Letter to Karl Marx, January 16, 1868

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 16 January 1868


First published in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, Bd. 4, Stuttgart, 1913
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 42


ENGELS TO MARX

IN LONDON

Manchester, 16 January 1868

Dear Moor,

I have just discovered that I have left all your letters at home in another coat-pocket (including the last letter from your chief HONOURABLE SECRETARY[1] for which I express special thanks) and so I shall have to reply from memory.

You received the Courriers français and also the Wiener Tagbtatt yesterday.

I am sending you the Prussian report,[2] with special explanations. Or rather it is only necessary to look at the sketch contained therein on the positions on the evening of June 28th in order to see that Benedek had brought together 6 corps (not counting cavalry) in an area of 2 square miles, faced by the Crown Prince[3] with only the 5th Corps and 1 brigade of the 6th Corps. If, on the 29th, Benedek had attacked Steinmetz (5th Corps), the latter would have been thrown back across the mountains on to the 6th Corps, and on the 30th Benedek would have been able to attack the Guards and the 1st Corps at his leisure with at least 4 corps and throw them back, après quoi[4] the cautious Frederick Charles would have taken great care not to act unrestrainedly. Frederick Charles had 5 corps and would have been faced by at least 6; the order for them to retreat was, however, certain as soon as the 3 individual columns of the Crown Prince had been beaten, and thereby the campaign would have acquired a completely different character. That the Austrians would finally have been beaten, if the Prussians had shown some care, is clear from a comparison of the figures. But the Prussian rabble would have been forced to cast aside their lousy system, and it would not have been the reorganisation and Bismarck who triumphed, but the people.

Cluseret (who, of course, played the Fenian in London as well) is even wilder than the Germans with his militia plan. The American war—with militia on both sides—proves nothing except that the militia system demands enormous sacrifices of money and men, since the organisation only exists on paper. What would have happened to the Yankees if they had been faced, not by the Southern militia, but by a standing army of a few 100,000 men? Before the North could have organised itself this army would have been in New York and Boston and would have dictated peace with the help of the Democrats, whereupon the West could have played at secession. The fellow makes a good joke when he suggests that what really counts are good officers and the confidence of the men in the officers—two things that simply cannot be achieved with the militia system. What impresses people everywhere about the militia system is the great mass of men obtained at once, and the relative ease of training them, particularly in the face of the enemy. This last point is nothing new, old Napoleon was able to lead recruits of three months in formation to face the enemy; but this demands good cadres, and for this purpose something different from the Swiss-American militia system. When the war ended, the Yankees still had very imperfect cadres. Following the introduction of the breech-loader, the time of the pure militia is really at an end. This does not mean that [not] every rational military organisation lies somewhere in the middle between the Prussian and the Swiss—but where? This depends on the circumstances in each case. Only a society set up and educated communistically can come very close to the militia system, and even then asymptotically.

With regard to the Viennese papers, I am in some embarrassment[5] ; I do, of course, see the Neue Freie Presse from time to time, but the whole area is rather too alien for me. What are your ideas on the subject, also with regard to the Fortnightly[6] ? The business is worth the trouble of thorough consideration.

I hope you are sitting again, and have had no further volcanic outbreaks. Gumpert laughs at your antipathy to arsenic, says that it is just the thing to make you sprightly and is convinced there is no better remedy for you. But if you are flatly opposed to it, then you should take acids, and that constantly, so once again he encloses a prescription for the aqua regia prescribed before, and this you really will take.

Best wishes to your wife and the girls, ditto Lafargue.

Your

F. E.

Alberich, the strong dwarf,[7] I hereby greet most humbly on his birthday and empty a glass of beer to his health at this instant. They forgot about the COTTON at the factory so I shall only be able to send it tomorrow.

  1. ↑ Laura Marx (see this volume, p. 583)
  2. ↑ Der Feldzug von 1866 in Deutschland...
  3. ↑ Frederick William
  4. ↑ after which
  5. ↑ See this volume, pp. 512, 515.
  6. ↑ Engels wrote the review of Volume One of Marx's Capital for The Fortnightly Review much later, in May and June 1868. As can be seen from their subsequent correspondence, Marx and Engels exchanged opinions several times on the content and form of the article. In spite of Professor Beesly's request, the review was rejected by the editorial board and has only been preserved in manuscript form (see present edition, Vol. 20).
  7. ↑ Eleanor Marx (see this volume, pp. 520-21)