let us hope they are the Socialist precursors of a German republic. They have been able to see how their rulers understood the rights of neutral peoples and the respect due to treaties. In spite of wanton falsehoods, they can point to the atrocities organized by their military chiefs in unhappy Belgium or in our invaded provinces. And certain persons are already asking themselves anxiously if, even in face of foreign countries, the unity of Germany and her place in the world must be confounded with the domination of the Junkers and the ambition of the Hohenzollerns. Heroically Liebknecht has protested. But we know that there is already more than one troubled heart. And even at the hour when we are boldly defending our independence as a nation and our Socialist cause, those others may be asking themselves if the chief object of the war is not to bring about, by an immense circuitous route, their own emancipation!

With untroubled mind we pursue our course. Ah, certainly, we are well aware of the formidable difficulties we have to overcome. Now under the cover of the sacred union of the whole people, now by recalling, artfully and tenaciously, old issues, anti-popular forces would like to rob the republic of the benefits of its victory. Prejudices, bad habits, reappear and may paralyze the enthusiasm with which the people throws itself against the enemy. The necessary restrictions concerning military information are apt to limit sometimes the right of useful criticism. The families of the mobilized and unemployed men at times fall victims of the unconscious struggle of the classes. And into the administration of the war a corrupting capitalism and an insolent bureaucracy attempt to reintroduce their vices.

We shall overcome those difficulties. Our comrades who, in the hour of danger, are sent into the government of na-· tional defense have already shown in its councils the spirit of resolution and boldness which animates our party. They have done everything to call up, to organize the forces of the country for an altogether popular and methodical great war whence it will again come out victoriously.

Parliament, the expression of the national sovereignty, the depository of the rights of the people; parliament, which audits and controls, must henceforth help the government in that immense task. It must give its aid in completing and perfecting the formidable instruments which an armed nation

needs. It will stimulate the energy of all. It will animate the courage of the people. As heir to the great revolutionary assemblies it will give to the present struggle all its inherent popular power, all its emancipatory virtue.

Doubtlessly, the struggle is toilsome. Let us tell the truth— it may be long. It is the most terrible war of history. It will not tire us out.

Socialists, we know for what future we are fighting.

We are fighting in order that French independence and unity may never again be placed in doubt. We are fighting in order that the provinces annexed forty-four years ago against their will may freely come back to the fatherland of their choice. We are fighting in order that at last the right of peoples to dispose of themselves may this time be recognized by all. We are fighting in order that they may form themselves into groups and federations. We are fighting so that Prussian imperialism—so that all imperialism—shall longer hinder their free development.

по

Socialists, we are also fighting so that this war, this atrocious war, be the last war. We are fighting, as all of us together have fought for years indefatigably, in order that peace, not the lying peace of armaments, but the sweet peace of the peoples, may reign in Europe and in the whole world. We are fighting in order that at least the proletarians, who are really bearing the immense burden of armaments, may breathe freely and pursue the work of their emancipation. We are fighting in order that, with peace established, justice may at last prevail and our grandchildren may no longer fear the aggressive return of barbarism.

That is why the Socialists are fighting. That is why they are to be found, as old Homer said, at the point of the battle. And that is why they are unanimously, more than anyone, resolved on victory. (Our italics.)

This statement is sharply differentiated from that made by the German Party on December 2d, in several particulars. The French state their war to be one of defense; the Germans, in reaffirming their position of August 4th, state it to be a war of defense against Russia, saying nothing of France and England, and make it perfectly clear on December 2d that they regard

it as a war of aggression against Belgium-while they have not stated that they approve the invasion of that country, even as a "military necessity" (see aboveChapter XIX).

The French are resolved on "victory"; the Germans wish only to defend Germany from invasion, for, according to their statement of August 4th, the only victory they seek is one over the armies of the Czarism.

The Germans are fighting against Russian despotism, the French are fighting not only against imperialism, (i.e. absolute monarchy, the French meaning of the word), but also against "militarism"-a claim not made by the Germans.

The Germans claim that they are loyal to International Socialism in the position they have taken, but say nothing to deny the right of the French, from the international proletarian standpoint, to fight against the Germans; the French Socialists claim the exclusive support of the International for the Allies against Germany and Austria.

But the most momentous and important feature of the French declaration is their differentiation between the German Socialists of Liebknecht's opinion and the rest of the party. For this portends, in the case of a split in Germany, the formation of two Socialist "Internationals." It may also affect the peace negotiations; for the French Socialists may be willing to fight the Kaiser indefinitely, whereas apparently they are ready for peace the moment signs of the democratization of Germany make their appearance.

CHAPTER XXIII

BELGIUM

A DEBATE BETWEEN GERMAN AND BELGIAN

SOCIALISTS

THE Belgian Socialists report [in Justice (London) January 7, 1915] a debate held with visiting German Socialists in the Socialist headquarters in Antwerp. We have only the Belgian report, which is probably reliable as to the Belgian side. The German case, however, is here presented in the same arguments used by the right wing of the party (see Chapter XIX) and internal evidence also indicates that it is reported with substantial, though doubtless not complete, accuracy.

A few days after Liebknecht's visit, the Belgian Socialists were honored with the presence of Comrades Noske, Reichstag deputy for Chemnitz, and Dr. Koster, of the staff of the Hamburger Echo.

Noske is a very militant revisionist, who distinguished himself in the Reichstag during the discussion on the war budget by his interpellations of a militarist tendency. On this subject he was taken severely to task at the Congress of 1911 by the delegates of Marxist tendencies, Rosa Luxemburg, Liebknecht, and others. Dr. Koster belongs to the staff of the Hamburger Echo, the Socialist journal which was quite recently called to order by the Party Executive, because of its ultra-chauvinist attitude, of which rebuke, however, the editor took no account.

The conversation turned rapidly to the burning question of the attitude of the German Social Democrats in the Reichstag.

To the Belgian Socialists who complained of the violation of Belgian territory, Dr. Koster replied with disconcerting

assurance, first by repeating the pretended Franco-Belgian agreement already mentioned by H. Wendell [Socialist Reichstag member and volunteer in the German army, whose visit among the Belgian Socialists had previously been reported in Justice], and then he added: "After all, what has happened is your fault. You had only to let us pass. You would have been amply compensated by our government, and we would have brought to you into the bargain universal suffrage, protective laws for women and children, general insurances, and many other laws which, notwithstanding your strength, you have not been able to gain for yourselves." And these Prussian Socialists, themselves crushed down by the three-class electoral system, went on: "Besides, everybody has known for years past that in the event of a FrancoPrussian war our troops must pass through Belgium."

"In that case," the Belgians replied, "when your deputies questioned your government in the Reichstag as to its intentions towards Belgium in the event of a Franco-German war, they were playing an odious comedy; as also when at International Congresses you met us to discuss and vote resolutions on the necessity for small states to defend their independence and the integrity of their territory. The honor of a nation, respect for. its independence and its liberties, international treaties, have, then, no value in the eyes of German Socialists?"

"The honor of a nation," replied Koster, "is a piece of bourgeois ideology with which Socialists have nothing to do. As for the International, they cannot hold to it in time of war. Does not all historical materialism teach us that working-class development is intimately bound up with the economic development and prosperity of the nation? Therefore German Socialists must support the government, which is at this moment defending the very existence of the country against the attacks of England and France and Russian despotism."

"And is it for the defense of the German proletariat that you violate our neutrality and massacre the Belgian workers?" "Do you mean to say that you place respect for your neutrality higher than the lives of a hundred thousand men? We knew that to cross the Vosges to enter France meant the sacrifice of a hundred thousand more lives than the passage through Belgium. The choice for us could not be in doubt."