he called the proletariat to arms, not for an uncertain and misnamed danger of war, but the complaint expressly declares a war between Germany and France as likely, and accuses him of high treason in case of such a war. You must also bring this possibility into the scope of your thought, just as much as the possibility of the invasion of Germany by Russia, and make your preparation for it. (Our italics.)

In his reply, Bebel did not take up the challenge of Jaurès. He still refused to say what the German Socialists would do in case of war with France. We give all the essential parts of his answer:

BEBEL ON THE COMING WAR

Hervé says that upon the threatened invasion of Russia by German troops, we did not do our duty to the International. In October, 1905, when the Russian Revolution had reached the climax, and even pessimists believed in an immediate and fundamental transformation of the Russian state, the Prussian Government feared that the revolution might pass over into Prussian Poland, and therefore strengthened the frontier guards in the east. But only for this purpose, and only in the east. Even the German Government did not think of an invasion of Russia, for the experience of 1792 showed what a storm of anger that would unchain. Also the moment the first Prussian battalion stepped over the frontier, the danger of a world war would immediately be at hand. Finally, even the Czar, who was to be rescued, would in this war be extremely compromised with his own people. Under all these conditions we had no grounds for special measures at that time.

Hervé has also recalled my expressions at Amsterdam (1904). It never occurred to me to say that it is a matter of indifference to us whether we have a republic or a monarchy. I said literally: "The republic is not so good as you represent it, and the monarchy is not so bad as you make it appear. If I had the choice between the French republic and the English monarchy, I do not know which I would choose. But if I had the choice of the German monarchy and a republic like the French, I would not be in doubt for a

moment." I said in Amsterdam that we would not risk our heads for the bourgeois republic.

In the debate it seemed for a while as if the chief differences between us arise from the fact that Germany refused to take up the struggle against militarism, and to carry its national responsibilities. Comrades, that never occurred to any of us. Not a single German comrade even thought of such a thing. At the previous International Congresses in the discussion of militarism we always found ourselves with the great majority, and have not changed our standpoint. On the contrary, our French comrades have changed their standpoint by coming nearer to Hervé, and in this way calling forth a split. We know better than you Frenchmen how the conclusion of the Nancy resolution [that of the French majority] would be regarded in our country. For the sake of nothing at all, for something that we do not know would even be carried out in a crisis, we are not willing to prepare trouble for ourselves and to seriously cripple our movement. terday morning Adler well pictured the dialectical development of militarism. Unless all signs fail, I say, going further than he did, militarism has reached a point in its development where we can see that the first time it is put in practice, militarism will break its own neck. Our resolutions would not harm a hair on the head of militarism, if the evolution which it has taken in the last forty years did not necessarily undermine its own existence. We are not here perpetually to repeat, as we do in our agitation, the horrors of war and the disgusting character of militarism. I point at Germany, the first of military powers and the chief promoter of this whole development.

Yes

Four million families will be in the greatest need-that is worse than a general strike. Think of this situation, of the feelings of these masses. We get a great part of our food from abroad. From the day of the declaration of war this importation will cease. [Bebel, we note, must have foreseen that England would be in the war.] We shall have no products of industry to sell any longer, because a great part of production has become impossible through the impossibility of exportation. This means further unemployment and suffering. Necessities increase in price. Perhaps actual famine breaks out. In the mass battles of the present, a German general has declared we shall not know where to take the

wounded or where to bury the dead. And in such a situation shall we give ourselves over to the plan of a general strike? Upon our first appeal we should be laughed down. What will happen I do not know. But I know that this war will probably be the last, and that it brings the whole of bourgeois society into danger. So we can do nothing but educate and bring light into people's hearts. Agitate and organize.

From a certain standpoint one can say, as a Social Democrat, that a great European war would further our cause more than ten years of agitation, and so we can only desire it. But I would not conjure up such a frightful means of gaining our goal. If, however, those who are most interested in maintaining bourgeois society do not understand that with such a war they are tearing up the roots of their existence, we cannot be disturbed at this, for I say, work away, we are your heirs, if the ruling classes did not know that, we would long ago have had a European war. Only the fear of the Social Democracy has stopped it. But if such a situation ever occurs, then it will no longer be a question of such a trifle as insurrection or a general strike. The civilized world will change its whole aspect from one end to the other, and knowing this, we do not need to worry over the means which may be used in such a moment. The German resolution says plainly and clearly that we must struggle against militarism with all means which, according to our judgment, we consider effective. We can neither view our tactics differently nor force them upon the enemy. But world-shaking events may change our minority into a majority. For, since civilization has existed, there has never been a movement which has seized the masses so deeply as Socialism. There has never been a movement which has given the masses such a deep insight into the spirit and nature of our civilization. There have never been so many men who know what they want of state and society. Let us keep our eyes open and our hearts clear. Then the right moment will find the right men ready.

VANDERVELDE ON MILITARISM

According to Vandervelde, Bebel's position amounted to a refusal of the German Socialists to take up the struggle against militarism. He said:

Hervé has said that as a small nation, Belgium is not much interested. Such an expression is very strange in the mouth of an anti-militarist, since the little nations would be the very ones to become victims of a war, and Belgium, moreover, would likely be the battlefield of the war. We are for Hervé's goal, but not for his means.

My heart leans toward the Vaillant resolution. It is true that Leopold will not declare war, so that it would be very easy for us to declare for insurrection in case of war. We know the difficulties in which the other countries are, but we believe nevertheless that a solution is possible. If an agreement were not reached, if the French declare that they will proclaim a general strike, and the Germans that they will not do it, then that is an impossible situation for an International Congress. The Germans should think of this. As a friend of the Germans, who has been a comrade for twenty years, who has learnt much from them, who owes so much to them, I ask if now they do not wish to learn something from the practices of other countries. The majority of the Congress finds it would be an evil thing if the French plunge into an anti-military agitation, while the Germans oppose it as much as they possibly can. We want no resolution which clothes nothingness in resounding words. But we want all countries to take up the struggle against militarism. We must labor to win the brains of the soldiers. If we regard the transactions in The Hague with distrust and contempt, we must avoid giving the same picture of weakness here.

The resolution finally adopted was framed for the purpose of covering up these differences. The part referring to the proposed international general strike against war we discuss in the following chapter, especially devoted to this subject. The reasoning upon which it rests is given in the following paragraphs dealing with the causes of war, which follow the lines of the German as against the French resolution.

ANTI-WAR RESOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS AT

STUTTGART (1907)

The Congress reasserts the resolution adopted by former International Congresses against militarism and imperialism, and declares afresh that the war against militarism must proceed hand in hand with the general class war. Wars between nations are, as a rule, the consequences of their competition in the world market, for each state seeks not only to secure its existing markets, but also to conquer new ones. This means the subjugation of nations and lands, and, therefore, spells war. But wars result furthermore from the continual attempts of all lands to outstrip their neighbors in military armaments one of the chief supports of the capitalist class supremacy, and therefore of the economic and political oppression of the proletariat. Wars are also favored by national prejudices which the ruling classes fan into a flame for their own interests, and in order to turn the attention of the proletariat away from the interests of their class and from the international consolidation of those interests. Wars, therefore, are part and parcel of the nature of capitalism; they will cease only when the capitalist system declines, or when the sacrifices in men and money have become so great as a result of the increased magnitude of armaments that the people will rise in revolt against them and sweep capitalism out of existence. The working classes, who contribute most of the soldiers and make the greatest material sacrifices, are, therefore, the natural opponents of war. Besides which, war is opposed to their highest aims-the creation of an economic order on a Socialist basis, which shall express the solidarity of all nations.

In a word, wars are here regarded as being caused by-capitalism. And the only remedy is held to beSocialism. The working classes, moreover, are the "natural" enemies of war.