"THE FUTURE BELONGS
TO THE PEOPLE"

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO
DALLAS · ATLANTA · SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO., Limited
LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.
TORONTO

"The Future Belongs
to the People"
BY KARL LIEBKNECHT

(Speeches made since the beginning of the War)

EDITED AND TRANSLATED BY
S. ZIMAND

WITH AN INTRODUCTION
By WALTER WEYL

New York
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1918
All rights reserved

Copyright 1918
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Set up and Electrotyped. Published, November 16, 1918

Press of J. J. Little & Ives Co., New York

CONTENTS

"The aim of my life is the overthrow of monarchy. As my father, who appeared before this court exactly thirty-five years ago to defend himself against the charge of treason, was ultimately pronounced victor, so I believe the day is not far distant when the principles which I represent will be recognized as patriotic, as honorable, as true."

Karl Liebknecht.

PREFACE

The philosophy of Karl Liebknecht as revealed in these pages leaves but a narrow ledge for heroes to stand on. To him the significant thing in history is, and has always been, the stirring of the masses of men at the bottom, their unconscious writhings, their awakenings, their conscious struggles and finally their gigantic, fearsome upthrust, which overturns all the little groups of clever men who have lived by holding these masses down. In these conflicts, kings, priests, leaders, heroes count for no more than flags or flying pennants. All great leaders, Cæsar, Mahomet, Luther, Napoleon, are instruments of popular movements, or at best manuscripts upon which the messages of their class and age have been written.

To Liebknecht all that Carlyle has said about heroes is contrary to ideology and inversion of the truth. "As I take it," writes Carlyle, "Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked there. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing and accomplished in the world are properly the outward material result, the practical realization and embodiment of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world: the soul of the whole world's history, it may justly be considered, were the history of these."

Look at what is happening in Germany to-day and test, as best we may, these two confronting theories concerning the influence of great men upon history. As I write Germany is in the throes of revolution. The immensely powerful Hohenzollern monarchy has fallen, the brave, stubborn, modern-witted, money-bolstered aristocracy is shattered, and a proscribed poor man, Karl Liebknecht, is loudly acclaimed. Was it one man, a Foch, a Wilson, a Lenin or a Liebknecht that overturned this mighty structure, or was it the movement of a hundred million men and women, armed and unarmed, on the battle-field and in the factory, in France and England and Russia and Germany? What could Liebknecht alone have done with all his ringing eloquence and all his superb, I almost said, sublime heroism? Clearly we must rule Carlyle out of the controversy and agree with Liebknecht, the Socialist, that Liebknecht, the hero, had little to do with this vast subversion.

Yet, as Carlyle says, "One comfort is, that Great Men, taken up in any way, are profitable company. We cannot look, however imperfectly, upon any great man, without gaining something by him."

At this safe distance no one could be more "profitable company" than Karl Liebknecht as he stands up boldly against all that is powerful, respectable and formidable in Germany and challenges it at the utter risk of life and reputation. Such courage as his is almost inconceivable; for us poor conforming or at best feebly protesting little people it is quite impossible. To die among thousands, even to die alone, if you think you hear the plaudits of your nation or your class, is a thing many of us have learned to do, but to stand up against a vindictive irrational war spirit, such as ruled Germany, to stand up alone, to be contemned not only by your enemies but by those who called themselves your comrades and friends, to be met by polite derision and by actual threats of violence, to be called a madman, to be called a traitor, to be misunderstood and doubted; to be met in occasional moments of dejection even by doubts in your own mind, and still to hold your own bravely and with cool passion, day after day and day after day, in circumstances growing daily more difficult, and finally to go to prison gladly, triumphantly—that is courage surpassing the courage of the rest of us. It is easier to die even by torture than to persist in this opposition to forces physical and mental not only confronting but surrounding and even permeating us.

We have agreed with Liebknecht that great events are not the doings of great men but merely the large theater in which these great men play their little parts. And yet, does not the hero, subordinate as he is to the wider movement of the play, exert a somewhat stronger influence than many followers of Marx seem willing to admit? Masses of men are moved to vital historic decisions in part by economic motives, but these motives must first be converted into emotion, and the hero, however his own actions are motived, is one of the vital factors producing that emotion. We shall perhaps never know to what extent the present rising of the German people against their once invincible rulers was occasioned, though not caused, by their vision of Karl Liebknecht, standing there alone against all the judges, rulers, legislators and respectables of Germany, and even against his fellow socialists. The heroism of Liebknecht was at least a point and center of coalescence.

The course of events has vindicated Karl Liebknecht. But it might well have been otherwise. Had Germany won the war and established a clanging pax Germanica through the ruin of Europe, Liebknecht's heroism might never have been recognized. He might have rusted in prison and been released to obscurity and thereafter lived a futile life derided as a blind fanatic. The force of circumstances, the obscure action of the hundreds of millions, rescued Liebknecht and raised him to the highest pinnacle of heroism. It stamped upon our minds for all time the picture of this brave man standing alone surrounded by cruel, confidently smiling foes.

I said "alone." Yet this is not fair to a very small group of German minority socialists, who stood by Liebknecht and by whom Liebknecht stood. Among them were Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Hugo Haase, George Ledebour, and others, to whom, were real heroism always decorated, would be given a higher order of "Pour le Mérite." But among all these Karl Liebknecht stands preëminent.

"And for all that mind you," concludes the French soldier Bertrand, in "Under Fire," "there is one figure that has risen above the war and will blaze with the beauty and strength of his courage."

Barbusse continues: "I listened leaning on a stick towards him, drinking in the voice that came in the twilight silence from the lips that so rarely spoke. He cried with a clear voice, 'Liebknecht.'"

Walter Weyl.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

"The future belongs to the people." The time was October 24, 1918; the place, Berlin, the center of Germany; the speaker, Doctor Karl Liebknecht. A remarkable change had indeed come over the Empire. As far as the eye could reach, a great shouting, surging crowd had gathered before the Reichstag buildings, a crowd such as might have foregathered in times past on almost any day of national festivity, to do honor to his Imperial Majesty, Kaiser Wilhelm. They were indeed shouting frantically on this occasion, but with other sentiments, shouting not for the Kaiser, but for abdication, while applauding frantically for another, a bitter foe of the Kaiser, a man who had been sent to jail for high treason, had been deprived of his seat in the Reichstag, had been dubbed, even by those in his own party, an enemy of his kind—Karl Liebknecht. And who, witnessing the flower-laden carriage of the great popular hero, but would admit that a new day was at last dawning in that land of autocracy, a day ushered in by the guns and men of Foch?

The events leading to that ovation of the twenty-fourth of October are of interest.

From the earliest days of its organization, soon after the middle of the nineteenth century, the German Social Democracy had taken a stand against militarism. During the Franco-Prussian War, two of its chief representatives, Wilhelm Liebknecht (the father of Karl Liebknecht) and August Bebel, had refused to vote for the war budget. In 1912, during the Balkan crisis, the German Socialists had attended in force the great gathering of the International Socialist Conference at Basle, protesting in vigorous tones against the war, and many there were on that occasion who declared that even if danger of world war had not been entirely eliminated, the Social Democrats of Germany, the strongest of the International movement, were prepared to meet any emergency that might arise. In the Reichstag elections, these Social Democrats had cast four and a quarter millions of votes, while the labor unions, which in Germany worked hand and hand with the Social-Democratic Party, numbered no less than two and a half millions. The Socialist movement had the support of hundreds of newspapers, possessed a strong and well-disciplined organization and large financial resources, and was remarkably rich in political experience. In efficiency of organization it ranked second only to the Catholic Church.

It was true that the German Social Democrats as yet had gained little real influence on the international policy of the Empire, and despite their powerful organization and their influence, they were in a position before the war to use only moral pressure on the government. Yet to many it seemed extremely unlikely that the German government would dare instigate a world conflagration when opposed at home by this powerful "internal enemy."

The war came. Immediately after war's declaration, the Imperial Chancellor called a meeting of the Reichstag on August 5, 1914, for the purpose of approving the war budget. The day before this gathering was held, he called together the leaders of the various parties, so the story runs, among them the Social Democrats, and transmitted to them a confidential communication. He had from a reliable source, he declared, information that a secret understanding existed between the French and the Belgian governments whereby the latter government had agreed, in case of emergency, that it would give the French army passage through Belgium for the purpose of invading Germany. It was because of this agreement, the Chancellor declared, that the neutrality of Belgium had to be violated. In addition to this information, the Chancellor told the assembled legislators that the Russian army had invaded German soil and had even then overrun two of the Prussian provinces.

These statements produced the desired effect, convincing the majority of the Social Democratic leaders that their only course was to support the Kaiser and his government. The government knew how to fool them, knew what to use in order to get their support, and the Kaiser and his government were victorious.

Every cable message during those days that reached America from Germany emphasized the thought that there were no longer any parties in Germany, that the Social Democrats had decided to give up their agitation and work only for victory. To many radicals in America who had pinned their faith to the internationalism of the German Social Democracy, these reports seemed well-nigh unbelievable. The Socialist leaders must have been put in jail, some argued.

Then more news came to confirm the reports, and the papers came, Socialist papers, and Socialist papers even of Germany, and all contained the same unbelievable truth. Some said then, "Well, the Government has taken over their papers and that is how this news can be explained." But fact after fact came out which made even the most doubtful admit that the cables had been based on truth. The strong and great structure built by a generation lay prostrate on the ground.

In those days of disillusion, I remember well a conversation among a few of us concerning the plight of the Social Democracy. "The German government knew their Socialists well, and knew how best to reach them," declared one of our group. "There is one man in Germany, however, whom we shouldn't despair of, even now. If he is still alive, I cannot but believe that he will soon raise his voice against the course pursued by the German government and by his own party, and show the world that even in the land of utter darkness there still shines one light."

Liebknecht's record was open. For a score of years he had fought militarism tooth and nail. Could he now embrace it? Temporarily, it seemed that he had. He opposed the majority of his fellow-Socialists in the early days of August when they voted to support the war budget. But his efforts were unsuccessful. The majority decreed that the Social Democrats must support the war, and party discipline demanded that the minority abide by the decision of the majority. Party discipline was strong, at first too strong for Liebknecht. He yielded. Against his better judgment he voted, on August 5, for the budget. He voted, but he rebelled in spirit, and the next month, both at the home of a Socialist Alderman, F. M. Wibaut, of Amsterdam, and at the residence of Lieutenant Henry DeMan, in Brussels, he declared that he could not himself understand what had possessed him when he gave his vote in the Reichstag to the war budget.

He soon extricated himself from his former allegiances, however, and the noble spirit of courage which he afterwards displayed has but few precedents in modern history. In order to portray to the reader the real picture of the seemingly insurpassable obstacles against which he fought, and the courage and idealism which he displayed, I have collected and translated his speeches and his important utterances since the beginning of the war and here present them in detail for the first time to American readers.

Liebknecht had many opportunities for making himself heard. He was a Deputy of the Reichstag from Potsdam-Osthavelland, an assemblyman to the Prussian Landtag from Berlin and Councilman to the Stadverordneten Versammlung of Berlin. Within and without these assemblies he used his pen and his voice alike. It was in the Prussian Assembly, where from the very beginning he had four companions who shared his point of view, that he delivered his longer addresses.

His tactics in the Reichstag, where for some time he stood almost alone, were somewhat different. Here, instead of delivering speeches, he used the question with telling effect, as a means of bringing out the truth on his side and of showing the emptiness of his opponents' claims. The government resorted to every conceivable means to silence him, but without success. Failing, they called him to military service, and put him in the uniform of a German soldier. This act put a temporary end to his outside public addresses, but he could still deliver his scathing indictments in the Reichstag and in the Prussian Assembly.

On May 1, 1916, he appeared at a public gathering in Berlin in civilian dress, and delivered the speech which sent him to jail. Why did he deliver that May Day address? Why did he not continue to reach the public over the heads of the legislators from his seats in the two Parliaments? It is indeed possible that he thought that the moment for the Revolution had struck. For it is an address of revolution, and seemed calculated to bring about an uprising of the workers. Perhaps he was under the impression that his addresses and the terrible pressure outside Germany had sufficiently awakened the German people, and that they needed but a word to bring them into action. Whatever the reason, the speech was a magnificent one; it required a courage which only a Liebknecht possessed.

When Ralph Waldo Emerson visited Henry Thoreau in his prison cell and asked, "What are you doing here, Henry?" Thoreau replied, "What are you doing outside when all people with ideals are inside?" That sentence well describes the Germany of yesterday. Liebknecht was in prison, but even in his lonesome cell he still inspired the "gathering hosts and helped to make men free."

I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to my friends, Bertram Benedict and Dr. Wm. E. Bohn, for help and criticism.

S. Zimand.

November 3, 1918

THE MAN LIEBKNECHT

Karl Liebknecht is a worthy son of a great sire. His father, Wilhelm Liebknecht, for years a member of the Reichstag, was the author of numerous pamphlets on Socialism and economics and was one of the first founders of the Socialist Party in Germany. Karl Liebknecht was born in Leipzig on August 13th, 1871, the same year in which his father was arrested on the charge of high treason. His mother was wont to say that she bequeathed to her son all the sorrow that was hers during that period, all the courage and all the strength which she had to summon to her aid to live through those days; and with her bequest went all the sorrow for the sufferings of humanity, and all the courage and the strength to battle for the cause of the people, which were back of the father's trial.

And thirty-five years later, Karl Liebknecht underwent the same ordeal as his father—himself faced the accusation of high treason in the highest courts of his native land.

Liebknecht studied first at Leipzig and then in Berlin, attending the university in each city. As a student he began his career of social enlightenment by organizing literary societies for the study of social problems. Liebknecht got his doctor's degree in Political Economy and Law at the University of Würzburg. From 1889 he practised law in Berlin. Later he became active in the Socialist movement in Berlin. In 1902 he was elected Councilman to the Stadverordneten Versammlung (Common Council) of Berlin. In October, 1907, he was tried for high treason before the Imperial Court of Germany at Leipzig for his book on "Militarism." The substance of this book which aroused the ire of the German authorities was first set forth in a lecture before a group of young people in 1906, for it is Liebknecht's belief that in the hands of the younger generation of Germany lies the hope of salvation; let them be impregnated, he would say, with the right social ideals before militaristic training has an opportunity to do its work, and there will be little danger of domination by the war lords, or of the fruition of the war lords' aims.

His trial was most interesting. It was said upon excellent authority that the Kaiser himself was connected by secret wire with the court room. Liebknecht bore himself triumphantly throughout; there was never a moment of wavering, never any evidence of any quality contrary to the gigantic and fearless strength which characterizes the man. Liebknecht is himself a very able lawyer, and though he had noted lawyers to represent him (including Hugo Haase, at present a leader of the Minority Socialist Party in the Reichstag), he supplemented their speeches with additional analyses of his own.

Liebknecht took up the question, "What is high treason?" He turned the tables upon Olshausen, who was conducting the trial against him, by a quotation from a work of Olshausen himself which contradicted the stand the latter was taking in the Liebknecht trial. The Socialist leader's address to the judges was one of the boldest attacks ever made, either up to that time or up to the present, against German militarism. "The aim of my life," he declared, "is the overthrow of monarchy. As my father, who appeared before this court exactly thirty-five years ago to defend himself against the charge of treason, was ultimately pronounced victor, so I believe the day is not far distant when the principles which I represent will be recognized as patriotic, as honorable, as true."

Liebknecht's brave stand on this occasion was rewarded by a sentence of a year and a half in a military prison. While serving his sentence he was elected by the people of Berlin to represent them in the assembly of Prussia. In the Landtag Liebknecht recommenced his fight against militarism. It was there that he prophetically pronounced the word "Republic" for the first time. On one occasion there was a debate upon the building of a new opera house. "The opera house for which we are asked to vote the necessary funds," he exclaimed, "should last for many generations. We trust that it will last long after it has lost its character as a Royal Opera House."

In 1910 Liebknecht visited America to give a series of lectures, and the United States made a strong impression upon him. He used to tell me that he felt truly homesick for America and had a genuine desire to repeat the visit.

In 1912 he was elected representative to the Reichstag by the people of Potsdam-Osthavelland, under the very window of the Kaiser. The announcement of his success was met with wild demonstrations of delight. The sentiments of the surging crowds before the office of the Berlin Vorwärts when the result of the election was made public were voiced by a young workingman, when he exclaimed, "The new voice of freedom will be heard from now on in the Reichstag." In the Reichstag Liebknecht hurled with renewed zeal his invectives against the huge armaments and militarism of Germany.

Liebknecht the man is of the kindest nature and frankest personality. There is to be seen in his make-up no grain of pretentiousness, of false pride—indeed, he usually lunches quite happily upon a sandwich in the train, too busy to find any other time for his meal. His home life is ideal. His present wife—his first died in 1912—is a Russian by birth, a graduate of the University of Heidelberg, and an ideal companion and helpmate.

THE FIRST DAYS

On August 3rd and 4th, 1914, the Social-Democratic members of the Reichstag called a special meeting in order to decide what stand the party should take on the War.

At the first vote taken, ninety-four members were for voting for the budget and only fourteen against. At the last there were only three who held out to the end—Liebknecht, Ledebour, and Haase.

The officials of the party tried to give the impression that there were no differences of opinion in the party, but Liebknecht wrote the following letter, which was published in the Bürger Zeitung, Bremen, September 18, 1914.

"I understand that several members of the Socialist Party have written all manner of statements to the press with regard to the deliberations of the Socialist Party in the Reichstag on August 3rd and 4th.

"According to these reports, there were no serious differences of opinion in our party in regard to the political situation and our own position, and decisions to assent to war credits are alleged to have been arrived at unanimously. In order to prevent the dissemination of an inadmissible fiction I feel it to be my duty to put on record the fact that the issues involved gave rise to diametrically opposite views within our party parliament, and these opposing views found expression with a violence hitherto unknown in our deliberations.

"It is also entirely untrue to say that assent to the war credits was given unanimously."

LIEBKNECHT'S VISIT TO BELGIUM

On September 16th, 1914, Liebknecht went to Belgium to inform himself about the situation, and here is what Camille Huysmans, the secretary of the International Socialist Bureau, writes about Liebknecht's visit to Belgium:

To P. Renaudel, Editor of L'Humanité.

"My dear Renaudel,—Liebknecht came to Belgium on September 16th, 1914. He met several friends, and he came to see me at Brussels, at the Maison du Peuple, in the afternoon. I asked him into my office and we had a conversation which lasted more than two hours. I took him to dinner at a restaurant in the town, and we again talked at length. I invited other friends to meet him, among them our comrade Vandersmirsen. The next morning we went out in two motor cars. We passed through several districts. We tried to see Louvain, but the military authorities would not allow us to do so.

"At Tirlemont, through the mistake of an officer, we were caught in some shrapnel fire, and we had to remain through the engagement. I showed Liebknecht what actually took place. He questioned the Belgians. He talked with the German soldiers. He was thus able to form his own opinion on the spot.

"To sum up: Liebknecht, when he came, knew nothing of what had happened in Belgium. He went away convinced that the Belgians had not been sold to Great Britain, that they had not organized bands of francs-tireurs, that they had not assassinated the German wounded, and that the German executions in Belgium were unjustifiable.

"He came to Belgium honorably and honestly to gain information. Anything else is calumny. Those Belgians who regarded the reception by me of a German as an act of treason grasped him effusively by the hand when they learned that he came to find out and to speak the truth.

"Yours,

"Camille Huysmans."

DID NOT CHEER THE KAISER

Berlin, October 24, 1914.

Editor, Berliner Tageblatt.
Berlin.

Dear Sir:

In your report of the meeting of the Prussian Assembly on the 22nd of the month you say that during the reading by Dr. Delbrück of the greetings of the Kaiser the whole house stood (that means, the Social-Democrats also). That does not correspond with the truth. The Social-Democratic members of the Assembly, who were in their places, remained seated.

With reference to the closing speech of the President your report reads that the whole House applauded and took part in the cheers for the Kaiser. That also is not true. Five members (Hofer, Adolf Hoffmann, Paul Hoffmann, Liebknecht and Ströbel,—S. Z.) of the Social-Democratic representation in the Landtag (that means half) left the room when this speech of the President was delivered.

I would ask you to print the above correction according to paragraph II of the Press Law.

Respectfully,

Karl Liebknecht.

LIEBKNECHT DISAPPROVES OF MAJORITY SOCIALISTS OF GERMANY

The Swiss Socialist paper Volksrecht published in November, 1914, the following statement, signed by Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring and Clara Zetkin.

"In the Socialist press of the neutral countries of Sweden, Italy and Switzerland, Comrades Dr. Suedekum and Richard Fischer have attempted to portray the attitude of the German Social-Democrats towards the present War in the light of their own ideas. We feel ourselves forced therefore to explain through the same mediums that we, and certainly many other German Social-Democrats, look on the War, its causes and its character, as well as on the rôle of the Social-Democrats at the present time, from a standpoint which in no way corresponds to that of Dr. Suedekum and Herr Fischer. At the present time the state of martial law makes it impossible for us to give public expression to our views."

REICHSTAG MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 1914, AND LIEBKNECHT'S DOCUMENT EXPLAINING WHY HE VOTED "NO"

At the second War Session of the Reichstag, Dec. 2, 1914, Karl Liebknecht not only voted against the War Budget—the only member of the Reichstag so to vote—but also handed in an explanation of his vote, which the President of the Reichstag refused to allow to be read, nor was it printed in the Parliamentary report. The President banned it on the pretext that it would entail calls to order. The document was sent to the German Press, but not one paper published it.

The full text of the protest was received by way of Switzerland. It runs as follows:

"My vote against the War Credit Bill of to-day is based on the following considerations. This War, desired by none of the people concerned, has not broken out in behalf of the welfare of the German people or any other. It is an Imperialist War, a war over important territories of exploitation for capitalists and financiers. From the point of view of rivalry in armaments, it is a war provoked by the German and Austrian war parties together, in the obscurity of semi-feudalism and of secret diplomacy, to gain an advantage over their opponents. At the same time the war is a Bonapartist effort to disrupt and split the growing movement of the working class.

"The German cry: 'Against Czarism!' is invented for the occasion—just as the present British and French watchwords are invented—to exploit the noblest inclinations and the revolutionary traditions and ideals of the people in stirring up hatred of other peoples.

"Germany, the accomplice of Czarism, the model of reaction until this very day, has no standing as the liberator of the peoples. The liberation of both the Russian and the German people must be their own work.

"The war is no war of German defense. Its historical basis and its course at the start make unacceptable the pretense of the capitalist government that the purpose for which it demands credits is the defense of the Fatherland.

"A speedy peace, a peace without conquests, this is what we must demand. Every effort in this direction must be supported. Only by strengthening jointly and continuously the currents in all the belligerent countries which have such a peace as their object can this bloody slaughter be brought to an end.

"Only a peace based upon the international solidarity of the working class and on the liberty of all the peoples can be a lasting peace. Therefore, it is the duty of the proletariats of all countries to carry on during the war a common Socialistic work in favor of peace.

"I support the relief credits with this reservation: I vote willingly for everything which may relieve the hard fate of our brothers on the battlefield as well as that of the wounded and sick, for whom I feel the deepest compassion. But as a protest against the war, against those who are responsible for it and who have caused it, against those who direct it, against the capitalist purposes for which it is being used, against plans of annexation, against the violation of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg, against unlimited rule of martial law, against the total oblivion of social and political duties of which the Government and classes are still guilty, I vote against the war credits demanded.

Karl Liebknecht.

Berlin, December 2, 1914."

KARL LIEBKNECHT CONDEMNED BY HIS PARTY FOR VOTING "NO" ON DECEMBER 2, 1914, AND HIS ANSWER

In December, 1914, the Social-Democratic representation of the Reichstag censured Karl Liebknecht for voting "No" in the open meeting of the Reichstag.

At a meeting on February 2, 1915, the Reichstag Socialists adopted a resolution condemning his stand and repudiating alleged misleading information he had spread about the Party. To this Liebknecht answered in the Vorwärts of February 5, 1915, as follows:

Berlin, February 5, 1915.

Editor Vorwärts,
Berlin.

Dear Comrade:—

Concerning the resolution adopted by the Social-Democratic Deputies of the Reichstag I wish to remark: (1) I voted against the war credits because the vote for the war credits is in my opinion in sharp contradiction not only to the interests of the proletariat, but also to the resolutions of the Social-Democratic Party and of the International Socialist Convention. And the Social-Democratic Deputies in the Reichstag are not justified in recommending a violation of the Program and party decisions.

In a letter of Dec. 3, 1914, addressed to the Chairman of the Social-Democratic Deputies of the Reichstag I made my stand clear.

(2) Misleading information about the Party I have not given out. The Social-Democratic Deputies in the Reichstag, who are not the proper authorities for such decisions, voted down my motion to postpone making any decision on this point until a thorough discussion had taken place.

Karl Liebknecht.

A NEW YEAR'S GREETING TO ENGLAND

I am pleased to be able to write a message of brotherhood to British Socialists at a time when the ruling classes of Germany and Great Britain are trying by all means in their power to incite bloodthirsty hatred between the two peoples. But it is painful for me to write these lines at a time when our radiant hope of previous days—the Socialist International—lies destroyed on the ground with a thousand expectations, when even many Socialists in the belligerent countries—for Germany is not an exception—have in this most rapacious of all wars of robbery willingly put on the yoke of the chariot of Imperialism, just when the evils of capitalism were becoming more apparent than ever. I am, however, particularly proud and happy to send my greetings to you, to the British Independent Labour Party, who, with our Russian and Servian comrades, have saved the honor of Socialism amidst the madness of national slaughter.

Confusion reigns among the rank and file of the Socialist Army and many blame Socialist principles for our present failure. It is not our principles which have failed, however, but the representatives of those principles. It is not a question of changing our principles, it is a question of applying them to life, of carrying them into action.

All the phrases of "national defense" and the "liberation of the people" with which Imperialism decorates its instruments of murder are but deceiving tinsel. Each Socialist Party has its enemy, the common enemy of the International, in its own country. There it has to fight it. The liberation of each nation must be its own work.

Only blindness can order the continuation of the slaughter until the "enemy" is crushed. The well-being of all nations is inseparably connected; the struggle of the organized working class can only be carried out internationally.

Those who are seven times wise and whose weak souls are easily carried away by the whirls of diplomatic winds and lost in the gulfs of jingoism, say that the labor movement will no longer be international.

The world war which has smashed the International must, however, be realized as a powerful sermon making clear the need for a new International, an International of another kind, with a different force from that which the capitalist powers so easily scattered on August 4, 1914.

Only in the coöperation of the working masses of all countries, in times of war as in times of peace, does the salvation of humanity lie. Nowhere have the masses desired this war. Nowhere do they desire it. Why should they, then, with a loathing for war in their hearts, murder each other to the finish? It would be a sign of weakness, it is said, for any one people to suggest peace; well, let all the people suggest it together. The nation which speaks first will not show weakness but strength. It will win the glory and gratitude of posterity. It is the duty of every Socialist at the present time to be a prophet of international brotherhood, realizing that every word he speaks in favor of socialism and peace, every action he performs for these ideals enflame similar words and actions in other countries, until the flames of the desire for peace shall flare high over all Europe. The example which you and our Russian and Servian comrades have given to the world will have an emulating effect wherever Socialists have been ensnared by the designs of the ruling classes, and I am sure the mass of the British workers will soon rally to the International Labor Party. Already among the German workers there is far greater opposition to the war than is generally supposed, and the louder the echo of the cry for peace in other countries the more vehemently and energetically will they work for peace here. Thus shall the working classes of all the belligerent countries become conscious of the necessity to fight for a peace consistent with the principles of Socialism, a peace without conquest and without humiliation, a peace based not on hatred but on fraternity, not on force but on freedom, a peace which, because of its justice, may be everlasting. In this way, even during the war, the International can be revived and can atone for its previous mistakes. Thus it must revive, a different International, increased not only in numerical strength but in revolutionary fervor, in clearness of vision and in preparedness to overcome the danger of absolutism, of secret diplomacy, and of capitalist conspiracies against peace.

Workers of the World, unite!

Unite in a war against war!

With Socialist greetings,

Karl Liebknecht.

Berlin, December, 1914.

SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE WAR MEETING OF THE PRUSSIAN ASSEMBLY, TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1915

The Censor forbade the printing of the following speech in Germany. It is a clear analysis of the franchise question. Dr. Liebknecht also blames the personal régime and rule of Bureaucracy for the War. According to the Vorwärts reports, when Liebknecht began to speak the Free Conservatives, most of the National Liberals and the Centrum left the chamber in a demonstrative manner.

Present: The Minister of the Interior: Discussion about the Prussian electoral reform, care for those disabled by war, and democratization of external politics.

Taking part in the discussion: Dr. Busse (Cons.), V. Papenheim (Cons.), Dr. v. Zedlitz and Neukirch (Free Cons.), v. Loebell (Secretary of Interior), Dr. Friedberg (Natl. Lib.), Cassel (Progressive People's Party), Dr. Liebknecht (Soc.-Dem.).

Dr. Liebknecht (Social-Democrat): Gentlemen, first I wish to protest against the fact that Russian workingmen are treated differently from the civilians of other enemy countries. Such differential treatment cannot be justified—indeed, must be condemned as sharply as possible.

As to the care to be taken of those disabled by war, I can only support the heart-felt words which came from all parts of this house on this question and echoed in our hearts, that we demand action on this matter without delay and do everything possible to keep these unfortunate people from all need and misery. But I do not wish to mistake what experience teaches us—that we have every right to take words uttered in days such as we are passing through with a great deal of criticism and suspicion. On that account I would not like to throw all the words uttered to-day in the scales as solid weight. We will see if, in the future, deeds will follow.

The great zeal with which this all-important question, which arouses all human emotions, was discussed, has for me a special significance because these debates serve to hide the complete silence of the bourgeois parties on the decisive and important suffrage question. ("Very true" from the Soc.-Dem.)

Gentlemen, you can be assured that those who are in the field and the unfortunate invalids in the hospitals will be convinced that everything necessary is done in this important question only when we make it possible for them at the settlement of the question to be guaranteed necessary influence in legislation and administration. (Approval from the Soc.-Dem.) They will not rely on the good will of the ruling parties, and if the good words which were spoken with relation to the care to be taken of the war invalids do not go hand in hand with willingness to give to the mass of the people more rights, to make possible a democratization of Prussia, then they preach to deaf ears even if the words sound so very friendly. ("Very true" from Soc.-Dem.)

Gentlemen, the 27th of February of this year will become a historical day for Prussia. It was a critical day. In the Budget Committee the Minister refused to give any assurance, even of a general nature, about a future suffrage reform; and to-day also we heard nothing about it. The Progressive Party expects, according to the speech delivered by Assemblyman Pachnicke, suffrage reform after the war; they expect at least the secret and the direct vote. The Centrum appeals to its "clear and unmovable" position on the suffrage question, which no one knows (Assemblyman Ströbel, Soc.-Dem., "Very good!"), and explains its present silence by the party truce. The National Liberals put the question of suffrage reform behind the task of winning the war. The Free Conservatives, through Frhr. v. Zedlitz, give a straightforward refusal, which Frhr. v. Zedlitz underlined three times last night in the Post. ("Very true" from the Free Conservatives.) I hear again a "Very true" from the midst of the Free Conservatives, and emphasize it again thus—according to them the war has brought out strong counter-reaction against any democratization and Frhr. v. Zedlitz must surely know it, because he warms himself behind the political stove. He considers the discussion of the election reform as superfluous, a discussion which endangers the party truce and which over-balances the discussions about the Budget; and he scoffs at the idea about a general fraternization on the foundation of the introduction of the suffrage law for the Reichstag in Prussia. ("Hear! hear!" from the Soc.-Dem.) The German Conservative Party was silent and by its silence showed that it approved the provoking refusal of Frhr. v. Zedlitz. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) To-day also was this approval repeated in an unmistakable sense.

That clears the situation, gentlemen,—clears it delightfully. Clearness is especially necessary at this time. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) It never was so necessary as to-day, when the word "party truce" and the false conceptions of class harmonies, of unity and unanimity of the people and other beautiful descriptive words about a free German people of the future becloud many a mind. Gentlemen, we are glad that this fog was blown away. The naked truth is: In Prussia everything remains as it was before. Gentlemen, on October 22nd of last year our warning with reference to the election reform was received by this house partly with cold silence and partly with indignant murmur. It was astounding to the gentlemen that the representatives of the third class of Prussian helot voters dared, at this time, to raise the demand of the people. The government was silent then. On February 9th the same performance, and now the Committee's deliberations and the debates of to-day which clarify the situation so well! Everything remains as it was before—that is the significance of the day for Prussia. From the papers we already knew that, gentlemen. Already in September, 1914, upon the victory of the German troops, so many swelled up as "German friends of the people." An apotheosis of Militarism, an apotheosis of Monarchism, an apotheosis of the three-class system of voting and of all "Prussian egotism" we found in the reactionary papers,—in the papers not only of the Conservative Parties but even in those of the so-called Liberal Parties. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

Gentlemen, in 1866 it was said: The schoolmaster, the Prussian schoolmaster was victorious. To-day it is said: the Prussian system of voting is victorious in this war or will be victorious in this war. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

What progress! It will be said, as it was said: The Prussian three-class system of voting was victorious over democracy,—by which Russia is naturally left out of consideration as a good friend of the past and surely as a good friend of the future. The conclusion will be drawn which was drawn in such an open way by Frhr. v. Zedlitz. But I should like to advise you in your own interests not to forget that if this war, especially in the first months, awakened a strong enthusiasm in the German people, you must thank above all the fact that it was to be against Czarism—against the Russian reaction,—("Very true!" from Soc.-Dem.), against barbarism, unrighteousness; that it was thought to be a struggle for the freedom of Europe. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

And, gentlemen, do not forget the disastrous influence the backward conditions in Prussia and in Germany, which conditions were combated by us, had on the attitude of the Neutrals against Germany in this war! ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

Gentlemen, in spite of all the characteristic and true Prussian manifestations since the first months of the war, about which I just spoke, we had even up to now political dreamers. Gentlemen, those will now be enlightened about the situation, wherever they are, and that is of great value. The darkest pessimists were right in their prophecies. These debates have furnished water for our mills. The Conservative parties of this house stand with their old animosity against any democratization. From the Centrum nothing is to be hoped. The National Liberals provide a special chapter. Their ideal with respect to the electoral reform has been long similar to that of Frhr. v. Zedlitz, namely, not democratization, but future plutocratization of the electoral reform. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

So everything is as it was before! The National Liberals put out of their present thoughts the struggle for peoples' rights, because success is to them, as they say, more important. Gentlemen, that is explainable. These gentlemen know, in fact, for what this war is fought. For their electorate this war is such a tremendously important political and economic business that the people's rights, bad or good, have to be retarded. Gentlemen, the mine fields of Briey and Longwy, the mine fields of West Poland, the colonies which promise important profits and some other nice things are really no bad investments for German capital. The people can wait. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) And Mr. Pachnicke, the boldest representative of democracy in the bourgeois parties of this house, is already satisfied in advance—sure enough, only for the present, as he says—with the secret and direct vote! But even the moderate optimism of Mr. Pachnicke and Mr. Cassel that a majority is available in this house with reference to that patch-work reform, was very roughly stripped of its mask in the Budget Commission by a conservative interruption. Even here everything shall be as it was before! And even for this patch-work reform Mr. Pachnicke wants to wait until after the war. Gentlemen, we are not so modest. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) We see all other classes in the war, and especially through the war, pursue unrestrained and without any compunction their class interests. We know that this war serves or will serve, if it will go according to the desire of the ruling class—the great capitalistic interests—the interest of the ruling classes in a particular way. Shall only the masses of the people wait until after the war? The technical restoration of the law is a trifle. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

Gentlemen, do we have any cause to postpone our demand for democratization in a time of martial law, the press censorship, the suspension of the miserable right of assembly, in a time of the darkest reaction, including the spy system in Prussia under the name of Burgfrieden (civic truce) in a form of military dictatorship, celebrates its triumph, in a time when the people are more than ever without any rights, in a time when by the war not only the danger to all of the capitalistic economic order is made more striking than ever, but when political pressure lies harder than ever on the people. In such a time, there is no occasion for us to postpone our demands for democratization. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) Never did the class character of the present society of the Prussian state reveal itself so rude and unmasked as right now. Nor do we have any occasion to postpone our demands for democratization at a time when the dangerous reaction of the inner autocracy upon the external policy shows itself so awful and dangerous, at a time which is really clamoring for the democratization of exterior politics. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

Gentlemen, Mr. Assemblyman Dr. Pachnicke said the war has given new support to the demand for electoral reform. Frhr. v. Zedlitz shouted a shrill denial of these words. ("Hear! Hear!" from the Soc.-Dem.) A word which lighted up the situation as a lightning flash, a word for which I and my friends thank him, a word of redemption which can be a call of alarm for the further interior Prussian-German development. In fact, the war has given new support, not to a patch-work reform in the sense of which Mr. Pachnicke speaks, but to a reform of the Prussian state in body and soul. I mean in equal franchise and administration from below up to the highest ranks. And that not only on account of the warlike attitude of the German people, as Mr. Pachnicke thought. From entirely different grounds. There never before appeared so clearly on the surface the glaring contrast between the heavy duties of the majority of the people and the privileged character of the state and the Administration, as in these days; the contrast between the equal duties as cannon fodder and the political inequalities in the state. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

And further, gentlemen, in half-absolutism, in secret diplomacy, in personal régime and all that, we see one of the most important immediate causes for the breaking out of this war, which of course is conditioned and made possible by international capitalism. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

Gentlemen, if the imperialistic endeavors of high capitalism brought about severe dangers to peace, there is needed more than ever control of the exterior politics by the masses of the people ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.), a control which is denied by the constitution and administration prevailing in Prussia and Germany to-day. I know that the democratization of the exterior policy in other states also, where the democratization of the interior policy has progressed, is much to be desired and our friends in England, our friends in France, to whom we stand as near as ever before, as far as they are conducting Socialistic propaganda ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.), have raised the demand before and also now for greater democratization of international politics. Gentlemen, only democratization can erect a wall against imperialistic and adventurous politics. Gentlemen, the millions of victims who are butchered in this war, are butchered especially because the mass of the people were deprived of any rights in the countries concerned! ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) All of us, no matter how many differences of opinion may exist now in our small circle, are all agreed that the mass of the people did not want the war in any of the countries concerned. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) And if that is true, it follows that a democratic control of exterior politics carried out in all states would have prevented the war. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) From that follows the right and duty, especially now when Europe is buried in blood and murder, and sets on fire its culture and the flower of its humanity, to raise the demand for democratization of external politics, which can come only from democratic internal politics which can be nourished in the soil of a state democratic from head to foot. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

Gentlemen, I welcome the destruction of illusions which existed in large circles of the people about the willingness of the ruling classes and the government to grant an equal franchise law. A clear outlook is especially necessary; the mist is now blown away, and this clearness is not preached only—and you should not forget it—to those who are guarding and supporting the Fatherland in their civilian clothes and have experienced the need of these days, but also to those who are standing in the battlefield and who are expecting to hear different news from home, and who, when they read the papers about the debates of the Budget Commission of Saturday and debates of to-day—I am absolutely convinced on this point—will clinch their fists furiously in their pockets and hurl curses at those who awakened in them hopes and illusions, who deceived them about the truth,—namely that this war is not carried on for the mass of the German people; about the truth, that the mass of the people will be left after the war without rights, as they were before the war, unless they look out for their rights themselves.

Gentlemen, the war preaches with a brazen tongue the necessity for Democracy; and to you all, who think that you can rebuke in such a sharp way the demands of the people, the idea must emerge, through the shell of your careless hostility and provoking and people-betraying demonstrations, that the interior political conditions of Germany will form themselves even now during the war.

Gentlemen, the proletariat is in exactly the same position as the poor starving wretch of the old tragi-comedy, who, dressed in distinguished garments, for one day of illusions, pretended to be a prince. After the present revelations, the dream, the hero dream that every one is to be recognized as a free German citizen, as an equal German citizen, this dream will vanish even to the last illusionist,—he will awaken from the illusion of this monstrous three-fourths of a year. He will get sober, and full of bitterness, draw conclusions for his political attitude even during the war.

Gentlemen, the only salvation for the mass of the people is the struggle that has not changed to-day from yesterday. Not by yielding and not by adapting itself to conditions, and not by submissiveness, but only in struggle will the people find its right. (Assemblyman Hoffman, Soc.-Dem., "Very true!")

The class struggle alone is the salvation of the proletariat and we hope that we will carry on very soon the class struggle in open international intercourse with the proletariat of all countries, even with those with whom we are at war. In this international class struggle rests not only hope for the democratization, for the political and economic emancipation, of the working class, but also the one hope for the mass of the people concerned even during the war. Their one prospect and hope for the termination of the horrible killing of peoples is in the struggle for a peace in a socialistic sense.

Gentlemen, the equal franchise you rudely denied for the duration of the war. Even after the war you don't want to grant such franchise. Laughable patch-work reform is all that one of you, the representative of the influential Progressive Party (Fortschritlichen Volkspartei), expects at the most; the majority says even here "No." Gentlemen, that means to the mass of the people the fist! ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) Against that I place the cry: away with the hypocrisy of the Burgfrieden (civil truce)! Forward to the class struggle! Forward to the international class struggle for the emancipation of the working class and against the war! ("Bravo!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

IN DEFENCE OF ROSA LUXEMBURG

Dr. Rosa Luxemburg, with whom the following speech of Dr. Liebknecht deals, was tried in 1914 because at a public meeting she attacked militarism and the tragedies which were happening in the German barracks: brutal treatments, abuses and suicides of German soldiers. At her trial nine hundred and twenty-two men from all parts of Germany were ready to testify to something like thirty thousand separate instances of brutal treatment of soldiers.

Dr. Rosa Luxemburg was born in Russian Poland, of Jewish parents, and studied in Switzerland. She went later to Germany in order to become active in Social-Democratic propaganda. Being a foreigner, she would have been immediately exiled by the authorities, had she not married a Mr. Luxemburg—with whom she never lived—and in that way became a German citizen.

Dr. Rosa Luxemburg, or "Die Rote Rosa" (The Red Rose) as the Junkers call her, is one of the very brilliant speakers of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany and very few in the party equal her in debate. She has written various books on scientific socialism.

Assembly Session, March 9, 1915.

Third reading of the Budget for the fiscal year 1915, with the proposed law regarding the determination of the budget, with a special chapter in reference to the administration of justice. Taking part in the discussion of this special chapter, Dr. K. Liebknecht, Minister of Justice Dr. Beseler and v. Pappenheim (Conservative), who by his motion that the discussion on this chapter should be closed, made it impossible for Liebknecht to answer the Secretary of Justice.

Dr. Liebknecht: Gentlemen, a few days ago, continuing an old tradition of this house, which remained true to itself, even in this respect, you deprived me of the floor; to-day you will have to endure what I shall tell you,—what I really think.

As is known to you, my party friend, Rosa Luxemburg, was condemned to one year in prison for an alleged appeal to the soldiers for insubordination. This decision was approved a few months ago by the Supreme Court. In January of this year the execution of the sentence was postponed until March 31st on account of her illness. She spent a few weeks in a hospital at Schöneberg and was dismissed from it not cured, on condition that she follow a certain course of treatment. On February 18th she was suddenly arrested at Südende by two officers of the Criminal Department, brought to the Berlin Police Department, and then to Division 7, that is, to the political division, and not to the criminal division. Thence she was transported in the green wagon, together with common criminals, to the women's prison in the Barminstrasse, for the fulfillment of her one year's prison sentence.

This incident unmasks with the precision of physical experiment the real nature of the so-called Burgfrieden (civil truce). ("Very true.") Because this fundamentally political, this party political sentence is executed now, we do not complain. Let those complain who believe in the civil truce. (Stroebel, "Very true.") I know that my friend Luxemburg will see in the execution of this sentence a proof that she has fulfilled her duty, even in these times, of working for the interest of the people in the socialistic way. But gentlemen, this is remarkable, and this fact I wish most to emphasize—she was arrested for the execution of the sentence, in spite of the fact that the execution of the sentence was postponed until March 31, without giving her an opportunity voluntarily to begin her term after the authorities thought that the reasons for the postponement of the execution of the sentence did not exist any longer. She was taken away without being given an opportunity voluntarily to begin her sentence. The method of this execution is open to much criticism. This transportation in the green wagon and the details which I have just mentioned deserve the severest reproach against those officials who are responsible for this action. ("Very true" by the Soc.-Dem.)

Of special political significance is the reason for this execution. The Deutsche Tageszeitung brought out a notice, even before there appeared any communication in our party press, of the arrest of my party friend, which was surely inspired, and probably originated from a well-informed source, and in which it was said in unmistakable language, that this trial was started because Madame Dr. Luxemburg arranged political meetings ("Hear, hear!" from the Socialists), because she was active politically ("Hear, hear!" from the Soc.-Dem.). Surely the arrest was not really a military measure, surely it was an execution of a sentence; but the means described were used, and put in execution from motives which put on it the seal of partisan political persecution in the most objectionable form. Very remarkable it is, as I know, that this happened after the Berlin secret police told the Commander of the Province of the appearance of Madame Luxemburg at a few meetings. ("Hear, hear!" from the Soc.-Dem.) The Commander in the Province, as the highest military authority in the province of Brandenburg, advised the District Attorney, who is in these days subordinate to him, to begin action against Madame Luxemburg, to begin action against her on account of holding meetings, on account of her political activity. ("Hear, hear!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

Now let me give an illustration of how promptly the espionage system, which was in this case at the service of the Justice officials and so in confidential coöperation with the military dictatorship, functions. On February 10th, Madame Luxemburg spoke at a party meeting in Charlottenburg. On the 13th of February the order was given at Frankfort-on-the-Main to arrest her. During this interval of three days, or rather of two days, because the meeting took place on the evening of February 10th, the spy who must have been present at the meeting (and in whose behalf, as an officer of the Department of Justice, you will now approve the Budget), reported the meeting to the Police Headquarters, which reported to the Supreme Command, and from the Supreme Command the report was forwarded to Frankfort-on-the-Main, from which the order for arrest was given. So promptly does the machinery of the Prussian State function for the political suppression of the people, even in these days of the party truce. In this field the mechanism of the Prussian State did prove itself remarkable.

It should not be said that Madame Dr. Luxemburg was arrested because after she held meetings she could not be located. Gentlemen, I know that only by using all her strength, ill as she was, could she fulfill her duty to the interests of the German people, to the interests of the entire international proletariat. But, gentlemen, who wants to make us believe that this action was taken without any connection with what she did? ("Very true," from the Soc.-Dem.) The political aspect of what she said was the determining factor for the authorities which "do not recognize parties any longer." If she had only joined in buying the usual market commodity labeled "Patriotism," then not only would she have been spared from this remarkable attack but probably amnesty would have been forced upon her. ("Very true," from the Soc.-Dem.) But, gentlemen, she tried by summoning all her strength, to act in the proletarian and socialistic cause against the frenzied slaughter of peoples. This does not suit the dominant power, and that is why the arrest took place.

But the worst feature is that it was not sufficient to arrest my friend Luxemburg in this way, but that they also tried to stigmatize her honor by stating that she had shown intentions of flight.

Gentlemen, Madame Dr. Luxemburg wanted to travel to a friend in Holland, and for this purpose she asked for a foreign passport from the police in her district, who were naturally informed about her sentence, and then she addressed herself to the Berlin police headquarters, also well informed about her sentence, before the permission for a passport could be had; as suspicion was aroused at the Berlin police headquarters, she addressed herself, one day before she was arrested, with my help, to the District Attorney of Frankfort-on-the-Main,—the official who was to have executed the sentence, and had asked from him permission to take the trip to Holland. The order to make this motion to the District Attorney was given to her lawyer in Frankfort on the afternoon of February 17th. Gentlemen, I do not need to tell you that a woman such as Madame Dr. Luxemburg does not belong to the class who try to escape from a sentence,—that a woman such as Madame Dr. Luxemburg is brave enough to look her enemies in the eye and would not think of leaving Germany in times like these, where there is being waged such an important part of the struggle against international reaction,—against imperialism. It is necessary to be a real Prussian police spirit in order not to understand that.

Considering the facts of which I just spoke, considering the possibilities of passing the frontier in these times without the will of the authorities, the talk about escaping can be characterized only as an attempt to stigmatize the honor of this really persecuted woman, exactly after the Russian method, which is not satisfied to punish politically disagreeable subjects, but tries also to insult their honor as much as possible. In fact, it happened that the military authorities arranged that Madame Luxemburg should not be able to be active outside of Germany in a manner not to the liking of the German ruling powers. Why don't you say so openly and honestly, instead of hiding behind such obscure phrases? Just as we have only one counterpart for your denial of the suffrage reform, for the continuance of the exceptional laws, for your refusal of any interior reform, namely the political ignorance and animosity against the people of the Government of the Czar, so this action against my friend Luxemburg is a counterpart to the arrest of the Russian Duma Deputies, our admired and excellent friends in the struggle for the freedom of the people and for the restoration of the peoples' peace, trying in common with us to serve,—each in his own country,—in universal opposition against its own government, for the benefit of its own people and the good of the other people, the good of the international proletariat, the good of humanity. And so sure as it is that the arrest of the Duma deputies in Russia opened the eyes of hundreds of thousands of blind ones, so sure are we that the action against our comrade Luxemburg will awaken many a dreamer ("Very true" from Soc.-Dem.), and that they will demand a struggle for a free Prussia and a struggle for the ending of the mass murder of the people. ("Bravo!" from the Soc.-Dem.)

LIEBKNECHT CALLED TO ARMY SERVICE

On March 23, 1915, Liebknecht was ordered to place himself at the disposal of the German military authorities.

From this day on he was under military law as a member of a Landsturm regiment.

LIEBKNECHT QUESTIONS THE GOVERNMENT

Beginning with August 20, 1915, Liebknecht began putting his questions in the Reichstag which so much embarrassed the German Government.

In England this form of parliamentary control of the Government is very common. In Germany this form is very seldom used. The possibility of putting supplementary questions gives this method a particularly great usefulness where there is so little parliamentary criticism as in Germany.

Reichstag Meeting, Aug. 20, 1915, 2 P. M.

At the table of the Federal Government are present: Ministers Delbrück, Helfferich, and Lisco.

The first order of business is a question by Dr. Karl Liebknecht.

Dr. Karl Liebknecht: (reads his question amid great commotion in the House) "Is the Government, in case of corresponding readiness of the other belligerents, ready, on the basis of the renunciation of annexations of every kind, to enter into immediate peace negotiations?"

Secretary of State v. Jagow: "I believe I shall meet the wishes of the great majority of the House if I decline to answer the question of the member, Dr. Liebknecht, at the present time as inopportune." (Great applause, especially at the right side of the House.)

Dr. K. Liebknecht: "That is concealing the capitalistic policy of conquest (great uproar). The answer of the Secretary of State is a confession of a policy of annexation (repeated great uproar). The people want peace" (continual uproar and laughter).

Reichstag Meeting, Dec. 15, 1915

The energy which Liebknecht displayed at this meeting was remarkable considering that he had not completely recovered from the injury which he had received in October, 1915, at the front.

Twenty-third meeting of the Reichstag, Dec. 14,1915, 2 P. M.

Present at the Federal Council table: Ministers v. Jagow and Helfferich.

The first point on the order of the day—Questions by Dr. K. Liebknecht (Soc.-Dem.).

Dr. K. Liebknecht:

First Question

(I-a) Is the Government prepared, if the other belligerents are also ready and prepared, to enter peace negotiations on the basis of the renunciation of annexations? This question I withdraw since on Thursday, Dec. 9, 1915 (Liebknecht refers here to Bethman-Hollweg's speech in the Reichstag on Dec. 9, 1915, in which the Imperial Chancellor answered the majority Socialist's peace interpellation. S. Z.), the Imperial Chancellor answered this question in the negative. The Government wants a war of conquest, not peace!

(I-b) On what other basis is the Government ready to enter immediately upon peace negotiations?

(Foreign Minister von Jagow by mistake begins to read the answer to another question (laughter).) Then the following answer is given to question I-b:

In view of the debate of the 9th of December I decline to answer this question.

Dr. K. Liebknecht asks the floor for a supplementary question: What will be the attitude of the Government towards peace proposals from neutral countries as asked now by the Social-Democrats of Switzerland through the Swiss Government.... (Great commotion.)

President Dr. Kaempf: This is not a supplementary question. It is ruled out of order.

Dr. K. Liebknecht reads his

Second Question

II. Is the Government ready to lay before the nation the official documents and semi-official documents relating to the secret negotiations which preceded the declaration of war, especially

(a) The diplomatic history of the Austrian Ultimatum to Serbia of July 23, 1914, including the official and semi-official negotiations between the German and Austrian Governments after the crime of Sarajevo?

(b) The history of the German entry into Luxemburg and Belgium?

(c) Is the Government ready to create as soon as possible a parliamentary commission for the examination of these documents and reveal the responsible parties?

Foreign Minister von Jagow: The available material about the origin of the war has been published already. The Government intends to publish other important documents relating to diplomatic negotiation, in so far as they appear to be necessary for the enlightenment of public opinion (my italics, S. Z.), but refuses to set up a parliamentary committee dealing with the examination of these documents. The parties responsible are our enemies.

Dr. K. Liebknecht asks the floor for a supplementary question (great merriment): Is the Government ready to lay immediately before us the entire official documentary material dealing with the war?

Foreign Minister von Jagow: I have nothing to add to my answer.

Dr. K. Liebknecht: A supplementary question (great merriment). Is it known to the Imperial Chancellor that according to a remark made on Dec. 5, 1914, by the former neutral Italian Prime Minister Giolitti, Austria planned as early as 1913 an attack against Serbia (Italics S. Z.) (Great indignation and shouts.)

President Dr. Kaempf: This is a new question. We will proceed to your next question.

Dr. K. Liebknecht: According to paragraph 31 of our order of business I have asked the floor to supplement my former question.

President Dr. Kaempf: You have already asked two supplementary questions.

Dr. K. Liebknecht: The order of business does not limit me to any definite number. Amid great commotion in the House Dr. Liebknecht reads another supplementary question: "Why did the Imperial Chancellor conceal from the Reichstag earlier and at the meeting of August 4, 1914, the Belgium Ultimatum?"

President Dr. Kaempf: This also is not a supplementary question, but a new question. Do you have another supplementary question? Now we come to your next question.

Third Question

III (a) Is it known to the Government that the mass of German people demand for themselves the right to decide about the external policy of Germany, that they demand abolition of secret diplomacy in favor of permanent public control of foreign policy and its general democratization? (Italics, S. Z.)

(b) Is the Government prepared to bring in the course of the present session of the Reichstag a bill which will fulfill the demand above mentioned and submit the decisions on questions of war and peace to the people's representatives?

Minister of Exterior v. Jagow: The Government is not willing (Italics, S. Z.) to correspond with the wishes of Dr. Liebknecht and to propose such a change in the Constitution. With this answer the rest of the question is also answered.

Fourth Question

Does the Government know in what economic distress the masses of the German people labor on account of the war and on account of the desire in capitalistic circles for profits and the impotence of the Government in dealing with the situation? Is the Government now ready to check this economic distress by improving the general welfare without further delay and by putting aside all special interests, and taking the necessary steps to provide for the population the necessary means of living (food, clothing, shelter, heat and light); especially by regulating production according to the general welfare? And by commandeering products and by the uniform distribution of foodstuffs in such a way that the needy may get sufficient food free or at low cost?

Minister Director Dr. Lewald: The Imperial Chancellor declines to answer the question.

Dr. K. Liebknecht: A supplementary question (great merriment). Does the Government recognize that according to experiments up to this time general commandeering of products....

President Dr. Kaempf: This is not a supplementary question but a new question.

Dr. K. Liebknecht: I ask the floor for another supplementary question (great commotion and merriment). Will the Government put into operation as soon as possible the decisions of the Budget Commission in line with these demands?

Minister Director Lewald: In the name of the Imperial Chancellor I refuse to answer this supplementary question.

Fifth Question

(a) What meaning does the Government ascribe to the expression "new internal political orientation?" (Neuorientierung der inneren Politik.)

(b) Does the Government have a concrete program concerning this new internal political orientation?

(c) What is this program in detail?

(d) When does the Government intend to effect this program?

(e) Does the Government intend during the present session or later to introduce the reforms necessary to the democratization of the constitution, democratization of the legislative powers and democratization of the administration of the German Empire and the states which compose the Empire? Particularly will the Government reform the franchise laws governing the legislative and administrative bodies and democratization of the constitution of the army?

Minister Director Lewald: The Imperial Chancellor refuses to answer this question also.

Dr. K. Liebknecht: A supplementary question. (Great commotion.) What is the stand of the Government on the Prussian Franchise Reform? (Great merriment at the right side of the House.) This is a question which is of importance to the entire German people. That is the way Government and Reichstag treat with the life and death problems of the German people. The people will know now where they stand! (Continued commotion.)

President Dr. Kaempf: This is not a supplementary question, but a new question. With that we are finished with the short questions.

Reichstag meeting January 11, 1916, 2 P. M. At the table of the Federal Council are present: Ministers Helfferich and Delbrück.

The first order of business: Questions by Member Dr. K. Liebknecht.

Dr. K. Liebknecht reads his first question:

"Is it known to the Imperial Chancellor that during the present war in the United Turkish Empire the Armenian people were driven from their homes and slaughtered by the hundred thousands? What negotiations has the Imperial Chancellor undertaken with the United Turkish Government in order to bring about the necessary punishment, to alleviate the situation of the rest of the Armenian population in Turkey and to make the repetition of such horrors impossible?

To answer this question the floor is given to:

Privy Council Frhr. v. Stumm: It is known to the Imperial Chancellor that inflammatory demonstrations took place in Armenia on account of which the Turkish Government was forced to deport the Armenian population of certain districts and to assign them new living places. About the reaction on the population taking place on account of these measures an exchange of ideas between us and the Turkish Government is now occurring. More details cannot be communicated.

Dr. K. Liebknecht: A supplementary question. Is it known to the Imperial Chancellor that Professor Lepsius spoke of an absolute extermination of the Armenians and that for these horrors the Christian population of Turkey considers the German Government responsible?

At this point great uproar broke out in the House and made it impossible for Dr. Liebknecht to finish his questions.

Shouts from the House: This is a new question! Finish!

President Dr. Kaempf: This is a new question for which I cannot give the floor.

Dr. K. Liebknecht: Mr. President, before you have heard the whole question, you are not in a position to judge (laughter in the House) if it is a new question or not. At any rate I wish to assert that the President reached this conclusion that it is a new question not from his own impulses (shouts in the House: Oho!) but because from parts of the House it was called to his attention.

President Dr. Kaempf: I ask you not to criticize the way I preside (applause). We come now to the following question:

Dr. K. Liebknecht: Will the Government be ready very soon to place before the Reichstag for action data concerning the situation of the population in the territory occupied by Germany? Further data concerning the measures taken for the people in the occupied territory, concerning the means of living, (food, clothing, shelter), concerning their health condition, their rights, their numbers? Then data concerning the kind and reason of the punishments decreed and reprisal measures taken against the people in this territory by the German authorities, the number of people executed, military requisitions of property and methods followed in such operations? And the extent of the contributions levied upon them, especially on the Belgian people?"

To answer these questions the floor is given to:

Minister Director Lewald: The Imperial Chancellor declines to put before the Reichstag the material desired by Dr. Liebknecht. But he will give information about the activities of the civil authorities in the occupied territory on the request of the committee of the Reichstag.

Dr. K. Liebknecht: A supplementary question. How many places and buildings were destroyed by the German authorities since the beginning of the war for the purpose of reprisal—how many persons were arrested and killed for the same purpose?

President Dr. Kaempf: This is a new question. It is ruled out of order.

Dr. K. Liebknecht reads the third question: Is the Government ready to lay before the Reichstag without delay material concerning

(a) Measures taken by the German military and civic authorities on the basis of the state of martial law for the suppression of the right of assemblage and of personal liberty (prohibiting meetings, dissolving societies, interference in private correspondence, arrests, searching of homes, etc.), particularly the number of those put in military and police (cachot) arrest without trial, during the war? Also the reason for and length of these arrests?

(b) The number, extent and causes of punishments inflicted during the war upon members of the army and also the number of convicts in the military prisons since the beginning of the war?

Minister Director Lewald: The Imperial Chancellor declines to put before the Reichstag the material asked by Dr. Liebknecht. (Dr. Liebknecht shouts: That also is very characteristic.)

President Dr. Kaempf: This word of Dr. Liebknecht is ruled out of order as not permissible.

Dr. K. Liebknecht: A supplementary question. Does the Imperial Chancellor know that in Germany the Military Authorities and Police Authorities have established nearly everywhere dark chambers (laughter), in which places the correspondence of people who are politically disagreeable, among whom are Deputies of the Reichstag or Assembly, is opened secretly?... (Great uproar. The bell of the President!)

Dr. K. Liebknecht: I wish to protest against this autocratic suppression of the order of business by the President and Reichstag.

This finishes Liebknecht's questions.

LIEBKNECHT EXPELLED FROM THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PARTY

On January 13, 1916, by a vote of sixty to twenty-five, the Socialist Central Committee expelled Dr. Karl Liebknecht from membership in the Socialist Party for continuous "gross infractions of party discipline." The majority Social-Democrats took that measure against Liebknecht for having greatly embarrassed the Government with his questions two days before in the Reichstag.

REICHSTAG DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CENSORSHIP

January 19, 1916

Liebknecht was unable to obtain the floor at the general discussion. In a personal remark after the discussion was closed he made the following characteristic remarks:

"Repeatedly members of this House told me that I work in the service of the enemy, that I am a traitor. ("Very true," from the left side of the House.) I wish to answer this by saying that I prefer being insulted by you as a traitor or anything else, to being praised for speaking according to your taste, as some members of the Social-Democratic group of this House have done lately (merriment). Gentlemen, by your attitude you show me that you wish to suppress truth and right."

JUSTICE IN GERMANY IN WAR TIME