The Memoirs of Prince Max of Baden Vol. I

This edition is published by Arcole Publishing – www.pp-publishing.com

To join our mailing list for new titles or for issues with our books – arcolepublishing@gmail.com

Or on Facebook

Text originally published in 1928 under the same title.

© Arcole Publishing 2017, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electrical, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Publisher’s Note

Although in most cases we have retained the Author’s original spelling and grammar to authentically reproduce the work of the Author and the original intent of such material, some additional notes and clarifications have been added for the modern reader’s benefit.

We have also made every effort to include all maps and illustrations of the original edition the limitations of formatting do not allow of including larger maps, we will upload as many of these maps as possible.

THE MEMOIRS OF PRINCE MAX OF BADEN

AUTHORISED TRANSLATION

BY

W. M. CALDER AND C. W. H. SUTTON

IN TWO VOLUMES

VOL. I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION 4

NOTE BY THE TRANSLATORS 6

PREFACE 7

PART I 8

CHAPTER I—MY WORK FOR PRISONERS OF WAR 8

CHAPTER II—POLITICAL FEELERS 18

CHAPTER III—THE DECLARATION OF THE INTENSIFIED SUBMARINE WAR 39

CHAPTER IV—OFFICIAL PASSIVITY. NEW CONNECTIONS 49

CHAPTER V—THE COLLAPSE OF THE RUSSIAN MONARCHY. RIGHT AND WRONG IN THE WAR 61

CHAPTER VI—THE JULY CRISIS 74

CHAPTER VII—THE HUNDRED DAYS OF MICHAELIS 92

REQUEST FROM THE PUBLISHER 113

PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

MUCH that is in this book must fail to carry conviction in England.

On both sides there are bitter experiences that colour one’s judgment, and prevent it from attaining that ultimate clarity which it is striving after. Many are the controversies which will only be settled by the Verdict of History; and for such a verdict the times are not yet ripe—of this I am certain. But there is one truth which I believe myself to have established in these ‘Memoirs,’ and it is of importance for the advance of humanity that this truth should come to be recognised:

The protagonists had, in the year 1915, in 1916, in 1917, and in 1918, golden opportunities of bringing about a peace of general contentment. This peace would have earned the protests of the Jingoes in all the countries concerned, and the gratitude of their peoples for centuries to come. It often seemed as if the leading men on both sides were on the point of taking the decisive step; and yet it never was taken. There was no lack of insight; it was a want of power to withstand the surging passions which had been aroused. Today we may lament the obstinacy and the blindness of the Jingoes, but it would be more truthful to admit that it was the liberal-minded men who were too weak to follow out the course which they recognised to be the right one.

We ought never to tire of reminding the world of the blessings that were lost to it when the belligerent nations spurned their great opportunity.

Had a timely and a just peace been concluded—we should today have a real League of Nations, not merely the name and the outward show, and America would be with us.

We should today have Disarmament, not in Germany only.

The Freedom of the Seas would be no mere Ideal given up and shelved for the present, but would be the keystone of a General Security Pact. The temptation to make a wrong use of sea-power would have been done away with, and with it one of the strongest temptations to go to war.

Continental frontiers would have been drawn in accordance with ethnographic fact, and not with a view to satisfying the strategic aspirations of certain favoured nations.

Aggressive Imperialism would in fact be dead and buried.

Thus the energies of a pacified Europe would have been set free to work at the task of building up a Class-Peace. Such a peace has got to be established, otherwise we shall be left without any power of resistance to the gospel of disruption which is being proclaimed from the East, and shall be unable to give to the great Russian people that example and that hope which it needs in its hour of trial and servitude.

Bismarck once said: ‘The statesman has not to make history, but if ever in the events around him he hears the sweep of the mantle of God, then he must jump up and catch at its hem.’ In the World War there was none that jumped and caught at the hem, and yet it was many a time within our grasp.

The past year was everywhere a year of sterility, in internal and in external politics.

I fancy the sweep of the divine mantle will be heard once again before long. May the responsible statesmen be vigilant and be prepared.

(SIGNED) MAX, PRINZ VON BADEN.

January 1928.

NOTE BY THE TRANSLATORS

THE following translation of Erinnerungen und Dokumente, by Prince Max of Baden, has been authorized by the author. Passages translated into German (sometimes in an abbreviated form) from English originals have in most cases been given in their original English form. In a few cases it has proved impossible to trace the English originals; in these cases the German version has been retranslated as literally as possible into English. Some corrections to be made in the next German edition have been incorporated in the translation. The translation of Volume I is by W. M. Calder; that of Volume II by C. W. H. Sutton.

W. M. C.

C. W. H. S.

PREFACE

NOT long after the Revolution, when it became clear that an essential share of the blame for the German collapse would be ascribed to me, I decided to give a public account of my stewardship. I soon realized that I could only explain the actual connection of events both to the German people and to myself if I submitted the charges made against me to a careful examination, and also made up my mind to understand the point of view of my opponents.

As early as 1919 I found myself compelled to define my attitude to the disputed happenings of 9th November. I did this in a publication which was printed in all the newspapers but was virtually hushed up in the controversial literature.

In the study and self questioning of eight years I think I have got as near the truth as I can.

In the course of my work my apologia has grown into something different—an account based on original sources of that fateful epoch of the history of Germany in which I was involved. I put my trust in the weight of the facts.

I began in December 1918 and continued in the next few years to write down my personal reminiscences; for editing them and supplementing them by a study of the historical sources I am deeply in the debt of Herr Kurt Hahn. I feel bound also to thank the other helpers without whose self-sacrifice the work could not have been completed: Frau Professor Richter for her critical examination and preparation of the material, Frl. M. Rokol for arranging and controlling the documents, Frl. Dr. Rinck-Wagner for checking the historical sources, helping with the footnotes and making the index.

Space prevents my stating my indebtedness to all those who have stood by me with advice, information and constructive criticism. But I should like to make special mention of my gratitude to Geheimrat Oncken; in the general arrangement of the book and its division into sections his advice has been invaluable to me.

MAX, PRINCE OF BADEN.

Salem, April 1927.

PART I

CHAPTER I—MY WORK FOR PRISONERS OF WAR

WHEN the war broke out, I was on the Headquarters Staff of the Fourteenth Army Corps, to which the troops from Baden were assigned. In the autumn of 1914 my health compelled me to return home. As soon as I had somewhat recovered, I placed myself at the disposal of the Red Cross of Baden. The work I took up was the care of prisoners of war.

Our work for foreign prisoners and the task of helping our own nationals in captivity came into no real conflict; rather their indissoluble connection became clearer with every day that passed. On the mere strength of the fact that people were taking trouble to help enemy prisoners in Germany, we were able to obtain precise and speedy answers to our questions from enemy countries, and plead successfully for efforts involving difficulty and trouble.

But it is false psychology to hold that considerations of expediency keep thrusting themselves into charitable work. Human need calls for first aid, and first aid is given when it can be given. ‘Even in war to love your enemy is the mark of loyalty to the Lord.’ I took up this phrase of Sigmund Schulze’s in 1917, and added the warning clause, ‘And also the mark of loyalty to Germany.’{1}

At first I was occupied with questions affecting German prisoners in Russia, and Russian prisoners in Germany. Here I was able to make use of my family relationship with the Russian Court, in order to lodge complaints. I was in a position to invoke assistance which was still capable at that time of producing astonishingly great results in Russia. Presently my help was claimed in work for the welfare of German prisoners in Britain and France, and for British and French prisoners in Germany.

My cousin, the Queen of Sweden, forwarded my correspondence to Russia. In doing so she laid special emphasis on my complaints. I cannot describe how much she suffered under every misfortune that befell her German fellow-countrymen and her German home.

I maintained a brisk correspondence with the Crown Princess of Sweden, the gifted and warm-hearted daughter of the Duke of Connaught, and grand-daughter of Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia. With model neutrality, she toiled without respite for German and British prisoners. This noble Princess, alas! died too early. Both in her old and in her new home she was accorded a rich measure of love and reverence.

I received a large amount of help from humanitarians in Switzerland. They never tired of the labour of forwarding German requests to France and French requests to Germany.

My efforts to ascertain the fate of individuals were continued up to October 1918. At times they piled up a heavy load of work. In the course of this work I found myself obliged to think out the root problems of prisoner of war policy: the questions of reprisals, exchange procedure, and the mental and physical health of the prisoners.

At the very beginning of my work with the Red Cross, I came into close touch with Professor Partsch, the head of the Baden Prisoner of War Organization. As a teacher of law, Professor Partsch has his own distinguished place in the history of German science; after the war he became one of the champions of Germany’s rights. But in the memory of thousands he will live as a great friend of humanity. Up to the day of his sudden death on the 30th March, 1925, he displayed a strength which his friends thought inexhaustible. He died, before he was fifty, a victim of the war and of his own humanity, which never knew how to spare itself. I shall never forget how obstacles which appeared insuperable simply crumpled up before his drive and energy. He had a way of saying, ‘That is wrong, or foolish’; and war mentality and the prejudices which spring from it would melt away.

In his dealings with the authorities Partsch was able to make good use of my help. In his public appeals my name helped him to an almost embarrassing extent.{2}

I did my best to help with the constructive work which the American Y.M.C.A. was doing in the prisoners’ camps of all the belligerent countries. I was kept continually au courant by the reports of the delegates Harte and Hoffmann. I often pleaded for their requests in person at the War Office. This organization succeeded in accomplishing most of what it took in hand. One of its finest successes was the establishment of the camp libraries in Russia.

Considerations of national dignity often prevented us from granting obvious alleviations. We had to be on our guard lest our opponents should draw false conclusions from sensible concessions. But national dignity demanded no less that no one should cast up to us that cruelty and senseless hardship were inflicted in our prison camps. It still fills me with great satisfaction that by the statement of many who were interned in Baden camps and by the expert testimony of neutral visitors none of our Baden camps merited this reproach. In the rest of Germany too, when one thinks of the enormous mass of close on four million prisoners which we had on our hands by the end of the war, the number of exceptions on which we look back with shame was extraordinarily small. But it is just those who love their country in the right spirit who are distressed by the few bad cases which actually occurred. My anger at such cases was always the greater that they were so unnecessary, in view of the well-known attitude of the Kaiser, and his power, which at the beginning of the war was still unbroken, to discipline even opinion. Again and again, in private conversations, His Majesty had not been backward in impressing the need for caritas inter arma. But no great directing utterance was forthcoming, and over-zealous patriots were allowed to imagine that favour could be earned by the avoidance of what they were accustomed to call ‘sentimentality’ in the treatment of prisoners. The acting Generals in Command, who were responsible for the prison camps in their areas, were subordinate under the War Constitution to His Majesty alone. The Prussian War Office had no power to issue orders inside the camps. It had often to proceed by devious routes to give effect to its will. Its will was good. I have had to fight out stiff battles with the War Office, but I never knew it to reject the ground principle that humanity and patriotism alike forbid all hardships which are not imposed by military needs. Looking back I can heartily corroborate a phrase used by Bishop Bury{3} on the occasion of a visit to Germany during the war: ‘Germany’s War Office is her most humane authority.’

In Germany the prisoner problem was complicated beyond solution, not only by the countless nationalities which met in our camps, but even more by the shortness of our supplies and of medical and hygienic necessities. Often what was regarded as desirable simply could not be done, until the War Office succeeded in regulating the distribution of parcels from the homes of the prisoners on an ordered basis.

The choice of Colonel, afterwards General Friedrich, as Head of the Prisoner of War Department in the War Office was admirable. His ability and knowledge of men, his impartial judgment, and his kindliness gave him a special fitness for his difficult office.

I consider it a piece of good fortune that I found this excellent fellow-countryman in a position where it was so important to meet with understanding.

Common experiences which I can never forget bind me to Friedrich. We met several times in Switzerland in order to visit the institutions which the Swiss had established for exchanged prisoners in the Cantons of St. Gall, Appenzell, Glarus, Graubünden and beside the Lake of Lucerne. We were both full of admiration for the energy, good sense and warm-heartedness of the Swiss.

For a nation at war the word ‘neutral’ is not always associated with kindly thoughts. We met with uncritical, even servile partisanship for the cause of the enemy, we saw yeoman service rendered to his propaganda of lies, and not least, when ill luck began to dog our arms in 1918, we met with a malice which hurt most when it came from communities akin to us. Today, when I look from my residence at Salem towards the heaven-favoured country of our neighbours, the better memories prevail, and I like to think of a special benefit which I owe to my association with people like Dr. and Frau Bohny, and Drs. Schwytzer and Ney. They made a man more capable of resisting the war frenzy and its claim to dispense with common sense, humanity and justice.

The business of prisoner exchange brought me into touch with General Friedrich in Constance too. I went there as often as I could when the trains came in with severely wounded Germans from Lyons by way of Switzerland and when severely wounded Englishmen and Frenchmen were sent home. In Constance Major von Polentz acted as representative of the War Office. He succeeded in winning the profound respect of friend and foe alike and also of the Swiss neutrals. The name ‘Roi de Constance’ which the French gave him is significant.

I described in a letter to the Chancellor the overpowering impression made on me when the first party of severely wounded Germans arrived. We stood anxiously awaiting broken, crippled men and searched for words to give the right note of consolation. The train steamed in and we were caught up in a burst of cheering which lifted up our hearts. ‘What, after all, is one man’s sorrow, if only Germany wins!’

On the occasion of one of these exchanges I came into conflict with the War Office. It had been arranged that parties of German and of French officers were to be sent home simultaneously. The Frenchmen had already reached Constance, when our authorities learnt that France had not fulfilled her part of the bargain; and the poor, sick men were told on the eve of reaching their freedom that they must return to captivity. I appealed by telegram to the Kaiser and begged him to put the French authorities to shame by an act of magnanimity. He appreciated the point at once, and I