^{page 173 note 1} In Mayer's case this would seem to be related to two factors: first, the context in which he examines Berne, namely the attempt by Allied labor leaders to influence the Paris Peace Conference; and second, his reliance on English and French accounts of the Conference. See Mayer, Arno J., Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking. Containment and Counterrevolution at Versailles, 1918–1919 (New York, 1967), pp. 373–409.Google Scholar For other accounts of the Berne Conference see: Braunthal, Julius, History of the International, II (New York, 1967), pp. 149–156Google Scholar; Cole, G. D. H., A History of Socialist Thought, IV/I (London, 1958), pp. 290–299;Google ScholarFainsod, Merle, International Socialism and the World War (Cambridge, 1935), pp. 249–257;CrossRefGoogle ScholarLorwin, Lewis L., Labor and Internationalism (New York, 1929), pp. 166–168Google Scholar; and Slice, Austin van der, International Labor, Diplomacy and Peace, 1914–1919 (Philadelphia, 1941), pp. 309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This last work probably contains, after Mayer's, the most thoughtful analytical treatment of the Conference.

^{page 174 note 1} Fechenbach, Felix, Der Revolutionär Kurt Eisner (Berlin, 1929), pp. 56–60;Google ScholarNiekisch, Ernst, Leben, Gewagtes. Begegnungen und Begebnisse (Cologne, 1958), pp. 49–50Google Scholar; Schade, Franz, Kurt Eisner und die bayerische Sozialdemokratie (Hannover, 1961), pp. 84 and 163.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 2} Toller, Ernst, Eine Jugend in Deutschland (Hamburg, 1963), p. 84Google Scholar; Beyer, Hans, Von der Novemberrevolution zur Räterepublik in München (Berlin, 1957), pp. 37, 39Google Scholar; Fechenbach, Eisner, p. 61; Niekisch, Gewagtes Leben, p. 50; Freiheit, No 94, February 21, 1919. Eight days before his assassination Eisner read publicly the contents of a student handbill accusing him of opposing the release of German prisoners of war and urging his murder. See Extranummer der Neuen Zeitung, n.d. (February 14–15, 1919) (hereafter cited as Extranummer).

^{page 174 note 3} See, for example, Mayer, , Politics and Diplomacy, p. 391Google Scholar; Robert, Michels, “Kurt Eisner”, in: Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, XIV, pp. 378, 382.Google Scholar Invariably any recognition of a practical side to Eisner's activity at Berne has been confined to pointing out how he actually helped the German cause by his statements during the Conference.

^{page 174 note 4} Nevertheless once Eisner arrived in Berne, he was quickly coopted by the official USPD delegation and with the early departure of Hugo Haase, he became, despite the presence of Karl Kautsky, the Independents' chief spokesman at the Conference. What initially prompted Eisner to go to Berne is not completely clear. Mitchell, Alan, Revolution in Bavaria 1918–1919 (Princeton, 1965), p. 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has suggested that his purpose was to “revive the mystique of the first days of his regime” but without documenting this hypothesis. One thing is certain, the German foreign office was strongly opposed to Eisner'.s decision and attempted unsuccessfully to block his attendance. See telegram from Adolf Müller, Ambassador at Berne, to the Foreign Office on January 23, and further the telegram of Zech, Munich, to the Foreign Office on January 25, Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Weltkrieg 2^C, Die Sozialisten-Konferenzen, XIII.

^{page 175 note 1} For an examination of Independent Social Democratic attitudes towards the Berne Conference see the author's doctoral dissertation, “The Independent Social Democratic Party and the Internationals: An Examination of Socialist Internationalism in Germany 1915–1923” (University of Pittsburgh, 1970), pp. 145–155, 188–195.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 2} Herzfeld had attended the Zimmerwald Conference but had been prevented by the German police from attending any further meetings in Switzerland during the war. See Lademacher, Horst, ed., Die Zimmerwalder Bewegung. Protokolle und Korrespondenz (The Hague, 1967), I, pp. 45 and 273;Google Scholar Deutsches Zentral-archiv Potsdam, Reichstag No 1704 Kommissionsverhandlung, pp. 633–635.

^{page 175 note 3} Unabhängige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des ausserordentlichen Parteitages vom 2. bis 6. März 1919 in Berlin (Berlin, n.d.) (hereafter cited as USPD, Protokoll-Berlin), p. 189.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 4} Unfortunately the only published account of the activities and composition of the Opposition is contained in Fritz Platten's speech before the founding Congress of the Communist International. See Kongress, Der I.der Kommunistischen Internationale. Protokoll der Verhandlungen in Moskau vom 2. bis zum 19. März 1919 (Hamburg, 1921), pp. 150–151.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 5} Speaking at Berne on October 30, 1918 before a meeting of the Swiss Social Democratic Party's Geschäftsleitung, Angelica Balabanova, Secretary of the International Socialist Commission, urged that a Zimmerwald conference be called as soon as possible. Only Fritz Platten, however, supported her and against his vote the Geschäftsleitung rejected this suggestion. When a similar proposal calling on the Swiss to organize a meeting of Zimmerwaldian parties was placed before the SPS Parteivorstand on December 20, it was rejected in turn. (At this same Parteivorstand meeting the Swiss also refused to consider the possibility of their calling a general conference of the International.) See the report of the German military attaché at Berne, dated November 4, 1918, Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Gesandtschaft Bern 17/160 Bol-schewismus in der I, Schweiz; Sozialdemokratische Partei der Schweiz, Geschäfts-bericht für die Jahre 1918 bis 1920 (Zurich, 1921), p. 48.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 1} The vote was 238 to 147. See Berner Tagwacht, No 27, February 3, 1919, and SPS, Geschäftsbericht, op. cit., p. 49.

^{page 176 note 2} See Fritz Platten's account, ibid. Among those in attendance at this meeting arranged by Platten and Robert Grimm (SPS) were Friedrich Adler (Austria), Petrov (Russia), Paul Faure, L.-O. Frossard, Fernand Loriot, Charles Rappoport, and Raoul Verfeuil (France), Oddino Morgari (Italy), Burian (Czechoslovakia), Olav Scheflo (Norway), Julian Besteiro (Spain), Martna (Estonia) and Herzfeld (USPD). Of these only Morgari and Loriot supported the initial Swiss proposal.

^{page 177 note 1} Four Independent Social Democrats, including Party chairman Haase, attended and actively participated in the Third Zimmerwald Conference held in Stockholm during early September 1917, see “The Independent Social Democratic Party and the Internationals”, pp. 59–64. Moreover, during its first year of existence the USPD gave 1,500 marks to “Angelica”, i.e., to the Secretary of the Zimmerwald Movement Angelica Balabanova, see the USPD Kassenbericht for the period April 1, 1917 to March 31, 1918, in the Zentral-parteiarchiv of the Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus, Berlin, 8/13 Reichs-kanzelei Unabhängige Sozialdemokratische Partei, I, 25. Georg Ledebour, who was in prison at the time his party decided to attend the Berne Conference, later claimed that the USPD had violated an agreement reached at the Third Zimmerwald Conference by going to Berne without first consulting the other Zimmerwald parties, see USPD, Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des ausserordentlichen Parteitages vom 30. November bis 6. Dezember 1919 in Leipzig (Berlin, n.d.), p. 356.Google Scholar For Eisner's contact with the Opposition at Berne, see Kriegel, Annie, Aux origines du communisme français, 1914–1920 (Paris, 1964), I, p. 252.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 2} See the detailed account of Eisner's speech in the Deutsches Theater, Munich, on February 13, in Extranummer.

^{page 177 note 3} For background on the events leading up to the Conference, see the letter of Hjalmar Branting to the Swiss dated January 3, 1919, in the SPS Archiv, Berne; Mayer, Politics and Diplomacy, pp. 378ff.; Braunthal, , History of the International, II, pp. 150–151Google Scholar; and Fainsod, , International Socialism, pp. 249–250.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 1} The only “official” published record of the Conference proceedings is to be found in the Official Bulletin of the International Labour and Socialist Conference which the press committee of the Conference published between February 3 and 21 in English (8 issues), French (11 issues) and German (12 issues). These were, however, only summary accounts of the proceedings. The last Bulletin to appear in English carried a notice that a “complete Journal of the Proceedings of the Berne Conference is now being prepared in the English, French and German languages. It will contain all the verbatim speeches, resolutions and memorandas, etc. as preserved in the official stenograms of the Conference.” But for some reason – probably financial – such a “Journal” was never published. However, “L.S.I. Berne Congress [sic] February 1919”, British Labour Party Archives (hereafter referred to as BLP Berne protocol), contains a large collection of material which appears to have been originally intended for such a project. A similar collection is to be found in the archive of the Bureau of the Second International (BSI) in Antwerp. While it is unclear whether these protocols are a stenographic or an edited record of the proceedings, they are by far the best account of the delegates' speeches that I have found. However, since representatives of the press were present at all plenary sessions, it is sometimes helpful to compare the above record with the accounts given in the Socialist papers. The latter are also the best published source for a record of the preliminary meetings held from January 26 to February 2. The only published, and apparently the only extant, accounts of the commission meetings which took place during the Conference are in Pierre Renaudel, L'Internationale à Berne (Paris, 1919), and Tomaso, Antonio de, La Internacional y la Revolucion (Buenos Aires, 1919).Google ScholarKay, John de, the Conference's millionaire patron, published a summary of the public sessions in The Spirit of the International at Berne (Lucerne, 1919)Google Scholar, which is of little value.

^{page 179 note 1} BLP Berne protocol, February 3, 1919; Berner Tagwacht, No 28, February 4, 1919.

^{page 179 note 2} For Eisner's speech see BLP, Berne protocol, February 4, 1919; Freiheit, No 64, February 5, 1919. It was also published as a pamphlet by Bund Neues Vaterland. See Kurt, Eisner, Schuld und Sühne (Berlin, 1919).Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 1} My translation is from the German text found in both the BLP and BSI archives. It differs somewhat from that of Mayer (Politics and Diplomacy, p. 391), who apparently relied on Renaudel's (L'Internationale, p. 46) account of Eisner's speech.

^{page 180 note 2} BLP Berne protocol, February 4, 1919, lists “lively applause” as does the BSI copy. Actually the latter appears to be the more complete copy of Kautsky's remarks. It includes, for example, a reference to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht in which Kautsky memorialized them as “martyrs in the proletariat's struggle for liberation”.This statement along with the fact the delegates responded to it by rising from their seats is not included in the BLP version.

^{page 181 note 1} See BLP Berne protocol, February 5, 1919.

^{page 181 note 2} Renaudel, , L'Internationale, p. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 1} For the SPD and French Minority resolutions see ibid., pp. 50–52. In his February 13 speech in Munich, Eisner emphasized his “bridge-building” function, see Extranummer.

^{page 182 note 2} Politics and Diplomacy, p. 393. Mayer refers to this amendment as “Henderson's proposal”. Formally this is correct but the section he quotes was suggested by the Austrian Ellenbogen. See Renaudel, , L'Internationale, p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 182 note 3} For the final version of this resolution see International Labour and Peace (London, 1919), p. 3.Google Scholar For Eisner's proposal see Renaudel, L'Internationale, pp. 53–54. The Eisner Nachlass now located in the Zentralparteiarchiv of the Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus contains the German original.

^{page 182 note 4} Mayer, , Politics and Diplomacy, p. 393Google Scholar, asserts that this particular change was proposed by Branting. Renaudel, However, L'Internationale, p. 55Google Scholar, would seem to claim credit for the addition of 'immediate”. The idea for the concluding sentence was clearly Branting's. (Emphasis added.)

^{page 183 note 1} Renaudel's account suggests that the crucial pressure came from Branting and Ellenbogen.

^{page 183 note 2} BLP Berne protocol, February 3 and 4.

^{page 183 note 3} See Extranummer.

^{page 183 note 4} BLP Berne protocol, February 6.

^{page 184 note 1} See Berner Tagwacht, No 31, February 7, 1919, Beilage.

^{page 184 note 2} Vorwärts, No 70, February 7, 1919.

^{page 184 note 3} Berner Tagwacht, No 32, February 8, 1919; Vorwärts, No 71, February 8, 1919; L'Humanité, No 5410, February 8, 1919. The Conference Bureau was composed of Branting (Sweden), president; Wibaut (Holland), and Dr Justo (Argentina), vice presidents; and Henderson (England) and Seitz (Austria). Dr Ellenbogen (Austria) replaced Seitz when the latter left the Conference on February 3. All can be considered anti-Bolshevik and right-wing in their orientation.

^{page 184 note 4} The Arbeiter-Zeitung (Vienna), No 35, February 5, 1919, contains a notice of this meeting but there is no published record of what took place at it. The brief account I have given is based on what the Opposition did during the Conference with regard to the “democracy and dictatorship” question following this meeting. For example, Renaudel, L'Internationale, p. 125, reports that in the commission Adler threatened a walkout of thirty-three delegates if the matter came to the floor. During the February 8 debate on territorial questions Renaudel publicly accused Adler of stalling in an attempt to keep the issue of “democracy and dictatorship” from the Conference, see L'Humanité, No 5412, February 10, 1919. Both in the commission and the subcommittee the Opposition made unsuccessful motions for adjournment. Finally nearly all the Opposition signed the Adler-Longuet resolution on “democracy and dictatorship”.

^{page 184 note 5} Berner Tagwacht, No 33, February 10, 1919, Beilage. The rally was well publicized. Front-page advertisements for it appeared in the Tagwacht on February 6 and 7.

^{page 185 note 1} Morgari and Giulio Casalini had been sent to Berne by the Italian Socialist Party to participate in the Berne Conference under certain conditions. Because of the “social patriotic” orientation of the Conference the two Italians withdrew as delegates but continued to attend the plenary sessions in their capacity as journalists. See Morgan's statement in Berner Tagwacht, No 36, 02 13, 1919, Beilage.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 2} Berner Tagwacht, No 33, February 10, 1919, Beilage.

^{page 185 note 3} Among the members of this commission were the following: Justo and de Tomaso (Argentina); Adler (Austria); Grumbach, Longuet and Renaudel (France); Eisner, Kautsky and Wels (Germany); Henderson and MacDonald (Great Britain); Troelstra (Holland); Kunfi (Hungary); Axelrod, Bienstock, Gavronsky, Roussanov, Roubanovitch, Sukhomlin (Russia); Goussorsky (Bund); Vuolyoki (Finland); Branting (Sweden).

^{page 186 note 1} Renaudel, , L'Internationale, p. 129Google Scholar; Tomaso, , La International, pp. 194–195.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 2} Renaudel, , L'Internationale, pp. 129–130Google Scholar (in French); Arbeiter-Zeitung (Vienna), No 52, February 22, 1919, and Freiheit, No 103, February 26, 1919 (in German). For a copy of this resolution see Appendix I.

^{page 186 note 3} Le Populaire, No 301, February 10, 1919. A copy of the Renaudel proposal as well as the MacDonald proposal is to be found in French in Renaudel, L'Internationale, pp. 127–128. The Wels resolution is also to be found in this work on pp. 130–131. However, in the latter case I have used an original copy of the resolution in German located in the Branting Collection, Arbetarrörelsens Arkiv, Stockholm. I have not been able to locate a copy of Branting's proposal.

^{page 186 note 4} Renaudel, , L'Internationale, p. 131Google Scholar, n. 1, lists a tenth member of this subcommittee, the Russian Bienstock. However two pages later he lists only nine subcommittee members and Bienstock is not among them. The Arbeiter-Zeitung (Vienna), No 41, February 11, 1919, refers to a –nine member subcommittee”, as does Branting in his remarks on February 9. See Berner Tagwacht, No 34, February 11, 1919.

^{page 187 note 1} L'Humanité, No5410, February 8,1919, referred to this as “uneMotion Frossard-Faure-Verfeuil-Longuet”. However the British Socialist journal The Call, No 152, March 6, 1919, published an English translation of the resolution “proposed by Loriot, Verfeuil, Frossard and Paul Faure”. Renaudel, , L'Internationale, p. 131Google Scholar, says that it was put to the subcommittee by Longuet but later published under the names of Frossard, Verfeuil and Loriot.

^{page 187 note 2} Arbeiter-Zeitung (Vienna), No 52, February 22, 1919, and Freiheit, No 103, February 26, 1919.

^{page 187 note 3} For a copy of this resolution and the sources from which it was derived see Appendix II.

^{page 187 note 4} Renaudel, , L'Internationale, p. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 1} Tomaso, , La International, p. 117.Google Scholar Through Renaudel, Tomaso also submitted a proposal to the subcommittee, see p. 197.

^{page 188 note 2} See Appendix III.

^{page 188 note 3} USPD, Protokoll-Berlin, p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 4} For a copy of the original proposal see Berner Tagwacht, No 34, February 11, 1919, or Troelstra Collection, 451/12, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis, Amsterdam; for the resolution as adopted see International Labour and Peace, p. 11, or Official Bulletin of the International Labour and Socialist Conference, No 8, February 21, 1919.

^{page 188 note 5} As noted above the Conference had earlier stood silently in honor of Liebknecht and Luxemburg but this was as far as it was prepared to go. For the text of Liebknecht's telegram, see Freiheit, No 62, February 4, 1919, or Leipziger Volkszeitung, No 29, February 5, 1919. Theodor Liebknecht had hoped to address the Conference personally but he failed to receive the necessary papers in time to travel to Berne. As was to be expected there were a number of explanations as to why Liebknecht did not receive his passport in time to attend the Conference. The USPD claimed government chicanery, while the SPD declared Liebknecht had simply applied too late. Under the circumstances it is quite possible that the latter explanation was at least formally accurate. However considering the German Foreign Office's efforts to keep Eisner home, it seems rather likely that they were in no great hurry to assist another “undesirable” in his efforts to attend the Conference. For the controversy over Liebknecht's inability to attend the Conference, see Freiheit and Vorwärts for early February 1919.

^{page 189 note 1} Berner Tagwacht, No 34, February 11, 1919, and Arbeiter-Zeitung (Vienna), No 41, February 11, 1919.

^{page 190 note 1} See below and Appendix IV, especially the final paragraph.

^{page 190 note 2} Berner Tagwacht, No 34, February 11, 1919.

^{page 190 note 3} Ibid., No 33, February 10, 1919. Loriot had attempted to present this statement at the start of the evening session on February 9, but was ruled out of order as the Conference was at that time debating the prisoner of war question. However he apparently released the statement to the press at this time anyway. Another French delegate, Pressemane, also presented a personal resolution at the final session. For the text see Renaudel, , L'Internationale, pp. 138–139.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 1} Generally referred to as the Adler-Longuet resolution. See Appendix IV.

^{page 191 note 2} Kriegel, , Aux origines du communisme français, p. 251Google Scholar, refers to Loriot as a “Left-Zimmerwaldian”. Besides Adler and Longuet the Opposition resolution was signed by Cachin, Faure, Frossard, Mistral, Pressemane and Verfeuil (France); Scheflo and Tranmael (Norway); Johnson and O'Shannon (Ireland); Petridis (Greece); Herzfeld (Germany).

^{page 191 note 3} Even Pressemane's relatively moderate statement objected to “all foreign intervention, military or economic”.

^{page 192 note 1} Arbeiter-Zeitung (Vienna), No 42, February 12, 1919.

^{page 193 note 1} On the day after the Berne Conference concluded the Swiss Leadership met to evaluate the results of its discussions with the Opposition. Robert Grimm was then appointed to draft a circular letter to all the parties and groups affiliated with the Zimmerwald movement for the purpose of calling a conference prior to the scheduled fall Congress of the Second International (SPS Archiv, Geschä leitung Protokoll, February 11, 1919, and SPS, Geschäicht, op. cit., p. 49). A few days later Party Secretary Fritz Platten left for Russia (Berner Tagwacht, No 37, February 14, 1919; Hulse'sertion, James W. in The Forming of the Communist International (Stanford, 1964), p. 18Google Scholar, that Platten had not returned to Switzerland since the spring of 1917 is incorrect). Although the reasons behind Platten'ip are not completely clear it is likely they involved trying to secure Bolshevik participation in the proposed conference of Zimmerwald parties. (The possibility that Platten was responding to the January 24 broadcast from Russia inviting the “ Social Democrats of Switzerland”thers to the founding Congress of the Communist International seems unlikely. I have found no indication that this invitation was known to anyone in Western Europe until weeks after Platten had already left.) On February 18, after its delegates had returned from Berne, the Central Committee of the Norwegian Labor Party wrote at length to the Zimmerwald Commission in Stockholm urging it to coordinate action among the various Zimmerwald groups concerning the upcoming Congress of the Second International (Strom Collection, Gö University Library). At its National Congress in March the USPD adopted a program which included a demand for the “oration of the Workers' International on the basis of a revolutionary Socialist policy in the spirit of Zimmerwald and Kienthal” (USPD, Protokoll-Berlin, p. 199).Google Scholar On May 8, an expanded national conference of this same party instructed its leadership to contact other revolutionary parties in order to build an International dedicated to the ideals of Zimmerwald and Kienthal (“The Independent Social Democratic Party and the Internationals”, p. 289). Finally on March 27, 1919, the Berner Tagwacht (No 72) carried a full page proclamation from the International Socialist Commission (ISC) in Stockholm which blamed the harassment of national governments for having prevented a new conference of the “Zimmerwald International”. However it went on to claim that the Zimmerwald parties were nevertheless an International, “an International of Action”.

In this context it should be emphasized that while it is clear that the Berne Conference was .the catalyst that sparked the calling of the Moscow Congress (see for example Ruth Stoljarowa, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Aufrufs zum 1. Kongress der Kommunistischen Internationale vom Januar 1919”, in: Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, XI (1968), pp. 1381–1401) the Bolsheviks were certainly aware of the existence of the Berne Opposition and the attempts to reform the International along Zimmerwaldian lines. Fritz Platten, as noted earlier, reported to the Congress on the former (see p. 175, note 4) and Otto Grimlund and Angelica Balabanova were present from the Zimmerwald Executive (ISC). In fact it is not unlikely that the Bolsheviks, who had been considering a break with the Zimmerwald movement since the fall of 1917, intentionally undercut the attempts to reform the International in a Zimmerwaldian direction. Certainly the Moscow Congress's Unilateral dissolution of the ISC strongly suggests this.

^{page 194 note 1} During 1919 and 1920 the most important attempts to realize these ideas were undertaken by the USPD. At one time or another the Germans received the cooperation of the French, Swiss, Austrian and Norwegian parties, as well as the Swedish and Danish Left-Socialists, the Independent Labour Party and the American Socialists. But their efforts were eventually frustrated by the Comintern's“21 Conditions” which split the USPD and a number of the other Opposition parties. Between 1921 and 1922 this movement centered in the International Working Union of Socialist Parties, the so-called “2½” International. This body actually succeeded for a brief moment in bringing together representatives of the Second and Third “Internationals” during the spring of 1922. Yet by 1923 it had given up any real hope of implementing its ideas and that same year it amalgamated with the resurrected Second International to form the Labor and Socialist International.

^{page 195 note 1} Addressing the full Conference on February 10, Kautsky indicated that while Herzfeld opposed the “Branting” resolution both Eisner and himself supported it. Formally, however, Eisner never endorsed the “Branting” resolution. Because of a prior commitment Eisner left the Conference before its conclusion and as late as February 13, he was not aware of the final form the commission resolution had taken on.

^{page 199 note 1} The probable source or sources for each paragraph are indicated in brackets. Although I have not seen a copy of Branting's original proposal, it seems highly likely that, based on Branting's comments during the Conference as well as the fact that paragraphs six and twelve lack any clear relationship to any of the other four original proposals, Branting's original proposal probably served as the basis for these particular sections.