Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:03:14.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Welfare and Business: The Krupp Welfare Program, 1860–1914*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Eugene C. McCreary
Eugene C. McCreary
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of History, Carnegie-Mellon University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wolf Schneider has written that no other great industrialist of the nineteenth century “esteemed the personal freedom of his workers so little and their material well-being so highly” as did Alfred Krupp. Professor McCreary examines this counterpoint of humanitarianism and self-interest which produced some of Germany's “first steps toward industrial social responsibility.”

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , Spring 1968 , pp. 24 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Over 30,000 have been preserved. Muhlen, Norbert, The Incredible Krupps (New York, 1959), 58.Google Scholar

2 Vossiek, Wilhelm, Hundert Jahre Kruppsche Betriebskrankenkasse, 1836 bis 1936 (Berlin, 1937), 14.Google Scholar

3 Wirtz, August, Entwicklung und Organisation des Knappschaftswesens im Ruhrkohlenbezirk (Weimar, 1911), 26 ffGoogle Scholar. See also Serlo, Albert, Die Beschwerden gegen die neuen Organisationen der Knappschafts-Vereine im Distrikte des Königl. Oberbergamts zu Dortmund (Essen, 1859), 6.Google Scholar

4 Wirtz, Entwicklung und Organisation, 72 ff.

5 Innovations in the welfare program, such as the provision of housing, did of course make their appearance, although not until rather late in the nineteenth century. Serlo had already raised the possibility in 1859: “We are convinced that the mines will try to attract a good core of workers and to fetter them to the mines through good pay, through the construction of workers' homes etc.” Serlo, Die Beschwerden, 43. (My italics.)

6 Vossiek, Hundert Jahre, 81 and 63.

7 Locally, Franz Dinnendahl had erected in the 1820's a sickness insurance plan for the workers in his machine company, for which membership was compulsory and contributions and benefits (for up to six months) were scaled according to wages earned. Cf. Conrad Matschoss, Franz Dinnendahl: Das Lebensbild eines deutschen Kunstmeisters, No. 26 in the series Beiträge zur Geschichte von Stadt und Stift Essen (Essen, 1905), 36, 51–52.Google Scholar Cf. also Ehrenberg, Richard, Krupp-Studien (Vol. III of the publications of the Archiv für exakte Wirtschaftsforschung, 1909), 29–30, 35.Google Scholar

8 Krupp 1812–1912, no author, centennial issue (Jena, 1912), 281–82.

9 ZR-Akte I D I, to the firm, no date (probably 1868), Vol. IX, p. 171 of the Krupp Correspondence (typed copies of the originals assembled and ordered by Wilhelm Berdrow) hereafter referred to as KC; and Ibid., to the firm, December 19, 1868, KC, IX, 223.

10 Schneider, Wolf, in Essen — das Abenteuer einer Stadt (Düsseldorf, 1963)Google Scholar aptly entitled a chapter on Krupp, Alfred “The Possessed” and described him (p. 184) as interested only in Krupp steel “with an exclusiveness bordering on the manic.” Klass, Gert von, in Krupps: The Story of an Industrial Empire (London, 1954), reproduces (p. 125)Google Scholar part of a letter from Alfred Krupp to his son and future successor in 1875 which well illustrated the former's passion for the firm: “I believe you to be sound at heart in your principles and inclinations and consequently worthy of the post I have in mind for you. If fate had been so cruel as to have arranged matters differently, it would have been my duty to make other dispositions in order to preserve, without misgiving of any kind, the edifice I have brought into being.” (My italics.)

11 Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 186, to the firm, December 4, 1871, KC, X, 232.

12 ibid., II B 73, to von Pückler, October 3, 1884, KC, XX, 47–48.

13 ZR-Akte C I 2, to the Prokura, September 27, 1881, KC, XIX, 127–28.

14 Werks-Archiv II D 62, to Kraemer, March 18, 1887, KC, XX, 254; Vossiek, Hundert Jahre, 31.

15 Neither Bismarck's letters, his Gedanken und Erinnerungen, and his speeches, nor the letters of Alfred Krupp reveal any direct connection. Ernst Schröder, the present director of the Krupp Archives, in his article “Krupp” for the Staats-Lexikon (Freiberg i. Br., 1960), V, 162–64, has honestly asserted that the question of influence “requires further study.” The closest links that I have been able to uncover are these: (1) a remark added to the title page of the copy of the factory regulations sent to the Kaiser (the regulation described the duties of all workers, but the social promises of the firm as well) — “Originally for the protection and advancement of the existing [firm] but useful besides in the defense against social errors” (Werks-Archiv IV 320, KC, XI, 261); (2) the activity of Sophus Goose, a member of the firm's board of directors between 1872 and 1882, in the editing committee of the congress of industrialists called in 1880 to advise on the proposed bill for imperial accident insurance (cf. Schröder, , “Generalregulativ,” reprint from Tradition, Vol. I, No. 1, 1956, p. 4Google Scholar, n. 6). While the former could have had a motivating influence, the latter could only have had a formal one; (3) the speech of Kaiser Wilhelm II (who has never been known for a particular devotion to historical veracity) on the occasion of the Krupp centennial in 1912, in which he asserted that Krupp was the first in Germany to recognize the social problems arising out of the new modes of production and to attempt to solve them; and furthermore, that his efforts had had a pioneering effect on German industry and “helped to prepare the imperial social legislation” (cf. Jahresbericht der Handelskammer für die Kreise Essen, Mülheim-Ruhr und Oberhausen, 1912, 182).

16 Werks-Archiv IX v 259b, to Wilhelm Prinz-Regent von Preussen, March 8, 1860 (original request), KC, VII, 204. Subsequent information from Berdrow, Wilhelm, Alfred Krupps Briefe, 1826–1887 (2 vols., Berlin, 1928), 178Google Scholar, n. 1. In all, there are 39 known letters (including pamphlets, memoranda, etc.) from Krupp to the Kaiser, cf. also Essener Zeitung 168, July 22, 1870; Essener Volkszeitung, July 20, 1887, October 22, 1898; Vossiek, Hundert Jahre, 40.

17 Krupp, 1812–1912, 273.

18 ZR-Akte A III 1, Bd. 1, to the firm, June 18, 1865, KC, VIII, 202–203; Familien Archiv Hügel II B 72, to the Prokura, no date but probably July, 1865, KC, VIII, 205; to A. Pieper, January 26, 1868, KC, IX, 176; Familien-Archiv Hügel, II C I, remarks added later by Krupp to a letter to General von Voigts-Rhetz, January 6, 1872, KC, XI, 13; Berdrow, Briefe, 246.

19 Die Verwalttung der Stadt Essen im 19. Jahrhundert, Vol. I (Essen, 1902)Google Scholar (no further volumes appeared), 116. The matter concerned the collecting of state taxes by the municipal financial office, a power the municipal council had for years vainly requested.

20 This was the company's share fixed by statute. But throughout the period it made considerable extraordinary contributions. Cf. Vossiek, Hundert Jahre, 40, 71; and Schröder, Ernst, Krupp, Geschichte einer Unternehmerfamilie, Vol. V, in the series Persönlichkeit und Geschichte (Göttlngen, 1957), 36.Google Scholar

21 Vossiek, Hundert Jahre, 19–28.

22 Ibid., 38–39, 54, 58. The author on pp. 59–61 makes a comparison between the legally required minimums and the benefits granted by the company's program from 1904 to 1913, revealing the higher benefits over longer periods of time and the special aids granted by the latter. Concerning the period from 1887 to 1900, von Klass (Krupps, 271 ) asserts that “the firm had spent 6,009,101 marks on the social work carried out by the factory in pursuance of its legal obligations” and 11,132,657 marks for its voluntary programs.

23 Vossiek, Hundert Jahre, 73–74.

24 Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen der Gusstahlfabrik von Fried. Krupp zu Essen a.d. Ruhr, 3rd ed. (3 Vols., Essen, 1902), I, 85.Google Scholar

25 Schröter, Hermann, “Die Firma Friedrich Krupp und die Stadt Essen,” Tradition, VI (December, 1961), 261.Google Scholar

26 Vossiek, Hundert Jahre, 68. For the professional and governmental interest aroused by the clinic, cf. Essener Volkszeitung, June 15, 1904.

27 Cf. for example the life contract with Wilhelm Borgmann, Werks-Archiv IX v 200, February 14, 1855, KC, VI, 177.

28 Jahresbericht, 1876, p. 16; 1882, p. 11.

29 For the statute, cf. Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen, III, 119–25.

30 Krupp, 1812–1912, 386. (Statistics for 1914 did not survive the war, according to the director of the archives.) For the statute of the Invalidenstiftung, cf. Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen, III, 126–28.

31 Jahresbericht, 1889, p. 6, revealed the similar motivation of other Essen industrialists who decided against deducting national pension benefits from those granted under company plans, in order to “increase the attachment of the workers to their firms.”

32 Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 100, to Wilhelm Jäger, September 22, 1844, KC, V, 69.

33 Werks-Archiv IX v 200, February 14, 1855, KC, VI, 177; Ibid., IX v 47, to C. Meyer, November 24, 1856, KC, VII, 67.

34 Erected at first for only 200 men, in 1914 it housed 1,150. That Krupp was conscious quite early of the necessity to attack the mounting housing problem is further revealed both by his efforts in conjunction with the Gewerbeverein to found a building cooperative, and his idea in 1866 to attract private capital into housing construction by planning a community on land he had bought, building a few homes there, and selling the first plots at a low rate. Cf. Werks-Archiv VII C 72, to the Prokura, February 2, 1866, KC, IX, 9–10. Cf. also a letter to Loerbroks (Ibid., no date, but possibly also 1866, KC, IX, 1): “I think we are going to have to make a large sacrifice, otherwise the most necessary will be lacking, namely men. No one has yet an idea of the need that will arise, and of the advantage we will have over others if we can provide our people with a secure roof.”

35 Essener Statistik, Heft 2, Meyer, Karl, “Die Entwicklung der Essener Wohnungsverbältnisse seit 1900” (Essen, 1914).Google Scholar

36 Drescher, Wilhelm, “Die Entwicklung des Bodenmarktes in Essen,” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Münster, 1925), 130.Google Scholar There was also a loan fund set up by the firm for employees who wished to build or buy their own homes. This, however, did not prove very efficacious in Essen, owing to the high costs of construction and the strictness of the building regulations. The Krupp firm considerably aided the local building and loan associations through loans, the sale or lease of land, and counsel. Cf. Enke, Erich, Private, genossenschaftliche und städtische Wohnungspolitik (Stuttgart, 1912), 44, 47, 50–52, 54, 56, 63–64, 82–105, 111, n.46, 116–19Google Scholar.

37 Estimates as to exactly how much cheaper vary because of the lack of exact figures regarding normal prices and the difficulty in comparing the quality. The figure of 15 to 20 per cent cheaper given by Dr. H. Cuntz in his affidavit at the Nuremberg trials is the one most commonly given (Krupp Archives, Auszug dem Affidavit des Herrn Dr. H. Cuntz von 21. Juni 1947). Many social scientists have condemned the practice of providing housing as excessively increasing the dependence of the worker on his employer. But as Enke has pointed out (Private Wohnungspolitik, 32, 36) such housing was reserved usually to those with longer service and many children and whose mobility, therefore, was already decreased by other circumstances. The fact remains, too, that for years it was the sole contribution to improving the housing conditions of the workers.

38 The rebate existed only since 1890. Prior to this, the policy had been to carefully set prices so that the enterprise experienced neither profit nor loss. Krupp, 1812–1912, 214: “In 1890/91 the average annual purchase recorded in a worker's account book was 345 Marks, this being twenty-eight per cent of the average wage.” (I have been denied access to the figures for 1913/14.) For the company cooperative, cf. Mündler, Eugen, “100 Jahre Fried. Krupp Konsum-Anstalt 1858–1958” in Krupp Mitteilungen, Jg. 42, No. 3 (April, 1958), 55–86.Google Scholar The historical part of this treatment derives from Ernst Schröder, Die Konsum-Anstalt Fried. Krupp, 1858 bis 1958, printed as manuscript, Essen, 1958, but not available to outsiders. The author, however, verbally imparted to me the information that in 1913/14, there were 49,768 registered purchasers and that the rebate was 8 per cent.

39 Essener Zeitung 12, 22, January 15, 27, 1875. That the company cooperative was a serious competitor to Essen's merchants is confirmed by the animosity it aroused. Cf. Essener Zeitung 279, November 30, 1875; Essener Volkszeitung, March 7, 1877, November 16, 1879, May 10, 1904; Jahresbericht, 1882, p. 6. This report and the one for 1883 (p. 11) cite the existence of many company stores; the latter report asserted even that “nearly all mines” had them.

40 Essener Zeitung 17, January 21, 1875; Essener Volkszeitung, October 24, 1889.

41 Jahn, Robert, Essener Geschichte (Essen, 1952), 497.Google Scholar

42 Bericht der Kruppschen Bücherhalle über das Betriebsjahr 1899/1900 (Essen, 1900), 3Google Scholar; “Die Kruppsche Bücherhalle,” reprint from Kruppsche Monatsheft (February, 1922), 4.

43 There can be little doubt concerning Alfred Krupp's almost exclusive control of company policy. On this point von Klass (Krupps, 139) is quite definite: “Up to the time of the Founder's Crisis only two of Krupp's colleagues had exercised any substantial influence on the business as a whole. These were Alfred Longsdon and Carl Meyer. Before that date neither was a member of the committee of managment, which merely acted as an executive organ for Krupp's all-powerful will. Even the best of the managers, like Albert Pieper and Ernst Eichhoff, wore themselves out in their efforts to comply with his wishes. They were well aware of the narrow limits within which they could work independently.” It is known, for example, that in the early 1870's, the management had objected violently to the proclamation of the Generalregulativ, the body of rules designed by Alfred Krupp to guide his firm in all future eventualities, and had been greatly alarmed by the grandiose nature of his construction plans for workers' housing. But without effect. Krupp overrode or ignored all objections. Following the Founder's Crisis of the mid-1870's, however, Krupp — now thinking also of his son's eventual assumption of the firm's direction — began “to organize the management as an independent central body in sole control of the steel “works” (ibid.). But this “sole control” refers primarily to the daily activities of the firm. In matters of policy, although Alfred Krupp now almost never came personally to the plant, he still “ruled it with slips of paper” (Schneider, Essen, 234).

44 Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 186, to the firm, December 4, 1871, KC, X, 235.

45 Ibid., II B 181, to the firm, January 11, 1872, KC, XI, 20.

46 ZR-Akte L 1 to Loerbroks, May 12, 14, 1873, KC, XII, 108.

47 Ibid., to the Prokura, January 28, 1873, KC, XII, 15.

48 Ibid., I D I, to the firm, no date but probably 1868, KC, IX, 173.

49 Ibid., to the firm, February 20, 1871, KC, X, 20.

50 Werks-Archiv IV 15 d to von Roon, November 15, 1870, KC, IX, 327–28; Familien Archiv Hügel II C 8 to Loerbroks, October 31, 1871, KC, X, 159–61. A letter to Loerbroks, May 30, 1872 (Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 59, KC, XI, 175–79), gives an itemized account of these gifts. In Essen, Alfred Krupp contributed extensively to various educational undertakings, aided the city in health matters, cooperated with it in fire protection, and tried to promote the solution of the housing problem. His successors were to subsidize cultural pursuits and aid in the provision of facilities for rest and recreation.

51 Familien-Archiv Hügel II c 8, to Loerbroks, October 31, 1871, KC, X, 159–62.

52 ZR-Akte N 175, May 1, 1871, KC, X, 61.

53 Werks-Archiv VII f 757, to the firm, February, 1871, KC, X, 14. Cf. also ZR-Akte B 3 G VI, to the Prokura, April 26, 1874, KC, XIII, 64–65.

54 Ehrenberg, , Krupp-Studien, 47, 57, 108.Google Scholar In 1852 he wrote to a member of the firm his hope that his sister would soon cure a sick worker (Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 23, to Gantesweiler, February 2, 1852, KC, VI, 65). In 1839 he had written his brother Hermann to take care of a representative who had fallen sick in Berlin on his way back from Russia and to spare no expense in doing so. A second letter approved Hermann's trip to Berlin to help the representative home and expressed the desire that everything be done to guarantee good care (Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 93, March 20, 1839, KC, III, 162–64), and ibid., no date but a few days later, KC, III, 166. Cf. also Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 97, to Mayor Pfeiffer, 1843, KC, IV, 174.

55 Vossiek, Hundert Jahre, 13–14.

56 Ehrenberg, Krupp-Studien, 56; Schröder, Krupp, 59.

57 On one occasion, January 16, 1852, Krupp was to write to Gantesweiler that payday was in no case to be postponed until Monday — “that must never happen” (Familien Archiv Hügel II B 23, KC, VI, 50).

58 Ibid., II F 16 January 1, 1863, KC, VIII, 79.

59 Werks-Archiv IV 314, to the Prokura, December 23, 1871, KC, X, 263.

60 Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 181, to the firm, February 20, 21, 1872, KC, XI, 85. Cf. also Werks-Archiv VII F 793, December 22, 1852, KC, VI, 92–93.

61 Essener Volkszeitung, October 23, 1889.

62 Ehrenberg, Krupp-Studien, 74–78.

63 Werks-Archiv IV 269, May 20, 1864, to C. Uhlenhaut, KC, VIII, 136.

64 Ibid., IV 601, March 2, 1867, given by Loerbroks to the firm, KC, IX, 119. Cf. also ibid., IX v 88, October 12, 1844, to Fritz Sölling, KC, V, 80–81. In bad times expansion of the plant through construction was to absorb the labor slack (ZR-Akte C II 1, April 8, 1886 to Höcker, KC, XX, 191.

65 Werks-Archiv VII f 703, to the government in Düsseldorf, April 21, 1854, KC, VI, 148; Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 153, to Topp, September 16, 1856, KC, VII, 30. Four days later, suspecting one man in the disappearance of some drawings, he wrote to Topp again: “Malmedy is there now and I would not let him leave since he would then transmit even more. There is nothing to do but put him in such a position that he has an interest in fidelity” (Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 153, KC, VII, 38–39). Cf. also Zr-Akte A I a 5, to Goose, November 10, 1874, KC XIII, 255, and ibid., to the Prokura, the beginning of December, 1874, KC, XIII, 274–75; ibid., N 151, Vol. I, to the Prokura, November 27, 1874, KC, XIII, 267–68.

66 On January 24, 28, 1839 (Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 193, KC, II, 149–53), he had written exultantly to his brother from England that up to then he had been served things on a silver platter. Travelling under the name of A. Crup, elegantly dressed, he gained admittance everywhere, as for example to a new copper plate rolling mill to which no one was normally permitted entrance. “It is certain, after what I have seen here, that the production of a good quality steel depends only upon the iron.” On December 7, 1856, he wrote to Otto Beyer to wait until the first of the year to join the firm. “If you have the opportunity in the meantime to look around there regarding work and contrivances similar to those here, it would be profitable.” He then went on to specify the type of information which would interest him (Werks-Archiv IX v 47, KC, VII, 70). On October 9, 1873, he wrote to the Prokura: “I hope that the trip to England will lead to considerably cheaper production” (ibid., IV 409, KC, XII, 170–71). In 1885, learning of the Thomas process, he wanted more information regarding the elasticity and strength of the resultant steel extracted carefully from the firms already using the process (ibid., IV 401, to Budde, January 31, KC, XX, 76). Again, on February 17, 1885, he wrote to the firm (Werksarehiv IV 401, KC, XX, 79–80): “What we cannot do ourselves, we have to try to learn, to find out, the way others do it, and for this purpose receive the testimony of experts [and] see it with our own eyes.”

67 Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 199, to C. Meyer, April 13, 1857, KC, VII, 90.

68 Ibid., II B 153, to Topp, September 20, 1856, KC, VII, 30; Werks-Archiv VII c 48, to the firm, July 17, 1859, KC, VII, 164–65; Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 199, to C. Meyer, October 24, 1859, KC, VII, 176; Werks-Archiv VII f 786, no date but probably the end of the 1850s, KC, VII, 185; ZR-Akte AI a 3, to the Prokura, no date but probably the beginning of the 1860's, KC, VII, 187–188; ibid., to the Prokura, August 11, 1874, KC, XIII, 147; Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 314b to Eichhoff, no date but probably September, 1873, KC, XII, 147. Foreigners were especially personae non gratae. Cf. ZR-Akte A 201, to the firm, October 8, 1873, KC, XII, 168–69; ibid., N 75, to the Prokura, April 16, 21, 22, 1881, KC, XIX, 64-68; ibid., N 10, to the Prokura, October 7, 1881, KC, XIX, 133; WerksArchiv IV 777, to Jencke, October 8, 1881, KC, XIX, 135–36; ibid., IV 372, to Budde, February 8, 9, 1883, KC, XIX, 245; Zr-Akte A 201, to the Prokura, July 18, 1884, KC, XX, 34. But even his nephew Arthur was suspect. Cf. Familien-Archiv Hügel II D 42, to Friedrich Alfred Krupp, January 13, 1884, KC, XX, 8–10.

69 Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 153, to Topp, September 16, 1856, KC, VII, 30 (a suggestion to erect such screens); Werks-Archiv VII c 48, to the firm, July 17, 1859, KC, VII, 164. Krupp 1812–1912, 75, mentions the early sealing off from view of the cylinder-polishing processes at a time when such cylinders were the mainstay of the firm.

70 Ehrenberg has treated the increasing division of labor within the firm as a natural result of growth and something undertaken in the interest of efficiency. This is in large part true, but he has ignored the importance of the conscious desire for secrecy. Cf., for example, the notes of ideas Krupp wished to discuss with his second in command, Ascherfeld, undated but probably from the beginning of the 1860's (Werks-Archiv IV, 57, KC, VII, 186): “1. Nobody to be admitted to the mixing room but A[scherfeld] and U[hlenhaut]. 2. Can't pulverization and mixing be done someplace and by someone who does not come into contact with the mixing room? 3. Finished powder to be stored in a locked place and A or U to give out daily the needed amount.”

71 Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 181, to C. Uhlenhaut, no date but probably February, 1872, KC, XI, 90. Krupp was incensed that Osann, who had broken his contact and left the firm, had first learned the Bessemer process, then transferred to the foundry, and finally the Siemens-Martin department. “This initiation first in one branch and then in another is against the old rule; this is why we kept the departments separate.”

72 Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 180, to the firm, October 6, 1871, KC, X, 128.

73 Ibid., to Loerbroks, October 6, 1871, KC, X, 126–27; ibid., II B 181, to the firm, February 20, 21, 1872, KC, XI, 76–88.

74 Werks-Archiv VII C 57, to Haass, May 8, 1856, KC, VII, 19; Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 126, to E. Lamiral, January 29, 1841, KC, IV, 46.

75 Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 85, to the Land-und-Stadtgericht Essen, March 10, 1835, KC, II, 23; ibid., II B 86, to the government in Düsseldorf, June 16, 1835, KC, II, 43; ibid, II B 87, to Graf von Stollberg-Wernigerode, November 12, 1836, KC, II, 186–88.

76 He still was interested in limiting legally their departure through contracts, but he was conscious of the necessity of more than legal means. Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 180, to the firm, October 6, 1871, KC, X, 128: “Whoever has a position and enjoys our confidence because he earns it must be so provided for that he is satisfied, and I recommend further to give out appropriate bonuses, to raise others, so to strengthen the tie in an agreeable manner and [thus] increase the resistance to temptation of those concerned. The consciousness of recognition and of a secure future will weigh also in the balance should higher premiums be offered for betrayal and leaving.”

77 Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 180, to the Prokura, December 26, 1871, KC, X, 269.

78 He was, at the end of his life at least, no idealist. In 1887 he wrote to his son and to the Prokura (ZR-Akte C I 2, Vol. I, January 28, February 4, KC, XX, 237) that he thought the workers would vote “in our sense” (Friedrich Alfred was a candidate for the Reichstag) out of interest, since that is more important for all of them than either Kaiser or clergy.”

79 ZR-Akte F I 1, to the firm, May 31, 1870, KC, IX, 287; ibid., I D 1, to the firm, February 20, 1871, KC, X, 20–21; Familien-Archiv Hügel II B 180, to the Prokura, December 26, 1871, KC, X, 267. This point should not be overemphasized, however. Other letters (Werks-Archiv VII C 72, March 17, 1870, KC, IX, 284; ibid., VII C 62, June 5, 1871, KC, X, 76; ibid., VII C 74, September, 1871, KC, X, 89 all to Kraemer; and ibid., IX a 117, to the firm, June 15, 1871, KC, X, 80) indicate two qualifications on this judgment. First, it appears probable that it was more a lack of esthetic sensitivity than an unwillingness to consider esthetic needs as important that led to the utter simplicity of the early Krupp constructions. Alfred Krupp was not a cultured man. But in an area where even the uncultured are sensitive to beauty, in the appreciation of nature, he was able and willing to include such efforts as essential. His own home, Villa Hügel, confirms this. The building itself is the massive realization of a German industrialist's dream of a Roman villa, but the huge park surrounding it is exceptionally beautiful. And secondly, Krupp everywhere was laying the foundation, not only of the firm but also in the area of welfare. There was an enormous amount to be done, and to be done immediately. He recognized the necessity of avoiding all expenses that could be spared.

80 Krupp's preeminence in Essen should not obliterate from view the efforts of other companies in the area or elsewhere. Fried, . Krupp A. G. Essen-Ruhr, 1812–1912 (Essen, 1912), 243–46Google Scholar, outlines the welfare measures existing at the Gruson works before their purchase by Krupp. All the larger works in Essen had company health insurance plans before national legislation made them obligatory. Jahresbericht, 1880, pp. 17–19, lists 25 such funds still in existence (one had been recently dissolved) covering 11,963 workers (9,000 at Krupp alone, however) in the city and nineteen with 3,261 members elsewhere in the county. There was also a general “factory workers', draftsmen's and journeymen's aid and death fund,” a compulsory insurance for all those in the city not insured by their employers (whose 491 members have been included in the above totals). The Maschinenfabrik Union and many of the mines, as well as Krupp, had a savings institution that facilitated saving on the part of the workers (Jahresbericht, 1884, p. 10). Following Krupp's example, but mostly only in the 1880's and even later, the larger companies began providing some of their workers with housing (Enke, Private Wohnungspolitik, 122–25). See also Essener Zeitung 96, April 26, 1870; Essener Volkszeitung, December 15, 1899; Rheinisch Westfälische Zeitung 1150, November 2, 1908; Jahresbericht, 1876 (p. 16) 1882 (p. 12), 1883 (p. 11), 1884 (p. 10); Mews, Karl, “Friedrich Grillo und Neuschottland,” in Beiträge zur Geschichte der Stadt und Stift Essen, No. 70 (Essen, 1955), 65Google Scholar, 68. For two industrial welfare systems comparable to that of Krupp, see Kollman, , “Neunkirchen an der Saar, die Entwicklung einer Industriegemeinde in den letzten 25 Jahren,” in Preussische Gemeindezeitung, Jg. 6, 1913, No. 18, June 16, pp. 351–54Google Scholar (Stumm); and Heffter, Heinrich, Die Deutsche Selbstverwaltung im 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1950), 694–95Google Scholar (Abbe of the Zeiss works). An article in the Essener Volkszeitung, December 30, 1897, Blatt III, permits a comparison with a company (the zinc foundry, “Vieille Montagne,” in the neighboring Berge-Borbeck), which, even for selfish motives, was apparently not at all interested in workers' welfare.

81 Muhlen, Incredible Krupps, 66–67.

82 Schneider, Essen, 233–34.

83 ibid., 232–33.

84 Ibid., 233.

85 Muhlen, Incredible Krupps, 65.

86 von Klass, Krupps, 206–07.

87 Ibid., 21.

88 Ibid., 114.

89 Schneider, Essen, 225–26.

90 von Klass, Krupps, 135. This is the one instance known where the management successfully resisted Alfred Krupp's wishes in a matter of policy. “Accordingly, many Social Democrats continued to exist among the 10,000 employees of the steel works” (ibid., 136).

91 Schneider, Essen, 234.