“And truly there is every reason for us to use the utmost caution whenever any questions connected with the reconstruction of our country are concerned. The excellent Dr. Naumann, with his ‘Berlin—Bagdad’ slogan, has already smashed a good many window panes which will have to be paid for after the war by the producing classes. The suggestion that an economic union of the Central European countries should be established was put forward at a most inopportune moment, and the propaganda in its favour was bound to bring about the retaliatory measures agreed upon by our enemies at the Paris Economic Conference.
“The resolutions of this Conference were of little practical importance to us until the day when America entered the field against us. If the United States assents to them, it will become possible to enforce them, and for this reason I am watching the further development of the economic question with growing concern. I maintain that peace negotiations should only be started after a previous agreement has been arrived at between the belligerents to the effect that, on the conclusion of peace, the commercial relations formerly existing between them should be restored as far as possible, and that the resolutions passed at the Paris Economic Conference and at the Central European Conference should be rescinded. Such an attitude, however, can only be taken up by our delegates if they agree that the former commercial treaties, no matter whether they are still running or whether they have elapsed, should automatically become valid again for a fairly extensive period of time after the close of the war. The disadvantages which some of these treaties involve for us are easily outbalanced by the advantages secured by the others.
“Our Government cannot be reminded too often that it is necessary to consult experienced men of business in all such questions. Since the early days of the war I have vainly tried to convince Herr v. Bethmann of this necessity. After all, nobody can possibly be an expert in everything. Yesterday, when reading the letters of Gustav Freytag to his publisher, Mr. Hirzel, I came across the following admirable piece of self-criticism: ‘I do not know yet what is to become of my work; but I fear I am doing what others, better qualified than I, ought to be doing, and that I am leaving undone what I ought to do.’ Every great leader in our political and economic life must have experienced that it is extremely unsatisfactory to waste one’s time and energy on work which another man could do just as well as, or even better than, oneself. This the Government should remember whenever it attempts to interfere with the big industrial combines, such as trusts, syndicates, etc. Wherever a syndicate is necessary in the best interests of any industry, a leader will be forthcoming who will create it; and only in cases where inferior minds, acting for selfish reasons of their own, do not wish to acknowledge the need for combining, the Government should be asked to exercise whatever pressure it considers advisable in order to further the great aims that are involved.
“I am afraid that after the war we shall lack the funds needed for the solution of the traffic problems with which we shall then be confronted, especially with regard to our inland waterways. At any rate, if we do build the necessary canals immediately after the war, we shall find ourselves compelled to charge such high rates to the vessels using these waterways that their advantages will largely tend to become illusory. Even as it is now, our trade and our manufactures are seriously handicapped by the high canal dues existing, by the tugboat monopoly, etc. A really far-sighted policy which would make it its principal object to assist the progress of our foreign trade would have to guard against the mistaken idea that the levying of high rates was the only means of obtaining interest on the capital invested. After all, even the turnpikes had to be abolished in the end.
“The agitation in favour of separating from Russia the Ukraine, Finland, and other parts inhabited by alien peoples—an agitation which is becoming noisier every day—troubles me very much. Since the early days of the war I have maintained that it must be our main war aim to detach Russia from the Entente, and that we must endeavour to establish close relations between our own country and Russia so that the two of us shall be strong enough to face a possible alliance between Great Britain, the United States, and France. This should be our aim even now. But if we are going deliberately to dismember the Russian Empire and to parcel it out into a number of independent units, our political influence after the war will be slight indeed, and the result must necessarily make itself felt to the detriment of our whole economic life.”
At Ballin’s suggestion, the members of the Reichstag were invited to attend a meeting which was to be held in Hamburg during the summer of 1918. Large sections of people in the three Hanseatic cities viewed with grave concern the plans which the Government entertained for the economic development after the war, and the meeting had been called to draw the attention of the visitors to this state of affairs. Three principal speeches were delivered, and at the close of the meeting Ballin briefly recapitulated the main arguments against too much Government interference. Much of what he said on that occasion, and much of what he had written in the memorandum quoted above, has been borne out by the events of the recent past, even though the actual terms of the peace imposed on Germany were much more unfavourable than he had expected them to be. In addressing himself to the Vice President of the Reichstag, Geheimrat Dove, and the large number of the elected representatives of the German people who accepted the invitation, Ballin said:
“We should be glad if you would see to it that the Government does not put a halter round our necks, and that it refrains from the dangerous attempt to employ barrack-room methods where economic questions of national and international importance are at stake. Let us have air, and light, and freedom to act; and we, by availing ourselves of our relations with the overseas countries, shall be able to carry out the work that lies before us....
“ ... I am convinced that all the measures which are contemplated to stabilize economic conditions during the period of transition from war to peace will do more harm than good. If carried into practice, they will merely prepare the soil for an economic struggle to succeed the present war of arms. We need a peace that is doubly secure! We cannot ask our enemies to give us freedom where we impose compulsion. We cannot fight for the freedom of the seas, and at the same time surround Central Europe with a barbed wire.
“I do not wish to deny that in order to carry out our economic tasks a certain amount of Government control will be necessary. That, of course, goes without saying; but anything beyond it is an unmixed evil. If it is said to-day that the measures to be adopted during the period of economic transition are, in some instances, intended to remain in force for three years, and if it is announced semi-officially that the thousand and one war corporations are to be made use of for the purposes of this policy, and that their disappearance is to be very gradual—I can only sound a serious note of warning against any such designs. When the war is over all those who can do efficient work will return to their normal occupations; and those who then prefer to remain attached to the war corporations in one capacity or other are surely to some extent people who have discovered some hidden charms in these institutions, or, if not, they are persons who, fearful of the risks connected with the unfettered interplay of forces, feel that they are better off under the protecting wing of the Government. If you are going to entrust the future of our country to such organizations for better or worse, the economic war after the war, as I have said before, will be sure to follow, and you will have to face a war that will last years and years.”