| Author(s) | Friedrich Engels |
|---|---|
| Written | October 1892 |
ENGELS TO CHARLES BONNIER
IN OXFORD
[Draft]
London, mid-October 1892
My dear Bonnier,
I have received Protot[1] —thank you. First of all, however, a correction. You say:
'whereas the French socialists are protesting against the Russian alliance and do not wish to hear about a war with Germany, Bebel in particular and you yourself are quite willing to accept the idea of a defensive war against France and Russia in which the German socialists would take part', and that 'these accusations, which are well received in France, irritate Guesde'.
If the French socialists are not expressly discussing the case of a defensive war in which they would be willing to repel an attack by the Emperor William,[2] this is because it is well known, recognised and accepted that there is no need to talk about it. There is not a single socialist in Germany who doubts that in such a case the French socialists would only be doing their duty in defending their national independence; there is not one who would hold it against them; on the contrary, they would applaud them, That is precisely the point of view in my article[3] . If I were not proceeding from the view that, should there be a foreign attack, the French socialists would take up arms to defend their homes, the whole of my article would be absurd. What I am requesting is the benefit of the same principle for the German socialists in the case of a Russian attack, even if it is supported by official France. The same holds true for Bebel's speeches. The people in France who use this as a basis for accusations against us belong to that kind who say: quod licet Jovi gallici non licet bovi Germanici[4] ; to make them see reason is, it seems to me, the task of the French socialists, and presents no great difficulty.[5]
I would also warn you that what M. Protot cites from my article is nothing but gross falsehood.
You say that the brochure is well done. I find it very weak; the end, where this joker poses as an economist is more than grotesque. If he has a strong point, it is the royal disdain which he pours out on his readers. Indeed, one must assume that one's readers are incurable idiots in order to dare to offer them such a collection of palpable falsehoods (in which you see only snippets) and lies contradicting one another. Is it then sufficient to put on a masque of Dérouléde in order to persuade those who create public opinion in Paris to swallow anything one wishes. Has Boulangism 6 survived Boulanger to the point of being more powerful than during Boulanger's lifetime?
Such a collection of lies and falsehoods is, in fact, irrefutable. It would require 3,200 pages to reassert the truth against these 32 pages. There is not a single quotation of any significance which is not shamelessly distorted; it was only after comparing several texts that I had the measure of M. Protot's affrontery.
As for the literary style, I find it lamentable, in striking contrast to the assiduity with which he has collected his material. Clearly another hand was at work here. Certainly not Protot.
Nor is it, as Vorwärts believes, one of the Unabhängiger[6] . Their manifesto (Hans Müller's Klassenkampf)[7] is characterised by the lack of care he has taken in selecting his supporting texts.
Nor is it the French police; one senses that they have had a hand in it, but they are not the ones who have so interested themselves in the foreign policy of the Romanian socialists.
If M. Protot accuses the latter of being the enemies of Holy Rus, if he twice quotes the Bucharest Munca (Labour), and divulges that Nadejde de Jassi is 'Zingaro',[8] it is because he is acting in the interests of the Russian embassy, which must have supplied this information, and probably also the information on the German socialists, collected in Berlin by some attaché there.
Thus Protot's lampoon is not only in the interests of the police, but also in the interests of Russia; it is part and parcel of those frantic efforts that Russia is making to ensure a French alliance. It is Russia, in fact, which needs France. She is so completely exhausted by the social disorganisation caused by the economic transformation that she has been experiencing since 1861, by the ravages of deforestation, by the ruination of agriculture and the cottage industry, by famine and cholera, that she could not wage a war through to the end. Her finances and her credit are in a state of collapse reminiscent of France in 1788; if the western public continues to keep its purse closed, there remain only three alternatives: 1) bankruptcy, 2) the convening of a national assembly to sanction a new loan, which then might succeed in the west; 3) war as a measure of desperation—and in that last case France is necessary: once war were declared, the French army engaged, ten against one, the Tsar[9] would reach an agreement with William[10] and Francis Joseph,[11] who would hasten to meet him, and la belle France would pay the expenses of the banquet of reconciliation.