who are awaiting with yearning the awakening of the German Social Democrats.

Even in France no Socialist thinks of a policy of conquest. The Cabinet Minister, Comrade Sembat, has declared quite recently a kind of peace programme.

On this decisive point the Socialist International is united.

And if Sembat and Guesde desire also to crush German Imperialism and Militarism, this appeal falls to the ground so soon as we decide to raise the flag of peace-not of a militarist peace with the goal of annexation by force, not of a peace with the aim of Imperialistic conquest, but of a peace based on the principles laid down unanimously at the International Socialist Congresses at Copenhagen and Basle and accepted by the German delegates. The chief of these principles are: No Annexations.

Political and Economic Independence of Every Nation.
Disarmament.

Compulsory Arbitration.

Therefore, away with fatalistic despondency and mutual accusations and distrust! Already some comrades amongst us have spoken. Behind the Social Democratic Group of the Prussian Diet the masses must now range themselves, and with their call for peace they must drown the war-trumpets. (See Chapter XIX.) The state of feeling among the rank and file in Berlin has already resulted in the adoption of a number of resolutions in favor of peace.

We demand the publication of the terms on which the Governments are ready to make peace (Comrade Milhaud and the British working-class leader, Jowett, have already raised the same demand).

We demand free discussion in the Press and at meetings as to the time for, and the terms of, peace.

We ask for co-operation with those of our comrades abroad who stand by the same principles, so that joint action may be secured. (Our italics.)

In view of the passages in italics many nationalists and militarists of Germany and Austria now also favor peace-on condition of a return to the conditions before the war, leaving the German Government and war party

in the same position as then relatively to other countries. For example, Count Andrassy, one of the leading Hungarian patriots, is reported to have said in the middle of April that the only possible result of the war was "no result."

Moreover-in regard to peace terms-the Liebknecht view, as expressed in this manifesto, differs in no way from that of the pro-war majority of the Party, as we shall see.

For about the middle of April, Vorwaerts reports, a Conference of German and Austrian Socialists was held at Vienna which adopted the following programme of guarantees to be secured after the war:

International arbitration courts must be developed into obligatory tribunals for settling all differences between nations. All treaties and agreements of States must be subjected to the democratic parliamentary control of a representative assemblage.

International treaties for limitation of armaments must be agreed upon, with a view to disarmament.

The rights of every nation to determine its own destiny must be recognized.

Three of these points are identical with the four points of the Liebknecht programme. The other, demanding democratic control of foreign relations, is of course a part of the Liebknecht view.

At the present moment (April 20th) there is, then, no essential disagreement among German Socialists as to peace terms. The most extreme pro-war faction and the most extreme pro-peace faction are both ready for immediate peace on the basis of a return to the status quo. Neither faction believes peace can be obtained from the German Government on any other terms, in view of its superior military achievements and position, and neither expects or wishes this superiority to be lost

in its public declarations. Both factions feel that it would be a great concession on the part of the German Government even to consent to return to the status quo, since a very large part of German opinion demands conquests or other advantages. And a return to the status quo provides neither for a Belgian indemnity nor for a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine-as demanded even by the pacifist groups among British and neutral Socialists.

But is there any chance of a change in German Socialist opinion? It seems that there is such a chance, though how great it is cannot be said. In a statement issued about April 1st of a secret meeting of the international Socialist women's organization at Bern-under the leadership of Clara Zetkin—an indemnity for Belgium was explicity advocated. Here is the press account of this meeting:

The conference was called by the international secretary of the women's Socialist organization, Clara Zetkin, one of the leaders of the German Social Democratic party, to consider the policy to be adopted by the organization in regard to the present war. The delegates present represented Germany, England, France, Russia, Poland, Holland, Switzerland, Italy, and Austria.

A general resolution was adopted after lengthy discussion, calling for "a speedy ending of the war by a peace which shall expiate the wrong done to Belgium, impose no humiliating conditions on any nation, and recognize the right of all nationalities, large and small, to independence and self-government."

The resolutions referred in general terms to the capitalistic and imperialistic origin of the conflict, the menace of the armament interests and their huge international organization, and the extortions of contractors and food speculators.

Relations between the British and German delegates were entirely amicable, it is stated, and the cordial relations between the German delegates and those from France were equally marked.

We see, then, that there is already some sentiment for a Belgian indemnity among certain German Socialists, and we have no reason to doubt that there has already developed some sentiment for a plebiscite in AlsaceLorraine. Perhaps this is a beginning-and the development of the sentiment may be materially hastened by military events. Both sentiments may be felt privately by a number of the extreme anti-war group. But in any case this group is at present a small minority, and Clara Zetkin is its only member who has been put on record as favoring any peace terms which Socialist pacifists outside of Germany would consider as a real concession.

According to a report of the last part of April a part of the German Party at that time was already in favor of a serious concession also as to Alsace-Lorraine. Dr. Breitscheid, then visiting Holland, is given as the chief authority for the following statement (see the New York Times, April 22d):

The general view of the Socialists, it is said, is that Alsace and Lorraine should belong to neither France nor Germany, but should be autonomous. The argument is that if France regained the provinces a desire for vengeance would be entertained by a large part of the population, which it is asserted does not desire to be governed by the French, and that therefore the situation would be as bad as ever.

To this the advocates of a plebiscite would probably reply that it was open to the people of Alsace-Lorraineunder their plan-to vote for complete autonomy if they so desired. In any case, the spirit of the two plans is similar. The question remains: How many German Socialist leaders advocate the Breitscheid plan? Up to the time of going to press none have done so publicly— except Breitscheid.

CHAPTER XXX

SOCIALIST PEACE POLICY

KARL KAUTSKY

IN an article in Die Neue Zeit written about a month after the beginning of the war, Kautsky advocated three principles which Socialists should favor in the peace negotiations and which they might hope to see adopted:

(1) The freedom of subject races of nationalities, (2) Steps towards disarmament, and

(3) Steps towards world-wide free trade by means of what we in America call reciprocity treaties.

Of course, in speaking of oppressed nationalities the censor would not allow Kautsky to repeat the German Socialists' well-known demand for local autonomy for Alsace-Lorraine. And it is very probable that he has the same idea in mind for German Poland and, possibly, for Schleswig-Holstein, or for parts of these territories.

His position as to disarmament is equally radical. He does not demand international disarmament of all nations alike. For that is the demand of many nonSocialists and even of many nationalistic and militaristic statesmen in all countries. He is willing that a start should be made with either group of nations-even if it is made by force-in the hope that Socialists and democrats of the other group can then use this beginning as a ground for extending the disarmament to their countries.