The Death Dance of Danzig (1939)

From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

“If a geographical position may be described as absolutely bad, this certainly applies to the position of Poland.”

So says Bukoviecki, in a pamphlet which he published when running as a parliamentary candidate for Poland twenty years ago. He was appointed Attorney General and therefore can be quoted as representing the views of a powerful section of the Polish ruling class. (The above quotation and those that follow are taken from “Poland’s Westward Trend,” by Hansen.)

He says something more, though he may not have realised it would be drawn attention to so long afterwards: “The political path followed by Poland must indeed be peaceful, but the nation must, nevertheless, be inspired by the military spirit! The people must be the army! The army the people.”

He expresses himself at length on the problem of Germany, Poland and East Prussia: “As already mentioned, the German-Polish relationship appears particularly hopeless. Poland, in consequence of the Treaty of Versailles, obtained from Germany what was her just due; if anything, even less, inasmuch as a great slice of Upper Silesia, with a preponderating Polish population, remained beyond the western frontier, while Ermeland and Masuria, with their mixed but preponderating Polish populations, are situated within the frontier of East Prussia, and the mouth of the Vistula, and Danzig itself, are situated outside the Polish frontier, these latter being the natural links between our country and the sea. Notwithstanding these facts, Germany regards the loss of these territories, which Poland has obtained, in the light of a grievous wrong, and will endeavour with all her might to regain possession of them. The right of this age-long quarrel is, if the matter be regarded objectively, undoubtedly on the side of Poland. . . . While we assert this to be our right, we must not, on the other hand, take it amiss if the Germans, regarding the matter from that subjective point of view, which plays so large a part in political sentiment and aims, feel the loss of these territories very acutely. . . . The German owners of Polish territories were, moreover, to be distinguished from the Russians and the Austrians in that they did not regard the conquered territories as an object of economic exploitation, but introduced a rational administration which was advantageous to the occupied territory, since they succeeded in raising the cultural level of the country in all directions. . . . To deny these facts would be unworthy of a serious political journalist; however, we must not draw conclusions from them, for they do not refute another fact, which must be regarded here as a circumstance of the greatest importance—the fact, namely, that this is Polish territory, and that even the most intensive German labour could not legitimatize its ownership, because it was the labour of an unlawful owner.”

It must be borne in mind by the readers of the Socialist Standard that Bukoviecki gave no thought whatever to the opinions of the wage slaves, Polish or German, in this connection. And now we come to what he is driving at: “… Most grievous to Germany, however, is the loss of Pommerellen, especially of its northern part, the so-called Danzig Corridor, which separates East Prussia from the rest of the state. The Danzig Corridor, which, on the one hand, is a stumbling-block to Germany, represents, on the other hand, a cause of complete dissatisfaction to Poland, something that does not guarantee her a really secure and permanent access to the sea. It is open to Germany to work for the removal of this obstacle, but it is, likewise, open to us to work for its extension. The mere fact that the lower course of the Vistula is not exclusively in our possession, whereas its eastern bank belongs to Germany, and, further, the fact that the Free City of Danzig to a considerable extent is bounded by German territory, is most unfavourable to Poland, and, in case of war-like developments, would be dangerous.”

The reader should carefully note the next part of the argument of this astute politician : “And East Prussia, which occupies such a central position in the northern part of the Polish territory— does it not for us represent a perpetual threat ? Is a real connection with the sea and the necessary development of our navigation and commerce to be reconciled with Germany’s possession of this territory?”

We can see from the above what may be behind the moves of Colonel Beck and, in addition, what may be involved in a fight for “democracy.” To be fair to Bukoviecki we must point out that he clearly states: “Obviously we are not speaking of preparations for any sort of military or diplomatic action, but merely of an absolutely peaceful activity on the part, not of the State alone, but also on that of the nation, calculated well beforehand and systematically pursued.”

Hitler never put it better.

We will now quote from the self-styled “Socialist” Grabski, who eventually allied himself with the National Democrats. He was a professor of Political Economy at the Lemberg University. As a representative of his party he was from 1919 to 1922 Chairman of the Commission for Foreign Affairs of the Polish Parliament. He was at one time Vice-Premier and twice held the office of Minister of Education. His book from which we take our extracts is (in English) “Observations concerning the present historical epoch in the development of Poland.” His views can be taken as the views of the National Democrats.

In the chapter, “The Direction of our National Expansion” : “What direction shall the expansion of the Polish people follow ? Shall it expand northwards to the Baltic or to the south-east, in the direction of the Ukraine and the Black Sea? . . . Thus in the course of the next fifty years at least Poland will have an opportunity of expanding towards the east. It must, however, be fully understood that our efforts towards further expansion to the east cannot be carried into effect without complete security from Germany. This security, however, can only be purchased by relinquishing our claims to the Baltic and by returning West Prussia and Upper Silesia to Germany. . . . The decision of the Eastern Prussia problem which was given by the Treaty of Versailles is too artificial to be permanently maintained. . . . And, therefore, one of two things—either we turn the Polish policy of ascendency eastwards against Russia, by taking advantage of the successive periods of weakness which the next half-century will bring, and thereby leave the decision of the merely provisional settlement of the East Prussia problem to Germany, or we stake all the power at our disposal on the solution of the East Prussia problem by Poland in a sense favourable to Poland. If this is our position, any hesitation will be mistaken.”

It is to be observed that he gradually works up to the necessity of fighting Germany, and now we have the plan of campaign: “First of all, however, we must bring into being our movement of expansion towards the Masurian lakes and the Baltic. This is, as yet, not a fact of our daily life, yet it is the first commandment of Polish history, the historical path of the Machtpolitik of Polish people and the Polish State. … In this clash Poland, however, will be victorious only if she is not merely technically prepared by the necessary organisation and equipment of her army but also politically, by the arousing of a Polish national consciousness in the Polish population of East Prussia. . . . For, as a matter of fact, the continuance of the Polish Republic will be permanently secured only if we are victorious in the inevitable war with Germany, a war in which the latter will hurl herself as soon as she has recuperated from the defeat that she sustained in the Great War.. . .”

He concludes with an interesting statement: “The Polish expansion towards the Baltic implies at the same time a rapid industrialisation of Poland, the development of the towns and of democratic middle-class culture, the consolidation of the administrative organisation of the constitutional State, and the progress of western civilisation.”

The progress of capitalism and the extension of wage slavery is what he really means. It is to be noted that the class to which we belong is never taken into consideration.

The above is reproduced at length in order to show the reader what is operating underneath the movements of the different politicians; the Germans are just as ruthless as the Poles, but, should War come between Germany and Poland, and we be called upon to respond to a call to protect “Poor little Poland,” it is well to know what the trouble is about. There are many other authors I could quote to prove that the Poles aimed at expansion twenty years ago, but I will use just one more, Stanislau Srokovski. His work, “From the Country of the Black Cross: Notes on East Prussia,” is well worth perusing.

From 1921 to 1923 Srokovski was the Polish Consul-General at Koenigsberg. The fact that he was at one time an official Polish representative in a German province justifies one in concluding that his statements are of considerable importance.

Having stated that East Prussia has lately displayed a greater eagerness to attract settlers of the small-holder type, Srokovski continues as follows:

“Poland does not consider it in any way necessary that the East Prussian colony should attract a surplus population, since in that case there will be an increasing danger, not so much of peaceful penetration by an element foreign to the Polish race, but of the possibility of an effective armed intervention on the part of East Prussia in conjunction with simultaneous action on the part of the Reich. It does not seem superfluous to call attention to the fact that the East Prussian frontier is less than seventy miles distant from Poland’s capital.

“If the Polish part of East Prussia, the Masurian district, which by right should fall to us, cannot be severed from the province, thereby at a stroke reducing the numerical weight of the East Prussian population which is hanging over us, we ought at least to counteract, by all possible means, such a process of colonisation, which would produce over our heads, on the shores of the Baltic, a concentration of elements hostile to Poland.”

He recommends the flooding of East Prussia with cheap Polish peasant labour as a means of getting Poland entrenched in the country, but if you would understand what is behind the present controversy, carefully chew your cud on the following:

“The idea of a Polish-German conflict in respect of the Corridor is gradually being replaced by the idea of a conflict in respect of the development and importance of East Prussia. For there is no sense in insisting on an immediate territorial connection between the Reich and East Prussia, unless the latter, which is to be bound and held fast, does actually represent a valuable and important object, and unless there are, to the north and east of it, territories into which Germany, based on East Prussia, might seek to expand. In proportion as East Prussia declines, or acquires a different and independent administration, and in proportion as Lithuania, White Russia and Latvia, with all their commercial and other possibilities, slip away from East Prussia, the less will East Prussia interest the leading political and commercial leaders of Germany. Almost automatically it would lose its importance as a German province, and would become a sort of autonomous region, more or less estranged from general German politics, and, under certain circumstances, even in opposition to them. In that case, too, the Polish-German conflict in respect of the Corridor would, almost automatically, recede into the sphere of problems devoid of actuality, and, after a further lapse of years, during which the strength of Poland would increase, it would sink more or less into oblivion.”

In other words, Srokovski, a responsible Pole, who, as Consul-General, held important posts, was advising that East Prussia be economically strangled. We can gauge from these statements the general attitude of the military caste of the fair land of Poland towards the Danzig problems.

It is the same old system that is responsible. Amid the A.R.P. and the Labour Exchange we perceive, if we look closely, that what is involved is a question of capitalist expansion and profit. So far as the working class are concerned, they will be periodically used as cannon-fodder, until they decide upon the abolition of the wages system.

Charles Lestor

Conspiracy to convict (1973)

Book Review from the June 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Cologne Communist Trial. By Karl Marx, with an introduction by Rodney Livingstone. Lawrence and Wishart.

With the publication of Marx’s Revelations concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne (1852) a valuable addition has been made to Marxist literature in English.

Besides Marx’s defence of his friends on trial by exposure of the lies, deliberate forgeries, and plots to implicate them, the book also contains Marx’s satirical sketches of the romantic revolutionaries of Germany at the time.

The manuscript of this work had a most curious history and lay undiscovered for a century, having been given by Marx to a certain Colonel Bangya, a Hungarian police spy, who offered to get it published and stole it.

The book’s chief interest to us is, first, that the story of the incidents leading to the arrest and imprisonment of the members of the Communist League shows clearly the origin and development of Marx’s ideas away from romantic insurrection, and to the education of the workers.

Engels explains in his History of the Communist League; and Marx himself quotes his statement in support of a break with the comic-opera “revolutionaries” :

The point of view of the minority is dogmatic rather than critical, idealistic rather than materialistic. For them, revolutions are not the product of the realities of the situation, but the result of a mere effort of will.

What we say to the workers is “You will have 15, 20, or 50 years of civil war and national struggle and this not merely to bring about a change in society but also to change yourselves, and prepare yourselves for the exercise of political power.” Whereas you say, “either we seize power at once or take to our beds.” (p. 62)

As Engels reports, Paris and London, at that time, were hotbeds of revolutionary cliques and self-styled “liberators" who actually enrolled recruits into “invasion" armies to march back and take over Germany, or more exactly, Prussia. Whereas Marx and himself counselled exiles to go back home and patiently build a political Socialist movement.

This is not the place to itemize the whole sordid story of the conspiracy to convict innocent men, except to indicate one other interesting sidelight which has bearing on the position of the Socialist Party today.

The whole might and resources of the Prussian state, money, men and apparatus were mobilized, on the direct orders of the King of Prussia himself, to secure a political conviction. Incidentally, the Minister of the Interior who ordered the exercise and sought the extradition of German political refugees was Ferdinand von Westphalen, Marx’s brother-in- law.

Against this, on the other side, was Karl Marx, penniless and stranded in London, never losing his profound sense of humour in the most tragically desperate circumstances. He wrote to Weydemeyer in America:

You will appreciate the humour of our side of this pamphlet when you realise that its author is more or less imprisoned through his lack of adequate covering for his feet and posterior, and moreover at any moment expects to see real misery overwhelm his family, (p. 28)

The spectacle of the penniless and homeless Karl Marx, frantically endeavouring to maintain his family, forced to abandon productive work to defend his threatened comrades, pitting his brain against the organized power of the Prussian state will live in the mind of the reader of this book.

Horatio.

Forgings from the Furnance (continued) (1939)

From the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Below are some further quotations, selected from the writings of Marx and reproduced in Otto Rühle’s work, “Karl Marx.” A first selection was published in the September Socialist Standard.

“The social principles of Christianity have now had eighteen hundred years for their development, and do not need any further development at the hands of Prussian consistorial councillors. The social principles of Christianity find justification for the slavery of classical days, extol mediaeval serfdom, and are ready, in case of need, to defend the oppression of the proletariat—somewhat shamefacedly perhaps. The social principles of Christianity declare that all infamies will be spiritually compensated in heaven, the assertion being made a justification for the continuance of these infamies on earth. According to the social principles of Christianity, all the misdeeds wrought by the oppressors on the oppressed are either a just punishment for original sin and other sins, or else are trials which the Lord, in His wisdom, sends to afflict the redeemed. The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, subjection, humility, in a word, all the qualities of the mob; whereas, for the proletariat which does not wish to allow itself to be treated as a mob, courage, self-esteem, pride, and independence are far more necessary than bread. The social principles of Christianity are obsequious, but the proletariat is revolutionary.”

” . . . . Upon what title do you Jews ground your claim for emancipation ? On your religion ? It is the mortal foe of the State religion. As citizens ? In Germany there are no citizens. As human beings ? You are not human beings any more than those to whom you are appealing. The conflict in which a man is involved between his position as one who professes a particular religion and as one endowed with citizenship in a State (wherein he is related to his fellow men,inasmuch as he and they are all members of a community) reduces itself to the secular cleavage between the political State and civil society. Not until the concrete individual human being takes back into himself the abstract citizen of the State and, as an individual human being, has become a member of the species in his empirical life, in his individual relations; not until the human being has recognised and organised his own forces as social forces, so that social force is no longer severed from itself in the form of political force—not until then will human emancipation be completed.”

“After the failure of the revolution of 1848 all party organisations and party journals of the working classes were, on the Continent, crushed by the iron hand of force; the most advanced sons of labour fled in despair to the Transatlantic Republic: and the short-lived dreams of emancipation vanished before an epoch of industrial fever, moral marasm, and political reaction. The defeat of the Continental working classes, partly owed to the diplomacy of the English Government, acting then as now in fraternal solidarity with the Cabinet of St. Petersburg, soon spread its contagious effects to this side of the Channel. .While the rout of their Continental brethren unmanned the English working classes, and broke their faith in their own cause, it restored to the landlord and the money-lord their somewhat shaken confidence. They insolently withdrew concessions already advertised. The discoveries of new gold lands led to an immense exodus, leaving an irreparable void in the ranks of the British proletariat. Others of its formerly active members were caught by the temporary bribe of greater work and wages, and turned into ‘political blacks.’ All the efforts made at keeping up or remodelling the Chartist movement failed signally, the Press organs of the working class died one by one of the apathy of the masses and, in point of fact, never before seemed the English working class so thoroughly reconciled to a state of political nullity.” (These things) …”have taught the working class the duty to master themselves the mysteries of international politics: to watch the diplomatic acts of their respective Governments; to counteract them, if necessary, by all means in their power; when unable to prevent, to combine in simultaneous denunciations, and to vindicate the simple laws of morals and justice which ought to govern the relations of private individuals, as the rules paramount of the intercourse of nations. The fight for such a foreign policy forms part of the general struggle for the emancipation of the working classes.”

“Historical evolution is on your side,” he shouted to the proletariat. “Capitalism brought into being by the laws of historical evolution will be destroyed by the inexorable working of these same laws. The bourgeoisie, the business manager of the capitalist system, appeared on the stage of history with that system, and will make its exit when that system walks off the stage. You proletarians keep capitalism going by your labour, and maintain the whole of bourgeoisie society by the fruits of your industry. But Socialism will be a necessary organic outcome of capitalism, the essence of the latter being implied in the essence of the former. With the end of capitalism comes the beginning of Socialism as a logical consequence. You proletarians, as a class, being the incorporators of the forces and tendencies which will do away with capitalism, must necessarily make an end of, the bourgeoisie. You merely need as a class, to fulfil the evolution which your mission calls on you to fulfil. All you need is to will! History makes this as easy as possible for you. You need not hatch out any new ideas, make any plans, discover a future state. You need not dogmatically anticipate the world.’ You need merely put your hands to the task that is awaiting you. The means by which you will do it are to be found in the unceasing, purposive, consistent fighting of the class struggle, whose crown will be the victory of the social revolution.”

The be-all and end-all of all propaganda, therefore, is to generate in the minds of the class to which we belong “The will to be free.”

Blogger's Notes:

Otto Rühle's biography of Marx received a rather caustic review in the pages of the Socialist Standard over two issues in 1929:

October 1929 - 'Another Life of Marx: Queues at Truth '

December 1929 - 'Another Life of Marx - Part 2'

Editorial: The German Situation. (1932)

Editorial from the August 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

The problem that concerns capitalists in general is freedom to accumulate profits without economic or political hindrance either from economic conditions or from dissatisfied workers and impecunious sections of their own class. In each country each section of the capitalist class seeks to gain the lion’s share of the wealth plundered from the workers. The International interests of groups (large trusts for. instance) again cut across these other interests and produce further complications.

On the main issue there is unity, but on sectional issues there is conflict. Hence the divergent policies which at one time and another throw up alleged representative men and which provide professional politicians with a fruitful field to build up ephemeral reputations and fortunes.

Germany is at present torn with internal strife produced by the class conflict of wage-worker and capitalist, complicated by the minor clashing of capitalist national and international sectional interests. The general dissatisfaction has been increased by the ineptitude and wavering policy of the Social Democratic Party which has tried to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Since the end of the war this party and its supporters have sought to hold power by means of compromises and alliances; at one time crushing the workers at another fighting mock battles with the capitalists. In the end it has reaped the contempt of the capitalists and the distrust of the workers.

The war and post-war conditions gave an added impetus to the complete industrialisation of Germany and converted the old landowners (Junkers) into modern agricultural capitalists. These together with the industrial capitalists who serve agriculture, and the Bankers and Traders are the interests behind Von Papen. Prussia is the centre of these interests and contains roughly two-thirds of the total population of. Germany. Heavy industry (coal, iron and steel) centres in South Germany and has strong international connections and interests which demand stable government, the curbing of workers aspirations, and an “enlightened” policy abroad.

The bureaucracy in Germany is very highly developed and positions in it are the object of and the bait for the small investors and shop-keeping sections together with the families of the old army officers. Hitler appeals particularly to these groups and also to disillusioned workers.

There is much in the Hitler movement that directly serves the interests of the German capitalists but there is an element of disorder and incapacity in it that inspires them with doubt. Hence from the beginning they have distrusted it and alternately given it support and withdrawn their support from it according to their immediate interests and ideas. In other words it has and will be used only Where it serves the interests of those who control the means of wealth production, etc., in Germany.

Underneath all the above mentioned groups is a large and dissatisfied working class, with low wages, hard conditions and an unemployed section numbering over six millions.

For some time, prominence in the news has been given to the growth of the Hitler movement and to the clash between it and the Catholics, Social Democrats and Communists. On July 20th the situation took a dramatic turn when President Hindenburg appointed the German Chancellor, Von Papen, to be Commissioner of Prussia, and dismissed the Prussian Government which was a coalition of the Social-Democrats with the Catholic Centre Party. A very important result of this move was that it gave the Federal Government direct control of the Prussian Police—a body almost as formidable as the army.

The Social Democrats at once raised the cry that this was an attack on representative government, but they cannot dispute the fact that dissatisfaction with their own activities has robbed them of much of their support among the workers, and has made Hitler’s party the largest in Germany. At the Prussian elections in April, 1932, the votes cast for Hitler’s party totalled 8,000,000 as compared with 4,670,000 for the Social-Democrats and 3,370,000 for the next largest party, the Centre Party. Similarly, the fact that Hindenburg was able to use the Presidential powers specified in Article 48 of the German Constitution and dismiss the Prussian Government was due to his having been elected by the German voters in April. He was elected with the unqualified support of the Social-Democrats and the Centre Party.

The Presidential elections clearly illustrate the uselessness of the Social-Democrats' policy of compromise and bargaining. In 1925 they withdrew their own presidential candidate and officially supported the Centre Party’s candidate, Dr. Marx, an avowed anti-socialist, because they declared that it was imperative that the republic and democracy should be saved from the rival candidate, Hindenburg. They failed, and Hindenburg was elected.

At the next presidential election, in 1932, the Social Democrats and the Centre Party officially supported Hindenburg because they said that it was imperative that the republic and democracy should be saved from Hitler. This time the manoeuvre appeared to be successful in that the Social Democrats gave their votes to the man who topped the poll—Hindenburg. Now three months later they are indignantly protesting that the republic is being betrayed by Hindenburg.

The decline of the Social Democrats and the rise of Hitler is an evidence of the disrepute into which their crooked policy has brought them.

50 Years Ago: Unconquerable Print (1967)

The 50 Years Ago column from the January 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

A little while ago in the affairs of the Continent of Europe, lived an emperor called Frederick the Great. The only unquestionably great thing he did was to kill himself with uncommon vices. He departed a little from the usual insipidence of royal life by taking an interest in literature and entertaining Voltaire at his court. It would seem that this same hospitable reception of the satirist is the principal act of his life which entitles him to the epithet of ‘The Great’ . . .  one other action in the life of Carlyle's hero entitles him to remembrance if not to a fool’s immortal pillory. While driving through one of the cities of Prussia on a sunny day, he saw on a wall a placard in which he himself was denounced as an idle intemperate atheist. It had been posted in the dark and was loo high to be easily read. The emperor stopped his carriage and commanded that a similar bill should be glued at a more readable height. ‘For' he said, ‘My subjects may print what they like so long as I do what I like’.

It is difficult to say what thoughts were dancing in the Prussian’s skull. Did the old blockhead think that Print remained no more than print; this fierce placard, ‘posted after dark,’ no more than paper and letterpress? Did he not think that his own coronation and the docility of the masses, depended on advisory placards far different in spirit from this nocturnal one; that a word of this fresh sheet might stop those gilt wheels of his; that a thought of it might be as a whirlwind to knock his golden palace down and blow him and his better-half over the seas out of disgusted Prussia; that this sheet of letter-press might fire a country to destroy an Emperor?

From the Socialist Standard January 1917.

Forerunner of Common Market (1962)

From the November 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

The continental politicians, business men and lawyers who have spent years discussing, negotiating and drafting the Treaty of Rome and its accompanying agreements for the establishment of the European Economic Community must often have been reminded of a half century of work on the German Customs Union (Zollverein) that reached its culmination in 1871 in Bismark's German Empire. What happened then in Germany may not, at first sight, appear to bear comparison with the formation of a European Common Market by six separate governments, but the earlier event was in fact an even more complicated business.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century what was later to become a united Germany consisted of 289 separate states, each with its own government and frontiers, as well as 61 cities which were almost self-governing. These states were separated from each other by toll charges and tariffs, by different coinages, weights and measures and different legal systems, not to mention the frequently almost impassable roads.

In the conflict between the rulers of Prussia and Austria as to which was to dominate central Europe, the Customs Union was to prove a powerful weapon in the hands of Prussia though at the outset its possibilities were so little realized that the Prussian government actually had Austrian approval. It started in 1819 as a Free Trade area for Prussia's own scattered territories, behind a Customs barrier. As Prussia completely surrounded some of the smaller states and controlled the main trade routes into Central Germany, it was possible for the Prussian authorities to impose heavy transit charges on goods crossing Prussian territory and to put pressure on other states to induce them to join the Union.

It was not until the eighteen thirties that the Union expanded among the more important of the other German states with the accession of Bavaria, Wurtenberg, Saxony, Baden and the city of Frankfurt. An attempt by Hanover (under the British Crown until 1837) to form a rival union of North German states was a failure and the question of admitting Austria produced some of the kind of difficulties that now arise for the British Government through its links with the Commonwealth countries. Austria at that time controlled Hungary, Lombardy and Venice as well as being influential in the policies of the other governments in what is now Italy. The issue was whether Austria should enter the Customs Union bringing Hungary and Italy along too, and whether the latter were to be excluded from what purported to be a Union of German Peoples. In the long run it was settled by military means with the crushing defeat of the Austrian Army in the "seven weeks war” at Sadowa in 1866. From then onwards Austria was no longer in a position to challenge or hinder the achievement of German unity under Prussian leadership.

What the Customs Union gained for German capitalism was that after the eighteen thirties the major part of Germany formed an economic entity. Communications were improved, an identical system of weights, measures and currency introduced, and prices fell and became uniform. At first the trading and economic changes brought no corresponding political changes, and as the Encyclopaedia Britannica has it: “it was not until later that Bismark was able to utilize the Union for the furtherance of his schemes for National unity."

Among the internal industries that thrived behind the tariff protection of the Customs Union were German wine production, sugar beet growing and processing, and tobacco growing, with the corresponding decline of imports from abroad and loss of trade in what had been the ports of entry. There had been no question of Britain and France being allowed to join the German Customs Union, which was of course intended to operate as a protection for home industries against cheap imports from those two countries among others.

H. de B. Gibbins in his Economic and Industrial Progress of the Century had this to say about the British and French reactions to the Customs Union:

  One effect of it was seen at once in the imposition of severely protective duties on all foreign manufacturers, though the raw materials for home manufactures were wisely admitted free. The result was that England and France did not regard the Zollverein with much favour. . . .

One of the tasks the Prussian ruling class had to carry out in Germany was to break down very strong local "patriotisms” of the' multiplicity of German states, and replace them with an all-German patriotism.

It took time, but long before the end of the nineteenth century, German patriotism could compete in stupidity and fervour with anything the other empires and republics could boast. Nowadays we hear supporters of the European Common Market who argue that getting into a group of countries, since it means giving up some of the independence of each country, is a step towards internationalism. The argument is fallacious because in a capitalist world the only difference between the isolated country and the group of countries is that the later is industrially and militarily more powerful—it does not diminish the international antagonisms. Association with the European Common Market is no more a step towards internationalism than is association with the British Commonwealth or membership of United Nations.

It is to the point to recall that when the German Customs Union was absorbing economically the separate German states as a prelude to unifying them politically, there were people who fancied they could see that, too, as a step towards international brotherhood. Gustav Schmoller, the German professor of political science wrote his book, The Mercantile System round the theme that “ historical progress has consisted mainly in the establishment of ever larger and larger communities as the controllers of economic policy in place of small.” It was illustrated chiefly from Prussian history. Writing in 1884 when Europe was already conscious of growing European tensions over trade and colonies and the consequent threat of war, Schmoller was nevertheless able to deceive himself about the part played by the formation of the larger economic group he wrote about. He admitted that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the conduct of the separate nations had been "characterised by a selfish national commercial policy of a harsh and rude kind," and pointed to the way England had reached commercial supremacy by 1800 “by means of its tariff and naval wars, frequently with extraordinary violence," but he could imagine that capitalism had later changed and that “the struggle . . .  had a tendency, with the progress of civilisation, to assume a higher character and to abandon its coarsest and most brutal weapons.”

Schmoller thought he could see the capitalist jungle being tamed or civilised by the formation of leagues of states, by alliances for customs and trade questions, and by the growth of international law which was bringing into existence “ the moral and legal community of all civilised states.”

How wrong he was; but no more blind to the realities of capitalism than are most of those who now argue for and against the European Common Market.

Edgar Hardcastle

An Echo from the Crimean War (1940)

Editorial from the April 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Great Britain has entered upon war in defence of a great principle. She seeks no advantages for herself, except the inestimable advantage of peace. She desires no increase of territory—no augmentation of power. She has no ambitious objects of any kind to serve. She stretches forth her hand for the maintenance of law and order, and in defence of the morality of nations. In the great federation of the European States, one that is puffed up with pride, vain-gloriousness, and lust of dominion, cannot be allowed to destroy the liberty and independence even of the meanest, without peril to them all. The rulers of this nation, impressed with a full sense of their responsibilities, exhausted negotiation before they resorted to war. . . .  As long as there was the remotest chance that the dictates of reason and justice would prevail over the headlong passions of the disturber of the world, they refrained from any appeal to the sword."

It may be asked what bearing the Crimean War can have on the problems of the present day. Why worry about events that happened eighty-six years ago? The question is partly answered by pointing out that the words quoted above appeared in the Illustrated London News of April 29th, 1854, when Britain and France were at war with Russia in defence of Turkey, because they were unwilling to see Russia dominant in the Balkans. There is in this a lesson for the very large number of people who, accepting war with reluctance, are yet hopeful that this time there really will be a settlement of European rivalries which will make further wars impossible. Curiously enough, among them are the present editors of the Illustrated London News, for in their issue of February 17th, 1940, is an article

urging the need to avoid the mistakes of the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919: —

  If you want a good, lasting peace, prepare for it while the war is still in progress; otherwise the cessation of hostilities may find you with no definite plan, or—worse still—a plan that will inevitably lead to another conflict.

If those who think on these lines would pause to read the Illustrated London News of 1854 they might come to see that there is not the slightest chance of gaining lasting peace by any means short of establishing Socialism.

The parallels with the speeches and writings of the present war are remarkable. In the issue of April 29th, 1854, the Czar, like Hitler to-day, is denounced for “proved falsehood," “ hypocritical pretence of religion" and for breaking his pledged word that he had no further territorial demands: “In defiance of his solemn promise that his aggression should be confined to the occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia; in defiance of the word and faith of a 'gentleman'—which there is no word in the Russian language to express—he attacked in the most treacherous manner, and with an overwhelming force, a portion of the Turkish fleet that lay quietly, and suspecting no evil, in the harbour of Sinope."

In October, 1854, the war was gathering momentum, and its aims were being discussed:—

   It is no longer a matter of Turkish independence that is in dispute. . . . It is the equilibrium of a continent that has to be restored. — (Illustrated London News, October 28th, 1854.)

In the same issue there was the same lamentation that marks the current Labour and Liberal Press, about missed opportunities of calling a halt to aggression when it first began: “The proper time for resistance to the aggression of Russia was when the Czarina Catherine II and Frederick the Great of Prussia concocted and carried out their scheme" (i.e., the partition of Poland).

This brought the Illustrated London News to their plea that Poland must be reconstituted as an independent nation in order to serve as a barrier to the Russian advance into the Balkans: —

   . . .  she would be prevented from playing the desperate game by the existence of Poland, protected as it would be by the public law of Europe, and by the armies of every State which now or hereafter may become a party to the Anti-Russian alliance.—(Illustrated London News, October 28th, 1854.)

There was one difference. Russia, not Prussia, was then the chief offender, but Prussia and Austria were Russia's “accomplices and 'comrogues.' "

   Were Russia forced to release her grip of that ill-gotten possession, Austria and Prussia might be well content to relinquish theirs. To Prussia the Allies owe nothing. The Prussian King is the agent and friend of the Czar and will, sooner or later, share the Czar’s fate, whatever it may happen to be. . . . . The day may come when the long-suffering people of that country . . . will take to themselves another Sovereign.

With these and other arguments with which we are fed to-day the Illustrated London News of 1854 carved up the map of Europe in the self-appointed task of planning peace and a better world. So also their successors of to-day. In the issue of February 17th, 1940, one contributor quotes with approval the statement by Mr. Arthur Bryant: “However signally we defeat our enemy in the field, we shall never achieve our end of freeing Europe from the periodic effects of his violence and aggression until we have learnt to understand their causes."

Mr. Bryant believes that he has found those causes in German history—“ one that dates back far beyond 1914," but which includes as an important phase the treatment of Germany after the last war.

On another page of the Illustrated London News (February 17th, 1940) Mr. Bryant shows how little he has really learned of the causes of war; for after a lengthy and wholly inaccurate exposition of Socialism he finds that “the problem of the age, if we could but see it, is to remove the grave faults in the present operation of the capitalist system without subjecting our people to despotic forms of life and work . . ."

In short he wants to keep the economic system whose inevitable result will be more Crimeas, more Franco-Prussian wars, more Great Wars to end war, and more writers hopefully planning new capitalist worlds amidst the war-shattered ruins of the old one.