Despite issuing a statement against colonialism at the 1896 London congress, the international was criticized by anti-colonial figures for providing insufficient opposition to colonial expansion. While the pre-war international was relatively consistent in its opposition to an inter-imperialist conflict between European powers, it was often paternalistic towards colonial areas, and statements often mentioned a need to educate or civilize conquered peoples. By the Stuttgart congress of 1907, parties in the international had substantially shifted away from their earlier consensus on ostensible anticolonialism towards a mix of overtly pro-colonial, anti-colonial and neutral views. These divisions were made apparent in a proposal by the Dutch delegate Henri van Kol that the international drop its anticolonial position, which was defeated 128 votes to 108. Part of this was due to a concerted effort by non-socialist parties and the media to question the patriotism of anti-colonial parties, for example the SPD and Catholic Centre Party of Germany initially opposed the Herero and Namaqua genocide before giving in to extreme political pressure. The Dutch Social Democratic Workers' Party was particularly insistent on the legitimacy of a "socialist colonialism," and opposed most anti-colonial resolutions on the basis that colonialism under a socialist government could be benevolent and mutually beneficial. The French SFIO likewise supported a policy of "national colonialism," while the right-wing of the SPD supported "national imperialism," and the British Labour Party's stated policy was "ethical imperialism." The pro-colonial reputation of the second international would later drive Ho Chi Minh to join the third international.