[Draft] 
London, mid-October 1892 

My dear Bonnier, 
I have received Protot‘"—thank you. First of all, however, a correction. 
You say: 

“whereas the French socialists are protesting against the Russian alliance and do not wish 
to hear about a war with Germany, Bebel in particular and you yourself are quite willing to 
accept the idea of a defensive war against France and Russia in which the German socialists 
would take part’, and that ‘these accusations, which are well received in France, irritate 
Guesde’. 

If the French socialists are not expressly discussing the case of a defensive 
war in which they would be willing to repel an attack by the Emperor 
William,d this is because it is well known, recognised and accepted that 

* Natalie Liebknecht ° Hans Müller - ° E. Protot, Chawvins et réacteurs. - ‘ William II 

there is no need to talk about it. There is not a single socialist in Germany 
who doubts that in such a case the French socialists would only be doing 
their duty in defending their national independence; there is not one who 
would hold it against them; on the contrary, they would applaud them, That 
is precisely the point of view in my article’. If I were not proceeding from the 
view that, should there be a foreign attack, the French socialists would take 
up arms to defend their homes, the whole of my article would be absurd. 
What I am requesting is the benefit of the same principle for the German 
socialists in the case of a Russian attack, even if it is supported by official 
France. The same holds true for Bebel’s speeches. The people in France who 
use this as a basis for accusations against us belong to that kind who say: 
quod licet Jovi gallici non licet bovi Germanici’; to make them see reason is, 
it seems to me, the task of the French socialists, and presents no great 
difficulty.© 

I would also warn you that what M. Protot cites from my article is nothing 
but gross falsehood. 

You say that the brochure is well done. I find it very weak; the end, where 
this joker poses as an economist is more than grotesque. If he has a strong 
point, it is the royal disdain which he pours out on his readers. Indeed, one 
must assume that one’s readers are incurable idiots in order to dare to offer 
them such a collection of palpable falsehoods (in which you see only snippets) 
and lies contradicting one another. Is it then sufficient to put on a masque of 
Dérouléde in order to persuade those who create public opinion in Paris to 
swallow anything one wishes. Has Boulangism ° survived Boulanger to the 
point of being more powerful than during Boulanger’s lifetime? 

Such a collection of lies and falsehoods is, in fact, irrefutable. It would 
require 3,200 pages to reassert the truth against these 32 pages. There is not a 
single quotation of any significance which is not shamelessly distorted; it was 
only after comparing several texts that I had the measure of M. Protot’s 
affrontery. 

As for the literary style, I find it lamentable, in striking contrast to the 
assiduity with which he has collected his material. Clearly another 

* F. Engels, Socialism in Germany. — what is acceptable for the French is not acceptable for 
the German - ° The following phrases are crossed out in the draft letter: ‘That such chauvinist 
stupidities irritate Guesde I can well believe, but that is not my fault, nor that of Bebel. As for 
the rest, when I sent my article to Paris, | warned my friends of the danger, expressing my fears 
due to national susceptibilities; but I was told that, on the contrary, this was just what was 
needed’. 

hand was at work here. Certainly not Protot. 

Nor is it, as Vorwdrts believes, one of the Unabhdngiger.‘ '° Their mani- 
festo (Hans Midler’s Klassenkampf)’ is characterised by the lack of care he 
has taken in selecting his supporting texts. 

Nor is it the French police; one senses that they have had a hand in it, 
but they are not the ones who have so interested themselves in the foreign 
policy of the Romanian socialists. 

If M. Protot accuses the latter of being the enemies of Holy Rus, if he 
twice quotes the Bucharest Munca (Labour), and divulges that Nadejde de 
Jassi is ‘Zingaro’,“ it is because he is acting in the interests of the Russian 
embassy, which must have supplied this information, and probably also the 
information on the German socialists, collected in Berlin by some attaché 
there. 

Thus Protot’s lampoon is not only in the interests of the police, but also in 
the interests of Russia; it is part and parcel of those frantic efforts that Russia 
is making to ensure a French alliance. It is Russia, in fact, which needs 
France. She is so completely exhausted by the social disorganisation caused 
by the economic transformation that she has been experiencing since 1861, 
by the ravages of deforestation, by the ruination of agriculture and the cottage 
industry, by famine and cholera, that she could not wage a war through to the 
end. Her finances and her credit are in a state of collapse reminiscent of 
France in 1788; if the western public continues to keep its purse closed, there 
remain only three alternatives: 1) bankruptcy, 2) the convening of a national 
assembly to sanction a new loan, which then might succeed in the west; 3) 
war as a measure of desperation—and in that last case France is necessary: 
once war were declared, the French army engaged, ten against one, the Tsar 
would reach an agreement with William and Francis Joseph,’ who would 
hasten to meet him, and la belle France would pay the expenses of the 
banquet of reconciliation.