The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers’ Party. 
By Frederick Engels. (Hamburg, Otto Meissner) 

This most important pamphlet falls into three sections. 

In the first the author subjects the reorganisation of the 
Prussian army to the critique of ‘military science. Its main fault he 
finds in the fact that the reorganisation plan “whilst in appearance 
reverting to the original concept of universal conscription, which 
cannot ... function without a large army-reserve in the form of a 
Landwehr, ... in fact executes an about-turn in the direction of the 
Franco-Austrian cadre-system”’ .* 

The second section sharply criticises the bourgeois opposition’s 
handling of the military question. The author comes to the 
conclusion: 

‘It is immaterial by what errors and complications the bourgeois 
Opposition is now forced into the following position: it must fight 
the military question through to the end, or it will lose the 
remnants of political power it still possesses... Can the Prussian 

bourgeoisie be expected ... to have the courage to remain 
adamant, come what may? It would have to have changed 
remarkably for the better since 1848, ... and the yearning for 

compromise which has found expression daily in the sighs of the 
Party of Progress since the opening of this session, is not an 
auspicious sign.”” 

In the third section the author examines the attitude adopted by 
“the workers’ party towards this reorganisation of the army” and 

“ See this volume, p. 51.— Ed. 

» ibid., pp. 64-66.— Ed. 

the “ensuing constitutional conflict”. His answer is summarised in 
the following sentences: 

“The only aspect of army reorganisation in Prussia which is of 
interest to the German working class is the increasingly thorough 
implementation of universal conscription.” * 

The policy which the working class must pursue in_ the 
constitutional conflict is: “above all to preserve the organisation of 
the workers’ party as far as present conditions permit; to drive the 
Party of Progress on to make real progress, as far as possible; 
...but to reply to the hypocritical enticements of reaction with the 
words: 

‘With the spear one should accept gifts, point against point.’ sa