States. Owing to their geographical positions, commercial interests, and racial ties, most European countries are somewhat biased in favor of one or the other of the belligerent forces, and before the war is over some of them may be drawn into the active conflict. The very fact that even the Socialists of all neutral countries refuse to meet in common conference at this time indicates that the feeling among the neutral nations is somewhat strained. America alone has no interest in this war except in its speedy termination, and American Socialists above all others must studiously avoid even the slightest appearance of bias or discrimination among their unfortunate comrades in Europe. This war will end sometime, and when it ends somebody will have to initiate the work of reconstructing the shattered International of the workers. This great task will logically fall to the Socialists of America, the Socialists of the most important and least concerned nation. I fear that this mission, the largest that will ever come to our movement, may be jeopardized by the participation in a somewhat one-sided conference, and therefore have concluded not to go to Copenhagen.

It may be pointed out that the Socialists of the Allied Countries take a position which denies the neutrality of this letter, and that they are supported in this stand not only by the Socialists of Spain, by part of the Socialists of Russia and Italy, and by American Socialist leaders such as Eugene V. Debs and Charles Edward Russell. For none of these Socialists agree with Hillquit that the Socialists of the world or of America have "no interest in the war except its speedy termination." On the contrary, they do not want to see it end as long as Germany holds her present conquests-at least on the west front. (See Chapters XXIV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII.)

RESOLUTIONS OF THE SOCIALIST PEACE CONFERENCE AT

COPENHAGEN

When the Copenhagen Conference finally met no delegates whatever were present besides the sixteen

delegates of the countries which had issued the invitation. The following are the principal paragraphs of the resolutions passed:

The Conference declares that capitalism in its imperialistic form, accompanied by the uninterrupted increase of military preparations and the unrestrained policy of expansion, together with the secret and uncontrolled diplomacy of the Great Powers, has brought the world to the catastrophe which the Social Democracy predicted and against which it has continually warned.

The Congress at Copenhagen, held in 1910, summed up these principles in such a manner that they compelled the Socialist members of the representative bodies:

(a) To work for the establishment of compulsory international courts of arbitration.

(b) To demand a limiting of armaments with an absolute disarmament as the ultimate outcome.

(c) To demand the abolition of the secret diplomacy and the publication of all existing treaties and understandings between the governments; and

(d) To act in behalf of the right of all people to decide their own destiny and to defend this right against military conspiracies and brutal oppression.

The Conference, therefore, considers it the duty of all Socialistic Parties to work in the direction of an early peace, and in this connection to use all their powers to formulate peace proposals, which will not carry with them the germ of new wars, but which will constitute a basis for international disarmament and for a democratization of foreign policies.

The Conference protests against the violation of the law of nations committed against Belgium, and expresses its expectation that the Social Democracy of all warring countries will protest against each infringement of the inalienable rights of autonomy through a forced annexation.

The Conference, therefore, calls upon the laborers of all countries to concentrate their entire energies to the bringing nearer of an early and lasting world peace.

The Conference at the same time charges the Social Democracy in the neutral countries by means of the parliaments or other useful ways to submit to their respective governments

the request to consider in how far they, either alone or in conjunction with the governments of other neutral countries, can apply with a chance of success their power of intervention [mediation] to make an end of the war and establish an early and lasting peace.

It will be noticed that the resolutions call three times for an “early” peace without much regard as to the kind of peace it is to be. The violation of Belgium (not merely of the paper treaty) is condemned; but this condemnation is linked with a protest against annexation only, leaving it to be inferred that this and not an indemnity is the main question.

At the time of this Conference, immediate peace would, beyond doubt, have been favored by the Germans and Austro-Hungarians, as well as those who voted for it at the Conference: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Holland. Our documents show it would also have been favored by the United States and Switzerland. Outside of the Allies, then, only Spain would have opposed it, while in Great Britain one of the three parties admitted to the International Socialist Congresses had made it clear that it would probably favor peace at any time.

If the next Socialist Peace Conference is held in the near future, however, a more equal division may occur on this question. For, since the invasion of Belgium is held to have been a wrong by nearly all these parties, a large part, at least, would support the demand for a sufficient indemnity. If, then, the German Government refuses to grant this, which now seems its probable course, each Socialist party will have to choose between immediate peace and the relinquishment of the Belgian indemnity and acquiescence in "the violation of Belgian rights."

The discussion of the Conference programme by Lon

guet proves very clearly that the minimum peace demands of the Socialists of France require an indemnity to be paid by Germany for the damage actually done to life and property in Belgium. Indemnities in general have been condemned by the Socialists of all countries. Both Kautsky and Bernstein, for example, in the documents we quote in the next chapter, reject the proposition of the German militarists that a war indemnity should be levied by Germany, and Kautsky makes this proposition general. The case of Belgium, however, is considered by most Socialists as a special one, since Belgium is not a belligerent in the same sense as the others. Now it seems improbable that the German Government will consider the payment of any indemnity, even for the damage actually done to Belgium, until it either faces annihilation from abroad, or is menaced by a revolution at home. Thus one of the most widely accepted of Socialist peace principles seems to demand either a very decided defeat of Germany or a revolution within that country; while the other, the demand for immediate peace, is very nearly identical with the probable peace policy of the German Government, a return to the status quo, the maintenance of conditions as they were before the war, the abandonment of all demands for indemnity.

THE POSITION OF GUESDE AND SEMBAT

On February 14th, the French Socialist Party held a special meeting to instruct their delegates to the Peace Conference of the Socialists of the Allied Countries to be held on the following days. The two Socialist Ministers Guesde and Sembat spoke.

Guesde made a brief declaration: There could be no talk of peace until German imperialism was crushed. Ears must be stopped to all mutterings of exhaustion.

At the London Conference it must be declared-and this had not been frequently enough stated—that the fight was not against the German people, but against German imperialism. A new Europe must be created where there was room for the struggle of classes only, but not for the struggle of races. Such a victory of the French would be a victory of Socialism.

Sembat spoke as follows:

The war has been forced upon us. One must understand that the French and German Socialists cannot be placed upon the same level as to the justice of their cause. The Germans did not protest against the violation of Belgian neutrality, which was a wrong. One cannot negotiate with people who deny that. We call upon the neutral Powers to take part in the war, because we are defending a violated right. Such an intervention would make the struggle greater as to extent, but would shorten it as to time. In London we shall speak of peace, but shall not surrender ourselves to a peace propaganda which would only be a manœuvre of the German Government. Many say that a beginning of exhaustion is perceptible. This has its moral cause. The nationalistic exaggerations which threaten to disintegrate Germany have brought it about that the Germany now before us much resembles the Germany of 1813. Unscrupulous people in France are asking whether we should aim at nothing more than the defense of justice. We must repeat in London that we will have no conquests, no annexations, but only the independence of peoples. We cannot be thankful enough to England. Russia is suffering from a strong pressure at the present time, but it is resisting wonderfully. Without Russia we would have been overwhelmed. Think of this every time the inner conditions of that great country strike you. not forget that the Allies are fighting in union for the cause of justice. The Czar took the initiative when he proposed, like Jaurès, to lay the Austrian-Servian conflict before The Hague Arbitration Court.

Do