One can say it that way. One can present this as motivation for the sake of clarity. But this "if" will never be realized. One cannot forget this. Uprisings in Belgium (following annexation), let us suppose, are possible—just as they proved possible in 1916 in Ireland. Radek is a philistine, calling the Irish uprising a "putsch." This is beyond doubt. But what shall we say concerning a possible uprising in Belgium? The same thing you said about Dublin: the misfortune of this uprising lies in the fact that it did not merge with the socialist revolution of the international proletariat. In other words, we shall be preaching to Belgian workers the international revolution, not national war.
(By this you have refuted yourself, your pages 1 and 2.)
Aha!!!

An unfortunate uprising is a possible uprising, yes or no??

You are shockingly illogical. It is one thing to preach to workers of all countries an international civil war, and quite another to deny the *possibility* of national war!! One cannot in a theoretical question confuse the possible (for different classes and countries) with the desirable and correct for the socialist proletariat. From such confusion grows Proudhonism. K. Marx and the Proudhonists in 1866-1869 spoke, preached to workers of "international socialist revolution" and were correct.

But the Proudhonists added: "progressive national war is impossible"—and were wrong. The Proudhonists are now falling into something similar, failing to understand that it is possible (and inevitable) for proletarian uprisings in the great, vast, imperialist powers to combine with national uprisings and wars of small nations and colonies against the great powers.

Where is this said? Nowhere!! Something else is said:
national wars are possible even under imperialism.

Only this. And this is correct.

Try to formulate this "thesis" and you get: "the imperialist epoch" gave birth to this imperialist war, but could give birth to a*nother* one.

Once more and once more—do not forget the example of Serbia in the war of 1914-1916!

In your "righteous war" against the narrow-mindedness of Radek, you often become so carried away that the perspective comes out thus: this war, they say, is imperialist, but what comes next is unknown—perhaps a new epoch of national wars on a new basis.

Of course, you are a thousand times right in saying that imperialism increases national oppression, lends actuality to self-determination (in its revolutionary formulation). But this in no way weakens the thesis concerning the epoch of imperialist wars.