^{page 330 note 1} See, for example, Borkenau's, Franzclassic The Communist International, republished as World Communism (Ann Arbor, 1962),Google Scholar and the recent studies of Hulse, James W., The Forming of the Communist International (Stanford, 1964),Google ScholarBraunthal, Julius, History of the International (New York, 1967),Google ScholarLazitch, Branko and Drachkovitch, Milorad M., Lenin and the Comintern (Stanford, 1972),Google Scholar and Lindemann, Albert S., The ‘Red Years’: European Socialism versus Bolshevism, 1919–1921 (Berkeley, 1974).Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 2} Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des Gründungs-Parteitags der USPD vom 6. bis 8. April 1917 in Gotha, ed. by Emil Eichhorn (Berlin, 1921), pp. 16, 47, 79; Eugen Prager, Geschichte der USPD (Berlin, 1921), pp. 143–51. For the pre-war or Socialist (Second) International, which was founded in 1889 thirteen years after the dissolution of the Marxist International Workingmen's Association (the First International), see Braunthal, , History of the International, I, pp. 195ff.Google Scholar; Fainsod, Merle, International Socialism and the World War, 2nd ed. (Garden City, 1969), pp. 11–31Google Scholar; Joll, James, The Second International 1889–1914 (New York, 1966);Google Scholar and Haupt, Georges, Socialism and the Great War (New York, 1972).Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 3} During the war the USPD officially participated in both the attempts of the Second International to call an International Peace Conference at Stockholm in 1917 and the international conferences in 1915, 1916 and 1917 of the opposition Zimmerwald movement. Following the Armistice it sent representatives to the Berne, Amsterdam and Lucerne conferences of the Second International (1919), and in 1920 a USPD delegation travelled to Russia for the Second Congress of the Communist International. Finally, in 1921 the remnants of the party joined the International Working Union of Socialist Parties (“2 1/2 International”), which had as its goal the fusion of the Second and Third Internationals. For a detailed analysis of the Independent Social Democrats' role in these developments see Wheeler, Robert F., USPD und Internationale. Sozialistischer Internationalismus in der Zeit der Revolution (Berlin, 1975).Google ScholarMorgan, David, The Socialist Left and the German Revolution. A History of the German Independent Social Democratic Party, 1917–1922 (Ithaca, 1975),Google Scholar focuses on domestic politics but without ignoring the International question. Werner Krause's treatment in USPD. Zur Geschichte der Unab-hängigen Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands (Frankiurt/M., 1975) is largely derivative and draws heavily on my doctoral dissertation.

^{page 331 note 1} For a succinct English summary of these conditions see Borkenau, World Communism, op. cit., pp. 197–99. They were adopted by the Second Congress of the Communist International meeting in Moscow on August 6, 1920. See Der zweite Kongress der Kommunistischen Internationale, Protokoll der Verhandlungen vom 19. Juli in Petrograd und vom 23. Juli bis 7. August 1920 in Moskau (Hamburg, 1921), p. 658.

^{page 331 note 2} According to Flechtheim, Ossip K., Die KPD in der Weimarer Republik, with an introduction by Hermann Weber (Frankfurt/M., 1969), p. 156,Google Scholar “Die USPD war damals [October 1920] eine mächtige Organisation mit 893923 Mitgliedern, 55 Tageszeitungen, 81 Reichstagsabgeordneten, einem die SPD übertreffenden Einfluss in den Landtagen von Sachsen, Thüringen und Braunschweig, entscheidendem Einfluss im Metallarbeiterverband und anderen Gewerkschaften.” See also Friedrich Stampfer, Die ersten 14 Jahre der Deut-schen Republik (Offenbach, 1947), p. 209. In the June 1920 Reichstag election the USPD polled 18.8% of the vote (a gain of 11.2% over the January 1919 elections) compared to 21.6% for the SPD (a loss of 16.3%); in many of the larger cities and industrial areas the USPD replaced the SPD as the leading German labor party. See Die Wahlen zum Reichstag am 6. Juni 1920 [Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, 291].

^{page 331 note 3} Prior to the fusion of the pro-Moscow Independent Social Democrats and the Communists in December 1920, the German Communist Party was little more than a sectarian splinter group. In the 1920 Reichstag elections it had polled 1.7% of the vote, and as of July 1 it had only 66,323 members. Immediately following the influx of Independents in the winter of 1920–21 the Communists claimed a membership of c. 450,000, but within six months this had dropped to c. 160,000 paying members, and throughout the Weimar Republic the number of enrolled Communists generally fluctuated around 200,000. The best the Communists ever did at the polls nationally was 16.9% of the vote in the Reichstag election of November 1932. Generally, however, their electoral support fluctuated around the 12% mark, e.g., 1924 (I) – 12.6%; 1924 (II) – 9.0%; 1928 – 10.6%; 1930 – 13.1%; 1932 (I) – 14.3%; and 1932 (II) – 16.9%. See Weber, Hermann, Die Wandlung des deutschen Kommunismus (Frankfurt/ M., 1969), I, pp. 361ff.Google Scholar, and Wheeler, , “Die ‘21 Bedingungen’ und die Spaltung der USPD im Herbst 1920. Zur Meinungsbildung der Basis”, in: Vierteljahrs-hefte für Zeitgeschichte, XXIII (1975), p. 154.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 1} This was in part a reaction against the bureaucratization and oppressive centralization of the parent SPD, in part a result of Spartacist League influence. See Hunt, Richard N., German Social Democracy 1918–1933 (New Haven, 1964), pp. 195–96Google Scholar; Schorske, Carl E., German Social Democracy, 1905–1917 (Cambridge, 1955), pp. 317–20.Google Scholar Ironically, by the time of the split in 1920 both sides were arguing in favor of greater centralized control.

^{page 332 note 2} Haupt, Georges, Programm und Wirklichkeit. Die internationale Sozial-demokratie vor 1914 (Neuwied and Berlin, 1970), pp. 116ff.Google Scholar

^{page 332 note 3} Stearns, Peter N., Revolutionary Syndicalism and French Labor (New Brunswick, 1971), pp. 1, 107;Google Scholar id. and Mitchell, Harvey, Workers & Protest. The European Labor Movement, the Working Classes and the Origins of Social Democracy 1890–1914 (Itasca, Ill., 1971), pp. 120–34, 235.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 1} Under the Prussian Law of Siege, which was implemented at the outset of the war, “Germany was turned into a group of dictatorships”. See Feldman, Gerald D., Army, Industry and Labor in Germany 1914–1918 (Princeton, 1966), p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 2} See his letter to the Labour Leader, December 31, 1914.

^{page 333 note 3} See Liebknecht, Karl, Gesammelte Reden und Schriften, VIII (Berlin, 1966), pp. 225–30.Google Scholar

^{page 333 note 4} Liebknecht was arrested during a demonstration on May day 1916 and eventually sentenced to in excess of four years; Luxemburg was imprisoned on February 18, 1915, Zetkin on July 29, 1915, Mehring on August 15, 1916, and Meyer on September 14, 1915.

^{page 333 note 5} For examples of less well known activists see Dokumente und Materialien zur Geschichte der Deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, ed. by the Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus, Second Series, I (Berlin, 1958), pp. 201, 311, 639, 663Google Scholar; Die Auswirkungen der Grossen Sozialistischen Oktoberrevolution auf Deutsch-land, ed. by Stern, Leo (Berlin, 1959), I, pp. 371, 464, 511–12, 514, 644–45, 679–81, and II, pp. 957, 975, 1038–40, 1117–20, 1169–72, 1278, 1311, 1349;Google Scholar Prager, Geschichte der USPD, op. cit., pp. 92–93; Leipziger Volkszeitung, May 16, 25 and 28, June 7, 8, 10, 21 and 28, October 19 and 25, November 1 and 5, 1918; Zentralparteiarchiv of the Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus, Berlin, St. 1/104 Reichsjustizministerium, pp. 88–92; Historisches Staatsarchiv, Potsdam, Pr. Br. Rep. 30, Berlin, C Tit. 94 (11361), p. 349; Tit. 95, Sekt. 7 (15803), pp. 134–35, and (15823), pp. 43, 46, 67; Historisches Staatsarchiv, Gotha, Staatsanwalt-schaft beim Landgericht Gotha, No 62, pp. 20ff., and No 63, pp. 103ff.; Staatsarchiv, Hamburg, Senatskommission für die J ustizverwaltung I E b 14 a 14, I, pp. 5ff., and Politische Polizei, Abt. IV, pp. 20–24, Abt. 38, Bestand 9, Nos 16, 29 and 38; Hauptstaatsarchiv, Düsseldorf, Landgericht Elberfeld, Rep. No 5/840, pp. lff., and Regierung Düsseldorf, No 14941, pp. 8–10, 33ff.; Bayrisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Abt. I, Allgemeines Staatsarchiv, Munich, M. Inn. 66283, pp. lff.; Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Abt. I, Potsdam, Reichsministerium des Innern 12473, pp.30ff., Reichsjustizamt 3721, pp. 2ff., Auswärtiges Amt 35994–98, and Ober-reichsanwalt C 48/16–49/16, 53/16–57/16, 62/16 68/16, 92/17, 143/17, 162/17, 20/18, 24/18–2–/18, 37/18, 87/18–88/18, 120/18, and J 279/16, 293/16, 329/16, 371/16, 377/16, 575/16, 300/17, 52/18, 146/18, 206/18, 818/18, 829/18; Historisches Staatsarchiv, Leipzig, Polizeipräsidium, Nos 367, 1862, 1867, 1970, 2317/101, 3182, 3900/60, 4578 and 5909; Niedersächsisches Staatsarchiv, Wolfenbüttel, 133 Neu Polizei Direktion Braunschweig, Nos 2282 and 2322; Badisches Generallandesarchiv, Karlsruhe, Abt. 69 N 1, No 1203; Landesarchiv, Berlin (West), Rep. 58 (Generalstaatsanwall), Nos 2005–23; Geheimes Staatsarchiv, Berlin (West), Rep. 84a Preussisches Justizministerium 4347, pp. 37ff.

^{page 334 note 1} Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus, Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbe-wegung, Chronik (Berlin, 1965), I, pp. 319–20Google Scholar; Feldman, Army, Industry and Labor, op. cit., p. 128.

^{page 335 note 1} See below, note 3. For the size and development of the strike see Opel, Fritz, Der Deutsche Metallarbeiterverband während des ersten Weltkrieges und der Revolution (Hannover, 1957), pp. 57ff.Google Scholar; Feldman, Army, Industry and Labor, pp. 333ff.; and Chronik, op. cit., I, pp. 332–333.

^{page 335 note 2} For Lichtheim's comment see A Short History of Socialism (New York, 1970), p. 239. The founding congress was initially scheduled for Leipzig, but had to be changed to Gotha because the local police had banned a number of those taking part in this gathering from speaking in Leipzig. See letter of March 12, 1917, in Hugo Haase. Sein Leben und Wirken, ed. by Ernst Haase (Berlin, n.d.), p. 140. Even with the move significant sections of the congress proceedings, including the party's manifesto, were censured out of the original report by the Stellvertretendes Generalkommando in Cassel, who had the “responsibility” for the Gotha area. See Protokoll Gotha, op. cit., p. 9.

^{page 335 note 3} See the report of Hermann Liebmann, one of the organizers of the strike action, in the Leipziger Volkszeitung, November 8, 1919. For contrasting accounts see Morgan, The Socialist Left, op. cit., p. 83, and Miller, Susanne, Burgfrieden und Klassenkampf. Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie im Ersten Weltkrieg (Düsseldorf, 1974), p. 291.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 4} See Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Bonn, Europa Generalia, No 82, No 1, XXVII, p. 99; Historisches Staatsarchiv, Leipzig, Polizeiprä;sidium, No 1862, pp. 1–2; Die Auswirkungen, op. cit., II, pp. 511–12; and Müller, Richard, Vom Kaiserreich zur Republik (Vienna, 1924), I. p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 5} See Dokumente und Materialien, op. cit., I, p. 612, for the text of these demands.

^{page 336 note 1} See p. 335, note 3, and Prager, Geschichte der USPD, p. 161. For a conflicting interpretation see Schneider, K., “Der Streik der Leipziger Arbeiter im April 1917”, in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig, XVI (1967), p. 397.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 2} For a copy of the Berlin demands see Zentralparteiarchiv, DFV/4, Flugblätter. Proposed by a leading Independent Social Democrat, Adolf Hoffmann, they were word for word almost exactly the same as the demands adopted in Leipzig. The militarization of the factories eventually broke the strike.

^{page 336 note 3} Letter dated April 25, 1917, in Hugo Haase, op. cit., p. 143. See also Calkins, Kenneth R., Hugo Haase. Demokrat und Revolutionäi (Berlin, 1976).Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 4} Letter dated February 10, 1918, in Hugo Haase, p. 157. See also Haase's comments in the Reichstag on February 27. For the size of the strike see Do-kumente und Materialien, II (Berlin, 1957), pp. 105–06.Google Scholar

^{page 336 note 5} For the organization and preparation of the strike see Kurt Eisner's testimony to the police in Zentralparteiarchiv, St. 1/104, pp. 98–99; Müller, Vom Kaiser-reich zu Republik, op. cit., I, pp. 101–02; Ledebour, Georg, “Die deutsche Novemberrevolution”, in: Sozialistische Arbeiter-Zeitung, 1931,Google Scholar Archiv der sozialen Demokratie, Bonn, Restnachlass Georg Ledebour; and the memoir of Paul Blumenthal in Berlin 1917–1918. Parteiveteranenberichte über die Auswirkungen der Grossen SoziaKstischen Oktoberrevolution auf die Berliner Arbeiterbewegung (Berlin, 1957), pp. 68–72.Google Scholar All of these accounts are from participants. See also Bartel, Walter, Die Linken in der Deutschen Sozial-demokratie im Kampf gegen Militarismus und Krieg (Berlin, 1958), pp. 592ff.Google Scholar, and Stoecker, Helmuth, Walter Stoecker. Die Frühzeit eines deutschen Ar-beiterführers 1891–1920 (Berlin, 1970), p. 144.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 1} Dokumente und Materialien, II, pp. 59–61, 78–79, 87–88, 102–03.

^{page 337 note 2} See the remarks of a participant in the Third Zimmerwald Conference, Ledebour, Georg, in Independent Labour Party, Report of the Annual Conference held at Southport, 03 1921 (London, 1921), p. 135.Google Scholar In addition the “peace proclamation from Stockholm” turned up in various parts of Germany during the strike, e.g., in Berlin, Berlin-Lichtenberg, Leipzig and Munich. See Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Abt. 1, Reichskanzlei, No 548, p. 168, and Stadtarchiv Augsburg, Magistrat der Stadt Augsburg, 32, No 44 BJ. See also the comments of Hermann Fleissner, a member of the USPD's national advisory council, in Die Aus-wirkungen, II, pp. 917–19; III, pp. 238–40.

^{page 337 note 3} For example, the Leipziger Volkszeitung, the USPD's major organ, headlined the following stories during the strike: “Streiks und Unruhen in Frankreich”, January 28, 1918; “Streiks auch in England”, February 1; and “Revolutionäre Gärung in England”, February 2. A courier was sent to Berlin by the strikers in Vienna (Hans Hautmann, Die Anfänge der Linksradikalen Bewegung und der Kommunistischen Partei Deutschösterreichs 1916/1919 (Vienna, 1970), p. 22), and during the strike a number of USPD leaders made pointed reference to the Austrian action. See the remarks of Eisner (Revolution und Räterepublik in München 1918/19, ed. by Gerhard Schmolze (Munich, 1969), p. 45), Adolf Hoffmann (Stenographische Berichte über die öffentlichen Sitzungen der Stadt-verordnetenversammlung der Stadt Berlin – 1918 (Berlin, 1919), p. 48), and August Banko, leader of the USPD organization for Recklinghausen Borken-Buer (Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Abt. I, Oberreichsanwalt C 20/18, I, p. 8).

^{page 337 note 4} See Zentralparteiarchiv, St. 1/104, p. 83; Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Abt. I, Oberreichsanwalt C 37/18, pp. 10–11, 13; Boldt, Werner, “Der Januarstreik 1918 in Bayern mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Nürnbergs”, in: Jahrbuch für Fränkische Landesforschung, XXV (1965), p. 31;Google Scholar Dokumente und Materialien, II, pp. 105–06.

^{page 338 note 1} See Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Europa Generalia, No 82, No 1, XXVII, p. 230. Certain sections of the party, however, were actively preparing for armed revolution, namely the “Revolutionäre Obleute”. See Müller, Vom Kaiserreich zur Republik, I, pp. 127–28; Emil Barth, Aus der Werkstatt der deutschen Revolution (Berlin, n.d.), pp. 24ff. See also Morgan, The Socialist Left, pp. 103ff.

^{page 338 note 2} Dokumente und Materialien, II, pp. 207–10. See also party secretary Wilhelm Dittmann's call for the “Socialist Republic in Germany with Liebknecht as president” in the Leipziger Volkszeitung, 10 24, 1918.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 3} Dokumente und Materialien, II, pp. 348–49. The author of this proclamation was Hugo Haase. See Unabhängige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des ausserordentlichen Parteitages vom 2. bis 6. März 1919 in Berlin (Berlin, n.d.), pp. 82–83.

^{page 338 note 4} Foieign Secretary Solf and the Army command on the Eastern front (both holdovers from the old regime) were opposed to any resumption of diplomatic ties with Soviet Russia, as were the three Social Democratic members of the Provisional Revolutionary Government. That the majority of Independents in the government did not push harder for recognition and even on occasion went along with their Social Democratic colleagues was probably related to three factors: 1) the victorious Allies would not have tolerated the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two major “revolutionary” nations in Europe; 2) the influence of Karl Kautsky, who was openly skeptical of the Bolsheviks' potential for survival; 3) the ill-advised actions of the Soviet government itself such as allowing the German diplomatic missions to be occupied by German prisoners of war. (I am preparing an in-depth treatment of this question for the Mannheimer Schriften zur Politik und Zeitgeschichte tentatively entitled Sozialistischer Internationalismus in der Praxis: Räte-Deutschland und Sowjet-Russland November/Dezember 1918.) See also Mayer, Arno J., Politics and Diplomacy of Peacemaking (New York, 1967), pp. 229ff.Google Scholar

^{page 338 note 5} See Freiheit (Berlin), Nos 11 and 18, November 21 and 25, 1918; Zentral-parteiarchiv, St. 11/16, Informat. Stelle der Reichsregierung, Zweigstelle I, pp. 15, 76–77 and 88; and Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Abt. I, Reichskanzlei 2486/4, p. 61.

^{page 339 note 1} As far as Independents commented on the Second International at all during its refounding in early 1919, they were generally critical and/or skeptical. See Volkstribüne (Elberfeld-Barmen), January 30 and 31; Volksrecht (Frankfurt/M.), February 1, 7 and 14; Leipziger Volkszeitung, January 24; Volksblatt (Halle), February 3; Sozialistische Republik (Karlsruhe), February 15; Freiheit (Berlin), No 103, February 26; USPD, Protokoll Berlin, op. cit., pp. 20, 93, 135–36,147– 49, 158, 174, 178, 189, 215–16.

^{page 339 note 2} See Mayer, Politics and Diplomacy, op. cit., pp. 853ff., for a good account of the strike attempt.

^{page 340 note 1} I have relied on the wire-service reports appearing in the Vorwärts (Berlin) and the Freiheit (Berlin), and on the local USPD press to piece together an account of the July 21 action in Germany.

^{page 340 note 2} For Norway see Freiheit (Berlin), No 347, July 24, 1919; for Austria the Arbeiter-Zeitung (Vienna), July 22 and 23; and for Italy Helmut König, Lenin und der italienische Sozialismus (Tübingen, 1967), p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 3} Volksrecht (Frankfurt/M.), July 25, 1919.

^{page 340 note 4} See the commentary in the USPD press: Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 5, 1919; Volksbote (Zeitz), August 7; Volksblatt (Halle), August 6; Volksrecht (Frankfurt/M.), August 6; Hamburger Volks-Zeitung, August 9; Gothaer Volksblatt, August 8; Volkstribüne (Elberfeld-Barmen), August 12; Sozialis-tische Republik (Karlsruhe), August 16; Volksstimme (Schmalkalden), August 12; Volksstimme (Hagen), August 8; Freiheit (Königsberg), August 15.

^{page 340 note 5} See, for example, the resolutions adopted in Leipzig (Volkszeitung, July 22, 1919) in Halle (Volksblatt, August 15). in Karlsruhe (Sozialistische Republik, August 20). at the Saxon party congress (Leipziger Volkszeitung, August 12), and at the Silesian party congress (Freiheit (Berlin), No 397, August 20).

^{page 341 note 1} See Freiheit (Königsberg), May 14, 1919; Sozialistische Republik (Karlsruhe), June 3.

^{page 341 note 2} Volksblatt (Halle), November 29, 1919. The Halle electoral district was the only one in all of Germany in which the USPD had won a majority of the seats to the Constituent Assembly. There were approximately 60,000 Independents in the district as of July 1, 1919.

^{page 341 note 3} In Greater Berlin, the Teltow-Beeskow and Potsdam IV organizations, with roughly 30,000 members each, both adopted resolutions calling for affiliation with the Third International. See Freiheit (Berlin), Nos 506 and 510, October 20 and 22, 1919; for the 36,907-member Western Westphalia and 63,317-member Lower Rhineland organizations see Volkszeitung (Düsseldorf), October 16 and November 5. The other district organizations included Bavaria (c. 57,000 members), Hamburg (c. 30,000), Pomerania (c. 13,000) and Württemberg (c. 14,500). See Der Kampf (Munich), October 31; Hamburger Volkszeitung, November 4; Der Kämpfer (Stettin), November 1; Der Sozialdemokrat (Stuttgart), October 25, 27 and 28. A variety of smaller local groups not included in the above districts also supported affiliation, e.g., Breslau, Cologne, Cux-haven, Gotha, Hannover-West and Schmalkalden-Suhl.

^{page 341 note 4} See the comments of Stephan Heise, editor of Der Kämpfer (Stettin), in the December 3, 1919, issue of this paper.

^{page 341 note 5} See Volksblatt (Halle), November 29, 1919.

^{page 341 note 6} The vote was 5,811 to 4,790. See the Leipziger Volkszeitung, November 11, 1919. The Greater-Leipzig USPD had 43,774 members as of October 1. In the National Assembly elections of January, 38.6% of the district electorate had voted USPD. second only to the Halle district's 44.1 %.

^{page 342 note 1} See Freiheit (Berlin), No 532, November 3, 1919. The Berlin City district had c. 45,000 members, and in the National Assembly election the Independents obtained 27.6% of the vote, their third best showing in the country. The smaller groups included local organizations in Allenstein, Bremen, Elbing, Frankfurt/M., Jena, Karlsruhe, Kiel, Königsberg, Nordhausen, Offenbach, Osterrode and Wilhelmshaven.

^{page 342 note 2} For example the Greater Leipzig, Kiel, Nordhausen, Osterrode and Wilhelmshaven organizations advocated attendance at the upcoming congress of the Second International in Geneva. See Leipziger Volkszeitung, November 4, 1919; Republik (Kiel), November 4; Nordhäuser Volkszeitung, November 3; Freiheit (Berlin), No 547; November 11; USPD, Protokoll über die Ver-handlungen des ausserordentlichen Parteitages vom 30. November bis 6. Dezember 1919 in Leipzig (Berlin, n.d.), pp. 17–18. By contrast the Berlin City, Bremen, Frankfurt/M., Jena, Karlsruhe, Königsberg and Offenbach organizations all rejected Geneva, and called for the establishment of contacts and/or a conference between the parties of the Third International and the left-wing elements of the Second in order to bring about an all-inclusive, revolutionary International. See Freiheit (Berlin), No 532, November 3; Bremer Arbeiter-Zeitung, November 8; Volksrecht (Frankfurt/M.), November 5 and 14; Neue Zeitung (Jena), November 6; Sozialistische Republik (Karlsruhe), November 25; Freiheit (Königsberg), November 12. Finally there were some rather unique positions as the two Silesian districts' call for union with the Third International but only after going to Geneva. See Schlesische Ar-beiterzeitung (Breslau), November 29, and Freiheit (Berlin), No 551, November 13.

^{page 342 note 3} For the size of this majority see USPD, Protokoll Leipzig, op. cit., pp. 326, 382, 397, 431; Freiheit (Brunswick), December 27, 1919; Folkets Dagblad, Politiken (Stockholm), December 6; Der Kampf (Munich), December 17; Republik (Kiel), December 10; Die Rote Fahne (Berlin), December 14; and Zim-merwald (Stockholm), 1920, No 1. The average age of those who eventually voted for immediate affiliation to the Third International was 37 compared to 41.9 for those who opposed it (based on a fortuitous sample of 62.4% of those voting). See Wheeler, , “German Labor and the Comintern: A Problem of Generations?”, in: Journal of Social History, VII (1974), pp. 304–21,CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a full consideration of this question.

^{page 343 note 1} A number of leading figures in the party including Georg Ledebour had indicated that they would not accept any party offices should the congress vote for union with Moscow. See Freiheit (Berlin), No 614, December 18, 1919. See also Die revolutionäre Illusion. Zur Geschichte des linken Flügels der USPD. Geyer, Erinnerungen von Curt, ed. by Wolfgang Benz and Hermann Graml, with a foreword by Robert F. Wheeler (Stuttgart, 1976), pp. 157–58.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 2} For the resolution in its final form see USPD, Protokoll Leipzig, pp. 41–42. A majority of those elected to the central committee, the advisory council and the control commission favored affiliation to the Third International. See ibid., pp. 416, 456.

^{page 343 note 3} Although the decision was initially taken on February 27 the delegation, consisting of party chairmen Arthur Crispien and Ernst Däumig and party secretaries Wilhelm Dittmann and Walter Stoecker, did not leave until four and a half months later. The official purpose of the trip was “to negotiate with Moscow concerning the merger of the USPD with the Third International while safeguarding the party's internal and tactical autonomy”. See Freiheit (Berlin), No 248. June 27. 1920.

^{page 343 note 4} For example the second of these conditions required that all “reformists” and “centrists” holding leadership or functionary positions be replaced by “Communists” condition 13 called for the periodic “purging” of member parties; condition 15 the adoption of a “Communist” program; condition 16 the acceptance of all resolutions adopted not only by the Comintern but also by the Bolshevik-dominated Executive Committee.

^{page 343 note 5} While some differences remained within the USPD on the International question, all indications are that in general support for Moscow had increased since the Leipzig congress. One possible exception was the national leadership, where the Comintern's sharp reaction to the Leipzig decisions may have weakened support for affiliation. See the letter of Zinoviev, chairman of the Comintern Executive, dated February 5, in The Communist International 1919–1943: Documents, ed. by Jane Degras, I (New York, 1956), pp. 75–80.Google Scholar Still it was the national leadership that decided to send a delegation to Russia to discuss “merger” terms.

^{page 344 note 1} The Volksblatt (Halle), Der Sozialdemokrat (Stuttgart), Schlesische Arbeiter-Zeitung (Breslau), Volkswille (Augsburg), Tribüne (Erfurt), Ruhr-Echo (Essen) and Hamburger Volkszeitung urged acceptance of the conditions, while the following found them unacceptable: Leipziger Volkszeitung, Volkszeitung für das Vogtland (Plauen), Unabhängige Volkszeitung (Dresden), Oberfränkische Volkszeitung (Hof), Republik (Kiel), Freiheit (Berlin), Freiheit (Brunswick), Magdeburger Volkszeitung, Der Kampf (Munich), Der Kämpfer (Stettin), Nordhäuser Volkszeitung, Volkszeitung (Düsseldorf), Volkstribüne (Elberfeld-Barmen), Hessische Arbeiter-Zeitung (Cassel), Sozialistische Republik (Karlsruhe), Elbinger Volksstimme, Ostthiiringische Tribüne (Gera), Tribune (Mannheim) and Wahrheit (Zittau).

^{page 344 note 2} See Leipziger Volkszeitung, September 4, 1920. The Volksrecht (Frankfurt/M.) reported in its September 7 edition that a “large majority” at the conference rejected the conditions. According to Freiheit (Berlin), No 361, September 1, about 200 party functionaries attended this gathering.

^{page 345 note 1} Exceptions to this rule were Saxony, the Brunswick, Magdeburg-Anhalt and Oldenburg-Ostfriesland districts, as well as the Bremen, Gera, Jena, Nordhausen, Upper Franconia and Zeitz subdistricts.

^{page 345 note 2} See Bremer Arbeiter-Zeitung, October 8, 1920.

^{page 345 note 3} The only quasi-official primary tally was that given by the supporters of the conditions, namely 144,900 for and 91,000 against acceptance. See Anna Geyer's mimeographed publication Für Referenten, No 1, October 21, 1920. My own incomplete calculations based on the results published in the USPD press has the vote at 136,685 for and 99,668 against.

^{page 345 note 4} Out of the twenty-five USPD districts in which a primary was definitely held, the conditions were rejected in only eight.

^{page 345 note 5} Whereas the resolution submitted to the national congress at Halle calling for acceptance of the conditions contained no mention of the Soviet Union, the resolution opposing acceptance contained a passage expressing “solidarity with Soviet Russia”. See USPD, Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des ausser-ordentlichen Parteitages in Halle vom 12. bis 17. Oktober 1920 (Berlin, n.d.), pp. 70–71.

^{page 346 note 1} The only districts where the USPD was the dominant labor party and the conditions received a large majority were Halle and the Lower Rhineland. In the latter incomplete returns gave the conditions a 14,999 to 5,621 majority; in the former the vote was 25,064 to 8,384. While the advocates of the conditions were victorious in all three districts of the important Greater Berlin area, in each case their margin was very small. This was also the situation in Western Westphalia. By contrast their biggest margins came in areas where the party was relatively weak, such as Hamburg, where the conditions were approved by better than five to one. Württemberg, where the ratio was better than four to one, and Hesse-Waldeck, where the margin was nearly ten to one! There were no comparable victories for the opponents of the conditions. The few times the conditions were soundly defeated it was generally in a solid USPD area such as Leipzig, Bremen or Brunswick. This pattern was even discernible regionally. In Bavaria, for example, the only subdistrict in which the USPD was the dominant labor organization, namely Upper Franconia, was also the only area where the conditions were rejected. For a detailed examination of these differences see “Die ‘21 Bedingungen’ und die Spaltung der USPD”, loc. cit., pp. 139ff.

^{page 346 note 2} See Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Volks-, Berufs- und Betriebszählung vom Juni 1925. Berufszählung (Berlin, 1927–29), No 10, pp. 106–07; No 11, pp. 73, 78; No 30, p. 81, for the region's economic structure, and Reichsamt für Ar-beitsvermittlung, Jahrbuch der Berufsverbände im Deutschen Reich (Berlin, 1922), pp. 95, 103,Google Scholar for the unionized textile-workers in this area in 1920.

^{page 347 note 1} See Jahrbuch der Berufsverbände, op. cit., p. 103, for unionized workers, and Berufszählung, No 15, pp. 88, 94, for workers employed in this industry.

^{page 347 note 2} See Jahrbuch der Berufsverbände, pp. 94, 102; also Berufszählung, No 9, p. 86; No 15, pp. 72, 90; No 16, pp. 92–93.

^{page 347 note 2} Berufszählung, No 15, pp. 97ff.; No 16 pp. 89, 105ff.

^{page 347 note 3} Wheeler, , “German Women and the Communist International. The Case of the Independent Social Democrats”, in: Central European History, VIII (1975), pp. 113–39,CrossRefGoogle Scholar provides an in-depth treatment of this aspect of the problem.

^{page 348 note 1} Local party secretary for Zeitz Joseph Windau, senior, spoke against the conditions, while Joseph Windau, junior, supported them. See Volksbote (Zeitz), September 11, 1920. Although he eventually accepted the conditions, Reichstag deputy Friedrich Geyer was initially critical of them, while his son Curt, also a Reichstag deputy, and daughter-in-law Anna were publicly among their strongest supporters. See Protokoll der Verhandlungen der ordent-lichen Landesversammlung der USPD Sachsens. Abgehalten am 12. und 13. September 1920 im Volkshaus zu Leipzig (Leipzig, 1920), pp. 54–55, and USPD, Protokoll der Reichskonferenz vom 1. bis 3. September 1920 zu Berlin (Berlin, n.d.), pp. 77–78.

^{page 348 note 2} At the functionaries' national conference in early September the average age of those speaking for acceptance was 39, of those opposing 47.5. See “German Labor and the Comintern”, loc. cit., pp. 312, 320.

^{page 348 note 3} These figures are based on a fortuitous sample of 60.5% of the 392 delegates voting at this congress.

^{page 348 note 4} See Zinoviev, G., Twelve Days in Germany (Moscow, 1921), p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 5} The lone delegate from Essen who opposed the conditions switched to support them; one of the few delegates from Leipzig who supported the conditions switched to oppose them; and a delegate from Jena who called for the conditions' revision eventually voted to accept them.