Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

nation by all methods; but rather: preservation of world peace by all means. With what
success, everyone knows.
I shall return to this point in particular.
Thus there remained the fourth possibility
Industry and world trade, sea power and colonies.
Such a development, to be sure, was at first easier and also more quickly attainable. The
settlement of land is a slow process, often lasting centuries; in fact, its inner strength is to be
sought precisely in the fact that it is not a sudden blaze, but a gradual yet solid and
continuous growth, contrasting with an industrial development which can be blown up in the
course of a few years, but in that case is more like a soapbubble than solid strength. A fieet,
to be sure, can be built more quickly than farms can be established in stubborn struggle and
settled with peasants, but it is also more rapidly destroyed than the latter.
If, nevertheless, Germany took this road, she should at least have clearly recognized that this
development would some day likewise end in struggle. Only children could have thought that
they could get their bananas in the 'peaceful contest of nations,' by friendly and moral
conduct and constant emphasis on their peaceful intentions, as they so high-soundingly and
unctuously babbled; in other words, without ever having to take up arms. No: if we chose
this road, England would some day inevitably become our enemy. It was more than
senseless-but quite in keeping with our own innocence-to wax indignant over the fact that
England should one day take the liberty to oppose our peaceful activity with the brutality of a
violent egoist.
It is true that we, I am sorry to say, would never have done such a thing.
If a European territorial policy was only possible against Russia in alliance with England,
conversely, a policy of colonies and world trade was conceivable only against England and
with Russia. But then we had dauntlessly to draw the consequences- and, above all,
abandon Austria in all haste.
Viewed from all angles, this alliance with Austria was real madness by the turn of the
century.
But we did not think of concluding an alliance with Russia against England, any more than
with England against Russia, for in both cases the end would have been war, and to prevent
this we decided in favor of a policy of commerce and industry. In the 'peaceful economic '
conquest of the world we possessed a recipe which was expected to break the neck of the
former policy of violence once and for all.l Occasionally, perhaps, we were not quite sure of
ourselves, particularly when from time to time incomprehensible threats came over from
England; therefore, we decided to build a fleet, though not to attack and destroy England,
but for the 'defense' of our old friend 'world peace' and 'peaceful ' conquest of the world.
Consequently, it was kept on a somewhat more modest scale in all respects, not only in
number but also in the tonnage of the individual ships as well as in armament, so as in the
final analysis to let our 'peaceful' intentions shine through after all.
The talk about the 'peaceful economic' conquest of the world was possibly the greatest
nonsense which has ever been exalted to be a guiding principle of state policy. What made
this nonsense even worse was that its proponents did not hesitate to call upon England as a
crown witness for the possibility of such an achievement. The crimes of our academic
doctrine and conception of history in this connection can scarcely be made good and are only
a striking proof of how many people there are who 'learn' history without understanding or
even comprehending it. England, in particular, should have been recognized as the striking
refutation of this theory; for no people has ever with greater brutality better prepared its
economic conquests with the sword, and later ruthlessly defended theme than the English
nation. Is it not positively the distinguishing feature of British statesmanship to draw
economic acquisitions from political strength, and at once to recast every gain in economic
strength into political power? And what an error to believe that England is personally too
much of a coward to stake her own blood for her economic policy! The fact that the English