The Frankfurt Conference
Account from an unnamed Italian soldier participating in the Battle of Berlin said:
We arrived to the battle itself rather late- already a few days after the Syndintern forces began to surround Berlin. They had already seized the outlying suburbs and were converging on the center of the city. Potsdam, which contained the residence of the emperor, was captured a few days before.
In particular the French put a high value on capturing the city’s administrative heart, represented by the Reichstag and Reichskanzlei.
It was odd entering into Berlin the way we did. Compared to my home near Bari, it was truly a capital that justified its former position at the center of the world. By the time we reached it though, the ravages of war turned it into a mess of rubble, wrecked streets, and concrete slabs intermixed with lightly damaged structures.
…
In the last two days of fighting the last of Germany’s government fled further east to Konigsberg where the Germany were attempting to make their last grand stand. At one point when we were assigned to guard captured German defenders, we tried to make conversation with them through one of our squad who had come from Austria.
We had told them many times that he was no longer in the city and fled long before it was totally surrounded. They were dumbfounded and continued to deny this, thinking we were simply trying to demoralize them.
I don’t know about the others, but I was genuinely interested in these soldiers. Did they really feel a commitment to the Kaiser? It confused me because many of them seemed to be ‘working class’, and yet continued to fight for an order that kept them oppressed all this time.
The French eventually took us away from our duties so I could not pursue this line of questioning any longer. We had no bad ‘feelings’ towards the Germans like we did with the Austrians, but the French were definitely reviling in the moment of finally defeating a ‘mortal’ foe. The fall of Berlin was marked by riotous celebration by the French contingents. We, meanwhile, were given an order to return back to Italy in preparation for an invasion of the Ottoman Empire…
The fall of Berlin in the summer sent shockwaves throughout Europe and the world. In Germany itself the revolutionary groups, which had only been acting clandestinely until then, emerged back into public view and began asserting themselves and creating workers’ councils with the protection of the Syndintern. In the ensuing months the whole structure of nobility and business in Germany- the pride of that empire for so many years- was cast down and destroyed by militias friendly to the revolutionary groups. Nobility, particularly the Junkers of Prussia, who were not fortunate enough to escape with the rest of Germany’s ruling circle as Berlin was engulfed by the war.
The fate of Germany was determined in the month of December in 1943, in a meeting which had only been discussed in secret among the members of the International. It was only in later years that the world got an idea of the discussions that took place in Frankfurt that would determine the fate of Germany and indeed the balance of power on the continent.
The following is an excerpt from an interview with Pietro Nenni in 1978, recalling his time as the Director-General for Foreign Affairs in the early years of the Republic. In this portion he refers to the events of the Frankfurt Conference.
-----------------------------------------------
…
I arrived with Comrade Bordiga and Togliatti in Frankfurt on December 2nd, along with a number of other figures from Italy. Frankfurt was chosen as the avenue for the conference on account of it being far from the frontlines while still being in Germany. Comrade Makhno had insisted on this specifically, feeling that holding the conference in Paris would have only made a poor image for the Syndintern. We didn’t want to appear to have been deciding how to ‘loot’ Germany as it were from the chambers in France.
Bordiga and Togliatti were already debating what to do with Germany on the train to Frankfurt. Bordiga had insisted on the necessity of preventing a partition of Germany, in order to prevent a disintegration of the workers’ movement in Germany and to provide a strong lynchpin in the socialist movement. Togliatti on the other hand, while agreeing with the idea of keeping Germany whole, was skeptical over both the ability of the socialists in Germany to prevent the country from being seized by reactionaries once more and whether the country would come out independent of France or not. In that respect he felt the only way to keep France from getting too powerful would be to partition Germany and allow each of the main member states of the Syndintern to develop the nation.
Bordiga was confident in the ability of the socialists in Germany to successfully overthrow the old society in the empire. He had, like other members of the Anarcho-Syndicalist alliance, maintained connections with the various pre-Great War Marxists in Germany. Notably this consisted of the ‘radical’ wing grouping around two individuals ultimately- Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. Both had attempted to lead a revolution in Germany, encouraged by the example of the Commune of France, but simply found the terrain too hostile and narrowly avoided getting murdered on the street by pro-monarchist thugs.
Luxemburg and Liebknecht in earlier years
In the ensuing years the two led a ‘radical’ wing of the SPD, which had since the Great War increasingly drifted to the center and essentially jettisoned all remnants of its Marixst beliefs. The old party theoretician Karl Kautsky, once the ‘Dean’ of European Marxism, had largely fallen to the wayside and out of touch with current political currents, becoming only a respectable figurehead in the party. Thus the task of directing revolutionary currents within the old SPD fell to Liebknecht and Luxemburg, heading so-called “Spartacist” platform [1] that closely aligned themselves with the Third International. Communication with the two was however indirect most of the times, though those who had come from the pre-war Marxist camps had desired news of the platform.
As such Liebknecht and Luxemburg were not unfamiliar to those of us in Italy. In fact the two had managed to smuggle various messages and texts from themselves by way of a messenger who travelled from Germany to Italy by way of Switzerland during the 1938 Rome Congress of the Third International. Gramsci had delivered one of their messages to the assembled delegates during one of the meetings in the Congress. They had informed us of their precarious situation in Germany, only worsening as Germany and France moved ever close to war. Otto Wels, head of the SPD delegation in the Reichstag and a member of the ‘Ebert’ faction within the Party, had agreed to conditions set forth by the Kaiser that decreed that members of government who openly oppose the monarchy should be censured by the party and removed immediately.
The SPD was already in bad waters as it was. The experience of the war and rising German adversely nationalism affected the traditional working-class base of the SPD, and as such they were willing to throw unfavorable members out of the party if it meant retaining their position in the government. Only through skilled political maneuvering did the Spartacists avoid being expelled out of the party all together, though found themselves without any of their members in the Reichstag with the SPD delegation.
The Spartacists also had to deal with the rise of Totalism espoused by Mosley and Mussolini that excited the youth who were disillusioned with both the reformism begun by Frederich Ebert and the more orthodox methods of the Spartacists. These men were led by Wilhelm Pieck, a disillusioned member of the Spartacists who found Totalism to be the only ‘feasible’ answer for Europe.
The lead up to the war and the war itself resulted in the Spartacists being driven underground and repressed. Liebknecht and Luxemburg avoided arrest, though some of their compatriots were imprisoned in the process and many of their cells broken. As such they had only been able to give small aid to the RED when it was operating in Germany.
As the war ruptured the German political scene, various revolutionary groups emerged from the ashes of war. The SPD leadership consisting of Otto Wels and Hans Vogel was condemned as traitors and kept in house arrest along with others perceived to have ‘abandoned’ socialism. Supporters of the late Karl Kautsky [2] were told to align themselves with one of the emerging factions or risk the fate of the Ebert loyalists.
It is needless to say that the other bourgeois and monarchist parties had no chance of ever being recognized in the new political climate. It was better that way.
By the time of the Frankfurt Congress, three factions emerged as potential sources for the new government of the old empire. One such group was the FAUD [Freie Arbeiter Union Deutschlands/Free Workers Union of Germany], consisting of various groups with an anarchist alignment led by Rudolf Rocker, who had recently returned from exile in the Combined Syndicates. The second was the Spartacists, constructed from those who had been a member of Luxemburg and Liebknecht’s “Spartacist” platform in the SPD. The last was the so-called Socialist Unity Party [Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands], led by Wilhelm Pieck.
We were welcomed by delegates of the Spartacists at the train station. Again, considering our close relationship with the platform historically this was not surprising. Makhno had made it clear he preferred the anarchist FAUD over the more orthodox tendencies- and much less, the Marxist diehards- within the Spartacist platform.
We were taken to a small café in the city where the Spartacists set up a political station to connect with the worker councils there. Within we were welcomed by Luxemburg and Liebknecht, and much of the first two hours was simply Bordiga, Togliatti, and other senior members of the old socialist party recounting the heyday of social democracy, Marxism, and the Second International.
Soon the topic of discussion turned towards other matters. Liebknecht and Luxemburg asked us to do what we could to prevent the machinations of the Commune of France becoming a reality in Germany. We were taken back by this- as far as we knew France had not made public its intentions for the remnants of the German Empire.
Luxemburg took over there. She showed us some documents and testimony from some of the workers who had heard that France was eyeing a partition in order to keep post-war Germany divided and keep France the preeminent power in Europe. While admitting it was all still a ‘theory’, Luxemburg pointed out France’s decision to essentially give away Germany’s eastern fringes to the new Polish state as evidence that France was not wholly concerned with maintain a unified Germany in the Congress.
“More over”, she said, “I need not tell you the ramifications of a strong Commune of France in Europe and the head of what will become the most powerful organization in the post-war world. Much less Comrade Makhno’s ego.”
Togliatti, with his head stuck in the question of a potential government, asked if Liebknecht and Luxemburg were eying any sort of positions. Both did not seem warm to the prospect, acknowledging their age and relative isolation from much of the political scene due to security forces scrutiny from the botched uprising after the Great War. They indicated they would still be holding a role in the new order, but not in the spotlight. Liebknecht expressed interest in the position of foreign affairs, while Luxemburg revealed she had been given offers to go to Poland as an advisor to help the socialists there organize and create their system there.
“Then who will represent the Spartacists?” questioned Togliatti, “Surely it won’t be the same without neither of you at the helm. How can we be sure that it won’t capitulate to Makhno’s schemes?”
Liebknecht called for someone at the rear of the café who was talking to a group of men to come over. The man was quite different from both Liebknecht and Luxemburg- strong features and sharp blue eyes; a portrait of a “German” if I ever saw one.
“This is Ernst Thälmann”, said Liebknecht, “A man of the working class and a faithful member of the Spartacists since the beginning. He has been active in the unions for some time and has done all of us a great service, giving the Spartacists a good name among the many workers and associated unions.”
Bordiga was skeptical of Thälmann’s intentions, but came to accept him after discussing various matters of politics with him. He was not as steeped in the original Marxist doctrine that Liebknecht and Luxemburg espoused, but he was certainly more favorable towards the old Marxist doctrine than Makhno’s anarchist positions or the Totalist state-building of Mosley and Mussolini.
The discussion turned back towards other matters. They discussed the life of Gramsci and his death, the progress in Italy’s unification and its conflict with the Church, as well as Italy’s creation of Yugoslavia. I myself when questioned about Italy’s reputation in the world admitted it had certainly grown in the Syndintern though the abolishment of the Papacy had certainly soured our relationship with the non-socialist states in Latin America.
For my part I had also admitted to them the difficulty we had sweeping up the remnants of the Church who fled the country and still managed to cause problems. In particular there was the “Sword of God”, the leader of the papal divisions in the American Civil War, who we were yet to find or even identify. Shaking my head I told them they were lucky they did not have to deal with the issue of religion- at least to the level of Italy- in the new Germany. Their concerns could be occupied elsewhere.
On December 4th the Conference started in earnest. After the usual opening ceremonies and calls for internationalism by the French, we got down into the gritty matters of discussing what was to be done with Germany.
The first few sessions were easy enough, over concerns about the integration of the imperial military into the new “People’s Army” of Germany and on what basis should we deny commission to former officers of the empire. We also discussed the issue of what to do with the nobility and the questions of land reform and new industrial policy.
All of this was simple enough. The delegates from the Union of Britain, the Commune of France, the assorted German groups, us, and the observers from the Combined Syndicates found enough common ground. The nobility were to be stripped of their titles and given the option of integrating themselves into the new order. The military would only accept the commission of officers who were not going to instigate a counter-revolution.
It was when the dialogue turned towards the question of Germany itself did divisions appear among the delegates. What exactly was Germany to become? The Commune of France’s proposal was presented and it was much like Luxemburg had told us it would be- a partition plan.
Except of course the Commune of France did not present it in such brash terms. Rather, they sugar-coated the matter as an idea to transform Germany into a ‘confederation’ that would avoid the centralization of power in Berlin ever again, to prevent another “Kaiser” from ever being created. This proposal admittedly did not seem much different from another French plan in Germany- the Confederation of the Rhine created by Napoleon from the remains of the Holy Roman Empire and later the “German Confederation” set about in the post-Napoleonic era.
This plan established four ‘members’ of the Confederation- which would as we’ve seen more than likely be independent nations rather than constituent members of a confederate nation. The first was ‘Rhineland’, to be formed in regions between the French border and the Rhine River, with its capital at Cologne. Another would be the North German Federation, forming much of the northwest portion of Germany along the coast with its capital at Hamburg. The third was a Bavarian order with its capital at Munich. The last would be Prussia, with its capital at Berlin.
Illustration of the French partition plan
France claimed it had already engaged in talks with perspective leaders in each of the zones who had, according to them, endorsed the idea fully. France did not get far in its message to convince Italy- we had already made up our minds to be opposed to the partition. Togliatti had somehow been won over to Bordiga’s position, presumably the day before. Or at least he chose not to take positions for the time being. I cannot be sure. But at any rate we did not endorse the French proposal much to the anger of our counterparts, though it seemed the Union of Britain was encouraged by our move and joined. The Combined Syndicates, though an observer, signaled its support for an alternative to France’s position.
France admittedly could have simply gone through with the plan without us. For some reason they did not. They had possibly been suspicious of both the Union of Britain (The British had influence in Germany due to their creation of the R.E.D. saboteurs) and ourselves with our own discussions with groups in Germany and what potential issues they could cause if partition was carried out. The last thing it wanted was a restive Germany as it faced down the German Empire.
Rather than changing its plan altogether France sought to win over support from the Syndintern through other means with a modified partition plan. I myself was exposed to this during a private meeting between myself and my counterpart Sartre who showed me an alternative proposal that the French had thought of.
Rather than creating a German confederation that would presumably be at the control of France, the individual members would fall into the influence of other Syndintern governments. Rhineland and Prussia would be at the control of France, while the North German Federation would fall under the protection of the Union of Britain and Bavaria to Italy.
I did not even need to consult Togliatti or Bordiga over the choice. I rejected it out straight and emphasized the need for a unified Germany, particularly in the light of a resurgent Russian Empire to the east. Sartre shrugged and tried the proposal to his British counterpart; I assumed that it did not go over too well on that end either considering the next day France had a new proposal on the table.
France talked about a “German Union” now. We were excited- did France quickly abandon its plans for a divided Germany? Some what. We were shown later however that France, still concerned about the potentials of a strong Germany, insisted on allowing it to occupy the Rhineland and eventually incorporate it directly into the Commune of France while letting the rest of Germany administrate itself.
This was still concerning to us as it left France in a dominant position on the continent. The Union of Britain did not seem much concerned about this as we were though and appeared close to accepting the proposal, but for whatever reason it had chosen to back out at the last minute, giving us a collective sigh of relief. Rumor had it that Mosley had revealed the intentions of the Conference while touring with Pieck at Cologne, sending the people there into a riot that led the Union of Britain to withdraw its support in order to save face. France, not wanting to deal with the prospect of even more widespread demonstrations, withdrew from that plan.
In time we made it clear- a unified Germany would be preferable above all else. France would still not accept this and ultimately proposed one last alternative: a simple north-south division of Germany.
The Two Syndicates Proposal
All in all I must admit this was an odd proposal to consider. It was rather unexpected and for the most part, a classic case of state building on the part of planners. We were concerned first and foremost about this set up- beyond the obvious case of whether the two governments could assert themselves effectively in the region- of the industrial disparities between the two regions. It would appear for the most part that the northern syndicate would end up being the dominant component of the former Germany, leaving the south largely agrarian. The Commune of France suggested a potential referendum in Austria to be held joining it to the South German Syndicalist Union in order to balance out the industrial difference between the two portions.
We were not too warm to this proposal either. While it did incorporate in a form some pan-German aspirations with the inclusion of Austria, it was more or less France stepping on what Italy had done on its front by emphasizing that France had essentially helped it win the war in the south. This was not to be doubted, but France was using it regardless to wrestle us into accepting the proposal. We held strong and thanks to an intervention by Bordiga we were kept from being maneuvered into an awkward position diplomatically and kept France on the defensive about why it was so hesitant for a simple solution to Germany- keep the original shape while changing its essential economic base.
At the end though, it wasn’t so much our amazing skills of persuasion as it was the French losses on the Eastern Front, notably at a disastrous battle at the outskirts of Minsk that saw pretty large casualty rates, nearly on level with what France experienced during its attempts to cross the Meuse river in the early years of the war. With Russia becoming a real threat and the necessity of another strong member of the Syndintern, France saw the importance of a genuine German Union to be created. It however could not budge on the question of reparations and ‘industrial adjustments’- but this was a necessary compromise to prevent a complete destruction of Germany as it was.
So it was on December 8th the delegates of the Third International formally recognized the ascendance of the German Union into our ranks.
------------------------------------------------------
The German Union’s foundation was quickly followed up by the first meeting of its Syndicalist Congress on December 18th to decide upon essential questions of the new structure and direction of the German Union. As Nenni described in his recollections on the Frankfurt Conference, the main platforms at this time in Germany were the FAUD, the Spartacists, and the SED, all espousing different positions of the international at the time- Anarcho-Syndicalism, Marxist remnants and orthodox syndicalists, and Totalism respectively.
The meeting was held in Hamburg, on account of Berlin still being in the midst of reconstruction. The different parties had different stances on particular issues that would come to define Germany in its first decade of post-imperial rule. The delegates to the Congress were assembled from the various workers’ councils across Germany- having been formed in the preceding months and instructed to decide on who to send well before even the Frankfurt Congress.
The first matter of discussion was over the position of Germany in the context of the Syndintern and the greater world. The FAUD pushed for a more pacifistic internationalist standpoint while the Spartacists affirmed their commitment to the aims of the Syndintern and the International Revolution. The SED on the other hand positioned itself for a more isolated Germany and even a withdrawal from the Syndintern’s military arm in order to better focus its resources on reconstruction.
It cannot be said for sure whether or not France had interfered in some way to prevent the SED’s rather radical and anti-Syndintern position from achieving a dominant position in the Congress. There are ‘theories’ that the SED’s position in this respect may have been much more popular among the delegates than was reported, but the Spartacist position eventually won over.
The next area of debate was the question of industry and planning. This involved a whole host of factors that ultimately posited the question of just how ‘centralized’ the eventual a planned economy would become. The FAUD naturally placed its confidence in the individual syndicates to make the appropriate decisions to take care of industrial policy and reconstruction. The Spartacists opted for a more direct use of planned economy concepts in order to ‘guide’ the various workers’ councils and create a standard, nation-wide plan to address the concerns and direction of the German Union. The SED, true to its Totalist viewpoint, desired a wholly state-run economy to address industrial concerns. Here, once again, the Spartacists found that their arguments were the most favored by the delegates.
The question of the military was the next area of debate. Germany for the most part assumed control of a military formed from defectors and popular militias and it was not entirely sure what would be done with them. The FAUD opted for a more pacifist viewpoint and desired to have the manpower meant for am military focused more into the construction of a new order in Germany- chiefly in reconstruction. The Spartacists desired to keep the military at its current size if not expand it slightly on account of the Russian Empire to the east. The SED signaled a total commitment to the military was necessary in order to keep Germany a serious contender in the socialist world. The FAUD’s position seemed to resonate with the delegates more though, tired of war and the preceding decades of militarism in Germany.
The last major area of contention was over the way the German Union should ‘regulate’ itself- chiefly in areas of dissent and how to deal with potential counter-revolutionaries. The FAUD said that such matters should be decided by the Syndicates themselves while the Spartacists opted to design the policy much like its idea of a nation-wide ‘plan’ for industry. The SED wanted a total involvement of the state in internal affairs in order to ‘protect’ the gains of the revolution. At the end the FAUD’s position won over, more over due to the menacing possibilities the latter two would potentially bring.
Ultimately on December 28th, the Congress came to an end with an idea of where to proceed. The new German Union would more or less be dependent on a negotiation between the FAUD and Spartacist platforms in hammering out a proposal for the new German Union. The SED was frustrated with the results of the Congress, and claimed that France had interfered with the events of the Congress to try and push the FAUD over it with support to that organization. It cannot be said for sure whether or not the SED may have had a word of truth to this or was angry over it failure to secure a better result, though votes showed that for the most part the SED’s position was embraced by a strong minority of delegates, though not enough to be a contender in the post-Congress negotiations for a new government.
And so 1944 opened to a year with a new, German Union entering into the Syndintern and joining ranks with the International to fight its titanic battle with the Russian Empire to the east. Such aid would be welcomed by the Synditnern in time, though only time would show whether it had really made a difference or not. Eyes still turned towards the Combined Syndicates of America over whether it would commit itself to the war in Europe, or focus on reconstruction having fought near continuous war for over 7 years.
________________________________________________________________
[1] “Spartacist” of course recalling the legacy of Spartacus, the leader of a large slave rebellion in Ancient Rome. Spartacus had long excited the imagination of many socialists, including Karl Marx himself, who viewed him as one of the ancient ‘revolutionaries’.
[2] Karl Kautsky died in October of 1938, having the party’s leadership pass on to Otto Wels. Kautsky still retained ‘loyalists’ who attempted to forge a separate path from the legacy of Ebert and the Spartacists of Liebknecht and Luxemburg.