TO THE MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKING MENS
ASSOCIATION IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES
In our first Manifesto of the 23rd of July we said:— "The death knell of the Second Empire has already sounded at Paris. It will end as it began, by a parody. But let us not forget that it is the Governments and the ruling classes of Europe who enabled Louis Napoleon to play during eighteen years the ferocious farce of the Restored Empire."(1)
Thus, even before war operations had actually set in, we treated the Bonapartist bubble as a thing of the past.
If we were not mistaken as to the vitality of the Second Empire, we were not wrong in our apprehension lest the German war should "lose its strictly defensive character and degenerate into a war against the French people".(2) The war of defence ended, in point of fact, with the surrender of Louis Bonaparte, the Sedan capitulation, and the proclamation of the Republic at Paris. But long before these events, the very moment that the utter rottenness of the Imperialist arms became evident, the Prussian military camarilla had resolved upon conquest. There lay an ugly obstacle in their way—King William's own proclamations at the commencement of the war. In his speech from the throne to the North German Diet, he had solemnly declared to make war upon the emperor of the French, and not upon the French people.(3) On the 11th of August he had issued a manifesto to the French nation, where he said:(4) "The Emperor Napoleon having made, by land and sea, an attack on the German nation, which desired and still desires to live in peace with the French people, I have assumed the command of the German armies to repel his aggression, and I have been led by military events to cross the frontiers of France."(5)
Not content to assert the defensive character of the war by the statement that he only assumed the command of the German armies "to repel aggression", he added that he was only "led by military events" to cross the frontiers of France. A defensive war does, of course, not exclude offensive operations dictated by "military events".
Thus this pious king stood pledged before France and the world to a strictly defensive war. How to release him from his solemn pledge? The stage-managers had to exhibit him as giving, reluctantly, way to the irresistible behest of the German nation. They at once gave the cue to the liberal German middle class, with its professors, its capitalists, its aldermen, and its penmen. That middle class which in its struggle for civil liberty had, from 1846 to 1870, been exhibiting an unexampled spectacle of irresolution, incapacity, and cowardice, felt, of course, highly delighted to bestride the European scene as the roaring lion of German patriotism. It revindicated its civic independence by affecting to force upon the Prussian Government the secret designs of that same government. It does penance for its long-continued and almost religious faith in Louis Bonaparte's infallibility, by shouting for the dismemberment of the French Republic. Let us for a moment listen to the special pleadings of those stout-hearted patriots!
They dare not pretend that the people of Alsace and Lorraine pant for the German embrace; quite the contrary. To punish their French patriotism, Strasbourg, a town with an independent citadel commanding it, has for six days been wantonly and fiendishly bombarded by "German" explosive shells, setting it on fire, and killing great numbers of its defenceless inhabitants! Yet, the soil of those provinces once upon a time belonged to the whilom German Empire. Hence, it seems, the soil and the human beings grown on it must be confiscated as imprescriptible German property. If the map of Europe is to be remade in the antiquary's vein, let us by no means forget that the Elector of Brandenburg, for his Prussian dominions, was the vassal of the Polish Republic.[129]
The more knowing patriots, however, require Alsace and the German-speaking part of Lorraine as a "material guarantee"
against French aggression. As this contemptible plea has bewil-dered many weak-minded people, we are bound to enter more fully upon it.
There is no doubt that the general configuration of Alsace, as compared with the opposite bank of the Rhine, and the presence of a large fortified town like Strasbourg, about halfway between Basle and Germersheim, very much favour a French invasion of South Germany, while they offer peculiar difficulties to an invasion of France from South Germany. There is, further, no doubt that the addition of Alsace and German-speaking Lorraine would give South Germany a much stronger frontier, inasmuch as she would then be master of the crest of the Vosges mountains in its whole length, and of the fortresses which cover its northern passes. If Metz were annexed as well, France would certainly for the moment be deprived of her two principal bases of operation against Germany, but that would not prevent her from construct-ing a fresh one at Nancy or Verdun. While Germany owns Coblenz, Mainz, Germersheim, Rastatt, and Ulm, all bases of operation against France, and plentifully made use of in this war, with what show of fair play can she begrudge France Strasbourg and Metz, the only two fortresses of any importance she has on that side? Moreover, Strasbourg endangers South Germany only while South Germany is a separate power from North Germany. From 1792-95 South Germany was never invaded from that direction, because Prussia was a party to the war against the French Revolution; but as soon as Prussia made a peace of her own in 1795,[130] and left the South to shift for itself, the invasions of South Germany, with Strasbourg for a base, began, and continued till 1809. The fact is, a united Germany can always render Strasbourg and any French army in Alsace innocuous by concentrating all her troops, as was done in the present war, between Saarlouis and Landau, and advancing, or accepting battle, on the line of road between Mainz and Metz. While the mass of the German troops is stationed there, any French army advancing from Strasbourg into South Germany would be outflanked, and have its communications threatened. If the present campaign has proved anything, it is the facility of invading France from Germany.
But, in good faith, is it not altogether an absurdity and an anachronism to make military considerations the principle by which the boundaries of nations are to be fixed? If this rule were to prevail, Austria would still be entitled to Venetia and the line of the Mincio, and France to the line of the Rhine, in order to protect Paris, which lies certainly more open to an attack from the North East than Berlin does from the South West. If limits are to be fixed by military interests, there will be no end to claims, because every military line is necessarily faulty, and may be improved by annexing some more outlying territory; and, moreover, they can never be fixed finally and fairly, because they always must be imposed by the conqueror upon the conquered, and consequently carry within them the seed of fresh wars.
Such is the lesson of all history. Thus with nations as with individuals. To deprive them of the power of offence, you must deprive them of the means of defence. You must not only garrotte but murder. If ever conqueror took "material guarantees" for breaking the sinews of a nation, the first Napoleon did so by the Tilsit treaty,[126] and the way he executed it against Prussia and the rest of Germany. Yet, a few years later, his gigantic power split like a rotten reed upon the German people. What are the "material guarantees" Prussia, in her wildest dreams, can, or dare impose upon France, compared to the "material guarantees" the first Napoleon had wrenched from herself? The result will not prove the less disastrous. History will measure its retribution, not by the extent of the square miles conquered from France, but by the intensity of the crime of reviving, in the second half of the 19th century, the policy of conquest!
But, say the mouthpieces of Teutonic patriotism, you must not confound Germans with Frenchmen. What we want is not glory, but safety. The Germans are an essentially peaceful people. In their sober guardianship, conquest itself changes from a condition of future war into a pledge of perpetual peace. Of course, it is not Germans that invaded France in 1792, for the sublime purpose of bayonetting the revolution of the 18th century. It is not Germans that befouled their hands by the subjugation of Italy, the oppression of Hungary, and the dismemberment of Poland. Their present military system, which divides the whole adult male population into two parts — one standing army on service, and another standing army on furlough, both equally bound in passive obedience to rulers by divine right — such a military system is, of course, a "material guarantee" for keeping the peace, and the ultimate goal of civilising tendencies! In Germany, as everywhere else, the sycophants of the powers that be poison the popular mind by the incense of mendacious self-praise.
Indignant as they pretend to be at the sight of French fortresses in Metz and Strasbourg, those German patriots see no harm in the vast system of Moscovite fortifications at Warsaw, Modlin, and Ivangorod. While gloating at the terrors of imperialist invasion, they blink at the infamy of autocratic tutelage.
As in 1865 promises were exchanged between Louis Bonaparte and Bismarck, so in 1870 promises have been exchanged between Gorchakov and Bismarck.[131] As Louis Bonaparte flattered himself that the war of 1866, resulting in the common exhaustion of Austria and Prussia, would make him the supreme arbiter of Germany, so Alexander flattered himself that the war of 1870, resulting in the common exhaustion of Germany and France, would make him the supreme arbiter of the Western Continent. As the Second Empire thought the North German Confederation incompatible with its existence, so autocratic Russia must think herself endangered by a German empire under Prussian leadership. Such is the law of the old political system. Within its pale the gain of one state is the loss of the other. The Czar's paramount influence over Europe roots in his traditional hold on Germany. At a moment when in Russia herself volcanic social agencies threaten to shake the very base of autocracy, could the Czar afford to bear with such a loss of foreign prestige? Already the Moscovite journals repeat the language of the Bonapartist journals after the war of 1866. Do the Teuton patriots really believe that liberty and peace(6) will be guaranteed to Germany by forcing France into the arms of Russia? If the fortune of her arms, the arrogance of success, and dynastic intrigue lead Germany to a dismemberment of France, there will then only remain two courses open to her. She must at all risks become the avowed tool of Russian aggrandisement,(7) or, after some short respite, make again ready for another "defensive" war, not one of those new-fangled "localised" wars, but a war of races—a war with the combined Slavonian and Roman races.(8)
The German working class has resolutely supported the war, which it was not in their power to prevent, as a war for German independence and the liberation of France and Europe from that pestilential incubus, the Second Empire. It was the German workmen who, together with the rural labourers, furnished the sinews and muscles of heroic hosts, leaving behind their half-starved families. Decimated by the battles abroad, they will be once more decimated by misery at home.(9) In their turn they are now coming forward to ask for "guarantees",— guarantees that their immense sacrifices have not been brought in vain, that they have conquered liberty, that the victory over the Imperialist armies will not, as in 1815, be turned into the defeat of the German people[132]; and,, as the first of these guarantees, they claim an honourable peace for France, and the recognition of the French Republic. The Central Committee(10) of the German Socialist-Democratic Workmen's Party issued, on the 5th of September, a manifesto, energetically insisting upon these guarantees.
"We," they say, "we protest against the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine. And we are conscious of speaking in the name of the German working class. In the common interest of France and Germany, in the interest of peace and liberty, in the interest of Western civilisation against Eastern barbarism, the German workmen will not patiently tolerate the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine.... We shall faithfully stand by our fellow-workmen in all countries for the common international cause of the Proletariat!"(11)
Unfortunately, we cannot feel sanguine of their immediate success. If the French workmen amidst peace failed to stop the aggressor, are the German workmen more likely to stop the victor amidst the clangour of arms? The German workmen's manifesto demands the extradition of Louis Bonaparte as a common felon to the French Republic. Their rulers are, on the contrary, already trying hard to restore him to the Tuileries as the best man to ruin France. However that may be, history will prove that the German working class are not made of the same malleable stuff as the German middle class. They will do their duty.
Like them, we hail the advent of the Republic in France, but at the same time we labour under misgivings which we hope will prove groundless. That Republic has not subverted the throne, but only taken its place become vacant.(12) It has been proclaimed, not as a social conquest, but as a national measure of defence. It is in the hands of a Provisional Government composed partly of notorious Orleanists, partly of middle-class Republicans, upon some of whom the insurrection of June, 1848,[133] has left its indelible stigma. The division of labour amongst the members of that Government looks awkward. The Orleanists have seized the strongholds of the army and the police, while to the professed Republicans have fallen the talking departments. Some of their first acts go far to show that they have inherited from the Empire, not only ruins, but also its dread of the working class. If eventual impossibilities are in wild phraseology demanded from the Republic, is it not with a view to prepare the cry for a "possible" government? Is the Republic, by some of its middle-class managers, not intended to serve as a mere stopgap and bridge over an Orleanist Restoration?
The French working class moves, therefore, under circumstances of extreme difficulty. Any attempt at upsetting the new Government in the present crisis, when the enemy is almost knocking at the doors of Paris, would be a desperate folly. The French workmen must perform their duties as citizens(13); but, at the same time, they must not allow themselves to be deluded by the national souvenirs'(14) of 1792, as the French peasants allowed themselves to be deluded by the national souvenirs of the First Empire. They have not to recapitulate the past, but to build up the future. Let them calmly and resolutely improve the opportunities of Republican liberty, for the work of their own class organisation. It will gift them with fresh Herculean powers for the regeneration of France, and our common task — the emancipation of labour. Upon their energies and wisdom hinges the fate of the Republic.
The English workmen have already taken measures to overcome, by a wholesome pressure from without, the reluctance of their Government to recognise the French Republic.[134] The present dilatoriness of the British Government is probably intended to atone for the Anti-Jacobin war and its former indecent haste in sanctioning the coup d'état.13,5 The English workmen call also upon their Government to oppose by all its power the dismemberment of France, which part of the English press is shameless enough to howl for.(15) It is the same press that for twenty years deified Louis Bonaparte as the providence of Europe, that frantically cheered on the slaveholders' rebellion.[136]
Now, as then, it drudges for the slaveholder.
Let the sections of the International Working Men's Association in every country stir the working classes to action. If they forsake their duty, if they remain passive, the present tremendous war will be but the harbinger of still deadlier international feuds, and lead in every nation to a renewed triumph over the workman by the lords of the sword, of the soil, and of capital.
Vive la République!
The General Council: Robert Applegarth; Martin J. Boon; Fred. Bradnick; Caihil; John Hales; William Hales; George Harris; Fred, hessner; Lopatin; B. Lucraft; George Milner; Thomas Mottershead; Charles Murray; George Odger; James Parnell; Pfänder; Rühl; Joseph Shepherd; Cowell Stepney; Stoll;
Schmutz
Corresponding Secretaries:
Eugene Dupont for France Giovanni Bora for Italy Karl Marx for Germany Zévy Maurice for H ungary and Russia Anton Zabicki for Poland A. Serraillier for Belgium, James Cohen for Denmark Holland and Spain /. G. Eccarius.... for the United Hermann Jung.. for Switzerland States
William Townshend, Chairman
John Weston, Treasurer /. George Eccarius, General Secretary
Office: 256, High Holborn, London, W.C., September 9th, 1870
1870
Approved at the meeting of the General Council on September 9, 1870
Published as a leaflet in English on September 11-13, 1870, as a leaflet in German, and in periodicals in German and French in September-December 1870
Endnotes
[128] Second Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Association on the Franco-Prussian War was written by Marx between September 6 and 9, 1870. On September 6, 1870, having examined the new situation that had taken shape after the collapse of the Second Empire and the start of a new stage of the war, the General Council of the International decided to issue a second address on the Franco-Prussian war and, for that purpose, appointed a commission including Marx, Jung, Milner and Serraillier. In his work on the Address, Marx used the material he received from Engels, which exposed the efforts to justify, on military-strategic grounds, the urge on the part of the Prussian military clique, the Junkers and the bourgeoisie to annex French territory (see Engels' letter to Marx and Marx's reply of September 4 and 10, 1870 respectively, present edition, Vol. 44). The Address was unanimously adopted by a special meeting of the General Council on September 9, 1870, and was circulated to all the bourgeois London newspapers, which ignored it, with the exception of The Pall Mall Gazette which published an excerpt from the Address in its ussue No. 1745 of September 16, 1870. On September 11-13, it was issued as a leaflet in English (1,000 copies); a new edition containing the First and Second addresses appeared in late September. The misprints of the first edition were corrected and some editorial changes made in it. The Address was published by the US labour press: The Working Man's Advocate, Chicago, No. 7, October 8, 1870; The National Standard, No. 1573, November 12, 1870. The Second Address was translated into German by Marx, who added several sentences intended for the German workers and deleted some passages. This translation was published in the newspaper Der Volksstaat, No. 76, September 21, 1870; in the journal Der Vorbote, No. 10-11, October-November 1870; Volkswille, Wien, No. 37, October 8, 1870; Die Tagewacht, Zurich, No. 33, October 1, 1870; and also as a leaflet in Geneva. In 1891, Engels published the Second Address in a German edition of War in France; the The Civil translation for that edition was made by Louise Kautsky under Engels' supervision. The French translation of the Second Address was published in the newspapers L'Internationale, Nos. 93 and 99, October 23 and December 4, 1870; in La Tribune de Bordeaux, September 21, 1870; and, in an abridged form, in L'Egalité, No. 35, October 4, 1870. It was also published in Antwerp in Flemish by De Werker, Nos. 51 and 52, October 16 and 24, 1870. In the present edition, the Second Address is published according to the second edition of the English leaflet checked against the 1870 leaflet, which was translated into German by Marx. The major differences in reading are given in footnotes.
[129] In 1618, the Electorate of Brandenburg was united with the Duchy of Prussia (East Prussia), which had been formed from the possessions of the Teutonic Order in the early 16th century and was a fief of Poland. In his capacity as the Duke of Prussia, the Elector of Brandenburg continued to be a vassal of Poland until 1657, when, making use of Poland's embroilment in a war with Sweden, he secured recognition of his sovereign rights to Prussian possessions.
[130] 130 xhe reference is to the Treaty of Basle concluded on April 5, 1795 separately by the French Republic and Prussia, the latter being a member of the first anti-French coalition. Its conclusion marked the beginning of the coalition's disintegration.
[126] The treaties of Tilsit—peace treaties signed on July 7 and 9, 1807 by Napoleonic France, and Russia and Prussia, members of the fourth anti-French coalition. In an attempt to split the defeated powers, Napoleon made no territorial claims on Russia and even succeeded in transferring some of the Prussian monarchy's eastern lands to Russia. The treaty imposed harsh terms on Prussia, which lost nearly half its territory to the German states dependent on France, was made to pay indemnities and had its army reduced. However, Russia, like Prussia, had to break its alliance with Britain and, to its disadvantage, join Napoleon's Continental System. Napoleon formed the vassal Duchy of Warsaw on Polish territory seized by Prussia during the partitions of Poland at the end of the 18th century, and planned to use it as a springboard in the event of war with Russia. Dictated by Napoleon, the Treaty of Tilsit caused dissatisfaction among the German population and paved the way for the liberation movement that broke out against Napoleonic rule in 1813. pp. 26, 266
[131] During their meeting in Biarritz in October 1865, Bismarck won Napoleon Ill's consent to an alliance between Prussia and Italy and to a war by Prussia against Austria; in agreeing to this, Napoleon III expected to be able to intervene in the conflict with benefit for himself, in the event of Prussia's defeat. At the start of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, the Tsarist Foreign Minister Gorchakov declared, during his negotiations with Bismarck in Berlin, that in the war Russia would maintain a benevolent neutrality towards Prussia and would exert diplomatic pressure on Austria; for its part, the Prussian government undertook not to impede Tsarist Russia in her policy in the East.
[132] 132 xhe reference is to the strengthening of feudal reaction in Germany after the collapse of Napoleonic rule. The governments of the European feudal absolutist states, supported by the reactionary nobility, made use of the results of the liberation war against the domination of Napoleon I. The German Confederation (see Note 27) did not eliminate feudal division; the feudal-absolutist system was consolidated; all the nobility's privileges were preserved and semi-feudal exploitation of the peasants intensified.
[133] 133 x h e reference is to the June insurrection, the heroic insurrection of Paris workers on June 23-26, 1848. It was the first civil war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in history. Marx called it the first great battle between the two classes. H e assessed its historical importance in the Class Struggles in France, to 1850 (see present edition, Vol. 10, pp. 67-70). 1848 pp. 269, 316, 445, 521
[134] Marx is referring here to the movement of British workers for recognition of the French Republic, which was established on September 4, 1870, and giving it diplomatic support. From September 5, in London, Birmingham, Newcastle and other big cities meetings and demonstrations by large numbers of workers took place, with some trade unions taking an active part. Their participants expressed sympathy for the French people and demanded in their resolutions and petitions that the British government immediately recognise the French Republic. The General Council of the International and Marx himself took an active part in organising the movement for recognition of the French Republic (see Marx's letters to Engels of September 10 and 14, 1870, present edition, Vol. 44).
[136] 1:56 During the Civil War in the USA (1861-65), the British press, which expressed the views of the British ruling quarters, actively supported the Southern slave-owning states in an attempt to split and weaken the USA.