Belgium may, in the next imperialist war, at the decisive moment join the anti-German
coalition—that is so. The bourgeoisie of Belgium will call this a national war. That is also so. But in
actual fact it will be a national war no more than the present participation of Serbia on the side of the
Entente. (And even worse: the Belgian bourgeoisie has the Congo.)

Austria did not annex Serbia, but she strangled her, strangled the national revolution of the
southern Slavs.

--- In case of the annexation of Belgium by Germany,
we shall preach to the Belgian proletarians not a national uprising, but an international uprising, a
struggle hand in hand with the revolutionary German proletariat. If you take Belgium in isolation, as
you do, then it is not clear where the difference in principle lies: why was it not necessary to defend
the Belgian fatherland when it was attacked in order to annex it, while it will be necessary to defend
it after it has been annexed? The annexation of Belgium will create a new hotbed of discontent, the
struggle will be complicated by national oppression—that is so. The German proletariat will have to
uphold the freedom of secession of Belgium—that is also so. It must do the same with regard to
Denmark, and we must do the same with regard to Sweden. And nevertheless, no national wars of
Denmark (over Norway), etc., proved possible.

according to whose Fahrplan?*

You have completely deviated from the only Marxist position of evaluating each given war
separately!

incorrect!!
in the article *Vorbote*, p. 793 (NB) “kann” (NB)
where is the oblivion? Kann und mu.
ist zweierlei. Sie vergessen das!!***

?? Proudhonism consists precisely in denying the possibility (and often the usefulness)
of bourgeois national uprisings and wars.
((That is quite beside the point. Not here, not here at all. That is only an answer
to Plekhanov’s argument. And it is about the character of the given war.))
uprisings against Germany, Sweden against Russia in the present era cannot be conceived. “Utilise
these conflicts” (see: our theses)
—we must. But you are not saying only that.

In our theses it is said (p. 39, penultimate paragraph): Die Tatsache, da[ß] der Kampf
gegen eine imperialistische Regierung... Von einer andern Grossmacht... aus genutzt werden kann*
etc., i.e.** cannot induce us to renounce self-determination. That is correct. But we must go no further.
Otherwise we get oblivion of the very
Tatsache referred to above.

What then should we recommend to Belgium and the Belgian workers after the annexation:
to wage a national war against Germany, necessarily
alone, without the support of England—France?

Or—should we hush up the “Tatsache” that in another case Belgium will again turn out to be
a Werkzeug**** of the imperialist bourgeoisie of the anti-German coalition.

In *Socialism and the War* (p. 8) you wrote:
“If all states declared war on Germany with the demand for the liberation and compensation
of Belgium, in that case the sympathy of the
Social-Democrats would, of course, be on the side of Germany’s
enemies.”
NB

* — schedule. —Ed.
** — Inserted by V. I. Lenin. —Ed.
*** — Can and must are two opposites. You forget this!! —Ed.
**** — instrument. —Ed.