Notebook “ζ”

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

(“ZETA”)

Contents

ζ

Harms, World Economy [2–3].

Supan [5–9].

Hübner [10].

Junius [13–14].

Demorgny (Persia N.B.) [11].

{{3 Le Temps [16 and 19–20].

{{3 The Daily Telegraph and others [23–28].

{{3 Lloyd George on £4,000 million (May 4, 1915) [29–30].

Brauer on German (possible “defeatists”) [17–18].

HARMS, WORLD ECONOMY

Bernhard Harms, Problems of World Economy, Jena, 1912. “National Economy and World Economy.”

British capital invested abroad (1911) according to G. Paish ((George Paish in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. LXXIV, 1910–11, p. 167)) (“Great Britain’s Capital Investments in the Colonies, etc.”).

(B. Harms, p. 228):

I. British colonies (£ thousands)
North America		Canada and Newfoundland	372,541
Australia		Commonwealth of Australia	301,521
		New Zealand	78,529
Africa		South	351,368
		West	29,498
Asia		India and Ceylon	365,399
		Straits Settlements	22,037
		Hong Kong	3,104
		British North Borneo	5,131
		Other British possessions	25,024
	Σ =	British colonies	1,554,152
II. Foreign countries:
	United States		688,078
	[BOX:] [[ Cuba		22,700 ]]
	Philippines		8,202
	[BOX:] [[ Argentina		269,808
	Mexico		87,334
	Brazil		94,330
	Chile		46,375
	Uruguay		35,255
	Peru		31,986
	Other American countries		22,517 ]]
	Russia		38,388
	Turkey		18,320
	Egypt		43,753
	Spain		18,808
	Italy		11,513
	Portugal		8,134
	France		7,071
	Germany		6,061
	Other European countries		36,319
	Japan		53,705
	China		26,809
	Other foreign countries		61,907
	Σ = foreign countries		1,637,684
	ΣΣ = Total		3,191,836
(In all, he says, £ 3 1/2 thousand million)
Same, by continents (£ million)
			Per cent
	America	1,700=	53
	Asia	500	16
	Africa	455	14
	Australia	387	12
	Europe	150	5
		3,192	100%

WI,

Dr. Sigmund Schilder, Development Trends in the World Economy, Berlin, 1912—p. 150—refers to G. Paish, whose figures, he says, are minimised, for Paish takes issue prices (for Latin America 556 = £ 556 million, whereas London Stock Exchange quotations on May 31, 1909 Σ = £767 million, including Argentina—£281 million, Brazil—£140 million).—

The London Economist, August 26, 1911, estimates British capital in 10 South American republics (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Paraguay) at £ 622 million, including Argentina—316, Brazil—162, Uruguay—42, Chile—41 (ibidem, p. 371).

Foreign capital in Canada (1910) = 12,687 million francs, including British—9,765, U.S.—2,190, French—372. In Mexico (1886–1907) =3,343 million francs, including U.S.—1,771, British—1,334 (p. 373).

Belgian capital abroad (Berlin Export, November 24, 1910) in million francs: Holland—70; France—137; Brazil—143; Italy—166; Egypt—219; Germany—244; Argentina—290; the Congo—322; Spain—337; Russia—441; other countries—338. Total—2,750 million francs (p. 365).

French capital abroad (ibidem, p. 235)

Thousand mill. francs
Russia	10.0
Great Britain	0.5
Belgium and Holland	0.5
Germany	0.5
Turkey, Serbia and Bulgaria	0.5
Rumania and Greece	4.0
Austria-Hungary	2.0
Italy	1.5
Switzerland	0.5
Spain and Portugal	3.5
Canada and United States	1.0
Egypt and Suez	4.0
Argentina, Brazil and Mexico	3.0
China and Japan	1.0
Tunisia and French colonies	3.0
	__ __
	Σ—35.5

Total now estimated at 40,000–42,000 million.

German capital abroad (1904) exclusive of securities

(non-European areas) (million marks)

Turkey (without Egypt)	350
Africa (including Egypt)	1,350
Persian-Arabian Peninsula and India	75
South-East Asia	250
East Asia	450
Australia and Polynesia	400
Caribbean countries	1,200
West coast of South America	550
East ” ” ” ”	1,600
United States and Canada	3,000
	__ __
	Σ = 9,225

German capital abroad (securities) (1897–1906)

	also million marks
Argentina	92.1
Belgium	2.4
Bosnia	85.0
Brazil	77.6
Bulgaria	114.3
Chile	75.8
Denmark	595.4
China	356.6
Finland	46.1
Great Britain	7.6
Italy	141.9
Japan	1,290.4
Canada	152.9
Cuba	147.0
Luxemburg	32.0
Mexico	1,039.0
Netherlands	81.9
Norway	60.3
Austria	4,021.6
Portugal	700.7
Rumania	948.9
Russia	3,453.9
Serbia	152.0
Sweden	355.3
Switzerland	437.6
Spain	11.2
Turkey	978.1
Hungary	1,506.3
United States of America	4,945.8
	__ __
(My total)	Σ = 21,909.7

Author estimates total German capital abroad at 35,000 million marks (p. 243).

{{	The (1904) figure=9,225 plus, he reckons, the same		}}
	amount in Europe	Σ = 18,000
	Further, securities totalling about	17,000
		Σ = 35,000

America	6,530.2
Asia (Turkey)	2,625.1
Africa	–
Australia	–
Europe	12,754.4
	Σ = 21,909.7

N.B. || On the question of German capital investments abroad, B. Harms quotes (besides Sartorius): Riesser, German Big Banks and Their Concentration, 3rd edition, Jena, 1910.—Paul Dehn, New Developments in World Economy, Berlin, 1904.—Paul Arndt, “The Nature and Purpose of Capital Investment Abroad”, Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft, 1912, (No. 1–3).— N.B. ||| Robert Liefmann, Holding and Financing Companies, Jena, 1909.—

German capital abroad:

		Exclusive of securities (1904)	||	Securities (1897–1906)
	Africa	1,350	||	—(?)
(α)	Asia (including Turkey)	1,125		2,625.1
	Australia and Polynesia	400		—(?)
(β)	Central and South America	3,350		1,431.5
(γ)	U.S.A. and Canada	3,000		5,098.7
	Σ =	9,225
	(α+β+γ)=	(7,475)		(9,155.3)

Foreign capital of the three richest European countries, approximately :

	(thousand million marks)
	Great Britain		France		Germany			Σ
America	37		4		10		|	51
Asia	11	} 29	1	} 8	4	} 7		16	} 44
Africa	10		7		2			19
Australia	8		–		1			9
Europe	4		23		18			45
Total	70		35		35			140

Germany __ __ __

|

Approx. Great Britain
				thousand mill. marks
			Total approx.	Great Britain __ __ __	France __ __ __
			(thousandmill. marks)	approx.	approx.
37	America	6.5	10	37	4
11	Asia	2.6	4	11	1
4	Europe	12.8	18	4	23
10	Africa	–	2	10	7
8	Australia	–	1	8	–
70		21.9	35	70	35
Western Europe (Belgium, Switzerland, Scandinavian countries)			2	1 (??)	2
South Europe (Spain, Italy, Portugal)			1	1	5
Balkans			2	0.5 (??)	4
Russia			5	1	10
Austria			8	0.5 (??)	2
All Europe			18	4	23
Balkans + Russia + Austria			15	2 (??)	16

World railways (Harms, p. 138)

(ibidem):

1868	106,886 km.
1870	211,000
1875	294,000
1899	617,285
1909	1,006,748

	(km.)
	1899	1909
Europe	223,869	329,691
America	313,417	513,824
Asia	33,724	99,436
Africa	9,386	33,481
Australia	18,889	30,316
(my) Σ=	599,285	1,006,748

World telegraph lines (km.) (Harms, p. 141):

	1898	1908
Great Britain	208,747	253,898
North America	50,545	92,818
France	26,157	43,115
Germany	6,186	30,167
Denmark	13,888	17,111
Netherlands	1,786	5,721
Japan	2,797	8,084
Spain	3,237	3,565
Italy	1,968	1,989
Miscellaneous countries	3,233	7,724

Foreign trade (special trade) of Germany

(p. 198)

		(million marks)
		1889		1910		Increase
		Import	Export	Import	Export	Import	Export
1. Europe		3,239.9	2,509.7	5,196.8	5,623.9	+60%	+124%
2. Africa		39.6	22.1	418.0	181.3
3. Asia		128.2	84.3	828.3	332.3
4. America		635.4	613.6	2,190.7	1,255.0
5. Australasia		35.1	23.5	293.0	71.8
2–5.	Σ =	838.3	743.5	3,730.0	1,840.4	+345%	+147%
	ΣΣ =	7,343.5 (1889)

(p. 203) Special trade (including noble metals) of the most important countries

	1870		1882		1901		1910
	million marks	(marks) per head	million marks	(marks) per head	million marks	(marks) per head	million marks	(marks) per head
Great Britain (+Ireland)	9,180	312	12,658	355	14,977.0	360 171.9	20,507.1	453
France	4,540	124	7,326	195	6,705.8		10,212.5	260
Germany	4,240	106	6,409	141	9,852.6	172.2	16,408.8	257
Russia	2,000	27	2,140	30	2,926.8	26.1	5,047.5	40
Austria-Hungary	1,660	47	3,015	75	3,007.3	65.7	4,450.4	88
Italy	1,480	61	2,000	70	2,474.4	76.1	4,170.4	123
Spain 2}}	820	42	840 }}2	53	1,386.8	74	1,566.2	80
Portugal 2 }}			280 }}2		390.9	71.0	434.1	77
Holland	1,420	388	2,520	602	6,391.0	1,229	9,446.7	1,657
Belgium	1,280	252	3,380	421	3,239.4	476	6,137.9	841
Sweden-Norway	840	115	1,080	131	1,407.7	190.2	1,891.5	242
United States of America	3,420	98	6,150	120	9,526.5	122.5	13,578.7	150

SUPAN, TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPEAN COLONIES AND HÜBNER’S GEOGRAPHICAL-STATISTICAL TABLES

Professor Dr. Alexander Supan, Territorial Development of European Colonies, 1906 (pp. 256 and 257)

Table 1. Colonial Possessions in 1876 and 1900 (by continents)

											From Otto Hüb-ner’s StatisticalTables (1914)
	1876		1900		Increase (+) and Decrease (–)
	sq. km. (000)	popu- lation (000)	sq. km. (000)	popu- lation (000)		sq. km. (000)			popu- lation (000)		sq. km. (000)	popu- lation (000)
Asia	22,772.9	291,495	25,012.7	390,636		+	2,239.8		+	99,141	25,297.1	422,658
Great Britain	3,765.4	241,835	5,224.4	301,495		+	1,459.0		+	59,660	5,265.3	324,773
Netherlands	1,520.6	24,170	1,520.6	37,494			—		+	13,324	1,520.6	37,717
France	160.0	2,683	664.2	18,073		+	504.2		+	15,390	803.5	17,272
Spain	296.3	6,000	—	—		–	296.3		–	6,000	—	—
Portugal	19.9	849	19.9	810			—		–	39	22.8	980
German Empire	—	—	0.5	84		+	0.5		+	84	0.5	192
Russia	17,010.7	15,958	17,286.8	25,045		+	276.1		+	9,087	17,388.1	33,164
United States (evidently Philippines)	—	—	296.3	7,635		+	296.3		+	7,635	296.3	8,460
Africa	3,218.7	11,426	26,950.9	123,349		+	23,732.2		+111,924		28,583.8	126.614
Great Britain	706.9	2,331	9,201.2	53,097		+	8,494.3		+	50.766	9,675.7	52,069
Belgium, the Congo	—	—	2,382.8	19,000		+	2,382.8		+	19,000	2,365.0	15,003
France	700.0	2,875	10,211.2	31,518		+	9,511.2		+	28,643	9,660.3	37,750
Spain	9.8	319	220.3	673		+	210.5		+	354	560.5	589
Portugal	1,802.0	5,900	2,073.2	6,865		+	271.2		+	965	2,069.9	8,351
Italy	—	—	510.0	731		+	510.0		+	731	1,590.1	1,403
German Empire	—	—	2,352.2	11,465		+	2,352.2		+	11,465	2,662.3	11,449
Australia	7,699.4	1,970	7,699.4	3,983			—		+	2,013	(7,699.4)	(3,983)
Great Britain	7,699.4	1,970	7,699.4	3,983			—		+	2,013
Polynesia	711.9	934	1,238.9	2,440		+	527.0		+	1,506		7,760
Great Britain	291.9	564	558.7	1,496		+	266.8		+	932	8,261.3	6,588
Netherlands	394.1	240	394.8	240		+	0.7		—		394.8	240
France	23.3	93	24.2	88		+	0.9		–	5	22.6	80
Spain	2.6	37	—	—		–	2.6		–	37	—	—
German Empire	—	—	243.8	449		+	243.8		+	449	245.1	641
United States	—	—	17.4	167		+	17.4		+	167	17.4	211
America	10,599.8	7,740	10,502.6	9,148		–	97.2		+	1,408	9,184.1	10,731
Great Britain	8,711.4	5,160	8,728.2	7,533		+	16.8		+	2,373	8,962.3	10,114
Netherlands	130.2	110	130.2	140		—			+	30	130.2	140
France	82.0	346	82.0	428		—			+	82	91.2	450
Spain	123.3	2,025	—	—		–	123.3		–	2,025	—	—
Denmark	0.4	38	0.4	31		—			–	7	0.4	27
Sweden	0.02	1	—	—		–	0.02		–	1	—	—
United States	1,552.5	60	1,561.8	1,016		+	9.3		+	956	—	—
Arctic	1,492.1	82	1,492.1	91		—			+	9		15
Great Britain	1,301.1	1	1,301.1	1		—			—		1,374.0	2
Denmark	191.0	81	191.0	90		—			+	9	88.1	13
Antarctic	—	—	3.5	—		+	3.5		—		—	—
France	—	—	3.5	—		+	3.5		—		—	—
__	__
Total	46,494.8	313,646	72,900.1	529,647		+26,405.3			+216,001		—	—
__

Table 2. Colonial Possessions, 1876 and 1900 (by owning countries)

								(From Hübner’s tables) 1914
	1876		1900			Increase (+) and Decrease (–)
	sq. km. (000)	popu- lation (000)	sq. km. (000)		popu- lation (000)	sq. km. (000)	popu- lation (000)	sq. km. (000)	popu- lation (000)
Great Britain	22,476.1	251,861	32,713.0		367,605	+10,236.9	+115,744	33,538.6	393,546
Asia	3,765.4	241,835	5,224.4		301,495	+1,459.0	+59,660	5,265.3	324,773
Africa	706.9	2,331	9,201.2		53,097	+8494.3	+50,766	9,675.7	52,069
Australia	7,699.4	1,970	7,699.4	}} 8,258.1	3,983	—	+2,013	}} 8,261.3	6,588
Polynesia	291.9	564	558.7		1,496	+266.8	+932
America	8,711.4	5,160	8,728.2		7,533	+16.8	+2,373	8,962.3	10,114
Arctic	1,301.1	1	1,301.1		1	—	—	1,374.0	2
Netherlands	2,044.9	24,520	2,045.6		37,874	+0.7	+13,354	2,045.6	38,097
Asia	1,520.6	24,170	1,520.6		37,494	—	+13,324	1,520.6	37,717
Polynesia	394.1	240	394.8		240	+0.7	—	394.8	240
America	130.2	110	130.2		140	—	+30	130.2	140
Belgium—The Congo	—	—	2,382.8		19,000	+2,382.8	+19,000	2,365.0	15,003
Africa	—	—	2,382.8		19,000	+2.382.8	+19,000	2,365.0	15,003
France	965.3	5,997	10,985.1		50,107	+10,019 8	+44,110	10,581	55,552
Asia	160.0	2,683	664.2		18,073	+504.2	+15,390	803.5	17,272
Africa	700.0	2,875	10,211.2		31,518	+9,511.2	+28,643	9,660.3	37,750
Polynesia	23.3	93	24.2		88	+0.9	–5	22.6	80
America	82.0	346	82.0		428	—	+82	91.2	450
Antarctic	—	—	3.5		—	+3.5	—	(3.5)	—
Spain	432.0	8,381	220.3		673	–211.7	–7,708	560.5	589
Asia	296.3	6,000	—		—	–296.3	–6,000	—	—
Africa	9.8	319	220.3		673	+210.5	+354	560.5	589
Polynesia	2.6	37	—		—	–2.6	–37	—	—
America	123.3	2,025	—		—	–123.3	–2,025	—	—

Portugal	1,821.9	6,749	2,093.1	7,675	+271.2	926	2,092.7	9,331
Asia	19.9	849	19.9	810	—	39	22.8	980
Africa	1,802.0	5,900	2,073.2	6,865	+271.2	965	2,069.9	8,351
Italy	—	—	510.0	731	+510.0	+731	1,590.1	1,403
Africa	—	—	510.0	731	+510.0	+731	1,590.1	1,403
German Empire	—	—	2,596.5	11,998	+2,596.5	+11,998	2,907.9	12,282
Asia	—	—	0.5	84	+0.5	+84	0.5	192
Africa	—	—	2,352.2	11,465	+2,352.2	+11,465	2,662.3	11,449
Polynesia	—	—	243.8	449	+243.8	+449	245.1	641
Denmark	191.4	119	191.4	121	—	+2	88.5	40
America	0.4	38	0.4	31	—	–7	0.4	27
Arctic	191.0	81	191.0	90	—	+9	88.1	13
Sweden	0.02	1	—	—	–0.02	–1	0.02	—
America	0.02	1	—	—	–0.02	–1	(0.02)	–
Russia	17,010.7	15,958	17,286.8	25,045	+276.1	+9,087	17,388.1	33,164
Asia	17,010.7	15,958	17,286.8	25,045	+276.1	+9,087	17,388.1	33,164
United States	1,552.5	60	1,875.5	8,818	+323.0	+8.758	(1,875.5)	(9,687)
Asia	—	—	296.3	7,635	+296.3	+7,635	296.3	8,460
Polynesia	—	—	17.4	167	+17.4	167	17.4	211
America	1,552.5	60	1,561.8	1,016	+9.3	+956	(1,561.8)	(1,016)
Total	46,494.8	313,646	72,900.1	529,647	+26.405.34	+216,001	74,963.5	568,694

. Supan, p. 254 “Percentage of territory belonging to the European colonial powers (including the United States)

	1876	1900	Increase or Decrease
in Africa . . . . . . . . . .	10.8	90.4	+79.6
” Polynesia . . . . . . . . . .	56.8	98.9	+42.1
” Asia . . . . . . . . . .	51.5	56.6	+5.1
” Australia . . . . . . . . . .	100.0	100.0	—
” America 1) . . . . . . . . . .	27.5	27.2	–0.3
1) “Alaska is regarded here as a colony of the U.S.A.”

“The characteristic feature of this period is, therefore, the partition of Africa and Polynesia”... (p. 254). The plunder of the natives by the European countries is especially clearly revealed in the account of the division of Farther India (Siam with British “Burma” or Burmania from the West, and French Indo-China from the East)—in Supan, p. 299 et seq. The result (in rounded area figures) (000 sq. km.):

	1876	1900
British Malacca . . . . .	32	92	+60
British Burma . . . . . .	228	696	+468
French possessions . . . .	160	663	+503
Independent area . . . . .	1,665	634	–1,031
Farther India, in the polit- ical sense . . . . . . .	2,085	2,085

“It should also be borne in mind that Siam is d only 239,000 sq. km.”....

((Hübner (1914) shows Siam as having 600,000 sq. km.!! Not yet completely plundered!!))

Supan states: “There should be no doubt that this process [the division of Farther India] is not yet completed.”

Summarising the results of colonisation, Supan says that it has been carried out mainly in the last fifty years (1850–1900)—p. 306 et seq.—He distinguishes three types of colonies: 1) native (no whites or almost none. British India belongs in this category); 2) mixed (whites in a minority; a mixture); 3) migrational colonies (marked preponderance of whites).

He gives detailed figures for America (38,331,200 sq. km.; 144.2 million inhabitants, including 88.3 million whites); Africa (26,950,900 sq. km.; 123.3 million inhabitants); Asia (24,506,200 sq. km.; 390.6 million inhabitants); South Seas colonies (8,938,300 sq. km.; 6.4 million inhabitants). Supan sums up as follows (p. 313)

What is imperialism?

“Great” Powers	Colonies				Metropolis		Total
	1876		1914		1914		1914
	(million)
	sq. km.	popu- la- tion	sq. km.	popu- la- tion	sq. km.	popu- la- tion	sq. km.	popu- la- tion
Great Britain	22.5	251.9	33.5	393.5	0.3	46.5	33.8	440.0
Russia	17.0	15.9	17.4	33.2	5.4	136.2	22.8	169.4
France	0.9	6.0	10.6	55.5	0.5	39.6	11.1	95.1
Germany	—	—	2.9	12.3	0.5	64.9	3.4	77.2
Japan	—	—	0.3	19.2	0.4	53.0	0.7	72.2
U.S.A.	—	—	0.3	9.7	9.4	97.0	9.7	106.7
Total for six “Great” Powers	40.4	273.8	65.0	523.4	16.5	437.2	81.5	960.6
Three countries, whose partition has been particularly vigorous
(Turkey, China, Persia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .							14.5	361.2
The whole globe (without Polar regions) . . . . . . .							133	1,657
[BOX:] [[ All colonies:	46.5	313.6	74.9	568.7 ]]
Colonies not	belonging
to the	Great Powers		9.9	45.3
	[BOX:] [[ N.B. Russia 169 X 0.57 = 96.33 N.B. 96 million oppressed or without equal rights ]]

		sq. km.	population
		(million)
All Europe . . . . . . . . . .		9.97	452.4
Great Britain + France + Russia + Germany . . . . . . . . . .	–	6.70	287.2
Other countries . . . . . . . . . .		3.27	165.2
All America . . . . . . . . . .		39.98	189.5
United States . . . . . . . . . .	–	9.40	97.0
All colonies . . . . . . . . . .	–	9.20	10.7
		——	——
Other countries . . . . . . . . . .		21.38	81.8
All Asia . . . . . . . . . .		44.45	871.2
All colonies . . . . . . . . . .	–	25.3	422.5
		19.1	448.7
Three semi-colonies (Turkey + China + Persia) . . . . . . . . . .	–	14.5	361.2
remainder =		4.6	87.5
All Africa . . . . . . . . . .		29.9	136.2
All colonies . . . . . . . . . .	–	28.6	126.6
remainder =		1.3	9.6
All Australia . . . . . . . . . .		8.9	7.8
All colonies = (+ Polynesia?) . . . . . . . . . .		7.7	3.4(?)

population (million) 6 Great Powers 437.2 All colonies 568.7 }} 929.9 3 “booty” countries 361.2 1,367.1

[BOX:] [[ 300 privileged 150 oppressed 1,000 —— {colonies and booty} 1,450 150 small states and candidates 1,600 ]]

[BOX:] [[	Approximately:
population (millions)
300	—“Great Powers” and privileged oppressors and plunderers
300	—dependent, unequal, plundered and small peoples
4,000	—colonies and “booty”
1,600	]]

ChinaNationality of foreigners in the Treaty Ports

	1912
	Firms	Individuals
Japanese	733	75,210
Russian	323	45,908
British	592	8,690
American	133	3,869
French	107	3,133
German	276	2,817
Portuguese	44	2,785
Italian	40	537
Austrian	17	328
Danish	11	279
Norwegian	8	250
Belgian	15	245
Spanish	6	224
Swedish	2	189
Dutch	13	157
Hungarian	3	27
Brazilian	1	9
Others	4	97
Total	2,328	144,754

¹ )

Colonies (million)
Metropolis		Colonies		Total		||	1876		1914
sq. km.	popu- lation	sq. km.	popu- lation	sq. km.	popu- lation	||	sq. km.	popu- lation	sq. km.	popu- lation
(mill.)		(mill.)		(mill.)
(α)	Russia (Europe+Asia)	5.4	136.2	16.9	33.2	22.3	169.4	||	17.0	15.9	17.4	33.2
(β)	Great Britain	0.3	46.5	30.0	378.5	30.3	425.0		22.5	251.9	33.5	393.5
(γ)	France	0.5	39.6	10.6	55.5	11.1	95.1		0.9	6.0	10.6	55.5
	Σ=	6.2	222.3	57.5	467.2	63.7	689.5
	Belgium	0.03	7.5	2.4	15.0	2.4	22.5
	Serbia	0.09	4.5	—	—	0.1	4.5
(δ)	Germany	0.5	64.9	2.9	12.3	3.4	77.2		—	—	2.9	12.3
	Austria-Hungary	0.7	51.4	—	—	0.7	51.4
	Turkey	1.8	21.6	—	—	1.8	21.6
		3.0	137.9	2.9	12.3	5.9	150.2
(ε)	Japan	0.4	53.0	0.3	19.2	0.7	72.2		—	—	0.3	19.2
	China	11.1	329.6	—	—	11.1	329.6
(ζ)	U.S.A.	9.4	97.0	0.3	9.7	9.7	106.7		—	—	0.3	9.7

6 “Great” Powers (α–ζ)

16.5

437.2

61.0

508.4

77.5

945.6

||

40.4

273.8

65.0

523.4

)Belgium 29,452 sq. km. and 7.5 mill. population+2,400,000 sq. km. of colonies with 15 mill. population. Σ = 2.4 mill. sq. km. and 22.5 mill. population.								{{{{	Turkey China	1.8 21.6 }} 11.1 329.6 Σ= 12.9 351.2 Persia= 1.6 10.0 Σ= 14.5 361.2
Serbia 87,303 sq. km. and 4.5 mill. population. Σ = 0.1 mill. sq. km. and 4.5 mill. population.

Balkan states before and after 1912–13

	Total area (sq. km.)			Population (000)
	Previous territory	Newly acquired	Present territory	Previous territory	Newly acquired	Present territory
Rumania	131,353	8,340	139,693	7,248	354	7,602
Bulgaria	96,345	17,660	114,005	4,337	429	4,766
Serbia	48,303	39,000	87,303	2,912	1,533	4,445
Montenegro	9,080	5,100	14,180	285	150	435
Albania	—	28,000	28,000	—	800	800
Greece	64,657	51,318	}} 115,975	2,632	1,624	}} 4,256
Crete	8,618	}} –149,755		344	}} –4,583
Turkey	169,317		28,180	6,130		1,891
Balkan countries	527,673	–337	527,336	23,888	307	24,195

The difference is due to inaccurate measurement, Albania, in particular, being shown smaller than she is.

The whole world	Population			Special trade (1912)
	mill. sq. km.	mill.	%	per. sq. km.	Imports	Exports
					(mill. marks)
Asia	44.45	871.2	52.6	19.6	9,278	10,162
Europe	9.97	452.4	27.3	45.4	56,655	44,224
Africa	29.89	136.2	8.2	4.5	3,149	3,584
America	39.98	189.5	11.4	4.7	15,738	18,286
Australia	8.96	7.8	0.5	0.9	2,199	2,269
Polar Countries	12.67	0.01	0.0	—	—	—
Total	145.92	1,657.1	100.0	11.4	87,019	78,525

Otto Hübner’s Geographical-Statistical Tables1914 edition (63rd year)

		Railways(km.)
	Great Britain
(1912)	Egypt	4,241
(1912)	Egyptian Sudan	1,725
(1912)	Malta	13
(1911–12)	Cyprus	98
(1911–12)	India	55,875 >	}}
(1911)	Ceylon	971
(1911)	Straits Settlements	34
	— —	16
(1912)	Malay Protectorate	1,180
(1912)	Hong Kong	15
(1912)	North Borneo	211 >
(1912)	Union of South Africa	12,626 >	}}
(1910)	Basutoland	26
(1912)	Rhodesia	3,872
(1912)	Nyasaland	182
(1912)	East Africa	943
(1912)	Zanzibar	10
(1912)	Nigeria	1,467
(1912)	Sierra Leone	365
(1912)	Gold Coast	270
(1912)	Mauritius	207 >
(1912)	Newfoundland	1,238 >	}}
(1912)	Canada	47,150
(1912)	Jamaica	313
(1912)	Windward Isles	45
(1912)	Trinidad	135
(1912)	Honduras	40
(1912)	Guiana	152 >
(1912–13)	Commonwealth of Australia	30,141 >		}}
(1912–13)	New Zealand	4,588 >
		168,149
	France
(1919)	Algeria	3,491 >	}}
(1912)	Tunisia	1,656
(1913)	West Africa	2,400
(1913)	Somali Coast	130
(1913)	Madagascar	368
(1913)	Réunion	126 >
(1913)	India	30 >	}}
(1912)	Indo-China	1,374
(1908)	Martinique	224
(1913)	Guiana	16
(1913)	New Caledonia	17 >
		9,832
(1912)	Belgian Congo	1,235
	Italy
(1912)	Libya	87
(1912)	Eritrea	120
		207
	German Empire
(1913)	East Africa	1,602
(1913)	Cameroon	443
(1913)	Togoland	327
(1913)	South-West Africa	2,104
		4,476
	Netherlands
(1912)	East Indies	2,355
	[MISSING]	2,683
	Other possessions	337
		5,375
	Russia
(1913)	Caucasus }}3	17,036
	Central Asia }}3
	Siberia }}3
(1911)	Turkeyof which in	6,660
	1. Europe	1,994 >	}}
	2. Asia Minor	2,372
	3. Syria and Arabia	2,294 >
(1909)	Persia	54
	in use	12
	[MIA EDITOR’S NOTE: Table ends here, even though totals are absent after "in use 12".]

		Total area (sq. km.)	Population
Turkey,	constitutional state since 1909	1,794,980	21,600,000	(1910)
Turkey in Europe		28,180	1,891,090	(1910)
Asia Minor		501,400	10,940,765	(1910)
Armenia and Kurdistan		186,500	2,357,436	(1900)
Syria and Mesopotamia		637,800	5,361,203	(1940)
Arabia		441,100	1,050,000	(1910)
China,	republic since March 1912	11,138,900	329,617,760
China proper		6,242,300	325,817,760	(1910)
Mongolia		2,787,600	1,800,000
Tibet		2,109,000	2,000,000
Japan,	constitutional empire	673,681	72,200,475
Japan proper		382,415	52,985,423	(1912)
Formosa		35,997	3,512,607	(1913)
Karafuto (Japanese Sakhalin)		34,069	42,612	(1913)
Kwantung		3,374	501,767	(1913)
Korea		217,826	15,164,066	(1913)

N.B. In	thousand sq. km. (total area)
	PERSIA is about 1,645 (total population of Persia
	in 1907: 9 1/2 million)
	Under 1907 agreement:
	British sphere of influence is about	355
	Russian ” ” ” ” ”	790

Mutual Accusations

La Revue de Paris, March 1, 1915 (No. 5, 1915)

article by G. Demorgny “Turkish-German Methods in Persia” (with a map of the Russian and British spheres of influence in Persia).

||| N.B An imperialist laments German successes. (Characteristic for a description of imperialism.)

Incidentally (p. 217): || N.B. “On December 24 (1914) a bomb intended to wipe out the Russian, French, Belgian and British ministers exploded in Teheran, but the attempt failed N.B. || and the bomb killed one of the participants in the plot organised by a German-Turkish gang”....

N.B. || Author quotes his articles in the magazine Revue du monde musulman, 1913, Nos. 22 and 23 (March and June 1913) and his books: Problems of the Danube, Paris, 1911 (Larose et Tenin); The Administration of Persia, Paris, 1913 (Leroux), and Persian Financial Institutions, Paris, 1915 (Leroux).

The Sitchkan-il year (March 21, 1912–March 20, 1913).

• 1. Russian trade with Persia = 628,857,900 krans (1 kran = 0.4545 franc).
• Persian exports to Russia = 69 per cent of total Persian exports.
• Persian imports from Russia 58 per cent of total Persian imports (p. 205).
• 2. Persian imports from Britain = 25 per cent of total Persian Imports. Persian exports to Britain 13 per cent of total Persian exports.
• 3. Turkey.
• 4. German trade with Persia = 24,316,252 krans.
• 5. France.
• 6. Italy.
• ((Countries listed in the order of their trade with Persia: 1--6))

Preussische Jahrbücher, 1915, No. 3 (March), article by Hans Delbrück (p. 485):

N.B. || “On behalf of his Government, the British Minister in Norway, Findley, tried to hire an assassin in order to do away with the Irishman Sir Roger Casement”. (From Delbrück’s counter-charges against Great Britain.)

“ENGINEERING WAR”

The Daily Telegraph, March 15, 1915. “Engineering War.” “Oil in Warfare. The All-Oil Battleship.”

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer was right when he said: ‘This is an engineers’ war.’ We are seeing the impress of the engineer on every phase of the stupendous struggle now in progress throughout the world. No longer is engineering a side-line. It has become the principal feature of war, so much so ‘that Eye-Witness’ has seen fit to call the present ‘the petrol war’ in the course of his recent description of the part played by mechanical traction on the Continent. To call it ‘the oil war’ would probably be more accurate since this term would also include the Fleet, so far as many of its greatest and smallest craft—as represented by super-dreadnoughts and submarines—are concerned.”

The Queen Elizabeth is one of the first “all-oil” vessels. Less cost. The chief thing is the speed in fuelling, etc., etc. A gigantic technical advance

The transition to “internal-combustion-engined war ships” is imminent. Commercial ships are already making the transition.

JUNIUS, THE CRISIS OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY

Junius, The Crisis of Social-Democracy. Supplement: “Theses on the Tasks of International Social-Democracy.” Zurich, 1916, 109pp. (105–09,theses).

“Introduction” dated January 2, 1916: the pamphlet is stated to have been written in April 1915.

p. 6: “The capitulation of international Social-Democracy ... the most stupid thing would be to conceal it”....

p. 24: “Two lines of development ... lead ... to this war.” 1) 1870, N.B., the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, and 2) imperialist development in the last 25 years.

|| N.B. p. 28: Bülow’s speech on December 11, 1899. A clear imperialist programme: the British have “Greater Britain”, the French their “New France”, the Russians—Asia, the Germans “Greater Germany”.

pp. 31–33: excellent account of the plunder of Turkish peasants in Asia Minor by German finance capital.

p. 42: ...“The existence of only two countries—Belgium and Serbia—is at stake in the present war”.

p. 43: In Russia, imperialism is “not” so much “economic expansion” as “the political interest of the state”.

p. 48: The break-up of Austria was accelerated “by the emergence of independent national states in the immediate neighbourhood of the monarchy”....

...“The internal un-viability of Austria was shown”....

...“The Hapsburg monarchy is not the political organisation of a bourgeois state, but only the loose syndicate of cliques of social parasites” (49).... || ...“An inevitable dilemma: either the Hapsburg monarchy or the capitalist development of the Balkan countries” (49).... ||

N.B. ||| ...“Historically, the liquidation of Austria-Hungary is but the continuation of the disintegration of Turkey, but at the same time it is a requirement of the historical process of development” (49–50).

“German imperialism, chained to two decomposing corpses, steered straight into the world war” (50).

...“For ... an alleged attempt (at high treason)... Duala Manga Bell of the Cameroons was hanged quietly, amidst the noise of war, without the troublesome procedure of a court trial.... The Reichstag group shrouded the body of Chief Duala in a discreet silence” (56).

p. 60: two causes of the 1905 defeat:

? ||| (1) its “huge” political programme; “some (of the problems), such as the agrarian question, are altogether insoluble within the framework of the present social order”....

(2) the aid of European reaction.... || 71: “The dangers to the ‘free development of Germany’ do not lie in Russia, as the Reichstag group thought, but in Germany herself”... (and, incidentally, the expression: “the Zabern policy”, p. 71).

74: “Does not the socialist principle of the right of nations to self-determination imply that every people is entitled and bound to defend its freedom and independence?”... (75) “certainly, a people that surrenders to an external enemy is contemptible”....

75: A quotation from The Civil War in France: “The highest heroic effort of which old society is still capable is national war; and this is now proved to be a mere governmental humbug”....

76: “In bourgeois society, therefore, invasion and class struggle are not opposites, as the official legend has it, but one is the means and expression of the other. And if for the ruling classes invasion represents a well-tried means against the class struggle, for the ascending classes the sharpest class struggle still proves to be the best means against invasion”.... The history of the Italian towns in the Middle Ages, and especially 1793. ||| 77: The same applies to self-determination: “True, socialism recognises the right of every nation to independence and freedom, to independent mastery of its destinies. But it is a real mockery of socialism when the modern capitalist states are presented as the | expression of this right of the nations to self-determination. In which of these states has the nation yet determined the forms and conditions of its (sic!) || national, political or social existence?” By “self-determination of the German people”, Marx, Engels, Lassalle under stood “the united, great German republic”. [Modern Germany has been built (N.B.) (77) “on the ruins of the German people’s right to national (N.B.) self-determination (N.B.)”....]

77 ...“or is it, perhaps, the Third Republic with colonial possessions in four continents, and colonial atrocities in two of them, that is an expression of the ‘self-determination’ of the French nation?”...

78: “In the socialist sense of this concept, there is not a single free nation, if its existence as a state rests on the enslavement of other peoples, || N.B. for the colonial peoples, too, are reckoned as peoples and as members of the state. International socialism recognises the right of free, independent and equal nations, but it is only socialism that can create such nations, and only it can realise the right of nations to self-determination. And this socialist slogan serves like all the other socialist slogans not to justify the existing order of things, but to indicate the way forward, and to stimulate the proletariat in its active, revolutionary policy of transformation”....

? ||| In the imperialist situation of today there cannot be any more “national wars of defence” (78)... to ignore this situation means “to build on sand”.

Hence “the question of defence and attack, the question of who is to ‘blame’, is quite meaningless” (78); for both France and Great Britain it is not a matter of “self-defence”, they are defending “not their national, but their world political position”....

[TOP-RIGHT{DOUBLE}-BOTTOM BOX ENDS:] [[ N.B.: ...“in order to dispel the phantom of ‘national war’ which dominates Social—Democratic policy at present” (81). ]]

Imperialist policy is an international phenomenon, the result of “the world-wide development of capital” (79).... “It is only from this starting-point that the question of ’national defence’ in the present war can be correctly posed” (80).... The system of alliances, military interests, etc., immediately involve imperialist interests and countries.... “Finally, the very fact that today all capitalist states have colonial possessions which in time of war, even if it begins as a ‘national war of defence’, are in any case drawn into the war from military-strategic considerations” ... the “holy war” in Turkey, the instigation of uprisings in the colonies...—“this fact, too, today automatically converts every war into an imperialist world conflagration” (82)....

The example of Serbia (behind which stands Russia), Holland (her colonies and so forth).... “In this way, it is always the historical situation created by present-day imperialism that determines the character of the war for the different countries, and it is because of this situation that nowadays national wars of defence are in general no longer possible” (84)....

He quotes K. Kautsky: Patriotism and Social-Democracy, 1907, p. 16 in particular, that “under these conditions a war for the defence of national freedom can no longer be expected anywhere” (Kautsky, quoted by Junius, p. 85). (K. Kautsky, pp. 12–14 on “national problems”, that they can be solved “only (N.B.) after (N.B.) the victory of the proletariat”.) [K. Kautsky, p. 23. N.B.]

What then is the task of Social-Democracy? Not to be “passive”. |||| ? “Instead of hypocritically dressing the imperialist war in the cloak of national defence, we should take seriously [author’s italics] the right of nations to self-determination and national defence and use them as a revolutionary lever against [author’s italics] the imperialist war (85). The most elementary requirement of national defence is that the nation should take defence into its own hands. The first step in that direction is a militia, i.e., not merely immediate arming of the entire adult male population, but above all the decision by the people of the question of war and peace; ||| ??? N.B. it implies also immediate abolition of all political disfranchisement, since the people’s defence must be based on the greatest political freedom. And it was the prime duty of Social-Democracy to proclaim these genuine national defence measures, and strive for their realisation” (86). But the Social-Democrats abandoned the demand for a militia until after the war!!! although we have said that “only a militia” is capable of defending the fatherland!!!

“Our teachers had a different conception of defence of the fatherland”... (Marx in The Civil War, in support of the national war of the Commune)... and ... Frederick Engels in 1892, in support of a repetition of 1793.... |||| N.B. || But alongside this: “When Engels wrote that, he had in mind a situation quite different from the present one” (87)—prior to the Russian revolution. “He [Engels] had in mind a genuine national war of defence by a suddenly attacked Germany” (87).... ||| ?? And further: “Yes, it is the duty of the Social-Democrats to defend their country during a great historical crisis. And precisely therein lies the grave guilt” of the Social-Democratic Reichstag group.... ||| ?? “They did leave the fatherland unprotected in the hour of its greatest peril. For their first duty to the fatherland in that hour was to show the fatherland what was really behind the present imperialist war; N.B. |||| to sweep away the web of patriotic and diplomatic lies covering up this encroachment on the fatherland; to proclaim loudly and clearly that for the German people both victory and defeat in the present war are equally fatal...; to proclaim the necessity of immediately arming the people and of allowing the people to decide the question of war and peace ... finally, to oppose the imperialist war programme, which is to preserve Austria and Turkey, i.e., perpetuate reaction in Europe and in Germany, with the old, truly national programme of the patriots a nd democrats of 1848, the programme of Marx, ??? ||||| Engels and Lassalle—the slogan of a united, great German Republic. This is the banner that should have been unfurled before the country, which would have been a truly national banner of liberation, and which would |||| have been in accord with the best traditions of Germany and with the international class policy of the proletariat” (88).

__ 100: | ...“Hence, the grave dilemma—the interests of the fatherland or the international solidarity of the proletariat—the tragic conflict which prompted our parliamentarians to side, ‘with a heavy heart’, with the imperialist war, is purely imaginary, a bourgeois-nationalist fiction. On the contrary, there is complete harmony between the interests of the country and the class interests of the proletarian International, both in time of war and in time of peace: both war and peace demand the most energetic development of the class struggle, the most determined fight for the Social-Democratic programme” (89)....

[DITTO: | ] But what should the Party have done? Call a mass strike? Or call for refusal to serve in the army? It would be absurd to try to answer. The revolution cannot be “made”. “Prescriptions and recipes of a technical nature” would be “ridiculous” (90); it is not a question of such things, but of a clear political slogan. (Expatiates against technique, etc., etc., “small conspiratorial circles”, etc.) (N.B. 101–02). || | __ § VIII (93-104) deals especially with the question of “victory or defeat”, endeavours to prove that both are equally bad (ruin, new wars, etc.). To choose between them would be “a hopeless choice between two lots of thrashing” (98)... “except in one single case: if by its revolutionary intervention the international proletariat upsets all the calculations” (of both imperialisms) (98).... There can be no status quo (99), no going “backwards”, only forward to the victory of the proletariat. Not hare brained schemes of disarmament, not “utopias” or “partial reforms” (99), but the struggle against imperialism.

p. 102—the threat of “mass collapse of ||| but America?? and Japan?? the European proletariat” (102).... “When the hour strikes, the signal for the social revolution that will set mankind free will come only from Europe, only from the oldest capitalist countries. Only the British, French, Belgian, German, Russian and Italian workers together can lead the army of the exploited and enslaved in the five continents of the world” (103).

“THE SOCIALISTS AND PEACE”

Journal des débats, November 11, 1915.

“The socialists and peace”.... “It certainly seems as if this conference [Zimmerwald] had been organised by |! the German socialists, whose intimate connection with the government of that country is well known. It is a manoeuvre on the part of our enemies which should not astonish us. They have resorted to it several times ever since they have felt that all is up with them.”

...“The French Socialist Party considered it necessary to speak out” (the Socialist Party resolution against the conference) “in order to dispel any ambiguity |!! and to affirm once again that it remains faithful to the patriotic pact of the sacred union.”

ITEMS IN LE TEMPS

Le Temps, November 13.

Item (on p. 2) on the Vorwärts article about Renaudel’s speech and, sympathetically, on the l’Humanité article against Zimmerwald.

Ibidem November 12.

“The Socialists and Alsace-Lorraine.”

An article by Compère-Morel in l’Humanité frankly states “that we do not consider Alsace-Lorraine as being such” ( = as German territories, which we do not wish to “conquer”).

BRAUER ON GERMAN “DEFEATISTS”

Hochland, Munich, No. 8, 1914–15, May 1915.

[[BOX: A Roman Catholic, aristocratic organ of the Austro-Munich clericalists ]]

(published by Karl Muth)

Th. Brauer, War and Socialism.

...“The war is more than just an episode in the development of socialism: it leads (at least as a possibility) to a definite end of this development” (176)....

...(The “story” of Marx, Engels, Bebel....)

...“Theoretical ‘annihilation’ does not prevent ‘opportunism’ from living merrily on and winning respect. As the masses flocking to the socialist banner grow, so also, but to a much greater degree, grows their desire with regard to the present, and there is no preventing them, in their aspirations, from turning their eyes to the present-day state” (179–80)....

...Precisely in this (revolutionary) ideology, against which Bernstein fought—“precisely in this ideology the European war plays a great part as the prelude to the social revolution” (180).

(The trade unions grow wiser)

...“immediately before the war there was also a formal approximation between trade union socialism and ‘bourgeois’ social reform” (181).

“The volte-face of German Social-Democracy at the outbreak of the war, seen in its purely external aspect, came as a sudden sharp break. Right up to the eve of the war, the press carried exhortations, ||| N.B. warnings and appeals in the old agitational jargon. Views were even expressed which, by referring to what allegedly happened in France after 1870, sounded like eulogy of defeat. Then, however, a single day brought about ... a turn which could not be more complete. The official explanations do not even remotely justify it. As everyone knows—and there is no need therefore to dwell on this—they can be easily refuted by previous official statements” (181).

...(The socialist masses, we are told, came into contact with the “full” reality of life)....

...“The far-seeing socialists, especially from the revisionist camp” (182) ... long ago pointed out the danger of such an [old-socialist] education of the people....

...(eulogy of patriotism)....

...“Now, at last, the reformists can hope to find a strong, impregnable basis for the new socialist and Social-Democratic programme they have so ardently desired” (183)....

...“If one wanted to describe briefly the practical success of revisionist activity, one would have to say that it has shattered faith in Marxism, both among ||| N.B. the leaders and the upper stratum of practical organisers, and that, in default of an adequate substitute, they have made tactics their ‘credo’” (184).

[[BOX-ENDS: and in general (188) let us first have the opinion of those who will come back from the trenches. ]]

|| N.B. N.B. Report of Swiss Factory and Mining Inspectors on Their Work in 1912 and 1913—Aarau, 1914 (265 pp., 3 marks).

ARTICLES AND NOTES IN LE TEMPS

Le Temps, December 6, 1915.

“The anniversary of the battle of Champigny” was celebrated today.

Speech by M. Albert Thomas:

“No peace until our Alsace and our Lorraine have been definitely returned to France”....

...until German imperialism has been rendered harmless, etc., etc. (...“victory”....)... “to the finish”....

Ibidem, December 7, 1915.

An article (editorial) “Good Words”.

“This demonstration is the more significant because M. Albert Thomas represents in the government, together with M.M. Guesde and Sembat, the United Socialist Party, certain elements of which cannot N.B. || forget the dangerous tendencies which used to prevail among them before the war and remain obsessed by the vague ideal of an internationalism from which we almost perished”.... |

...“There is here” (in the Thomas speech) “a precise, formal claim for the simple unconditional return of Alsace-Lorraine to France. These words are in happy contrast to the too cautious formulas sometimes advanced by the extreme Left and open to regrettable misunderstandings.”

Ibidem (p. 2) “Among the Socialists”. Yesterday there was a preparatory meeting (for the Party Congress on December 25, 1915) of the Seine federation. Bourderon tried to speak, “but he was violently interrupted” (there were shouts that he had no credentials) (idem Journal des débats, December 7, 1915. When Bourderon said that he represented the minority, “violent protests were raised”...).

“Yesterday evening in the rue de Paris at Montreuil, M. Merrheim was to have given a lecture on the international pacifist conference in Zimmerwald. M. Merrheim’s lecture was forbidden.”

“AMERICAN ARMS SUPPLIERS”

Article in Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 1915, No. 485, 1st morning edition. April 23, 1915.

American Arms Suppliers.

“For some considerable time now the American press has carried reports on arms deliveries to the Entente powers. We take the following from a California newspaper:

“‘Warmaterial destined for the Allies is now shipped by American producers to Canada, from where British ships carry it to England. Goods for France and Russia follow the same route, via England. Through agents or directly, the Allies have contracts with nearly all American armaments factories. Of course, the factories keep this a secret, for fear of having to stop their supplies, because all this material is contraband of war.

“‘Fifty-seven U.S. factories are engaged exclusively in armaments production. They normally employ about 20,000 workers, but now, working two and three shifts, the number is about 50,000. They do not make explosives. These are produced at about 103 factories, whose output has doubled since the outbreak of the war. Many gun-cotton factories are working three shifts. The mass demand has, of course, resulted in higher prices. Thus, in February the French Government ordered 24,000,000 lbs || of gun-cotton at 65 cents per pound, whereas in ordinary times the cost is 24–25 cents.

“thinspace‘In addition, there are items of equipment for troops and animals: footwear, utensils, saddles, tanned leather, etc. For America, the European war means a vast, profitable business.’”

Lloyd George in Parliament.

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH, APRIL 22 AND 23, 1915

The Daily Telegraph, April 22, 1915.

Lloyd George’s speech in the House of Commons:

“He astounded the House by saying that in a single fortnight of last month the British artillery fired more shells than during the whole continuance of the Boer War.”

N.B. || If in September the output (of artillery shells) was 20, in March it was 388, 19 times as much. [ARC-ARROW DOWN TO "In March,..."]

(And in September it was more than in August, and in August more than in July!)

Before the war, he said, it was reckoned that there would he six divisions on the continent. There are now 36 = 720,000 men.

[SEE ABOVE.] In March, the Defence of the Realm Act was passed “enabling [the government] to take over N.B. || any suitable engineering firms and turn them to producing shells.

“Munitions without end—such is the best formula for saving life and securing a speedy end to the war”....

Ibidem, April 23.

“Patriotic Pledge by Employers”:

I declare that, in giving employment after the war, I will give preference to those who have served in the army.

Signature

(The King and Ministers favour this).

Ibidem. Roosevelt’s book. America and the World War.

The author favours the rule: “speak softly, but carry a big stick” (he complains that people call him the “big stick”, but forget the beginning of his saying). (The example of Belgium.)

Favours the United States of America introducing national “military training” à la Switzerland or Australia....

ARTICLES BY HUGO BÖTTGER IN DER TAG

Der Tag, 1915, No. 93 (edition A), April 22, 1915.

Article: “The Free Trade Unions and the Government” by Dr. Hugo Böttger, Reichstag deputy.

The author begins with the fact that the managing director of a mining company (in Gelsenkirchen), Kirdorf , reproached Minister Delbrück (Minister of the Interior) for maintaining “close contact with the trade union leaders”.

This was dangerous for the workers would become more restless.

The author replies that there is no harm in this, that workers and employers are standing side by Bide in the trenches, that “if they (= the free trade unions = the Social-Democrats) are enlisted for joint work on certain labour and general national questions in the Ministry of the Interior, that is just as much a recognition of the need, || N.B. as it is an obligation, for the duration of the war, to renounce certain provisions of the Social-Democratic programme which belong to the sphere of the International and, in common with all other sections of the population, to do their duty and defend the fatherland”....

An article by the same author in No. 82 (April 9) “The Development of Our Policy”, in which, inter alia, it is stated:

“It is surprising that even in Social-Democratic discussions the opinion clearly emerges, against the back ground of Marxist thinking, that now one has to reckon with the further development of imperialism, the development of large world powers, externally sovereign, as far as possible independent. Some reject this, others try to include imperialism in socialist development, || and, of course, there can be no doubt as to which of these two trends is the wiser and has the greatest prospect of success”....

“THE OBJECTS OF THE WAR”, ARTICLE IN THE ECONOMIST

The Economist, March 27, 1915. Saturday.

Article: “The Objects of the War” (in connection with Grey’s speech on Monday (March 22??) in the Bechstein Hall).

The editors are concerned for peace and rejoice that Grey did not say anything likely “to lengthen or embitter the war”....

The end of the article reads:

“Statesmanship cannot contemplate a bitter end of universal mourning and almost universal bankruptcy. A time may come before long when it will be possible to consult the dictates of humanity and at the same time to secure the objects indicated by Sir Edward Grey [the freedom of nationalities etc.].... If such an opportunity is lost, the war will N.B. ||| not go on for ever. It will end in revolutionary chaos, beginning no one can say where and ending in no one can say what. ||| Even if the war ceased tomorrow, there is hardly a family even in this comparatively prosperous country which will not suffer severely for years to come from the burdens entailed by the struggle” (p. 615). (End.)

JOURNAL DE GENÈVE, APRIL 7, 1915

Journal de Genève, April 7, 1915.

A leading article entitled: “The Harm of Talking Too Much” discusses the book: Lessons of the 1914 Yellow Book by Henri Welschinger, Member of the Institute, published by Bloud et Gay, Paris.

On July 13, 1914 (note the date!), M. Ch. Humbert, “the reporter for the War Committee”, anxious to demonstrate France’s unpreparedness, told the Senate that France had practically no heavy artillery, even of 10–13–21 cm. Mortars of 28 cm. would be available ... in a year’s time!!

And next day, July 14, 1914, the War Minister, Messimy, stated in the Senate that

at the end of 1915 (!!) France would have

200 long 105 mm. guns, and at the end of 1917 (!!!) 200 short 120 mm. howitzers.

N.B. ||| “Could Germany draw any other conclusion than ‘Let us march without losing time’?”

LLOYD GEORGE ON £4,000,000,000

Lloyd George in the House of Commons. Tuesday, May 4, 1915 (The Daily Telegraph, May 5.)

...“What is the income of this country? The income of this country in times of peace is £2,400,000,000.

|| N.B. “Now it is probably higher. Why? We are spending hundreds of millions of borrowed money here. Most of it is spent in this country. Men are working time and overtime, their wages are higher; profits in certain trades are higher, certainly considerably higher; and the result is that the income of this country at the present moment is probably higher than in times of peace. || N.B. Some are probably making huge profits—(hear, hear)—and others have raised their income far beyond their ordinary standard.

“I have no doubt that it would be perfectly just when we come to consider, if we can have to do it, what taxes you have to raise or what contribution you have to levy in order to enable you to get through a war lasting two or three years—it would || N.B. be perfectly legitimate to resort to those who have made exceptional incomes out of the war (cheers).... What are the ordinary savings of this country in times of peace? The ordinary savings are about £300–400 (millions) per annum. The income is higher, and I do not think it is too much to say that in every country in Europe the standard of living is considerably lower—I am not sure to what extent.

| _|_ | N.B. “But the savings of this country during the period of the war when the income is higher ought to be double.”

And another passage from the same speech:

“We are an enormously rich country—certainly the richest in Europe. I am not sure that we are not the richest country in the world, || £4,000,000,000 in proportion to population. We have £4,000,000,000 invested in foreign and colonial securities of the best”!!

...“We have got to finance the purchases of most of our Allies”....