File No. 862.00/34
The Chargé in Germany (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 6.]
Sir: I have the honor to submit to you herewith, as of possible interest, a report on the recent progress in Germany of what is called the neu Orientierung, a movement tending towards greater liberalism in the internal affairs of the country and in the Government.
There is no very adequate English translation of the phrase neu Orientierung. As it is used in current discussion it means “new political bearings.” By process of association it indicates greater liberalism in Germany. It was used several years ago when an attempt was made to change the three-class voting system in Prussia, which is the bulwark behind which the Conservatives retain their control of the Prussian Landtag and without which they would sink to the minority position they represent in the Reichstag. That attempt at liberalization failed, after a bitter party fight, and with it failed the most serious attempt, previous to the war, at attaining anything which may be included in the rather vague term neu Orientierung.
Since the outbreak of the war, particularly in the last few months, there has been a steadily growing agitation in the liberal press of Germany for greater popular power after the war. The Socialist papers, which have always demanded radical changes, have continued to do so, and they have now been joined by influential papers of moderate and liberal hue. Chief among these is the Berliner Tageblatt which prints almost daily attacks against the Conservatives for their stolidity in the face of changed conditions and for their fear of the coming neu Orientierung which the Tageblatt demands as the right of a people which has shown itself worthy of greater power by its behavior in the face of the national enemy. The Frankfurter Zeitung and also the Kölnische Zeitung—two of the best, most widely read, and most important newspapers in Germany—are also influential supporters of the neu Orientierung.
Under the changes which the neu Orientierung will mean, there are one or two which are taken for granted on all sides. These are:
- (1)
- A radical change in the Prussian electoral laws, away from the three-class voting system and in the direction of, if not quite including, universal suffrage.
- (2)
- A redistribution of the electoral districts for the Reichstag, which have not been changed since they were created in 1871, and which favor the country districts at the expense of the urban districts and result in a far larger Conservative and National Liberal representation and a far smaller radical and Socialist representation than would exist with a fair distribution of seats. (It has even been estimated that the Socialists would have won a clear majority in the Reichstag at the last—1912—elections, if the electoral districts were distributed on an equal basis, according to population.)
- (3)
- Better treatment of the Poles, Danes, and Alsatians within the German Empire, with consideration for their national feelings.
- (4)
- Greater chances of free education for the poorer classes.
- (5)
- Removal of certain disabilities from certain groups of classes, such as that a Socialist cannot acquire the title of “Professor” or become an officer in the army or navy; and that a Jew cannot become an officer. (During the present war hundreds of Jews and several Socialists have already become officers.) Under this same head may be classed the demand that all higher positions under the Government be made easier of attainment to the meritorious, instead of being open only to those of certain social classes.
Aside from these generally understood results of a neu Orientierung, the Socialists believe that it must include a parliamentary government with a chancellor responsible to the Reichstag—and this belief is no longer confined to the Socialist and Progressive groups. In general, the promise of greater liberalism, in the internal arrangements of the Empire, is without a definite program, and the extent and degree of enthusiasm for the neu Orientierung depends largely upon each individual.
The exact attitude of the Chancellor and of the rest of the German Government in the matter is unknown. In his speech in the Reichstag, on September 28, Bethmann-Hollweg made reference to the neu Orientierung when he said that, after the war, there must be freie Bahn für alle Tüchtigen (a free path for all the capable) and this was the subject of much discussion in the great debate of October 11, in plenum, following the report on the proceedings in the budget committee; and in the utterances to which it gave rise—for all the speakers dwelt upon it—a large part of the Chancellor’s victory lay. Before the opening of the debate it was known that the budget committee had recommended, by a vote of 24 to 4, that the U-boat question should not be discussed (compare my despatch No. 4322 of today’s date1); it was, accordingly, considered as temporarily shelved—wherein lay also a tentative victory for the Chancellor—in spite of the statement of the Conservative and Socialist Labor representatives in the budget committee that their speakers would not be bound by the recommendation. In the debate, therefore, the issue of internal reforms was discussed at greater length than the submarine issue; the Chancellor had given his vague endorsement to the neu Orientierung (which I have quoted above) and, with reference to this, every speaker except the Conservative stated the more or less enthusiastic adhesion of his party to the idea; even the Conservative raised no protest, merely voicing the fears of his party lest any coming changes might endanger the monarchical principle.
The Catholic speaker was satisfied with quoting the Chancellor’s somewhat cryptic utterance, and reminded him that Catholics also had a right to greater consideration than they had received.
The Socialist, Scheidemann, after demanding a parliamentary form of government and the rule of the people with a chancellor responsible to the Reichstag, ended his speech with the words: “What we demand as representatives of the people is only our duty; we live in the time of great decisions and of deep-cutting changes; therefore let not prayer of to-day become the accusation of to-morrow. One people, one goal; peace and freedom.”
[Page 63]Even the National Liberal speaker said he agreed with Scheidemann in regard to the neu Orientierung and “that those who do not wish it should fight it with vizors open”; and that this party desired it in many things and “the German people after the war will demand, with justice, the removal of certain former barriers.”
The Progressive People’s Party stood for parliamentary institutions previous to the war, but Naumann’s speech on behalf of that party had a remarkable undercurrent of popular feeling which found response in the intensity of his audience’s attention when he said that though the neu Orientierung could not come during the war, “When the war is over it must come of itself; no one believes that when the millions return everything will remain exactly as it was formerly. He who has served at the front cannot be degraded in his national rights.”
The speaker of the “German Fraction” said: “My friends are also of the opinion that the severe wounds which the Fatherland has suffered in the World War can only be healed if a free path is assured to all who are capable.”
The Socialistic Labor representative demanded immediate radical reforms for the benefit of the people, and Doctor David, a second Socialist speaker, said that at least the same amount of constitutionalism must be demanded as the Scandinavian countries enjoyed. “This war has shown,” he said, “that such wars cannot be carried on without a highly developed industrial laboring class to which it dare not be said, ‘You have done gallantly, now you may go.’ That might well lead to catastrophe.”
The evident spirit of real popular enthusiasm inspiriting the speeches of Naumann, Scheidemann, and David was the undercurrent of the whole sitting, and the Conservatives were plainly discomforted by it and out of their element. There is a well-defined belief in some circles that the Conservatives are using the issue of ruthless submarineism only in order to make propaganda against the Chancellor of whom they want to be rid, as being too liberal at heart and in favor of the neu Orientierung, which would do much to end their influence in the Empire, particularly in Prussia. If this theory is true, the measure of the fear with which the Conservatives regard the coming order of things is indicated by the desperate means they are willing to adopt to bring about Bethmann-Hollweg’s fall-wherein they see their only chance of retaining their influence.
And there is heresy within their ranks. The same group of moderates which has supported the Chancellor in his submarine policy and which is against a Russian peace is also for the neu Orientierung, and this group includes many Conservatives of influence, among them Prof. Hans Delbrück, Clemens Delbrück, formerly Vice Chancellor, ex-Secretary for the Colonies, Dernburg, and others. Professor Delbrück was against the change in Prussian electoral laws, a change which he now openly favors in addition to a parliamentary regime. Within this group Conservatives, National Liberals, and Socialists are working together for a real program of liberalism. These Conservatives are more the intellectuals as opposed to the agrarians or Junkers who, however, have nearly all the seats of the party in the Reichstag. But many of the intellectuals have great influence and they are now making this felt.
[Page 64]In this connection it is interesting to note that this party of moderates, which favors greater liberalism in internal affairs, favors also a rapprochement with England, generally speaking, and fears a separate peace with Russia. They have, perhaps, been disappointed that there has been no apparent echo in England to their endeavor to liberalize Germany and to conciliate England, and this makes their position within Germany weaker. Almost the same line divides those desiring the Chancellor’s fall and the resumption of the reckless submarine warfare from those opposed, as divides those wishing a Russian peace and those favoring an English peace; and this same line separates the opponents of, and those favoring, the neu Orientierung.
I have [etc.]