Emperor Nicholas regarding the reception of his rescript · Discouragement in St. Petersburg · Stead’s project for a peace crusade · Count Muravieff’s second circular · The wedge driven into the peace question · The general conception and our conception · Journey to Berlin · Osten-Sacken · Formation of an information committee · Letter from Bebel · Service in honor of Egidy · Trip to Nice · Meeting with Madame Adam · Monsieur Catusse · A noteworthy Dreyfus reminiscence · My lecture · Madame Bashkirtseff · Trip to Cannes for a lecture · Lucien Murat’s visit · Return to Harmannsdorf · Correspondence with Bloch, Scipione Borghese, and D’Estournelles de Constant · Letters from Hodgson Pratt and Élie Ducommun · A plan of action suggested by Henri Dunant
Stead told me that the Emperor Nicholas, in speaking to him of his circular, had said:
“Have I had a single letter, or has a single person ever represented to me that I exaggerate the danger? Not one! they all agree that I have spoken the truth. ‘But,’ they ask me, ‘what do you propose as a preventive?’ As if it were my affair and mine alone to prescribe a remedy for a disease from which all the nations are suffering!”
Even on the peoples’ side there was not that enthusiasm which the author of the rescript might have expected. “How diminish the burdens that rest so heavily on the shoulders of the people?” he cries to his fellow-rulers, and he begs them to seek some means to avoid the evil that threatens the whole world. And what is the answer to it? The masses to whom the Emperor specially appealed remained indifferent. Although the threat of war between France and England seemed to be dispelled, the preparations were continued unabated on both sides. The German Emperor, on his return from his journey to Jerusalem, immediately insisted on increasing his army by twenty-six thousand men.
In St. Petersburg a feeling of deep discouragement prevailed. By the beginning of December the disappointment was so great that the authorities almost decided to give up the project and call instead a conference of ambassadors in that capital.
But the world had, after all, not remained so indifferent. In England mass meetings were held in behalf of the projected Conference. William T. Stead proposed the scheme of an international peace crusade. The peace societies of the Continent gave a mighty response; thus, for example, in Austria our Union provided for participation in that action by means of assemblies and public demonstrations, and for many weeks in succession the “International Peace Crusade” formed a standing rubric in the Neue Freie Presse and the Neues Wiener Tagblatt. In the same way the peace workers were bestirring themselves in other countries.
By this means, as well as through the influence of a few resolute members of the Russian government, the hope of success was again awakened in St. Petersburg, and the half-formed determination to substitute a simple gathering of ambassadors in place of the Conference was dropped; on the sixteenth of January a second circular was dispatched by Count Muravieff, once more inviting the governments to participate in the Conference as planned, and “suggesting” a programme of eight points:
1. An agreement not to increase, during a fixed period, the present strength of the armed military and naval forces, nor the budgets pertaining thereto, and a preliminary examination of the means by which a reduction might be effected in future in the forces and budgets above mentioned.
2. To prohibit the adoption, in the armies and fleets, of any new kind of firearms and explosives, or of any kinds of powder more powerful than those now in use either for rifles or cannon.
3. To restrict the use of the formidable explosives now existing, and to prohibit the throwing of projectiles or explosives of any kind from balloons or by similar means.
4. To prohibit the use, in naval warfare, of submarine torpedo boats or plungers, or other similar engines of destruction, and to adopt an agreement not to construct, in the future, vessels with rams.
5. To apply to naval warfare the definitions of the Geneva Convention of 1864 as amended by the additional articles of 1868.
6. To neutralize, in accordance with the same convention, ships and boats engaged in saving those in danger of drowning during or after an engagement.
7. To revise the declaration concerning the laws and customs of war which was elaborated in 1874 by the Conference of Brussels but has remained unratified to the present time.
8. To accept in principle the employment of the “good offices” of mediation and optional arbitration in cases lending themselves thereto, with the object of preventing armed conflicts between nations; and to come to an understanding with respect to the mode of applying these good offices, and to establish a uniform practice in using them.
It is understood that all questions concerning the political relations of states and the order of things established by treaties, and, in general, all questions which do not directly fall within the programme adopted by the cabinets, are to be absolutely excluded from the deliberations of the conference.
When the text of the second circular is compared with the first, it can be seen how much water had been poured into the fiery wine that was first offered to the world. In the first document there is no trace of points 3–7. Only in points 1 and 8 are the fundamental thoughts preserved. The other six points were evidently inserted as a result of the replies, recommendations, and opinions that Count Muravieff had gathered in his journey through Europe, and perhaps also from personal letters emanating from the various courts.
In the press, also, numerous utterances had declared that the only reasonable and positive result which could be attained by the Conference was to be found in modifying the regulations of war and in the domain of the Red Cross. Here even those who were not opponents of war and militarism would be able and willing to coöperate. Out of diplomatic consideration for such persons the six points in question were inserted. The famous military surgeon Professor Esmarch, a brother-in-law of the German Empress, worked especially hard for the Red Cross at the Conference.
By this introduction of questions concerning military customs and the humanizing of war into the deliberations of the Peace Conference, a wedge (surely not without purpose) was driven into it calculated to rob it of its individual character. That was distinctly shown in the Second Hague Conference, in 1907.
But I will not anticipate the historic evolution of things. For the time being I will confine myself to the year 1899, the last year of the departing century.
The conference was called; the date of its opening was set. Points 1 and 8 of the programme contained in essence everything that a complete revolution in accordance with the opinions of the peace champions could involve; and I remember that we—I mean my husband and myself and all our colleagues—faced the event, when it was announced, as one would face a momentous crisis full of promise, or rather already fulfilled. I was conscious of this historic phenomenon not merely as something that was taking place in the world without, but as my own inmost experience, as altogether a phase of my personal destiny. And I regarded it as “the one important thing.”
The skeptics of that day shrugged their shoulders at this notion, and even the wise ones of to-day would largely smile at it. Certainly, they might say, universal peace has not resulted from the Hague Conference; on the contrary, horrible wars followed it, and since it was called and repeated, the rivalry in increasing armaments has gone on with accelerating strength.
It is hard to make headway against such naïve arguments when they are based on succession of events rather than on their connection and their causes. There are minds on the chessboard of society which absolutely cannot see farther than from one square, from one move, to the next.
Assuredly, for the great majority the whole matter was something so novel, so unprecedented, so unexpected, and it was so unapproachable by familiar paths of thought and feeling, that the widespread misconception of it was quite natural. For the rest of us, who for years had been concentrating our labor, our thought, and our desires on this field, for us who had traced its origins and seen the bright-shining goal clearly outlined before us, for us it was just as natural to realize that the new epoch—the warless day, l’ère sans violence, as Egidy used to call it—had already come when the first steps toward its practical inauguration were taken so publicly.
In January, 1899, my husband and I went to Berlin to work there in behalf of the crusade, or at least to arrange for a meeting in behalf of the coming Conference. Our first call was on the Russian ambassador, Osten-Sacken. It was remarkable, but we found that he was no enthusiast for the affair inaugurated by his auguste maître; his wife also showed herself rather skeptical.
I addressed notes of invitation to the various leaders of political and scientific circles of Berlin to meet for a discussion. Many of the gentlemen responded to my call, and after a very interesting debate a committee was formed to take charge of public demonstrations in favor of the Peace Conference. Unfortunately, my diary of that period was not kept up, and I cannot mention by name all those who responded to my invitation and suggestion, or who declined it. I remember only that the deputies, Theodor Barth and Professor Förster,—the latter also director of the observatory,—were among the first group; that General du Verdy wrote a very sympathetic letter, and that Bebel replied with the following interesting note, which is still in my possession:
Dear Madam:
You had the kindness to invite me to call last Sunday. Unfortunately, I was unable to respond to your desire, because the letter did not tell me where you were, and I was unable to learn until it was too late.
Permit me herewith to add a few words regarding my position on the question of the Russian Emperor’s peace manifesto, since I may take it for granted that I have to attribute to this matter the honor of your letter.
The Social-Democratic party is sympathetically disposed toward the thought that underlies the manifesto. Up to the present time it has been the only party that has opposed the development of militarism in almost the same words as the Russian Emperor’s; it has been alone and consistent in upholding the idea of national brotherhood for the purpose of promoting the common interests of mankind.
The fact that now the sovereign of an empire like Russia, whose policy hitherto has demanded militarism first of all and made it necessary, should at this time appear as its opponent, is highly noteworthy, but cannot prevent us from looking upon the action with a certain distrust until it is proved by corresponding deeds that this is unjustified. The calling of the Conference, with the familiar programme lately published, is not as yet sufficient.
Moreover, there are at all events very important internal political reasons that have incited the Russian government to undertake the advocacy of the imperial plan, which otherwise would scarcely have happened. Even an absolute autocrat is not supremely powerful.
For the reason here briefly summarized, the Social-Democratic party is somewhat cool toward an agitation in behalf of the Emperor’s manifesto; it cannot by a heart-and-soul participation in this agitation undertake the responsibility for what will be said and done towards the acceptance and glorification of the Emperor’s manifesto. If representatives of the party should then wish to protest, this would only cause discord, which would be detrimental to the cause itself.
I believe, therefore, that it is in the interest of both sides to march in separate columns in this campaign, and to allow each tendency to advocate its special standpoint independently.
With great respect,
A. Bebel
While we were in Berlin a great service in honor of Egidy was held (January 29). It was inspiring and elevating.
The next day there was a public meeting called by the Berlin Peace Society, at which Dr. Hirsch, Schmidt-Cabanis the writer, and I made addresses.
In response to an invitation from the Countess Gurowska we went from Berlin for a fortnight’s visit at Château Montboron in Nice. I was to speak both at Cannes and at Nice about the approaching conference. We were met at the railway station at Nice by our hostess’s husband and General Türr. It was just at the time of the great carnival, and the two gentlemen took us to the city hall, where we had a fine view of the battle of flowers. The following day we were again invited to the city hall to witness the burning of Prince Carnival, a figure constructed of straw.
The reception rooms of the hall were crowded with distinguished guests, and among others I met Madame Juliette Adam. “You must come to-morrow to the Baroness’s lecture,” said a gentleman of our group to her. “To a lecture on peace? I?” cried the editor of La Nouvelle Revue. “Certainly not, I am for war.” I was drawn into a discussion with her, in which I defended my side in a low voice, she hers in a wrathful tone well suited to the subject discussed.
The same evening I made the acquaintance of a very sympathetic Frenchman, M. Catusse, who had just been appointed consul general for France in Sweden. He proved to be a warm fellow-champion. Our conversation—as was the case with almost all conversations at that time—turned upon the Affaire. And then he told me the following: His wife kept a diary. On one page in it, during the year 1894, it was noted that an officer who had been sitting next her at a banquet, and who had followed the trial and had the day before been present at the degradation of Alfred Dreyfus, said to her after dinner, Hier nous avons condamné un innocent (“Yesterday we punished an innocent man”).
My lecture, which I delivered under the chairmanship of General Türr, won me enthusiastic applause from a very large cosmopolitan audience. Many of the Russians who were present asked to be presented to me in order to express their appreciation; among others an elderly lady clad in deep mourning, who announced that she was the mother of Marie Bashkirtseff, that young genius who died so prematurely.
The next day I saw her in her own home, and found that it was a sort of memorial temple to the departed; on all the walls there was nothing but pictures painted by Marie Bashkirtseff, or representing Marie herself at all periods of her life and in the most varying phases, always full of beauty and charm. Neither could the sorrowful mother speak of anything else than of her famous daughter.
A few days later I gave a lecture in Cannes. Luncheon on the Arche de Noé; Italian singers on board; magnificent weather; guests Count Rochechouart, the mayor, the president of the Nautical Club, Türr, and another gentleman—I do not remember his name—with a brutal face. The table talk turns on Dreyfus.
“I do not admit,” says Count Rochechouart, “that seven officers condemned a comrade without being certain of their position.”
The Mayor: “Other people, not knowing the circumstances, have no right to express an opinion.”
The Nautical President: “A dozen bullets ought to have been sent through his body.”
Rochechouart: “I belong to only one league—it is impossible to be of another—Déroulède’s.”
The Brutal Man: “Obviously; I should like to see you being anything else.”
So these are my fellow-banqueters before a lecture on peace!
The lecture fell very flat. The hall was pretty empty. No enthusiasm. I have not often made such a miserable speech. After the lecture, which ended about four o’clock in the afternoon, we took a walk through the wonderful city of gardens.
In Nice we were rejoiced by a call which brought back sweet recollections of the beautiful days in the Caucasus. I read in the local newspaper that Prince Lucien Murat and his wife, born Princesse de Rohan, had come to make a visit to the Empress Eugénie in neighboring Cimièz. I immediately wrote a note to my former little German pupil to tell him that we were near at hand. The next day the young couple came to see us. One cloud only darkened the delight of the reunion, namely, the tragic death of Prince Achille Murat, Lucien’s father. The incident was not mentioned.
On our return to Harmannsdorf our days were filled with preparations for the journey to The Hague; I wrote numerous articles and sent letters to all points of the compass. I had buried myself in Bloch’s great work and had written him about it. In reply I received the following letter:
Warsaw, April 8, 1899
My dear Baroness:
Heartiest thanks for your kind lines. The service ascribed to me is, however, only the result of the movement against war which has been going on, and in which you personally, gracious Baroness, have taken such an important part; and I must bear witness that your personal talent, in my opinion, has accomplished more than all technical arguments can possibly accomplish.
Unfortunately I could not write you sooner because I had an unusual task to finish. Unfortunately, also, I am still so very busy that I can only send a sketch in place of the desired programme.
In my opinion it would be best for an agitation to be made, to the end that the Conference in pleno, or that single states, should inaugurate an investigation as to the possibility of carrying through a great war.
At this moment the governments are not humble enough, public opinion is not as yet ripe enough, to be able to obtain results from the Conference. It would be much more practical if the sessions could be postponed until autumn, so as to let the separate states have time for arranging investigations and preparing public opinion.
I will at all events endeavor to meet you so as to talk the matter over more in detail. I shall be in London about the fourteenth, at Hotel Cecil, and shall be at the Grand Hôtel in Paris toward the eighteenth, and there I expect to remain about a fortnight.
I will do my best to promote matters in the direction indicated.
It is impossible for me to predict to-day whether I shall be able to get to Scheveningen. At any rate I shall take the liberty of writing you in regard to this, and one of the principal motives of my desire to be there would be to have the opportunity of becoming better acquainted with you.
With genuine loyalty and respect
J. Bloch
I also asked Prince Scipione Borghese to come to The Hague, as I had just been informed that he had come out in favor of the peace cause. He wrote back:
Felice Scovolo, Lago di Garda, April 20, 1899
My dear Madam:
Your pleasant letter, which I am very late in answering, has excited our desires more than you would believe possible. To spend some time with you and un groupe du high-life pacifique, closely following the work of this Conference, which is without contradiction one of the culminating facts of the history of our century, seems to us a delicious dream.
Unhappily your interesting invitation will preserve all the beauty of a dream, which is always somewhat melancholy because of its unreality. The marriage of my youngest sister to Count Hoyos, which is to be celebrated toward the end of May in the depths of Hungary, calls us in that direction, and up to that time I am kept here by the carrying out of a social and agrarian transformation in which I am enormously interested and which keeps me at its beck and call.
As for the Conference, the idea of which is in itself so beautiful and its convocation such a great victory, I hope that the good will of certain governments may compensate for the ill will of so many others, and that the whole thing will not remain in the realm of ideas but will give us some practical fruits....
You will find in our two Italian delegates, Count Nigra and Count Zanini, two charming men who are personally very well disposed.
Sincerely yours
Scipione Borghese
I received from Paris the subjoined letter, from one who was quite unknown to me. It was the first step of an animated intercourse both epistolary and personal,—I may say of a faithful friendship and collaboration which has not yet ceased to ally me with the author, the most successful peace worker in France.
Paris, April 10, 1899
My dear Madam:
Since I have abandoned diplomacy to enter Parliament, I have begun to publish in the Revue des deux mondes a series of studies on the precarious state of Europe and on the necessity imposed on all civilized states of uniting in behalf of progress and of war on evil. These studies, the first dated April 1, 1896, the second July 19, 1897, will shortly be brought to a close by a third part, in which international arbitration and relative disarmament are brought forward as the conclusion.
My nomination as one of the French delegates to The Hague will prevent me from finishing this long work, though at the same time permitting me to make it more united. I perceive, in fact, that I still require many indispensable data not found in books. Perhaps I might obtain them by addressing myself to your kindness of heart, since you allow none of the manifestations of public opinion regarding universal peace to escape you.
This is the question that preoccupies me: Is popular sentiment in Austria-Hungary generally and personally hostile to war? No one can know that, but still one may have an impression. What is yours?
If in each country in the world a like opinion, not in the clouds but well thought out, could be obtained, with what force it could and should weigh on the governments and consequently on their delegates at the Conference.
Please accept, madam, the very respectful admiration of a Frenchman who, without knowing you, is devoted to you.
D’Estournelles de Constant
In my reply to this letter I brought up the hindrances which, through the apathetic and sometimes hostile opinions of influential persons and of the masses, were blocking the work of the Conference. From this point of view I pleaded for a continuity of the international conferences; for, while I expected everything from the development of the movement as already started, certainly not much was to be expected from this first session, made up as it was of at least as many doubters and opponents as adherents. Thereupon Baron d’Estournelles wrote me a long letter, from which I translate the following passage:
I am completely in accord with you, gracious lady, only I am somewhat more optimistic than you are with regard to the results of the Conference. I believe, and the more I think it over the more I believe, that the Conference cannot help doing some good—more than is expected of it. The members will feel the revelation of the living world, the wishes of humanity, and the nearness of the terrible dangers that threaten Europe.
None of the governments represented at The Hague will be willing to expose themselves to the unpopularity, the dissatisfaction, the ridicule, of the people, which would be evoked by a failure or a wretched, disappointing result.
Therefore, voluntarily or involuntarily, some good will be accomplished, and, once on this path, it must be pursued to the end. It will be impossible, it will be dangerous, to hold back.
The pamphlet entitled “Perpetual Peace,” by the Munich professor Von Stengel, came out. In this all the arguments of the opponents, all the glorification of war and of armaments, that have ever been brought against the notion of peace are summed up, and there is added out-and-out derision of the approaching conference daydream. And the author of this pamphlet had been nominated by the German government as its representative at the Hague Conference! This aroused great consternation in our circles, and the German peace associations protested publicly.
From Austria, Lammasch, professor of international law, and Count Welsersheimb, attached to the diplomatic service, were appointed as delegates. The latter, hitherto a stranger to me, made me a call in order to secure facts relating to the peace movement.
On the eleventh of May I received a telegram from Bloch. The desire to form a committee, consisting of political economists, military men, and politicians, which should institute and publish investigations concerning the presumable results of a future war between the great powers, characterized the aim of Bloch’s plans and action. He telegraphed:
Shall reach The Hague the sixteenth. Hope to find room at your hotel. In case Conference at the beginning fails to institute serious investigation, plan to form a committee which shall undertake this work. I have letters from Prussian generals which show that the idea is already ripe. I am ready to guarantee the expenses. It would be very desirable, using Vienna as a rendezvous, to secure a number of names of political economists and statisticians, and, if possible, of military men. I think that, for execution of the plan, reporters on special divisions of my work, or independent workers, should be nominated, who subsequently should be coördinated through a central committee. Any other method, however, equally acceptable.
Bloch.
The two grand masters of the movement, Hodgson Pratt and Élie Ducommun, sent me the following letters before my departure for The Hague:
St. Germain-en-Laye [without date]
Madame la Baronne:
I see from the newspapers that you are, as is most fitting, at The Hague. You are a witness of one of the greatest events of modern times, and I venture to write a few lines to congratulate you on the fact that you have been able to contribute to the bringing about of this great event. All changes in human affairs are in these days due to the all-powerful influence of public opinion; and you have possessed special gifts and opportunities of contributing to the formation of that great power of opinion. The very fact of your being a woman, and of your being a member of the aristocracy in an essentially aristocratic and military nation, has powerfully attracted attention in Continental Europe by your writings and speeches. You have been able to speak and write with a special and personal experience not possessed by the majority of the advocates of international unity and concord. To this work you have brought the great gifts of eloquence and sincere enthusiasm. God has blessed your efforts in enabling you to see at least some of the results of your devoted and unselfish work.
In such a moment it is alike a pleasure and a duty to give expression to the feelings which, as a humble brother during many years, I entertained in regard to your great services with all my heart.
I hoped to have said this to you viva voce at Bern a few weeks ago, and was much disappointed at not seeing you there. I regretted that the members of the commission did not see their way to the appointment of two or three experts in the question of arbitration tribunals, and so forth, such as Mr. La Fontaine, and others.
But doubtless there are delegates who will do all that is necessary, and influence their colleagues by their knowledge and earnestness. It is a profound source of satisfaction to know that Sir Julian Pauncefote is taking part in the proceedings; no better man in our cause could have been sent.
I desire to be heartily remembered to the Baron von Suttner; and remain with profound esteem,
Yours truly
Hodgson Pratt
Bern, May 10, 1899
My dear Madam and dear Colleague:
You have caused me great joy in addressing to me your two letters, which I consider as the private diary of an apostle of peace, and which we shall preserve with particular care because there will be found in them, in time to come, precious information. Many of our friends to whom I have communicated your impressions have got from reading them a confidence and a courage which they to some degree lacked. Continue, I beg of you, to keep me informed in this way.
The editing of the bimonthly correspondence will naturally demand the greatest prudence, and I shall find it difficult to make selections from the reports of the press; your renseignements intimes will help me ou