury, unchained by Austrian Imperialism,
is setting out to bring death and destruction over the
whole of Europe.

Though we also condemn the behaviour of the " Great
Servian " nationalists, the frivolous war-provocation of the
Austro-Hungarian Government calls for the sharpest pro-
test. For the demands of that Government are more
brutal than have ever been put to an independent State
in the world's history, and can only be intended deliber-
ately to provoke war.

In the name of humanity and civilisation the class-
conscious proletariat of Germany raises a burning protest
against the criminal behaviour of the war-mongers. It
dictatorially demands of the German Government that

The German View 35

it use its influence with the Austrian Government for
the preservation of peace, and, if the shameful war
cannot be prevented, to abstain from any armed inter-
ference. No drop of blood from any German soldier
must be sacrificed to the lust for power of the Austrian
rulers and to the Imperialistic profit-interests.

Comrades, we appeal to you to express at mass
meetings without delay the German proletariat's firm
determination to maintain peace. A solemn hour has
come, more serious than any during the last few decades.
Danger is approaching ! The world war is threatening !
The ruling classes who in time of peace gag you, despise
you, and exploit you, would misuse you as food for
cannon. Everywhere must sound in the ears of those in
power : " We will have no war ! Down with war ! Long
live the international brotherhood of the people ! " l

The response was widespread and immediate.
In every town of any importance the Socialists
organised protest meetings, and the crowds as-
sembled in thousands and tens of thousands. On
the evening of July 28th no fewer than twenty-
seven meetings were held in Berlin alone. Of the
attitude of the Government to these meetings we
have the testimony of the former Berlin corre-
spondent of The New Statesman^ who, writing
in London to the issue of that journal dated
August 1 5th, states: —

Now that the war is come I can commit an indiscre-
tion, and recount an incident over which before my lips
were sealed. There was. some agitation in the reactionary

1 For this and other official statements of the Conti-
nental Socialistic parties and for extracts from their Press
the writer is indebted to Justice, except where otherwise
stated.

36 International Socialism

Press for the suppression of the Socialist peace- meetings
on the ground that they weakened the policy of the
country. On the morning of the day on which the
meetings were held an important official of the Social-
Democratic Party was summoned to the orifice of the
Imperial Minister of the Interior and there informed
that not only had the Government no intention of
forbidding the peace meetings, but that all precautions
would be taken against their disturbance, and that the
Government hoped that the Socialists would continue
their agitation with the utmost energy. And this they
did up to the moment when martial law was declared and
further action was useless.

Mr. Dudley Ward, former Berlin correspondent
of The Manchester Guardian, tells the same story
in the issue of that journal dated August I5th: —

On the previous Tuesday (July z8th) Socialist meetings
of protest against the Austro-Servian War were announced
for almost every town in Germany. The Liberal Press
spoke of them as unwise, the Conservative organs for
the most part demanded their suppression by the
authorities. Far from- suppressing them, an important
official of the party was Summoned to meet the Minister
of the Interior on the morning of the meetings, and told,
at the request of the Chancellor, that not only would the
authorities not suppress the meetings, but that they
would take full precautions to prevent their being broken
up, and that, further, they hoped the party would pro-
ceed vigorously with its pacific propaganda. This, of
course, was completely unknown to the public at the
time.

These accounts have since been confirmed by
a leader of the German Socialists, in a letter from
Sweden to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.1

Up to the declaration of martial law, on July 3ist,
1 Mr.E. D. Morel in The Labour Leader, October 8th, 1914.

The German View 37

the German Socialists worked untiringly for peace.
Yet on August 4th the majority of the repre-
sentatives in the Reichstag voted for the war credits,
and during the early days of the conflict Socialists
were with those who volunteered for active
service. Among them was Dr. Ludwig Frank, a
prominent member of the party in the Reichstag,
who was wounded at Luneville in the early days
of the campaign. The reason is that to the
German Socialist the war was a war of self-defence
against Russia.

It has been pointed out already that the Inter-
national has always justified the taking up of arms
in national self-defence, and in the case of the
German Socialists the act of self-defence was
rendered all the more imperative by the character
of the aggressor. No body of people has a keener
appreciation of the evils of Prussian militarism and
autocratic government than the German Socialists.
They are the victims of it ; they have fought it ;
they have created a movement which it regards,
with good reason, as the greatest menace to its
existence. But, in spite of that, the German
Socialist knows that there are worse things than
Prussian rule, and that one of those things is
Russian rule. Before his eyes he has his own
movement ; a power in the land ; working in the
open; expressing its opinions every day in its
Press and on its platforms. Across the border the
corresponding movement is still ruthlessly hunted
underground. It is a crime to be a Socialist in

38 International Socialism

Russia; it is not a crime to be a Socialist in
Germany. The knout, the dungeon, exile, are not
for the German ; they are the lot of his comrade
over the frontier. When the membership of
Germany's organisation is asked for, the reply has
not to be, " I can only give you the number of our
members who are confined in fortresses, prisons,
and places of exile." x The membership is known
to the world ; its homes are scattered over the
land. When Germany's Socialists meet, all may'
know of it ; but when, " after a lapse of five years,"
the Congress of the Lettish Socialists is held, " for
obvious reasons neither the place nor time can be
given." 2

From a political point of view, then, a prospective
Russian invasion brought with it the shadow of a
tyranny beside which life under the Kaiser's govern-
ment is free as the air ; from a military point of
view it meant the sweeping into the Fatherland
of a soldiery partly barbarous and bearing as a
whole the worst reputation of any army in Europe.
M. Marcel Sembat, the French Socialist, since the
war Minister of Public Works in the French
Cabinet, writing in 1913 of the German view of
Russia, states : —

This haunting terror of Russia is not like the hostility
born of defeat which many Frenchmen feel for Germans.
That French hostility towards Germany is made up of
rancour for the past and anxiety for the future ; it was

1 See p. 22.

2 Set /us f iff, July 23rd, 1914.

The German View 39

entirely unknown before 1870. . . . This other thing
is different. Every German has grown up under the
unceasing threat of a terrific avalanche hanging over his
head ; of an avalanche ready to loosen and drop and roll
upon him; an avalanche of multitudinous savagery, of
brutal and barbarous hordes which will spread over his
German soil and bury his civilisation and his ways.
Remember that Germany is back-to-back with uncivilised
countries, with barbarism, with Asia, with the great
tribes, the Cossacks, the Huns.

I find it very difficult to realise all that, I who am a
Frenchman, belonging to an old civilisation which has
forgotten for centuries the invasions of really barbarous
peoples. I find it difficult to imagine the effect which
such a neighbourhood would have upon one's feelings.
But unless I succeed in thus realising it, I shall never
understand the impression made upon the German mind
by the Franco-Russian alliance. . . .

For me, Russia means this or that revolutionary
comrade, like Rubanovitch, a man of science, with
nothing of the barbarian about him. For me Russia
means the heroes of Tourguenieff, of Tolstoi, and Gorki.
... I find myself secretly counting upon the Russian
people as one of the chief elements of an era of Socialism.
That Russian I am thinking of is, perhaps, not the real
Russian ; but he is my Russian. He is not the Russian
as thought of by the German. The Russian whom the
German thinks of is an implacable and cruel savage,
servile or tyrannical by turns, giving the lash or receiving
it, but always equally uncivilised. And, after all, do
the Tsar's dominions not hold all the barbarians of
Turkestan and Central Asia? Yes, but they are con-
quered races ! You think so, do you ? Why, the day
when European Russians, grown too Liberal or too
Socialistic, begin to be in the Tsar's way, do you think
he will stickle at calling up against them the bands of
Cossacks and Turkomans? And when that day shall
come, Asia, the barbarous East, will be at the gates of
Europe and on the threshold of Germany.

4O International Socialism

The Franco-Russian alliance and then the Franco-
Anglo-Russian entente must thus appear to Germans as
the compact of two civilised peoples with barbarism.
To the eye of the German it looks as if civilisation had
been betrayed and handed over, along with Germany, to
the barbarians.1

That it was a desire for self-defence, made all
the stronger by this view of the aggressor, which
rallied German Socialists in support of the war is a
fact agreed upon, to begin with, by observers in
Berlin before the outbreak. Against France there
was no hostility. It was regrettable that defence
against Russia involved fighting France, but the
Socialists could not stand by and see their country
invaded because the policy of the French Govern-
ment, the interests of French financial houses, had
compelled the French people to take sides with the
invader. To quote again Mr. Dudley Ward, who,
for a fortnight before the outbreak of the war, was
in close touch with leaders of the Socialist Party
and editors of several Socialist journals : —

For the Socialist Party, as for the rest of Germany, the
war was a war of aggression from the side of Russia.
They condemned the action of Austria, they condemned
the bungling diplomacy of their own Government, but
they were convinced, like the rest, that their own
Government had at this time desired peace.2

1 Faites ;/« Roi sinon faites la Paix, by Marcel Sembat
(Paris, 1913). The translation is from the article, " Germany's
Fear of Russia," by " V. L.," Labour Leader, October istb,
1914.

* Manchester Guardian^ August isth, 1914.

The German View 41

Similar testimony is borne by the former Berlin
correspondent of The New Statesman in the article
already alluded to : —

Against France there was no feeling whatever. . . .
There was no suggestion that France had egged on
Russia to war or had done anything but all within its
power to hold its ally back. Russia was the sole enemy,
and against Russia the whole of Germany was united
down to the last of the Social-Democrats themselves.
We in this country, since our friendship with the country
of the Czar, have forgotten some of the horrors and
barbarities of that country. Germany has not. The
Germans are too near Russia not to be continually
reminded of what goes on there. . . . The Socialists
feel that they are fighting a just war of defence, a war of
defence for their own homes and culture against a
barbarian horde from the East. They may be mistaken,
they may have been misled by military autocrats. But
at least they are honourable.

It must be admitted by any person not hopelessly
prejudiced that the Socialists had a very plausible
reason for believing in the pacific intentions of the
German Government, in view of the interview with
the Minister of the Interior and the Government's
encouragement of the peace movement. No one
could have known better than the Socialists of
Berlin that the Government would not have
hesitated to prohibit or break up the Socialist
meetings, if it had suited its purpose to do so.
As a matter of fact, the Socialist propaganda in
Germany had a fairer field than it met with in
France, where some of the early peace-meetings in
Paris were attacked by the police, who arrested

42 International Socialism

M. Bon, the Socialist Deputy for Levallois-
Perret.

But though, after Russia had issued her general
mobilisation order and Germany had declared war
as a consequence, the Socialist Party was prepared
to support a war of self-defence, the Socialist Press
resisted attempts to stir up war-fever in the people
while there was a chance of war being avoided.
In the last days of July a cry of " Freedom against
Czarism" was raised in the reactionary German
Press, a cry the hypocrisy of which was attacked
in the Socialist Press. Right up to August 3rd,
Vorwdrts, the central organ of the party, exposed
the cant of German Jingoes and the German
Government posing as champions of " freedom
against Czarism." On July 28th it wrote : —

Not Czarism is the worst danger to peace at the
present moment but the evilly-counselled Austria, that
holds the mad illusion that it need only give the signal
for the whole of Europe to sound the tocsin and to
sacrifice the flower of a young manhood as expiatory
sacrifice for the murder of the Archduke.

Before the mobilisation of the German army, on
August 2nd, the Leipziger Volkszeitung also
urged the people not to be deceived by the cry of
" war against Czarism," and held that the German
governing class's hostility to Russia was on account
of the growing revolutionary movement in that
country and not because of the character of the
Czar's government. Even on August 3rd, when
the Socialist members of the Reichstag had decided

The German View 43

to vote for the war credits, Vorwarts denounced
German "patriotism." It ridiculed the position of
the Government, which for years had supported the
despotism of the Czar, and persecuted Socialists
for insulting Nicholas, and was then taking up the
attitude that Marx, Engels, and Bebel had always
taken — that Russian despotism would have to be
crushed. It went on : —

Since the above-named leaders of the Social-Democracy
expressed their opinion that it was necessary to wage a
democratic war against Russian despotism, conditions
have changed considerably.

Russia to-day is no longer a stronghold of reaction,
but it is a land of revolution. The overthrow of the
monarchy and Czarism is now the aim of the Russian
people in general and the Russian workers in particular.1

From the foregoing account of the views of
German Socialists before the war it will be seen
that there were two currents of feeling. On the
one hand was the hard fact of the general mobilisa-
tion of Russia ; on the other, distrust of an official
cry which was clearly hypocritical. It was not
that Czarism was not an evil influence, but that
the people did well to be suspicious, and look out
for a trap, when the Satan of Kaiserism rebuked
the Sin of Czarism. On the one hand was the
impulse to rally to the Government for defence
against the Russians ; on the other, the natural
distrust of any action of the War Lords, and the

1 German Social-Democrats would be aware of the revolu-
tionary rising imminent in Russia in July last. See p. 88.

44 International Socialism

feeling that the cause of Socialism from an inter-
national point of view would suffer from war with
Russia, The Russian revolutionary movement
would be weakened by the war-fever just as are all
democratic movements.

It is easy to imagine how, with the mass of the
people, the prospect of a Russian invasion would
overshadow the more theoretical consideration
that, from a strictly world-Socialist point of view,
a war with Russia was undesirable, because it
would set back the Russian Socialist movement.
Obviously, the difficulty of the Social-Democratic
Party in the Reichstag was great, and it is not
surprising that — contrary to common report in this
country — the party came to no unanimous decision.

The party met on August 3rd to decide what
should be its attitude in the Reichstag on the
following day. A minority of fourteen was op-
posed to voting for the war credits. According to
a communication by Herr Liebknecht to the
Bremische Burger zeitimg, the local Socialist organ,
" the issues involved gave rise to diametrically
opposite views within our Parliamentary Party,
and these opposing views found expression with a
violence hitherto unknown in our deliberations."
Liebknecht was in the minority. The majority
favoured voting for the war budget on the grounds
of self-defence against Russia. Dr. Nasmyth, an
American Socialist and a founder of the World's
Peace Foundation, told The Labour Leader* on
1 October 22nd, 1914.

The German View 45

his arrival in England from Germany, where he
had been in the company of Herr Bernstein, Herr
Liebknecht, and other Socialists : —

In Germany I found among the four million members l
of the Social-Democratic Party a hatred of Imperialism
and Militarism more bitter and more intense than in
England or in America. " But militarism is the worst
possible way to fight militarism," they said. " It has
forced us to make this choice : either we must take the
side of militarism or we must stand by and see our
country overrun by the Russians. Prussianism is bad
enough, but we prefer it to Russianism."

To the German Socialists Russia appeared as
the aggressor. On July 3Oth, Austria had
" declined to continue the direct exchange of views
with the Russian Government," but the British
Ambassador at Rome had " reason to believe that
Germany was now disposed to give more con-
ciliatory advice to Austria."2 Germany did so,
and was successful; for, on July 3ist, the British
Ambassador at St. Petersburg learnt that " as a
result of suggestions by the German Government
a conversation has taken place at Vienna between
the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs and the
Russian Ambassador" and that "the Austrian
Ambassador at St. Petersburg has also been
instructed that he may converse with the Russian

1 This is evidently a slip. The voters number four
million odd. The party membership in 1912 had nearly
reached one million.

2 British White Paper, No. 106.

46 International Socialism

Minister for Foreign Affairs."1 Sir Edward Grey,
hearing of the resumption of negotiations, hoped
that they "may lead to a satisfactory result."2
The situation was more hopeful. But on the same
day Russia issued orders for a general mobilisa-
tion— having already been partially mobilising
since July 29th — and that led to the German
ultimatum to Russia. Russia refused to de-
mobilise and there was war. It is on these facts
that the German Socialists — the majority of them
— base their belief that the initial act in blasting
hopes of peace was the issue of Russia's general-
mobilisation order. It was news of that order
which made the war appear to the great mass of
the Socialists as a defensive war. That a section
could not bring themselves to justify war we have
already noted, but Herr Haase unquestionably
voiced the view of the majority when he spoke for
the party in the Reichstag on August 4th, in
justification of the decision to vote for the war
credits. Haase himself was with the minority,
and tendered his resignation of the Chairmanship
of the Parliamentary Group, but it was not
accepted.

And here it may be stated that the stories of
the Social-Democrats joining in the " Hoch 1 " for
the Kaiser and shaking his hand were merely
newspaper fables. During the earlier part of
the sitting, when the Emperor requested the party

1 British White Paper, No. no.
' British White Paper, No. m.

The German View 47

leaders to shake his hand, the Socialists were not
present.

Herr Haase, in the course of the declaration
which he read, stated : —

The present calamity is the result of a universal
regime of Imperialist policy. The Socialist Party, which
has fought that policy at every point, refuses to accept
any responsibility for it. But the Socialist opposition
has failed. Before us stands the iron fact of war. We
are threatened with the horrors of a hostile invasion.
We have not to decide to-day for or against war, but
over the question of supplies for the defence of the
country. For our people and for the future of their
liberty much, if not all, is at stake with the victory of
Russian despotism, which has stained itself with the
blood of the best of its own people. This danger must
be warded off for the sake of our civilisation and the
independence of our country. We prove now what we
have always said, that in the hour of danger we should
not leave our Fatherland in the lurch.1

Vorwarts, summing up the same speech, stated
that Herr Haase's reference to " our French
brethren" who had worked with them for peace
was met with a rousing cheer from his followers.
While Herr Haase pointed out that the Inter-
national had always recognised the right of a
people to self-defence, he reminded the Reichstag
that "just as resolutely, the party was against any
war of conquest. It demanded, therefore, that the
war should be ended as soon as its object, national
safety, had been obtained and the opponents were
inclined to make peace."

1 Manchester Guardian, August I5th, 1914.

48 International Socialism

The hostile attitude to " Czarismus " was taken
up by some of the local Socialist papers of Re-
visionist leanings. The Volkstimme, of Chemnitz,
held that it was necessary to fight Russia
"because, if the Allies should be victorious, not
an English Governor or a French Republican
would rule over Germany, but the Russian Czar.
Therefore, we must defend at this moment every-
thing which means German culture and German
liberty against a merciless and barbaric enemy."
The Volksfreund, of Carlsruhe, wrote in the same
strain.

The question now arrives as to the attitude of
the Socialists to the German invasion of Belgium.
When the Social-Democratic Group on August 3rd
drew up the declaration which was read by Herr
Haase in the Reichstag, they knew nothing of the
violation of Belgian neutrality. They voted for
the credits on August 4th. Only after that date
were the ultimatum to Belgium and the events
which followed it mentioned in the Press. Foreign
papers and news from abroad were at that
time suppressed as much as possible, and after
August 4th the Press was placed under military
censorship, public meetings were impossible, and
there was no further meeting of the Reich-
stag.1

Even the knowledge of the ultimatum to Belgium
would not have dispensed with " the iron fact of

1 See Pierre Troelstra (leader of the Dutch Socialist Party)
in The Labour Leader > November 26th, 1914.

The German View 49

war " with Russia. There was no hostile feeling
whatever against France, but the German Socialists
were not responsible for the Franco-Russian
Alliance or the plans of the German General
Staff. But it is not our purpose here to speculate
as to what any party might have done in certain
eventualities. The facts are that the German
Socialists voted for defence against Russia, and
that when they decided upon their attitude in the
Reichstag, and drew up their declaration, they
had no knowledge of an ultimatum to Belgium.
It is true that, in the Reichstag on August 4th,
the Chancellor announced that Belgium had pro-
bably already been entered, acknowledging that a
wrong had been done and that reparation would
be made ; but the declaration of the party had
then been communicated to the Reichstag. And
there was still the war with Russia. Clearly the
position of the party was difficult in the extreme.
Those disposed to condemn the German Social-
Democrats should, in common fairness, reserve
their judgment until the full facts of the situation
are made plain.

What Vorvuarts thought of the invasion of
Belgium can only be gathered from the follow-
ing, evidently written under the shadow of the
censor : —

Now, when the war god reigns supreme not only over
Time but also over the Press, we cannot say about
the invasion of Belgium all we would like to express
about it.

5O International Socialism

There is further evidence from Dr. Nasmyth
in the interview already quoted : l —

Quite frankly the German Socialists admit that
Germany has committed a great wrong in violating
Belgian neutrality, but shall Russia, France, and Britain
cast the first stone, they ask, in view of their own actions
in Persia, Morocco, and Egypt?

On August 25th, Vorwarts, apparently taking
the official cry of " freedom against Czardom " at
its face value, for the purpose of showing the only
way in which the Government could justify the
war, wrote : —

When the war broke out, the word went round : " War
against Czarism ! " That was the cry that made the war
seem inevitable even to those who were against it. ...
To military experts it appeared an unavoidable necessity
that France must first be overcome in order to advance
with Austria against Russia. And to this necessity even
those who mourn the frightful fate which drives two
civilised peoples into this murderous struggle must resign
themselves. . . . From the military point of view the first
necessity is to overcome France. On the other hand,
politically the most urgent necessity is the overthrow and
destruction of Czarism ! . . . The victory over the allies
of Russia is necessary because they are the allies of
Czarism. But it is necessary only so far as to prevent
their delaying the overthrow of " Czarism." ... If we
should not succeed in overcoming " Czarism," if the
strategic necessity should push the political necessity
into the background, then, whatever the intention of the
rulers, the final result might lead to a return of the " Holy
Alliance," in which " Czarism " would once more hold
the dominating influence, instead of to a union of the
civilised nations. . . . Then the war would lose its
justification.

1 Labour Leade>\ October 22nd, 1914.

The German View 51

To sum up, the position of the German Socialists
was this. The great majority were convinced
that against Germany Russia was the aggressor
and that the war was a war of self-defence against
that nation. Fear and hatred of Russia added to
the majority's determination to defend their country
from invasion, and, it may be reasonably assumed,
to their suspicions of the intentions of the Czar's
Government. On the other hand, a minority —
14 out of in in the Parliamentary Party —
were not able to convince themselves that
Germany's cause was a righteous cause. All
their reasons are not yet apparent. Certainly
since war was declared, and probably since the
declaration of martial law on July 3 1st, the
Press has been subject to the censor, and while
the majority have free scope to give their support
to the war, Liebknecht, Karl Kautsky, Haase,
Bernstein, Rosa Luxembourg, indeed all the
minority, cannot freely express their views.
Certain it is, however, that the very fact that the
War Party set up a cry of " freedom against
Czarism " made the Socialist minority suspicious.
It appeared to them a case of the Greeks bringing
gifts. Vorwdrts and the Leipziger Volkzeitung
both declared that the proletariat would not be
deceived by the official cry — "anti-Czarist phrase-
ology," as the latter called it. Moreover, as we
have seen already, Vorwdrts on July 28th referred
to the " evilly-counselled Austria." If this meant
that Germany was the counsellor, it seems reason-

52 International Socialism

able to deduce that the Socialist minority believed
their own Government to have been using Austria
as a tool to provoke war.1

Since the outbreak of war the Government and
the Socialist Party as a body have been on
excellent terms. An order has even been issued
that Socialist papers may be read in barracks.
In fact, everything points to the Government'having
been of the opinion that it could not prosecute
a war in the face of a hostile Social-Democracy.

During the war Vorwarts has been conducted
in a way which redounds greatly to its honour.
It has seized every possible opportunity to mini-
mise, rather than to inflame, national passions, and
has persistently fought for fair play for the enemy.
As an example : " Hail, and victory to the German
armies ! " wrote a German prisoner in England to
friends at home, and the British censor passed the
greeting. Whereat Vorwarts called attention to
the "broad-mindedness" of the British authorities
— or, as some English newspapers stupidly jeered,
showed " German surprise." It is well known that
the German Press has gobbled up all the stories
it could get of " atrocities " by the Allies with an
appetite as voracious as that of the British Press
for similar strong meat. But Vorwarts has resisted

1 When, in his speech of August 2nd, the Kaiser " par-
doned" all opposition parties, the comment of Vonvdrts
was : " This shows the Kaiser's mental make-up. The
proletariat will have none of it, but will persist in their
desire for peace."

The German View 53

the allegations against French and British troops,
and has proved them to be untrue again and
again ; showing a sanity and love of fair play of
which it would be hard to find an equal example
in the British daily Press at the present time.

But the outspokenness of Vorwdrts brought
down upon it the heavy hand of authority. It
was suspended for three days, and subsequently
suspended a second time. When it reappeared it
printed a letter in its front page from General von
Kessel stating that the publication of the paper
would be allowed to continue as the Editorial
Board had agreed that, during the war, no reference
should be made to "class hatred or the class
struggle."

The article for which Vorwdrts was suspended
gives an interesting view of the causes of the dis-
trust between Britain and Germany. It appeared
on September 27th, and states : —

Great organisations have been created and far-reaching
measures devised by the authorities of the Empire to
make known the truth in foreign countries. That means
to give the German version an opportunity to find ex-
pression beside the British, French, and Russian an-
nouncements concerning the war and the general situation.
Whether this will succeed everywhere and in the full
sense cannot be decided here. In any case, the money
which has been spent for the purpose shows how difficult
it is to procure confidence in German news.

It may be admitted that this would have been much
easier if, after the outbreak of war, for some weeks com-
munications with foreign lands had not been almost
entirely interrupted. The military authorities may, of

54 International Socialism

course, have had military reasons for the interruption.
But this cannot explain the actually existing difficulties.
One has to go back for an explanation to the days of
peace. Germans in foreign countries, including neutral
countries, have long ago encountered plenty of distrust,
surmise, and antagonism, and now we see the result of
that.

Germany has enjoyed an economical prosperity such
as no other country has experienced during the last
decade. That meant with the capitalist class a revival
of strong Imperialist tendencies, which have been dis-
played often enough. This gave rise to mistrust abroad,
at least in capitalist quarters, which did their best to
communicate their feelings to the broad masses.

The Chauvinists on the other side of the frontier
would scarcely have had such success with their propa-
ganda if they had not been aided by another factor.
Germany, which had risen to such great heights, was the
country which, after the abolition of the Socialist legisla-
tion which she had presented to her workmen, introduced
a police regime of chicanery and proclaimed the equality
of her citizens merely on the paper of the constitutional
charter. Close to Germany was the incomparably worse
Russia, but Russia (to others) was far off, pursued her
own interests in the Near and Far East, was in a political
sense closely attached to the Western Powers, and the
revolution of 1905 had shown that the governing circles
in Russia were not firmly established.

Thus can be explained the fact that even from among
workmen abroad manifestations were received which
must be deplored — deplored especially inasmuch as the
German people as a whole has been made responsible
for what has been the work of a small class. For
instance, we read in an Italian paper of the working-
classes that the German generals are called robbers,
and that the news is spread that the German troops
are driving old men and women as living breastworks
before them into battle.

The comrades abroad can be assured that the German

The German View 55

working-classes still condemn that robber-like policy,
and that they are willing to stand up against the.
piratical subjugation of foreign nations as far as circum-
stances will permit. The comrades abroad can be
assured that though German workmen are ready to
defend their country, they will, above all, not forget
that their interests are the same as those of the
proletariat in other countries, who also against their will
were forced into the war and now do their duty.

The comrades abroad can be assured that the German
people are not less human than others, a result to
which education through the organisation of workmen
has contributed all in its power. If German soldiers
in the excitement of war should commit atrocities, it
can be said that amongst us — but also in other circles
— there will not be a single person to approve of
them. Just as little will the atrocities of others be
condoned. But this much we can say: that stories
like that of the living breastworks cannot be true. For
this accusation is not directed against individuals but
against large communities, and for them we can give a
guarantee.

We cannot demand from other countries that they
shall believe all the news about the atrocities of the
Russians, Belgians, and French. Some of the Tartar
news is rejected by us. But if we admit that on our
side unofficial reports are exaggerated, we can demand
a similar opinion regarding news from the other side.

It is difficult to be objective in a struggle of peoples
such as we now experience, but we should endeavour
to be so. That is a wish which should be respected by
all who write or speak, whether in our land or abroad.1

As to the desirable outcome of the war, Karl
Kautsky has expressed his view in an article in
the Neue Zeit, which is worth outlining.2

1 Quoted from The Manchester Guardian.

2 See Justice, October ist, 1914.

56 International Socialism

" War," he says, " is carried on not to obtain a
victory but an advantageous peace." A peace
which would be only a truce would be " absolutely
injurious," and would only lead to another race
of armaments. " A peace gives the best promise
of lasting when its results lie in the direction of
historic development." In that direction lies the
independence of peoples — "that is, democracy."
Democracy to-day is represented in the proletariat
and Social-DemQcracy, and it can only find its
best expression in a state which consists of one
nation speaking one language. Modern pro-
duction brings all classes into closer touch with
one another; there is closer co-operation in
intellectual and political life. In a State of one
nationality, speaking one language, such a process
is a source of strength ; but in a State consisting
of various nationalities hostile collisions result and
have a paralysing effect on the economic and
political process. Kautsky proceeds : —

It would, therefore, be a sad backward step if the great
national States which are at war were to use a victory
in order to annex foreign territory, and thus become a
nationality State instead of a national State. That would
be a great misfortune, not only for the defeated but for
the victors. Such action would only be an injury to the
independence of nations, and each of the nations in-
volved have sworn that they only wanted to protect their
own independence and integrity.

That is not to say that any changes in the map of
Europe would contradict this principle. Where nations
are now under foreign rule, an overthrow of such rule
would be beneficial in the above manner. If, for instance,

The German View 57

Russia being defeated and the inhabitants of Poland,
the East Sea provinces and Finland were to claim the
right to manage their own affairs without external
coercion, that would be quite in accord with the laws
of democracy. The same would apply to Egypt and
Persia.

Kautsky's view is that " probably the defeated
nations will be compelled to disarm," in which
case it will be the business of Social-Democrats
"to protest against any humiliating, degrading
forms that it may assume." Social-Democrats
would support disarmament, and with a defeated
and disarmed enemy they would have a firm basis
in taking up that position.

On the economic side, Kautsky thinks that ex-
isting commercial treaties will be dissolved. The
victor may force free trade on the defeated nations,
or several nations may form themselves into a
Zollverein. The latter would mean progress " if it
were not used as a means of drawing free trade
countries into a protected area, which latter must be
fought against."

It would be premature, says Kautsky, to specu-
late on the result of the conflict — "we cannot
divide the bear's skin before it is killed " — but this
much he could say : " In every country the Social-
Democracy will be the first party to demand the
conclusion of peace, and will always work in the
direction of moderation."

Vorwarts on August 2 5th argued in the same
direction. The Allies must only be fought so far

58 International Socialism

as " to prevent their delaying the overthrow of
Czarism," and then —

Just as Bismarck, in 1866, made a golden bridge over
which the conquered might come into an alliance with
Germany, so now must the way to an understanding with
the great civilised nations remain open. We must,
therefore, not adopt a policy which will perpetuate the
fatal enmity between the Western Powers by annexations
and interference with the unity and independence of
other nations, thus making the position of Russia, even
after her defeat, into that of arbiter of Europe. . . .
No, this war must not be directed to the conquest and
building up of a new world Power in the place of the
English and Russian Powers, but towards the liberation
of the nations. Liberation from Muscovitism, freedom
and independence for Poland and Finland, free develop-
ment for the great Russian people itself, the severance of
the unnatural alliance of two civilised nations with
Czarist barbarism — that was the goal which roused the
enthusiasm of the German people and made them ready
for sacrifices.

A similar view has been put forward by Herr
Bernstein. Lecturing in Berlin, he protested
against the demand for the annexation of Belgium.
He thought the German Government would not
submit to such a demand. He also ridiculed the
report that Germany, if victorious, would demand
an indemnity of fifteen hundred to two thousand
millions sterling, which would paralyse Germany's
export trade and be disastrous to the working-
classes.

We all wish for victory (he concluded). The other
issue would be dangerous to civilisation, but we still

The German View 59

adhere to our principle, and earnestly hope Germany will
not act as a dictator, which would evoke the hatred and
envy of other civilised nations. That this will not happen
is doubtless the wish of the German workers and the
middle classes, who will endeavour to restore German
industry and commerce to their former high standard
and even higher.1

Clara Zetkin has also pleaded the right of
peoples to independence in an eloquent article
in the New York Vorwdrts on " The Duty of
Working Women in War Time." She appealed
for the preservation of the organisations and,
above all, their spirit. "War has its own logic,
its own laws, its own standards." It roused the
beast that slumbered in man. The German papers
related horrible atrocities committed upon the
German soldiers, even upon those who were
wounded. She believed the reports to be enor-
mously exaggerated. But — the bourgeois Press
called for similar barbarities to " avenge " the
others ! For every German maliciously shot a
village to be burned. Hand in hand with the
advocacy of barbarism went the belittling of
foreign peoples and their contributions to human-
ity's upward march. " It is as though all the
standards were broken by which right and justice
used to be measured in the life of nations, all the
weights falsified with which the value of national
things is weighed." Was it possible that the war
extinguished not only human lives but human
goals ?

1 Manchester Guardian, October 29th, 1914.

60 International Socialism

No, a thousand times no. Let us not allow the
working masses to forget that the war has been caused by
world-wide economic and political complications, and
not by ugly and despicable personal qualities in the
peoples with which Germany is fighting. Let us have
the courage, when we hear the invectives against "per-
fidious Albion," the "degenerate French," the " barbaric
Russians," etc., to reply by pointing out the ineradicable
riches contributed by these peoples to human develop-
ment, and how they have assisted the fruition of German
civilisation. The Germans, who have themselves con-
tributed so much towards the international treasury of
civilisation, ought to be able to exercise justice and
veracity in judging other peoples. Let us point out that
all peoples have the same right to independence and
autonomy for the preservation of which the Germans are
struggling.

We Socialist women hear the voices which, in this
time of blood and iron, still speak softly, painfully, yet
consolingly of the future. Let us be their interpreters
to our children. Let us preserve them from the harsh,
brazen sound of the ideas which fill the streets to-day
in which cheap pride-of-race stifles humanity. In our
children must grow up the security that this most fright-
ful of all wars shall be the last. The blood of the killed
and wounded must not be a stream to divide that which
unites the present distress and the future hope. It must
be as a cement which shall bind fast for all time.1

In any big party such as the German Social-
Democratic Party it is not to be expected that,
with feeling running so high as during the present
war, a proportion of the adherents should not be
swept into the tide of popular feeling. Such has
certainly been the case in the British Labour Party,
for example. Doubtless it has been the case in
1 Quoted horn Justice, November igth, 1914.

The German View 61

every country; and Germany is no exception.
But Pierre Troelstra, the leader of the Dutch
Socialist Party, has stated —

I rejoice to declare that the Executive of the German
Social-Democratic Party cautiously opposes all Jingoistic
utterances, and considers it to be its duty to prevent the
national sentiment which has revealed itself in the party
from degenerating into the " nationalism " of the bourgeois
parties.1

Very comprehensive peace proposals have been
drafted and agreed upon by the Social-Democratic
Party of Munich, and it is known that they have
received considerable support from the Socialists
of South Germany. There is also reason to believe
that they were not regarded unfavourably in certain
high official circles in Germany. Moreover, they
have met with support in influential quarters in
England. The following is this " Draft Basis for
Peace Discussion " : —

I. Peace on Terms that will heal Fresh Wounds.

1. No humiliation, no mutual recriminations.

2. Indemnifications determined by just claims and

financial possibilities.

3. Restitution of territory occupied during the War :

Belgium, German Colonies.

II. Peace on Terms that will heal Old Wounds.

1. Adjustment of States by nationality.

2. Plebiscite conducted by International Committee,

in disputed territories : Alsace-Lorraine, Schleswig,
Russian Baltic Provinces, Finland, Poland, Tren-
tino, Balkan.

1 Labour Leader, November 26th, 1914.

62 International Socialism

III. Peace on Terms that give Lasting Security.

1. Confederacy of European States.

2. Alliance of all against aggressor.

3. International Parliament and International Per-

manent Committees in place of Secret Diplomacy.

4. International Police and International Law-Courts

for minor international offences, espionage,
assault, etc.

5. International possession of European Straits :

Bosphorus, Dardanelles, Suez Canal, Gibraltar,
Kiel Canal.

6. Limitations of Armies and Navies.

7. Guarantees for Democratic Government : Universal

Suffrage, Equality of Electoral Districts, Redis-
tribution every ten years, Proportional Repre-
sentation, Payment of Members.

How does the attitude of the German Socialists
appear in the eyes of others in the International
ranks? We have the opinion of Emile Vander-
velde, the Chairman of the International and the
leader of the Socialists of Belgium, the most innocent
of all the countries involved, and which has suffered
most from the army for which the German Socialists
voted supplies. M. Vandervelde has stated in The
American Socialist1 —

With our whole hearts we render this testimony to our
German comrades, that in their efforts for the maintenance
of peace they did their duty, their whole duty, and more
than their duty.

But this effort has been in vain. The war has be-
come generalised. All direct communication has been
rendered impossible between the Socialists of Germany
and those of other countries. . . . Similarly with the

1 Justice, October I5th, 1914.

The German View 63

"

French and Belgian Socialists, who are firmly fixed in
the idea that it is a case of legitimate defence, the
German Socialists have voted for credits for the war.

We will naturally be careful not to address any re-
proaches to them on this matter. We take cognisance
of the difficulties of the situation. If they had refused to
vote the credits for the war, they ivould have given over
their country to Cossack invasion. In voting them, they
have furnished to the Kaiser arms against Republican
France and against the democracies of Western Europe.

Between these two evils they chose the one they
considered the lesser. Again, I repeat, we do not blame
them. . . . We dare to hope that on the day that our
German comrades are informed in regard to the horrors
that have been committed in Belgium they will join us
in denouncing and scourging them.

This statement should, at least, give pause to
those who have pointed to the " collapse " of the
International and represented the pacific principles
of German Social-Democracy as having a founda-
tion of sand.

XII
THE AUSTRIAN VIEW

But little information can be gathered of the
views of the whole of the Socialist movement in
Austria-Hungary ; the reason being the strict Press
censorship, the suppression of the right of meeting,
and the fact that Parliament was not sitting during
the crisis. Those conditions prevailed even before
the delivery of Austria's Note to Servia. The
issue of the Arbeiter Zeitung, the principal
Socialist newspaper, of July 22nd — before
Austria's Note had been delivered to Servia —
was heavily censored. Eight long paragraphs in
articles relating to militarism and the crisis were
struck out.

Such information as is to hand relates only to
the Austrian Social-Democratic Labour Party, the
members of which constitute the German group of
forty-seven in the Imperial Parliament. The party
was evidently bitterly opposed to the attitude of
the Government to Servia, and especially to the
way in which the expression of opinion was re-
stricted while war and peace hung in the balance.

"The people cannot decide on peace or war.

64

The Austrian View 65

Parliament, through which it should express itself,
is dumb. Chains have been put upon the freedom
of the Press and upon political meetings." This is
the statement of the German deputies, and it
reflects the helplessness of the party to stem the
tide of war. They could only send a message to
the people, and this they courageously did. " Con-
scious of the fateful hour our warning shall loudly
go forth," declared the manifesto of the group, of
which the following is a portion : —

Was it really necessary? We Social-Democrats, the
representatives of the German people, do not shut our
eyes to the great injury which the Servian rulers have
done to Austria. As we, true to our principles, which
repudiate vain deeds of force, condemn the assassination
of Serajevo, so also do we condemn those who bear the
partial responsibility for it. We recognise that Austria-
Hungary is within its rights in asking from the Servian
Government the prosecution of the participators in the
crime ; we can understand that Austria-Hungary demands
that the underground agitation against the security and
peace of the Austrian Federation of States should be
stopped, that the Servian rulers should put an end to the
encouraging toleration with which they have hitherto
regarded this disruptive movement. But we are con-
vinced that the Servian Government would not have
been able to offer any opposition to these demands of
Austria-Hungary which are sanctioned by the Right of
Peoples, and would, in fact, have suffered none. We
are convinced that all that Austria-Hungary asks could
have been obtained, and can still be obtained, by
peaceful methods, and that no necessities of State, no
consideration for its prestige, compel the Great Power
to depart from the paths of peaceful agreement. There-
fore we declare, in the name of the working-class, as the
representatives of the German workers in Austria, that

66 International Socialism

we cannot take the responsibility for this war, that we
lay the responsibility for it, and for all the frightfully
serious results which may follow, at the door of those
who thought out, supported and encouraged the fatal
step which has brought us face to face with war.

We are the more bound to make this declaration in
that the peoples of Austria have been for many months
robbed of their constitutional rights and are debarred
from the tribune from which they could pronounce their
will. In the face of a war which demands the utmost
sacrifices in blood and treasure from every member of
the State, the deliberate violation of the will of the
people by keeping Parliament out of action is all the
more calculated to embitter and irritate. . . .

We repudiate all responsibility for the war. Solemnly
and emphatically we lay it to the charge of those on
both sides who have instigated it and wished to let it
loose. In this we know we are united with the class-
conscious proletariat of the whole world, and not the
least with the Social-Democrats of Servia. We hereby
solemnly dedicate ourselves to the work of civilisation,
to International Social-Democracy, to which we shall
remain faithful during life and devoted until death.

Since the issue of this pronouncement there has
been little news of the Socialist movement in Austria.
As to why the Manifesto was not signed by the
members of the Bohemian and Polish groups — the
members of the Czech-Slav Social-Democratic
Party — we can only speculate. It is possible that
the bullying attitude of Austria to Servia roused
their racial and national sentiments to an extent
which prevented them from condemning Servia's
" encouraging toleration " of a " disruptive move-
ment " — a nationalist movement of a Slav people.
On the other hand, it will be noticed that the

The Austrian View 67

German Deputies felt sure that the Servian Social-
ists were united with them in their protest1 As
Socialists, the German Deputies are opposed to
Austrian domination of the Slavs. Their aim, as
stated in the Manifesto, is "a free, progressive
Austria based on the self-government of all the
nations, a federation of free peoples." It is known
that the party is divided as to its attitude to the
war. The variety of races in the Socialist move-
ment greatly complicates the situation.
1 See Appendix III.

XIII
THE ITALIAN VIEW

No action was taken by the Italian Socialist Party
before the outbreak of the war. National opinion
was against participation in the conflict, and the
Socialists did not wish to " disturb the attitude of
neutrality adopted by the Italian people." Opinion
in the party, however, was strongly against Austria
and Germany; so much so that later on Dr.
Sudekum, a prominent Revisionist, as an emissary
of Germany, had difficulty in getting an interview
with the Socialists of Italy. An interview was
refused at Milan, but Dr. Siidekum was eventually
received by some prominent Socialists of Rome.
The object of the mission was to urge the Italian
Socialists to do all possible to secure the neutrality
of their country. It is stated that a condition of
the interview with the Roman Socialists was that
the proceedings should be made public ; and the
Roman Socialists subsequently issued their view
of the German arguments. It should be under-
stood that the document was not a declar-
ation of the Italian Socialist Party, and to what

68

The Italian View 69

extent it represents the party's view we can only
conjecture.

The Roman Socialists characterised the mission
from Germany as "smelling of intrigue and
offending the dignity and independence of Italian
Socialism." They declared that the use by the
deputation, in justification of Germany, of the
same arguments as were used by the Kaiser,
forfeited the right of the deputation's associates
in Germany to the title of Internationalists. The
people of Italy had made up their minds from
the beginning " not to disgrace themselves before
the world by coming to the aid of Austria
and Germany." The Roman Socialists could
keep silence no longer in face of the attitude of
German Socialists who were "joining in the dark
game of intrigue with the diplomatists of the
Imperial Governments of the ex-Triple Alliance."
The prayer of the Roman Socialists was for an
" immediate cessation of hostilities without victors
or vanquished." If that hope was in vain —

We pray that the war may result in the complete over-
throw of those who promoted it — Germany and Austria.
We say this because we consider that the German and
Austrian Empires constitute the bulwark of reactionary
politics in Europe, much more so than Russia, which is
shaken by democratic and socialistic currents capable of
heroic self-sacrifice. We say this, moreover, because if
Germany and Austria come out of the war victorious it
will mean the triumph of absolute militarism in its most
brutal form ; it will mean the eruption of a barbarous
horde, massacring, devastating, destroying, and con-
quering.

70 International Socialism

If Austria and Germany, on the other hand, are beaten,
the opportunity will be given to the German Socialists
to emerge from their voluntary impotence and to redeem
their reputation by putting an end to the feudal regime
of the Empire. Finally, the victory of the French
Republic, already largely socialistic, and of England, the
home of what is best in democracy, will initiate a
political regime in Europe desirous of peace and ready
for social reform ; and it will mean an agreement between
the various States of Europe, reconstructed on a national
basis, for the limitation of armaments.

Therefore it becomes our duty to declare that there
remains but one way left open for International Socialists
— to range themselves loyally on the side of those
fighting against the forces of reaction, and to do what
the Italian Socialists resident in Paris have done without
in any way abandoning their anti-militarist opinions,
namely, to arm themselves and to fight against the
militarist Empires.1

As feeling grew, in the country, in favour of Italy
participating in the war on the side of the Triple
Entente , the Italian Socialist Party came out

1 Manchester Guardian, September I4th, 1914.

There is reason to believe that Dr. Siidekum is one of the
extreme supporters of the war, and his arguments probably
accounted for the asperity of the Roman Socialists' reply.
On September loth, Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxembourg,
Franz Mehring, and Clara Zetkin issued the following
statement : —

"Comrades Dr. Siidekum and Richard Fischer have
made an attempt in the Party Press of the neutral countries
(Sweden, Italy, and Switzerland) to give their version of the
attitude of the Social-Democracy on the war. We find our-
selves compelled in consequence to declare in the same Press
that we and certainly many other German Social-Democrats
regard the war, its causes, as well as the part played by

The Italian View 71

definitely on the side of neutrality.1 The joint
manifesto of the Executive of the party and the
Socialist Parliamentary Group was issued on
September 2ist It begins by calling up a vision
of the war.

On land and on the seas, in battles more murderous
than history has recorded, have fallen, and are falling,
thousands of young lives ; in the fields and in the work-
shops fruitful work is interrupted, unemployment and
misery torment the masses who are not fighting ; towns
and villages have been destroyed by barbarism born of
militarism, which in its blind fury does not stop even
before the wonderful products of human genius and
labour. Hence arise desolation, famine, ruin, and
misery.

And while all this is going on, say the Italians,
— "while the terrible massacre continues," — the
Governments involved are busy trying to place
the responsibility for it upon the shoulders of their
enemies. It is all beside the point. The Govern-
ments are responsible in common, and will have to
answer for it in common before history. Leaving
aside the question of " pacific and heroic Belgium,"
the settlement of the responsibility for the conflict
is of minor interest.

Social-Democracy in the present situation, from a standpoint
which in no way corresponds to that of the comrades Slide-
kum and Fischer. The fact that we are under martial law
makes it impossible for us at present to defend our views
publicly."

1 It should be pointed out that the Italian Socialist Party
— the Social-Democrats — the body affiliated to the Inter-
national, is distinct from the body known as the " Reform
Socialists."

72 International Socialism

The primary and fundamental responsibility for the
war is to be traced back to the present capitalistic system,
based on the internal rivalry of the classes and the
external rivalry of the States; which creates in its
development forces which, at a given moment, it cannot
contain and dominate ; which in time of peace plunders
the proletariat, and demands from it in time of war the
utmost sacrifice, the supreme surrender.

The Manifesto claimed that the resolute attitude
of the Socialist Party and the proletariat was an
influence in determining the neutrality of the
Government when war broke out.1 The declara-
tion of neutrality was unanimously endorsed by
public opinion. The Triple Alliance treaty had
but a sterile existence as a diplomatic protocol.
But agitation had been growing in favour of
intervention.

The urgent necessity of a great Ministry of national
concentration is pointed out. War against the ally of
yesterday and, therefore, also against Germany, is
demanded. At the head of the pro-war throng march
the Nationalists and those who, after having been in-
clined towards an intervention of Italy in favour of the
allies of the Triple Alliance, would now, with the naked
cynicism of adventurers, throw themselves upon Austria,
which, after the defeats in Galicia, they reckon to be in-
capable of effective defence, or nearly so. Then come the
Reformists of the Right and the masonic " exhibitionist "

1 In The Clarion of November 27th, 1914, Professor G. D.
Herron wrote : "The Italian King and his Foreign Minister
were bent on marching Italy beside Austria and Germany.
The Socialist Party made it clear that not a train should
move, nor a soldier march, nor a king reign in Italy if the
Government attempted its programme."

The Italian View 73

Radicals, anxious to defend French democracy and to
realise the advent of a Government bloc in Italy ; and
the rear is brought up by the Republicans, who ascribe
to the dynasty of Savoy some " historic task " to fulfil
which that House, during the period of^ regeneration, has
always shown itself incapable. Alone against all this
crowd stands the Socialist Party, immune from the con-
tagion which is spreading, and against which it calls upon
you, proletarians, to take the necessary step for defence.

The Manifesto declared that there was " a pro-
found and unalterable antithesis between war and
Socialism," because, apart from other reasons —

War represents the extreme, because compulsory, form
of collaboration of classes, the annihilation of individual
autonomy and of freedom of thought, sacrificed to the
State and militarism, which initiate, conduct, and conclude
the war outside all direct control of the people. Further,
because war is a diversion which, bringing the backward
and parasitic forces of Society to the fore, instigating race
hatred and reviving the instincts of primitive man, puts
off, instead of bringing nearer, the advent of a better
state of society.

A further reason for neutrality put forward by
the party was that Italy, as the only great neutral
Power, would then be able to adopt the position of
mediator. When the day of settlement arrived the
votes of the people would have to be appealed to
and the abolition of armaments be sought.

On September 2/th a joint conference of the
Swiss and Italian parties was held at Lugano.1 It

1 In 1912 the Swiss Social-Democratic Party had a
membership of 45,000 ; 15 representatives in the Federal
National Assembly out of a total of 189 ; and 218 members
of the Cantonal Grand Councils out of 2907.

74 International Socialism

was agreed that both parties should continue to
throw their whole weight in favour of the neutrality
of their respective countries, and that a request
should be issued to the Socialist parties in neutral
countries " to demand of their Government without
delay the institution of diplomatic negotiations in
order to secure a speedy termination of the murder
of peoples."

The statement published by the Conference is
interesting as an expression of a detached Socialist
view of the war ; the view not unbalanced by fear
of invasion, not clouded by the predominance of
national over international sentiment to which
participation in war gives rise, and not warped by
an overdose of ex parte statements.

The Conference denied that the war was a
struggle for either higher culture or more liberty.
On both sides it was a struggle of capitalists for
new markets in foreign countries and " a criminal
attempt to crush the revolutionary movement of
the working-classes and of Social-Democracy at
home."

The German and the Austrian bourgeoisie have no
right to plead the struggle against Tsarism and for the
liberty of national culture in defence of the war, for
just as Prussian Junkerdom, with William n. at its
head, and the German industrial magnates have always
followed the policy of supporting and maintaining cursed
Tsarism, so have the Governments of Germany and
Austria-Hungary suppressed the national culture of their
peoples and put in fetters the movement for freedom of
their working-classes.

" Neither have the French and the English bourgeoisie

The Italian View 75

the right to plead the struggle against German Imperial-
ism and for the liberty of the peoples in defence of their
countries. Their aim is not the liberation of the
peoples from the Capitalist and Militarist oppression,
for by their policy of alliance with Tsarist Russia they
have increased that oppression and hindered the develop-
ment to a higher culture.

The true causes and the real character of the present
war are clouded by the Chauvinist and Jingoistic in-
toxication which the ruling classes of all countries have
deliberately kindled. Even portions of the working-
class have been carried away by this Chauvinist current,
and believe that by participation in the war they can
serve the emancipation of the proletariat of other
countries from the bloody reign of their Governments.
But no war can have this effect. Oppressed classes
cannot gain their freedom by fighting for their own
oppressors against the oppressed classes of other
countries.

Such were the principles of the International,
and now more than ever was it necessary to pro-
claim them.1

With the growth of war-fever in Italy and the
possibility of Roumania joining that country in
intervention, the Roumanian Social-Democrats, in
October, issued a declaration favouring neutrality.
It was stated that a pro-Russian propaganda was
being carried on in Roumania by the "so-called
independent papers " in conjunction with spies of
the Czar. This was being done under the guise of
working in the interests of French democracy.
" To work for the Czar," declared the Roumanian
Socialist, "is to work for the destruction of
1 Labour Leader, October isth, 1914.

76 International Socialism

democracy, for the suppression of freedom, for
reaction. . . . The Roumanian people must under-
stand that the Russian danger is the greatest
danger of all." The propaganda, the efforts of
spies and Press should be resisted ; and also the
" plentiful roubles " which accompanied them.1
1 Labour Leader^ October agth, 1914.

XIV
THE FRENCH VIEW

Like their German comrades, the Socialists of
France were fighting for peace all through that last
week in July. Street meetings were held in Paris
— some being attacked by the police, and M. Bon,
the Socialist Deputy for Levallois-Perret, being
arrested. The Unified Socialist Party of France set
forth its views in a manifesto to the people. French
Socialists were in agreement with their Austrian
comrades ; their position in France corresponded
with that of the Socialists of Germany. " Both at
their posts of action have the same work and the
same ends." The party appealed to the citizens of
France.

The fundamental anarchy of our social system, the
competition of capitalist groups, the colonial lusts, the
intrigue and brutalities of Imperialism — the policy of
rapine of some, the policy of pride in others — have
created a permanent tension in Europe for the last ten
years ; a constant and growing risk of war.

The peril has been suddenly increased by the
aggressive proceedings of Austro-Hungarian diplomacy.
Whatever may be the grievances of Austria-Hungary,
whatever may be the excuse of National Pan-Serbism,
as has been declared by our Austrian comrades, Austria

77

78 International Socialism

could have obtained all necessary guarantees without
recourse to a brutal and threatening note which suddenly
gives rise to the menace of the most revolting and
frightful of wars.

Against the policy of violence and brutal methods
which may now let loose upon Europe a catastrophe
without precedent, the proletariat of all countries must
raise their protest. They must express their horror of
war and their endeavour to prevent it. The Socialists,
the workers of France, make an appeal to the whole
country to use all efforts for the maintenance of peace.
They know that, in the present crisis, the French
Government is most sincerely anxious to avert, or to
diminish, the risks of conflict. It is asked to apply
itself to securing a policy of conciliation and mediation
rendered all the easier by the readiness of Servia to
accede the major portion of the Austrian demands. It
is asked to influence its ally, Russia, in order that she
shall not seek a pretext for aggressive operations under
cover of defending the interests of the Slavs. Their
efforts, then, correspond with those of the German
Social- Democrats, who demand that Germany shall
exercise a moderating influence on her ally, Austria.
Both at their posts of action have the same work and
the same end.

Then followed an appeal for a vigorous agitation
against " the abominable crime that now menaces
the world." " The possibility of this crime is in
itself a condemnation of the whole re'gime."

And the French Socialists had hopes of peace.
Jaures, in the last of his daily articles in FHumanit/,
the leading organ of the French Socialists, did not
think the situation hopeless on July 3ist He
wrote : —

On the one hand it is evident that if Germany had
intended to have attacked us she would have proceeded

The French View 79

on the lines of the famous sudden attack. She has, on
the contrary, allowed several days to pass, by which
delay France, like Russia, has been able to profit:
Russia by a partial mobilisation, France by taking all
necessary precautions compatible with the maintenance
of peace.

On the other hand, Austria and Russia have entered
into direct negotiations. . . . Even if there is definite
disagreement between the views of Austria and Russia
we shall be able to gauge the difference of ideas and
employ ourselves in the solution of a problem of which
the principles will be determined.

Jaures sketched the financial disasters which
even the possibility of war would bring about, and
asked whether " the most stupid and villainous of
men are capable of opening up such a crisis."
He thought the real danger did not lie in the
events themselves ; nor in the real disposition of
the chancelleries; nor in the real wishes of the
people. It lay in "the sudden impulse born of
fear, in acute uncertainty and prolonged anxiety."
Crowds could give way to mad panic and so
could Governments. He urged that it was wrong
to imagine that a diplomatic crisis could extend
only over a few days. " Even as the battles of
modern war, developing along an immense front,
continue for seven or eight days " — even Jaures,
apparently, did not conceive the shambles of the
Aisne — " so do diplomatic battles extend, neces-
sarily, over several weeks." He pleaded for
clearness of understanding, steadiness of will. The
peril was great but not invincible if they knew

8o International Socialism

how to have, at the same time, "the heroism of
patience and the heroism of action."

On the day when negotiations between France
and Germany were broken off, a deputation from
the Socialist Parliamentary Group waited upon
the Premier (M. Viviani). The Premier thought
the prospects of maintaining peace were very slight,
but said nothing would be done on the French
side which would impair the prospects of a re-
sumption of negotiations. He instanced the fact
that the French troops were being kept six miles
from the frontier. A resumption of negotiations
was always possible, said M. Viviani, so long as the
German Ambassador remained in Paris.

The deputation demanded that the French
Government should immediately make a fresh and
forcible manifestation of its desire for peace, and
that an express demand for further mediation
by Britain should be addressed to the British
Government, with a declaration of the entire
agreement of the French people with the de-
mand.

M. Viviani promised to bring the request of the
deputation before the Cabinet the same evening,
and the deputation withdrew. Within an hour of
its leaving the German Ambassador called for his
passports.1

It was the view of the French Socialists that the
German ultimatums frustrated the prospects of

1 See the Manifesto of the French and Belgian Socialist
parties, F Humanity September 6th, 1914.

The French View 81

peaceful agreement. Convinced as they were
that their own Government desired peace, they
did not believe that the French Government had
in any way egged on Russia ; and neither, we
may recall, did the German Socialists. War with
Russia meant war with France. The national life
of France was threatened ; and the Socialist Party
rallied to its defence.

When the Government was constituted a
Ministry of National Defence, the Unified Socialist
Party, " after due deliberation and mature
thought," authorised M. Marcel Sembat and
M. Jules Guesde to enter it. In the French
Cabinet were M. Briand and M. Millerand, ex-
members of the Socialist movement, the former
ex-Premier of France, and notorious for the way he
smashed the railway strike of 1910 by mobolising
the Reserves. To these two men the Unified Party
was bitterly hostile. Nothing could indicate more
strongly the conviction of the French Socialists
that their country was the victim of aggression
than the entry into the Ministry of Sembat and
Guesde, two of the strongest Socialists in France,
and the latter the most redoubtable Marxian in
the movement.

M. Edouard Vaillant, one of the Parisian
Socialist Deputies, was asked by an interviewer :
" How can your members work by the side of
Briand and Millerand ? " and Vaillant replied :
" We must only judge them by their actions now

and in the future. In the interests of the
6

82 International Socialism

country at large we cannot, at this critical
moment, consider their actions in the past."

He said that the presence of the members of the
party in the Cabinet had the full and entire approval
of not only the Socialist Group in Parliament, but of the
party itself, and that in sending them there the party
was only allowing its Deputies to fight for the country
in the same manner that its individual members were
fighting for the country on the field of battle.

We are convinced that we must take our responsi-
bility in the management of affairs at this critical time,
and we shall use all our endeavours to bring the war to
a successful conclusion.1

The Socialist Parliamentary Group, the Per-
manent Administrative Commission, and the
Administrative Council of fHumanite^ in an
explanation of their action, emphasised that only
the constitution of a new Ministry of National
Defence induced the party to allow its members
to enter the Government. It would not have
done so had it merely been a case of adding
forces to the old Government, and more than ever
would it have refrained if the case had been that
of " ordinary participation in the bourgeois
Government." But —

It is the future of the nation, it is the life of France,
that are in the balance to-day. The party, therefore,
has not hesitated.

The truth, foreshadowed, announced by us has burst
forth. Without being broken through or in any way
affected, our armies find themselves, momentarily,

1 Justice, September loth, 1914.

The French View 83

falling back before superior numbers. One of the
richest and most industrious districts of our country is
menaced.

The national unity which at the beginning of the war
once more revealed itself and comforted our hearts
must display all its power.

The entire nation must rise for the defence of its soil
and its liberty in one of those outbursts of heroism which
always repeat themselves in similar hours of our history.

The Chief of the Government felt that in order to win
over the nation, to organise it, to support it in a struggle
which will be and which must be relentless, he had need
of the help of all, and most particularly, perhaps, of those
who feared for the emancipation of the proletariat and
humanity in the formidable oppression of despotism.
He knew that in all grave hours, in 1793 as in 1870, it
was in these men, these Socialists, these revolutionists,
that the nation placed its confidence.

Spontaneously, without waiting any other demonstra-
tion of the popular will, he has appealed to our party.
Our party has replied, " Here ! "

This is the spirit in which our friends enter the
Government. They will enter it also with a clear outlook
on the immense task they have to accomplish.

The statement proceeded to detail to what the
Socialist members of the Ministry would direct
their energies, and it was probably with recollections
of 1870 that it was written : " First of all they will
see that the country is told the truth."

They will maintain and develop the courage of the
people and its will to conquer by giving it entire
confidence in the sincerity of the Government.

They will urge vigorously the levee en masse. They
will act so that no force, no willingness, remains
unutilised.

They will inspect the resources of equipment,

84 International Socialism

provisions and armaments which exist in our forts. They
will strive to increase them.

They will render each day more intense by the work-
ing together of all available forces, the production of
munitions and arms.

In order to bring the service of all the national energies
to the maximum standard there must be willingness free
from prejudice, guided only by the desire for the safety
of the country and the greatest organised effort.

Lastly, and above all, comrades, the presence of our
friends in the Government will furnish for all the
guarantee that Republican democracy is ready to struggle
to the end.

How many times has our great Jaures, foreseeing even
a preliminary French reverse under an attack of superior
numbers, insisted upon the necessity of this struggle?
He would have wished for France to be prepared in every
detail. But no matter what this stubborn resistance
costs, it is our duty to organise it, and, further, upon it
depends the common success of our allies. Our friends
will urge forward the nation to this resistance.

To-day as yesterday, after the first tests, as in the
enthusiasm of mobilisation, we know we are struggling
not only for the existence of the country, not only for the
greatness of France, but for liberty, for the Republic, for
civilisation.

We are struggling that the world, freed from the stifling
oppression of Imperialism and from the atrocities of war,
may finally enjoy peace in respecting the rights of all.

The Socialist Ministers will communicate this conviction
to the whole Government. With it they will animate its
work. They will share it with the heroic army, where
the flower of the nation fights to-day. And, by
persevering effort and forceful enthusiasm, they will at
the same time assure the safety of the country and the
progress of humanity.

The Socialist Cabinet Ministers introduced an
innovation into French politics. They appeared

The French View 85

before those to whom they were primarily
responsible and gave an account of their doings in
the Cabinet. Sembat and Guesde during the
first three months of the war addressed, jointly
or separately, delegates from all the Paris branches
of the party, the Socialist Deputies and the Central
Executive Committee, and the Comite tf Action, a
joint body representing the Socialist Party and the
Confederation of Labour. At all the meetings the
Socialist Ministers obtained a vote of confidence.
Wrote M. Jean Longuet, one of the Deputies :

Amid the uprising of the nation's strength and the
increase of its war weapons, it is one of the ironies of
history that the presence of pacifists and internationalist
members was necessary in the French Government to
attain results that bourgeois Ministers had been unable
to attain ! ... It is an admirable thing that France
should have been saved from the foreign yoke in the
last event by the intelligence the initiative, and the
pluck of these "anti-patriots," these "friends of all
countries but their own," that the Socialists are supposed
to be. If the " murderous war," as M. Cambon has so
exactly called it, has obliged French Socialists to play this
terrible game, they do not in the least forget their much-
cherished ideals. All the party members who listened
to Guesde and Sembat had the great comfort of hearing
from them in their capacity as Cabinet Ministers their
constant Socialist declaration. They have always asked,
and have always obtained, from their colleagues in the
Cabinet the statement that France is waging no war of
conquest against the German people, but only defend-
ing herself against German Kaiserism. They will
demand when the time of peace negotiations comes that
general disarmament and universal arbitration should be
established.1

1 Daily Citizen^ November 24th, 1914.

86 International Socialism

Both the French and Belgian parties, which
subsequently issued a joint statement — distributed
by French military aeroplanes — to the German
Socialists, believed that the working-class of
Germany, " deceived by the official news, had no
accurate knowledge of the facts." The French and
Belgian Socialists were not fighting the German
people, whose independence and autonomy they
respected. They were defending their own inde-
pendence against German Imperialism, and were
conscious that, "once the truth has been estab-
lished," their action would be approved and joined
in by the German Social-Democrats.

When it became known in France that the I.L.P.
of this country had refused to join in the recruiting
campaign, M. Augustin Hamon, the Federal
Secretary of the Socialist Federation of the C6tes
du Nord and a member of the National Council
of the Unified Socialist Party, sent an appeal to
the I.L.P. in the name of his own organisation. He
wrote :

" Neither French Socialists nor Belgian Socialists nor
the Socialists of any country wished for the present war.
They all opposed the war as best they could. If the French
Government wished for peace, and, in order to maintain
it, went so far as to keep its troops at six miles from the
frontier, it is for a good part due to the influence of our
great Jaures, who spoke in the name of the whole French
Socialist Party. Unfortunately, the German Socialists
had not enough influence to obtain so pacific an influence
from the German Government. The Kaiser and his
Junkers wanted war, and they succeeded. We have
read since of the atrocities they have committed, the

The French View 87

savage deeds which show what the world would be like
if German hegemony was to be.

When Belgium was invaded the Belgian Socialists
all took arms to defend their liberty and their autonomy.
In France we Socialists all did the same. Our anti-
militarism, our internationalism remain intact. Much
more, the triumph of such ideals demands that the allied
armies triumph over German Kaiserism and militarism.
We, French and Belgian Socialists, we fight more for
liberty and civilisation than for our soil.

M. Hamon urged that, with Kaiserism defeated,
Czarism would have to become liberal or die. The
war must put an end to Kaiserism and militarism.
It was for the Socialists to show that they could
take an important part ; to show that they could
fight for liberty and civilisation ; then, when settling
time arrived, their words would have weight in the
scale. " And all English, French, Belgian, Dutch
and Italian Socialists having the same ideals, will
be able to compel their Governments to do away
with militarism, and prevent any annexation which
would only perpetuate the so-called national
hatreds." 1

1 Daily Citizen^ September 7th, 1914.

XV
THE RUSSIAN VIEW

During the days which preceded the outbreak of
war, Russia was on the eve of a revolution at least
equal to the uprising of 1905. "In every busy manu-
facturing district Russia was shaking with revolution
of a peculiar kind, and a civil war of the most
horrible nature was on the point of being declared."
In Petrograd, 120,000 workmen were on strike.
They asked neither for an increase in wages nor
any other amelioration of their lot as employe's.
No concession from their employers could have
sent them back to work. They were dissatisfied
with their lot generally ; with the life of the
workman. They would disorganise the State until
there was a change. In the working-class quarters
of Petrograd, barricades were in the streets. The
Government intended taking the most repressive
measures, and " showed their sense of insecurity by
actually organising demonstrations to excite the
patriotic feelings of the masses." Then it became
known that Germany had declared war, and the work-
men went " instantly and quietly back to work." l

1 See "Russia and the War," by " Anglitchanin," Con-
temporary Review^ November 1914.

88

The Russian View 89

It is clear that the temporary swamping of social
aspirations by national feeling rallied to the Czar
great masses of people who, a few hours before, had
been filled with a bitter hostility to the State and
all its works. We have been told that "the
revolutionaries " — a rather broad term for a country
like Russia — are at one with the Government in
the prosecution of the war.1 Professor Milyoukov,
the leader of the Russian Liberals, has written
that while he does not "pretend to affirm
that all Russians without any exception "
share in the national point of view, it is a fact
that "it does not often happen that Russian
public opinion is as nearly unanimous as it is
now concerning the origin of the war, its ideal
aim, and the desired outcome." He adds that
this unanimity of opinion was " reached, somehow
at once, at the very first beginning of the war " ;
and that the exceptions remind one of those that
exist in England, except that they are more scarce.
They hardly produce any effect on the public
mind.2

We are considering in these pages the attitude
of Socialist parties, without being primarily
concerned with their numbers or their influence.
After all, a leader of British Liberalism would
probably write in a Russian newspaper that public
opinion in this country was unanimous in support

1 Ibid.

2 See the article " Russia and the War," by Professor
Milyoukov, Manchester Guardian, October 2ist, 1914.

9O International Socialism

of the war ; whereas, of the organisations we are
dealing with here — the Socialist bodies — the largest,
the I.L.P., does not support the war, and the
support of the second largest, the British Socialist
Party, is only of a qualified nature. What line,
then, did Social-Democracy take in Russia when
war was declared ? The fact is that its repre-
sentatives in the Duma refused to vote for the
war credits.

When the war credits were before the Duma,
M. Valentin Khanstoff, speaking for the Social-
Democrats, demanded an amnesty for all political
prisoners and a general policy of conciliation
towards oppressed nationalities. The concessions
were refused, whereat Khanstoff read the following
declaration : —

A terrible and unprecedented calamity has broken
upon the peoples of the entire world. Millions of
workers have been torn away from their labour, ruined,
and swept away in "a bloody torrent. Millions of
families have been delivered over to famine.

War has already begun. While the Governments of
Europe were preparing for it, the organised working-
class of the entire world, with the Germans at their
head, unanimously protested.

The hearts of the Russian workers are with the
European working-class. The war is provoked by a
policy of expansion for which the ruling classes of all
countries alone are responsible.

The organised working-class of the belligerent countries
has not been sufficiently powerful to prevent this war and
the resulting return to barbarism. But we are convinced
that the working-class will find in international solidarity
the means to enforce peace at an early date. The terms

The Russian View 91

of that peace will be dictated by the people themselves
and not by the diplomats.

We are convinced that this war will finally open the
eyes of the great masses of Europe, and show them the
real causes of all the oppression and violence that they
endure — that this latest explosion of barbarism will be
the last.

The organised working-class, the constant defenders
of the freedom and of the interests of the people, will
at every moment defend the freedom and interests of
the people against aggression, from whatever quarter it
should come.

Hostile demonstrations from some of the other
parties greeted the reading of this declaration,
at the close of which the Socialists followed
M. Khanstoff out of the hall, without voting for
either the war credits or the resolution of con-
fidence in the Government.1 Subsequently, the
Social-Democrats decided to abstain from voting
for any further supplies for which the Government
might ask.

We may also judge of the attitude of the
Socialists to the war by the treatment meted out
to them by the Government since war began. It
is to be expected that not even the Russian
Government with a great war upon its hands would
persecute its own supporters. Yet, when the war
broke out, La Pravda and Nasha Rabotchaya
Gazeta, two Social-Democratic daily papers of
Petrograd, were suppressed. The plant was shut
down, property confiscated, and the editors im-
prisoned. The papers had uncompromisingly
1 Labour Leader, October ist, 1914.

92 International Socialism

opposed the war. Several trade-union journals
were also suppressed, and the paper of the Co-
operative Union, Obyedinenye, was also shut down
when it referred to the war.1 Subsequently, all the
Socialist papers were suppressed.

There has been no sign of a political amnesty.
The Rjetch of September 4th reported the first
sitting of the Special Court of the Petrograd Law
Courts, before which were " two cases of alleged
membership of the Social-Democratic Party." In
the first case two young men were charged. One of
them had been found to be in possession of 800
manifestoes on an Eight-Hours Bill which the
Socialist members of the Duma had introduced,
and was suspected of having charge of a branch
of the party in Petrograd. The advocate of the
prisoner urged that the charge should be altered to
one of being in possession of illegal literature ; but
the request was refused. The prisoners were
sentenced to be exiled to Siberia for life — that is,
for fifteen years, with subsequent restrictions as to
residence. In the second case, seven men were
charged. It was alleged that they were members
of the Maximal Social-Democratic Committee of
Petrograd. They had also been found to possess
manifestoes and printing appliances ; and they had
held meetings and conducted business in the rooms
of the Bakers' Union. Two of the seven were

1 Justice, October 8th, 1914, quoting The New York Call',
also M. Peter Petroff, a Russian journalist, in the Labour
Leader, October ist, 1914.

The Russian View 93

discharged ; the remaining five were exiled for
" life."1 Arrests among Socialists and other pro-
gressive parties perceptibly multiplied during the
two months following the outbreak of the war.2

As for subject nationalities, immediately after
the war began a severe regime was introduced into
Finland, and the Jews still suffered all their old
disabilities.8 "Elementary honesty demands that
the truth should be told, and that it should be known
that the alleged grant to the Russian Jews of any
rights whatever is a legend which has no relation to
facts." 4 The Russian Invalid, an official army organ,
derided the hopes of Jews, Poles, and Finns, and
characterised them as an " absurd dream." 6 The
Liberal Rjetch, when it ventured to express the hope
that the Government would consider the aspirations
of Finns, Poles, and Jews, was fined 3000 roubles ; *
and Ruskoje Bogatswo, a strong Radical organ,
was suspended for the duration of the war.7 Most
astonishing of all was the arrest and imprisonment
of M. Bourtzeff, the Russian Liberal who exposed
the methods of the secret police in the Azeff affair.

1 Labour Leader^ October 8th, 1914.

2 Letter of MM. B. Eliasheff, W. Kerjentsoff, W. Maisky,
S. Rapporport, S. Roshin, and Th. Rothstein, Russian
journalists, Labour Leader^ October 1st, 1914.

3 Ibid. ; also Appendix II.

4 Manchester Guardian^ October 26th, 1914, quoting La
Guerre Sociale of Paris, October 8th.

6 Russian journalists' letter.

6 Ibid.

7 See E. J. Zoendelevitch, Justice^ November 5th, 1914.

94 International Socialism

M. Bourtzeff, believing in the liberal intentions
announced by the Czar, had returned to Russia
for the purpose of volunteering for the Russian
army ! Bourtzeff had committed no offence against
the law, and left Russia with a regulation passport.1
Even were there not ample evidence to the
contrary, it could not be deduced from these facts
that the Socialists are at one with the Government
during the present time; that they are included
in the "unanimous" public opinion. Among the
supporters of the war, Socialists and Anarchists
are undoubtedly found, notably Prince Kropotkin,
the distinguished exile in England ; but the Social-
Democratic organisation, the Russian battalion of
the International, neither has confidence in the
Government, nor has it voted for the supplies for
the war. The Central Committee of the Social-
Democratic Party has stated, in a Manifesto, that,
of a Russian victory over Germany or a German
victory over Russia, the latter is the lesser of the
two evils from the point of view of the Russian
working-class. During the conflict the party appears
to be holding a watching brief for "the freedom
and interests of the people," which it will defend
against aggression " from whatever quarter it should
come." Apart from these facts, while it may be
true that the war broke up the revolutionary
movement which formerly prevailed and caused
workmen to return to work, it is very difficult to
believe that revolutionary feeling which developed
1 Manchester Guardian^ October 7th, 1914.

The Russian View 95

so far as to express itself in barricades was entirely
effaced even by the war.

Through the medium of the Russian Embassy
a message from M. Vandervelde — the Belgian
Socialist leader — was conveyed to the Russian
Socialists through the Russian Press. In the course
of his letter, M. Vandervelde said :

A defeat, not of Germany, but of Prussian Junkerdom,
is a question of life and death. ... If Belgium should
be destroyed, France and England defeated, and German
militarism prove triumphant, that would erect a big and
lasting hindrance to the progress of humanity and to the
development of the free life of nations. The democrats,
republicans and socialists of Belgium, France and England
have resolved to prevent such a disaster by all their
power. . . . The democratically-governed countries must
count in this horrible fight upon the armed help of the
Russian people.1

There are two groups of the Russian Social-
Democratic Party, — the Minority Group and the
Majority Group, — but they are at one in their
opposition to the war. Replying for the former
group in the Swedish Social Democraten, M.
Lavin wrote to this effect :

The Russian Socialists know their Government better
than other people do, and they remain the irreconcilable
enemies of that Government. The comrades of other
countries should not pay any attention to the declarations
of people like Bourtzeff or Kropotkin, " who have taken
no part in the Russian working-class movement for
decades." Should a serious danger threaten the German
people from Russian Czarism "not only the Russian

1 Labour Leader, November igth, 1914.

96 International Socialism

Socialists but," continues M. Lavin, " all our international
comrades and, I am sure foremost among them the
Socialists of Belgium, France and England, would
consider it their duty to prevent the humiliation and
dismemberment of the German people.1

The reply of the Majority Group of the party
was contained in the following statement of its
Central Committee:

The Russian working-class cannot, under any con-
ditions, act hand in hand with the Russian Government,
cannot conclude any armistice with it, not even a
temporary one, and cannot grant any support to it. We
cannot shut our eyes as to the future of Socialism and
democracy in Europe. After the war is over, a period
for the further development of the European democracy
will take place. And then the Russian Government,
having gained new influence and authority from the war,
will appear as the strongest check upon, and menace to,
the democracy. Therefore we consider it our duty, as
far as possible, to utilise the difficult position in which
the Government is now placed in the interests of Russian
liberty. In the end that will prove itself to be the best
service to the democracy of which M. Vandervelde speaks.

We recognise the anti-democratic character of the
Prussian hegemony, but as Russian Social-Democrats we
cannot forget another enemy of the workers, and no less
dangerous — Russian absolutism. In home affairs this
enemy remains what it has always been, a merciless
oppressor and an unceasing exploiter. Even at the
present moment, when we should have thought this
despotism would be more cautious, it remains the same
and continues the political persecution of the democracy
and of all subject nationalities. To-day all Socialist
journals are stopped, all working-class organisations are

1 See " Russian Socialists and the War," by S. Dalin (a
Russian Socialist journalist), Labour Leader^ November igth,
1914.

The Russian View 97

disbanded, many hundreds of members are arrested, and
our brave comrades are sent to exile just as be-
fore. Should this war end in victory for our present
Government, it will become the centre and mainstay of
international reaction. . . .

Our immediate objective should be the convocation
of a Constitutional Assembly. We demand this in the
interests of the same European democracy on whose
behalf you appeal. Our party is a very important
section of the world's democracies, and by fighting for
our interests we are at the same time fighting for the
interests of all democracies, enlarging and strengthening
them. We hope that our interests are not considered
as opposed to other European democracies which we
esteem as highly as our own. We are persuaded that
Russian absolutism is the chief support of reactionary
militarism in Europe and that it has bred in the German
hegemony the dangerous enmity towards European
democracy.1

This section may be closed with the views of
the London branch of the Russian Social-
Democratic Party, the members of which, being in
this country, would probably get more information
on the crisis than would their comrades in Russia
and, in addition, would be able to express their
opinions quite freely. The London members issued
a statement in October. They denied that the
war is either a war of liberation or a war of civilisa-
tion against militarism. In reality it had been
prompted

.... as previous wars were; partly by the self-
seeking interests of the Capitalist bourgeoisie, fighting
for new markets and economic supremacy, and partly by
the selfish motives of small cliques of feudal aristocracy,

1 Labour Leader ; November iQth, 1914.
7

98 International Socialism

supported by dynastic considerations of certain European
monarchs. The ruling classes also aim, by means of
this fratricidal struggle, to inflict a blow on the working-
class movement and to crush the head of Socialism.
This war undoubtedly threatens to destroy the fraternal
unity of the workers of various countries, to weaken the
force of the political parties of the proletariat, to shatter
its Trade Union organisations, and, at the same time, to
strengthen the hostile power of the possessing classes
and to cause a new growth of militarism and Chauvinism.
In particular, a victory, either of Russia or of Germany,
will only lead to an ascendancy in Europe of the re-
actionary influences either of Russian Tsarism or of
Prussian Junkerdom.

Of the effect of a Russian victory over Germany,
or a Germany victory over Russia, the Manifesto
stated : —

If it be correct that a victory of Germany threatens
Russia with economic social and political stagnation and
reaction, it is not less correct to say that the crushing of
Germany by Russia would result for the former in a still
greater disaster of a precisely similar nature. Russia has
already, at the very commencement of the war, pro-
claimed by the mouth of the Tsar and his Generalissimo
her claims upon a portion of German territory, while
hypocritically hiding her aggressive aspirations under the
deceitful watchword of " the restoration of Poland." The
subsequent policy of the Russian Government in the
conquered part of Galicia, the appointment as district
chief in those territories of the famous Gregus, the head
of the secret police and inventor of the famous torture
chamber in Riga, the religious intrigues of the repre-
sentatives of the Russian clergy — all this and much more
shows distinctly what the Polish nation and the Polish
workers may expect from the arrogant assumption of the
role of " Liberator of Poland " by the same Tsar whose

The Russian View 99

sanguinary reign has been strewn with fragments of
broken pledges and oaths.

War, it is argued, can bring neither the downfall
of militarism nor freedom to small nationalities ;
and it cannot remedy "the wrongs under which
mankind is at present groaning, all of which are
rooted in the existing Capitalistic system." Such
liberation, such uprooting of militarism, is the aim
of not one of the governing classes concerned ;
these things can only be accomplished by the
international Social-Democracy. The business of
the international proletariat is to work for an early
conclusion of peace, to rally to the banner of the
International, and to use the war as a means of
hastening the Social Revolution.

XVI
THE BELGIAN VIEW

The position of the Belgian Socialist Labour
Party is quite clear. Like the other sections of the
International, it led a great protest of the people
against war ; but when war was a fact the Socialists
could only pursue one course — defend their country
from foreign aggression. They did this all the
more readily because of the quarter whence the
aggression came. Just as the German Socialist
sees in Czarism a more reactionary force than any
in his own land, so does the Belgian Socialist com-
pare his own liberties with the liberties of the
people of Germany. When war came, he took up
arms, not only in defence of his country — within
which he has had to carry on the class war — he
took up arms to defend his Socialism from a more
powerful foe than any within the Belgian border.

When war broke out, the General Council of the
Socialist Labour Party published the following
manifesto, " To the People ! " :—

The European war is declared.

In a few days, a few hours perhaps, millions of men
who ask only to live in peace will be dragged without

The Belgian View 101

their consent into the most appalling of butcheries by
treaties to which they have not agreed, by a decision
with which they have had nothing to do.

The Social-Democracy bears no responsibility for this
disaster.

It shrank from nothing to warn the people, to prevent
the folly of armaments, to drive back the catastrophe
which will strike all European communities.

But to-day the harm is done, and, by the fatality of
events, one thought dominates us : that soon, perhaps,
we shall have to direct our efforts to stopping the
invasion of our territory.

We do so with all the more ardent hearts in that in
defending the neutrality and even the existence of our
country against militarist barbarism we shall be conscious
of serving the cause of democracy and of political
liberties in Europe.

Our comrades who are called to the colours will show
how Socialist workers can conduct themselves in the face
of danger. But whatever the circumstances in which
they find themselves, we ask them never to forget, among
the horrors they will see perpetrated, that they belong to
the Workers' International, and that they must be
fraternal and humane as far as is compatible with their
legitimate individual defence and that of the country.

When the Belgian Government became a
Ministry of National Defence, M. Emile Vander-
velde, the Chairman of the Belgian Socialists,
entered the Cabinet.

With Vandervelde's view of the action of the
German Socialists we have already dealt — with
his statement that they had to choose between
voting for the war credits or giving their
country over to Cossack invasion, and that they
did more than their duty in striving for peace,
— and also with the opinion of both the French

IO2 International Socialism

and Belgian parties that the German Social-Demo-
cracy had been deceived by the official news.
M. Vandervelde has also stated that what was par-
ticularly odious about the entry of the Germans into
Belgium was not the violation of territory so much
as "the policy of terrorism and brutality which
has been pursued throughout, and which seems to
have no other object than that of vengeance on
the Belgians because they have defended their
territory and barred the way against the invading
hosts. The word of command formerly given by
Wilhelm II. to his soldiers not to behave like Huns
has certainly not been followed."1 M. Vander-
velde also expressed the hope that " on the day
that our German comrades are exactly informed
in regard to the horrors that have been committed
in Belgium they will join us in denouncing and
scourging them." 2

Liege, with the surrounding industrial districts,
is a stronghold of Socialism. Many Socialists
took part in the defence of the town and the
holding of the forts. They sang "The Inter-
national " as the German troops came on.

1 Justice, September 3rd, 1914.

2 Ibid., October i5th, 1914.

XVII
THE BRITISH VIEW

During the last week in July, in common with
the organised working-class of the Continent, the
Labour and Socialist movement of Great Britain
was solid for peace. When Austria attacked Servia
it was equally solid for the neutrality of this
country. After the emergency meeting of the
International Socialist Bureau in Brussels on July
29th, the British Section issued a Manifesto, signed
by the Chairman, Mr. Keir Hardie, M.P., and the
Secretary, Mr. Arthur Henderson, M.P., urging
the working-class to agitate vigorously in favour
of non-intervention by Britain. After stating that
the people had not been consulted concerning the
war, the Manifesto continued : —

Whatever may be the rights and wrongs of this
sudden, crushing attack made by the militarist Empire
of Austria upon Servia, it is certain that the workers of
all countries likely to be drawn into the conflict must
strain every nerve to prevent their Governments from
committing them to war.

Everywhere, Socialists and the organised forces of
Labour are taking this course. Everywhere vehement
protests are made against the greed and intrigue of mili-
tarists and armament-mongers.

103

IO4 International Socialism

We call upon you to do the same. . . . Compel
those of the governing class and their Press, who are
eager to commit you to co-operate with Russian
despotism, to keep silent and respect the decision of the
overwhelming majority of the people, who will have
neither part nor lot in such infamy. The success of
Russia at the present day would be a curse to the world.

There is no time to lose. Already by secret agree-
ments and understandings of which the democracies of
the civilised world know only by rumour, steps are being
taken which may fling us all into the fray.

Workers, stand together therefore for peace ! Com-
bine and conquer the militarist enemy and the self-
seeking Imperialists to-day once for all.

Men and women, you have now an unexampled
opportunity of rendering a magnificent service to
humanity and to the world !

Proclaim that for you the days of plunder and butchery
are gone by ; send messages of peace and fraternity to
your fellows who have less liberty than you ! Down
with class rule ! Down with the rule of brute force !
Down with war ! Up with the peaceful rule of the people !

Time was short, and the only big demonstration
that could be arranged was one that was held in
Trafalgar Square on Sunday, August 2nd. It was
held under the auspices of the British Section of
the International Socialist Bureau, and was repre-
sentative of every branch of the Labour and
Socialist movement in this country. Fifteen
thousand people assembled and expressed their
view of the crisis in the following resolution : —

This demonstration, representing the organised
workers and citizens of London, views with serious
alarm the prospects of a European war, into which
every European Power will be dragged owing to the

The British View 105

secret alliances and understandings which in their origin
were never sanctioned by the nations nor are even now
communicated to them.

We stand by the efforts of the international working-
class movement to unite the workers of the nations
concerned in their efforts to prevent their Governments
from entering upon war, as expressed in the resolution
passed by the International Socialist Bureau.

We protest against any step being taken by the
Government of this country to support Russia, either
directly or in consequence of any understanding with
France, as being not only offensive to the political
traditions of the country, but disastrous to Europe, and
declare that as we have no interest, direct or indirect,
in the threatened quarrels which may result from the
action of Austria in Servia, the Government of Great
Britain should rigidly decline to engage in war, but
should confine itself to efforts to bring about peace as
speedily as possible.

The meetings which were held throughout the
country were sufficient in number and sufficiently
widespread to indicate that the Labour and
Socialist forces were solid for the neutrality of
this country. In South Wales the miners refused
to forego two days' holiday in spite of a special
request from the Admiralty, and the Executive of
the South Wales Miners' Federation urged the
immediate calling of a special meeting of the
International Miners' Congress to decide what
action the miners of Europe should take. Speak-
ing at a demonstration of the Cumberland Miners'
Association, Mr. Robert Smillie, the President of
the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, declared
that " he did not know if it was possible even yet,

106 International Socialism

by a cessation of work all over Europe, to stop
the war, but so far as he was concerned he
would be glad to pledge the British miners to
such a course if they could get the others to do
it"1 No man knows the British miners better
than Mr. Smillie. But the armies were already
marching.

When Sir Edward Grey, in the House of
Commons, on August 3rd, described the European
situation, the Labour Party stood for neutrality.
Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the Chairman of the
Parliamentary Party, in his speech on its behalf,
said he thought Sir Edward Grey was wrong;
that the Government for which he spoke was
wrong ; that the verdict of history would be that
they were wrong. No crime of that character
had been committed by statesmen without such
statesmen appealing to their nation's honour. We
had fought both the Crimean War and the South
African War for our honour. Parliament was
being appealed to that day because of the
nation's honour. "So far as we are concerned,"
Mr. MacDonald concluded, " whatever may happen,
whatever may be said about us, whatever attacks
may be made upon us, we will say that this
country ought to have remained neutral, because,
in the deepest part of our hearts, we believe that
is right, and that that alone is consistent with the
honour of the country."

The Daily Citizen, the organ of the Labour
1 Labour Leader, August 6th, 1914.

The British View 107

Party, commenting on Sir Edward Grey's speech,
" which amounted in effect to a declaration of
war," said : l —

Were our land to be attacked by some other Power,
were our existence as a nation at stake, it would be
necessary to arm and fight. We are not threatened
as a nation. Our friendly understandings with other
Powers commit us to nothing beyond diplomatic
support, and that has been readily given, and should
be readily given, but we are asked to imperil gravely
our existence as a nation ; we are asked to bring famine,
suffering, and death to the homes of this country, with-
out being able to pretend that we have a quarrel with
any European Power.

We have no love for the German autocracy, though
we have a deep and sincere admiration for the German
people, for their great and noble achievements in science,
art, and literature ; but if we do not like Kaiserdom, must
we therefore throw ourselves into the arms of the Czar
and do all in our power to extend Cossack rule in Eastern
Europe ? From the standpoint of the civil and political
liberties that are dear to us, the prospect is appalling,
and if we go into war, let us go in with the full
knowledge that we are fighting for a reactionary Russia
determined to gratify her territorial ambitions.

Nor did the Citizen, on August 5th, consider
Germany's invasion of Belgium a sufficient reason
—or the real reason — for British intervention. It
stated, in its issue of that date, after Britain's
declaration of war : —

If war, then, be so terrible a calamity, the justification
for war should be sharp and clear. In the present
instance, not one man in ten could give a coherent
reason as to why we are being dragged into war. The

1 August 4th, 1914.

io8 International Socialism

Russian political system is the system of all others we
are least anxious to extend. It taints and blights what-
ever it touches. It means death to freedom, to demo-
cracy, to nationality. Yet, whatever the immediate
pretext of the quarrel, the British sword is assuredly
being drawn for Russia, which has cunningly drawn
France and Britain into her quarrels.

This view was broadly in accord with the
resolution which the National Executive of the
Labour Party passed on August 5th, which was its
formal declaration as to the causes of the war and
the duty of the party during the war's progress.
The resolution ran as follows :—

That the conflict between the nations in Europe in
which this country is involved is owing to Foreign
Ministers pursuing diplomatic policies for the purpose of
maintaining a balance of power ; that our own national
policy, of understandings with France and Russia only,
was bound to increase the power of Russia both in
Europe and Asia, and to endanger good relations with
Germany. Sir Edward Grey, as proved by the facts
which he gave to the House of Commons, committed,
without the knowledge of our people, the honour of this
country to supporting France in the event of any war in
which she was seriously involved, and gave definite
assurances of support before the House of Commons
had any chance of considering the matter.

That the Labour movement reiterates the fact that it
has opposed the policy which produced the war, and
that its duty is now to secure peace at the earliest
possible moment on such conditions as will provide the
best opportunities for the re-establishment of amicable
feelings between the workers of Europe.

"Without in any way receding from this posi-
tion," the resolution advised the party, while

The British View 109

"watching for the opportunity of taking the
earliest effective action in the interests of peace,"
to devote itself to preventing and mitigating
distress.

The same day (August 5th) there was a meeting
of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and at this the
Chairman (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) proposed
that he should read the above resolution during
his speech in the House the same evening.
The majority declined to assent to this, where-
upon Mr. MacDonald resigned the chairman-
ship.

The refusal of the Parliamentary Party to allow
the declaration of the National Executive to be
read in the House was the beginning of a process
which ended in the majority of the party taking
up a different attitude as to the causes of the war
and the sole duty of the party during the war.
When, at the end of August, a Parliamentary
Recruiting Committee was formed, the Parlia-
mentary Labour Party, with the approval of the
majority of the National Executive, agreed to
join it, to place its Head-Office organisation at
the Committee's disposal, and, with the Liberal
and Conservative parties, to hold joint meetings,
to appeal for recruits, and — in the words of the
Prime Minister, in his letter of invitation — to make
clear "the justice of our cause." Those on the
National Executive who opposed this decision
were the representatives of the I.L.P.

When the Labour Party decided to join the

1 1 o International Socialism

recruiting campaign, its organ, The Daily Citizen^
wrote : !—

We appeal to all to read carefully, and seriously to
consider what will be said by these leaders. . . . They
are touched by no jingo effervescence, and their request
to the young manhood of the nation would not be made
unless they were convinced of the deadly seriousness of
the position. Of all the political considerations in
respect of the war there is much yet to be heard, but
this is no moment for such discussion. . . . There
remains the dread necessity for desperate battling with
armed forces in defence of the Motherland. . . . Let us
have no quibbling with one fact. The United Kingdom
cannot and will not be beaten in this struggle, let the
war continue one year, or five years, or ten years. Mean-
while we must do all we can to hasten the end of the
slaughter. Let us, then, hasten victory.

The recruiting campaign was also entered upon
in order to justify the voluntary system of enlistment.
Mr. Arthur Henderson, speaking at Walsall, said : —

I am not ashamed to say that we of the Labour Party
are opposed, and, I hope, will always be opposed to con-
scription ; and I am opposed to all forms of compulsory
military service. . . . Members of the Labour Party
were under a treble obligation to make the voluntary
system commensurate with the present national needs,
and he believed it would meet the needs even if, as was
quite possible, another half-million men, and perhaps two
more half-million after that, were called for. . . . The
voluntary system w s not going to fail.2

The Labour Party thus identified itself with the
Government's case, so far as the issues immediately

1 August 3ist, 1914.

2 Daily Citizen, September nth, 1914.

The British View 1 1 1

preceding the war were concerned. The line it
took was not that England had drawn the sword
for Russia, and that the neutrality of Belgium
was a "pretext" — as stated in the Citizen
of August 5th — but that the aggressor was
Germany, and that Britain drew the sword for
Belgium. Sir Edward Grey, the party urged, had
striven to preserve peace. Germany had refused
his proposals for a conference, and neglected to
put forward any peace proposals of her own. As
Britain was a signatory Power to the treaty
guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium, the inter-
vention by Britain when Germany — also a signatory
Power — invaded Belgium, was the only course
consistent with national honour. The invasion of
Belgium was a violation of international law, and
Britain was in the war to vindicate the sanctity
of that law. Apart from that, the descent upon
Belgium by a great Power like Germany raised -
the question of the right of small States to protec-
tion from unprovoked aggression. The refusal by
Germany of Sir Edward Grey's proposal for a
conference in conjunction with Germany's invasion
of Belgium, in circumstances which pointed to such
an invasion having been deliberately planned,
branded Germany as the aggressor in the conflict.
Apart, however, from the question of national
honour, the need of vindicating international
law, and of protecting small nationalities, it
was against the interests, the national safety, of
this country, that Germany should extend her

1 1 2 International Socialism

dominions to the north-west coast of Europe,
a possible outcome of the war should Germany
be victorious.

The action of Germany, in the view of the
Labour Party, was the result of the military system
of that country. The invasion of Belgium was the
fruit of a system of government and a theory of
the State which was organised for the express
purpose of achieving material power, and which
considered any means justified in the pursuit of
that end. German militarism, which had caused
the war, had been a menace to European peace.
Its destruction would open the way to a greater
security for peace in the future. The triumph
of Germany would be disastrous to European
democracy.

The Labour Party realised that if England had not
kept her pledges to Belgium, and had stood aside, the
victory of the German army would have been probable,
and the victory of Germany would mean the death of
democracy in Europe. Working-class aspirations for
greater political and economic power would be checked,
thwarted, and crushed, as they have been in the German
Empire. Democratic ideas cannot thrive in a State where
militarism is dominant; and the military State with a
subservient and powerless working-class is the avowed
political ideal of the German ruling caste.

The policy of the British Labour movement has been
dictated by a fervent desire to save Great Britain and
Europe from the evils that would follow the triumph of
military despotism. When the time comes to discuss the
terms of peace the Labour movement will stand, as it
has always stood, for an international agreement among
all civilised nations that disputes and misunderstandings

The British View 1 1 3

in the future shall be settled not by machine-guns, but
by arbitration.1

Coming to the attitude of the I.L.P.,2 it
may first be pointed out that when the war
began, the hostility of the party to war and
militarism was probably greater than it had
ever been. For more than a year previous,
the efforts of the party had been largely con-
centrated upon anti-militarist propaganda. The
Independent Labour Party had done in this
country what Liebknecht had done in Germany :
it had exposed the existence and workings of
what is now commonly known as the Armaments
Ring. By detailed investigation it had shown
how firms engaged in the manufacture of
armaments, gunpowder, and the munitions of
war generally were closely inter-related, nationally
and internationally ; that there existed throughout
Europe, including the United Kingdom, a network
of commercial organisation which had a great
interest in fomenting international rivalry, hate,
and jealousy. With influence over the Press, —
German directors on French newspapers, French

1 Manifesto signed by 25 Labour M.P.'s,the Parliamentary
Committee of the Trade Union Congress, Mr. W. Stephen
Sanders, Secretary of the Fabian Society, and other Labour
leaders. See also recruiting and other speeches of Labour
M.P.'s.

2 As the Independent Labour Party (I.L.P.) and the Labour
Party are not infrequently confused one with the other, the
writer will perhaps be excused for reminding the reader that
the former is a Socialist organisation affiliated to the latter.

8

1 1 4 International Socialism

directors on German newspapers, — with Ministers
of State, members of Parliament, officers in the
Army and Navy, high officials, Church dignitaries,
and leaders of public opinion as shareholders,
with directors who were retired officials of the
Military and Naval services on Company Boards,
the Armaments Ring was in a position to create
a public opinion which called for huge armaments
and then have the influence of its shareholders
and directors in high places to secure the placing
of orders. When Mr. Philip Snowden, the Labour
member for Blackburn, brought out some of the
facts in the House of Commons, he took for his
text, so to speak, the statement of Lord Welby,
a former high official of the Treasury : " We are
in the hands of an organisation of crooks. They
are politicians, generals, manufacturers of arma-
ments, and journalists. All of them are anxious
for unlimited expenditure, and go on inventing
scares to terrify the public and to terrify Ministers
of the Crown." »

It must not be assumed, of course, that but
for these revelations the attitude of the Independent
Labour Party to the war would, necessarily, have
been different from what it was ; but it is reason-
able to suggest that a knowledge of the workings
of the Armaments Ring resulted in the members

1 See Dreadnoughts and Dividends, Report of a Speech
by Philip Snowden, M.P. ; also The War Trust Exposed,
by J. T. Walton Newbold ; The War Traders, by G. H.
Perris.

The British View 115

being more suspicious than ever before of all
calls to war and cases for war. In addition, how-
ever, there must be taken into account the fact
that the party had consistently opposed the policy
of the British Foreign Office. As far back as
December ist, 1911, its organ, The Labour
Leader, had for the subject of an editorial article
" The Failure of Sir Edward Grey." The article
alleged that the Foreign Office was anti-German,
and as such was out of touch with British
sentiment and feeling. The negotiations between
Britain and Germany over Morocco had been
conducted in "an atmosphere of polite hostility,
with a childish readiness on both sides to stand
on dignity and take offence." Sir Edward Grey
had told the country a great deal it knew, and
very little it did not know ; but —

Of what nature were our obligations to France ? The
secret treaty clauses published the other day are worth-
less as throwing any light on the question. Had our
negotiations with France drifted far beyond the entente
or friendly understanding and become an entangling
alliance? If diplomatic proceedings had broken off
and war had broken out between Germany and France,
would Great Britain have been dragged in to take the
side of France or Germany ? If so, why ? Sir Edward
Grey hedged all round that question without answering
it.

In The Leicester Pioneer, an Independent Labour
Party paper, on December 2nd, 1911, Mr. Ramsay
MacDonald, dealing with the same question,
wrote —

1 1 6 International Socialism

The real fact is, we are heading straight for war, and
Sir Edward Grey's speech brought us appreciably nearer
to it.

He added that the impression produced upon
the German mind by Mr. Lloyd George's famous
Mansion House speech was that Britain's attitude
amounted to this : " France and Russia (Russia,
save the mark !) are our special friends ; if you
like to shake hands, good and well ; we do not
mind very much whether you do or not, but if
you want to do so, there is my finger."

On December 6th, 1911, Mr. Philip Snowden, a
prominent member of the Independent Labour
Party, wrote in The Christian Commonwealth —

The only possible way of averting a great European
war is to bring about a better understanding with
Germany. That is clearly impossible so long as Sir
Edward Grey is at the head of the Foreign Office.1

Finally, the I.L.P. succeeded in getting its views
adopted by the Labour Party, which, at its annual
conference at Birmingham in 1912, passed the fol-
lowing resolution, which was moved and seconded
by Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. W. C. Anderson
respectively on behalf of the Independent Labour
Party :—

That this Conference, believing the anti-German policy
pursued in the name of the British Government by Sir
Edward Grey to be the cause of increasing armaments,

1 The above quotations are from The Labour Leader,
September 24th, 1914.

The British View 117

international ill-will, and the betrayal of oppressed
nationalities, protests in the strongest terms against it.
The Conference is of opinion that this diplomacy has
led the present Government to risk war with Germany,
in the interests of financiers, over Morocco, to condone
the Italian outrages in Tripoli, the Russian theft in
Mongolia, and, above all, to join hands with Russia in
making an assault on the national independence and
freedom of Persia. It places on record its deepest
sympathy with, and support of, the Persian people, and
calls upon the Labour Party in Parliament to fight for a
reversal of the present foreign policy.

Thus it will be seen that, when Britain declared
war on Germany, the Independent Labour Party
had to choose between supporting a war which, for
at least three years, it had said was bound to come
as a result of British foreign policy, or devoting
its energies to pointing the moral to the people,
educating and looking to the efficiency of its own
organisation, so that, as occasion arose, it might be
in a position to make its influence felt, and pre-
venting and relieving distress among the people.
It decided upon the latter course.

The general view of the Independent Labour
Party of the situation when Britain declared war is
expressed in its Manifesto. This document began
by attacking the theory of a Balance of Power.
Diplomacy had deliberately striven to divide
Europe into two armed antagonistic camps, instead
of aiming at a federation of States banded together
for peace.

Diplomacy has been underground, secret, deceitful,
each Power endeavouring by wile and stratagem to get

n8 International Socialism

the better of its neighbour. Diplomats have breathed
the very air of jealousy, deception, and distrust. Each
country in turn, largely through the influence of its Jingo
Press, has been stampeded by fear and panic. Each
country has tried to outstrip other countries in the vast-
ness and costliness of its war machinery. Powerful
armament interests have played their sinister part, for it
is they who reap rich harvest out of havoc and death.
When all this has been done, any spark will start a con-
flagration like the present.

It was difficult, the Manifesto proceeded, and
possibly futile, to try to apportion at that moment
the exact measure of responsibility and blame. It
was as untrue to say that British policy was
wholly white and German policy wholly black as to
say that German policy was entirely right and
British policy entirely wrong. Undiscriminating
people in both countries might accept one version
or the other, but history would tell a different
story.

For the present, Sir Edward Grey issues his White Paper
to prove Germany the aggressor, just as Germany issues a
White Paper to prove Russia the aggressor, and Russia to
prove Austria the aggressor. Even if every word in the
British White Paper be admitted, the wider indictment
remains. Let it be acknowledged that, in the days
immediately preceding the war, Sir Edward Grey worked
for peace. It was too late. Over a number of years,
together with other diplomats, he had himself dug the
abyss, and wise statesmanship would have foreseen, and
avoided, the certain result.

It was not the Servian question or the Belgian question
that pulled this country into the deadly struggle. Great
Britain is not at war because of oppressed nationalities
or Belgian neutrality. Even had Belgian neutrality not

The British View \ 1 9

been wrongfully infringed by Germany, we should still
have been drawn in. ... Behind the back of Parlia-
ment and people, the British Foreign Office gave secret
understandings to France, denying their existence when
challenged. That is why this country is now face to face
with the red ruin and impoverishment of war. Treaties
and agreements have dragged Republican France at the
heels of despotic Russia, Britain at the heels of
France. . . .

We desire neither the aggrandisement of German mili-
tarism nor Russian militarism, but the danger is that this
war will promote one or the other. Britain has placed herself
behind Russia, the most reactionary, corrupt, and oppres-
sive Power in Europe. If Russia is permitted to gratify
her territorial ambitions, and extend her Cossack rule,
civilisation and democracy will be gravely imperilled.
Is it for this that Britain has drawn the sword ? . . .

And the working-class abroad ?

To us who are Socialists, the workers of Austria and
Germany, no less than the workers of France and Russia,
are comrades and brothers ; in this hour of carnage and
eclipse we have friendship and compassion to all victims
of militarism. Our nationality and independence, which
are dear to us, we are ready to defend ; but we cannot
rejoice in the organised murder of tens of thousands of
workers of other lands, who go to kill and.be killed at the
command of rulers to whom the people are as pawns. . . .

Out of the darkness and the depth we hail our working-
class comrades in every land. Across the roar of guns
we send sympathy and greeting to the German Socialists.
They have laboured unceasingly to promote good relations
with Britain, as we with Germany. They are no enemies
of ours, but faithful friends.

In forcing this appalling crime upon the nations, it is
the rulers, the diplomats, the militarists, who have sealed
their doom. In tears and blood and bitterness the
greater Democracy will be born. With steadfast faith

I2O International Socialism

we greet the future ; our cause is holy and imperishable,
and the labour of our hands has not been in vain.

Looking to the future, the Manifesto stated —

The people must everywhere resist such territorial
aggression and national abasement as will pave the way
for fresh wars ; and throughout Europe the workers must
press for frank and honest diplomatic policies, controlled
by themselves, for the suppression of militarism and the
establishment of the United States of Europe, thereby
advancing towards the world's peace. Unless these steps
are taken, Europe, after the present calamity, will be still
more subject to the increasing domination of militarism,
and liable to be drenched with blood.

The views of leaders of the I.L.P. may be safely
taken as representative of the views of the general
body of members, who, by resolutions at branch
meetings, and at a series of conferences held in
various parts of the country, have endorsed them
overwhelmingly.

Mr. F. WJowett, M.P., the Chairman of the I.L.P.,
has written of British diplomacy in the years prior
to the war. He has pointed out how Britain has
successively made Russia, France, and Germany
the reason of her armaments. Germany returned
the compliment by arming against us ; and she did
so all the more thoroughly because on each side of
her was an ally of Britain. Her position involved
the construction "of a vast and swift-moving
military machine to take the offensive first on one
side, then on the other."

Mr. Jowett explained the growth of the German
Navy by the growth of Germany's overseas trade

The British View 121

coupled with Britain's refusal to give up the right
of capture of private property at sea in time of war.
With a Navy, Germany needed colonies for coaling
stations and naval bases. Her attempts to supply
those needs had been frustrated "by Britain, which
had " needlessly aggravated her by aiding and
abetting our allies in their annexation schemes."
Thus Germany was able to point to a grievance,
and the measures of the military caste secured
more popular support. To make matters worse,
proceedings in connection with annexation schemes
had been carried out in secret.

The vital clauses of the Anglo-French Convention,
under cover of which France secured its foothold in
Morocco, were kept secret for eight years. Twice this
secret agreement with France concerning Morocco has
led us to the brink of war with Germany. Our other
ally, Russia, has destroyed the independence of Persia
with the knowledge and consent of the British Govern-
ment, although the British Government had, within very
few years of the crime, given its solemn assurance to
Persia that its independence should be preserved. This
solemn assurance to Persia, given by the British Govern-
ment, has been treated by Russia as a " scrap of paper,"
and the British Government has supported Russia in so
treating it.

It was not Mr. Jowett's view that the British
Government declared war because of its regard for
the sanctity of treaties generally or because of the
German invasion of Belgium.

The great crime of which those who are responsible
for British foreign policy have been guilty is that they
bound this country in an honourable obligation to take

122 International Socialism

part in Continental warfare when it should have been
their chief concern to keep the country out of Continental
warfare. When Sir Edward Grey allowed the British
military and naval experts to arrange a joint scheme
of warfare with France which left France undefended
against a hostile fleet unless Britain went to war at the
same time, he entered into an obligation to go to war
with France which was as binding as if it had been set
forth in a document signed and sealed. Whether
Germany would have observed the neutrality of Belgium
or not, the obligation would have held good.

Sir Edward Grey had tried to keep the European
peace — Mr. Jowett admitted that — but it was too
late. Servia called Russia, and Russia insisted on
responding. Germany's grievance was only against
Russia, but France was bound to that country and
so was drawn in. Britain, bound to France,
followed. Britain's obligations to France had been
kept from the knowledge of Parliament ; and Mr.
Jowett recalled Lord Rosebery's declaration at
Glasgow, in January 1911: "We have entered
into liabilities the nature of which I for one do not
know, but which are none the less stringent and
binding because they are unwritten, and which at
any moment, so far as I can discern the signs of
the times, may lead us into one of the greatest
Armageddons, which must ravage Europe and
which will be greater than any war we have known
since the fall of Napoleon." Probably Lord
Rosebery knew more than Parliament knew.

Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Asquith had re-
peatedly given assurances that this country was

The British View 123

under no obligations which were not known. It
was because they believed those assurances to be
true that Mr. Jowett and others had opposed any
increase of armaments — armaments which were
"miserably inadequate if we were under an
obligation to take part in Continental warfare as
one of the general combatants."

Mr. Jowett urged that the danger of Belgium
being again made Europe's cockpit had been
known for some years. Why had not Sir Edward
Grey called together the signatory Powers and
arranged for the common acceptance of a common
obligation ? " It is a poor way of helping a small
State to pretend to ignore its danger and then use
it as an excuse for fighting elsewhere."

It is always the same when either nations or individuals
form secret compacts or cabals. The difficulties which
might, with patience and plain, straightforward dealing,
be cleared away, are not openly referred to, but when
the secretly brewed quarrel ensues they emerge as
excuses to justify one or other of the disputants. And
behind all these secret cabals is the sinister figure
of Capitalism, concession -hunting, armament -building,
risking the lives of men, women, and children and the
fate of nations — for profit. And we are asked to justify
this war, which is the result of these influences which
have been at work and against which we have warned
the country in vain. We can do no such thing.1

Mr. MacDonald, like Mr. Jowett, agreed that Sir

Edward Grey had worked to the last to prevent

war, but argued that when he failed to secure

peace between Germany and Russia he " worked

1 Socialist Review, October-December 1914.

124 International Socialism

deliberately to involve us in the war, using Belgium
as his chief excuse."

During the negotiations Germany tried to meet our
wishes on certain 'points so as to secure our neutrality.
Sometimes her proposals were brusque, but no attempt
was made to negotiate diplomatically to improve them.
They were all summarily rejected by Sir Edward Grey.
Finally, so anxious was Germany to confine the limits of
the war, the German Ambassador asked Sir Edward
Grey to propose his own conditions of neutrality, and
Sir Edward Grey declined to discuss the matter. This
fact was suppressed by Sir Edward Grey and Mr, Asquith
in their speeches in Parliament^-

" We had so mixed ourselves up in the Franco-
Russian alliance that Sir Edward Grey had to tell
us on August 3rd that though our hands were free
our honour was pledged ! " It was because the
country had been committed to fight for France
and Russia that Sir Edward Grey had to " refuse
point-blank every overture made by Germany to
keep us out of the conflict." The House of
Commons had not been told that the German
Ambassador pressed Sir Edward Grey as to
whether he — Sir Edward — could not formulate
conditions upon which Britain would remain
neutral, and that the Ambassador had even sug-
gested that the integrity of France and her colonies
might be guaranteed. That was Germany's most
important proposal, and had it been reported to
the House, a war sentiment could not have been
worked up. But Sir Edward Grey was not in a
1 The italics are Mr. MacDonald's.

The British View 125

position to discuss neutrality. He had pledged
the country's honour without the country's know-
ledge to fight for France and Russia. That was
the position on July 2Oth — the date of the first
communication in the White Paper — and was not
the outcome of anything Germany did or did not
do after that date.

Only by a wide survey of policy, proceeded Mr.
MacDonald's argument, was it possible to appor-
tion the blame. Germany's share was a heavy
one, and, taking a narrow view, she, with Russia,
was mainly responsible for the war. Taking a
longer view, Britain was equally responsible.

The conflict between the Entente and the alliance had
to come, and only two things determined the time of its
coming. The first was the relative capacity of the
countries to bear the burden of an armed peace. That
was reaching its limit in most countries. The second
was the question of how the changes which time was
bringing were affecting adversely the military power of
the respective opponents. The alliance was to receive
a great blow on the death of the Austrian Emperor ;
Russia was building a system of strategic railways up to
the German frontier, and this was to be finished in 1916,
by which time her army was to be increased greatly.
The Entente, therefore, was forcing Germany to fight
within two years. We can understand the military mind
of Germany, faced with these threatening changes, if we
remember how scared we were when we were told of
German threats against ourselves.

The entry into Belgium by Germany was not
the real cause of Britain's entry into the war. It
was the excuse of Ministers seeking a "dis-

126 International Socialism

interested" motive, apart from the obligations of
the Entente. In August 1870, Mr. Gladstone,
referring to the Belgian treaty, had stated that he
was " not able to subscribe to the doctrine of those
who have held in this House [of Commons] what
plainly amounts to an assertion that the simple
fact of the existence of a guarantee is binding on
every party to it, irrespective altogether of the
particular position in which it may find itself at
the time when the occasion of acting on the
guarantee arises." Mr. Gladstone would have
accepted Germany's guarantees to Belgium to
respect her integrity, and had France decided
to attack Germany through Belgium, Sir Edward
Grey would not have objected, and would have
justified his acquiescence by Mr. Gladstone's
opinion. The claim that England went to war
because of the Belgian treaty was a " pretty little
piece of hypocrisy."
Finally —

It is a diplomatists' war made by about half a dozen
men. Up to the moment that Ambassadors were with-
drawn, the peoples were at peace. They had no quarrel
with each other ; they bore each other no ill-will. Half
a dozen men brought Europe to the brink of a precipice,
and Europe fell over it because it could not help itself.1

1 Labour Leader, August I3th, 1914. An explanation, so
far as Mr. MacDonald personally is concerned, is necessary.
When the war had been in progress for some weeks, he
spoke of the necessity for Britain to carry it through to a
successful issue, and also said that the sentiment in the
country concerning Belgium was " clean and fine." These

The British View 127

Mr. W. C. Anderson, a member of the National
Administrative Council of the I.L.P., and who is
also Chairman of the National Executive of the
Labour Party, described the speech which Sir
Edward Grey made on August 3rd as "a pre-
paratory prelude to the declaration of war
announced next day."

. It was a clever, unconvincing performance, full of
his anti-German prejudice. There were gaps in his
statement he did not try to fill ; wrong impressions he
did not try to remove. ... Of Russia, the real villain of
the piece, he had not a word to say. Was he ashamed
of his ally ? Was he afraid to tell Parliament the truth ?
— that we are taking upon ourselves a terrible risk out of
which no conceivable advantage can come to us in order
to fortify and enlarge the crushing, blood-stained rule of
Russia in Eastern Europe.

For our plunging into this crime against humanity
there was no justification or excuse. Our plain duty
was to keep neutral; to exercise friendly pressure for
peace among the warring Powers. No obligation or
treaty committed us to armed intervention; these

statements led to suggestions, in more than one quarter,
that Mr. MacDonald wished to retreat from his original
position as put forward in the article quoted above. It
must therefore be pointed out that, when questioned con-
cerning these writings at a* Leicester meeting, he stated, " I
withdraw nothing" (Leicester Daily Post, October iQth, 1914).
Further, reviewing Mr. M. P. Price's book, The Diplomatic
History of the War, in The Labour Leader of November
I2th, 1912, Mr. MacDonald wrote: "When I turn in due
course to defend that article and explain in detail why I
made the statements which it contains, I shall be able to
content myself, if I care, by quoting page after page of the
impartial narrative of this book."

128 International Socialism

treaties in any case are sealed in darkness behind the
back of the people, and for my part I agree with the
ringing declaration uttered by the valiant Jaures two days
before his death : " Socialists recognise only one treaty
— the treaty that binds them in love and peace and
service to humanity." We should refuse to take heed of
the jargon of the diplomats ; their world of mutual sus-
picion and untruth is not for us. They will speak to us
of the honour of our country — honour so keen in time
of war, so blunt in times of peace ; honour so alive to the
neutrality of Belgium, so dead to the hunger of our own
children.1

The I.L.P. does not believe that the war will
crush militarism or enlarge the freedom of the
European peoples — nor that it was undertaken
with that object. Mr. Keir Hardie has quoted the
declaration of Herr Haase in the Reichstag that
the future liberty of the German people was at
stake; that their hopes would be crushed by a
victory of Russia. Wrote Mr. Hardie —

The Social-Democracy of Germany were gradually
nearing the time when they would have brought the
military class to subjection, and as comrade Haase points
out, what is now happening is this — Kaiserism is to be
smashed and Czarism installed in its stead. The Social-
Democrats of Germany will regard with contempt those
Socialists here who are seeking to make it appear that
we are engaged in an altruistic war on their behalf.
That they must regard as sheer hypocrisy. When the
war is over it will be Russia that will carry off the laurels,
and, probably, a good instalment of German militarism
will have become part of our own institutions.2

1 Labour Leader, August 6th, 1914.
* Ibid.) August 27th, 1914.

The British View 129

Writing on the same aspect of the subject, Mr.
MacDonald stated that he was willing to go great
lengths to liberate Europe from the German
military bureaucracy. He had always held that
aiding the birth of liberty wherever it could was a
legitimate purpose of British foreign policy. But
the country which would play such a part must be
careful in the choice of its friends. It must keep
its hands clean. " Our chief ally, Russia, will not
allow us to claim that good credit." The thought
of liberty never entered the minds of the promoters
of the Triple Entente ; the thought of liberty had
never inspired the partners of the Entente. It was
the sacrifice of liberty which had kept the Entente
in existence. " Russia in arms with us to free
Europe from an autocracy, whether political or
military, is a grim joke!"

Those who had worked for a good understanding
with Germany had done so because they believed
that Russian autocracy could not survive such an
understanding. The German Social-Democrats
had been working to the same end. German
autocracy was strong; but German democracy
was growing stronger. " The growing life within
German society was cracking the shell which en-
compassed it." For eight years British diplomacy
had been strengthening the shell by giving it a
reason for its existence : yet now it went to war
pretending to break it.

German autocracy could not be broken by the
war, and if it could, the price was too dear.
9

130 International Socialism

I would rather that militarism had flourished for an-
other ten years than that we should have sent thousands
of men along the path of privation, hate, pain and death,
that we should have clouded thousands of happy fire-
sides, that we should have undone our social reform work
for a generation, that we should have let loose in Europe
all the lust of battle, all the brutalities of war.1

Mr. MacDonald asked : " When Germany is
down, who will be up ? "

We can gain little. A colony or two to add to our
useless burdens, perhaps. France will also have a
colony or two, maybe, and Alsace-Lorraine. It may or
may not claim money-payments. This will rankle in the
German heart just as the loss of Alsace-Lorraine rankled
in the French heart. But with strong democratic move-
ments these things might be adjusted in a lasting scheme
of peace. With Russia the case is different. It, too,
will want something, but, above all, its autocracy will be
rehabilitated, its military system will be strengthened, it
will become the dominating power in Europe. No in-
vader can touch it, as Napoleon found to his cost, and
as Germany to-day assumes in its scheme of military
tactics. It will press in upon us in Asia. Our defence
of India will be a much bigger problem than it is now ;
China will be threatened ; Persia will go. It will rivet
upon us the Japanese Alliance, one of the greatest
political menaces to our Imperial unity. Above all, it
will revitalise the Pan-Slav movement ; and if ever
Europe is to be made the subject of a new barbarism,
this movement is to do it. I know that if the Pan-Slav
movement could be democratised, it might be harmless.

1 In reference to the period indicated — ten years — it may
be pointed out that the Social-Democrats of Germany had
hoped, in co-operation with the next progressive party, to be
in a majority in the Reichstag after the general election of
1917-

The British View 131

But the Government of the Slav is just that which will
yield last of all to democratic influences . . .

So it comes to this. We are in this conflict in a sense-
less, blind sort of way, because, years ago, we had not
the foresight and common sense to protect ourselves from
being drawn into it. France is in it to wipe out 1870-
71 ; Russia is in it to dominate the Old World — Asia as
well as Europe.

The war would not be the last war. The view
that when the Berlin War Office was destroyed, the
Hague Peace Palace would come into real being
was " all moonshine."

Far more likely is it that this war is the beginning of a
new military despotism in Europe, of new alarms, new
hatreds and oppositions, new menaces and alliances;
the beginning of a dark epoch dangerous, not only to
democracy, but to civilisation itself.1

We have noted that the decision of the Labour
Party to co-operate with the Parliamentary Recruit-
ing Committee was not unanimous. The I.L.P.
declined to take such a course. In coming to that
decision the National Administrative Council was
of one mind, and it was overwhelmingly backed by
the general body of members. The party's reasons
for its attitude were — (i) that the recruiting
campaign was partially for the purpose of justify-
ing the war ; (2) that any appeal for recruits should
come from the party's own platforms, preserving
the character and traditions of the movement, and
should not be made in the company of those who
1 Labour Leader^ August 27th, 1914.

132 International Socialism

were always opposed to Labour; (3) that with rates
of Army pay what they were to appeal for recruits
was "touting for sweated labour";1 (4) that the
Labour movement had a special duty in look-
ing after working-class interests affected by the
economic crisis ; (5) that before taking part in any
such campaign Labour should obtain an assurance
from the Government that those left widowed and
fatherless by the war, and men who returned
broken from the battlefield, should be better cared
for than had been the case after previous wars;
(6) a determination " not to get inextricably mixed
up and confused with our opponents." 2

1 Some weeks after the Labour Party's decision to take
part in the recruiting campaign, Mr. G. N. Barnes, Labour
member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow, declined to
attend any more meetings until the Government granted £i
a week as a minimum wage for soldiers, and more adequate
provision for their dependants. This demand developed into
a call for £l a week for the widow of every soldier or sailor
killed, £i a week for the mother dependent on every soldier
or sailor killed, £i a week for the wife of every soldier or
sailor engaged in fighting, £i a week for every soldier or
sailor permanently maimed by fighting, 5 shillings a week
for every child dependent on soldiers or sailors fighting or
killed. This programme was taken up by The Daily
Citizen, was everywhere supported by the organised work-
ing-class, and was eventually adopted by the Workers'
National War Emergency Committee which was formed
when the war broke out to look after working-class interests
generally.

8 See the Statement of the National Administrative Council
on Recruiting ; Our Attitude, by F. W. Jowett, M.P., Chair-
man of the Independent Labour Party (Labour Leader,

The British View 133

The I.L.P. did not set itself in opposition to
recruiting ; it considered it could be more usefully
and consistently employed in other directions.
Joining the army was a matter for the individual
conscience.

We now come to the attitude of the British
Socialist Party, the Socialist body outside the
Labour Party. This organisation took the view
that Germany was the aggressor, and that Britain
had been drawn into the war " by the declaration
of war upon Belgium by Germany because of the
refusal of that little State to forego its guaranteed
neutrality in the interests of the attacking Power."
So ran the party's Manifesto, issued on August I2th,
which, however, made an appeal for distinction
"between the mass of the German people and
the Prussian military caste which dominates the
German Empire."

This awful catastrophe, which will turn the greater
part of Europe into a vast shambles and send thousands
to their death at sea, is the result of the alliances,
ententes, and understandings entered into, and " assur-
ances " given by the Governments and Chancelleries of
Europe without any reference to the people them-
selves. . . .

Never again must we entrust our foreign affairs to
secret diplomacy. Never again must we regard foreign
policy as something with which we have no concern.
. . . The war will break down the ententes, under-
standings, and alliances made without our knowledge

Sept. 3rd, 1914) ; W. C. Anderson in The Daily Citizen, Sept.
8th, 1914 ; J. Keir Hardie in The Daily Citizen, Sept. 7th,
1914.

134 International Socialism

and consent. Then will come the opportunity for a
genuine democratic agreement between the peoples
themselves.

Such an agreement between the peoples of France,
Germany, and Britain will be a solid guarantee of peace
and a powerful bulwark against the encroachments of
Russian despotism, a result which may easily come of
the present war.

But while the party held that in the events
immediately leading up to the war, Germany was
the guilty party, and that, once Belgium had been
invaded, Britain's only course was to declare war,
the party in no sense joined — to use its own phrase
— the " official optimists." Its organ, Justice, con-
tinued to strike as independent a note as ever.
In short, it went on the lines laid down by the
International's resolution — that, war having been
declared, the duty of Socialists is to use the
political and economic crisis to hasten the down-
fall of Capitalism.

We may take as a representative view that
expressed in a leading article in Justice by Mr.
H. M. Hyndman.1

When the German military aggressionists deliberately
tore up the treaties formally signed by their own country
in regard to the neutrality of Belgium ; when they
declared war against, and attacked, that much ill-used
and plucky little nation; when our comrade, Emile
Vandervelde, the Chairman of the International Socialist
Bureau, a man of peace if ever a man of peace there
were, was compelled by the Belgian Socialist Party and

1 August 1 3th, 1914.

The British View 135

Belgians at large to join the Belgian Government in
order to help to maintain the independence of his
country; when the noble Jean Jaures denounced the
outrage committed by Germany and Austria upon
civilisation ; when the German Government made what
Mr. Asquith justly calls its " infamous proposals " in
order to secure the neutrality of Great Britain — then it
was quite impossible for us to fail to recognise that, as
a nation, we were bound, not by secret agreements and
private understandings, but by solemn international
treaties and international declarations at the Hague
(which have never yet been denounced or condemned
by those Parliamentary pacifists who are now most
vehement for neutrality), to declare war against the
disturber of Europe and the deliberate violator of his
own undertakings.

While everybody must desire the defeat of
Germany, Mr. Hyndman argued, nevertheless the
success of Russia, which " must inevitably follow,"
would be " a misfortune to the civilised world." Still
it was useless to repine. All that Social-Democrats
could do was to exert all their influence to bring
about a reasonable peace as soon as possible, while
not hampering in any way the naval and military
activities of the Government. Meanwhile the
Government had been compelled to resort to
Socialist measures in order to save the people from
starvation. " The nation will learn a little in war,
what it must threateningly demand in time of
peace." France obtained a Republic from the war
of 1870-71. Perhaps Britain might win the
beginnings of a Co-operative Commonwealth in
the present war.

136 International Socialism

That, at any rate, is worth fighting for. By far our
worst enemies are the landlords and capitalists of
Britain.

Mr. Hyndman's view that Britain should have
maintained a greater army and navy is not repre-
sentative of the party as a whole. For some years
there has been a body of opinion — a minority — in
the party, headed by Mr. Hyndman, the late
Mr. Harry Quelch, and other prominent members,
which regarded German militarism as a menace
to European peace, and which, in consequence,
supported the Big Navy school.

In the article alluded to above Mr. Hyndman
wrote : —

It has been my own personal opinion for many years
that, had we acted in the best interests of humanity,
Great Britain would have kept up an overwhelming navy,
and established long ago a citizen army on democratic
lines. The objects at which Germany was aiming were
quite clear. Had we pursued this policy and refrained
from any secret agreements such as those to which the
Czar referred in his letter, I am firmly convinced that
peace would have been maintained, that we should not
be calling in semi-panic for 500,000 untrained men, that
we should not now be engaged in an offensive and
defensive war in co-operation with Russia, and that we
should have been in a much better position than we are
to-day to uphold our treaties, to defend the small Powers,
and to prevent France from being crushed.

Mr. Hyndman's views on armaments were never
popular with Socialists either in this country or on
the Continent, and it is an interesting commentary

The British View 137

on his opinions that, since the outbreak of the war,
M. Vandervelde has announced his intention of
writing a pamphlet, " Hyndman Proved Right
against All."

When the recruiting campaign began, the
British Socialist Party issued a statement in which
members were advised to accept invitations to
speak at recruiting meetings, providing only that
they were allowed to advocate from the common
platform the programme and policy of the party
as set out therein.

The statement ran that the party, " recognising
that national freedom and independence were
threatened by Prussian militarism," desired to see
the nation speedily issue from the war victorious.
But recruits must not be cajoled and starved into
enlistment, nor should they be called to the colours
without adequate provision being made for their
dependents. The Government was not offering
recruits either adequate rates of pay, insurance
against disablement, or employment when, on their
return from the war, they were discharged from the
army. The Government and municipal authorities
were delaying the provision of work in order that
men might be starved into the army. With the
same object, employers were discharging their
employe's. " Every able-bodied citizen, high and
low, rich as well as poor, should be trained and
armed for the purpose of home defence. The
nation armed, whilst providing an adequate safe-
guard against foreign aggression, would secure the

138 International Socialism

civic rights and liberties of the people, which may
be threatened later by the introduction of con-
scription."

After appealing for measures to meet the
economic crisis, the statement proceeded : —

The Government appeals for the nation's support in a
war to maintain " the independence and autonomy of the
free States of Europe." Let it, then, proclaim that it
will be no party to the vindictive crushing of the German
people and that it will strive for a reasonable and honour-
able peace at the earliest opportunity. When final victory
is secured for the Allied Arms, British influence must be
used to put an end to militarism and armaments and
secret diplomacy, and to initiate a movement for a
genuine democratic understanding between the peoples
of Europe.

The British Socialist Party once more declares that
the workers of Europe have no quarrel with one another.
The terrible struggle we are now witnessing, into which
this country has been drawn by the invasion of Belgium,
is largely the outcome of the rivalries between the
capitalists of all countries for the domination of the
world market. This competition has resulted in the
building up of huge armaments, and has led to treaties
and alliances — entered into without any consultation with
the peoples themselves — between groups of Powers for
the protection of mutual commercial interests.1

We may sum up the position of the Labour
Party by saying that the Labour — that is, the
Radical Trade Unionist — element, as distinct from
the Socialist element, accepted the Government's

1 This manifesto was repudiated by many London
branches of the party and by a few in the provinces. It was
signed, however, by the whole Executive Committee, which
is elected from the whole of Great Britain.

The British View 139

case and whole-heartedly supported the war.1
Unlike the other parties affiliated to the Inter-
national Socialist Bureau, the Labour Party is not
a Socialist body ; the Socialists within it are in
a minority. It is accepted by the International
Bureau on the grounds that, although its constitu-
tion does not recognise the Class War, it is, in
reality, carrying it on. The largest and most in-
fluential Socialist body in the United Kingdom —
the I.L.P. — did not accept the Government's case,
and opposed the war. The British Socialist
Party, the second largest Socialist organisation,
agreed that on August 4th the Government had no
alternative but to declare war, and that Germany
was the aggressor among the nations. But the
party so strongly disapproved of the diplomacy
which led to the crisis, and as a Socialist body was
so convinced that the main root cause of the
war lay in the competitive struggle of nations
for economic expansion, that its support of the
war was qualified. It preserved its identity and
mainly concerned itself with pressing home the
Socialist view of the various aspects of the
struggle. In no case was there absolute unanimity.
On the one hand, for example, some of the
Labour M.P.'s who took part in the recruiting
campaign are members of the Independent Labour
Party. On the other hand, one can point to the

1 This body of opinion, however, includes the Fabian
Society, which is in accord with the majority of the Labour
Party, to which it is affiliated.

140 International Socialism

Norwich Trades Council, which represents 10,000
Trade Unionists, and which declined to consider
the Labour Party circular advocating recruiting.
In a third direction we see that while the Fabian
Society was with the Labour Party, which backed
the Government's case, one of its leading members,
Mr. Shaw, declared that Britain said " the day is
bound to come" before Germany drank to "the
Day," and that while there were very good demo-
cratic reasons for fighting Germany, who had let
Austria throw " the match into the magazine," the
British official case was just so much hypocrisy.
And, presumably, Mr. Shaw has a following.

XVIII
THE TIME FOR PEACE

At the end of October the Socialist Party of
America suggested that a special International
Socialist Congress should be held for the purpose
of discussing a way to peace. It was proposed
that the Congress should be held at Copenhagen
or the Hague, or in America, and in the event of
its taking place in the United States, the American
Socialists offered generous contributions towards
the expenses.

The American party issued its invitation to the
organisations affiliated to the International, with a
reminder that, under the Stuttgart resolution of
1907, it was the duty of Socialists, not only to
strive against an outbreak of war, but, in the event
of war having been let loose, to work for its speedy
termination. It also stated : —

We are not now concerned as to which Government
was the aggressor in this terrible conflict, nor is that the
question of greatest importance. History will sit in
judgment on this also. We appeal to you in the name
of Socialism, and acting in agreement with your own
proclamations, we ask you to help us to stop this mass
murder. You, yourselves, in every country have declared

142 International Socialism

that this war was not of your choice. Your noble and
eloquent declarations still hold good. We know that no
nation can gain by the continuation of this war. What-
ever rewards and advantages will come from it will go to
the ruling classes. . . . And every day that the slaughter
continues thousands of our comrades and brothers are
killed.

The Socialists of the war-stricken European countries
have worked faithfully and heroically in the spirit of this
[the International Congress] resolution. But their voices
were silenced by the cannon of the hostile armies.
Capitalist militarism proved stronger than the young
spirit of Socialist brotherhood.

The Dutch Socialist Party also suggested a
Peace Congress, and we have already seen how
the Italian and Swiss parties urged the Socialists
of the countries engaged in war to press their
respective Governments to bring an end to the
conflict.

The idea of a Peace Congress met with a varying
reception.1 Mr. H. W. Lee, in a leading article of
Justice, argued that nothing in the way of peace
negotiations could be effective until the German
troops were driven out of France and Belgium.
Further—

The Allies have agreed to accept peace terms only in
common agreement. While such agreement renders it
impossible for Russia to conclude anything in the shape
of peace with Germany separately, it means also that the
western area of military operations cannot be dealt with
by itself. Taking all things into consideration, therefore,
we are sure that just now is not the time to put forward

1 See Appendix IV.

The Time for Peace 143

proposals for peace. We think this view will be found
to be also that of our comrades in the neutral countries
of Europe. . . .

While the situation is as it is, we have frankly to con-
fess that all talk of peace is futile. The less it is
indulged in at the moment the better. We must
husband our efforts for a more favourable opportunity.
We have therefore regretfully to say that we do not think
the Conference suggested by our American comrades is
at all opportune, and we hope they will reserve the
suggestion for a later date.1

The view that while the Germans were in
France and Belgium peace was impossible was
also expressed by M. Jean Longuet, a foremost
member of the Unified Socialist Party of France.
Dealing in I'Humanitf with the American sug-
gestion, on October 9th, M. Longuet wrote that
while the American Socialists, the Italian and
the Swiss Socialists were animated by " the most
sincere and most noble international spirit," they
did not understand that there was not the oppor-
tunity for their initiative to be acted upon. They
did not take account of the exact position of the
problem. Germany had thrown the most formid-
able military machine into innocent Belgium and
into France, which was peaceful from one end to
the other. It was the Borinage, the districts
of Liege and Charleroi, industrial centres and
nurseries of Socialism, and the densely popu-
lated regions of the departments of the Nord, the
Ardennes and the Pas-de-Calais, the Aisne and
1 October 8th, 1914.

144 International Socialism

the Somme — districts in which Socialist effort
had had the greatest effect — that had been
"devastated to the full, bruised and cruelly
ravaged."

In the face of so much ruin and mourning it is
Germany which has remained intact, whose territory,
at least, has not yet known the horrors of invasion. It
is the abominable pride of the military caste, the great
Pan-German industrialists and the Bismarckian pro-
fessors, rendered anxious certainly by the "untamable
resistance " of our admirable little soldiers, to which the
Times alludes, which is still unbeaten.

What peace negotiations could be entered upon under
these conditions, after so much blood has been spilt, so
many tears shed, and no definite result obtained ?

In order to crush German militarism the struggle
would have to be continued until there was a
definite result.

We must continue it without savage hatred, without
stupid Chauvinism, without any spirit of barbaric
revenge, but with force and dignity, to safeguard our
Republican France, and to create a new Europe.

Only after that will we be able to speak of common
action by the Socialists of all countries to establish
international peace on definite foundations. Then
International Socialism will make its voice heard.

Meanwhile the headquarters of the International
Socialist Bureau have been transferred from
Brussels to Amsterdam, the headquarters of the
Dutch Socialist Party, which through its leader,
Troelstra, has appealed to the various parties to
remain true to the International and not to show

The Time for Peace 145

irritation because the power of the organisations
was not sufficient to prevent war.

From all the utterances of the different parties
and representative leaders immediately preceding
and since the war, it seems probable that a repre-
sentative International Socialist Congress would
agree upon the following principles as a basis of
peace: — (i) National divisions should determine
the frontiers of States. (2) Self-government should
be granted subject peoples if after a plebiscite they
preferred suzerainty to complete independence.

(3) The Balance of Power policy should be
superseded by that of a Concert of Europe.

(4) Parliaments should have a real control over
foreign policy. (5) The reduction of armaments.
(6) Foreign policy should have as its ideal a
United States of Europe, with all seas neutral and
navies supplanted by an international police.

10

XIX
CONCLUSION

The hands of the International are clean. It
has only one thing to regret ; and that is that it
was not strong enough to restrain the war-mongers.
The crisis was but a matter of days. Everywhere
the parties had to work in the dark, ignorant — like
the rest of the public — of what were the points at
issue between a handful of men distributed over
half-a-dozen European capitals, and with only such
information as the Foreign Offices chose to divulge.
Socialism stands alone as a force which, in every
country concerned, worked to the last hour for
peace. It was the only international peace party ;
the only party which worked for the interests of
humanity and civilisation at large. The Inter-
national's connected history does not extend over
half a century, yet what a part it played compared
with that of the Christian Church, a growth of
nearly two thousand years, and with place and
power in every State concerned ! Looking with
sorrow on the bloody wreckage of Europe's
civilisation, International Socialism can say with
truth : " This is not our doing ; it is in spite of our

Conclusion 147

years of effort ; it is the fruit of a political policy
and an economic system which we have opposed."

The fact that war was not prevented is a test
only of the strength of the International, not of
its loyalty to its principles. The International
may regret that, owing to the bitter opposition to
their growth of the governing class in every
country, the various working-class movements,
when the critical hour arrived, proved powerless
to avert the holocaust; but it has no cause for
shame. Defeated in its main purpose it may have
been ; disgraced and disbanded it decidedly was
not. The real test of the soundness and sincerity
of the International's pacifism lies in the extent
to which it tried to prevent war, the attitude of
the parties once war had broken out, their motives
in supporting it, and the way they will use their
influence when hostilities cease.

We have seen that, in every country concerned,
the Socialists worked untiringly for peace ; and that
they agreed everywhere as to the root causes
of the war — capitalist production and the political
domination of a privileged class. Everywhere was
it recognised that the common people across the
frontier were not responsible for the crisis, and
that all had a common interest in averting hostilities.
And even when war came there were still battalions
of the International who refused to justify it ;
who " across the roar of guns " sent greetings to
the working-class " enemy " ; who sought, as far
as lay in their power, to carry out the mandate of

148 International Socialism

the Stuttgart Congress — " to use the political and
economic crisis created by the war to rouse the
populace from its slumbers and to hasten the
downfall of capitalist domination."

In four of the principal countries involved —
France, Belgium, Germany, and Austria — the Social-
ists, or the majority of them, are supporting the war.

The German Socialists were placed in a position
of enormous difficulty, inasmuch as while Germany
was opposed in the East by the most reactionary
government in Europe, the ally of that govern-
ment in the West was the most liberal. The
majority supported the war as a war of defence
against Russia. Those who are not satisfied by
the available evidence that the German Socialists
were right in regarding Russia as the aggressor
should, at least, reserve judgment until the full
story is told and it is known exactly what version
of affairs the German Socialists had in the days
immediately preceding the war. What body
of opinion the minority represents and what are
that minority's views it is impossible to tell, owing
to the strict censorship and the untrustworthiness,
the misrepresentation and exaggeration which are
characteristics of the bulk of the Press in all
countries during war. It is significant, however,
that the minority included Hugo Haase, the Chair-
man of the Parliamentary group, such world-famed
Socialists as Liebknecht, Kautsky, Bernstein, and
the courageous and popular Rosa Luxembourg.

The French and Belgian Socialists supported

Conclusion 1 49

the war on the grounds of national defence. If
Britain's cause be just, they are gloriously vindi-
cating International principles !

In Russia the Social-Democratic Party, at the
risk of liberty and perhaps life, refused support to
their Government in the prosecution of the war.
They only refrained from demanding a cessation
of hostilities because the Germans were on Russian
territory.

In Great Britain the largest Socialist body, the
I.L.P., uncompromisingly opposed j the war; the
support of the second largest body, the British
Socialist Party, was only of a qualified nature.
For British diplomacy in the years preceding the
war it had no defence. The bulk of British
Socialist opinion is against the war. This is none
the less true because the general Press continually
insists that everybody looks at affairs from the same
point of view, or because the Radical Trade
Unionists, as a body, are backing the war. We
are not here primarily concerned with the numbers
and influence of the Socialist parties — were there
but a single Socialist in Britain, and he against the
war, we should say that British Socialism was
against it — but it may be pointed out in passing that
it is a matter of history that the Labour Party is the
child of the I.L.P., that the I.L.P. has given it its
most prominent leaders, and that the I.L.P. is the
most virile element within it When the Press
speaks of the " insignificant minority," the " little
handful " of men who are against the war, it blinks

150 International Socialism

these facts but does not dispose of them. The
I.L.P. has held many meetings, including many
big gatherings, at which its case against the war
has generally received a patient hearing and an
impression has been made. But these things do
not interest the newspapers. There are none so
blind . . .

What is the motive of the Socialists who
support the war? It is the furtherance of
Socialism and Democracy ; it is everywhere the
same; it is the guarantee of the future life of
the International. The French Socialists joined
their Government, and so did the Belgian Socialists;
but they did not do so because their interests
and those of Governments are common. In
both countries their cause has been met with
the persistent opposition of the ruling class. But
their view is that, should their nation be beaten
in the war, an even stronger barrier would be
erected to the progress of their movement. It
is the same with the German Socialists. Inch by
inch they have won liberty and built up their
movement. The victory of Russia, they argued,
would mean that much of the ground won would
be lost and would have to be fought over again.
In the same way the Russian Socialists opposed
the war because they saw that the triumph of their
own Government would strengthen it as a
despotism. British Socialists opposed the war
because they saw that forces were let loose in
England which might lead to the introduction of

Conclusion 1 5 1

that militarism against which we claim to be fight-
ing, and because they feared the effects of a
victorious Russia, and especially of a Russia at
the end of the war in relatively the strongest
position of the Powers. The majority of the
Labour Party took a different view and supported
the war — but their aim was the same ; the keeping
of Britain free from the curse of militarism, and so
keeping the path clear for democratic advance.

To have Socialists supporting with the same
object both sides in a campaign, appears to be an
inconsistent position. It arises because the two
worst Governments in Europe are ranged on
opposite sides. With the Alliance is Kaiserism ;
with the Entente Czarism ; and Socialists every-
where fear the increased influence of either. To
urge that a common policy should have been
agreed upon in view of the way in which the war
was sprung upon the world, and the secrecy of the
Foreign Offices during those last critical days, is
perilously near a counsel of perfection.

When, however, the peace terms are being dis-
cussed, it will be found that the Socialists will be
able to pursue their object from a common platform.
The Russian Socialists have bravely said that they
will resist the German people being brought under
the yoke of the Czar, and that, in resisting, they
would have with them the Socialists of France,
Belgium, and Britain. And they are right. " No
conquest" will be the watchword of the Inter-
national. And why ? Because a conquered people

152 International Socialism

is so concerned with getting the conqueror off its
back that it does not lift its eyes to the larger vision.
The German Socialists have found that Alsace-
Lorraine and Prussian Poland are stony ground
for the seed of Socialism ; and at our own doors
we have the example of Ireland. If there is to be
any change in frontiers, it will have to be with the
consent of the population involved. That will be
the position of the International. " One sunk by op-
pression puts all other peoples in danger," declared
the Frenchmen at the birth of the "Old Inter-
national " fifty years ago, and in his speech in the
Reichstag on August 4th, Haase said the German
Socialists would oppose any annexation. That
is a principle which the Socialists in all the
countries concerned will strive to enforce when the
guns cease firing. " We respect the independence
and autonomy of the German people," declared
the Socialist Party of France when the war broke
out. And they do — undoubtedly. The French
and Russian Governments will find it out should
the Allies be victorious and any vindictiveness be
shown, a Franco-Russian alliance notwithstanding.
And Belgium ? Backing the independence and in-
tegrity of Belgium is the Red International of
Europe.

The International will also be united in demand-
ing the limitation of armaments or the transfer of
that industry from private hands to the State. It
will be ranged against the sinister influence of the
Ring — Capital's International ! — the " Universal

Conclusion 1 5 3

Death Providers." Then, too, the Socialists will
everywhere seek to abolish diplomacy as we now
know it ; to bring the conduct of national relation-
ships into the daylight. This will probably be the
hardest fight of all. The governing classes will
nowhere lightly surrender their power to gamble
with the lives and happiness of millions for the
gratification of their own ambitions or the right to
wring wealth from a particular patch of the earth's
surface. It will be pleaded that such affairs are
beyond the common folk, though before the eyes
of the " specialists " in foreign politics will be the
awful results of their own criminal incompetence.
Everywhere will the forces of the International
seek to create the conditions of a lasting peace!;
everywhere will they be met with powerful in-
fluences which will seek to lay the foundations of
another war — which will mean continued militarism
and the power to keep the people's eyes on the
enemy across the border while the enemy within
the gate waxes fat upon their poverty.

The work of the International as it relates to
the war is not finished. There is the precedent of
1870; the precedent of the five Socialists in the
North German Parliament who voted for the war
credits in July but were against them after Sedan.
On a larger scale, for greater ends and more lasting
results, will that spirit find expression at the close
of the present war. No section of the International
is under the impression that any Government
directed its foreign policy in the interests of the

154 International Socialism

common people; all sections have had brought
home to them how terrible is the logical outcome
of an economic organisation which is a game of
grab between States as between individuals, and
how perilous is a Government — or any depart-
ment of Government — which is beyond popular
control. As the French Socialists have said,
the very possibility of such a war as that now
raging is in itself " a condemnation of the whole
regime."

The Socialists of France, Germany, and Belgium
fight with ardour in self-defence; but they all
know, and have all stated, that the cause of their
being pitted against one another lies in the pride
and ambition of their rulers on the one hand and
the competition of capitalists for fruitful fields for
capital on the other. The International will make
a great and united stand to see that never again
are the people sent to so inglorious a thing
as war because of the ambition, intrigue, and
criminal blundering of diplomats and Courts.
In the International's eyes the "specialists" in
the conduct of foreign affairs are to be politically
damned.

These are the discoveries which, when the war is
over, or when peace may be usefully discussed,
will be made by those who hope or believe the
International to have crashed to ruin.

Back in 1848, after the heroic Robert Blum, the
Frankfort Democrat, had been executed at Vienna,
Ferdinand Freiligrath commemorated his death in

Conclusion 155

a poem. Round the grave of Blum he fancied he
heard a voice whisper : —

A dirge of death is no revenge, a song of sorrow

is not rage,
But soon the dread avenger's foot shall tramp

across the black-stoled stage ;
The dread avenger, robed in red, and smirched

and stained with blood and tears,
Shall yet proclaim a ceaseless war through all the

coming tide of years;
Then shall another requiem sound, and rouse

again the listening dead —
Thou dost not call for vengeance due, but time

will bring her banner red.
The wrongs of others cry aloud; deep tides of

wrath arise in flood —
And woe to all the tyrants then whose hands are

foul with guiltless blood !

And the International has proclaimed a ceaseless
war. To-day the International sorrows; but it
will rise and demand reparation ; reparation for a
far greater crime than the execution of Blum.
There will be the multitudes left dead on the battle-
fields and the wrongs of those left behind crying
aloud. Smirched and stained with blood and
tears, the Internationalists play what they conceive
to be the wisest part in the situation as it is. But
they do not forget ; they will not forgive. Time
will bring her banner red.

APPENDICES

THE SECOND GERMAN WAR CREDITS

WHEN the second war credits were before the
Reichstag, on December 2nd, the number of
Social-Democrats who refrained from voting for
them was seventeen. Dr. Liebknecht, however,
went so far as to vote against them, thereby
breaking the party rule which forbids a member
of the Parliamentary group from casting a
vote contrary to the decision of the majority.
Liebknecht had no opportunity to speak during
the debate, so he handed in a written declaration
to be included in the official Parliamentary report.
The declaration, which was held by the President
to be out of order, was as follows : —

My vote against the War Credit Bill of to-day is based
on the following considerations :

This war was desired by none of the peoples involved,
nor is it being waged for the well-being of the German
or any other people. It is an Imperialist war, a war for
the rule of the world market, for political domination

*57

158 Appendices

over important territories, of exploitation for industrial
capitalists and financiers. From the standpoint of the
competition in the armaments of war, it is a war pro-
voked by the war parties of Germany and Austria jointly,
in the darkness of semi-feudalism and secret diplomacy,
to gain an advantage over their opponents. At the same
time the war is a Bonapartist effort to disnerve and to
split the growing movement of the working-class which,
despite remorseless and unsparing attempts to create
confusion in its ranks, has developed greatly of late.

The German watch ward "Against Tsarism" is pro-
claimed for the purpose — just as the present British and
French watchwords are proclaimed — to exploit the
noblest inclinations and the revolutionary traditions and
ideals of the people in stirring up hatred of other peoples.
Germany, the accomplice of Tsarism, the model of
political reaction until this very day, has no standing as
the liberator of the peoples. The liberation of both the
Russian and the German people must be their own
work.

The war is no German war of defence. Its historical
basis and its course at the start make the pretension of
our Capitalist Government that the purpose for which it
demands credits is the defence of the country unaccept-
able.

The early conclusion of a peace without conquests
must be urged, and all efforts to this end must be sup-
ported. Only by strengthening, jointly and^continuously,
the currents in all the belligerent countries which have
such a peace as their object, can this bloody slaughter be
brought to an end before the entire exhaustion of the
peoples has occurred. Only a peace based on the
ground of the international solidarity of the working-
class and the freedom of all peoples can be lasting.
Therefore, it is the duty of the proletariat of all countries
to carry through during the war a common Socialistic
work in favour of peace.

I support the relief credits with the reserve that the
sum demanded appears to me far from sufficient. No

Appendices 159

less willingly I vote for everything which may relieve
the hard fate of our brothers on the battlefield as well
as that of the wounded and diseased, for whom I feel
the deepest compassion. But as a protest against the
war, against those who are responsible for it, and who
have caused it, against the Capitalist purposes for which
it is being used, against the annexation schemes, against
the violation of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg,
against the unlimited rule of martial law, against the
neglect of social and political duty of which the Govern-
ment and the ruling classes are guilty, I vote against the
demanded war credits.

KARL LIEBKNECHT.

December 2, 1914,
BERLIN.

Herr Haase, addressing the Reichstag, stated
that the party was unanimously of the opinion,
as a result of facts which had come to light since
the outbreak of the war, that the evidence was
not sufficient to show that the violation of the
neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg was justi-
fied by military reasons. The party " had agreed
that the violation of Luxemburg and Belgium
must be regarded as a violation of justice."1

This statement was suppressed by the German
Press and by the Censor ; but a verbatim report
of the speech reached this country through Holland.
In the course of it, Haase repeated the protest of
August 4th against any annexation, and the de-
mand for peace at the earliest possible moment.

The majority voted for supplies because the
country was threatened with invasion.

1 Labour Leader, December loth, 1914.

1 60 Appendices

II

THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S DOMESTIC
POLICY

Early in December the Constitution of Finland
was practically suppressed, all the public services,
the banks, schools and the Press being brought
under the control of the Russian Government.
The Speaker of the Finnish Diet was arrested and
exiled by "administrative order" and other pro-
minent Finns met with a similar fate.

On November lyththe Russian Social-Democratic
Party held a council meeting for the purpose of
considering how best to set to work to obtain for
the country a democratic constitution. The eleven
leaders of the party who were present, including
five members of the Duma, were arrested, and news
arrives as this work goes to press that they will
be tried by martial law. The arrest of the Duma
members was illegal.

Ill
THE SERVIAN VIEW

The two Social-Democratic members in the
Servian Parliament voted against the war credits.
Lapshewitz, the party leader, declared that while

Appendices 1 6 1

the Socialists agreed that the Austrian Note was
an outrage, it was partly a consequence of the
policy of the Servian Government. Therefore, the
Socialists could not support the war.

IV
PEACE PROPOSALS

To the proposal of the American Socialist Party
for a peace conference, replies were received from
the parties of France, Portugal, Norway, Sweden,
Denmark, Italy, Argentine, Turkey, and the British
Socialist Party. The replies of the last-named
body and the French party were in accordance
with the views expressed in Section XVIII.
Portugal, Argentine, Turkey, and Italy approved
of the idea of a Congress, and the Scandinavian
Socialists announced that they were themselves
convening a Congress of the Socialists of neutral
countries.

This Congress was arranged to be held in
Copenhagen on January 1 5th and i6th, 1915, and
it was expected that representatives of Holland,
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, America, and probably
Switzerland would be present. It was officially
stated that —

The object of the conference will be as follows :
To influence the opinion of the peoples in neutral
ii

1 62 Appendices

countries in such ^ a way that it shall be exerted in
favour of a settlement which will guarantee a lasting
peace, and, further, to strive for a united effort to
secure : (i) That no changes of frontiers shall take place
at the end of the war by which the right of self-govern-
ment by the nations shall be lessened, (ii) the restriction
of military armaments, and (iii) the establishment of a
responsible International Arbitration Court.

The Parliamentary groups of the Socialist parties
which take part in the conference will be asked to lay
addresses before the Governments of their respective
countries urging that they should take steps to bring
about the finish of the war, perhaps through the joint
action of all the Governments of neutral States.

The Swiss Social-Democratic Party petitioned
the President of the Republic to intervene between
the belligerent Powers. He promised in reply to do
what he could " to get the neutral States to bring
collective pressure to bear in favour of an armistice
as a preliminary step towards peace." 1

V
WOMEN AND THE WAR

Messages of sympathy and expressing opposition
to the war have been exchanged by the British
and German and Austrian sections of the Women's
International Council of Socialist and Labour
Organisations. In Germany, Gleicheit, a paper
1 Labour Leader^ November 26th, 1914.

Appendices 163

edited by Clara Zetkin, has been suppressed, and
copies of her " Appeal to Socialist Women " have
been confiscated. In this country, the Women's
Labour League issued a manifesto which gave
no support to the war, and no woman signed the
general Labour manifesto issued in its favour.

INDEX

ALSACE-LORRAINE, n, 12, 13,

14.
American Socialists and peace,

141 ; Appendix IV.
Anderson, W. C., on case for

war, 127.

Applegarth, Robert, 14.
Armaments ring, 113.
Austrian Socialists and the war,

64-67.

Balkan War, 18.

Barnes, G. N., 132, n.

Bebel, August, 13, 43.

Belgian Socialists and the war,
100-102.

Bernstein, Eduard, 51 ; on
peace terms, 58.

Blum, Robert, 154.

Bourtzeff, 93.

British Labour Party and
neutrality, 106 ; and cause
of war, 108, no, in, 112;
and recruiting, 109.

British Socialist Party, on cause
of war, 133; manifesto on
war, 133 ; on recruiting, 137,
138; attitude during war, 134.

British Trade Union Congress,
29.

Communist League, 3-6.
Communist Manifesto, 4.

Daily Citizen, on neutrality,
107 ; on cause of war. 107 ;
and recruiting, 1 10.

Engels, Friedrich, 3, 43.

Fabian Society, 139, «.

Finland, Russia and, Ap-
pendix II.

Fourier, Fran£ois, 3.

Franco- Prussian War, 10-14.

Frank, Ludwig, 37.

Freiligrath, Ferdinand, 154.

French Socialists : peace meet-
ings* 77 5 manifesto on war,
77 ; deputation to Premier,
80 ; join Ministry, 8 1 ; and
Briand and Millerand, 8l ;
and co-operation with Gov-
ernment, 82 ; and Cabinet
representatives, 85 ; and
German Socialists, 86.

General Confederation of Labour
(French), 29.

General strike and war, 28-30.

German Socialists : manifesto
against war, 34 ; peace agita-
tion, 35, 36 ; and France,
40, 41 ; and Russian aggres-
sion, 40, 41, 44, 45 ; and
"Czarism," 43; and war
credits, 44, 46, 47, also
Appendix I. ; and Belgian
neutrality, 48, 49, also Ap-
pendix I. ; position summed
up, 51 ; and Jingoism, 6 1 ;
and peace terms, 61 ; Vander-
velde on, 62 ; Sudekum's
mission, 68.

165

i66

Index

Germany : ultimatum of, 31 ;
mobilisation of, 32.

Glasier, J. Bruce, 31.

Gletcheit, suppression of, Ap-
pendix V.

Grey, Sir Edward, 46, 106, III.

Guesde, Jules, 81.

Haase, Hugo, 33, 47, 48, 51,

Appendix I.

Hamon, August, and I. L. P., 86.
Ilardie, J. Keir, 31, 33, 102;

on Russia and the war, 1 28.
Henderson, Arthur, 102 ; on

conscription, no.
Howell, George, 14.
Huysmans, Camille, 16.
Hyndman, H. M., on cause of

war, 134-136; Vandervelde

on, 137.

I.L. P., and Armaments ring,
113; and British diplomacy,
115, 116; course during war,
117; manifesto on war, 117;
views of leaders, 120-131 ;
and recruiting, 131.

International Alliance, 3, 4.

International Miners' Congress,
21.

International Socialism : origins,
3 ; strength of parties, 20 ;
as tested by war, 147 ; reason
of divisions, 130; future action
of, 150-156.

International Socialist Bureau
and the war, 31, 32; British
Section's manifesto, 103 ;
British Section's demonstra-
tion, 104.

International Socialist Congress,
15, 16 ; and war, 17; and
general strike, 28.

International Trade Unionism,
23-27.

International Working Men's
Association, 7-9 ; and Franco-
Prussian War, 10-14; dissolu-
tion of, 15.

Irving, Dan, 31.

Italian Socialists : and Stlde-
kum's mission, 68 ; and neu-
trality, 70 ; conference with
Swiss Socialists, 74 ; and
peace, 74.

Jaures, Jean, 33 ; and chance

of war, 78.
Jo^ett, F. W., on cause of war,

120-123.
Justice, during war, 134.

Kautsky, Karl, 51 ; on peace, 55.
Khaustoff, Valentin, 90.
Kropotkin, Peter, 94.

Lee, H. W., 142.

Leipziger Volkzeitung and

"Czarism," 42.
Liebknecht, Karl, 44, 51, 113,

Appendix I.

Liebknecht, Wilhelm, 13.
Longuet, Jean, 85, 143.
Luxembourg, Rosa, 51, 148.

MacDonald, J. R. : on neu-
trality, 1 06 ; resignation of,
109; 115 ; on cause of war,
124-126, i26«. ; on Russia
and the war, 129-131.

Marx, Karl, 3, 7, II, 12, 43.

Miners and the war, IO$.

Morocco crisis, 1 8.

Owen, Robert, 3.

Peace Congress : American
Socialists' proposal, 141, Ap-
pendix IV. ; Dutch Socialists'
proposal, 142 ; H. W. Lee
and, 142 ; J. Longuet and,
144; at Copenhagen, Ap-
pendix IV.

Peace terms : Kautsky on, 55-
57 ; Vorwarts on, 57 ; Bern-
stein on, 58 ; South German
Socialists and, 6l ; probable
basis, 145 ; International
Socialism and, 151-154.

Index

167

" Pound - a - week " campaign,
132*.

Quelch, Harry, 136.

Roumanian Socialists and neu-
trality, 75.

Russia : mobilising, 3 1 ; German
fear of, 37, 38, 39 ; agents in
Roumania, 75 > on eve of war,

88 ; Milyoukov on opinion in,

89 ; and Jews, 93 ; and sub-
ject nations, 93, Appendix

Russian Socialists : and war
credits, 90 ; persecuted by
Government, 91, Appendix
II. ; and outcome of war, 94 ;
and Belgian appeal, 95, 96 ;
view of London members, 97.

Sembat, Marcel, 58, 81.

Servian Socialists and war, Ap-
pendix III.

Shaw, G. B., 140.

Smillie, Robert, 105.

Snowden, Philip, 113; and
British diplomacy, 1 16.

Socialism and Nationalism, 2, 5.
Siidekum, Dr., 68.
Swiss Socialists and peace, 73,
Appendix IV.

Troelstra, P., 6l, 144.

Vaillant, Edouard, 81.

Vandervelde, Emile, 16, 33 ;
appeals to Russian Socialists,
95 ; enters Cabinet, 101 ;
and German invasion of Bel-
gium, 62, 102 ; on Hyndman's
view, 137.

Vorwarts : and "Czarism," 42,
43 ; and Belgian neutrality,
49 ; and official case, 50 ;
conduct during war, 52 ; sus-
pension, 53 ; on alleged atro-
cities, 54.

Ward, Dudley, 36, 40.
Women and the war, 59, Ap-
pendix V.

Zetkin, Clara, 59, Appendix V.

P. S. KING & SON, LIMITEP, Orchard House, Westminster

KING'S BOOKS
ON QUESTIONS oftfie DAY

WAR AND THE PRIVATE CITIZEN.

Studies in International Law. By A. PEARCE HIGGINS, M.A.,
LL.D., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, Lecturer on Public Inter-
national Law at the London School of Economics and the Royal
Naval War College. With an Introductory Note by Rt. Hon.
ARTHUR COHEN, K.C. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 55. net Inland
Postage, jd.

Spectator. — Dr. Higgins believes that a more widely diffused knowledge of the
recognised laws of war would sober public opinion in times of strained international
relations. He is a lawyer, but writes for laymen, and draws an impressive picture of
war as it affects civilians and non-combatants.

CAPTURE IN WAR ON LAND AND SEA.

By Dr. HANS WEHBERG, of the University of Bonn. With a
Preface by JOHN M. ROBERTSON, M.P. Crown 8vo. Cloth,
55. net. Inland Postage, jd.

Publishers' Circular. — Deserves to be studied by all who are interested in the
subject.

Southampton Times.— Deals in a masterly style with the law of prize.

BRITISH RIGHTS AT SEA UNDER THE DECLARA-
TION OF LONDON.

By F. E. BRAY. Crown 8vo. is. net. Inland Postage, id.
Western Daily Press. — Sir Edward Grey has . . . advised people who wish to
hear both sides before passing judgment to get this book. It is excellent advice.

FREEDOM OF COMMERCE IN WAR.

By "MANCUNIAN." DemySvo. Cloth, is. net. Inland Postage, 2d.

Manchester Guardian. — This concise and masterly pamphlet has been perused
with the greatest admiration. It is to be hoped that it will have a very wide
circulation.

Liberal Magazine. — The pamphlet is brilliantly done ; its arguments have all the
weight of intimate commercial knowledge, close reasoning based on knowledge of
the law, and a power of expression both persuasive and convincing. It is a most
helpful piece of work for the student of one of the most difficult of present-day
naval problems.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE AND CLOSER UNION.

By HOWARD D'EGVILLE. With a Preface by Col. the Rt. Hon.
J. E. B. SEELY, D.S.O., M.P., late Secretary of State for War, and
an Introduction by Rear-Admiral Sir CHARLES L. OTTLEY,
K.C.M.G. DemySvo. Cloth, 75. 6d. net. Inland Postage, jd.
Daily Telegraph. — The word of warning is timely. May it fall upon receptive
ears!

Aberdeen Free Press. — Deals with a subject of engrossing interest, and is specially
welcome at the present moment.

Lists of Messrs. King's publications on— Peace and War, Fiscal Question,
Health, Land, Finance, Women's Questions, Poor Law, Local Government,
Labour, Railways, Transport, and Subject Catalogue of Publications on
Economics, Politics, and Sociology, -will be sent, post free, on application.

p. s. KING & SON, LTD. ^c.HTAii;MH.oTu;:

Los Angeles
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.

NOV 211952
?CES

N5

RECD

aro

SEP 17 13TO

RECDLD-um;
2- APR 1 3 1972

MAR 1 T

L9-25m-9,'47(A5618)444

4^

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOKNIA
AT

T rvo A vi/^nt

L 006 630 713 3

UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

A 001 454 544 6