question was brought up at Norwich. We take the following account from the Labor Leader of April 8th:

Mr. Burgess (Bradford) directed attention to a phrase in the declaration issued by the Conference of Socialists from the Allied countries which said that "the invasion of Belgium and France by the German armies threatens the very existence of independent nationalities," and that "a victory for German Imperialism would be the defeat and the destruction of democracy and liberty in Europe." He asked whether Mr. MacDonald was as alleged the author of these sentences. He also quoted from the declaration the phrase "whilst inflexibly resolved to fight until victory is achieved," etc., and asked if it represented the view of the I. L. P.

Mr. Bruce Glasier said the National Administrative Council had issued its own manifesto, and by that it must be judged. The Conference of Socialists from Allied countries was a private Conference, and no account of what occurred was to be published. The declaration adopted was a compromise. It did not represent his (the speaker's) view, but each side had to yield something. The declaration was a great advance on previous statements issued by the Belgian and French Socialists at the beginning of the war, and except for the efforts of the I. L. P. it would have been very different and, in his view, harmful to the international Socialist cause. They had exercised a very moderating influence. (Applause.)

Mr. Burgess: Does the N. A. C. consider this declaration to be authoritative?

Mr. Bruce Glasier: It was not indorsed generally by the N. A. C.

Mr. MacDonald offered the following explanation:

The phrase "fighting the war to a finish" must be interpreted in a Socialist sense and not in the popular sense. The war had got to finish, and at the present moment it was no use to talk about "stop the war." He challenged anyone to point to clearer declarations than his that the war ought not to be carried further than the political point when the forces of democracy in Germany were liberated and prepared themselves to crush their own militarism, and thus place European peace on a firm foundation. The end of the war must date

from the time when the democratic forces of Europe were ready to take things into their own hands.

The Congress apparently accepted these explanations, as the National Administrative Council was reelected by overwhelming majorities and its report was accepted by a vote of 188 to 3.

MacDonald thus adds a third clause to the conditions under which he and his followers will favor peace. Practically all British Socialists and Laborites had demanded a Belgian indemnity and a plebiscite in AlsaceLorraine. He now demands, further, that the war must not end until the democratic forces of Germany are "liberated and prepared to crush their own militarism." Clearly this is not exactly the view of the majority of the I. L. P. But its resolution (above quoted), like that of the British Socialist Party, is somewhat ambiguous. To get the real sentiment of the I. L. P., we must refer to another resolution, about which the discussion chiefly raged (see above, Chapter XXI). The Conference divided almost evenly on the problem as to whether the present war was to be opposed, deciding by one vote (121 to 120) to pass over this question. The majority of the Congress, then, was not for immediate peace at any price. A considerable faction, as the applause showed, shared MacDonald's views, while the Congress as a whole refused to rebuke its representatives for voting for the resolutions of the London Conference.

THE GERMAN SOCIALISTS FOR IMMEDIATE PEACE

NEGOTIATIONS

The demand of the Socialists of the Allied Powers was thus for a continuation of the war. This lends peculiar significance to the report that the German Party at the same period favored continuation of the war until

victory was gained on one of the fronts, which doubtless refers to Russia.

A dispatch to the Exchange Telegraph Company from Amsterdam, dated February 15th, says that at a private meeting of German Socialists it was decided, in view of the sacrifices already made by the laboring classes, not to support any peace movement until the Germans were victorious on one front or the other. The leaders of the party were instructed to support this position in the Reichstag.

While this report will be impossible to verify for a long time, it is worthy of reproduction. It is highly probable, for it would merely mean that the Center group in the party, represented by Kautsky and Bernstein (see Chapter XIV), had gained control. There are excellent grounds for believing that neither of these, the two chief intellects of the German Party, desires to see the semi-absolute government of Germany victorious over the capitalist democracies, England and France. Some of these grounds-of a private character cannot be given until the end of the war. The above report is in accord with this fact-for which the editor of the present volume can personally vouch.

The overwhelming majority of German Socialists, then, want the war to end with a definite defeat for Russia. A certain part of them do not desire a defeat for England and France. This brings us to the following questions:

Does any large part of the German Socialists desire the war to end at the present moment-April 20th? If they do, this means that they are willing to see France and England defeated.

Does any large faction prefer that the war should end at a time when Russia is more or less beaten, but when the war between Germany and France and Eng

land is a draw? If it does, this means that it is willing that the war, as a whole, shall prove a great victory for the Kaiser and the German military party.

Are any German Socialists ready to accept a defeat at the hands of France and England corresponding in magnitude to the expected victory of Germany over Russia? This would still mean a draw and not a defeat for the German Government, such as even Bebel deemed desirable-in so far as the matter is viewed from the standpoint of German domestic politics (see below).

From the quotations from Vorwaerts and Haase which follow, and from the opinions of Bernstein given in the following chapter, it is clear that no large group of the Party desires or expects any considerable advance of France and England. The pro-peace group is willing merely that peace should be made without any further victories in either direction.

Vorwaerts called attention to the fact that the resolution of the London Conference criticising the Russian Government, together with the demand that the people of Alsace-Lorraine should have the right to decide as to their own future, was received with a storm of protest and abuse from the French press. At the same time it attacked editorially the main decision of the Conference, namely, that the victory of the Allies was necessary in order to free the German people. Vorwaerts said:

A defeat of German militarism in war can only take place by a defeat of the German armies. the masses of which consist of German workingmen. And the German workingmen can no more desire a defeat than the French or English. At the moment when French Socialists demand the continuation of the war as necessary, they force the same position on all the other branches of the International which are at war, and if such a policy is truly the function of a French Social

Democracy, does it not mean a recognition of war, especially under present conditions, as a method of Socialist politics?

This criticism of Vorwaerts gives a special importance to the discussion of peace which took place in its columns about the same period. Vorwaerts made clear its position by quoting at length in three numbers (February 18th-20th) an article written by Fritz Adler in the official monthly of the Austrian Party, Der Kampf, in the February number of 1915. Vorwaerts explained that Adler's position was in large part its own.

The writer quotes the saying of Jaurès that experience teaches us that it does more harm than good to freedom if one seeks to carry it abroad with weapons in the hand. The writer then continues:

Even if it were true that Prussian militarism is truly the backbone of reaction in Europe and that France is waging an aggressive war for democracy, would it really be in the interest of Socialism that the French Social Democracy should carry on this war as their war? Is it possible from the standpoint of the International that the French Socialists should wage war against Prussian militarism without the consent of the International? In order that a war policy may be Socialistic, it must be recognized by the International.

The answer of the French Socialists to the latter argument has been that the German Socialists, who by voting the German Budget in 1913 had proved that they are no longer internationalists, yet controlled the International by means of their influence over the Socialist Parties of Switzerland, Holland, Scandinavia, and other small countries.

As to the speech of Jaurès, Adler himself gives an answer in a footnote, in the shape of a speech of Bebel, in which the latter declared that defeat in war benefited the country defeated—if it had an aristocratic form of