In former days I was the pupil of Albert Sorel at the Free School of Political Science. That great master was good enough to admit me to his intimacy; and he brought to light and maturity the latent and instinctive propensity which I had for foreign politics. My practical studies abroad led me to Germany in 1894, just at the time when the Pangerman movement had begun. As the movement was manifestly the modern development of the Prussianism of the Hohenzollerns, I was then extremely struck by its importance. The movement appeared to me so threatening for the future that I resolved to follow all the developments of the Pangerman plot, which was already the consequence of the movement, and which from 1895 onward had taken definite shape. The task which I thus laid on myself was at once arduous, vast, and thrilling, for from that time it was certain that the Germans based their political and military Pangerman plan on a study of all the political, ethnographical, economic, social, military and naval problems not only of Europe but of the whole world. In truth, the intense labour accomplished in the cause of Pangermanism by the Germans in the last twenty-one years has been colossal. They have carried it out everywhere with a formidable tenacity and a methodical thoroughness which will be the astonishment of history. Indisputably, the Pangerman plan, which is the result of this gigantic effort, is the most extraordinary plot which the world has ever witnessed.

I made the study of that plot for twenty-one years the work of my life, convinced as I was, in spite of the scepticism which long greeted my efforts to give warning of the peril, that the study would serve a useful purpose one day.

The study has necessitated very many and very long journeys of inquiry. I was obliged in fact to go and learn, on the spot, at least the essential elements of the complex problems mentioned above, which have been the base of the Pangerman plan, in order that I might be able to grasp the most distant ramifications of the Prussian programme for dominating the world.

This obligation led me to sojourn in very different countries. That the reader may have an idea of at least the material extent of my inquiries, I will indicate the number of the towns in which I have been led to work for the purpose of discovering the constituent elements, direct and indirect, of the Pangerman plan.

The United States, 14; Canada, 11; Japan, 11; Corea, 4; China, 11; Indo-China, 19; British India, 24; Spain, 1; Italy, 4; Belgium, 6; Luxemburg, 1; Holland, 5; Switzerland, 4; England, 8; Greece, 2; Bulgaria, 4; Roumania, 3; Serbia, 8; Turkey, 3; Germany, 16; Austro-Hungary, 18.

In these towns, according to the requirement of my studies, I passed days, weeks, or months, often on repeated occasions. I endeavoured, so far as the opportunities and the time admitted of it, to enter into direct relations with the acting ministers, the leaders of the various political parties, the diplomatists and the consuls, both French and foreign, some heads of states, influential journalists, officers of repute, military and naval attachÉs, well-informed merchants and manufacturers. It was thus that, by means of information of many sorts drawn from the most diverse sources, and checked by comparison with each other, I have attempted to set forth the Pangerman political and military plan.

Since 1898 I have endeavoured to draw the attention of the public to the immense danger which that plan was laying up for the world, as my former works testify, particularly L’Europe et la Question d’Autriche au seuil du XXe SiÈcle, which appeared in 1901, therefore fifteen years ago, and contained an exposition, as precise as it was then possible to make it, of the Pangerman plan of 1895, summed up in the formula “Hamburg to the Persian Gulf”; also Le Chemin de fer de Bagdad, published in 1903, wherein I set forth the danger of that co-operation between Germany and Turkey, which was then only nascent, but which we see full-fledged to-day.

I attempted also by numerous lectures to diffuse among the public some notion of the Pangerman peril. I did not content myself with warning my countrymen. I am proud to have been one of the first Frenchmen to preach a cordial understanding between France and England at a time when there was perhaps some merit in doing so. I deemed it, therefore, a duty to inform the British public, so far as it lay in my power, that the Pangerman peril concerned Great Britain quite as much as France. In 1909 the Franco-Scottish Society kindly invited me to lecture to its members at Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. I seized the opportunity, and took for the subject of my lectures, “The problem of Central Europe and universal politics.”

The Aberdeen Free Press, of May 8th, 1909, summed up very exactly as follows the substance of what I said, seven years ago, to my British hearers:

“ ... The lecturer attached enormous importance to the Pan-German movement, which he regarded as the decisive factor in the situation, and he pointed out that the propaganda which had gone on in Germany and in Austria was part of a great policy to extend the boundaries of the German State and dominate middle and south-eastern Europe. The rapport personnel established in recent years between Berlin and Vienna pointed, he said, to the conclusion that Germany and Austria were working hand in hand. In the recent Balkan crisis he described Aehrenthal as playing a partie de poker, in which his bluff had been crowned with success. The off-set to the Pan-German movement was to be found in the Triple Entente between England, France and Russia, and it followed from a consideration of European politics that the questions confronting England with regard to the supremacy of the sea were intimately bound up with the question which concerned the land powers of Europe. In particular, the speaker thought that the Pan-German aspirations would be effectually combatted by the growing social and political development of the various minor Slav peoples in the south-east of Europe. The development of these peoples was a thing which it was with the interests of England, France and Russia to encourage to the utmost.”

My Scottish hearers gave me a very kind reception, of which I have preserved a lively recollection. But truth compels me to declare that I had the impression that the great majority of them did not believe me. I strongly suspect that they then saw in me simply a Frenchman, who, moved by the spirit of revenge, tried above all to stir up the British public against Germany. The impression did not discourage me any more than many similar instances of want of success. In 1911 the Central Asian Society did me the honour of inviting me to express my views in London (22nd March) on the Bagdad railway. I used this fresh opportunity to expound a method of Franco-English co-operation which seemed to me necessary to parry the dangers of the near future.

“Such is,” I then said, “broadly speaking, the affair of Bagdad. The most moderate conclusion which, in my judgment, inevitably follows is that from beginning to end the logical and methodical spirit of Germany has got the better of the French, English, and Russian interests, which have been compromised by our slowness to grasp the importance of the problem confronting us, and by the lamentable want of cohesion between the diplomacies of the three countries.

“The lesson apparently to be drawn from these considerations is, that for the future we ought no longer to be satisfied with a hand-to-mouth policy and with seeking solutions only when the difficulties take an acute form.

“If we wish to serve and defend our interests effectually, we must, as Talleyrand said, keep the future in mind, and learn something of that German method of which the good results are incontestable.

“So far as the eye can range to the visible political horizon, the essential interests of England, France, and Russia are in agreement; it is, therefore, to all appearance, absolutely necessary that the men who exercise an influence on public opinion in this country, in France, and in Russia, should enter into personal relations in order to discuss the great national interests which they have in common, and to adopt a useful line of conduct, while there is yet time. Such a course would be effectual, because it would be determined before the decisive events instead of after them, that is to say, when it is too late.

“Were we to adopt this method, which after all is very simple, the future attempts of our adversaries against our interests would encounter effectual obstacles, and we should no longer have to regret miscarriages such as those of which the Bagdad affair is an example.”

Has the method thus recommended been followed? Apparently not; otherwise could France and England have been surprised by the war?

My propaganda having had little practical result, I endeavoured at least to keep myself well informed of the events that were happening.

In December, 1913, and January, February, and March, 1914, I made new and minute inquiries in Central Europe, the Balkans, and Turkey, and these inquiries were of particular value to me. The truth is, that the treaty of Bukarest of August 10th, 1913, by reason of its far-reaching and important consequences, had completely upset the former state of affairs, so much so that without my journey of 1914, I should certainly have been unable to understand the new situation. In the course of my journey I set myself to apply, with great rigour, my method of research, which consists essentially in trying to see the situations as they are, without preconceived ideas, while listening to all opinions in order to compare them afterwards and extract, if possible, the average truth. In Serbia, in Greece, in Turkey, in Roumania, in Bulgaria, where for a long time I had been in personal relations with people of many different sorts, I was able to have long talks with persons in the most diverse walks of life. In particular, I had the good fortune to be graciously received by the sovereigns and princes of the Balkans: King Peter of Serbia (23rd December, 1913), Prince Alexander, heir of Serbia (December, 1913), King Constantine (25th January, 1914), Prince Nicholas of Greece (28th January), King Charles of Roumania (18th February), Tsar Ferdinand (28th February), Prince Boris, heir of Bulgaria (29th February). If I record the audiences which these high personages were so good as to grant me, it is because they were really not commonplace. These sovereigns and princes knew that I had long studied their country impartially, and they consented to speak with me of the great interests which guided their policies. During these various audiences, which lasted from half an hour to two hours, I heard many points of view of real importance set forth. No doubt each of my various interlocutors only said to me what he wished to say; but, thanks to the multiplicity of the opinions expressed and to the variety of my sources of information, I was able at least to construct a general picture of the true Balkan situation, and to connect it afterwards with the problem of Central Europe and the general policy of Germany.

This inquiry, which in returning I completed in Hungary and Austria, convinced me that, contrary to the opinion which has been held down to quite recent times in many Allied circles, the treaty of Bukarest by no means constituted an injustice, as the Allies have supposed—a belief which has been the source of most of their mistakes in the Balkans in 1915. On the contrary, the treaty of Bukarest, particularly because it for the first time drew Roumania out of the German orbit, appeared to me the most astonishingly favourable event which had happened on the Continent since 1870, and which was entirely in accordance with the interests of France, England, and Russia. The consequences of this treaty formed in fact, as we shall see, the most effectual arrangement that could be conceived for arresting the Pangerman danger and maintaining peace in Europe. But this pacific dam to keep back the Pangerman flood was only possible on condition that the Entente powers held themselves ready for war, which would probably have sufficed to prevent it, and that at the same time they resolutely and unanimously supported Greece, Roumania, and Serbia.

On the other hand, the check which the treaty of Bukarest gave to the Pangerman plan in Europe, appeared to me so pregnant with consequences that I considered it highly probable that the Government of Vienna, instigated by that of Berlin, would not shrink from war for the purpose of undoing the treaty of Bukarest, with its far-reaching effects, at the earliest possible moment, unless the other powers put themselves on their guard. On my return to France I tried to explain the imminence of the danger, but no one would believe it.

In truth, German aggression caught the present Allied countries napping for the following fundamental reason. No doubt, before the war, Pangermanism, as a doctrine, was well enough known in some circles, but the political and military Pangerman plan, the application of which has been pursued methodically by the government of Berlin since the opening of hostilities, had not been studied and taken very seriously except by an extremely small number of private persons in France, England, and Russia.

The efforts made by these private persons to convince the men at the helm in the now Allied countries of the awful danger ahead, were vain. The principal reason why their warnings fell unheeded was this. When by the help of documents they explained that William II.’s ultimate aim was the establishment of German supremacy on the ruins of all the great powers, they were taken for crazy dreamers, so chimerical did such formidable projects appear.

That is why among the Allies the political and military Pangerman plot was ignored in its true character and its extent, down to the outbreak of war. This lack of knowledge in France is proved by a statement in Le Temps of 16th December, 1915. Before the war, “we did not believe in the possibility of a war, and we took no pains to prepare for that redoubtable event.” It was absolutely the same in England, as was demonstrated by the complete surprise of Great Britain at the German aggression.

More than that, the Kaiser’s entire plan has continued to be misunderstood in the Allied countries down to a date which seems quite recent. In fact, Sir Edward Carson, when explaining his resignation in the House of Commons, November 2nd, 1915, said: “I hope that the new plan of campaign has been definitely settled, for while I was a member of the Cabinet, the Cabinet had no plan” (quoted by Le Temps, 4th November, 1915).

But if the Pangerman plan had been known in London, the English and consequently the French would certainly have long ago adopted the counter-plan which could not have failed to destroy it; for the Pangerman plan consists of such definite and precise elements that the mere recognition of them at once suggests the means of frustrating it; in particular, the advantages and the necessity of the Salonika expedition, which has been so sharply opposed and so tardily undertaken, would have been understood from the beginning of 1915, when M. Briand recommended it in principle. Besides, as anybody may convince himself, if the Pangerman plan had been fully known, it is highly probable that the Allies would never have perpetrated the blunders which they have committed in the Balkans, the Dardanelles, and Serbia. It appears that the magnitude of the Pangerman plan, and particularly the part which is masked behind the pretended “drawn game,” has not even yet been clearly apprehended in many circles which imagine themselves well acquainted with the aims pursued by Germany in the war. In fact, quite recently, in France and in England, certain important organs, though not, it is true, of an official character, have argued that since Germany means to extend her Zollverein to Austria-Hungary, the Allies ought to form a powerful economic league with the view of combatting the Austro-German union after the war. But as we shall see, the question really could not, except by some deplorable inadvertence, be stated in these terms in the Allied countries. No connexion should be voluntarily established by them between the economic union of the Allies, however natural it may be, and the economic union of Central Europe. In truth, to permit the future extension of the German Zollverein to Austria-Hungary, in other words, to acquiesce in that economic alliance, under any form, between the two Central empires, which has formed the base and condition of the whole Pangerman plot for twenty-one years (the plot of 1895), would be to permit implicitly the seizure by Germany of fifty millions of inhabitants, of whom nearly three-fourths are not Germans; the inevitable consequence, as I shall prove, would be to accept the German supremacy over the Balkans and Turkey. Now it is manifest that such results would be in absolute contradiction to the declarations of the Allied governments, which have proclaimed that their object in waging the war has been to destroy Prussian militarism and not, consequently, to allow such a new state of things as the seizure, direct or indirect, of Austria-Hungary by Germany, which would multiply her power ten-fold.

The fact that such “inadvertences” can still be committed, after twenty months of war, in circles which, though not official, are nevertheless important, suffices to prove that the widest possible publicity of the Pangerman plot throughout the great masses of the enlightened public in the Allied countries is really needful, if not indispensable. It is also extremely desirable that neutrals should know exactly what the Pangerman plot is in its nature and in its extent. In particular, those Americans who imagine that they can stand aloof from the present formidable conflict, will then clearly understand that their future liberty really depends on the victory of the Allied soldiers, who are fighting not only for their own independence, but in reality for the independence of the whole civilized world, and particularly for that of the United States.

I earnestly trust that the English edition of this book may contribute to bring about this result. Its object is to inform public opinion exactly, so far as the English tongue is spoken, as to the Berlin plot for the domination of the globe. Moreover, an exact knowledge of the Pangerman political and military plot throws a flood of light on all the essential problems of the war: it brings out the deep-seated cause of the war; it explains the immediate causes, which are still almost unknown; it shows why it is indispensable to the freedom of the world that the Allies should achieve, not a hollow and treacherous peace, but a complete victory resulting in the destruction of Prussian militarism, which alone can put an end to the great armaments in Europe and ensure a really lasting peace.

In order that the demonstration may be as convincing as possible, I shall refrain, as far as I can, from giving my readers my own personal opinions and impressions. I shall do my utmost, above all, to lay before them exact documents and arguments intelligible to all, thus furnishing them with facts which will enable them to form a judgment for themselves.

In any case, this work has no other aim than to speak the truth, and to serve a cause the justice of which will appear more and more manifest to a world long deceived by the energetic and astute propaganda of Germany.

5th August, 1916.