MARX TO ENGELS” 

{London,] 6 May 1859 

Dear Frederick, 

Your article received.*'* You will have seen from a telegraphic 
despatch that Hess has come out against Gyulay’s plan (perhaps 
one should describe it as absence of plan). Looked at from our—i.e. 
a revolutionary —PoInt oF view, it would be by no means undesirable 
if Austria were to begin either by suffering a reverse or, which is 
morally the same thing, by withdrawing into Lombardy again. 
This will greatly complicate matters and thus allow sufficient time 
for things to come to a head in Paris. All in all the state of affairs 
is such that, no matter on what side blunders occur, they will 
necessarily redound to our advantage. If, at the outset, Austria 
were to beat the Piedmontese army, take Turin and thrash the 
French as they debouched from the Alps, Russia might immediate- 
ly turn against Bonaparte *’’—having in any case not yet actually 
entered into any obligations against Germany, and our rotten 
Prussian government would be extricated from the only dilemma 
that might cost it its neck. Again: Such a devastating defeat at the 
very beginning could bring about a mutiny in the French army 
and an anti-Bonaparte revolution in Paris. What then? At this 
juncture the u upshot would be victorious armed intervention by the 
Holy Alliance against a potential revolutionary government in 
Paris, something which certainly doesn’t come into our calcul? 

 calculations 

Even Radetzky had the revolutionary ardour of 1848 in his veins. 
On the other hand I believe that on both sides, Austrian and 
French, the war will now be conducted with reactionary medioc- 
rity. 

It was wrong of you not to have sent us at least two more 
pamphlets*—for Pfander, who sent off your maiiuscript under his 
own name, and for Freiligrath. It would also be fitting to send a 
copy to P. Imandt (Dunvee Seminary, Dundee). You must pay some 
heed to party relations and keep the chaps in good humour. 

Apropos, I deleted the whole of the preamble to your last 
Friday’s article,” firstly because I had my miscivincs about the 
Austrians; secondly because it is absolutely essential that we do not 
identify our cause with that of the present German governments. 

In my view, the worthy Palmerston will very shortly be back at 
the helm as Foreicn Minister or War Minister. Those dolts of 
Tories are indeed making things too easy for him. First they go 
and spoil the Austrians’ game by their miserable show oF MEDIATION. 
Then, as soon as the Franco-Russian treaty has been made known, 
they bend every rorce to deny its existence, so as to prove THAT THEY 
HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN BY SURPRISE. This in turn gives The Times the 
opportunity to deride them and adopt a patriotic attitude towards 
Russia.“ But the Lone anp short of it is that The Times, like all the 
rest of Palmerston’s papers (though these, depending on their 
allotted role, either oppose or support the various powers 
involved), is hinting at the necessity of reappointing THE TRULY 
Britisu minister '*! (The Morning Advertiser and The Daily Telegraph, 
which write for the Mos, are saying it openly). The wretched Tories 
ought instead to have ‘lent credence to’ the Russo-French treaty 
and seized on the chance of going for Pam. They had the best of 
opportunitirs. Firstly, Pam was in Compiégne*” when the whole 
plan was hatched. Secondly, Mr Whiteside, speaking on behalf of 
the ministry, had in fact already told silly old John Bull“ what had 
long been apparent from the Blue Books,” namely that in 1848 
Austria approached Palmerston and offered to relinquish the whole 
of Lombardy but to install an Italian government in Venice under 
an Austrian arcupuke, 1f he would mediate.* Piedmont had 
approached him at the same time, France ditto. What did Pam do? 

a F. Engels, Po and Phine. -> ‘Prospects of the War’ - © ‘In our long list of 
telegrams...’, The Times, No. 23295, 2 May 1859. - 4 A reference to J. Whiteside’s 
speech in the House of Commons delivered on 25 March 1859, The Times, No. 23264, 
26 March 1859. - ¢ Marx refers to the Blue Book Correspondence Respecting the Affairs 
of Italy published in 1849. 

He rejected the proposal, on the pretext that Venice, too, must be 
given up altogether. He gave this answer after a three weeks’ 
silence. As soon as Radetzky was victorious he called upon the 
Austrians to carry out the plan they had divulged to him. In the 
Hungarian affair (with reference this time to the conditions upon 
which the already desperate Hungarians were willing to submit) he 
performed the same manoeuvre. The fellow’s return to the 
ministry constitutes a reat pancrr. In Germany, by the by, the 
fellows are beginning to see through him. In a book by Prof. 
Wurm of Hamburg (a history of the war in the East),* and a book 
on Nicholas by another German, whose name I can’t recall, Pam is 
attacked outright as a Russian agent. 

Ad vocem susixess.” That ass Friedlander wrote to me on 12 April 
but had forgotten the crucial point, ie. instructions to a 
banking-house. Instead, he spoke of an ‘advance’. This last is 
NONSENSE, £8-10, and often £15, will be needed each week for 
telegrams. I wrote and told the ass so. Up till now no answer, 
although he regularly sends me the Vienna Presse (from which I 
gather that it now has 26,000 subscribers). Yesterday I wrote 
Lassalle a fulminating letter.“ I see from the Presse that Lassalle 
has embarked on his articles and telegraphic despatches for that 
paper with great zeal albeit small talent. However he did not 
accept this post until I had ‘given him permission’ in writing,’ not 
wanting—or so he says—to take the political risk without my 
consent. It would be a rum business, would it not, if all the 
transaction led to was Lassalle’s installing himself in that quarter? 
It’s possible, however, that the delay is due to Friedlander’s 
difficulty in arranging the financial side in Vienna during the 
present Troubles. Meanwhile, out of impatience, I am devoting 
myself to algebra. 

Salut. 

Is Lupus in Manchester? 

Your 
K. M.