The third great issue about which there is nothing but fog and uncertainty is the so-called “War After the War,” the idea of a permanent economic alliance to prevent the economic recuperation of Germany.  Upon that idea German imperialism, in its frantic effort to keep its tormented people fighting, naturally puts the utmost stress.  The threat of War after the War robs the reasonable German of his last inducement to turn on his Government and insist upon peace.  Shut out from all trade, unable to buy food, deprived of raw material, peace would be as bad for Germany as war.  He will argue naturally enough and reasonably enough that he may as well die fighting as starve.  This is a far more vital issue to him than the Belgian issue or Poland or Alsace-Lorraine.  Our statesmen waste their breath and slight our intelligence when these foreground questions are thrust in front of the really fundamental matters.  But as the mass of sensible people in every country concerned, in Germany just as much as in France or Great Britain, know perfectly well, unimpeded trade is good for every one except a few rich adventurers, and restricted trade destroys limitless wealth and welfare for mankind to make a few private fortunes or secure an advantage for some imperialist clique.  We want an end to this economic strategy, we want an end to this plotting of Governmental cliques against the general welfare.  In such offences Germany has been the chief of sinners, but which among the belligerent nations can throw the first stone?  Here again the way to the world’s peace, the only way to enduring peace, lies through internationalism, through an international survey of commercial treaties, through an international control of inter-State shipping and transport rates.  Unless the Allied statesmen fail to understand the implications of their own general professions they mean that.  But why do they not say it plainly?  Why do they not shout it so compactly and loudly that all Germany will hear and understand?  Why do they justify imperialism to Germany?  Why do they maintain a threatening ambiguity towards Germany on all these matters?

By doing so they leave Germany no choice but a war of desperation.  They underline and endorse the claim of German imperialism that this is a war for bare existence.  They unify the German people.  They prolong the war.

Sec. 3

Some weeks later I was able, at the invitation of the editor, to carry the controversy against imperialism into the Daily Mail, which has hitherto counted as a strictly imperialist paper.  The article that follows was published in the Daily Mail under the heading, “Are we Sticking to the Point?  A Discussion of War Aims.”

Has this War-Aims controversy really got down to essentials?  Is the purpose of this world conflict from first to last too complicated for brevity, or can we boil it down into a statement compact enough for a newspaper article?