Records of Marx's and Engels' Speeches on the Position of the English Working Glass in the Franco-Prussian War

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

The minutes of the General Council meetings, extracts from which are given below, were first published in English in The General Council of the First International. 1870-1871. Minutes, Moscow, 1967, pp. 108-57. The reports of the meetings were published in The Eastern Post, in January-March 1871.

[FROM THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL MEETINGS]

January 24, 1871

Cit. Engels inquired whether any of the members had been at the meeting of the previous evening but there was no reply. He then stated as there was a difference of opinion amongst the members it would be advisable to discuss the question as to the attitude of the English working class on the present phase of the war at the meeting. He moved that the question be put on the order of the day.

Cit. Marx seconded the proposition, which was agreed to.

January 31, 1871

Cit. Engels said: following the advice of the Chairman of the last meeting and complying with an English custom, I have drawn up some resolutions principally as a basis for the debate. I am not particular as regards carrying them exactly as they are. These are the resolutions I have drawn up:

1. That the working-class movement in support of the French Republic ought to have concentrated its efforts, at the beginning, upon the enforcement of the recognition of the Republic by the British Government.

2. That the military intervention of England in favour of France, as understood by those proposing it, could have been of any use whatever at a certain moment only, which has long since passed away.

3. That England remains incapable, not only of interfering with effect in Continental affairs, but also of defending herself against the Continental military despotism so long as she does not recover the liberty of using her real war power—that is to say, her naval power, which she can only recover by the renunciation of the Declaration of Paris.

The policy adopted by the Council was laid in the second address. On the 4th of September the Republic was declared, on the 9th of September our address was issued in which it was said: “The English workmen have already taken measures to overcome, by a wholesome pressure from without, the reluctance of their Government to recognise the French Republic.” Had the movement been confined to that it might have succeeded, other countries would have followed and it would have given France a standing which Prussia could [not] have ignored. But there were others who were not satisfied with this. I mean the Comtists, Professor Beesly and his friends. Professor Beesly has on several occasions stood up bravely, for the working class, he braved the hostility of the middle classes in the Broadhead affair, but the Comtists are not properly a working-class party. They advocate a compromise to make wages-labour tolerable to perpetuate it; they belong to a political sect who believe that France ought to rule the world. In their last declaration, which was signed by several members of the Council, they demanded that France should be restored to the position it occupied before the war. Before the war France was a military power. The Comtists asked for intervention and as soon as it was done the working-class movement split up. The opposition said that hitherto war had postponed everything in the shape of social and political progress and every war had given the aristocracy a new lease of life. There is a great deal of truth in that. But on the other hand how could people, who were not able to compel the Government to recognise the Republic, force the same Government to go [to] war for the Republic? Supposing England had gone to war. By withdrawing all armed forces from Scotland, by depriving every other place of soldiers and leaving only 10,000 in Ireland, some 30,000 men could have been started and they would have been useful at a certain moment. At one time the French and German forces were about equal and Moltke was going to raise the siege, and at that moment an English army might have turned the scales against the Germans. But that moment had long since passed away; it was when there was a sort of revival before Orléans, when Aurelle de Paladines gained his successes. An English force then would have had a good effect upon the French soldiers, it would have improved [their spirit]; then the Germans have been largely reinforced, and the Prussians have such a bad opinion of the army of this country that the English, had they gone over, would have been laughed at; all they could have done would have been to make Chanzy’s retreat a little more orderly.

An English army on land can only act in alliance with other armies. This was done in the Peninsular War and it was done in the Crimea. England can best carry on war by supplying her allies with the materials of war. In the Crimea they had [to] borrow French soldiers to fill their trenches. It has always been found impossible to carry on a war far from home with a large army. Owing to the military system—the absence of conscription, the slow process of voluntary recruiting, the system of drill, the length of time it takes to make an English soldier efficient—the English army is based on long service, it is impossible to maintain a large army by the necessary reinforcements. If an army had been sent to France it could not have been kept up if it had met with any losses. The only thing England could have done to assist France would have been to declare war at the moment when Russia repudiated the Treaty of Paris. That point too was alluded to in our addresses. In the first the following is said: “In the background of this suicidal strife looms the dark figure of Russia. It is an ominous sign that the signal for the present war should have been given at the moment when the Moscovite Government had just finished its strategical lines of railway and was already massing troops in the direction of the Pruth.” In the second: “As in 1865 promises were exchanged between Louis Bonaparte and Bismarck, so in 1870 promises have been exchanged between Gorchakov and Bismarck.” But nobody has taken any notice of that. No sooner had Russia declared against the Treaty of Paris than Bismarck repudiated the Luxembourg Treaty. This proved the secret understanding. Prussia has never been anything else but the tool of Russia. That was the opportunity for England to step in. The French were not quite so low down as they have been since, and if England had declared war Prussia and Russia would have gone together and the rest of Europe would have gone together and France would have been relieved. Austria, Italy and Turkey were ready, and if the Turks had not been interfered with as in the war, if they had been allowed to defend themselves in their own way, they would have been able to hold their own while the others helped the French to drive out the Prussians. But, when this opportunity arose, the gentlemen who were going to help France had nothing to say.

Now, the way in which Jules Favre has thrown up the sponge for the whole of France, a thing he had no business to do, there is no doubt, with the help of the French middle class, France will have to submit and peace will be made. Then we shall see what Russia will do. Russia and Prussia require war as much [as] Napoleon to stem the popular movement at home, to preserve their prestige and keep their positions.

The navy is the main power of England but by the Declaration of 1856 a new naval code was established; it was laid down that privateering should be done away with. The right of search was abandoned, enemy’s goods were made safe in neutral bottoms and neutral goods in enemy’s bottoms. There was a similar attempt made once before by the Empress Catherine of Russia but England refused till after the Crimean war. At the Conference of Paris, by one stroke of the pen, Clarendon signed away England’s power to hurt Russia at sea. By whose instructions or authority [he] did so has never come out. When it was brought before the House of Commons Disraeli blinked at it, the question was shirked. To cripple Russia it is necessary to stop her export, her export trade. If the Russian aristocracy could not sell their corn, their flax, in one word, their agricultural produce, to foreign countries, Russia could not hold out for a year, and the bulk of her trade is carried on in foreign bottoms. To make war on Russia England must regain her hold of this power. It was abandoned on the pretence of making private property as safe at sea as it was on land. We have seen how the Prussians have respected private property in France. The working class has no private property to lose, it has therefore no interest in making [it] safe. But the working class has interest in resuming the hold of this power and to keep [it] intact till the Russian Empire is dissolved. The English Empire like all other empires based upon ... will have to be dissolved in due time but with that we have nothing to do at present and that will proceed more peaceably perhaps. No other country can oppose Russia the same as England can and she must keep this power at least till Poland is restored. Had war been declared against Russia it would have been the salvation of France, and Poland could have been restored. Now Russia will enter on a war of conquest, perhaps before a year is over, and Europe will have to fight minus France.

February 7, 1871

Cit. Engels. When I mentioned Ireland I only supposed that 10,000 would be the smallest force the Government would leave in Ireland. I did not take the sentiments of the Irish into account at all.

February 14, 1871

Cit. Marx. The recognition of the Republic was the first condition for all the rest; if that did not succeed all the rest must fail. France was internationally paralysed and at home, too, while Prussia had Russia at her back. The moment the Republic was proclaimed everybody in France became enthusiastically republican. Had the Republic been recognised then it would have had a chance to succeed. But when no recognition came they turned back. The propertied class had an interest rather to see Prussia victorious than the Republic. They are well aware that sooner or later the Republic must have become socialistic and therefore they intrigued against it, and these intrigues have done more for Prussia than Moltke and his generals. Well, no one has shown in this discussion that the recognition of the Republic was not the first point. Next, the Cannon Street meeting was not a meeting of the wealthy citizens of London, it was the small middle class who never had any influence. They may either support the great capitalists against the people or join the working class; they cannot do anything by themselves, but when they join the working class they must not be permitted to lead, because they are dangerous leaders. They hate the Republic and would not recognise it, but they were afraid of Prussia, therefore they were for war. Cit. Eccarius talked about protesting against the dismemberment of France; without threatening war [it] would have been useless; that had nothing to do with it. We protested in our address and the Germans protested but that was only a moral protest; the British Government could not protest until Prussia had been victorious and formally demanded those provinces, and it was impossible to believe that this Government would seriously oppose the dismemberment.

Then Cit. Cohn seems to entertain strange notions about the working men’s agitation. When the workmen go to Gladstone to hear his opinion they must take that as an ultimate decision and give up. He also thinks that more could have been done if Parliament had been sitting. That was the best thing that Parliament was not sitting. The recognition of the Republic was a simple executive act. Had Parliament been sitting Gladstone would have shoved [it] off his own shoulders onto those of the majority and there would have been a thousand reasons to support him to one against it. A change of government might have necessitated an election and the Liberals don’t care about buying the free electors too often. I am quite sure, if the working men had persevered and not allowed doctrinary middle-class speakers to meddle, they might have succeeded. There was not half the energy thrown into this movement that there was some time since in a beer row. All things in England are carried by pressure from without. Cit. Milner spoke as if the Germans would be offended if the English insisted on the recognition of the French Republic. Quite the contrary: they believe the English have not gone far enough. Hundreds have been imprisoned and the only people they could look to for moral support were the English work-people but they did not get in the way they ought to have done. As to monarchy against republic, there was one monarchical army against another in the beginning; there was nothing about republic, and the French army was supposed to be the stronger. When all the French standing army disappeared everybody thought the French would have to give in, in a few days no monarchy could have assisted [against] the Prussians. It was the absence of a monarch alone, the Republic, that has done it for five months, and if there [had] been no treason and no intriguing they would have kept up longer.

The third point that has come out is that middle-class republics have become impossible in Europe. A middle-class government dare not interfere so far as to take the proper revolutionary measures for defence. It is only a political form to develop the power of the working class. The last elections in France and the proceedings of the middle class in Germany prove that they rather have a military despotism than a republic. In England there is the same fear. Republicanism and middle-class government can no longer go together.

I now come to the war itself. After the capitulation of Sedan Bismarck was in a difficulty. The king had told the German Parliament and the French people.that he only made war against Napoleon in self-defence. But after Sedan it was no [longer] more for defence than the French had been. I know that Bismarck worked as hard to bring about the war as Napoleon, the defence was only a pretext. But after Sedan he wanted a new pretext. The German middle class was doubtful whether it was not time to stop but Bismarck found that there was no recognised government to make peace with, therefore he must go to Paris to make peace. It was the height of impudence for him [to] say what government the French would recognise and what they would not but it answered his purpose. Money-makers are always worshippers of success, and the German middle class being afraid of the Republic, [he] secured their support, that of the aristocracy he was sure of beforehand. It was Bismarck’s interest that England should not recognise the Republic because England was the only power that could oppose him, but he reckoned on Gladstone and the Court relations. To be mother-in-law of the Emperor of Germany was no small thing, so England followed in the footsteps of the Holy Alliance. When Gladstone was taxed by the working men’s deputation about the haste with which Napoleon had been recognised, he baffled them by mixing up dates and confounding the recognition after the coup d’état by Palmerston with that of Derby after the plebiscite. He told the working men he had gone as far as he could, and he made a merit of not having broken off diplomatic relations. He could have gone as far as America. His colleagues, Bruce, Lowe and Cardwell, made hostile demonstrations against the Republic by stating that England could only employ moral force without. The only place where England can employ physical force is Ireland. Then the German press was ordered to insult England about selling stores to the French. When Bernstorff called Granville to account he equivocated and said he would inquire and then found it was all right and legal. He knew that before, only he had not the pluck to say so. Then the British Government, at the instance of Bernstorff, confiscated the French cable, which an English judge afterwards pronounced to be illegal. After the capitulation of Metz Russia thought it was time to show her partnership which was shown in the renunciation of the Treaty of Paris. Immediately after [this] came the repudiation of the Treaty of Luxembourg and the settlement of Rumania in the principalities, which were all insults to England. And what did Gladstone do? He sent a plenipotentiary extraordinary to Bismarck to ask his advice. Bismarck advised a conference in London and even Gladstone felt that it would be no use without France because without France the treaty breakers would be in the majority. But France could not be admitted without recognising the Republic, and therefore Bismarck had to prevent it. When Auberon Herbert asked Gladstone in the House he again shuffled out and falsified the facts and ignored the most important part. Pious people always do a deal of sinning. From the Blue Book it appears [that] when the English Government asked for a pass for Favre, Bismarck answered that France was internationally incapable of acting, before that was removed it would be useless to take any steps to admit her to Conference. Non-recognition was the means of isolating the English Government.

February 21, 1871

Cit. Marx then called the attention of the Council to the report of his speech in The Eastern Post and the slovenly way in which it was put together. If his name had not been misprinted he should have considered it his duty to write to the editor. The report stated “the moment the Republic was proclaimed everybody in France was enthusiastically republican, but no recognition came and a reaction set in”. There was no sense whatever in it. He had on the contrary stated that the Republic had been recognised by Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium and other countries and that the enthusiasm of the people had been so great that the opponents had been obliged to pretend to be in favour of it; and he had particularly mentioned that the judge of the High Court of Blois had played the Republican. The report went on: “the bourgeoisie had no interest in making the Republic succeed, they are well aware that sooner or later the social question must be dealt with.” This was altogether different from what he had said, which was that the Republic must become socialistic. Then the report went on: “none of the advocates of war have shown that the recognition of the Republic was the first condition to all the rest”, which ought [to be] “not the first condition”.

About his remarks upon what other speakers had said the reporter had not taken the trouble to say who spoke, so that it was difficult to distinguish who had spoken. The remark attributed to him about Cit. Cohn was tantamount to an insult. Further the report said that it was “the absence of a monarch that inspired the people”; he had distinctly stated “the absence of monarchy”, which was quite a different affair. The devil should understand such reports. Then that England use “more force” without, which might be a misprint of “moral force”.

Again it was reported that Bismarck had said, “the French had not recognised that Government and it was the height of impudence for him to say what Government should be recognised by the French”. No mention was made that he [Marx] had said that everybody in France had recognised and obeyed the Government and that it was the height of impudence for Bismarck to say they had not.

Then it is reported that the admission of France to the Conference would be tantamount to recognition. This was a penny-a-liner’s remark, not his [Marx’s]; the conclusion was altogether falsified. It was because the Government was not recognised that it was internationally incapable. The report differs also from the Minutes. Such reports could only do injury, and if any more of that sort were published he should move that no more be printed.

March 7, 1871

Cit. Marx then recurred to the question of the Declaration of Paris. He said if the English working people did not speak out, that Declaration might be made an article of a treaty and the people of England must not be disarmed in their foreign policy, and there was no time to be lost: an English committee ought to be formed at once. For a maritime power the only way to make war was to make war against the foreign commerce of the enemy. America had not consented to that Declaration but the French had observed it and that was the reason the French fleet had done so little. Holland was now put forward to ask that that what was formerly only a declaration be made a part of the treaty. On the sea only goods could be destroyed but in a war in the interior an amount of fixed capital, such [as] bridges, buildings, etc., were destroyed which it took years to replace. Letters of mark were another affair; they were the francs tireurs of the sea. The ruling class of this country had lost the power of national defence without, and at the moment when France was powerless England represented the West of Europe, and the working class of England must regain the power.

March 14, 1871

Cit. Marx then resumed the adjourned debate. He said it was of the greatest possible consequence to find an antagonist for the military powers of the Continent. They were again in the position of the Holy Alliance, and England was the only power that could oppose them and she could only do it by regaining her maritime rights. Confiscating their goods in neutral ships would ruin their foreign commerce in a few weeks and then the German middle class would not be quite so warlike, as it had lately been. This kind of warfare was more humane than war in its general aspects. By the Paris Declaration the military powers said virtually to England: you must make war in our way, not in yours. There had [been] much said against privateers but they were as good as francs tireurs and required less government power. When Butler had advocated war with England people had said America could not go to war without a navy, to which Butler had replied: we want no navy, we only require privateers. It was a matter of indifference with the present rulers of England whether they had that power or not but they would not always rule and [it] was necessary for a power of the English people to be employed for the benefit of the people of the Continent. Stuart Mill had been for the Declaration of Paris but some papers had been sent to him and he had now turned against it. The whole Black Sea Conference had turned upon getting this Declaration sanctioned. Before, it had only been privately agreed to by Palmerston and Clarendon but the protocol signed on the previous day as to stipulations seemed to include it.

Cit. Engels said it was hardly worthwhile to go on as Cit. Weston to whose remarks he wanted to reply was not present. As to the Paris Declaration, Cit. Marx had already pointed out that it had only been a private agreement. It had never been acknowledged by any statesman or Parliament, nobody had said that it was binding. In 1862 Cornewall Lewis had declared that it was not binding. In 1867 the present Lord Derby had declared in answer to Stuart Mill that it was only binding in a way but that self-defence overawed all compacts. It had never been ratified and only rested on the authority of a private letter of a minister; no one was bound by it. This was clear from the fact that at every war the belligerent powers themselves had, by special agreements, bound themselves. But the Conference had signed a protocol that henceforth treaties and stipulations should be binding until they were relinquished by common consent. The war between France and Germany had proved that the present fortresses were insufficiently protected against bombardment and that by detached forts the fortresses themselves could be saved, and there were to be some forts erected in Poland. The Russian armaments were continued with unabated zeal and were on the last step from a peace to a war footing. The telegraph and sanitary companies were being organised. There was a Russian loan in the English market for £12,000,000, which was already oversubscribed and was probably the last English money Russia would get. We might have war before the summer was over—it did not look very peaceful. Referring to what had been said during the discussion, he said the only point that had been disputed was that an English army would not have been sufficient for intervention. The strong language of which Cit. Weston had spoken had not been used by him. He then showed again that England could only bring out a force of 30,000; only at the battle of the Alma the English had numbered 33,000 and that figure they had never reached again during the Crimean war. This was only equal to Prussian army corps, and [to] suppose that such a force could have turned the scales was absurd. The English were as brave as any and there was individual bravery in every country but the men had different qualifications and the mode they exercised them was different. Some were best for attack, others best for defence. The Irish were the best men for light infantry, the English for ... but the military authorities here treated the English like the Irish and the Irish like the English. The English system of training was so incomplete and antiquated that never until the present war had men been trained in outpost duty at Aldershot. It had been said that 100,000 Englishmen would not have put up with being locked up in Paris. What could soldiers like our volunteers have done to prevent it? The French had had enough of such soldiers, and if 400,000 Englishmen of the same class had been locked up as the French were in Paris and led by the same jackasses and traitors they would have done the same as the French had done.

In conclusion he said England could not wage war on equal terms with the Continental powers, nor was it desirable that she should. An English soldier costs £100 a year, a Prussian only £30, therefore Prussia could keep three soldiers where England could only keep one; hence she could never compete with the military powers and he hoped she never would try to do it.

The first and the second point of the proposition .with which the discussion commenced were withdrawn and the third:—”That England remains incapable, not only of interfering with effect in Continental affairs, but also of defending herself against the Continental military despotism, so long as she does not recover the liberty of using her real war power, that is to say, her naval power, which she can recover only by the renunciation of the Declaration of Paris”—was carried unanimously.