II.

RELATION BETWEEN THE PANGERMAN PLAN OF 1911 AND THE PANGERMAN GAINS AT THE BEGINNING OF 1916.

The accompanying map exhibits this incontestable truth in a graphic form by showing the outlines of the actual German fortress compared with theoutlines contemplated by the 1911 plan. According to it the German conquests were to have extended to 3,474,288 square kilometres, in addition to Germany itself. But these conquests and seizures at the beginning of 1916 were accomplished over an area of 3,035,572 square kilometres. This geographical proof is confirmed by many manifestoes which have appeared on the other side of the Rhine advocating a policy of annexation. Amongst these may particularly be noted:—

1º. The famous memorial of May 20th, 1915, which the Imperial Chancellor caused to be presented to himself by the most important associations of Germany (see p. 17).

2º. Germany’s manifest desire to get possession successively of Riga, Calais, Verdun, Belfort, and Salonika, in order to complete the plan of 1911 by holding the strategical points necessary for the preservationof the territories over which she has cast her net.

3º. The declarations made in the Reichstag on April 5th, 1916, by the Imperial Chancellor, Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg, which lend the force of demonstration to the geographical proof.

To any plain man these declarations appear to amount to an official avowal of Germany’s intention to execute the Pangerman plan. The phrases of the Imperial Chancellor leave no room for ambiguity.

“After the war Poland will no longer be the Poland out of which the Russian usurers have been cleared.... No. Never again must Russia be able to march her armies to the defenceless frontier of East Prussia, nay, of West Prussia (thunders of applause). Just as little is it to be supposed that in the West we shall give up the lands where our people’s blood has flowed, unless we receive solid guarantees for the future. We mean to create solid guarantees in order that Belgium should not become a vassal State of England and France, that it should not be turned into an outwork against Germany from the military as well as the economic point of view.” (Loud applause.) (Quoted byLe Temps, April 8th, 1916.)

The Imperial Chancellor could not assert more categorically the territorial claims of Germany on the East and on the West. As for the claims towards the South and South-East, consequent upon Germany’s seizure of Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Turkey, Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg made no allusion to them. His silence is intelligible. In the first place, it was too much to expect that the Imperial Chancellor should make a clean breast of the burglaries which Germany has committed on the territories of her own Allies; in the second place, Berlin affects to consider these forcible acquisitions to the South and South-Eastas permanent and therefore beyond the reach of discussion.

Moreover, Deputy Spahn, leader of the Centre, who on April 5th, 1914, and again on December 11th, 1915, took on himself to reply to the Chancellor and to say outright what the exigencies of office obliged that gentleman only to hint at, left no doubt as to Germany’s intentions with regard to Central Europe. “We must,” said Herr Spahn, “bring about a lasting union with Austria-Hungary. We must have at our command territories larger than the German Empire. This war, which has been forced upon us, must secure for us a position of world-wide power.” (SeeLe Temps, April 7th, 1916.)

Thus irrefragable proofs, both material and moral, combine to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Germany made and continues to wage the war for the purpose of carrying out the Pangerman plan which she elaborated from 1895 to 1911.

Nine-tenths of the Pangerman plan of 1911 having been for the moment achieved, the Allies can avail themselves of this fact as evidence to counteract speedily and everywhere, the effects of the German propaganda, and to prove to the civilized world the legitimacy and the necessity of their military action against Prussianized Germany.

Starting from the practical proofs and the German declarations, both of them indisputable, which we have just set forth, the propaganda of the Allies should be able speedily to demonstrate to neutrals the absolute falsehood of the German allegations. Hence it should prove that:

1º. Germany made the war, after very long premeditation, solely for the sake of executing the Pangerman plan of 1895-1911, the aim of which isto effect formidable conquests and to subject in Europe and Turkey 127 millions of non-Germans to the yoke of 77 millions of Germans (see p. 15).

2º. If the war is prolonged, it is only because Germany has not renounced her plan of universal domination.

3º. In claiming to carry out her scheme “from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf,” Germany by no means aims at securing for the world that freedom of the seas which, according to her, has been usurped by England; on the contrary, the intention of the Berlin government is, by means of the inevitable consequences of the “Hamburg to the Persian Gulf” scheme, to get possession of all the strategical points necessary to ensure the command of the sea all over the world (see p. 106).

4º. In virtue of these consequences, the accomplishment of the “Hamburg to the Persian Gulf” scheme would directly threaten the independence of all the civilized States in the world, especially of Japan, the States of South America, and the United States.

5º. No comparison is possible between the violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany and the Allies’ occupation of Salonika.

The Allies did not go to Greece to take possession of the country, as the Germans did to Belgium. The Allies went to Greece to assist their ally Serbia, which, moreover, was the ally of Greece, and to oppose the spoliation of Austria-Hungary, the Balkans, and Turkey, by Germany. The treaties which give Turkey, France, England, and Russia the right of protecting the Hellenic constitution, greatly endangered by German influences at Athens, are sufficient to justify, on the ground of international law, the presence of the Allies in Greece. But it is necessary, further, to state clearly that they are there in virtue of a still higher right, that of safeguardingthe collective liberty of the nations. A comparison will enable us to appreciate this point of view, the statement of which is perhaps novel. According to the civil law, private property is inviolable. But if any man, passing a garden which the right of private property forbids him to enter, sees on the other side of the garden a ruffian in the act of murdering a person for the purpose of robbing him, he not only has a moral right, but is in duty bound to cross the garden to help his fellow who is in danger of his life. There is not a court of justice in the world that would blame the worthy and courageous citizen for having violated the rights of private property in succouring his fellow man. But the Allies went to Salonika with exactly the same intention. They have passed through Greece in order to seize by the throat the Pangerman ruffian who is violently robbing Austria-Hungary, the Balkans, and Turkey; who is destroying by millions in these countries the Antigermanic civil populations; who, shrinking from no crimes, however heinous, claims to lay hands on riches untold, and to secure his illgotten gains by capturing the whole region from Vienna to the Persian Gulf, which would furnish Germany with the means of maintaining her world-wide dominion (see p. 106).

Now, as my readers have been able to see for themselves, there is, by reason of the temporary success of the Pangerman plot, abundance of unimpeachable arguments, numerical, geographical, ethnographical, in support of these conclusions. These irrefragable arguments are therefore calculated to make the greatest impression on neutrals, because they are of a nature to appeal to their higher feelings and at the same time to show how their own interests are jeopardized. If the Allied propaganda is once co-ordinated and fortified by these arguments, set forth methodically, the moral,economic, and military effects, which the German propaganda has undoubtedly produced to the advantage of Germany, would soon be annulled, and the Allies would justly reap similar advantages, which would hasten the victory.

Henceforth the Allies and the neutral states must bear constantly in mind not only Germany’s present gains on the East and on the West, but also her Pangerman gains as a whole.

The accompanying map furnishes the justification of this conclusion. It is obvious that the German gains on the West and the East, important as they are, are relatively small by comparison with the enormous seizures which Germany has effected at the expense of Austria-Hungary, of half the Balkans, and of Turkey. We must fully understand that these countries, especially Austria-Hungary, though they are allies of Germany, are nevertheless as truly under the German heel as Belgium, Poland, or the invaded departments of France. There is therefore good ground for making no distinction between the Pangerman gains achieved by Germany at the cost of her open enemies (France and Russia) and those which the Government of Berlin has treacherously effected at the expense of her own allies, like Austria-Hungary.

What the Allies and the neutral states have to consider is the Pangerman gains taken as a whole, in order to discriminate those which are calculated to upset the balance of power in the world, and consequently to establish German supremacy.

THE PANGERMAN GAINS AT THE BEGINNING OF 1916.

Now it is certain that if Germany were to give up her gains in the East and the West, while maintaining her seizures in the South and South-East, her power would at that moment be formidably increased as compared with what it was before thewar. That, therefore, would be an indisputable and enormous victory for Pangermanism. The sketch map, inserted below, represents this truth in a graphic form. From Berlin radiate the lines on which are stretched the threads of that immense spider’s web which covers the whole of the enormous Pangerman gains achieved by Germany in the course of the war. These gains she has been able to effect by means of

1º. The very skilful political turn which she has adroitly given to her military operations.

2º. The ignorance of the Pangerman plan among the Allies. The knowledge of it would in fact have suggested to them from the very beginning of the campaign the need of interveningthrough Salonika and the south of Hungary, which would have destroyed the chief part of the German plan by rendering impossible the junction of the Central Empires with Bulgaria and Turkey.

The temporary achievement, almost in its entirety, of the Pangerman scheme “from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf,” proves that the complete victory of the Allies is necessary for the freedom of the world.

As it is no longer possible to question either the reality or the extent of the plan of universal domination pursued by the Germans, it follows that all civilized States are undoubtedly concerned in the defeat of Prussianized Germany, since a German victory would have a most detrimental effect on their interests. Accordingly, the Neutral States whose independence would be especially threatened by the accomplishment of the “Hamburg to the Persian Gulf” scheme, have a really vital interest in the continuance of the war by the Allies till a complete victory crowns their arms. Such a decisive victory is a necessity not only for Europe, but for the whole world, since the achievement of the “Hamburg to the Persian Gulf” scheme would have world-wide consequences (see p. 107). That victory should have for its main object to deliver the world from the Pangerman peril, and therefore to prevent any future outbreak of the intolerable ambition of the Hohenzollerns. The victory of the Allies involves a pledge to destroy the “Hamburg to the Persian Gulf” project, which forms the indispensable but sufficient basis of the whole Pangerman plan.

The plan of slavery pursued by Germany is now so manifest that neutrals or Germanophile groups arehenceforth morally responsible for their sentiments before the civilized world.

The neutrals who, in the first part of the war, displayed sympathy for Germany, were excusable because they were deceived; but now they are in a different position. The facts are patent. It is no longer possible for anyone to see in Prussianized Germany anything but a ferocious burglar and assassin practising his trade of robbery and murder at the expense of the whole commonwealth of nations. In the fine phrase of M. Paul Hyacinthe Loyson, Can neutrals be neutral in the face of crime? Clearly not. As theDaily Telegraphsaid very justly: “Those who refuse to occupy a vacant seat at the Round Table of chivalry will have to render an account at the judgment bar of Humanity.” As matters now stand, in face of the crimes committed by the “miscreants of Central Europe”—the phrase is that of the Dutchman M. Schroeder—neutrals cannot support Germany in any way without rendering themselves her accomplices.

This truth is made so manifest by the course of events that already a change is coming over two neutral countries, which had been thought Germanophile. Spanish opinion, a part of which had long been deceived by the German propaganda, is coming round more and more. Sweden, which the pressure and the audacious temptations of Berlin all but plunged into the strife, to the great benefit of Pangermany, is now anxious not to separate her cause from that of civilization; her responsible leaders have just proclaimed that Sweden will maintain a strict neutrality.

The declarations of the Allies, the accomplishment of the “Hamburg to the Persian Gulf” scheme, and the question of Austria-Hungary.

In receiving the French deputies in London, on April 11th, 1916, Mr. Asquith declared: “I have said already in November that we would not sheathe the sword till the military domination of Prussia has been destroyed once and for all. In this struggle we are the champions not only of the rights of treaties but of the independence and the free development of the weaker countries.” (SeeL’Œuvre, April 12th, 1916.)

Sir Edward Grey, in an interview with a correspondent of theDaily Newsof Chicago affirmed: “We and our Allies are fighting for a free Europe, an Europe freed not only from the domination of one nation by another, but also from a hectoring diplomacy, from the danger of war, etc. The Allies cannot tolerate any peace which would leave the wrongs done by this war unrighted. We desire a peace that will do justice to all.” (Quoted byLe Temps, May 17th, 1916.)

M. Sazonoff, speaking in the name of Russia, said: “Our victory must be absolute. The Allies will continue to fight till mankind is rid of Prussianism.” (Quoted byLe Temps, February 27th, 1916.)

At Nancy, on May 13th, 1916, M. Poincaré declared: “France will not surrender her sons to the danger of fresh aggressions. We do not wish the Central Empires to offer us peace, we wish that they should ask it of us; we will not submit to their conditions, we will impose ours on them; we do not want a peace that would leave Imperial Germany free to begin the war again and to hang a sword for ever over the head of Europe; we want a peace which shall receive at the hands of Justice, restored to her own, solid guarantees of permanence and stability. So long as that peace is not assured to us, so long as our enemies shall not confess themselves vanquished, we shall not cease to fight.” (Quoted byLe Temps, May 15th, 1916.)

On May 22nd, 1916, in replying to the members of the Russian Duma, M. A. Briand, President of the French Council, similarly declared:—

“I have said, and I repeat, while rivers of blood are flowing, while our soldiers are sacrificing their lives with such forgetfulness of self, the word peace is a sacrilege, if it means that the aggressor will not be punished, and if tomorrow Europe shall run the risk of being handed over once more to the humours and the caprices of a military caste bloated with pride and athirst for power. It would be a dishonour to the Allies. What answer should we have to make if tomorrow, after having concluded such a peace, our countries were again swept into the frenzy of armaments? What would the generations to come say if we were to commit such a folly, and if we let slip the opportunity which now presents itself of establishing a lasting peace on a solid basis? Peace will result from the victory of the Allies, it can result from nothing but our victory.” (SeeLe Temps, May 24th, 1916.)

From all these declarations of the Allies two fundamental ideas stand clearly out:—

Prussian militarism must be destroyed;The nationalities of Europe must be liberated from the Prussian yoke.

Prussian militarism must be destroyed;

The nationalities of Europe must be liberated from the Prussian yoke.

But, as we have proved, the accomplishment of the “Hamburg to the Persian Gulf” scheme has two essential objects:—

A formidable extension of Prussian militarism, which would have at its disposal an army of 15 to 21 million men (see p. 91);The enslavement to Germany of all the non-German nationalities lying between the south of Saxony and the Persian Gulf.

A formidable extension of Prussian militarism, which would have at its disposal an army of 15 to 21 million men (see p. 91);

The enslavement to Germany of all the non-German nationalities lying between the south of Saxony and the Persian Gulf.

The objects of the war pursued by the Allies and those of the government of William II. are therefore fundamentally opposed to each other.This opposition has been by implication excellently stated by M. Marcel Cachin, Socialist deputy, in an article which appeared inL’Humanité, of May 9th, 1916, under the title “Central Europe.”

“The general plan of our enemies can be clearly defined. In case they were victorious, they would establish in the heart of Europe a formidable power under the supremacy of Germany, a power which, with the annexations avowedly aimed at, would comprise more than 130 millions of inhabitants.

“It needs no big words to show the danger which the whole of Europe would run were such a design executed. It would be an eternal menace to our country. No one can for a moment doubt that so long as the existing political systems of Germany and Austria endure, such a monstrous combination would be a permanent danger against which we should constantly be obliged to be on our guard. And as for the Slav populations reduced again to slavery, as for the Czechs, the Poles, the Yougo-Slavs, the Serbians, they would naturally think of nothing but of revenge in order to escape from serfdom and recover their national rights, which had been trampled under foot. Were such a brutal unification as is summed up inMitteleuropato be unfortunately accomplished by fire and sword, we might talk of peace after the storm, but it would be talk in vain; it would be war again, fatal war.”

There spoke sound sense. It is clear that to have done once for all with Prussian militarism is the only way open to the Allies to procure a reasonable guarantee that so atrocious a war shall never be waged again, and that millions of men shall not once more be sacrificed to the Moloch of Pangermanism. Hence the official declarations of the Allies, quoted above, are not the product of blind obduracy, as the German propaganda would make some neutrals believe. In view of the formidableplan of universal domination which the Germans still cling to, the seeming obduracy of the Allies is on their part the highest wisdom.

The question of Austria-Hungary, being the crucial point of the whole problem to be solved after the war, may become the common ground on which all common efforts should be concentrated, not only by the present Allies, but also by the still neutral States which are virtually threatened by the accomplishment of the “Hamburg to the Persian Gulf” scheme.

It is probable that Prussian militarism would have been already destroyed, or on the point of being so, if in the first part of the war the leaders of the Allied countries had not committed the three capital mistakes which to-day are generally acknowledged—the Balkan policy of 1915, the Dardanelles, the delay in sending reinforcements to Serbia.

It is evident that these three calamitous mistakes have entailed a considerable prolongation of the struggle and allowed Germany to build up the immense fortress which extends from Dunkirk on the north to Egypt on the south, and from the south of Riga to Bagdad (see the map on p. 72). In order to overthrow the mighty walls of this formidable fortress, the Allies must consent to sacrifices much greater and more prolonged than would have been necessary if the mistakes now generally acknowledged had not been committed. These sacrifices the Allied peoples accept with a devotion and heroism which will win the imperishable admiration of posterity. But just because the faults committed have lengthened the duration of the struggle, the leaders of the Allied countries are in duty bound to do everything they can to accelerate a complete victory. That victory would be considerably hastened by the accession of the forces, whethereconomic or military, of the still neutral countries which, though they are even yet not fully aware of it, would be directly endangered by the success of the Pangerman plan.

I have shown on p. 219 how a systematic propaganda of the Allies, taking as its text the temporary accomplishment of the Pangerman plot, might speedily demonstrate to neutrals the falsehood of the German sophistries by which they have been cajoled. The same propaganda should have for its second object to convince these neutrals that they have as much to gain as the Allies by the destruction of Prussian militarism and of the “Hamburg to the Persian Gulf” project. If once this were clearly demonstrated it would be both legitimate and possible to request of these neutrals that they should contribute, in the measure of their power, to the common task of saving the civilization of the world.

In order rapidly to secure practical results from a convincing propaganda, it is necessary to define very clearly what in the vast welter of the present struggle is the point of vital interest common to all the States of the World. As I have shown in the course of this book, what would provide Germany with the means of establishing her universal dominion would be the accomplishment, whether direct, or indirect, of her scheme “from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf.” On the other hand, I believe I have demonstrated that to prevent the accomplishment of that scheme it is enough, but it is necessary, that the Latin and Slav peoples of Austria-Hungary should be freed, once for all, from the yoke which Germany has imposed on them through the opportunity given her by the war. For if the majority of these peoples were to be combined as a State in place of Austria-Hungary, probably in a federal form, there would at once be set up in CentralEurope an immovable barrier which would ensure the world against any revival of Pangerman aggression (see the map on p. 43). On the other hand, if the independence of the Slav peoples of Austria-Hungary were not secured against Berlin, the extension of Prussian militarism to the Balkans and Turkey would be inevitable; the Allied peoples would have made all their unheard-of sacrifices in vain, and the struggle against Prussianism would be bound to continue.

EUROPEAN STATES INTERESTED IN THE SOLUTION OF THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN QUESTION.

From these considerations it follows that the question of Austria-Hungary, just because its solution implies the downfall of the “Hamburg to the Persian Gulf” castle-in-the-air, constitutes the crucial point not only of the European problem, but of the whole problem which the Pangerman plan of universal domination raises for all civilized States. Consequently the solution of the question of Austria-Hungary, on the basis of the principleof nationalities, forms the bond of common interest not only between the belligerent Allies but also between all the still neutral States of the world who are threatened in any degree by the accomplishment of the scheme “from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf.”

The annexed maps show clearly the States of the world for which the solution of the question of Austria-Hungary has an interest greater or less in degree but substantially identical.

It is clear that if Germany could keep her hold permanently on Austria-Hungary, Russia would be constantly threatened. In consequence of the extension of Prussian militarism which would result therefrom, England would be forced to continue to maintain the formidable armaments which she has accepted only as a temporary measure. As for France, no restoration of Alsace-Lorraine could be lasting, if the vassal regiments of Austria-Hungary should give the government of Berlin, after a brief breathing-space, the power to wrench again from France the provinces which had been temporarily ceded. Belgium would be threatened for the same reason. As for Italy, German supremacy over Central Europe would be the end of all Italian hopes on the Adriatic, and of all Italian expansion over the Eastern Mediterranean. As for Serbia and Montenegro, that dominion would be a sentence of death without appeal. For Portugal, it would imply the loss of her territories beyond the sea in virtue of the consequences which would follow the achievement of the plan “from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf.”

But countries still neutral, such as Greece, Roumania[6], Holland, and Switzerland, at which thePangerman musket is levelled point-blank, ought also to be convinced that their most solid interests, in complete harmony with their moral obligations to the cause of civilization, make it their duty to lend the Allies all the support they can, whether it be moral, economic, or military.

THE STATES OF ASIA AND AMERICA, INTERESTED IN THE SOLUTION OF THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN QUESTION.

The second map shows the group of States in Asia and America which, menaced by the world-wide consequences of the “Hamburg to the Persian Gulf” scheme, have also a high and direct interest in the solution of the Austro-Hungarian question. Japan is already helping the Allies notably, but her assistance might be still ampler, more effective and more direct. The strictest view of her interest should compel her to enlarge the scope of her succour, since nothing but the total defeat of Germany in Europe can prevent Japan from witnessing a long series of disturbances fomented at her expense in the Chinese Empire (see p. 98). As I have already shown (p. 105) many States in South America are directly aimed at by the Pangermanplan of 1911. But that plan can never be really formidable for these States, unless Germany should one day have at her disposal the powerful resources which would accrue to her from the accomplishment of the scheme “from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf.” Chili, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Colombia, Brazil, have all been the object of preparatory Pangerman manœuvres. That warning ought to convince them without delay that they have an undoubted interest in co-operating, to some extent, in the common cause. They could do so, particularly Argentina and Brazil, to good purpose in the economic sphere.

As for the United States, we have seen (p. 208) that the accomplishment of the scheme “from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf” would really jeopardize their independence in the gravest manner. No doubt that point of view has not yet been generally apprehended in the United States, but a propaganda which could easily be carried on, since the arguments in its favour are abundant, should serve to convince the Americans that in fighting on the battlefields of Europe the Allied soldiers are really safeguarding the future of the great American Republic. On the day when that conviction becomes general, the Americans will not hesitate to lend the European Allies such assistance of various sorts as must hasten the coming of complete victory.

To recapitulate, a series of deductions, all based on acknowledged facts and all easily verifiable, leads to the conclusion that the formidable problem with which German aggression has confronted the civilized world is summed up in the solution of the Austro-Hungarian question, because that solution, which can be worked out without prejudice to the legitimate interests of the German people (see Chapter VI § 111), is the only means of putting anend to the Hohenzollern plan of universal domination, founded on the scheme “from Hamburg to the Persian Gulf.”

But when the question of Austria-Hungary shall have been solved, the problems peculiar to each of the Allies will by way of corollary be solved also. And in general, by securing the independence of the non-German peoples of Central Europe—a measure the justice of which is indisputable—we shall effectually protect the world as a whole against any future eruption of the intolerable Pangerman ambition.

FOOTNOTES[1]At that date the designation Austria was comprehensive of what we now call Austria-Hungary.[2]This passage was written before Yuan-Shi-Kai’s death.Translator’s Note.[3]A French translation of this work, by M. Maurice Millioud, of Lausanne, has been published by the firm of Payot.[4]He has published an excellent pamphlet with the significant title,The Liquidation of Austria-Hungary. Felix Alcan, Paris.[5]Since this was said, Roumania has joined the Entente Powers in the war.Translator’s Note.[6]This passage was written before Roumania joined the Allies in the war.Translator’s Note.

[1]At that date the designation Austria was comprehensive of what we now call Austria-Hungary.

[2]This passage was written before Yuan-Shi-Kai’s death.Translator’s Note.

[3]A French translation of this work, by M. Maurice Millioud, of Lausanne, has been published by the firm of Payot.

[4]He has published an excellent pamphlet with the significant title,The Liquidation of Austria-Hungary. Felix Alcan, Paris.

[5]Since this was said, Roumania has joined the Entente Powers in the war.Translator’s Note.

[6]This passage was written before Roumania joined the Allies in the war.Translator’s Note.

Back to Index Next