But we must not increase the power of the ruling class as we are doing when we give to it the means for a greater military outlay. We desire to save the party from the reproach that our struggle against militarism is not in earnest. The question is being raised on all sides, Why all this agitation against war if you then appropriate the means to carry it on? No high-sounding words, not even your vote against the military bill as such, will alter the fact that you have strengthened it by voting the means to carry it into effect. Some, indeed, have gone so far as to say that our whole agitation against militarism will vanish into thin air, if we grant the means for its support. You argue that a proposal of direct taxes by the government is a great victory for the party. Do not overestimate the strength of the party. Our vaunted greatness was not sufficient to prevent the presentation of this outrageous military bill to this Reichstag with its 110 Socialist members.

Wurm uttered a glaring contradiction when he attempted to separate theory from tactics. He said: "We do not grant the funds for militarism!" Further on he says: "When the military bill is once passed the purpose of the tax is no longer under consideration." That is an obvious contradiction. By giving to the government the means for increased armament, we encourage it to come again to the Reichstag with new demands. (Hear! Hear!) It will not be difficult in the future to secure military appropriations. We may assume that the government, if it is true that it holds the strength of our party in such great respect, will in the future ask for direct taxes, will in the future try to suit its military requisitions to the views of the Social Democracy. Whenever we give new support to the growth of militarism, even in the form of direct taxes, we are encouraging new burdens for the workers, we are inviting new armament bills. Of this I am convinced. (Hear! Hear!) The government would be foolish not to take advantage of the situation created by the adoption of Wurm's resolution. In the future, armament bills and the military appropriation bills will not be presented as one whole. Why should our opponents be so foolish, when they know that the Social Democratic representation, though it will vote down the armament bill, will consider the appropriation bill as an independent question, as a mere problem of taxation?

Wurm tries to defend his standpoint by maintaining that our refusal to indorse the direct taxes would have brought indirect taxes in their place. That is a mere presumption. (Hear! Hear!) I maintain that the government would not have thought of such a thing. (Vehement opposition and exclamation: "That is an unfounded statement.")

(e) From the Speech of Stadthagen

I do not think very highly of Bethmann-Hollweg's intelligence, but I believe he would be perfectly willing to ask the two comrades who spoke on the military appropriation bill to enter the ministry, for they have presented splendid arguments, I am sorry to say, for every military bill, arguments against the opposition of the masses toward such measures. (Laughter.) They gave him a good prescription when they declared: "Every military bill is sure to be passed by the other parties; we must therefore vote in favor of all direct taxes for these military bills.” The government would be foolish if it did not remember the arguments of these comrades and act accordingly.

How does our position in this matter differ from that of the Liberals? This question should have been discussed, but all of our speakers, even Suedekum [the second reporter on the tax question], passed it by.

Wherever a conflict arises between our struggle against militarism and our struggle for direct taxes, the former must always be conclusive. We must oppose everything that will support militarism, whether it be direct or indirect taxation. This conception must determine our attitude toward taxes.

The fight against the terrible strengthening of our military forces, not the question of the tax bill, should have claimed our attention. (Hear! Hear!) We should have insisted: no expenditures without the necessary provision of funds; we should have joined forces with one of the other parties for the adoption of such a policy. If, then, the taxation bill had not received the vote necessary to pass it, a dissolution of the Reichstag would have followed. This should have been our aim. But some of the comrades feared an electoral campaign, because they believe we should be unsuccessful in our fight against the patriotic arguments of the other parties. It

shows an extraordinary lack of faith in our principles and demands to wish to avoid a campaign for such reasons.

(f) From the Speech of Ledebour

I insist that the occasion of a tax, as in this case, the armament bill must, without exception, determine our vote. For this reason, in order to simplify the whole matter, I have proposed to the parliamentary group that we insist, in the future, upon a more organic union of armament appropriation and taxation bills, so that the final vote may include both. If this were done, our attitude in the future would be clear. For this reason I voted in favor of motion 114 [the Geyer amendment] because it forces us, in the future, to insist upon merging of the two bills. We will then always have a clear field in our struggle against militarism. If we were strong enough to defeat the military bill together with its taxation bill, and could so force a dissolution of the Reichstag, we should have an entirely different outlook. We could take up the struggle against militarism in its whole significance, could carry it on with uncompromising vigor, without running the risk of such misunderstandings as were suggested by Richard Fischer and David, without fearing that somewhere among the people someone would misunderstand the issue at stake. We should have won countless new sympathizers and supporters. The loss of a few seats in the Reichstag is but a secondary consideration. Our aim must always be to win new supporters. If that is not the case, we must change our present method of agitation. (Our italics.)

CHAPTER VI

ANTI-MILITARY AGITATION IN THE PERIOD IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE WAR

UNDOUBTEDLY the proposed remedies by which Socialists hope finally to put an end to war, are more important than the action they have already been able to take against militarism. But the recent activities of the Socialists have undoubtedly had a very great effect on public opinion, and a considerable effect on governments. The documents we give in this section are of a very wide variety. Referring to Germany and being sufficiently related to one another to make a more or less connected whole, they scarcely need comment. Karl Liebknecht's exposures, the Zabern affair, the trial of Rosa Luxemburg, have all been discussed telegraphically by the world's press. Therefore the thoughtful newspaper reader is prepared also for the very effective criticism of the German militarist government conducted by the Socialist members of the Reichstag, though he is probably unfamiliar with the exact character of this criticism, of which we give several examples. It may be pointed out that all these documents refer to German Socialist action after their voting of taxes for the war budget of 1913. (See Chapter V.) So we see that the anti-military agitation continued on a large scale in spite of that seemingly militaristic action. The radical minority of the party, Liebknecht, Luxemburg, and others, were more active than ever before, and were supported in their activity by the party as a whole, and

especially by Vorwaerts, the party's daily organ, though a very considerable minority was opposed to much of their work. We shall begin with the Socialist exploitation of the celebrated Zabern affair. (Our quotations are from the report issued by the Socialist Reichstag Group to the party in July, 1914.)

THE ZABERN AFFAIR

(SESSIONS OF THE REICHSTAG OF NOVEMBER 28, AND DECEMBER 3 and 4, 1913, and of January 23 and 24, 1914)

The Zabern affair of 1913 had a double importance. It showed the mutual hostility of the military authorities and the people of Lorraine; and, both the civil authorities and the Reichstag having taken up the side of the people of Lorraine without being able to secure any justice for them, it showed the predominance of the military over the civil authorities throughout the nation. The following report of the Socialist members of the Reichstag (from their annual report to the party) explains the whole affair, its importance and its sequels.

The effects of the well-known events that took place in the small garrison of Zabern in November, 1913, have reached out far beyond the scene of their occurrence. There were disclosures of unwarranted interference on the part of military persons with civil life. Furthermore, the tremendous power wielded by militarism over the civil authorities was so drastically shown up that these conditions, their defense by the one side and their condemnation by the other, practically usurped the parliamentary activity of the whole session. To recapitulate: Lieutenant von Forstner had the effrontery to tell his recruits in his instructions that they should knock down any "Wackes" who should dare to attack them. [This does not, of course, refer to a physical attack.] He promised to pay out for every feat of this kind a premium of 10 marks. A non-commissioned officer declared his willingness to add three marks to this sum. This word "Wackes," though its