Chapter M: De Wiart's Address (3)

England is playing a perfectly shameful rôle in this war. Even though France were allied to Russia by an unfortunate treaty, England was not so allied! But England, who has ever been jealous of the industrial development of our country, used the violation of our treaty of neutrality with Belgium, which was incurred only in dire need and which was yielded openly and honestly in the Reichstag by the Chancellor, as a pretext to declare war against us. And England crowned this abhorrent action by mobilizing against us an east-Asiatic nation. Japan, whose sons have enjoyed the most genuine and far-reaching hospitality at our hands, whose culture has been enriched through us, who has won from us our industrial secrets, shows herself suddenly as the most despicable, the most treacherous nation of this whole world. I do not need to go into details over the demands which Japan has presented to Germany, for I assume that your readers are already in full possession of the facts.

Germany will perhaps lose a part of her colonial possessions in this war. Germany is in no position to protect these against many enemies during the war. Germany has steadily counted upon some colonial losses in the struggle. We Socialists especially have in our opposition to capitalistic colonial policy continually pointed to the fact that in the event of war colonies cannot be retained.

For the rest, however, Germany is of good courage. No one has the slightest doubt that our country will claim victory against the hostile oppression from without. In the meantime you in America have long since learned that all announcements of defeats which Germany is said to have suffered in the east, in the west, and on the sea, are lies. It is true that at Schirmek in Alsace a few cannon were lost by our troops. But, on the other hand, the fact is established that in the very first days after mobilization all the enemies' troops were completely driven from Germany, and further, that during the mobilization of our troops victorious battles occurred at Mülhausen and Lagarde in Alsace; that in the east they have made sharp inroads on the Russians; that they overcame Lüttich with all its forts and captured Brussels on the 20th of August.

Here in Germany we are expecting every moment news of the taking of Namur. The quicker decisive battles take place, by so much sooner will there be some possibility of establishing peace with France.

PHILIPP SCHEIDEMANN.

* * * * *

"CRITIQUE OF WEAPONS."

Karl Kautsky, in the Neue Zeit, Berlin, Aug. 8.

_Kautsky has for over a quarter of a century been one of the foremost Socialist leaders in Germany; the founder and present editor of the Neue Zeit. The present article on the war appeared before the periodical was suppressed by the Government._

War, with all its attendant horrors, has broken loose, the "Critique of Weapons" has been set up, and the weapons of criticism are consequently broken. This is not merely the inevitable result of the automatic limitations which would be imposed by any state of war, but rather--though this is but a transitory phase--because of an absolute lack of interest in any sort of critical estimate of the whole situation. In breathless suspense, every man is concentrating the whole of his mental energy on the news of the next moment, news concerning which none can make even fairly clear surmise, and about which one fact only is known in advance, that whatever it is, it is sure to be horrible. For relief from this wretched suspense men are looking to dispatches and decisions of battles, not to critical speculation.

Yet by the time these lines come before the reader this stage may already be giving way, and in all probability there will be beginning to be felt the need of regaining our usual attitude, of taking account of this monstrous event which has broken in on us so suddenly--so unexpectedly that for the moment it has stunned us--of making ourselves clear concerning the end toward which we are moving.

Of course, to discuss the chances of each or any of the combatants involved is out of the question; indeed, it would be a difficult task for the shrewdest military expert to establish a sound estimate, for there are probably few, perhaps none, to whom the armies under consideration are sufficiently well known for that. Besides all this, moreover, the present conflict is taking place under conditions absolutely different from any we have before known, totally new to our experience.

Formerly, when the situation was more simple than at present, there were always at the outbreak of war a few experienced experts who could correctly estimate the prospects for each side in the struggle, for it was usually fairly clear from the very beginning what each side wanted to gain and what in the case of victory each would gain. But in the present situation there is not a word of prophecy which can be uttered in face of the fact that the most terrible war known to history has broken out without any of the powers involved in the least wishing it. It was in Russia first that at the last moment the war party seemed to have gained the upper hand and to have set in motion the whole bloody sport. We may rely on it that the statesmen of Austria were of the honest belief that they could localize the conflict with Servia.

But it is impossible any longer to consider this world war as a continuation of that conflict. Servia has vanished completely from the horizon, and in the moment when that end disappeared from view, each nation found itself suddenly fighting for nothing else save its own national integrity. The real purposes in this war will not come to the surface until the balance of the power becomes a little more sharply defined. Then in the victors' camp all manner of purposes and desires will suddenly spring up wide awake.

When Everything Is Over.

Meanwhile, little as may be affirmed today concerning the prospects for the parties in this struggle and the manner of the war's conclusion, this assertion may safely be put forth; this world will wear a vastly different appearance when everything is over.

We hope, and may reasonably expect, that the war will be relatively short. The Franco-Prussian war lasted from the middle of July to the end of February; military operations began early in August and closed with the truce of Jan. 28. That the present war will be dragged out to so great a length, involving so incredible a number of men, demanding so severe a straining of energies--especially the financial--on the part of all the nations, is hardly conceivable. But however short a time it may last, we shall emerge a world very different from before.

The time is long since past when a great war brings in its train no changes other than the ceding of a few square miles of conquered territory. Under the capitalistic method of production, continual changes, irreconcilable situations, constantly new problems pile up so rapidly that no great war is any longer possible which does not bring with it a prolonged breaking down as well as a building up of industrial organisms.

Especially is it clear that the non-European world will undergo a powerful change. The non-European nations are already in the ascendency; more and more they are becoming a strong opposition force to Europe. Their advance must win tremendous impetus from a war which in every case will weaken seriously the European nations, no matter how it may swing the balance of power among them.

The United States particularly will derive the greatest profit from the struggle. Without any exertion whatsoever she is already able to control the entire American market, and in the Far East it is possible for her to exercise considerable restraint on her European competitors. In time she will be in a position to constitute herself the only great money power of that section of the world which employs the use of free capital. Already there is a colossal stream of European securities flowing to the United States, who is acquiring them at the very lowest prices. The remedy for the economic wrongs of Europe which will be created by this war as well as the fixing of indemnities will not be possible without the aid of America. At the very least, the conquered nations will be wholly dependent on American capital.

Next to the United States in this amazingly swift advance stand the nations of Asia and of Islam--Japan, China, India, Persia, Turkey with her tributary possessions. The progress of these nations has been considerably hampered by the control--both financial and military--exerted over them by the European powers. In the free States this control has been suddenly lifted; in the dependencies, such as India, Persia, and Egypt, it has been materially weakened, and it will be long before it can again operate with the same force. We must reckon with the possibility of revolt among these nations and of their entrance into the world war. Russia, England, France--these could be considerably weakened by such a turn of affairs. Colonial policy would then show the obverse side of the medal. It might well prove a decided source of military and economic strength for Germany that her colonial possessions are relatively unimportant.

World Imperialism Doomed.

The stronger the non-European nations become, the fewer grow the possibilities for a continuation of the policy of empire. This world war, born in the very midst of imperialism, can readily end in circumstances which knock the supports from under the imperialistic policy.

It may be said similarly of our worldwide preparation for war, that it too has been a direct consequence of imperialism; and our own party has steadily maintained that it would create an atmosphere in which powder would finally go off of itself--a spontaneous combustion.

The burdens imposed by this war will be so terrible that from the financial point of view it may be extremely difficult if not absolutely impossible when peace shall at length have been concluded to add thereto the burden of renewed preparation for war, especially in the face of competition with America, strong and industrially intact.

These changes must inevitably give an entirely new aspect to our external as well as to our internal political state. To what extent will follow changes in the political relations of the different classes it is too early yet to surmise. But here also there is every assurance for the assertion that political life will recommence stronger than ever before.

As soon as the "Critique of Weapons" ceases, immediately the weapons of criticism are bound to take on a sharper edge. What forms critical effort will assume, against what it will direct its force, what circumstances will bring it to maturity, all of this lies in the lap of Time. In any case, Social Democracy, like any other party, will in that time need the full measure of its strength to assert itself and to protect the interests of the class of which it is made up. To preserve this strength through the vicissitudes which the future has in store is presently to be the most important problem of our internal politics.

We must hold intact the organizations and the party organs together with the trade unions; we must guard their members from imprudences as well as from defection. This goes without saying and there is no true comrade who will not act in this spirit.

No less necessary, however, is unity within the party, the absolute relinquishing of all petty individual grievances. We are a party committed to self-criticism, but in time of a great crisis criticism must become mute. Never has it been more difficult, never, in fact, less possible, to adopt and to maintain a position which would satisfy every Socialist without exception. Every war brings Social Democracy into the fatal dilemma between the necessity for defending our individual homes on the one hand and, on the other, for preserving international solidarity. The present war confronts us as well as the army staff with particular difficulties, for it is a war possessing many faces. It is not only a war against the Czar of Russia, but also against the democracies of France and England, whose Governments felt themselves forced out of fear of isolation and later subjection to stand by the Russian Czar.

We can very easily understand how to many this or that decision by our party may seem a false step, but it would be still more false, still more disastrous, were we, through any difference of opinion, to allow an internal disagreement to arise. In time of war discipline is not for the army alone; for a party it, too, is the first requirement. Under its rule we must all stand together, more courageous, more firmly united than ever before. Not criticism but faith is now the essential condition of our success.

KARL KAUTSKY.

* * * * *

SOCIALISTS OF ITALY FIRM.

Manifesto Resenting German Mission of Herr Sudekum Issued by Socialist Party at Rome, Sept. 3.

We are Socialists, and we do not hesitate to proclaim that the sending of a Socialist mission from Germany to Italy at this moment cannot be free from insidious suspicion; and as such it offends the dignity and the independence of Italian socialism, and offends it so much more because international socialism knows that on German Socialists depended the lesser or greater efficacy in the action of international socialism to arrest the provocative struggle of armaments promoted by Germany, and thus to prevent war.

It offends it so much more because the German Socialist Party, assuming for the justification of the aggressive policy of Germany and Austria the same arguments as the Kaiser's diplomacy, has lost the right to attach itself to the ties of international socialism.

We have thus far kept silent, not to disturb the neutrality proclaimed since the outbreak of the war by the Italian people, irrevocably decided not to dishonor themselves before the world and before history in giving aid to Austria and Germany, and requiring peace after two years of war in Lybia.

Today, however, we are no longer able to be silent in the presence of German Socialist activity encouraging the obscure play of diplomatic intrigues on the part of the Governments of the ex-Triple Alliance, which tends to move Italian neutrality toward the tortuous and perilous paths of indirect co-operation. We want to affirm that our wishes are for the immediate cessation of the war without conquerors or conquered.

But if now this hope is vain, we express our desire that this infamous war may be concluded by the defeat of those who have provoked it; the Austrian and German Empires, since the empires of Austria and Germany form the rampart of European reaction, even more than Russia, which is shaken by democratic and Socialist forces, which have shown that they know how to attempt a heroic effort of liberation; since if the German and Austrian Empires emerge victorious from the war it will mean the triumph of military absolutism in its most brutal expression, of a barbarian horde massacring, devastating, destroying, and conquering in violation of every treaty and right and law.

Nor do the German Socialists give us any confidence of knowing how to restrain this; in the past they have only been able to realize advantageous contrasts of labor and to attain gigantic election results without exercising any influence in the policy of their own country.

The defeat of the German Empire may instead offer German socialism the opportunity of emerging from its voluntary impotence and redeem itself by breaking down the feudal political régime of the empire, taking away from Russian absolutism the assistance it has hitherto enjoyed, and contributing to alter decisively the aims of all European policy.

Since, finally, the victory of the French Republic, now imbued with genuine socialism, and that of England, where the truest democracy flourishes, signifies the victory of a European political régime open to all social conquests and desiring peace, it signifies the agreement between States at last free and nationally reinforced by the limitation of armaments and the substitution of a system of national militia for defense in the place of hordes professionally organized for aggression, which would imply the liberation as well of the German people.

Therefore, under actual conditions, while nearly the whole of Europe is at war, we may well raise our cry of horror and of protest; but our protest strikes only those who desired the war, not those who submit to it to defend themselves against oppression.

In this war is outlined on one side the defense of European reaction, on the other the defense of all revolutions, past and future, brought about by historical necessity stronger than the intentions of Governments. And because of this we must confirm that there remains for us only one way of being internationalists--namely, to declare ourselves loyally in favor of whoever fights the empires of reaction, just as the Italian Socialists residing in Paris have understood that one way only remains to be anti-militarist--to arm and fight against the empires of militarism.

This is our answer as Italian Socialists to the German Socialists.

* * * * *

BRITISH MANIFESTO.

Issued by Keir Hardie and Arthur Henderson, July 31.

The long-threatened European war is now upon us. For more than 100
years no such danger has confronted civilization. It is for you to
take full account of the desperate situation and to act promptly
and vigorously in the interest of peace. You have never been
consulted about the war.

Whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the 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 organized forces of labor are taking
this course. Everywhere vehement protests are made against the
greed and intrigues of militarists and armament mongers.

We call upon you to do the same here in Great Britain upon an even
more impressive scale. Hold vast demonstrations against war in
every industrial centre. Compel those of the governing class and
their press who are eager to commit you to co-operate with Russian
despotism to keep silence 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 agreements and
understandings, of which the democracies of the civilized world
know only by rumor, steps are being taken which may fling us all
into the fray.

Workers, stand together therefore for peace! Combine and conquer
the militarist enemy and the self-seeking imperialists today, once
and for all.

Men and women of Britain, 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 have 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! (Signed on behalf of the British Section of the
International Socialist Bureau,)

J. KEIR HARDIE,

ARTHUR HENDERSON.

* * * * *

KEIR HARDIE'S QUESTIONS.

Directed at Sir Edward Grey, British Minister for Foreign Affairs, in House of Commons, Aug. 27.

_Mr. Keir Hardie_ (Merthyr Tydvil, Lab.) asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the suggestions for a peace settlement made by the German Ambassador, ["White Paper," Page 66, Item No. 123,] together with his invitation to the Foreign Secretary to put forward proposals of his own which would be acceptable as a basis for neutrality, were submitted to and considered by the Cabinet; and, if not, why proposals involving such far-reaching possibilities were thus rejected.

_Sir E. Grey_ (Northumberland, Berwick)--These were personal suggestions made by the Ambassador on Aug. 1, and without authority to alter the conditions of neutrality proposed to us by the German Chancellor in No. 85 in the "White Paper"--Miscellaneous, No. 6, [1914.]

The Cabinet did, however, consider most carefully the next morning--that is, Sunday, Aug. 2--the conditions on which we could remain neutral, and came to the conclusion that respect for the neutrality of Belgium must be one of these conditions. ["Hear, hear!"] The German Chancellor had already been told on July 30 that we could not bargain that way.

On Monday, Aug. 3, I made a statement in the House accordingly. I had seen the German Ambassador again at his own request on Monday, and he urged me most strongly, though he said that he did not know the plans of the German military authorities, not to make the neutrality of Belgium one of our conditions when I spoke in the House. It was a day of great pressure, for we had another Cabinet in the morning, and I had no time to record the conversation, and therefore it does not appear in the "White Paper"; but it was impossible to withdraw that condition [loud cheers] without becoming a consenting party to the violation of the treaty, and subsequently to a German attack on Belgium.

After I spoke in the House we made to the German Government the communication described in No. 153 in the "White Paper" about the neutrality of Belgium. Sir Edward Goschen's report of the reply to that communication had not been received when the "White Paper" was printed and laid. It will be laid before Parliament to complete the "White Paper."

I have been asked why I did not refer to No. 123 in the "White Paper" when I spoke in the House on Aug. 3. If I had referred to suggestions to us as to conditions of neutrality I must have referred to No. 85, the proposals made, not personally by the Ambassador, but officially by the German Chancellor, which were so condemned by the Prime Minister subsequently, and this would have made the case against the German Government much stronger than I did make it in my speech. ["Hear, hear!"] I deliberately refrained from doing that then.

Let me add this about personal suggestions made by the German Ambassador, as distinct from communications made on behalf of his Government. He worked for peace; but real authority at Berlin did not rest with him and others like him, and that is one reason why our efforts for peace failed. [Loud cheers.]

_Mr. Keir Hardie_--May I ask whether any attempt was made to open up negotiations with Germany on the basis of suggestions here set forth by the German Ambassador?

_Sir E. Grey_--The German Ambassador did not make any basis of suggestions. It was the German Chancellor who made the basis of suggestions. The German Ambassador, speaking on his own personal initiative and without authority, asked whether we would formulate conditions on which we would be neutral. We did go into that question, and those conditions were stated to the House and made known to the German Ambassador.

_Mr. Keir Hardie_ [who was received with cries of "Oh!" from all parts of the House]--May I ask whether the German authorities at Berlin repudiated the suggestions of their Ambassador in London, and whether any effort at all [renewed cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"] was made to find out how far the German Government would have agreed to the suggestions put before them by their own Ambassador?

* * * * *

REPLY TO MINISTER GREY.

Made by J. Ramsay Macdonald, Member of Socialist Labor Party, in House of Commons, Aug. 4.

I would have preferred to remain silent this afternoon, but circumstances do not permit of it. I shall model what I have to say upon the two speeches to which we have just listened. The right honorable gentleman has delivered a speech the echoes of which will go down in history. However much we may resist the conclusions to which we have come, we have not been able to resist the moving character of his appeal ["Hear, hear!"]

I think, however, he is wrong, and I think the Government for which he speaks is wrong. I think the verdict of history will be that they are wrong.

The effect of the right honorable gentleman's speech in this House will not be its final effect. There may or may not be opportunities for us to go into details, but I want to say to the House, and without provocation, that if the right honorable gentleman had come here today and told us that our country was in danger, then I do not care what party he appealed to or to what class, we would be behind him. We would vote him what money he wants, and we would go further, for we would offer him ourselves--if the country was in danger. [Cries of "But it is!"] He has not persuaded me that it is, and he has not persuaded honorable friends with me that it is.

I am perfectly certain that when the light honorable gentleman's speech gets into cold print tomorrow he will not persuade a large section of the country. If the nation's honor were in danger we would be with them. There has been no crime committed by statesmen of this character without those statesmen appealing to the nation's honor.

We went into the Crimean war because of our honor; we rushed into the South African war because of our honor, and the right honorable gentleman is appealing to us today because of our honor.

If the right honorable gentleman would come to us and say that a small European nationality like Belgium is in danger [cries of "It is invaded!"] and would assure us that he is going to confine the conflict to that quarter, then we will support him. But what is the use of talking about going to the aid of Belgium when you are really going into a European war which will not leave the map of Europe as it was before.

The right honorable gentleman said nothing about Russia. We want to know about that and try and find out what is going to happen after this is all over. We are not going to go blindly into this conflict without having at least some rough idea of what is going to happen afterward.

At all events, so far as France is concerned, we can say solemnly and definitely that no such friendship as is described by the right honorable gentleman between one nation and another can ever justify one of those nations going into war on behalf of the other.

If France is really in danger, if as the result of all this we are going to have the power, civilization and genius of France removed in European history, let the right honorable gentleman say so. It is an absolutely impossible conception.

So far as we are concerned, whatever attacks may be made upon us, whatever may be said about us, we will take the action that he will take by saying that this country ought to have remained neutral [Labor cheers] because in the deepest parts of our hearts we believe that that was right and that that alone was consistent with the honor of the country and the traditions of the party that are now in office.

* * * * *

MR. MACDONALD REPENTS.

But Does Not Recant--Accusation of The London Times.

It is to be noted that while Mr. Macdonald has never withdrawn his accusations of bad faith against the Government--while he allows them still to be circulated as a broadsheet--he ventures to pose as having abandoned them. Belgian neutrality was, he said in The Labour Leader, and in effect in the House of Commons also, being used as an excuse--it was "a pretty game of hypocrisy." But writing in The Leicester Daily Post on Sept. 24 in vindication of his attitude he said:

On one point I wish to be quite clear.... We could not afford,
either from the point of view of honor or of interest, to see
Germany occupy Belgium. The war that comes nearest having a Divine
justification is the war in which a great and mighty State engages
to protect a small nation. From that position I have never receded.
In the controversies that have been raised I have doubted whether,
when our diplomacy is judged with the whole of the facts before the
judges, it will come well out of its trial on this point, but that
when the popular sentiment of the country is judged it will come
out clean and fine, so far as Belgium is concerned, I am quite
convinced.

This is the man who charges the Government with dragging the country into war because it would not acquiesce in the German armies marching through Belgium on the condition that the integrity and independence of Belgium were respected!

And will it be believed that Mr. Macdonald, whose indictment of the Government for deliberately dragging us into an unnecessary war is still in circulation, has actually ventured to associate himself with the recruiting movement?

In the House of Commons on Aug. 3 Mr. Macdonald predicted that Sir Edward Grey's statement "would not persuade a large section of the country." That prediction having been falsified, it has been necessary for the prophet to hedge. So when a recruiting meeting was held in Leicester on Sept. 11, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald wrote a letter to the Mayor expressing his regret that he could not be present, and saying:

Victory must be ours. England is not played out. Her mission is not
accomplished. She can, if she would, take the place of esteemed
honor among the democracies of the world, and if peace is to come
with healing on her wings the democracies of Europe must be her
guardians. There should be no doubt about that.... History will in
due time apportion the praise and the blame, but the young men of
the country must, for the moment, settle the immediate issue of
victory. Let them do it in the spirit of the brave men who have
crowned our country with honor in the times that are gone....
Should, an opportunity arise to enable me to appeal to the pure
love of country ... I shall gladly take that opportunity. If need
be, I shall make it for myself. I want the serious men of the trade
union, the brotherhood, and similar movements to face their duty.
To such men it is enough to say "England has need of you."

Thus the man who is doing his best to enfeeble sympathy abroad for his country's cause, by representing that cause as one based on hypocrisy, is at the same time exhorting his fellow-countrymen to make the hypocrisy victorious!

Clearly, when the officials of the Berlin news department described Mr. Ramsay Macdonald as "Ramsay and Macdonald" they were not so ill-informed as at first appeared.

Though Mr. Macdonald is not two persons, he has at least two voices.

* * * * *