Opposition in Germany against World War I


This video says about itself:

19 February 2013

Women Vision, Women Action – Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom at 75 Years.

By Verena Nees in Germany:

August 1914 and the myth of general enthusiasm for war in the German working class

6 August 2014

Everyone is familiar with photos of the flag-waving crowds and jubilant soldiers that are supposed to have captured the people’s universal enthusiasm for war in the first days of August 1914. This was a propaganda myth as recent scholarly publications and studies have exposed.

Today’s media attempts to use televised images to create a widespread mood in favour of military operations in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Ukraine. In the same way, the press deliberately exploited the still relatively new technology of photography in the early 20th century to provide alleged proof of the general population’s support of the German emperor’s and imperial government’s war policy. Berlin historian Oliver Janz writes in his book, 14—The Great War, published late last year: “The thesis of the general enthusiasm for war in August 1914 is one of the major historical myths of the 20th century.”

This was especially true of Germany, where right-wing circles—including Hitler’s National Socialists—have repeatedly drawn attention to the “August experience.” However, the assertion of the general enthusiasm for the war was a “result of selective perception on the part of opinion makers in the press, journalism and politics” in order to justify Germany’s entry into the war.

Oliver Janz, whose book was released to accompany BBC Two’s current eight-part “Great War Diaries” television series, presents two fundamental discoveries based on recent studies (e.g., by Wolfgang Kruse, A World of Enemies, 1997; Jeffrey Verhey, The Spirit of 1914: Militarism, Myth and Mobilization in Germany, 2000; Jean-Jacques Becker, The Great War, Paris 2004; Lawrence Sondhaus, World War One: The Global Revolution, 2011).

First, there was massive opposition to the war in Germany, especially among workers, until just before the outbreak of hostilities and even in the days that followed. The rural population was generally against the mobilisation, mainly because farmers feared losing their harvest, which had just begun. The situation was similar in France, Britain, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Russia.

In all the belligerent countries, it was mainly the bourgeois and petty bourgeois layers and intellectuals who were responsible for the blind patriotism and war fervour of the day. The war volunteers, who are repeatedly cited as evidence of the rampant war fever, consisted predominantly of grammar school and university students from the middle class, who welcomed the war as an adventure and liberation from social constraints. However, their number in August was not approaching the two million mark, as previously claimed, but only about 185,000, according to recent estimates.

Secondly, without the consent and active participation of the political adjuncts of the Second International, particularly German social democracy and the trade unions, the imperialist governments would have been unable to mount their mobilisations as rapidly as they did.

The well-known photos of jubilation were taken in the last days before the war, when student unions and supporters of national civic associations gathered on central squares, especially in university towns, sang patriotic songs, roamed the cafés and held impromptu propaganda speeches welcoming the war. Had any onlookers ventured into the side streets, where the impoverished working class families lived, they would have encountered a very different spectacle—scenes of fear, despair and anger at the preparations for war.

Newspapers were full of exuberant reports about the events of August 1, the day of the general mobilisation, when some 50,000 war supporters gathered in Berlin and the Kaiser declared in a speech that he no longer knew of any political parties, only the German people. The Frankfurter Zeitung newspaper was deeply impressed and commented on the “sort of jubilant cheering that has probably never before been heard in Berlin.” In the following days, the bourgeois press embarked on spreading the myth of national unity.

But even if the rally of August 1 was the largest patriotic gathering ever witnessed in the capital, it drew only a fraction of the people who had participated in an anti-war assembly of workers staged by the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) four days earlier.

“In no country in July 1914 did more people take to the streets to protest against the war as they did in Germany,” writes Oliver Janz. In the last week of July, the SPD had organised hundreds of anti-war meetings and demonstrations in Germany, involving approximately 750,000 people. In Berlin’s Treptow Park alone, some 100,000-200,000 people assembled on July 28, a few days before the SPD’s approval of the war credits. The huge crowds at these demonstrations were far greater than in previous social-democratic rallies, despite being usually held on working days and lacking a lengthy preparatory campaign.

“The war thus met with widespread opposition from the German workforce,” states Oliver Janz, adding: “[B]ut the largest socialist party in the world failed to use this potential to exert enormous pressure on the administration of the Reich (empire). Instead, the party’s leadership bowed down to a nationwide ban on demonstrations towards the end of July. Its followers were therefore no longer able to shape the prevailing image of the population to the extent that would have reflected the party’s actual strength.”

This clearly contradicts the self-justification, propagated most notably by social democratic politicians and historians and alleging that the SPD had adapted itself to the general patriotic mood of the population in 1914. Oliver Janz explicitly argues against such interpretations and writes: “The leaders of the socialist parties were … in no way forced by their grassroots to support the war and make a truce with the bourgeoisie.”

On the contrary, it was the complete subordination of the SPD leadership to German imperialism that paralysed the working class and subordinated it to the war policies. On August 4, the SPD Reichstag (parliament) faction voted for the state’s procurement of war credits, just as the French socialists did the day before. The SPD struck a “truce” with the imperial government and renounced any fundamental criticism of government policy. When the Reichswehr (German imperial army) invaded Belgium and committed brutal crimes against the civilian population, a majority of the SPD parliamentary group refused to condemn the violation of Belgian neutrality.

Immediately after August 4, the SPD leadership shifted to the chauvinist course of fatherland defence, combining this with a smear campaign against Russia in their numerous broadsheets. Europe had to be liberated from the “stronghold of reaction,” tsarism—not by means of mass strikes and revolution as in 1905, but with the weapons of the capitalist state.

This was likewise seen as a struggle against “Russian barbarism, for the defence of German cultural heritage, in order to protect German women and children,” wrote socialist deputy Otto Braun in his diary on August 5. Or, he asked, are we supposed to sit back and watch as “hordes of drunken Russian Cossacks traipse through German halls, turn German women and children into martyrs, and tread German culture under foot?”

A group led by social democratic deputies Paul Lensch and Heinrich Cunow developed the view that opposing German and English fundamental principles were at the core of the conflict. The German state—with its strict military tradition, general education and conscription, universal suffrage and war economy—was said to correspond to a “socialised society,” whereas England stood for an unbridled liberal market economy. A victory for the German Reich over England would be tantamount to the overcoming of the “world bourgeois” by the “world proletariat.”

The social democratic trade union leaders, in particular, adopted this view and tried to integrate it into the bourgeois state. They welcomed the state-controlled war economy as “war socialism” and were accepted by the authorities taking on responsibilities in the economic field. In 1916, the Auxiliary Service Law codified the establishment of workers’ committees in factories, an initial form of the later co-determination bodies.

A particularly pernicious role in the August drive for war was played by numerous academics, philosophers, writers and artists, some of whom had professed radical opposition to bourgeois society prior to 1914. This was also the case in France and especially Italy, where large sections of the intellectual “avant-garde”—from the Futurists to D’Annunzio, the star of the fashionable aestheticism—called for the rejection of Italian neutrality and participation in the war. Benito Mussolini, a radical socialist of the time and future fascist leader, counted himself part of this movement, and was expelled from the Italian Socialist Party for his advocacy of war in November 1914.

Many artists and Expressionist writers in Germany welcomed the war—for example, Franz Marc, August Macke, Max Beckmann, Richard Dehmel and Herwarth Walden, who edited the avant-garde Sturm magazine and composed a military march at the beginning of the war. Many volunteered. From August, a veritable spiritual mobilisation began, for which the term “ideas of 1914” was coined—in contrast to the “ideas of 1789” (i.e., liberty, equality, fraternity) of the French Revolution.

The infamous September “Manifesto of the Ninety-Three,” signed by 93 leading representatives of German culture and science, defended the German invasion of Belgium. The manifesto denied the atrocities suffered by Belgian civilians at the hands of the German military and condoned the destruction of parts of the old university town of Leuven, where the library with its irreplaceable medieval books and manuscripts was put to flame.

Distributed internationally, the text contained statements like: “Without German militarism, German culture would long since have been eradicated from the face of the earth,” and “The German Army and the German people are one.” Among the signatories of the manifesto were such well-known artists as Gerhart Hauptmann, Max Liebermann, Max Reinhardt, Richard Dehmel, Max Halbe, and also architect and Bauhaus precursor Bruno Paul, as well as famous scientists such as Max Planck, Wilhelm Röntgen and Ernst Haeckel.

The “Manifesto of the Ninety-Three” was followed on October 16 by a “Declaration of the University Teachers of the German Reich,” whose more than 4,000 signatories comprised almost the entire teaching staff of the German universities. The war propaganda was resisted by only a few eminent figures, such as Albert Einstein and professor of medicine Georg Friedrich Nicolai, who authored a counter-proclamation, the “Manifesto to the Europeans,” but could not publish it in Germany due to a lack of support from other academics.

“The German intellectuals’ uncritical attitude to their own political and military leadership severely damaged the international reputation of German science and culture,” laments Oliver Janz. He attributes this attitude to the “grave consciousness of crisis” and cultural pessimism that had obsessed intellectuals prior to 1914. Behind this mind-set, as Jan rightly observes, “was often an elitist repudiation of the masses and their demand for participation in social and political life, which threatened the privileged position of the bourgeois intelligentsia.”

23 thoughts on “Opposition in Germany against World War I

  1. Pingback: Margaret Bondfield, British pro-peace World War I heroine | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  2. Pingback: War is not peace, lesson of World War I | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  3. Pingback: German militarism reviving | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  4. Pingback: A Welsh miner’s story, killed in World War I | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  5. Pingback: United States anti World War I activist Scott Nearing | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  6. Pingback: German intellectuals’ World War I collaboration with militarism | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  7. Pingback: Australian government’s war propaganda for primary school children and toddlers | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  8. Pingback: British anti-World War I people on stage | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  9. Pingback: Ireland, World War I, and capitalism and democracy today | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  10. Pingback: English anti-World War I resistance on stage | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  11. On December 2, 1914, Karl Liebknecht, a leading representative of the revolutionary and internationalist tendency that had emerged from the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), voted against war credits in the Reichstag.

    His stand was the most public rejection within Germany of the betrayal of socialist internationalism by the SPD to that date. Along with most of the Second International, the SPD had repudiated its previous commitment to oppose imperialist war, supporting its “own” ruling elite when the war broke out on August 4.

    Liebknecht, despite opposing the SPD’s support for the war, had initially voted for German war credits on August 4, citing party discipline. The SPD’s capitulation reflected the intense pressure of the nationalist war hysteria that had been promoted by the entire political establishment, along with the fact that the most authoritative leaders of the party, including Karl Kautsky, effectively sanctified the SPD’s betrayal.

    On August 4-5, immediately after the SPD’s betrayal, Rosa Luxemburg and six other revolutionary opponents of the imperialist war, including Franz Mehring, met and founded the embryo of the Gruppe International (International Group). The following week, Liebknecht also joined the group. In mid-September, he travelled to Belgium, where he attempted to visit Leuven, a town that was being ravaged by the German army. He was turned away by authorities, returning to Germany a vocal opponent of its military operations in Belgium. Over the following weeks, he and other members of the group campaigned within the SPD against support for the imperialist war.

    On December 2, Liebknecht issued a statement to the Reichstag, outlining his opposition to the war credits. Officials refused to allow it to be read, or to enter it into the parliamentary record. It declared:

    “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.”

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/12/01/twih-d01.html#50

    Like

  12. Pingback: Britons against World War I | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  13. Pingback: British feminist Sylvia Pankhurst’s anti-World War I Christmas party | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  14. Pingback: Anti-war comics about World War I | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  15. On March 25, 1915, Karl Liebknecht, a leader of the revolutionary wing of German Social Democracy (SPD), was mustered into the German army and assigned to the eastern front despite his immunity as a member of the Reichstag, the German parliament.

    On March 23 Liebknecht had been ordered to place himself at the disposal of the German military authorities, an action that was attributed to Liebknecht’s outspoken opposition to the imperialist war, which had reached a high point in his refusal to vote for war credits.

    Liebknecht was barred from appearing at political or public meetings of any kind. He was also ordered to cease writing newspaper and magazine articles criticizing German military measures and to consider himself under military surveillance.

    In December 1914 Liebknecht was the only SPD deputy (parliamentary member) who voted against the war in the Reichstag, winning him enormous prestige among growing numbers of workers. Fearing his influence, the opportunist majority in the leadership of German Social Democracy publicly denounced this vote as a “breach of discipline.”

    Under the impact of the war, a far larger opposition began to emerge within the SPD, which was reflected by growing opposition among Reichstag deputies. In March 1915, 25 SPD deputies voted against further war credits.

    In his Reichstag speech in December 1914, Liebknecht declared, “This war was not desired by any of the people affected, nor was it kindled to promote the welfare of the German or any other people. It is an imperialist war, a war for capitalist domination of the world markets and for political domination of the important countries in the interest of industrial and financial capitalism. …It is also a bonapartist attempt to demoralize and destroy the growing labor movement.”

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/03/23/twih-m23.html#100

    Like

  16. Pingback: New Zealanders shun governmental World War I propaganda | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  17. 100 years ago: Revolutionary socialists publish first issue of Die Internationale in Germany

    On April 15, 1915, a small group of revolutionary socialists in Germany who had opposed the imperialist world war that began in August 1914 published the first and only issue of Die Internationale (The International). Led by well-known Marxists Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, and Franz Mehring, the Gruppe International (International Group) opposed the betrayal of socialist internationalism by the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), which had responded to the outbreak of war by supporting the military actions of its “own” government.

    The newspaper was published under the most difficult of conditions. Luxemburg had been imprisoned on February 18, for her opposition to the war, while Liebknecht had been drafted into the German army in late March, in an attempt to politically silence him. The SPD leadership did nothing to oppose the attack on either revolutionary leader. When the paper was released, the German censor moved to confiscate all copies, and the Public Prosecutor charged those involved in its publication with high treason.

    The paper featured Rosa Luxemburg’s article, “The Rebuilding of the International,” on the betrayal of the German social-democrats and the Second International, of which the SPD was the largest and most influential party. It declared:

    “With the outbreak of the world war, word has become substance, the alternative has grown from a historical tendency into the political situation. Faced with this alternative, which it had been the first to recognize and bring to the masses’ consciousness, Social Democracy backed down without a struggle and conceded victory to imperialism. Never before in the history of class struggles, since there have been political parties, has there been a party that, in this way, after fifty years of uninterrupted growth, after achieving a first-rate position of power, after assembling millions around it, has so completely and ignominiously abdicated as a political force within twenty-four hours, as Social Democracy has done.”

    Luxemburg declared that the alternatives facing the working class were, “either Bethmann-Hollweg (the German Chancellor) – or Liebknecht. Either imperialism or socialism as Marx understood it.”

    The issue also carried an article by Luxemburg, under the pseudonym “Mortimer,” exposing the pro-imperialist character of SPD theoretical leader, Karl Kautsky’s latest writings on the war, and his claim that “modern democracy” (i.e., bourgeois democracy) was the goal of the socialist movement.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/04/13/twih-a13.html#100

    Like

  18. Pingback: Industrial Workers of the World, Bill Haywood, Joe Hill, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  19. Pingback: Racism and anti-racism in Germany | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  20. Pingback: German Liebknecht’s anti-World War I speech | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.