Paris Peace Conf. 184.01402/16

Dr. H. H. Field to the Commission to Negotiate Peace12

H. H. Field No. 14

Subject: Bolshevism in Bavaria.

No observations made during my stay in Munich seem to me more instructive than those relating to the insidious proselytic character [Page 69] of the Bolshevistic propaganda. The first question one may consider in this connection is:

How far bolshevism already prevails. By bolshevism I mean minority rule to the advantage of the proletarian class. When I left Munich, power was vested in the Central Council of Workmen, Peasants and Soldiers, comprising 7 persons, chosen by the Council Congress, itself a convention of deputies numbering some 400 from various parts of the country. No pretence is made that the deputies to the Council Congress are chosen according to any just electoral system or represent the entire electorate. It is class representation at best and does not even truthfully depict the views of the class. Furthermore, any vote taken is dependent upon the members, who chance to be in Munich. In view of the difficulty of securing lodging in the capital and the restrictions on travel, the convention is virtually a local body. Besides the Central Council, the Council Congress also nominates an Executive Committee of 21 persons, 7 workmen’s representatives, 7 for the peasants and 7 for the soldiers. Since the soldiers are almost entirely demobilized, it is evident that they receive an exaggerated representation. Moreover, they comprise today largely fresh recruits under 21 years of age, who under most constitutions would not be regarded mature for suffrage. The Executive Committee of 21 forms the kernel of the Committee of Action comprising 33 members, the 12 additional seats being assigned as follows: 3 to the Revolutionary Workmen’s Council (the colleagues of Eisner, who made the revolution of Nov. 9 1918), and 3 each to the party caucuses of the Majority Socialists, the Independents and the League of Peasants. The bourgeois parties which in the recent elections secured the majority in the land are completely ruled out. The Central Council, the Executive Committee and the Committee of Action are in permanent session. The latter have various sub-committees and commissioners, who rule with dictatorial powers, the most important being the Commissioner of Lodgings, who can [and?] does requisition lodgings in houses inadequately utilized, the Press Censor and the (coming) food dictator. Eisner had a moderating influence over the “Councils” and on Feb. 19 they were to vacate the Landtag building, so as to permit the assembling of the legal legislature on Feb. 21. The assassination of Eisner swept away all these resolutions and the “Councils” acquired complete ascendency. Fortunately the demand of the extremists to proclaim a “Councils” Republic, vesting officially all power in the Councils was voted down. On the other hand, a compromise reached in a conference of party leaders held in Nuremberg on Mar. 2 was rejected by the “Councils”. Instead the Council formulated its terms which have been accepted as the only possible transaction and which provide for the recognition of the [Page 70] Councils as permanent institutions incorporated into the constitution and restrict the legal National Assembly both as to the period during which it is to be allowed to remain in session and as to the proceedings to be followed. It is impossible to disguise the fact that minority rule already prevails.

Pretorian guard. The Landtag prior to the death of Eisner was strongly guarded by soldiers pledged to defend the decisions of the Councils. Also Eisner and Unterleithner, whose presence in the government could not be justified by popular vote, maintained personal body guards. Since the assassination of Eisner, great military preparations for the defence of the Councils have been made; but it has been almost forgotten that this is revolutionary, in so far as it is directed against the duly elected legislature.

Disarming of the bourgeoisie. The carrying and possession of arms is forbidden to all members of the bourgeois class. Even officers are supposed to give up their pistols. Certain persons have told me in Munich that they did not dare in view of the perquisitions expected and the severe penalties edicted to keep even valuable historic weapons or shot guns for hunting in their houses; others admitted that they had revolvers well hidden, for they could not risk being overpowered by marauders.

Arming of proletarians. By decree of Feb. 24 issued by the Arming Commission all workmen over 20 years of age who are familiar with the use of firearms and who are members of a trades union or of a socialistic party are to be given a rifle and 20 cartridges. Details concerning the distribution are given and all permits for carrying arms issued prior to Feb. 23 are declared invalid. All arms held by others must be given over to the Councils by Feb. 27, after which date any person found with arms or munition is to be arrested and brought to judgment. I had it on my program to endeavor to find out to what extent arms actually were distributed according to this decree. Estimates seem to differ greatly.

Dissolving of Landtag. Prior to the death of Eisner, the extremists insisted that the legal legislature must never be allowed to meet. They were overruled. The assassination of Eisner led, however, to the closing of the legislature by decree of the Councils. Its reconvening is regarded by the moderates as a very liberal concession, rather than as a natural event. The trammels placed on its action and the bitter opposition of the extremists render its supremacy illusory.

Freedom of speech. This does not exist for the bourgeois. It is quite impossible for the citizens of Munich to assemble in order to protest against revolutionary measures. On the other hand, in the Wagner Hall a mass meeting of extremists is in session all day long, in which incendiary speeches are held and from which deputations [Page 71] are despatched from time to time to the Council Congress or to the Committee of Action.

Freedom of press has also been completely suppressed. From Feb. 21 to Feb. 26 no bourgeois nor even socialist newspapers were allowed to appear at all. Instead there appeared a daily entitled Nachrich-tenblatt of the Central Council. From Feb. 26 on, the papers were allowed to appear, but were only allowed to publish matter which had been previously approved by the Council Censor. A further condition was that they should publish such articles as were submitted to them by the Council and so these papers appeared day by day with editorial articles condemning all that the papers had hitherto stood for and praising to the skies the new system. Catholic papers were compelled to publish anti-Catholic articles, pan-German papers to vie with each other in preaching socialism and in praising Eisner. All the papers published a declaration “To Prussia”, warning the German central authorities against interfering with Bavarian affairs and terminating with an energetic “Hands off!”.

Hostages. Immediately after the assassination of Eisner, numerous persons of high rank in society, government circles, church, etc. were arrested and held as hostages. The general statement was made that for every revolutionary leader harmed, 3 hostages would be sacrificed. The students had also to designate hostages to be held in rotation.

. . . . . . .

Adaptability. The development the movement was taking under my eyes in Munich shows its extreme insidiousness and danger. The apostles of bolshevism can lead to their waterwheel all currents of discontent. They realize that different methods are necessary in Munich from in Moscow. The Munich leaders differ so greatly among themselves and differ so greatly in their successive manifestations that they can win all shades of opinion. The careful reasoning presentation of the case at the hands of Landauer can scarcely fail to carry conviction with unbalanced intellectuals. One parts with him with the thought uppermost: “What slanders have been said about this movement!” I am convinced that an adaptation to the western mentality could be devised, just as has been done for the German mentality.

Bolshevism as a German bugbear propaganda. There can be no question about the existence of a German parole, that we are to be frightened into concessions by the threat of bolshevism penetrating into our camp. Nevertheless it would be folly on our part were we to systematically close our eyes to a real danger, because the Germans used it for propaganda purposes. In Munich I had the stereotype reply: “Bolshevism does not attack the victor” and pointed out that no [Page 72] folly committed by Germany during the war could equal that of desiring to see bolshevism raise its head to the west as well as to the east of her. For all that, my intimate contact with the birth of bolshevism in Munich has left an uneasy feeling in my mind. Discontent of any kind is a hotbed for such theories and it is not merely the unrest of defeat which can be infected.

Means of combating. I do not believe that the passive drawing of a line of demarcation along the Rhine is an all sufficient means of prevention. What action is decided upon for stamping out the centre of contagion in Russia is quite foreign to the scope of my observations. But I do believe that certain measures of prophylaxis are advisable right in Bavaria, provided of course higher reasons do not stand in the way. It is the policy of a helping hand. Help against starvation (food supply), help against unemployment (raw materials), moral help (pronouncements against minority dictatorship, etc.), help against disorder (in last instance military occupation). All this requires development, which I propose to give to it in a later report. I mention these conclusions not as a plea for any given policy. Of this I have not to judge. They merely seem to me to constitute the immediate deduction from my observations. I give them as such in all modesty.

Herbert Haviland Field
  1. Transmitted to the Commission by the Minister in Switzerland under covering letter No. 273, March 24; received March 26.