weakening their strength by mutual controversies.

This turned the course of our conversation to the possibility of doing something at the Brussels Finance Conference for the economic reconstruction of Germany. My informant summed up the French stand on this subject as follows:

'We can negotiate only on a basis of the provisions of the treaty. Our experience so far has made us believe that Germany is trying by every means in its power to evade fulfilling those conditions. Up to the present time Germany has made no serious efforts to comply with any one of its important obligations to the full extent of its power. We are in a position to estimate what Germany can do. For example, we made concessions in the matter of coal deliveries such as were demanded by conditions in Germany itself. The last time we did this was in postponing the April shipments. But even when we lightened these obligations Germany does not fulfill them. We have not received the mine timbers, which we have the right to demand under the treaty, for repairing our own mines. You Germans tell us that you cannot get such timbers at home, but we know that you are selling timber of the same kind to Switzerland. We demand under the treaty a resumption of through railway service. The German government tells us that a certain number of trains will be put on; but, in fact, only two of them are actually started. The omission of the others is excused on the ground of technical difficulties. I could multiply such instances indefinitely. In view of such an attitude on Germany's part, we must insist upon the exact fulfillment of the treaty. That treaty was not made by France alone. It would have been a very different treaty if

France had concluded it independently with Germany. But we have accepted it in the end, and Germany likewise has accepted it. We must observe it, and Germany too must observe it. But it would be much easier for both countries if Germany would produce serious evidences of its honest intentions of meeting us half way. If that could be done, our negotiations would promise the best results. We would then be quite ready to talk over all these subjects with the Germans in a friendly conference, and work out some way of carrying out the treaty in a friendly coöperative spirit.'

Hereupon, I remarked that a great many Germans believed that the recovery of normal business conditions in every country depended primarily upon aid from England, and that men frequently spoke of closer commercial relations with England or with France as alternatives of which the former was obviously to be preferred, because England is a richer and more highly developed industrial country. In reply to this my informant said:

'It would carry us too far afield to discuss this subject as fully as it deserves. I wish only to say that England is not in a situation where it can rescue Germany without securing for itself direct control of German works and factories. The Germans should bear in mind that England never bestows favors for nothing. The only country which possesses sufficient financial strength to undertake so immense a task is the United States. So far as I am informed, no disposition exists in that country to make heavy engagements in Europe. The Germans should also bear in mind that Europe is bound together by its common distress, and that its wisest policy is to work out its own salvation by its united efforts.'

Moscow, March 30.-The subsidized press of France, which has regularly had the honor to excel the press of every other country in its hateful attacks on the proletarian government of Russia, shows at last some signs of a dawning sense of reality.

For instance, when the official English wireless, in an effort to justify its refusal to resume diplomatic relations with the Soviet government, cited the alleged criminal propaganda conducted by Bolshevist envoys in Switzerland and London-propaganda which ostensibly had 'compelled' their expulsion from those countriesL'Homme Libre quite appropriately called attention to their having forgotten that Joffe had been expelled from Berlin by a clique of Imperialist Socialists, and showed up in excellent style the way the former ambassador of the Soviets had violated the treaty of Brest-Litovsk by taking active part in the revolutionary propaganda against William II. A second example occurred in Le Temps of January 24, undoubtedly inspired by the oversight of L'Homme Libre in referring to Joffe, when that prominent journal remarked that events in Russia usually belied every metaphor applied to them, whether it was 'steam roller' or 'barbed-wire palisade,' concluding with the sad observation: 'How can we assume that an army composed almost entirely of Russians and officered by Russians, and directed by a government firmly seated at Moscow, does not represent Russia?'

This is not precisely a Red army 'commanded by German officer adventurers,' and composed of lawless refugees, Austrians, Germans, Turks, Hungarians, and Chinamen, which the Paris press had hitherto kept before the eyes of its readers. That means some progress. So it looks as if we might expect our enemies, so ar as their blind class-hatred permits, eventually to show at least a minim um of regard for truth and honesty. This possibility is increased by the fact that Paris, as well as Rome and London, is, willingly or unwillingly, being forced to consider resuming commercial relations with Russia. French capitalists, being brought face to face with their own ruin, are beginning to see that this may be a question of life and death for them. Consequently, whatever they may pretend, these gentlemen at last are contemplating a resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet government; for without that, commercial relations are inconceivable.

Perhaps, however, even this slight reversion toward reason is too much to expect. For it looks as though the French bourgeoisie still persisted in its mad hallucination of seeing everything red, and, to put it in its simplest form, in identifying Bolshevism with German Imperialism. Lenin and Ludendorff mean the same to them. Their old corroding hatred survives intact. I am not referring to the fantastic imaginings in Le Matin, concerning the alleged 'historical session of

January 25,' when the Soviet government is supposed to have decided to send peace proposals to Poland, in spite of the violent opposition of a group of 'German reactionaries'— who have such tremendous influence at Moscow (!!!).

That yarn, worthy of the pen of a humorist, is perhaps the masterpiece of such literature. From the first line to the last it does not contain a single statement which is true. One amusing detail is that none of the commissioners mentioned in the article actually holds the office or performs the duties ascribed to him.

Side by side with this amusing canard, which throws a comic light upon the quality of French 'information' about Russia, there are more serious comments in Le Temps, which sees, for example, in the heroic effort made by the government of workers and peasants in Russia to restore an industry ruined by three years of imperialist warfare and two years of still more frightful civil war, complicated by sabotage and conspiracies-a peculiar manifestation of Russian mentality. These efforts recall with singular distinctness, in this paper's opinion, the system of Frederick the Great, and are peculiarly adapted to serve the purposes of Ludendorff. Apparently that official journal is still obsessed by its vision of that 'group of German reactionaries' which, if it reigns here at all, certainly reigns most invisibly and most mysteriously.

But there are still better things. Since it is difficult, even with the best will in the world, to attack the diplomacy of the proletarian republic, which is the only truly public diplomacy in the world,— the only foreign policy absolutely frank and candid in its declarations and aims,-Le Temps tries to make capital of the loyal statements of Kopp to the German people,

in which he addresses the common citizens over the heads of Scheidemann and Noske, telling them what the Workers' and Peasants' government has constantly published for two years to all the nations of the earth: that Soviet Russia is the only nation that does not seek to exploit and oppress the common people of Germany. That paper constructs upon this fragile foundation a grandiose project for uniting Russia and Germany in an alliance which will menace the peace of the world. (So that peace exists?) Evidently this great organ of French capitalism is incapable of understanding that the Russian policy proclaimed by Kopp is merely another chapter in the policy begun by Gortchakoff, Isvolsky, and Sazonoff concerning whose projects and com binations that paper has been called to meditate many times in the past It is not surprising that in these days such speculations do not convince anyone. In order to lend them a least a shade of probability, Le Temp. again recurs to the alleged rule o Pan-Germanism in Moscow.

In another issue we have the mor plausible suggestion of a project t colonize Siberia systematically, sug gested to the Soviet government by Berlin. From this hypothesis L Temps reasons out by a process o irrefutable logic, in its issue of Febru ary 8, this thought-compelling form ula, which it hurls at the head, no only of Lenin's government, but our French Socialists: 'Internationa interests, class interests, are made su perior to national interests; the inter ests of all, and international interests too often shelter German interests."

In truth this is an excellent formul and I gladly use it with the followin more precise definition: "The interes of international capital, the interes of the bourgeoisie governing classe

is made superior to the national interest of France; the interest of all, and the interest of international capital, too often shelter Pan-German interests and the militarist reactionary plans of the Prussian Junkers.'

Let me explain here, once and for all, that every effort has been made to represent Bolshevism as the tool of German Imperialism, because it was necessary at all costs to make it hateful in the eyes of the French masses. This was a low political manœuvre, but a manoeuvre so crude and maladroit as to reveal the straits to which the French bourgeoisie is driven to bolster up its unstable authority.

And so, gentlemen war-profiteers, in attempting as you have done to malign Russian Bolshevism, you pretend to defend France against German Imperialism?

Very well, let me ask you these questions. In May, 1918, M. Noulens, French ambassador at Vologda, decided, on his own initiative and against the urgent advice of his French military advisers, who had seen the situation on the front and insisted up to the last moment in urging the speediest possible transfer of the Czecho-Slovaks to France, to hurl the Czecho-Slovaks against the first units of the Red army, in order to precipitate armed intervention against the Bolshevist government. These were the very units which the Soviet Republic was drilling to send to the assistance of the revolting peasants and workmen of the Ukraine, in their uprising against Skoropadsky and the German military dictatorship. These German militarists were at this time endeavoring at every cost to maintain Germany's control over the Ukraine, in order to secure the foodsupplies indispensable if Imperial Germany was to make its last great effort against France and win the war! In whose interest did the French ambas

sador conduct this manoeuvre? Was it in the interest of France or of German militarism?

When, late in August, 1918, I informed M. Grenard of my firm conviction, supported by definite evidence, that the Bolsheviki not only were not German agents, but that they were contributing more effectively by their propaganda to break down Prussian militarism than Kerensky had by his fruitless and bloody offensive, our consul general at Moscow answered me as follows:

'We must force a policy of intervention. Our interest in discrediting Bolshevism in the eyes of Western Europe is superior to every other interest.'

Whose cause was he serving then? Was it the cause of France or the cause of international capitalism against France?

When, upon quitting Vologda shortly before the Allies disembarked at Archangel, M. Noulens telegraphed to Moscow: 'You shall not engage under any circumstances in negotiations with the Bolshevist government in case it tries to deal with you'; and again, when our ex-ambassador scornfully, and actuated solely by classhatred, refused his aid to the Soviet government when the latter was at the point of being compelled to surrender to German Imperialism at Brest-Litovsk, whose interests was he serving, the interests of France or those of French and German capital against France?

When the French government continued obstinately to support Denikin, even though it had definite proof that this general was in constant communication with reactionary military leaders in Germany, and was aiding their cause, and even though it was fully aware that Denikin was looking forward, in case he succeeded, to the

possibility of creating a formidable coalition of two neighboring military monarchies, which would inevitably be hostile to France, whose interest was the government really serving? Was it looking out primarily for France, or for reaction the world over, and first and foremost for Pan-German reaction, whose victory would mean infallibly, and perhaps in a few months, preparations for a new war against France itself?

Whose interest, moreover, was General Niessel defending, when after Judenich had been completely crushed in his attempt to capture Petrograd, he made one more effort to extort from the Esthonian government leave to transport from East Prussia, by way, of the sea and Esthonian territory, the volunteer corps commanded by Bermont? This project was defeated by the resolute refusal of the Esthonian government. Whose interest was he serving when he aided by every means in his power this same Bermont to strengthen his forces with new recruits from German territories? General Niessel then had in his hands complete proof that Bermont was in open communication with Von der Goltz, and through that gentleman with Von Lüttwitz, Ludendorff, and Colonel Bauer; thus maintaining regular military connection with Berlin. The inter-Allied Council at its conference in Riga, August 26, approved employing Bermont, though it knew perfectly well that he was equipped, armed, and supported by Junker military reactionaries in Germany; and they did not finally decide to insist upon his withdrawing from Baltic territory until formal protests were made by the British military representative, who discovered that Bermont was acting under the direct orders of Denikin when he tried to occupy Lettland and Esthonia; and

that his purpose was to prevent a contingency which Denikin feared, namely, the seizure of the islands of Dogo and Oesel by England.

Knowing of all these things, the military representative of France, even after the defeat of Judenich, tried to utilize Bermont and to reopen the gates of the Baltic provinces to Prussian militarism, so as to provide him an opportunity to fortify and establish himself there, whence he would have been in a position to back up just such a military revolt as has recently occurred in Berlin. He did this at the very time when M. Noulens, our former ambassador, was using all his influence, under the pretext of the danger presented by German militarism, to persuade Poland to attack the Russian Soviet Republic!

I have presented here only a few significant facts selected from thousands of others. For it is the whole foreign policy of the representatives of France in Russia, and in the countries adjoining Russia, during every day of the last two years, which should be pilloried in public.

That policy has been constantly and uninterruptedly a series of manœuvres directed against the vital interests of France itself. We need not worry as to the way history will deal with these acts. It will deal with them as it has already dealt with the infamous legend that Bolshevism is an agent of German Imperialism. But one page still remains to be written. That page will tell the story of how for more than two years we have worked systematically and industriously to sacrifice the interests of France to those of its governing class, which rather than renounce a single one of its privileges or a single sou of its war-profits, has lightheartedly and with tranquil conscience driven France into disastrous foreign adventures and catastrophes,