THE
LENINIST MYTH OF IMPERIALISM
659
the adventure. In the long run, from a philosophical point of view, it
might be said that choice between integration into world economy
and a supernational economy based on a
Grossraum,
an expanded na–
tional territory, continued to present itself. But the need for decision
was not urgent. The Western democracies were ready to appease by
concessions. Once again, Hitler was not subjected to any economic
constraint.
Would Hitler's authority or his regime have been shaken by a
truce? Would Hitler have lost part of the prestige he had won by
his peaceful triumphs? There is nothing to justify an affirmative
answer to these questions. In September 1938 the German people
dreaded a general war almost as much as the British and French
peoples dreaded it. They would not have found fault with their
Fuehrer for saving the peace; rather they would have taken the
contrary attitude. Mter Munich, Germany held hegemony in Cen–
tral Europe more complete than that which had been refused to
Wilhelminian Germany before 1914. But so long as there was the
Soviet Union on one side, and the Franco-British alliance on the
other, the hegemony over
Mitteleuropa
fell short of assuring a
European empire. The truth concealed under the allegations of
political or economic necessity is that Hitler was not content with
his hegemony. He wanted to take advantage of his temporary
superiority in armament at least to liquidate Poland. And therewith
he unleashed the monster.
The economy of the Third Reich gave rise to multiple incitements
to imperial aggrandizement. Norman Angell's reasoning does not apply
to a system such as that of National Socialist Germany. According
to the English pacifist, it is immaterial whether a territorial unit con–
taining mines and factories lies on this or that side of the frontier
signs.
If
it is on this side, the populations of other territorial units
wishing to obtain coal or manufactured products must send goods
of equal value in exchange to the national or other producer. But
when relations between various economic units are restricted as a
result of non-convertibility of their currencies and control of foreign
trade, the argument loses its force.
If
the coal or iron mines are
situated beyond the borders of a given unit, it will be obliged to
exploit poorer mines within its borders, mines with a smaller output,
and to consent to increased expenditures for equipment and labor.
