exclusiveness are constantly increasing. In this respect our political friendship with Austria-Hungary and Turkey, which is bound to throw open the Balkans and Western Asia to us, is of the first importance. It is therefore necessary that Austria-Hungary, the Balkans, Turkey, and Western Asia, down to the Persian Gulf, should be permanently secured against the covetousness of Russia and England. Commercial relations with our political friends must be furthered by all available means.

But, in the second place, it must be our aim to re-enter the world's oversea markets, in spite of England, and even though we have already safeguarded our foundations on the Continent. Undoubtedly it will be necessary to change the direction of a considerable part of our oversea trade; but we shall also have to conquer anew our old trade and shipping connections. Herein we shall in future stand upon our own feet, and shall, e.g., eliminate the hitherto customary mediation of English bankers and brokers, English arbitrage and exchange business, and the preponderance of English marine insurance companies. England has wantonly destroyed in us the trust and confidence which all such transactions require, and must pay the penalty by losing the profits which she has hitherto derived from them at the expense of German trade. In Africa our aim must be to rebuild our Colonial Empire, making it more self-contained and stronger than before. Central Africa alone would, it is true, give us a great extent of territory, but the value of the colonial products which it contains does not correspond to its size. We must therefore look to other quarters of the globe also, if we are to secure adequate acquisitions. From this point of view the importance of a permanent connection with the world of Islam and the vital necessity of a safe ocean highway are once more plainly evident. Those, therefore, who insist upon colonies at the sacrifice of our security against England's naval tyranny over the Channel—those who insist upon colonies in return for, and subject to, our surrender of Belgium—not only fail to realise that the acquisition of an extended European basis for our Fatherland is far more important than all colonial possessions; they are also guilty of the grave political blunder of aspiring to colonial possessions without securing their maritime communications, i.e. colonial possessions which will once more be dependent on England's arbitrary will.

We must have the freedom of the seas. For this—which is to benefit all peoples alike—we are wrestling with England. And if we are to enforce it, the first requisite is to establish ourselves firmly upon the Channel, facing England. As we have already explained above, we must retain a firm hold upon Belgium, and we must, if possible, conquer part of the Channel-coast of Northern France in addition. Further, we must break the chain of England's naval bases, which encircles the globe, or weaken it by a corresponding acquisition of German bases. But Egypt, which connects English possessions in Africa with those in Asia and converts the Indian Ocean into an English sea with Australia for its distant opposite shore; Egypt, which forms the connecting link between the mother country and all her Eastern colonies:—Egypt is, as Bismarck said, the neck of the British Empire, the vice in which England holds East and West in subjection. There a blow may be dealt at England's vital nerve. If it is successful, the international trade route of the Suez Canal must be freed from the domination of a single Power, and the ancient rights of Turkey be protected as far as possible.

But England's power is also essentially based upon the overwhelming influence which she exercises on the Governments and the Press of the whole world. In order to remedy this state of affairs and to secure counter-influence for Germany, it is vitally necessary to destroy England's monopoly of the cable-service and press-agencies. Our best ally in our fight against England's influence over the world's public opinion is freedom—freedom which we shall bring to all nations by fighting for our own liberation from the yoke imposed by England upon the world. We must not strive to dominate and exploit the world, like the English: our aim should be to safeguard our own special needs, and then to act as pathmakers and leaders of Europe, respecting and securing the free self-development of the peoples.

5. INDEMNITY FOR THE WAR.—Finally, as regards indemnity for the war, we naturally desire such an indemnity as will, so far as possible, cover the public cost of the war, make restoration possible in East Prussia and Alsace, guarantee the establishment of a pension fund for cripples, widows, and orphans, indemnify private individuals for losses inflicted on them contrary to international law, and provide for the renewal and further development of our armaments.

But we are aware that these matters depend not only upon the extent of our military successes but also upon the financial capacity of our enemies. If we found ourselves in a position to impose a war-indemnity upon England—England, which has always been so niggardly in sacrificing the lives of its own citizens—no sum in money could be great enough. England has set the whole world against us, and chiefly by her money. The purse is the sensitive spot in this nation of shopkeepers. If we have the power, we must strike at her purse above all else and without any consideration whatever. In all probability, however, we shall have to look to France (primarily, if not exclusively) for our financial indemnification. And we ought not, from a mistaken idea of generosity, to hesitate to impose upon France the heaviest indemnity. Let France turn to her ally across the Channel for the alleviation of this enforced burden. If England refuses to fulfil her financial obligations towards her ally, we shall have secured an incidental political advantage with which we may be well contented.

But we are primarily concerned to insist that, important as it is to adopt retrospective measures for the mitigation of the injuries we have already suffered, it is still more vitally important to secure such terms of peace as will throw open to our people new paths for a vigorous future development; and in proportion as a financial indemnity is unobtainable, increased political and moral justification attaches to all the demands set forth above for the acquisition of territory, for an additional supply of productive labour for our manufactures, and for colonies. If we win in this titanic struggle, we must not emerge from it with losses. Otherwise, despite all our victories, posterity will view us as the conquered party.

We refrain from expressing any decided opinion on the weighty question of the mode of payment, but we would draw attention to the following point. It would be greatly to our interest, if a considerable part of the indemnity were paid in the form of foreign securities of such a kind that their possession would strengthen our economic position in the countries of our political friends, whilst freeing the latter from the preponderant influence of England and France.

6. A POLICY OF CIVILISATION (KULTURPOLITIK) CAN ONLY BE BASED ON A POLICY OF POWER.—If the signatories of this Petition—particularly the men of science, the artists, and ecclesiastics—are reproached, on the ground that the demands which they put forward are solely to promote Germany's political and economic power, and perhaps also to satisfy some of her social requirements, whilst the purely spiritual tasks of Germany's future have been forgotten, our answer is as follows:—

Care for