I, on the other hand, am convinced that in order permanently to insure for ourselves the fruits of victory, even after a victorious conclusion of the war, we shall need long and well planned labors of peace....

In my essay I used the statement:  “England’s claim for the domination of the sea, and therein for the domination of the world, remains a great danger to the peace of the world.”  To this view I adhere firmly.  Let us take it for granted that the most extravagant hopes of our most reckless dreamers are fulfilled, that England is crowded out of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, and is involved in a long-lasting war with the native Indians.  An impossibly large dose of political naivete is needed in order to make us believe that England would take this loss quietly for all time.

We may differ on the question whether we should meet England’s efforts for rehabilitation of her world dominion in warlike, or, as I take it, in peaceful ways; but it would be an unpardonable piece of stupidity for us to rock ourselves to sleep in the mad delusion that those efforts would not be exerted.  Even were England forced to her knees, she would not immediately give up her claim for world domination.  We must count upon that.

And, counting upon that, we must estimate our own forces very carefully; rather account them weaker than they really are, than the reverse.  I did that in my essay, and that is why the conservative press was so wrought up over it.  To be sure, it carefully avoided discussing my reasons.

I started from the conception of world power which is fairly well established in the present political literature.  From a point of view taken also by conservative writers I demanded as a characteristic of world power, in addition to the size of territories and the number of population, above all, the economic independence that makes it possible for a State, in a case of need, to produce, without export or import, all foodstuffs, necessities, raw materials, and all the finished or half-finished products it needs for its consumers in normal times, as well as to insure the sale of its surplus.

It is patent that this economic independence is influenced by the geographical position of the fatherland and its colonies.  Now, I defended the theory (and my opponents made no attempt to confute it) that even after a victorious war the German Empire would not have fully attained this economic independence; that, accordingly, after the conclusion of peace, we must exert every effort to insure this economic independence in one way or another.

As to the course which we must follow to attain this goal, there may be various opinions.  I proposed the establishment of a union of Central European States.  The conservative press characterized that as “utterly pretentious."...

If the course I have proposed is considered inadvisable, let another be proposed.  But on what colonies, forsooth, do those gentlemen count, that could furnish us with cotton and ore, petroleum and tobacco, wood and silk, and whatever else we need, in the quantity and quality we need?  What colonies that could offer us—­do not forget that—­markets for the sale of our exporting industries?  Even after the war we shall be dependent upon exports to and imports from abroad.