There are signs that such a turn has already begun or is beginning. Namely: it is a turn from imperialist war to imperialist peace.

The undoubtedly great exhaustion of both imperialist coalitions; the difficulty of continuing the war further; the difficulty for the capitalists in general and for finance capital in particular to extract from the peoples anything more than the two or more hides already flayed in the form of scandalous "war" profits; the satiation of the finance capital of the neutral countries – the United States, Holland, Switzerland, and others – which has enriched itself gigantically from the war and for which it is not easy to continue this "profitable" business further owing to the shortage of raw materials and foodstuffs; the intensified attempts by Germany to detach one or another ally from her chief imperialist rival, England; the pacifist pronouncements of the German government, followed by a number of governments of neutral countries – these are the chief of these signs.

Are there chances of a speedy end of the war or not?

It is very difficult to answer this question in the affirmative. Two possibilities, in our opinion, stand out fairly clearly:

First – a separate peace has been concluded between Germany and Russia, even if not in the usual form of a written formal treaty. Second – no such peace has been concluded, and England and her allies are really in a position to hold out for another year or two, and so on. In the first case, the war would inevitably cease, if not now, then in the very near future, and no serious changes in its course can be expected. In the second case, the war may continue for an indefinite period.

Let us dwell on the first case.

That negotiations for a separate peace between Germany and Russia were carried on quite recently, that Nicholas II himself or an influential court clique is in favour of such a peace, that a turn in world politics has taken shape from an imperialist alliance of Russia with England against Germany to a no less imperialist alliance of Russia with Germany against England – all this cannot be doubted.

The replacement of Stürmer by Trepov, the public declaration of tsarism that Russia's "right" to Constantinople has been recognised by all her allies, the creation by Germany of a separate Polish state – these signs seem to indicate that the negotiations for a separate peace ended in failure. Perhaps tsarism conducted these negotiations only to blackmail England, to obtain from her a formal and unambiguous recognition of the "rights" of Nicholas the Bloody to Constantinople and of some kind of "serious" guarantees of this right?

Since the main, fundamental content of the given imperialist war is the division of the spoils among the three chief imperialist rivals, the three robbers – Russia, Germany and England – there is nothing improbable in such a supposition.

On the other hand, the more the practical, military impossibility of recovering Poland, conquering Constantinople, and breaking the iron German front, which Germany is splendidly straightening, shortening and strengthening by her last victories in Rumania, becomes evident to tsarism, the more tsarism is compelled to conclude a separate peace with Germany, i.e., to go over from an imperialist alliance with England against Germany to an imperialist alliance with Germany against England. Why not? Russia was within an ace of war with England because of their imperialist rivalry over the division of the spoils in Central Asia! Were there not negotiations between England and Germany in 1898 about an alliance against Russia, with England and Germany secretly agreeing to divide Portugal's colonies between themselves "in case" she did not fulfill her financial obligations!

The intensified striving of the leading imperialist circles of Germany for an alliance with Russia against England became clear several months ago. The basis of the alliance will, obviously, be the division of Galicia (it is very important for tsarism to strangle the centre of Ukrainian agitation and Ukrainian freedom), Armenia and, perhaps, Rumania! A "hint" has already appeared in a German newspaper that Rumania could be divided between Austria, Bulgaria and Russia! Germany could agree to any "little concessions" to tsarism just to realise an alliance with Russia, and perhaps also with Japan, against England.

A separate peace could have been concluded between Nicholas II and Wilhelm II secretly. The history of diplomacy knows examples of secret treaties known to no one, not even ministers, except two or three people. The history of diplomacy knows examples when the "Great Powers" went to a "general European" congress, having previously agreed secretly on the main thing between the chief rivals (for example, the secret agreement of Russia with England about the plunder of Turkey before the Berlin Congress of 1878). There would be nothing surprising whatever if tsarism rejected a formal separate peace of the governments, among other reasons, on the consideration that in the present state of Russia her government might then turn out to be Milyukov with Guchkov or Milyukov with Kerensky, and at the same time concluded a secret, not formal, but no less "solid" treaty with Germany that both "high contracting parties" jointly pursue such and such a line at the future peace congress!

Whether this supposition is correct or not cannot be decided. But in any case, it contains a thousand times more truth, a characterization of what is, than the endless, sugary phrases about peace between the present and in general between bourgeois governments on the basis of the renunciation of annexations, etc. These phrases are either innocent wishes or hypocrisy and lies, serving to conceal the truth. The truth of the given time, the given war, the given moment of attempts to conclude peace consists in the division of imperialist spoils. That is the essence, and to understand this truth, to express it, to "say what is" – that is the fundamental task of socialist politics, as distinct from bourgeois politics, for which the main thing is to conceal, to obscure this truth.

Both imperialist coalitions have plundered a certain amount of spoils, and it is precisely the two chief and strongest predators, Germany and England, that have plundered the most. England has not lost a single inch of her own land and colonies, having "acquired" German colonies and part of Turkey (Mesopotamia). Germany has lost almost all her colonies, but has acquired immeasurably more valuable territories in Europe, having seized Belgium, Serbia, Rumania, part of France, part of Russia, and so on. The point is to divide this booty, with the "chieftain" of each robber gang, i.e., both England and Germany, having to reward in one way or another its allies, who, with the exception of Bulgaria and, to a lesser extent, Italy, have lost particularly much. The weakest allies have lost the most: in the English coalition, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, and Rumania have been crushed; in the German coalition, Turkey has lost Armenia and part of Mesopotamia.

So far, Germany's booty is undoubtedly and very considerably greater than England's. So far, Germany has been victorious, having proved immeasurably stronger than anyone supposed before the war. It is therefore understandable that it would be to Germany's advantage to conclude peace as soon as possible, for her rival might still, in the most favourable case conceivable for him (though not very probable), bring a larger reserve of recruits, etc., into play.

Such is the objective situation. Such is the given moment of the struggle for the division of the imperialist spoils. It is perfectly natural that this moment has given rise to pacifist aspirations, declarations and demonstrations chiefly among the bourgeoisie and governments of the German coalition, and then of the neutral countries. It is also natural that the bourgeoisie and its governments are forced to strive with all their might to dupe the peoples, concealing the hideous nakedness of an imperialist peace, the division of the plunder, with phrases, through and through false phrases about a democratic peace, the freedom of small nations, reduction of armaments, etc.

But if it is natural for the bourgeoisie to strive to dupe the peoples, how are the socialists fulfilling their duty? On this in the following article (or chapter).