THE NOTEBOOK

“ζ”

(“ZETA”)
Contents

Garms. “The World Economy” [2–3]. Supan [5–9]. Gübnner [10]. Junius [13–14]. Demornay (Persia, Note) [I].
“Le Temps” [16 and 19–20].
“The Daily Telegraph” and others [23–28].
Lloyd George on 4 billion pounds sterling (4 May 1915) [29–30].
Brauer on the Germans (or, as they were often called, the “defeated ones”) [17–18].
GARMS. “THE WORLD ECONOMY”
Bernhard Garms. “Problems of the World Economy.” Jena, 1912. “National Economy and the World Economy.”
British Capital Abroad (1911), according to J. Paysh ((George Paysh in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Volume LXXIV, 1910/11, p. 167)) (“The Placement of British Capital in the Colonies, etc.”). (B. Garms, p. 228):
I. British Colonies (in thousands of pounds sterling)
North America: Canada and Newfoundland 372,541
Australia: The Commonwealth of Australia 301,521
New Zealand 78,529
Africa: Southern Africa 351,368
Western Africa 29,498

THE NOTEBOOK “ζ” (“ZETA”)
Asia
India and Ceylon 365,399
Strait Settlements 22,037
Hong Kong 3,104
British North Borneo 5,131
Other British Possessions – 25,024
= British Colonies 1,554,152
II. Other Countries:
United States 688,078
Cuba 227,001
Philippines 8,202
Argentina 269,808
Mexico 87,334
Brazil 94,330
Chile 46,375
Uruguay 35,255
Peru 31,986
Other American Countries 22,517
Russia 38,388
Turkey 18,320
Egypt 43,753
Spain 18,808
Italy 11,513
Portugal 8,134
France 7,071
Germany 6,061
Other European Countries 36,319
Japan 53,705
China 26,809
Other Foreign Lands 61,907
= Foreign Countries 1,637,684*
= Total 3,191,836 (while the total capital abroad amounted to 3.5 billion pounds sterling)
The same breakdown by region of the globe (in millions of pounds sterling):
/о
America 1,700 == 53
Asia 500 16
Africa 455 14
Australia 387 12
Europe 150 5
3,192 100%

* As Garms notes. Ed.

Dr. Sigmund Schilder. “Trends in the Development of the World Economy.” Berlin, 1912 – p. 150 – cites J. Paysh and argues that Paysh’s figures are understated, since they are based on exchange rates at which securities were issued (in Latin America, 556 = 556 million pounds sterling, whereas, according to London Stock Exchange quotations on 31 May 1909, this figure was 7.67 million pounds sterling, including Argentina at 281 million, Brazil at 140 million). –
London’s “The Economist,” 26 August 1911, estimates British capital in the ten South American republics (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Paraguay) at 6.22 million pounds sterling, including Argentina at 316, Brazil at 162, Uruguay at 42, Chile at 41 (ibidem, p. 371).
Foreign capital in Canada (1910) totaled 12.687 million francs, of which 9.765 million were British, 2.190 million came from the United States, and 372,000 were French. In Mexico (1886–1907), foreign capital reached 3.343 million francs, including 1.771 million from the United States and 1.334 million from Britain (p. 373).

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., Vol. 22, p. 230, Ed.
Belgian capital abroad (Berlin’s “Export,” 24 November 1910) in millions of francs: Netherlands – 70; France – 137; Brazil – 143; Italy – 166; Egypt – 219; Germany – 244; Argentina – 290; the Congo State – 322; Spain – 337; Russia – 441; other countries – 338. Totaling 2.3/4 billion francs (p. 365).
French capital abroad:
(ibidem, p. 235) in billions of francs
Russia 10.0
England 0.5
Belgium and the Netherlands 0.5
Germany 0.5 *.
Turkey, Serbia, and Bulgaria 0.5
Romania and Greece 4.0
Austria-Hungary 2.0
Italy 1.5
Switzerland 0.5
Spain and Portugal 3.5
Canada and the United States 1.0
Egypt and the Suez Canal 4.0
Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico 3.0
China and Japan 1.0
Tunisia and the French Colonies 3.0
= 35.5*
Now, roughly 40–42 billion

THE NOTEBOOK “ζ” (“ZETA”)
German capital abroad (1904), excluding funds (and outside Europe) (in millions of marks)
Turkey (excluding Egypt) 350
Africa (including Egypt) 1,350
The Persian-Arabian Peninsula and India – 75
Southeast Asia 250
East Asia 450
Australia and Polynesia 400
Countries around the Central American Sea 1,200
The western coast of South America 550
The eastern coast – 1,600
The United States and Canada 3,000
= 9,225
German monetary capital (in securities) abroad (1897–1906)
also in millions of marks
92.1
2.4
85.0
77.6
114.3
75.8
595., 356.6
46.1
7.6
141.9
1,290.4
152.9
147.0
32.0
1,039.0
81.9
60.3
4,021.6
700.7
948.8
3,453.9
152.0
355.3
437.6
11.2
978.1
1,506.3
4,945.8
= 21,909.7
Argentina
Belgium
Bosnia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Denmark
China
Finland
Great Britain
Italy
Japan
Canada
Cuba
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Austria
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Sweden
Switzerland
Spain
Turkey
Hungary
The United States of America (My Summary)

The author estimates total German capital abroad at 3.5 billion marks (p. 243),
a figure that equals 9.225 (in 1904), with roughly the same amount held in Europe
= 18. Then, securities accounted for about 17
= 35*
America 6,530.2
Asia (Turkey) 2,625.1
Africa – Australia – Europe 12,754.4
= 21,909.7
B. Garms cites, regarding German capital placement abroad (excluding Sartorius): Rissler, “German Major Banks and Their Concentration.” 3rd edition. Jena, 1910. – Paul Dena. “New Developments in the World Economy.” Berlin, 1904. – Lauly Arndt. “The Essence and Purpose of Capital Placement Abroad” (“Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft,” 1912, Issues 1–3). –
Robert Lifman. “Participation and Financing Societies.” Jena, 1909. –
German capital abroad:
Excluding Funds – Funds (1904) (1897–1906)
Africa 1,350 – (?)
( ) Asia (including Turkey) 1,125 2,625.1
Australia and Polynesia 400 – (?)
( ) Central and South America 3,350 1,431.5 ( ) The United States and Canada 3,000 5,098.7
= 9,225
= (7,475) (9,155.3)

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., Vol. 22, p. 230. Ed.

NOTEBOOK “ζ” (“ZETA”)
Foreign capital in the three wealthiest nations of Europe, approximately*:
Billions of marks
England France Germany
America 37 4 10 51
Asia 11] 1] 4 ] 16 ]
Africa 10 ] 29 7 ] 8 2 ] 7 19 ] 44
Australia 8] -] 1 ] 9 ]
Europe _4 23 18 45
Total 70 35 35 140
Approximately Germany
England by % billions of marks
England France approximately _= _= billions of marks per- per-
marks roughly roughly
37 America 6.5 10 37 4
11 Asia 2.6 4 11 1
4 Europe 12.8 18 4 23
10 Africa – 2 10 7
8 Australia – 1 8 --
70 21.9 35 70 35
Western Europe (Belgium, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries) 2 1(??) 2
Southern Europe (Spain, Italy, Portugal) 1 1 5
The Balkans 2 0.5 (??) 4
Russia 5 1 10
Austria 8 0.5 (??) 2
All of Europe 18 4 23
The Balkans + Russia + Austria 15 2 (??) 16
The World’s Railway Network (Garms, p. 138)
(ibidem):

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 230. Ed.

1868 – 106,886 kilometers; 1870: 211,000; 1875: 294,000; 1899: 617,285; 1909: 1,006,748 (kilometers)
– 1899 1909
Europe America Asia Africa Australia 223 869 313 417 337 24 9 386 1888 9 329 691 513 824 99 438 33 481 30 316
(my own) = 599 285 1,006,748
The World’s Telegraph Network (kilometers) (Garms, p. 141):

1898
1908
England 208,747 253,898
North America France Germany Denmark 50 545 261 576 186 13 888 92 818 431 15 30 167 171 11
Netherlands Japan 1786 2,797 5,721 8084
Spain 3,237 3,565
Italy 1,968 1,989
Various countries 3,233 7,724
Germany’s Foreign Trade (Special Trade) (p. 198)
(millions of marks)
1889 1910 Increase
Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports
39.6 22.1 418.0 181.3
128.2 84.3 828.3 332.3
635.4 613.2 190.7 1,255.0
35.1 23.5 293.0 71.8
1. Europe 3,239.9 2,509.7 5,196.8 5,623.9 +60% +124%
2. Africa
3. Asia
4. America
5. Australasia
2–5. = 838.3 743.5 3,730.0 1,840.1 +345% +147%
= 7,343.5 (1889)
(p. 203). Special trade (including precious metals) among the major powers
1870 1882 1901 1910 millions of marks (marks) per capita millions of marks per capita millions of marks per capita millions of marks per capita
Great Britain (+ Ireland) France 9,180 4,540 312 124 12,658 7,326 355 195 14,977.0 6,705.8 360 171.9 20,507.1 10,212.5 453 260
Germany 4,240 106 6,409 141 9,852.6 172.2 16,408.8 257
Russia 2,000 27 2,140 30 2,926.8 26.1 5,047.5 40
Austria-Hungary 1,660 47 3,015 75 3,007.3 65.7 4,450.4 88
Italy 1,480 61 2,000 70 2,474.4 76.1 4,170.4 123
Spain Portugal 820 42 840 53 1,386.8 74 1,566.2 80
2S0 390.9 71.0 434.1 77
Netherlands 1,420 388 2,520 602 6,391.0 1229 9446.7 1657
Belgium 1,280 252 3,380 421 3,239.4 476 6,137.9 841
Sweden–Norway 840 115 1,080 131 1,407.7 190.2 1,891.5 242
United States of America 3,420 98 6,150 120 9,526.5 122.5 13,578.7 150

NOTEBOOK “ζ” (“ZETA”)
SUPAN. “TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPEAN COLONIES” AND OTTO GÜBNER’S “GEOGRAPHICAL–STATISTICAL TABLES”
Prof. Dr. Alexander Supan. “Territorial Development of European Colonies.” 1906
(pp. 256 and 257)*
Table 1. Colonial Possessions in 1876 and 1900 (distributed by continent)**

From Otto Gübnner’s Geographical–Statistical Tables (1914).

1876 1900 Increase (+) and Decrease (–)
sq. km. in thousands population in thousands sq. km. in thousands population in thousands sq. km. in thousands population in thousands sq. km. in thousands population in thousands
Asia 22,772.9 291,495 25,012.7 390,636 +2,239.8 +99,141 25,297.1 422,558
Great Britain 3,765.4 241,835 5,224.4 301,495 +1,459.0 +59,660 5,265.3 324,773
Netherlands 1,520.6 24,170 1,520.6 37,494 – +13,324 1,520.6 37,717
France 160.0 2,683 664.2 18,073 +504.2 +15,390 803.5 17,272
Spain 296.3 6,000 – – – 296.3 – 6,000 – – Portugal 19.9 849 19.9 810 – – 39 22.8 980
German Empire Russia 17,010.7 15,958 0.5 17,286.8 84 25,045 ++ 0.5 276.1 ++ 84 9,087 0.5 17,388.1 192 33,164
U.S. – 296.3 7,635 +296.3 +7,635 296.3 8,460 (obviously the Philippines)
Africa 3,218.7 11,425 26,950.9 123,349 +23,732.2 +11,1924 28,583.8 126,614
Great Britain 706.8 2,331 9,201.2 53,0972) +8,494.32) +50,766 9,675.7 52,069
Belgium, the State of Congo – – 2,382.8 19,000 +2,382.8 +19,000 2,365.0 15,003
France Spain 700.0 2,875 10,211.2 31,518 +9,511.2 +28,643 9,660.3 37,750
9.8 319 220.3 673 +210.5 +354 560.5 589
Portugal 1,802.0 5,900 2,073.2 6,865 +271.2 +965 2,069.9 8,351
Italy 510.0 731 +510.0 +731 1,590.1 1,403
German Empire – – 2,352.2 11,465 +2,352.2 +11,465 2,662.3 11,449
Australia 7,699.4 1,970 7,699.4 3,983 – ++ 2,013 (7,699.4) (3,983)
Great Britain 7,699.4 1,970 7,699.4 3,983 – 2,013
Polynesia 711.9 934 1,238.9 2,440 +527.0 +1,506 7,760
Great Britain 291.9 564 558.7 1,496 +266.8 +932 8,261.3 6,588
Netherlands 394.1 240 394.8 240 ++ 0.7 – 394.8 240
France 23.3 93 24.2 88 0.8 5 22.6 80
Spain 2.6 37 – – – 2.6 37 – German Empire – 243.8 449 +243.8 +449 245.1 641
U.S. 6) – – 17.4 167 +17.4 +167 17.4 211
America 10,599.8 7,740 10,502.6 9,148 – 97.2 ++ 1408 9,184.1 10,731
Great Britain 8,711.4 5,160 8,728.2 7,533 +16.8 2,373 8,962.3 10,114
Netherlands 130.2 110 130.2 140 +30 130.2 140
France 82.0 346 82.0 428 – +82 91.2 450
Spain 123.3 2,025 – – 123.3 – 2,025 – – Denmark 0.4 38 0.4 31 – 7 0.4 27
Sweden 0.02 1 – – 0.02 1 – U.S. 6) 1,552.5 60 1,561.8 1016 +9.3 +956 – –
Arctic 1,492.1 82 1,492.1 91 – +9 15
Great Britain 8) 1,301.1 1 1,301.1 1 – – 1,374.0 2
Denmark 9) 191.0 81 191.0 90 – +9 88.1 13
Antarctica 3.5 – +3.5 _ – France 10) – – 3.5 – +3.5 – – –
Total 46,494.8 313,646 72,900.1 529,647 +26,405.a +216,001
2) Including Egypt and Sudan,..

6) The Hawaiian Islands and Alaska are also counted among the colonies here—territories that do not directly adjoin the core territory of the metropolitan power.

8) The Arctic archipelago of North America… 9) Iceland and Greenland. 10) (St. Paul’s Islands, New Amsterdam, Kerguelen)…

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 241. Ed.
** The text of this table in the notebook was written by hand by N. K. Krupskaya, with the exception of the sections set in bold. Ed.

NOTEBOOK “ζ” (“ZETA”)

A. Supan, p. 254:
“Percentage of land area owned by European colonial powers (including the United States)*
1876 1900
In Africa 10.8 90.4 + 79.6
In Polynesia 56.8 98.9 +42.1
In Asia 51.5 * 56.6 + 5.1
In Australia 100.0 100.0 – In the Americas¹ 27.5 27.2 – 0.3
The defining feature of this period, therefore, is the partition of Africa and Polynesia… (p. 254)…
The process of European nations’ plunder of indigenous peoples becomes particularly evident in Supan’s account of the division of Far India—namely, Siam alongside British Burma, or Burma from the west, and French Indochina from the east—pp. 299 et seq. The overall picture (in heavily rounded figures for area, in thousands of square kilometers) is as follows:

1876_ 1900
British Malacca 32 92 + 60
British Burma 228 696 + 468
French Possessions 160 663 + 503
Independent Territories 1665 634 –1031
Far India, in a political sense 2,085 2,085 “It must also be borne in mind that Siam has been guaranteed only 239,000 square kilometers…”
((According to Hübner (1914), Siam is shown as covering 600,000 square kilometers!! They still had not finished their plunder!!))
Supan writes: “There is no doubt that this process” (the division of Far India) “has yet to reach its full extent.”

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 241. Ed.

1) “Alaska is treated here as a colony of the United States.”

NOTEBOOK “ζ” (“ZETA”)
In summing up the process of colonization, Supan notes that the most significant developments occurred within the last fifty years (1850–1900)—pp. 306 et seq.—and distinguishes three types of colonies: 1) indigenous colonies (with few or virtually no white settlers; British India falls into this category); 2) mixed colonies (where whites are in the minority; characterized by racial intermixture); 3) settler colonies (where whites hold a decisive majority).
Providing detailed data on the Americas (38,331,200 sq. km.; 144.2 million inhabitants, including 88.3 million whites), Africa (26,950,900 sq. km.; 123.3 million inhabitants), Asia (24,506,200 sq. km.; 390.6 million inhabitants), and the Southern Seas colonies (8,938,300 sq. km.; 6.4 million inhabitants), Supan draws the following conclusion (p. 313):
SQ. KM. Population Density Number of Whites
1) Indigenous Colonies: 35.6 million 477.0 million 13 –
2) Mixed Colonies: 33.9 79.7 2.3 11.5 million
3) Settler Colonies: 29.4 108.9 4 93.9
Colonized Territory 98.9 665.6 7 105.4 (In Category 1, India dominates—365 million in Asia—and 105 million in Africa. In Category 3, North America takes center stage—with 78.7 million inhabitants—while Siberia and Central Asia account for 7.6 million.)
Supan, “The Population of the Earth,” X through XII editions. Supplementary volumes to “Petermann’s Reports.” Gotha, 1912,
Table 2. Colonial Possessions in 1876 and 1900 (Based on Hübner’s Tables), 1914
(Distributed by State)*
1876 1900
Population in thousands Increase (+) Decrease (-)
Sq. km. in thousands Sq. km. in thousands Population in thousands Sq. km. in thousands Population in thousands
In thousands In thousands In thousands
Great Britain 22,476.1 251,861 32,713.0 367,605 +10,236.9 +115,744 33,538.6 393,546
Asia 3,765.4 241,835 5,224.4 301,495 +1,459.0 +59,660 5,265.3 324,773
Africa 706.9 2,331 9,201.2 53,097 +8,494.3 +50,766 9,675.7 52,069
Australia 7,699.4 1,970 7,699.4 558.7 8,258.1 3,983 – +2,013 8,261.3 6,588
Polynesia 291.9 564 1,496 +266.8 +932
The Americas 8,711.4 5,160 8,728.2 7,533 +16.8 +2,373 8,962.3 10,114
The Arctic 1,301.1 1 1,301.1 1 – – 1,374.0 2
The Netherlands 2,044.9 24,520 2,045.6 37,874 +0.7 +13,354 2,045.6 38,097
Asia 1,520.6 24,170 1,520.6 37,494 +13,324 1,520.6 37,717
Polynesia 394.1 240 394.8 240 +0.7 – 394.8 240
The Americas 130.2 110 130.2 140 – +30 130.2 140
Belgium – a state
Congo – – 2,382.8 19,000 +2,382.8 +19,000 2,365.0 15,003
Africa – – 2,382.8 19,000 +2,382.8 +19,000 2,365.0 15,003
France 965.3 5,997 10,985.1 50,107 +10,019.8 +44,110 10,581 55,552
Asia 160.0 2,683 664.2 18,073 +504.2 +15,390 803.5 17,272
Africa 700.0 2,875 10,211.2 31,518 +9,511.2 +28,643 9,660.3 37,750
Polynesia 23.3 93 24.2 88 +0.9 – 5 22.6 80
The Americas 82.0 346 82.0 428 +82 91.2 450
Antarctica – – 3.5 – +3.5 – (3.), – Spain 432.0 8,381 220.3 673 – 211.7 – 7,708 560.5 589
Asia 296.3 6,000 – – – 296.3 – 6,000 – – Africa 9.9 319 220.3 673 +210.5 +354 560.5 589
Polynesia 2.6 37 – – 2.6 – 37 – – The Americas 123.3 2,025 – – – 123.3 – 2,025 – – 274
Portugal 1,821.9 6,749 2,093.1 7,675 +271.2 +926 2,092.7 9,331,980
Asia 19.9 849 19.9 810 – 39 22.8
Africa 1,802.0 5,900 2,073.2 6,865 +271.2 +965 2,069.9 8,351
Italy Africa – – 510.0 510.0 73,1731 + + 510.0 510.0 + + 73,1731 1,590.1 1,590.1 2,403 1,403
German Empire Asia Africa Polynesia – – 2,596.50.52 352.2 243.8 11,998,841,146,5449 + + ++ 2,596.50.52 352.2 243.8 + + + + 11,998,841,146,5449 2,907.90.52 662.3 245.1 12,282,192,114,496,41
Denmark 191.4 119 191.4 121 +2 88.5 4027
The Americas 0.4 38 0.4 31 – – 7 0.4
The Arctic 191.0 81 191.0 90 +9 88.1 13
Sweden 1 – – 0.02 – 1 0.02
The Americas 0.02 1 – 0.02 – 1 (0.02)
Russia Asia 17,010.7 17,010.7 15,958 15,958 17,286.8 17,286.8 25,045 25,045 + + 276.1 276.1 + + 9,087 9,087 17,388.1 17,388.1 33,164 33,164
The United States Asia Polynesia The Americas 1,552.5 1,552.5 60 60 1,875.5 296.317.4 1,561.8 88187 6351671016 + + + + 323.0 296.317.49.3 + + + + 8,7587 635167956 (1,875.5) 296.317.4(1,561.8) (9,687) 8,460211(1,016)
Total 46,494.8 313,646 72,900.1 529,647 +26,405.3 +216,001 74,963.5 568,694

* The text of this table in the notebook was written by hand by N. K. Krupskaya; the words set in bold were penned by V. I. Lenin. Ed.

NOTEBOOK “ζ” (“ZETA”)

What is imperialism?
The “Great” Powers: Colonies – Metropoles – Total
; » 1876 1914 1914 1914 (in millions)
sq. km. of territory – sq. km. of inhabitants – sq. km. of territory – sq. km. of inhabitants
England 22.5 251.9 33.5 393.6 0.3 46.5 33.8 440.0
Russia 17.0 15.9 17.4 33.2 5.4 136.2 22.8 169.4
France 0.9 6.0 10.6 55.5 0.5 39.6 11.1 95.1
Germany – 2.9 12.3 0.5 64.9 3.4 77.2
Japan – – 0.3 19.2 0.4 53.0 0.7 72.2
U.S.A. – 0.3 9.7 9.4 97.0 9.7 106.7
Total for the six “Great” Powers 40.4 273.8 65.0 523.4 16.5 437.2 81.5 960.6
Three countries that have been particularly eager to carve up the globe (Turkey, China,
Persia) 14.5 361.2
The entire Earth (excluding the polar regions) 133 1,657
All colonies: 46.5 313.6 74.9 568.7
Colonies not belonging to the “Great” Powers 9.9 45.3
N In Russia 169 X 0.57% = 96.33 NВ 96 million oppressed or disenfranchised
sq. km. of inhabitants (millions) '
All of Europe 9.97 452.4
England + France + Russia + Germany – 6.70 287.2 the remaining states 3.27 165.2
All of America 39.98 189.5
U.S.A. 9.10 97.0
all colonies 9.20 10.7 the remaining states … 21.38 81.8
All of Asia, including all colonies 44.45 –25.3 871.2 –422.5
19.1 448.7 three semi-colonial territories (Turkey + Persia) + China + 14.5 361.2
the remainder 4.6 87.5

NOTEBOOK “ζ” (“ZETA”)
sq. km. of inhabitants (millions)
All of Africa 29.9 136.2 all colonies: 28.6 126.6 the remainder = 1.3 9.6
All of Australia: 8.9 7.8 all colonies = 7.7 3.4 (?)
(+Polynesia?)
300 privileged million inhabitants 150 oppressed
6 Great Powers 437.3 1000 {colonies and resources} all colonies 568.7 } 929.9 1,450
3 “resource-extraction” countries 361.2 150 small states and
1367.1 1600 candidates
Approximately: millions of inhabitants
300 “Great Powers” and their privileged oppressors and plunderers 300 dependent, disenfranchised, robbed, and petty 1000 colonies and “resources”
1600
China
Nationalities of Foreigners in Treaty Ports
1912
Firms Individuals
Japanese 733 75 210
Russians 323 45 908
English 592 8 690
Americans 133 3 869
French 107 3 133
Germans 276 2 817
Portuguese 44 2 785
Italians 40 537
Austrians 17 328
Danes 11 279
Norwegians 8 250
Belgians 15 245
Spaniards 6 224
Swedes 2 189
Dutch 13 157
Hungarians 3 27
Brazilians 1 9
Others 4 97
Total 2,328 144 754
Metropolis Colonies TOTAL, its (Colonies) in millions millions of sq. km. millions of inhabitants millions of sq. km. millions of inhabitants millions of sq. km. millions of inhabitants 18 7 6 sq. km. of population – 1 9 sq. km. 1 4 population
( ) Russia (Europe + Asia) 5.4 136.2 16.9 33.2 22.3 169.4 17.0 15.9 17.4 33.2
( ) United Kingdom 0.3 46.5 30.0 378.5 30.3 425.0 22.3 251.9 33.5 393.5
( ) France 0.5 39.6 10.6 55.5 11.1 95.1 0.9 6.0 10.6 55.5
= 6.2 222.3 57.5 467.2 63.7 689.5
1) Belgium 0.07 7.5 2.4 15.0 2.4 22.5
Serbia 0.09 4.5 – – 0.1 4.5 ( ) Germany 0.5 64.9 2.9 12.3 3.4 77.2 – – 2.9 12.3
Austria-Hungary 0.7 51.4 – – 0.7 51.4
Turkey 1.8 21.6 – – 1.8 21.6
3.0 137.9 2.9 12.3 5.9 150.2 ( ) Japan 0.4 53.0 0.3 19.2 0.7 72.2 – – 0.3 19.2
China 11.1 329.6 – – 11.1 329.6 ( ) United States 9.4 97.0 0.3 9.7 9.7 106.7 – – 0.3 9.7
6 “Great” Powers ( ) 16.5 437.2 61.0 508.4 77.6 945.6 40.4 273.8 65.0 523.4

278
1) Belgium 29 452 sq. km. and 7.5 million inhabitants (in millions) + 2.4 million sq. km. of colonies and 15 million people – = 2.4 million sq. km. and 22.5 million inhabitants
Serbia 87 303 sq. km. and 4.5 million inhabitants = 0.1 million sq. km. and 4.5 million inhabitants
Turkey 1.8 21.6
China 11.1 329.6
= 12.9 351.2
Persia = 1.6 10.0
= 14.5 361.2
Balkan States Before and After the War of 1912/13*
Total Area in Square Kilometers Population
Previous Territory New Acquisitions Current Territory Previous Territory New Acquisitions Current Territory
Romania 131 353 8 340 139 693 7 248 354 7 602
Bulgaria 96 345 17 660 114 005 4 337 429 4 766
Serbia 48 303 39 000 87 303 2 912 1533 4 445
Montenegro 9 080 5100 14180 285 150 435
Albania – 28 000 28 000 – 800 800
Greece 64 657 51318 | 115 975 2 632 1624 | 4 256
Crete 8 618 | –149 755 344 | –4 583
Turkey 169 317 28180 6 130 1891
Balkan Countries 527 673 – 337 1) 527 336 23 888 307 24195
1) The discrepancy arises from imprecise definitions—Albania, for example, is likely undercounted.

* The text of this table in the notebook was written by hand by N.K. Krupskaya. Ed.*

NOTEBOOK “ζ” (“ZETA”)

Population Special Trade
The Entire Globe: millions of sq. km. % per square kilometer (1912) Imports (millions) Exports (marks)
kilometers
Asia 44.45 871.2 526 19.6 9 278 10162
Europe 9.97 452.4 273 45.4 56 655 44 224
Africa 29.89 136.2 82 4.5 3 149 3 584
America 39.98 189.5 114 4.7 15 738 18 286
Australia 8.96 7.8 5 0.9 2199 2 2(59
Polar Regions 12.67 0.01 0 – – – Total: 145.92 1,657.1 1000 11.4 87 019 78 525
Geographical-Statistical Tables by Otto Hübner, edition of 1914 (63rd year of publication) *
Railways
United Kingdom
Railways km.
(1912) Egypt 4 241 (1912) Egyptian Sudan 1725 (1912) Malta 13
(1911/12) Cyprus 98 (1911/12) India 55 875 (1911) Ceylon 971
(1911) Straits Settlements 34161180 (1912) Malay Protectorate
(1912) Hong Kong 15 (1912) North Borneo 211 (1912) South African Union 12 626
(1910) Basuto Land 26 (1912) Rhodesia 3 872 (1912) Niasa Country 182
(1912) East Africa 943 (1912) Zanzibar 10 (1912) Nigeria 1467
(1912) Sierra Leone 365 (1912) Gold Coast 270 (1912) Mauritius 207
(1912) Newfoundland 1238 (1912) Canada 47150 (1912) Jamaica 313
(1912) Windward Islands 45 (1912) Trinidad 135 (1912) Honduras 40
(1912) Guyana 152 (1912/13) Australian Federation 30141
(1912/13) New Zealand 4 588
168 149

* The text on page 10 of the notebook (pages 280–282 of the present volume) was written by hand by N.K. Krupskaya; passages set in bold were penned by V.I. Lenin. Ed.

The notebook “ζ” (“Zeta”)
K.M.
France (1910) Algeria 3,491 (1912) Tunisia (1913) West Africa (1913) Somali Coast 1,656
2,400
130 (1913) Madagascar 368 (1913) Réunion 126 (1913) India (1912) Indochina 30
1,374 (1908) Martinique 224 (1913) Guyana (1913) New Caledonia 16
17
9,832 (1912) Belgian Congo 1,235
Italy (1912) Libya 87 (1912) Eritrea 120
207
German Empire (1913) East Africa 1,602 (1913) Cameroon 443
(1913) Togo 327 (1913) South-West Africa 2,104
4,476
Netherlands (1912) Dutch East Indies 2,355 2,683
Other territories 337
5,375
Russia (1913) the Caucasus
Central Asia > 17,036
Siberia J (1911) Turkey 6,660 including in
1. Europe 1,994
2. Asia Minor 2,372
3. Syria and Arabia 2,294
(1909) Persia 54 in operation 12

Total area Population in sq. km.
Turkey, a constitutional state since 1909 1,794,980 21,600,000 (1910)
European Turkey 28,180 1,891,000 (1910)
Asia Minor 501,400 10,940,765 (1910)
Armenia and Kurdistan 186,500 2,357,436 (1900)
Syria and Mesopotamia 637,800 5,361,203 (1910)
Arabia 441,100 1,050,000 (1910)
China, a republic since March
1912 11,138,900 3,296,177,600
China proper 6,242,300 3,258,177,600 (1910)
Mongolia 2,787,600 1,800,000
Tibet 2,109,000 2,000,000
Japan, a constitutional empire 673,681 72,206,475
Japan proper 382,415 52,985,423 (1912)
Formosa 35,997 3,512,607 (1913)
Karafuto (Japanese Sakhalin) 34,069 42,612 (1913)
Kwantung 3,374 501,767 (1913)
Korea 217,826 15,164,066 (1913)
NB: in thousands of sq. kilometers (total area)
PERSIA – approximately 1,645 (the entire population of Persia
in 1907: 9.5 million)
Under the 1907 agreement:
the British sphere of influence around 355 the Russian sphere of influence around 790
RECIPROCAL ACCUSATIONS Mutual accusations:
“La Revue de Paris,” March 1, 1915 (No. 5, 1915)
article: G. Demorny. “Turkish–German Methods in Persia” (with a map illustrating the spheres of influence of Russians and Britons in Persia).
The imperialist’s wail over the Germans’ successes. (Typical of the way imperialism is depicted.)
Incidentally (page 217):
“On December 24 (1914), a bomb intended to destroy the Russian, French, Belgian, and British envoys exploded in Tehran—but the blast missed its target, and the bomb killed one of the conspirators organized by the German–Turkish gang…”

The notebook “ζ” (“Zeta”)
The author cites his articles in the journal “Revue du monde musulman,” 1913, Nos. 22 and 23 (March and June 1913), as well as his books: “The Danubian Question.” Paris, 1911 (Larose & Tenen); “The Administration of Persia.” Paris, 1913 (Leroux); and his work: “Financial Institutions in Persia.” Paris, 1915
(Leroux). Year Sichkan-il (March 21, 1912–March 20, 1913).

1. Russia’s trade with Persia = 628,857,900 francs
(franc = 0.4545 pounds). Exports from Persia to Russia accounted for 69% of all Persian exports. Imports from Russia into Persia made up 58% of all Persian imports
(p. 205).

2. England’s exports to Persia amounted to 25% of all Persian imports.
Persia’s exports to England represented 13% of all Persian exports.

3. Turkey
4. Germany’s trade with Persia totaled 24,316,252 francs.

5. France
6. Italy
(Order of countries according to the size of their trade with Persia: 1–6)
“Preussische Jahrbücher,” 1915, Issue 3 (March), an article by Hans Delbrück (p. 485):
“The English envoy to Norway, Findlay, on behalf of his government attempted to bribe a murderer in order to eliminate the Irishman Sir Roger Casement.” (From the counteraccusations against England leveled by Delbrück.)
“NOTES ON TECHNOLOGY” “The Daily Telegraph,” March 15, 1915. “Notes on Technology.” “Oil in War. A warship powered entirely by oil.” “The Chancellor of the Exchequer was right when he said, ‘This is a technological war.’ We see the imprint of technology at every stage of the immense struggle now unfolding across the globe. Technology no longer plays a secondary role—it has become the defining characteristic of war, to such an extent that even an ‘eyewitness’ deemed it appropriate to call it the ‘gasoline war,’ recently describing the role mechanical propulsion plays on the continent. Perhaps it would be more accurate to speak of an ‘oil war,’ since this term would encompass the entire fleet—both its largest and smallest vessels, ranging from super-dreadnoughts to submarines.”
“The Queen Elizabeth” was among the first ships powered entirely by oil. Cost reduction. Most importantly, rapid refueling—and so on, and so forth. A colossal technological advance.
The transition to “internal-combustion engines on warships” is underway. Commercial vessels are already making the shift.
UNIUS. “THE CRISIS OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY” *
Uniús. “The Crisis of Social Democracy.” Appendix: “Theses on the Tasks of International Social Democracy.” Zurich, 1916. Page 109 (theses 105–109).
The “Introduction” is dated January 2, 1916; the pamphlet itself was written in April 1915.
p. 6: “The capitulation of international social democracy… to conceal it would be the most foolish thing of all…”
p. 24: “Two lines of development… lead… to this war”: 1) 1870, NB, the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, and 2) the imperialist development of the past 25 years.
p. 28: Bülow’s speech of December 11, 1899. A clear imperialist program: the British aspire to “Greater Britain,” the French to “New France,” the Russians to Asia, and the Germans to “Greater Germany.”
pp. 31–33: a vivid account of how German financial capital plundered Turkish peasants in Asia Minor.
p. 42: …“In modern warfare, existence itself hinges on just two states: Belgium and Serbia”…

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, pp. 291–305. Ed.

p. 43: In Russia, imperialism is less about “economic expansion” than about “the political interests of the state.”

NOTEBOOK “ζ” (“ZETA”)
p. 48: The disintegration of Austria was accelerated “by the emergence of independent national states in close proximity to the monarchy”...
...“Austria’s internal unsustainability began to manifest itself”...
...“The Habsburg monarchy is not a political organization of the bourgeois state; it is, rather, nothing more than a loosely knit syndicate of several cliques of societal parasites.”
(49)...
...“the inevitable dilemma: either the Habsburg monarchy, or the capitalist development of the Balkan states” (49)...
...“Historically speaking, the dissolution of Austria-Hungary is merely a continuation of Turkey’s collapse—and, in that sense, it constitutes a demand inherent in the historical process of development” (49–50).
“German imperialism, shackled to two decaying corpses, was heading straight toward world war.”
(50).
...“Duala Manga Bell in Cameroon… for… a purported attempt at treason… under the cover of war, he was quietly hanged without the cumbersome formality of a judicial trial… The Reichstag faction shrouded the corpse of the Duala leader in modest silence” (56).
p. 60: Two reasons for the defeat of 1905:
(1) its “vast” political program; “some of the issues—such as the agrarian question—are, in fact, entirely insoluble within the framework of the modern social order”...
(2) the support of European reactionaries...

71: “The dangers to Germany’s ‘liberatory development’ do not lie in Russia—as the Reichstag faction had supposed—but rather within Germany itself”... (and incidentally, the phrase: ‘the Zabern Affair,’ p. 71).

74: “Does not the socialist principle—that peoples have the right to self-determination—mean precisely that every people has both the right and the duty to defend its own freedom and independence?”... (75) “Of course, any people that capitulates before an external enemy deserves nothing but contempt”... 75: A quotation from The Civil War in France: “The highest heroic surge still within the reach of old society is the national war—and yet it turns out to be nothing more than the purest kind of governmental deception…”

76: “Thus, in bourgeois history, invasion and class struggle are not contradictions—as the official legend would have it—but rather one is the means by which the other is realized and expressed. And while invasion represents a time-tested weapon for the ruling classes against class struggle, for the rising classes, the most acute class struggle still proves to be the very best means of resisting invasion.”... The history of Italian city-states in the Middle Ages—especially the year 1793.

77: Likewise with self-determination: “It is true: socialism recognizes for every people the right to independence and freedom, the right to determine their own destinies autonomously. But it is a genuine mockery of socialism when modern capitalist states are presented as embodiments of this very right to national self-determination. In which of these states has the people ever truly determined the forms and conditions of their own (sic!) national, political, and social existence?” When Marx, Engels, and Lassalle spoke of “self-determination of the German people,” they envisioned “a single, great German republic.” [Modern Germany was built (NB) (77) “upon the ruins of the right to national (NB) self-determination (NB) of the German people”...] 77 ...“or, for example, is the Third Republic—with its colonial possessions in four corners of the globe and its colonial atrocities in two continents—a true expression of the French nation’s ‘self-determination’?”...

78: “In the socialist sense of the term, there is not a single free nation whose state existence is founded upon the subjugation of other peoples—for even colonial peoples are counted among the nations and members of the state. International socialism recognizes the right of free, independent, equal nations—but only it can create such nations; only it can realize the right of nations to self-determination. And like all other slogans of socialism, this one does not serve to justify the existing order; rather, it points the way forward, acting as a stimulus for the revolutionary, transformative, active politics of the proletariat.”

NOTEBOOK “ζ” (“ZETA”)
In the contemporary imperialist milieu, there can no longer be any so‑called “national defensive wars” (78)… To turn away from this reality is to “build on sand.”
Therefore, “the question of defense versus offense, the question of the ‘warlord,’ is utterly irrelevant” (78), and neither France nor England is waging a “war of self‑defense”; rather, they are defending “not their own national interests, but their own global political position”…
NB: …“to dispel the phantom of the ‘national war’ that currently dominates social‑democratic policy” (81).
Imperialist politics is an international phenomenon, the product of “the worldwide development of capital” (79)… “Only by starting from this premise can we properly pose the question of ‘defending the fatherland’ in modern warfare” (80)… The system of alliances, military interests, and the like immediately draw imperialist interests and imperialist powers into the fray… “After all, the very fact that all capitalist states now possess colonial territories—territories which, even when a war begins as a ‘national defensive war,’ are drawn into the conflict for purely military‑strategic reasons”—the “holy war” in Turkey, the encouragement of uprisings in the colonies…—“this fact, too, automatically transforms every modern war into an imperialist, world‑wide conflagration” (82)…
Take the example of Serbia (backed by Russia), the Netherlands (with its colonies and so forth)… “Thus, once again, the historical context of contemporary imperialism determines the character of wars in individual countries, and this context operates in such a way that, at present, national defensive wars are no longer feasible at all” (84)…
Quoting K. Kautsky: “Patriotism and Social Democracy,” 1907, p. 16—in particular, the assertion that “under these conditions, wars waged in defense of national freedom… can no longer be expected anywhere else” (Kautsky, quoted on p. 85 of U. Junius). (K. Kautsky, pp. 12–14, on “national questions,” noting that they can be resolved “only (NB)

after (NB) the victory of the proletariat.”) [K. Kautsky, p. 23. NB]
So what, then, is the task of social democracy? Not to remain “passive.” No. “Rather than hypocritically cloaking imperialist war in the mantle of national defense, it was precisely necessary to take the right to self‑determination of peoples—and the defense of the fatherland—seriously (emphasis by the author), to turn them into a revolutionary lever against (emphasis by the author) imperialist war” (85). The most elementary requirement of national defense is that the people themselves take the matter of defense into their own hands. The first step toward this is the formation of a militia—not merely the immediate arming of all able‑bodied men, but above all the people’s own decision on the question of war and peace; this further implies the immediate abolition of all political disenfranchisement, since the greatest political freedom is essential as the foundation of popular defense. To proclaim these genuine measures of national defense, to demand their implementation—this was the primary task of social democracy” (86). And yet the social democrats actually abandoned the demand for a militia after the war!!! Even though we had argued that “only the militia” is capable of defending the fatherland!!!
“Our teachers understood the defense of the fatherland differently”… (Marx, in “The Civil War in France,” speaking of the Commune’s national war)… and… Friedrich Engels, in 1892, advocating the repetition of 1793… But alongside this, he noted: “When Engels wrote these words, he had quite a different situation in mind than the one we face today” (87)—before the Russian Revolution. “He (Engels) had in mind a genuine national defensive war waged by Germany, which had been subjected to attack” (87)…
And further: “Yes, social democrats have a duty to defend their country during a great historical crisis. And it is precisely here that the grave fault lies” within the social‑democratic faction… “It left the fatherland undefended in the hour of greatest peril. For its first duty to the fatherland in that hour was to show the fatherland the true sub‑

The notebook “ζ” (“Zeta”)
to expose the true nature of this imperialist war, to shatter the web of patriotic and diplomatic lies that had ensnared this aggression against the motherland; to declare loud and clear that, for the German people, both victory and defeat in this war are equally ruinous… to proclaim the urgent need to arm the people and to empower them to decide the question of war and peace… and finally, to counter the imperialist war program—whose aim was to preserve Austria and Turkey, and thereby to uphold reaction in Europe and in Germany—with the old, truly national program of the patriots and democrats of 1848: the program of Marx, Engels, and Lassalle—the slogan of a unified, great German republic. Such was the banner that ought to have been unfurled before the nation—a banner that would have been genuinely national, genuinely liberating, and fully in keeping with Germany’s finest traditions as well as with the international class politics of the proletariat” (88).
…“Thus, the agonizing dilemma between the interests of the fatherland and the international solidarity of the proletariat—the tragic conflict that had led our parliamentarians only ‘with heavy hearts’ to side with the imperialist war—is nothing more than a figment of the imagination, a bourgeois-nationalist fiction. On the contrary, between the interests of the nation and the class interests of the proletarian International there exists, both in times of war and in times of peace, a complete harmony: both war and peace demand the most vigorous development of class struggle, the most resolute defense of the social-democratic program.”
But what, then, was the party to do? Should it call for a mass strike—or should the soldiers refuse to fight? To answer such questions would be laughable. Revolution cannot be “made.” Prescriptions and recipes of a purely technical character would be “absurd” (90); the issue is not one of technique, but of a clear political slogan. A few words were perhaps directed against technical matters, etc., etc.,—and against “small conspiratorial circles,” etc. (NB 101–102.)
Section VIII (93–104) addresses, in particular, the question of “victory or defeat” and demonstrates that both outcomes are worse (ruin, new wars, etc.). The choice would amount to “a hopeless choice between two rounds of beatings” (98)… “except in one single case: if the international proletariat, through its revolutionary intervention, were to upset all calculations” (of both imperialisms) (98)… The status quo is impossible (99)—not “backward,” but forward, toward the victory of the proletariat. Not utopian schemes in the spirit of ruin, not “utopias” or “piecemeal reforms” (99), but a struggle against imperialism.
And what about America?? And Japan??
p. 102—threatens “mass annihilation of the European proletariat” (102)… “Only from Europe, only from the oldest capitalist countries, when the hour comes, can the signal be given for the social revolution that will liberate humanity. Only the English, French, Belgian, German, Russian, and Italian workers, united as one, can lead the armies of the exploited and oppressed across the five continents” (103),
“SOCIALISTS AND PEACE” “Journal des débats,” November 11, 1915.
“Socialists and Peace”… “It appears that this ‘Zimmerwald’ alliance was organized by German socialists whose intimate ties with that country’s government are well known. This is a maneuver we should not be surprised to see from our enemies—they have repeated it several times since they realized that their cause was lost.”
…“The French Socialist Party deemed it necessary to make this statement” (the Socialist Party’s resolution against the conference), “in order to dispel any lingering ambiguity and to reaffirm once again that it remains faithful to the patriotic pact of the Sacred Union.”

The notebook “ζ” (“Zeta”)
ON NOTES IN THE NEWSPAPER “TAN” “Le Temps,” November 13.
Note (on page 2) on an article in Vorwärts concerning Renodet’s speech—and a sympathetic note on an article in L’Humanité opposing Zimmerwald, Ibidem, November 12.
“Socialists and Alsace-Lorraine”
In L’Humanité, Comper-Morel stated quite plainly that “we do not regard Alsace-Lorraine as such” (= as German territories that we have no desire to ‘conquer’)…
BRAUER ON GERMAN “DEFEATED MEN” IN HOCHLAND. Munich. Issue 8, 1914/1915. May 1915.
a Catholic, aristocratic organ of Austrian–Munich clericals
(publication of Karl Muth)
T. Brauer. “War and Socialism.”
…“War signifies more than a mere episode in the development of socialism: it ushers in—though only potentially—a definite culmination of that very development” (176)…
…(The “account” of Marx, Engels, Bebel…)
…“Theoretical ‘defeat’ does not prevent ‘opportunism’ from continuing its merry life and even gaining respect. As the masses rallying around the socialist banner grow in number, their yearning for the present grows all the more intense—and it becomes utterly impossible to hinder them in their aspiration to turn their gaze also toward the modern state” (179–180)…
…It is precisely within this (revolutionary) ideology—against which Bernstein had long struggled—that “the European war plays a crucial role, serving as a prelude to the social revolution” (180).
(The trade unions are becoming wiser.)

...“Just prior to the outbreak of war, we witness a genuine rapprochement between trade-union socialism and ‘bourgeois’ social reform” (181).
“The upheaval within German Social Democracy upon the declaration of war, when viewed from a purely external perspective, appeared as an abrupt and unexpected rupture. Even on the eve of the conflict, the press was still filled with reminders, warnings, and appeals couched in the old agitational jargon. One even encountered arguments that, while ostensibly referencing events in France after 1870, sounded suspiciously like praise for defeat. But then, one fine day, something occurred—a turn so decisive that it is hard to imagine anything more radical. The official explanations issued in response to this shift, far from providing any real justification for it, could scarcely be taken seriously. As everyone knows—and there is no need here to elaborate—these explanations could easily be dismissed as mere rhetorical flourishes, based as they were on earlier official pronouncements” (181). ... (The very encounter of socialist masses with the ‘full’ reality of life)...
...“Prudent socialists, especially those within the revisionist camp” (182)... had long warned of the dangers inherent in such (old‑socialist) forms of popular education... ... (the exaltation of patriotism)...
...“Reformists could now finally hope to find a strong, solid foundation for a new socialist and social‑democratic program—one that they had so ardently desired” (183)...
...“If one were to capture the practical outcome of revisionist activity in a single phrase, it would amount to this: revisionism undermined the faith in Marxism among leaders and in the ranks of practicing organizers, and in the absence of a sufficiently robust alternative, these leaders came to regard tactics as their ‘creed’” (184).
And in general—let us wait for the voices of those who will return from the trenches.

NOTEBOOK “ζ” (“ZETA”)
NB: “Report of the Swiss Factory and Mine Inspectors on Their Official Duties in 1912 and 1913” — Aarau, 1914 (265 pages, 3 stamps).
ON ARTICLES AND NOTES IN THE NEWSPAPER “TAN” “Le Temps,” December 6, 1915.
Today marked the anniversary of the Battle of Champigny.
Speech by Mr. Albert Thomas:
“There can be no peace until our Alsace and our Lorraine are definitively reunited with France”...
...until the dismantling of German imperialism, etc., etc. (...‘victory’...) ...‘to the end’...
Ibidem, December 7, 1915
Editorial article: “Fine Words.”
“This demonstration is all the more significant because Mr. Albert Thomas represents, alongside Messrs. Guesde and Sembat, the unified Socialist Party—whose prominent members have yet to fully overcome the dangerous tendencies that prevailed among them before the war, and who remain captive to a vague ideal of internationalism, an ideal that nearly cost us our very existence.”
...“Here,” in Thomas’s speech, “we find a clear and precise demand for the simple, unconditional, and unqualified return of Alsace–Lorraine to France. These words stand in happy contrast to the overly cautious formulations—formulations that often gave rise to regrettable misunderstandings—which were sometimes advanced by the far left.”
Ibidem (p. 2), “Among the Socialists.” Yesterday, a preparatory meeting was held (in anticipation of the party congress on December 25, 1915) by the Seine Federation. Burdeau attempted to speak, “but he was sharply interrupted” (shouts arose, accusing him of lacking a mandate) {idem, “Journal de débats,” December 7, 1915. When Burdeau stated that he represented the minority, “sharp protests erupted”...).
“Mr. Mergheim was scheduled to deliver a lecture last night at Rue de
Paris in Montreuil on the international pacifist movement in Zimmerwald. However, Mr. Mergheim’s lecture was banned.”

ARTICLE “AMERICAN MILITARY SUPPLIERS” “Neue Zürcher Zeitung,” 1915, No. 485, First Morning Edition. April 23, 1915. American Military Suppliers. “American newspapers have been reporting for some time now on the supply of military equipment to the Entente powers. We present the following excerpt from a California newspaper:
Military supplies destined for the Allies are now being shipped by American manufacturers by sea to Canada, where they are transshipped onto British vessels and transported to England. Goods intended for France and Russia follow the same route, then proceed onward from England. Through agents or directly, the Allies have contracted with nearly every arms factory and military‑equipment enterprise in the United States. Of course, these factories strive to conceal this fact, fearing that they may be forced to halt their deliveries—after all, this entire array of materials constitutes military contraband.
In the United States, there are 57 factories dedicated exclusively to the production of weapons or military equipment. Under normal circumstances, these plants employ roughly 20,000 workers; but now, as factories operate in two or three shifts, the workforce has swelled to around 50,000. Arms factories and military‑equipment enterprises do not manufacture explosives themselves—this is a separate industry, comprising 103 plants whose output has doubled since the outbreak of war. Some pyroxylin factories operate in three shifts. Naturally, this surge in demand has driven prices upward. For instance, in February, the French government placed an order for 24 million pounds of pyroxylin at 65 cents per pound—whereas in peacetime, the same material would have cost only 20–25 cents per pound.
Next come items of equipment for soldiers and horses: footwear, utensils, saddles, tanned leather, and the like. The European War is undoubtedly proving to be an exceptionally profitable venture for America.” Lloyd George in Parliament.

The notebook “ζ” (“Zeta”)
“The Daily Telegraph,” April 22 and 23, 1915 “The Daily Telegraph,” April 22, 1915.
Lloyd George’s speech in the House of Commons:
“He stunned the House with the announcement that, in just the last two weeks of the month, British artillery had fired more shells than during the entire Boer War.”
If production (of artillery shells) stood at 20 in September, by March it had surged to 3,888—nineteen times as much.
(And September saw higher output than August, while August had surpassed July!)
Before the war, it was believed that six divisions would be deployed on the continent. Now there are thirty-six—720,000 men.
In March, the “Law for the Protection of the State” was passed, empowering the government to “take into its own hands any suitable engineering works and retool them for shell production.”
“Endless military supplies—such is the best formula for saving lives and bringing the war to a swift end”... Ibidem, April 23.
“The Patriotic Obligation of Entrepreneurs”:
I hereby declare that, when offering employment after the war, I will give preference to those who have served in the armed forces.
Signature (King and Ministers).
Ibidem. Roosevelt’s book, “America and the World War.”
The author adopted the principle of “speaking softly but carrying a big stick” (he complains that people call him “big stick,” forgetting the very beginning of his maxim). (Consider the example of Belgium.)
He advocates that the United States of America establish a national system of “military training,” modeled on Switzerland or Australia...
HUGO BÖTGER’S ARTICLES IN THE NEWSPAPER “TAG” “Der Tag,” 1915, No. 93 (Issue A). April 22, 1915.
Article: “Free Trade Unions and the Government” by Dr. Hugo Bötger, Member of the Reichstag.

The author begins by noting that General Director Kirchdorf of the Mining Association in Gelsenkirchen reproached Minister Delbrück (Minister of the Interior) for maintaining “close contact with trade union leaders.” Such a practice, he argued, was dangerous—workers would become increasingly restless.
The author counters that there is no cause for alarm; indeed, even in the trenches, workers and employers stand side by side. He further argues that “if they (= free trade unions = Social Democrats) are brought into joint work within the Ministry of the Interior on certain labor-related and national issues, this constitutes not only recognition but also an obligation—for the duration of the war—to renounce certain tenets of the Social Democratic program that fall within the sphere of the International, and, like all other segments of the population, to fulfill their duty and defend the fatherland”... In his article in No. 82 (April 9), entitled “The Development of Our Policy,” we read, among other things:
“It is remarkable that, even within Social Democratic debates framed by a Marxist perspective, a clear consensus has emerged: we must now reckon with the further development of imperialism—the rise of great, self-sufficient, and, as far as possible, externally independent global powers. Some resist this trend; others seek to integrate imperialism into the unfolding trajectory of socialism—and of course there can be no doubt as to which of these two currents is the more astute and most likely to succeed…”
THE ARTICLE “THE OBJECTIVES OF WAR” IN THE ECONOMIST “The Economist,” March 27, 1915. Saturday.
Article: “The Objectives of War” (in response to Grey’s speech on Monday, March 22, ??) at Bechstein Hall.
The editorial staff laments the absence of peace yet rejoices that Grey did not say anything likely to “prolong or intensify the war”... The conclusion of the article reads:
“Statesmen cannot reconcile themselves to the prospect of a disastrous outcome to the war: universal mourning

The notebook “ζ” (“Zeta”)
and near-universal bankruptcy. Soon the time will come when it becomes possible to take humanity’s demands into account while simultaneously fulfilling the promises made by Sir Edward Grey” (the freedom of nations, etc.)... “Should such an opportunity be missed, the war will not drag on forever. It will end in revolutionary chaos—beginning in some unknown place and ending in some unknown outcome. Even if the war were to end tomorrow, it is doubtful that, even in this relatively prosperous country, there would be a single family that would not suffer grievously for years from the burdens inflicted by war” (p. 615). (End.)
“GENEVA NEWSPAPER,” APRIL 7, 1915 “Journal de Genève,” April 7, 1915.
Editorial under the headline: “Talking Too Much Is Harmful,” in response to Henri Welschinger’s book, “Lessons from the Yellow Book of 1914,” published by Blou and Gay in Paris, a member of the Institute.

On July 13, 1914 (note the date!), Senator Ch. Ember, “rapporteur of the Military Commission,” seeking to demonstrate France’s lack of preparedness, stated in a speech that France possessed almost no heavy artillery—certainly nothing larger than 10–13–21 centimeters. A 28‑centimeter mortar would not arrive… until a year later!!
Yet the very next day, July 14, 1914, Minister of War Messimy declared in the Senate that
by the end of 1915 (!!) France would possess
200 long 105-mm guns, and by the end of 1917 (!!!) 200 short 120-mm howitzers.
“Could Germany have reached any other conclusion than: ‘Let us move forward without delay’?”
LLOYD GEORGE ON FOUR BILLION POUNDS STERLING
Lloyd George in the House of Commons. Tuesday, May 4, 1915. (“The Daily Telegraph,” May 5.)
ooo“What is our nation’s income? In peacetime, our nation’s income amounts to 2,400,000,000 pounds sterling.

Now it is likely higher. Why? We are spending hundreds of millions in borrowed funds here. The vast majority of these expenditures are being made within our own country. People are working their regular hours as well as overtime; their wages have risen; the profits of certain industries have increased—indeed, they have risen substantially. As a result, our nation’s current income is probably higher than it was in peacetime. Some individuals are reaping what may be enormous profits—(attention, attention)—while others have seen their incomes rise far above their usual levels.
I have no doubt that, when we reflect—so far as possible—on which taxes you ought to increase or which levies you ought to impose in order to sustain the war for two or three years, it would be entirely just to turn to those who have derived exceptional gains from the war (applause)… …What are our nation’s customary savings in peacetime? Our usual savings amount to roughly 300–400 million pounds per year. Income is higher, and I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that in every European country, the standard of living is significantly lower—not to mention by how much.
But during the war, when income is higher, our nation’s savings should be doubled.”
He said the same thing there.
“We are an immensely wealthy nation—without a doubt, the wealthiest in Europe. I do not know whether we are the wealthiest nation in the world, relative to our population. We have invested 4 billion pounds sterling in the finest foreign and colonial assets…”
“…We have come to finance the procurement of most of our allies…”