soon had vast numbers ^of members. Its activities produced no solid results in political life, but rather had the effect of further embittering internal struggles.
During 1917 food difficulties increased to an almost incalcu- lable extent. Even rye for making bread became scarce. War bread steadily deteriorated in quality through the admixture of substitutes. Gradually a state of insufficient nutrition became prevalent among the entire populace and caused particular suffering to children and the aged. The winter of 1917-8 was popularly called the " swede winter," for lack of potatoes and meat made swedes a chief article of diet. In all the great cities soup-kitchens were established, partly from communal and partly from charitable funds, in order to offer to the poorer classes at least the possibility of obtaining meals which were at all adequate. Popular anger was directed especially against food profiteering, which assumed great dimensions. All legisla- tive attempts to remedy this evil failed, because the cunning of the profiteer found ever new ways and means of evading the meshes of the law. In many places there were food riots, which were also directed against certain parts of the agricultural popula- tion, who tried to sell food at the highest possible prices. Reg- ular centres of the profiteering trade arose, in which everything that was wanted could be obtained, though at enormously high prices; while trainloads of food and other necessaries were diverted or even stolen in transit in order to find the articles for this illegal traffic. It was in vain that specially instituted war- profiteering offices strove everywhere to put a stop to this trade; it remained impossible to eradicate it. The whole community of swindlers, too, profited by this state of affairs. The prosecution of a certain Frau Meta Kupfer, which came before the courts at Berlin in July, was a characteristic example. This woman had obtained loans all over the town, for which she often paid 100 per cent or more, alleging that she made enormous profits with these sums in the (illegal) food traffic. In reality she spent the money on a life of luxury, and paid interest out of fresh loans which she raised. _ She accumulated many millions of marks before the edifice of fraud which she had erected collapsed. The lack of food caused particular suffering to the labouring classes. Following an appeal by Field-Marshal Hindenburg in Sept. for a new economic and military armament of Germany, a " Hinden- burg dole " was created in Oct. which was primarily intended for the benefit of soldiers disabled in the war. Maximum prices were fixed for a fresh series of commodities. In the spring of 1917 the consumption of bread had to be reduced to 170 grammes per head per diem, and even this quantity could not in some instances be supplied. All these circumstances materially con- tributed to create a feeling of longing for the end of the war; and this feeling, at the same time, was directed against the Gov- ernment, which was considered responsible for such conditions. Strikes also began even among the munition workers. In order to make possible the continued production of munitions, great increases of wages had to be conceded.
At the very beginning of 1918, the fight for peace began with fresh violence. The main question was whether Pros. Wilson's Fourteen Points could form the basis for a peace. On Jan. 25, the Chancellor Count von Herding announced his attitude to the Fourteen Points in the Main Committee of the Reichstag. He declared himself satisfied with them on the whole, with this restriction, that the peace must satisfy the rightful claims of Austria-Hungary, and secure the inviolability of Turkey. The nation began gradually to split into two parties, of which one rejected any disadvantageous peace, while the other conducted vigorous propaganda for peace even with concessions on the part of Germany. The deputy Erzberger became more and more prominent as the champion of this latter view. He en- tered into relations with Vienna, where the need for peace was even more urgent. In his endeavours Erzberger worked hand in glove with the Social Democratic party. The conclusion of peace with Russia furnished fresh material for the agitation of the advocates of peace. It was objected that this peace was not of such a nature as to enable Germany to hope for any con- ciliatory response from her enemies in the West. On Oct. 8,
Erzberger laid down, in the Main Committee of the Reichstag, principles for Germany's Eastern policy, which could only betoken a declaration of war against the Hertling Cabinet. The Centre party, far from siding with Erzberger, actually published a declaration to the effect that the Government enjoyed the full confidence of the party; but the difference be- tween Erzberger and Count Hertling was not thereby removed; and Hertling declined to receive Erzberger any longer.
In the spring of 1918, great attention was also aroused by a document published the previous year by the former German ambassador in London, Count Lichnowsky, who asserted in it that the German Government was responsible for the outbreak of war, while Sir Edward Grey on his side had done everything to pre- vent it. Lichnowsky in this connexion referred to a meeting of the Crown Council at Potsdam on July 5 1914, which was alleged to have been held with the Kaiser presiding, and which, accord- ing to Lichnowsky, adopted at that early date the decisions regarding the commencement of the war. The Vice-Chancellor, von Payer, declared on March 10 1918, in the Main Committee of the Reichstag, that these assertions were not in accordance with the facts, and denied that the alleged meeting of the Crown Council referred to had ever taken place. The controversy about this Crown Council was continued after the war. It was asserted again and again that it had taken place, as for instance after the Revolution by the then Bavarian Minister-President Eisner. Persons who were supposed to have been present at the Council, such as the Secretary of State von Jagow, repeatedly asserted, however, that the story of a meeting of the Crown Council on July 5 1914 was a fable (see EUROPE, section War Period).
As regards internal policy the Hertling Cabinet was the author of a number of new laws complying with some of the Social Democratic demands. Thus on June 8 the Reichstag passed a law for broadening the basis of the Reichstag. By this law the larger municipal and rural constituencies having more than 300,000 electors had alarger number of deputies assigned to them, and these were to be elected on the principle of proportional representation and scrutin de lisle. On June 6 the salaries of members of the Reichstag were raised from 3,000 marks to 5,000.
In May the president of the Reichstag, Kampf, a member of the Progressive People's party, died. Fehrenbach, a member of the Catholic Centre party, succeeded him. Dr. Scheidemann and Dr. Paasche Progressist Social Democrat and National Liberal respectively became vice-presidents. Although the relations between the Chancellor Hertling and the Reichstag remained tolerable, dissatisfaction with several of the members of the Cabinet began to arise in the Reichstag. This applied especially to Kuhlmann, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was accused by the Left of having made a policy of annexa- tion the guiding principle in concluding peace with Russia. Further, the Deutsche Tagcszeilung, an organ of the Extreme Right, raised charges regarding Kiihlmann's personal conduct during his stay at Bucharest. On June 21 Kuhlmann made a very remarkable speech in the Reichstag, in which he stated among other things that an end of the war could no longer be reached by purely military decisions. The Chancellor, Count Hertling, considered it necessary in the next sitting to contradict this assertion by pointing out that there could actually be no question of any diminution of German confidence in victory. Herr von Kuhlmann thereupon resigned, July 9. Adml. von Hintze, hitherto German minister at Christiania, was appointed his successor.
Meanwhile the Social Democrats clamoured for further prog- ress in the direction of parliamentary Government. In Sept. they presented a series of minimum demands as the price of their continued support of the Government (demands which were very far-reaching) in internal affairs, and at the same time asked for the restitution of Belgium, liberation of all territories still under occupation, and the abandonment of the treaties of Brest- Litovsk and Bucharest. On Sept. 2 1 it was reported that Bulgaria had asked for an armistice. The Social Democrats now adopted a still firmer tone against the Government, demanding a true parliamentarism as the condition of their further collaboration.
