INTERVIEW WITH HAASE, CHAIRMAN OF THE SOCIALIST

GROUP IN THE REICHSTAG

(By TROELSTRA, of Holland, in November, Published in Vorwaerts)

Haase was indicated by Bebel as his choice for his successor as Chairman of the Socialist Group in the Reichstag. In this capacity, he read the two declarations of the Reichstag Socialists on August 4th and December 2d. His personal opinions may differ from these declarations, however. They are indicated by his expressions in an interview with Troelstra, the leader of the Dutch Socialists:

The discussion turned to the attitude of the German Party with respect to Belgium. I was assured that our party in the committee of the Reichstag had always insisted on respecting the neutrality of the smaller countries. How now did it come about that it did not protest against the violation of Belgian neutrality on August 4th? I asked this question of the Chairman of the Reichstag group, our Comrade Haase, and his answer was as follows: "The declaration of our party had been previously decided upon by our group, and given to the President of the Reichstag before the group knew of the violation of Belgian neutrality. The group, every time it has been given the opportunity, has always declared decidedly for the observation of treaties of neutrality."

Troelstra continues as follows:

"In looking through the German papers it has occurred to me that it was only after the 4th of August that the ultimatum to Belgium and the following events were related in the press."

Bethmann-Hollweg's confession of the violation of Belgium, however, was noted in these same papers, and concerning this Troelstra says:

"Information of the Chancellor that Belgium was probably already invaded was tied up with the declaration that any wrong that had been done would be made right."

Socialists do not usually accept governmental promises, but according to Troelstra, they were justified in accepting the governmental excuse and promise at this time.

Troelstra also asked Haase what the Social Democracy would think of a possible annexation of all Belgium.

answer was:

His

"The German Social Democracy is the enemy of all annexation, both on Democratic grounds, and in the interest of Germany itself. In its declaration of August 4th, the Reichstag group took this standpoint, and since that time the party press has also frequently repeated it."

Another question asked by Troelstra of Haase was whether Germany would favor a non-partisan investigation of the cruelties in Belgium. Haase's answer was as follows:

"Each of the warring Powers accused the other party of conducting the war in an inhuman way and of violating the laws of war. I regard it as necessary, after the end of the war, to have an expert investigation by a non-partisan tribunal, for the discovery of the facts in the interests of historic truth; so that those may be declared innocent who are wrongly accused, and so that the guilty may be discovered."

One important point in the Haase interview is the plea that the Socialists, in granting the war loan of August 4th, did not know in time of the invasion of Belgium. This defense does not apply, however, to the subsequent voting of the second war loan on December 2d. We must conclude either that Haase did not personally approve of this second action, or that he later changed the opinion he expressed to Troelstra.

It is significant that neither Troelstra nor Haase says anything about a possible indemnity to Belgium.

One of the policies insisted upon by the military authorities in Germany is that of "civil peace." Vorwaerts was allowed to continue its publication after having been suspended on September 30th, only on a change of management, and the assurance that the class struggle would not be mentioned. The supposition was that all class attacks were to cease, though Vorwaerts

still constantly complained that, while such attacks were made by the ruling classes and by the employers, the Socialists were forced to be very mild in their criticisms both of employers and of the government, and to remain always on the defensive. The discussion of this enforced "civil peace" now took the first place in German Socialist newspapers and periodicals. In Die Neue Zeit, the historian of the party, Franz Mehring, discussed the question from the historical standpoint, and used his influence and that of Die Neue Zeit for a bitter criticism of the party majority which voted the war credits. Mehring's principal points were as follows:

The shattering fact that the International has broken down and that the behavior of the German Social Democracy is judged unfavorably by its sister parties, even in the neutral states, is in part explained by the fact that the German Party authorities, and especially the German Party press, has adapted itself to the so-called "civil peace," abandoned the definite expression to party principles during the war. They have done this under the iron pressure of military dictatorship, but they have done it just the same, and by this action they have created the impression among foreign comrades that the German Social Democracy has given itself over body and soul to imperialism.

This appearance is deceitful, as we know. Still a deceitful appearance may do great harm. Even if the "civil peace" is only an interim, this interim will leave its shell behind it. When the party gives in to it, it offers a sacrifice that is only justified by the most pressing and the highest interests of the nation. The ruins of the International warn us, and one does not need to be a prophet to foresee that the party may be brought to the most fateful decisions by the question of the "civil peace."

The central and fundamental nature of the subject, "Civil Peace," may not at first strike the reader. To discuss it is really but another way of discussing the

war.

Socialism means a kind of civil war, the class

struggle, which is the very opposite of civil peace. Moreover, Socialists have always declared that this civil struggle is international, that the interests of the workers of all nations are opposed to the interests of the capitalists of all nations, that the chief evil in wars between nations is that they serve to divide workers against themselves and force them to unite with their real enemies, the capitalists. All Socialists agree that the class struggle is held more or less in abeyance by the sheer fact of war. The question is: How far shall Socialists allow this "civil peace" to go? If it goes far enough it may postpone the class struggle, that is the struggle for Socialism, indefinitely. The question then is: How far shall Socialism, during the war, abdicate altogether in favor of nationalism, or the struggle of the nations?

On this question Bernstein agrees with Mehring. We take the following from his highly sensational attack on the ultra-patriotic Socialist organ, the Chemnitz Volksstimme: *

The Chemnitz Volksstimme [a party paper] opened a discussion on what should be the attitude of the Social Demo

cratic press during the present war. This is certainly a very important question. No party has been put to a greater task through the war than the Social Democracy.

We cannot permit the world, and especially our own people, to have for a moment the idea and the belief that we entered the war with such slight baggage of principles and general viewpoints as that of our bourgeois parties. It is a very superficial and in addition a very deceiving conception of "love for the country" to think that during the time of war the party principles have to be in the background. For us Social Democrats just the opposite is the case.

The stronger we adhere to the principles which we represented before the war, the more decidedly we are guided by them and arrange our behavior towards the events in accord* See the Leipzig Volkszeitung of November 3d.

ance with them, the more useful should we be to the German nation, the better should we protect and guard its highest interests, which we certainly consider, and must consider, from quite different standpoints than those of all other parties. To my sorrow I must state that the Chemnitz Volksstimme, in its article, as also in the modus of its editorship generally for quite a time, represents and defends a far different policy. What this party paper recommends leads in its consequences just to the opposite.

The Chemnitz Volksstimme writes:

"The affair of our brothers in the field of war is our affair. We must not write one line even which makes their hard and bloody work harder or longer. We must deliver to them the press and the organization undamaged and as strong as possible. When they return from the battlefields they will have again to fight for bread and freedom in civil clothes. In order that we should be able to live in safety, they sacrifice themselves. The one who does not scrutinize each article and each line he writes so that he can stand before our comrades on the fields of battle, does not understand his duty during the war. From this leading principle our acceptance of the 'civil peace' directly follows. Internal strife is the hope of our enemies. We irrevocably support that which Scheidemann wrote to America: 'In the present war the whole German nation is a unit.' The party has no right to deviate from this general policy of the party as a whole."

The Chemnitz Volksstimme quotes the words of Scheidemann: "In this war the whole German nation is united," and adds: "The party press has no right to deviate from this general policy of the party." I do not know in what sense Comrade Scheidemann used his statements, but the interpretation given by the Chemnitz Volksstimme must be absolutely rejected.

So far the party in its totality has not had the opportunity to express itself on the causes, conduct, and aims of the war. A faction of the party only has done it. But the Socialist group in the Reichstag, in granting the military budget, explained its motives and expressed in the same way as I have, what unites us in this war with the bourgeois parties and what separates us from them. He who really wishes to create a clear understanding of the situation in the minds of the masses should never emphasize the one without the other.