Page:The New Europe - Volume 5.pdf/218

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
The New Europe]
[22 November 1917

AN APPEAL TO THE RUSSIAN SOVIET

freedom, but also the union of peoples. Here the instructions are opposed to the interests, a whole number of peoples; the Poles, the Czecho-Slovaks, the Roumanians, the Jugoslavs, the Italians. Thus the instructions recognise in words the principle of self-determination of peoples, but in reality only propose its realisation through existing States. Thus it accepts the superior importance of the State over that of nationality which is the fundamental view of German Imperialism, and is opposed even to the teachings of Socialism about the State, especially to the teachings of Engels and Marx. The instructions forget that nationality itself is social, as a people that is enslaved descends to the level of a cheap working class. For that reason the Socialists of all countries recognise nationality; it is only the Scheidemanns and Bauers who incline towards the views of German Imperialism.

“The instructions which speak of self-determination of nations are opposed to the meaning of the principles proclaimed by the Russian Revolution. The instructions protect Austria-Hungary, forgetting that it is just this State which is the cause of the present terrible war, owing to its dishonourable Balkan policy. The authors of the instructions do not know that Austria-Hungary during the war has executed from 30 to 60 thousand people; they do not know that all the politicians and deputies from the Czecho-Slovak, Italian, and other peoples were imprisoned and condemned to death; they do not know that the Germans and the Magyars maintain their supremacy by open violence both at the elections and in the administration; they do not know that the peoples of Austria and Hungary have for centuries fought for freedom and independence. Austria-Hungary represents an open organisation of violent rule by the majority over the minority, and the instructions defend even a medieval and an artificial State, defend a dynasty which, with the help of the army and of militarism, in alliance with a greedy aristocracy together with the Germans and the Magyars, keeps seven peoples in a state of slavery.

“Being in a position to choose between a degenerate dynasty and seven free peoples (containing a population of more than 30 millions) the instructions have taken the side of the dynasty. At the same time the instructions also defend Prussia and her militarism, to which the Poles and Danes have been sacrificed.

Europe and mankind have been delivered from Russian Tsarism, but the Tsarisms of Prussia and Austria are to be preserved.

“The instructions wish to re-establish Belgium by means of an international fund, as though the Allies were guilty of the war just as much as Germany and Austria. The instructions make a quite incorrect distinction between an aggressive war and a war of defence. Without going into further criticisms I would contrast the instructions with the Note of the Allies to Wilson and the explanations of Wilson, Briand, Asquith, Lloyd George, and other politicians who have understood the meaning of the war, which was caused by German aggressiveness, and have quite rightly proclaimed the democratic principle of equal rights for all peoples, not only for the great,

188