“I also called the Chancellor’s urgent attention to the need for dealing with the food problem during the ensuing winter, especially with relation to the price of meat.”
“ ... August 12th, 1915. The United States Ambassador, Mr. Gerard, had expressed the desire to discuss with me the question as to the advisability of suggesting that President Wilson should mediate between the belligerents. I therefore called on him on Tuesday, August 10th, and advised him to refrain from any official action in that direction, but said that I thought he might ask the President to sound opinion in Great Britain as to the chances of such peace proposals.”
In the early part of September, 1915, Admiral v. Holtzendorff was appointed Chief of the Admiralty Staff. This appointment gave rise to a conflict with Grand Admiral v. Tirpitz, who threatened to resign because, inter alia, the Kaiser had issued instructions to the effect that the Chief of the Admiralty Staff should no longer be subject to the authority of the Secretary for the Navy, but that he could communicate with the Kaiser and with the Chancellor direct. Ballin thought a possible resignation of Admiral v. Tirpitz would be fraught with serious consequences at that moment, as it would produce a bad impression on public opinion and be inimical to the position of the Kaiser. These considerations caused Ballin to intervene in person with Admiral v. Tirpitz and with the Chief of the Naval Cabinet, with the result that the Grand Admiral withdrew his intended resignation.
The following extracts are taken from Ballin’s notes during the next few months:
“ ... October 20th, 1915. I am annoyed at the importunity with which some interested parties, such as the Central Association of German Manufacturers and the representatives of agriculture, are pushing forward their views on the peace terms. Moreover, my alleged readiness to conclude a ‘bad peace’ with Great Britain is being talked about so widely that even His Excellency Herr v. Zimmermann has drawn my attention to the ill effects of such calumnies. All this has prompted me to avail myself of the opportunity presented by the annual meeting of the Association of Hamburg Shipowners of making a speech in which I have explained my views as to the freedom of the seas.
“Prince Bülow will be leaving for Lucerne to-day where he intends to stay for some time, and the Prussian chargé d’affaires, Herr v. Mutius—of whom it has been alleged that the Chancellor appointed him to his post on the death of his predecessor (the excellent Herr v. Bülow, Prussian Minister to Hamburg) for the reason that he might have a watchful eye on Prince Bülow and myself—has been promptly transferred to Warsaw. Evidently the Berlin authorities now think the danger has passed, since Prince Bülow has left.”
“ ... November 23rd, 1915. Hammann[4] asked me why I did not call on the Chancellor, and I told him that I thought the Chancellor might feel annoyed with me for my interference in favour of Tirpitz, which, however, would not affect me in any way, because I was convinced that I had acted in the best interests of the Kaiser, and that it would have been unwise to remove Tirpitz from his post so long as the war lasted.”
“ ... The Chancellor asked me to see him on Wednesday at 6.30 p.m., and I spent nearly two hours with him. I urgently advised him to make a frank statement in the Reichstag as to our readiness for peace, and to do so in such a form that it could not possibly be looked upon as a sign of weakness.”
“ ... On January 10th, 1916, I was commanded to dine with Their Majesties at the Neues Palais. The only other guests apart from myself were the Minister of the Royal Household, Count Eulenburg, and the Minister of Agriculture, Herr v. Schorlemer. None of the suite were present so that the company consisted of five persons only. The Kaiser was in high spirits and full of confidence. The after-dinner conversation extended to such a late hour that we did not catch the train by which we intended to return, and we were obliged to leave by the last train that night.
“A remark of mine concerning the possibility of an extension of submarine warfare had, as the Chancellor had been informed, caused the Kaiser to assume that I completely shared the point of view of Admirals v. Holtzendorff and v. Tirpitz, who now recommend a submarine campaign against Great Britain on a large scale. I therefore, at the Chancellor’s request, addressed the following letter to the Kaiser: