Albert Ballin

by Bernhard Huldermann

“Your Excellency, I am sure, is fully aware of the fact that the methods of the Admiralty Staff—ignoring, as it does, all other considerations except its own—have caused one country after the other to join the ranks of Germany’s enemies. In view of the shortage of tonnage which Great Britain and other of our enemies systematically try to bring about—evidently with the intention of inconveniencing neutral countries as much as possible—these latter feel compelled, for the very reason of this lack of tonnage, to declare war upon us, because the politics of our country are guided by a body of men who, unfortunately, shut their eyes to the economic and political consequences of their decisions.

“Several months ago, at a time when nobody thought of unrestricted submarine warfare, an opportunity presented itself to us of concluding an agreement with the Belgian Relief Committee by which it would have been possible for us to withdraw our steamers, one after the other, from American ports and, under the flag of that committee, to bring them to Rotterdam. At that time, it was again the Admiralty Staff which prevented the conclusion of this agreement, because, for reasons best known to itself, it would grant permission for only three of these vessels, although Great Britain had agreed that the whole of our fleet interned in U.S. ports, representing 250,000 tons in all, could sail under the terms of the proposed agreement, and although the Allies as a whole had signed a written declaration to the effect that they would not interfere with our ships so long as they were used for the provisioning of Belgium. I took the liberty of pointing out to Captain Grashoff, the representative of the Admiralty Staff, that nothing could have prevented us from letting the ships remain at Rotterdam after they had completed their mission, and that afterwards, as has been borne out by later facts, they could have been safely taken to Hamburg.

“I respectfully ask Your Excellency whether it is not possible to enter a protest against such unnecessary dismemberment of part of the German national assets....

“ ... I must also protest most emphatically against the insinuation—which is sure to be made—that I have no right to criticize any steps which the Admiralty Staff has regarded as necessary for reasons of our naval strategy. Without reservation the German shipowners agree to any measures which are strategically necessary, however greatly they may injure their interests. The criticism which I beg to make on behalf of German shipping—although possessing no formal mandate—concerns itself with those steps which might have been taken without jeopardizing the success of our naval strategy if the vital necessities of German mercantile shipping had been studied with as much consideration as this branch of the economic activities of our country has a right to claim.

“What we principally take exception to in this connexion is that no information was sent to us before the decision to destroy the engines of our ships was arrived at, and that we were not assisted in making use of these dismantled vessels in the financial interests of our country. Nothing of this kind was done, although it was the most natural thing to do so, and although such action would have deprived many a country of a reason to declare war upon Germany.”

To a man of the type of Ballin—who had, throughout his life, been accustomed to perform a huge amount of successful work—a period of enforced inactivity was unbearable. The longer it lasted the more he suffered from its effects, especially because the preparatory work for the post-war reconstruction, the work connected with the war organization of the German shipowners, etc., was only a poor substitute for the productive labour he had been engaged in during more than thirty years of peace. There is no doubt but that the Government could have made better use of Ballin’s gift of organization, but it must be remembered that there was really no effective central Government in Germany throughout the war. The civil administration was not exactly deposed, but it was subordinated to the military one from the very beginning, and the latter carried on its work along the guiding lines laid down in the scheme of mobilization. The authorities to whose care the economic aspects of the war were entrusted did not often—if at all—avail themselves of Ballin’s advice; and to offer it unbidden never entered his mind, because he was cherishing the hope that the war would not last long, and because it was his belief that the world would be sensible enough to put an end to the wholesale destruction before long. It was a bitter disappointment to him to find how greatly he was mistaken, and to see that the forces of unreason remained in the ascendancy, especially as he was always convinced that Time would be on the side of Germany’s enemies. The sole aim of his political activities during the war was to bring about peace as early as possible.

Of all the attempts at mediation known to me, the one which seemed to be most likely to succeed passed through the hands of Ballin. To give a detailed account of it must be left to a time which need no longer pay regard to governments and individuals. Ballin’s share in it was brought about through his former international connexions. Through him it reached the Kaiser and the Chancellor, and owing to his untiring efforts, which lasted for two years, the position in the early part of 1917 was such that the establishment of direct contact between the two sides was imminent. Then the unrestricted submarine war began, the intended direct contact could not be established, and the carefully woven thread was definitely snapped asunder; because from that time on the Allies were certain that the United States would join them, and they felt assured of victory. No other mediation scheme with which I am acquainted has been pursued with so much unselfishness, devotion, and energy as this one. This attempt, however, no more than any other, could have procured for us that kind of peace which public opinion in Germany had been led for years to expect, thanks to the over-estimation of the country’s strength, fostered by the military censorship and by the military reports.

From such exaggerated opinions Ballin always held himself aloof. He recognized without reservation the immense achievements of Germany in the war, but he was fearful lest the strength of the country could not cope in the long run with the ever-increasing array of enemies, and he therefore maintained that, if it was desired to bring about peace, the Government would have to be moderate in its terms. A much discussed article which he contributed to the Frankfürter Zeitung on January 1st, 1915, under the heading of “The Wet Triangle,” is not inconsistent with these views of his. In it he pointed out that Germany’s naval power, in order to make a future blockade impossible, should no longer be content to be shut up in the “wet triangle,” i.e. the North Sea, but ought to establish itself on the high seas. This statement has been alleged to refer to Belgium, and Ballin has been wrongly claimed a partisan by those who supported the annexation of that country. What he really meant was that Germany should demand a naval base on the Atlantic, somewhere in the northern parts of Africa, and this idea seemed to be quite realizable if taken in conjunction with the terms of peace he had in view, viz. no annexations, no indemnities, economic advantages, a permanent political and naval understanding with Great Britain, based on her recognition that a military defeat of Germany was impossible. All this would be somewhat on the lines of the article published by the Westminster Gazette, referred to in the eighth chapter and a facsimile of which is given at the end of the book. Ballin was firmly convinced that, even if a mere peace of compromise was the outcome, i.e. one which left Germany without any territorial gains and without any indemnities, the impression which the German achievements during the war would produce on the rest of the world would be so overwhelming that the country would secure indirectly far greater advantages than could be gained by means of the largest possible indemnity and the most far-reaching annexations. Besides, the experiences of former times had proved that Germany would be quite unable to absorb such large accessions of territory as certain people had in mind. These views of Ballin, of course, were looked upon as those of a “pacificist,” and Ballin was classified among their number.

In a letter which Ballin wrote to a friend of his, a naval officer, in April, 1915, he puts up a highly characteristic defence of himself against the accusations implied by describing him as “pacificist” and “pro-English.”