Fritz Lang's Metropolis remixed with Vangelis's soundtrack to Blade Runner.
Terrific video presentation (sans sound) from one of my Grade 10 students presenting the work of Otto Dix and features of German art from the Weimar period.
IBDP History Paper 2 November 2011
Immediate problems facing the Weimar Republic
The
Weimar republic was a democratic government in Germany created shortly
after the first Great War (1919). It was named after the city in which
the constitution was first created. This new government was meant to be
the best solution for the Germans, but it was a failure because of the
inefficiency of the constitution, various rebellions and the invasion-
Inflation crisis in 1923.
The first
problem faced by the Weimar republic was its inefficient constitution.
First of all, the Article 48 of the constitution stated that the
President had the power to appoint members of the Reichstag for only the
sake of emergency. Frederic Ebert, the first president rarely used the
power of this article, but his successor, Paul Von Hindenburg, abused
this power and constantly changed the members of the Reichstag. This
made the whole point of democracy useless, because it made the President
look like a dictator. Another problem with the constitution was the
fact that State leaders had too much power, making them ignore the
Government; the Right- wing army too wasn't controlled by the
government, and all this proved how weak the governmental system
was.
Another major problem is the various rebellions occurring in
Germany at the time. In 1919, two communist leaders, Rosa Luxemburg and
Karl Leibknecht, with a communist rebel group, The Spartacists,
attempted an army revolution in Berlin, known as the Spartacist Revolt
(left wing). This rebellion was no success because of the intervention
of the Freikorps; the ex- soldiers form the First World War. The two
leaders were murdered. Communist Workers councils took over Bavaria with
the intention of making it an independent nation. Then came the Kapp
Putsh ("putsch", attempt on taking power illegally) which aimed in
creating a military dictatorship (right wing), but because of a general
strike by the trade unions, it was called off.The main the reason the
Right wing detested the Weimar republic was because they hated the fact
that they signed the Treaty of Versailles on June 1919, which they
believed was the treaty that put their country to shame. This all showed
the disorganization in the country.
Finally, a major problem would come
from the Invasion- inflation crisis of 1923. This was caused by the
payment of reparations (6.6 billion pounds). The government began to
print more money in order to pay, leading to inflation. There was a
terrible economic instability because of this, but it was only the
beginning. On January 1923, Germany was unable to pay reparations and
France attacked the Ruhr without hesitation. This lead to desperate
measures, including a general strike and more money was printed and
"Hyper Inflation" was born, Germany was disgraced by this. The
communists took over in Saxony and Thuringia and the Rhineland declared
independence (21-22 October).
Germany had gone haywire from all these
problems. A country once known as the greatest had then been reduced to
nothing and this raised a lot of tension. This tension fed the hate of
one man, Adolf Hitler, who also hated the Treaty of Versailles. As a
matter of fact, this whole mess was begun because of the hatred people
had for the treaty of Versailles; after all, the Weimar Republic was
created by this treaty.
What were the main features of the Weimar constitution, and to what extent was it democratic?
The Weimar Republic was developed in accordance
with the Treaty of Versailles following the Armistice of 1918. Germany
having suffered great losses in the Great War blamed much of their
miserable predicament on their new government (known later as the
'November Criminals') as they saw them as the ones that had signed the
treaty and admitted defeat. The constitution attempted to bring
democracy to Germany and according to William Shirer was the "most
liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had
ever seen." Why then, were the years under Weimar Germany so
politically controversial and deeply unstable, leading to the rise of
Hitler? The historian Richard J. Evans remarked that "It's more
problematical provision might not have mattered so much had the
circumstances been different." Indeed, the orthodox view of Weimar
Germany sees it as a time period full of struggle, assassinations and
political instability. This orthodox view is orthodox for a reason.
Knowing that ironically this democracy led to the rise of a dictator who
arguably caused one of the most horrific wars in history it is easy to
pinpoint elements of the Weimar Republic and it's legislation that were
negative. But despite its collapse, I believe Weimar Germany was a brave
attempt at creating a constitution that was not only concerned with
building a viable democratic political structure but also one that
sought to establish revolutionary social and economic rights - a complex
document aiming to make way for the basis of modern parliamentary
democracy. Therefore the document itself represented clear democratic
features, but the enactment of these features in this time period could
not maintain democracy and led to one of the most politically confused
eras of German history.
Perhaps the most significant element of the
constitution that proves without a doubt that Weimar Germany was a
democracy is the system of election - proportional representation.
Article 20 states that "The Reichstag is composed by the representatives
elected by the German people." To think in mathematical terms, this is
the most democratic system that could be put in place - the number of
votes a party received corresponded directly to the number of seats that
party held in government. Unlike other democratic systems in place the
German election process also included all men and women over the age of
20 making Germany one of the first countries in Europe to allow women to
vote. This alone is surely enough to convince one of the sophistication
the constitution demonstrated. The country, divided into 35 electoral
areas, voted, and a party was ensured one seat for every 60,000 people
that voted them there. Furthermore, the parliament was given power over
the army and was to be re-elected every four years. Evidently in writing
this is a magnificent document. However the components of the
constitution being democratic does not necessarily that it worked
flawlessly. The ideology encountered terrible problems. First the wide
spectrum of political parties such as the right-winged DVP, to the
Zentrum Partei, to the left-winged KPD had such conflicting principles,
and had left Germany so divided that no single party was able to secure
50% of the vote. As a result coalition governments were rife, decisions
were not made easily, government upon government was overturned and
there was deep political instability. There was a total of twenty
different coalitions with the longest government maintaining control for
a mere two years. Once again in practise the document was the epitome
of democracy, but in reality it fell into a political stew pot of
flavours and poisons.
The system of election itself not enough, even
parliamentary control was to be tempered, especially under Article 48 -
there was still a lot of power placed in the hands of very few
individuals. Articles 46-49 of the Weimar Constitution delineated the
powers of the president and made very clear the immense power the
president would hold from appointing and dismissing chancellors, to
having control of the army, to being able to call a state of emergency
and rule by degree under Article 48. Firstly, the appointing and
dismissing of chancellors by the president is seen by some as an
undemocratic element of the constitution as it gives the power to one
person, and not the people. However, I feel that as the German
population voted the president in, they would have chosen someone that
represented their ideals which would be expressed through the appointing
of chancellors. As for having power over the army, this was important
to democracy, the president was again chosen by the people and therefore
had the final say. Unfortunately as has been a common theme already the
practise was different than the written word and often the president
lost control of the army such as happened during the Kapp Putsch revolt
in Berlin. Finally a highly criticised aspect of the constitution was in
regards to Article 48 - giving one man pure control of the country in
any situation he chooses to define as an 'emergency' takes the power
completely away from the people and nudges it strongly towards a
dictatorship. However, without this the governmental system may have
fallen many times such as when Ebert called for a state of emergency and
took control during the Spartacist uprising in 1919. As Baroness Ruth
B. Henig wrote in her book on the Weimar Republic after explaining the
power the president was given, "Thus the President would check the
Reichstag, the Reichstag would check the individual states, and
parliamentary democracy would be safeguarded." Evidently this holds
significant merit - the problem of course arises when the 'checker' at
the top of the chain is abusing his power. Therefore I feel that
although the initial formula for maintaining parliamentary democracy was
sound, it did not address or even recognise this vital flaw and set
itself up to be ripped apart in its putting of power in the hands of one
man.
Another single man continued to rule during Weimar
Germany, even though he was no longer in a direct position of power - a
fact that undermined the playing out of democracy. Officials and judges
put in place by the Kaiser had not lost their positions of power when
he did. His once important hand continued to reach out into Weimar
Germany - take article 109 which stated "All Germans are equal in front
of the law." However these Kaiser judges were heavily biased and this
article was not exercised. Let us take for example the Spartacus
movement of 1919 and the Kapp Putsch of March 1920. 1919 brought about
the left-wing Sparticist movement, led by Rosa Luxenburg and Karl
Leibknecht. The attempted revolution was dramatically crushed by both
the army and the Free Corps, and the leaders were brutally murdered. In
contrast, during the right-winged Kapp Putsch the army refused to crush
the rebellion and instead supported Kapp by providing him with weaponry.
In fact, the movement was only stopped when the people threw a general
strike, bringing the country to a standstill and forcing Kapp to Sweden
after just 100 hours in power. Isolated, this strike may show true
democracy. A Marxist perspective would be quick to point out the power
of the people. What this demonstrates in terms of democracy is that the
people did have control and could make the changes they desired. But
then we are presented with further information: 770 people were
arrested, but one soul man stood trial. Clearly the deep discrepancies
in the application of the democratic legislation were varied and the
originally democratic rights German citizens were given were tainted and
marred in their application to real life situations.
This connects heavily to the Bill of Rights which
is the final aspect that can be used to heavily outline to democratic
system in place. As well as creating a constitution that served the
requirements of a democratic, fair, and just parliament it also expanded
its aims to attend to the welfare of its population. Article 118 stated
that "Every german is entitled […] to express his opinion freely in
word, writing, print, image or otherwise […] there is no censorship…"
Article 135 continued along the same freedom of the people lines "All
Reich inhabitants enjoy full freedom of liberty and conscience."
Furthermore many aspects of the constitution aimed to provide financial
aid to the people - Article 119 declares "Large families may claim
social welfare". Such grand aims were truly admirable, but to be fair
were also unrealistic. Germany was in a situation of deep economic
trouble - it was being asked to pay reparations for the first war of 2/3
of the total price, a grand 6.6 billion. With such financial issues it
was impossible for the government to financially aid its people.
However, as revisionist historian Michael E. Brooks wrote, "At the same
time we should not forget that few democracies have been founded in such
difficult circumstance as the Weimar Republic. The republic needed a
long breathing space, it needed a more expansive and forgiving attitude
on the part of the Western allies, it needed economic stability and
progress - all of that was in precious short supply in the post World
War 1 years." I think he definitely captures the essence of the document
- it was democratic, but appears to have been produced without looking
at the context of Germany, and what Germany was capable of achieving and
being led under.
To conclude, the Weimar Republic's constitution
was written with total democracy in mind - to bring this fabulous ideal
to the country that had just emerged from an autocratic political
system. However it asked a lot of the people of Germany who had just
emerged from a devastating war, and who were suffering from deep
economic troubles and on many accounts starvation. For this reason a
truly democratic constitution was tossed around in a melee of different
political spectrum's ideologies that in the end did not at all represent
the true democratic nature of the document - but that did do perhaps
the best it could considering the devastating circumstances.
In order to evaluate the democratic merit of the
Weimar Republic, one needs to consider its roots: the Weimar
constitution. Many claim that the Weimar Constitution made the republic
intrinsically weak. It would be simplistic to blame this weakness on any
single aspect of the constitution, but I believe that the a truly fatal
weakness of the Weimar Constitution was that it was democratic to an
unrealistic extent. This is particularly true of the voting process. It
was too much too soon, going straight from a monarchy to this sort of
republic. The role of the President in the constitution, as well as
other governmental branches will also be considered.
One of the main features of the Weimar Constitution was the concept of
proportional representation. In this method of electing representatives
for the Reichstag, political parties received the percentage of seats
that they had received reflected the percentage of votes they got. Votes
were taken from all men and women aged 20 and older. This was better
than Britain, where only women 30 and older could vote. Overall, both of
these constitutional concepts are very democratic ones. All popular
view points are represented. However, the concept of proportional
representation was almost too democratic. Decisions could not be made.
There were simply too many parties and no one party could gain the
majority vote, so there were frequently changing coalitions.
Another
major player in the Weimar Constitution was the President. A President
would be elected by the people and remain in office for 7 years. The
President himself would choose a Chancellor. He also could dissolve the
Reichstag and veto any laws he disapproved of. These aspects of the
constitution could be seen as a stumbling block to the democratic
process. However the height of the President’s power was found in
Article 48, in which the President could declare a state of emergency
and become, essentially, a dictator. The constitution did not specify
what qualified as an emergency, and so this came to be known as the
“enabling act.” It was supposed to be used only to restore order to the
public, but Richard J Evans claimed that “in the end, [the President’s]
excessive use [of Article 48], and occasional misuse of the Article
widened its application to a point where it became a potential threat to
democratic institutions.” Therefore, to some extent the President’s
great power put the democratic nature of the Weimar Republic in peril.
Perhaps this presidential power was necessary,
however, with the army’s, the legal system’s, and the local state
governments’ lack of loyalty. Evans says that “Ebert’s concern for a
smooth transition from war to peace led him to collaborate closely with
the army without demanding any changes in its fiercely monarchist and
ultra-conservative officer corps.” And so, the army acted against the
President’s wishes on several occasions, one of which being the Kapp
Putsch of 1923. The troops would not fire upon the Freikorps. As The
Chief of the Army Command, General Hans von Seeckt stated at the time:
“Reichswehr (army) do not fire upon Reichswehr.” After this putsch and
future ones, there were many ineffective imprisonments as a large
proportion of judges were right wing and wanted to destroy the
democratic government. Lastly, the German states had too much power and
also often ignored the president. This mess impeded on the democratic
aspects of the constitution, as the elected government was unable to
create order.
I think Richard J Evans
truly describes the heart of the issue when he says: "all in all,
Weimar's constitution was no worse than the constitutions of most other
countries in the 1920's, and a good deal more democratic than many. Its
more problematical provisions might not have mattered so much had the
circumstances been different. But the fatal lack of legitimacy from
which the Republic suffered magnified the constitution's faults many
times over."
The Weimar Republic, implemented shortly after the
signing of the Armistice in 1918, was Germany’s first attempt at a
republic as such, and was in place for a rough 15 years before Hitler
took over. In order to evaluate whether or not the constitution of
Weimar Germany was democratic one must first understand the context of
the time; Germany had been demoralized after the war and many believed
in the “stabbed in the back” myth and they blamed this stab on the newly
formed government, later known as the “November Criminals”, as they had
been the ones to sign the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and many Germans
did not approve of the new government while many simply did not care as
much. As William Shirer stated in his book “The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich” the Weimar constitution was "on paper, the most liberal and
democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen”;
in his opinion the ideology behind the Weimar Republic was great and
incorporated much democracy yet the problem which the government was
faced with was implementing their constitution. How should they do this
when the country itself was not united as a whole? Right wing and left
wing strongly opposed each other and openly fought in cities making it
nearly impossible for a clear, well functioning democracy to grow and
sustain itself in Germany. The historian Richard J. Evans agrees with
this, according to him “all in all, Weimar's constitution was no worse
than the constitutions of most other countries in the 1920's, and a good
deal more democratic than many. Its more problematical provisions might
not have mattered so much had the circumstances been different. But the
fatal lack of legitimacy from which the Republic suffered magnified the
constitution's faults many times over"; while the set up of Weimar
contained good ideas; having a president elected by the people, having a
universal suffrage for both sexes and a proper bill of rights could
have created an amazingly democratic state yet there were problems.
Implementing the constitution was the problem – a fact, which I mostly
agree with. The chaos in Germany at the time, the hate between different
groups of people and different parties and the little support of the
public and army the government had, made the troubles in the
constitution much worse than they actually were.
One of the main features of the constitution was that for the first
time Germany had a President of state. This president was elected every
seven years by the general public of Germany giving them the total power
to choose their head of state and already resulted in a feel of
democracy in the newly written constitution. Yet seven years are an
extremely long time for one president to serve – the president was in
charge of appointing and dismissing a chancellor that would have the
support of the Reichstag, the president was the head of the army, this
however did not work out very well as the army itself was right winged
and did not support the president, for example Friedrich Ebert, who had
not been supported by the army when it came to fighting the Kapp Putsch
revolt in Berlin. The power to appoint and dismiss the chancellor, which
the president had was in a way a limiting factor of democracy as the
president himself was almost more of a figurehead position while the
chancellor was the one who did most of the work. As a result, the German
population had little to no say when it came to choosing their
chancellor – they had to trust in their president to appoint someone who
was capable and wouldn’t abuse his powers but as one can see in the
case of Hindenburg who appointed Hitler as chancellor the president did
make mistakes – and this lack of voting freedom in the case of the
chancellor made the Weimar constitution less democratic. The president
also had another power in the form of Article 48; under this article the
president could declare a state of emergency and rule by decree, which
happened quite often like in the case of the Spartacist uprising in
January 1919. This article could easily be abused as a “state of
emergency” is interpreted differently by everyone and under it the
president had the sole power in the country – here democracy was
completely ignored as the president functioning as a dictator would not
rule in a democratic way even if it was for the good of the people.
Another part of the Weimar Constitution was that a Reichstag was to be
formed. Here, seats were giving to different parties on the basis of
proportional representation – each party received the number of seats
according to the percentage of votes they obtained. Proportional
representation was a good ideology in its roots, yet the way it was
implemented was not too successful; obviously this way of obtaining a
place in parliament was democratic, as each party could receive a set
however, due to the vast number of different parties, from right-winged
ones like the DVP who did not trust the democracy over the Zentrum
Partei, a catholic party set up to defend and represent the catholic
church’s interests to the left-winged party KPD who did not want a
republic and were strongly united with Moscow to form a communist
Germany, there was great instability in the Reichstag. This instability
caused little things to be able to be passed and approved by the
parliament and thus show that even though very democratic the
constitution of Weimar which had allowed proportional representation was
hindering itself by allowing “too much” democracy, resulting in much
bickering but no major changes. The Reichstag was also elected by the
general public of Germany, however not every seven years like the
president but every four years. Under the Weimar Republic universal
suffrage was implemented, every German over the age of twenty, no matter
of sex, was allowed to vote making the voting itself rather fair as one
was no longer discriminated by sex, there were however, also problems
with this. Even though there were plenty of parties in existence who put
themselves up for election there were none to represent the women. So
whom would they vote for if there was not a specific women’s party, or a
party that represented they wishes? Often, this resulted in women
voting for the same party as their husband without putting into
consideration any other parties or they voted for the Central Party,
which often represented their wishes if they were catholic. The large
number of political parties in Germany also led to many coalition
governments as no party could secure fifty percent of votes for
themselves to become the sole party in power – during the fourteen years
of Weimar rule there were twenty different coalitions, the longest
government being in power for two years. This absolute chaos, even
though built on democracy, made it nearly impossible for a government to
fulfil the wishes of the people and thus allowed little democracy.
The Weimar Republic included a bill of rights for the first time in
German history. Under this bill of rights Germans were promised equality
before the law as long as political and religious freedom this however
was not carried out as planned. As Rosa Luxenburg stated "freedom only
for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party”
this showing how differently this bill of rights was actually carried
out. Taking the Spartacus movement of 1919 and the Kapp Putsch in March
1920 as an example, the left-winged Spartacus movement was crushed and
the leader, Rosa Luxenburg and Karl Liebknecht, were killed along by the
army along with the support of the Free Corps together with many other
Spartacists. When the right-winged Kapp Putsch came in 1920, the army
refused to help and even supported Kapp and his men with weapons and the
movement was only stopped when Ebert called trade unions and workers to
go on strike. After 100 hours in power in Berlin, Kapp fled to Sweden,
leaving a total of 770 people to be arrested of which only one was
actually tried. This is a perfect example of how the bill or rights were
not applied equally to everyone in Germany at that time; the left-wing
uprising was slaughtered, as well as the leaders of the Ratrepublik in
Munich in addition to other communists at the time, while right-wing
uprisings were met with much more lenient measures as the army supported
them. This is quite a drastic example of how the constitution of the
Weimar Republic was not democratic. Much like in George Orwell’s “Animal
Farm” in the Weimar Republic “all animals were equal, but some were
more equal than others”, in the case of Germany this conflict was in
between the right-winged army and the left-winged communists, the
right-winged parties being the more equal ones while left-winged party
members would be beaten or even killed in the streets of, for example,
Munich just because of a different political viewpoint which was allowed
under the constitution. Another example of a fail of democracy of the
bill of rights is the number of political assassinations in Germany
between 1919 and 1922 – a rough total of 356, most carried out by right
winged extremists who wanted to get rid of the by them unwanted Weimar
Republic and who would use any means to do so.
All in all I believe the Weimar Republic’s constitution to be
democratic in its roots, yet it failed to fully carry out its democratic
building blocks and hindered itself from fulfilling its true potential
through the division of parties, with none standing up to represent
Germany as a whole. Also the bill of rights, which was not applied to
some people made the level of democracy in Weimar Germany less than it
could have actually been. Due to this I believe that while the ideology
behind the Weimar constitution was truly democratic its enactment was
not.
William Shirer in his highly regarded book, Rise
and Fall of the third Reich wrote about the Weimar constitution "on
paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the
twentieth century had ever seen ... full of ingenious and admirable
devices which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless
democracy.” However in action the years that the Weimar system was
implemented were wrought with violence and discontent with the
government and the democratic system. It seems amazing that such a
“liberal and democratic” document could lead to such disaffection and
apparently lead to the rise of national socialism, which ideals
seemingly are the polar opposite to those of the Weimar Republic. Due to
this I will attempt to argue that the constitution of the Weimar
Republic was in fact highly democratic and it was the context that it
was implemented and not the un democratic nature of it that lead to
discontent.
The voting system enacted by the Weimar government
was one of proportional representation, its apparent merits are well
summed up in the words of Desmond Tutu who wrote "The system of
proportional representation ensures that virtually every constituency in
the country will have a hearing in the national and provincial
legislatures." I however would argue that by representing everyone's
views to some extent It becomes somewhat undemocratic as it inevitably
ends up that the government represents no ones. Another problem with
this system of government is that it naturally leads to a divided
government and coalitions which in turn lead to very little being done
because of the opposing views of the parties. This in the instance of
the Weimar Republic lead to people voting for more radical parties in
the hope that they wouldn’t compromise thus adhering to the policies
that the people voted. However despite the fact that It doesn’t seem
proportional representation would work in any country I feel that It was
a obvious attempt by the Weimar Republic to ensure that their
constitution was highly democratic.
The Weimar republic was also one of the first
instances of universal suffrage as it gave the vote to all men and women
aged 20 or over. Due to this It seems very difficult to argue that the
Weimar constitution wasn’t a very forward thinking document composed
with the intention of having a highly democratic system. This however
contributed to its downfall, as it was to much at odds with the previous
system of government and was therefore not accept by the general
populace of Germany.
Article 48 seemingly is the least democratic
component of the constitution as it gave the president dictatorship like
powers in a state of emergency. This I however would argue was entirely
necessary as without such an article the government would have
collapsed long before 1933. It was a long standing defence against the
military wing of the KPD, the Spartacists, who attempted numerous times
to take control of Germany and without article 48 it would have been
almost impossible for the German government to combat this threat as
they had a very small army due to the sanctions of the Treaty of
Versailles. For these reasons it seems inevitable that without being
able to easily mobilize the army and give the police more power the
Weimar government would have struggled to keep power. Therefore in
conclusion It seems that although Article 48 obviously was not entirely
democratic without such an article the democratic Weimar Republic would
have collapsed long before 1933 therefore it was entirely necessary to
ensure that democracy didn’t collapse in Germany.
In conclusion the Weimar Republic constitution
could not be argued to be anything other than an attempt at creating a
very forward thinking democracy. This is most apparent in the
introduction of proportional representation and universal suffrage.
Despite the fact that Article 48 is often argued to have been the
downfall of the Weimar Republic and undemocratic it seems to have been
entirely necessary at the time to ensure that democracy didn’t collapse
in Germany before 1933.
-->
The fundamental theory, on which the Weimar Republic was planned to be
built upon expressed the principal objectives of a democracy. However,
this essay will argue whether the main features of the constitution were
indeed democratic or, in the words of Lenin, if they merely looked
democratic but were in fact a mirage using two main examples: Article 48
and the powers of the president, the political system including
proportional representation and the Bill of Rights. The Germany that
emerged from the Great War was crippled and demoralized. It had lost
over two and a half million men to the war and four million were
wounded. The forced abdication of the Kaiser was met with high
discontent of the society and thus, the new democratic constitution was
what Germany needed to get back on its feet.
Article 48 gave the President of the Weimar Republic dictatorial powers
should an emergency situation demand this, meaning it allowed the
President to override the Reichstag to pass laws. This provided the
opportunity for the country leader to solve possible harming disputes
that may have otherwise not been solved due to opinions within the
Reichstag that were not unanimous. However, the first president of the
Republic, Friedrich Ebert, used the powers of the Article 136 times.
Historian Richard Evans states that Ebert misused the Article in
non-emergency situations to simply get his political desires passed
through the Reichstag without any opposition. This was of course not
what the article was designed for and therefore Ebert's actions "became a
potential threat to democratic institutions." This provides evidence
that Article 48 was in fact not very democratic as it shows how easy it
was for a President to dictate a country, possibly against the will of
the people, without much justification. As well as this the president
was elected by the people for seven years. In seven years a lot of
things could happen to make the view of the people change. They are not
able to vote for the party they believe to be the best for their country
and fellow citizens and they have no say in political affairs for seven
years, which shows again that democracy was not exactly at its best
state in the new Republic.
Proportional Representation is a political system still used in Germany
today and as a German I believe it is rather effective. It is highly
democratic as it allows all parties to have a say, not just the major
ones. During the Weimar Republic, people aged 20 and above were allowed
to vote, even women, giving an equal chance to the people of Germany.
However, during the Weimar time period this system created more problems
than it solved. Firstly, it made the Republic politically weak due to a
vast number of completely different parties, where each represented
very narrow selectional interests such as religion, regions or social
class. Thus, there were frequently changing coalitions. The people of
the Republic suffered from a constantly changing leadership, denying
them stability and reassurance during a time where they needed it most
to build up the country from the ruins caused by the Great War. This was
evidently not good for the German society but if a democratic
government is not able to give its people the chance to be successful
then is it still democratic? As well as this women were allowed to vote,
which is again extremely democratic, but there was an issue with this
as well and that was the fact that no party truly represented them and
their desires, suggesting that the new constitution did not create a
democratic republic as it failed to offer representation for half the
population.
Finally, the
Bill of Rights protected the freedom of the people and their equality
before the law. Again, this is very democratic, however, this was not
exactly carried out. Between 1919 and 1922 there were 356 political
murders. For example Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, who lead the
Communist uprisings in Germany during this time were brutally murdered.
Where was their equality before the law and freedom of speech? This
evidently shows that the Weimar constitution consisted of qualitative
democratic principles that were simply not carried out correctly or
followed.
Therefore I
believe that the key principles of the Weimar Republic, such as Article
48, proportional representation and the Bill of Rights, would have been
ideal to construct and rebuild a new republic as they were all extremely
democratic in theory. However, the way they were carried out, or not
even followed, during the Weimar period was far from democratic. A
president using the dictatorial powers to get his will, a government
consisting of a vast number of parties representing many different
groups of people throughout the German society and the Bill of Rights
that was ignored for many cases does not make up a democratic republic
where the people are supposed to be free to choose what is best for
themselves. Thus, the key principles of the constitution were only
democratic in theory and on paper, however, when carried out they failed
to create a state strong enough to rebuild what had been shattered by
the Great War.
When the new German Constitution, the “Verfassung
des Deutschen Reichs” was created in the city of Weimar in Germany,
1919, Germany was in a state of Turmoil, Hyperinflation and Chaos. It
could be considered a “Democratic Experiment.” The government was split
and both radical right-and left wing parties were using violence in
order to gain control of a country that was shaken to its core by the
Loss of the First World War. The constitution of the Weimar Republic,
which was in action until 1933, had flaws and weaknesses. This
Constitution of the German Reich could be considered democratic and it
can be argued to what extent the Constitution of the Weimar Republic
really was democratic.
“On Paper, the most liberal and democratic
document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen (…) full of
ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of
an almost flawless democracy.” These are the words used by historian
William Shirer in his book “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” to
describe how democratic the Weimar Republic was for its time. This is
true if one considers the conditions previous to the Weimar
Constitution, and even though the Weimar Constitution is often
criticized for its articles, the constitution a large step forwards in
matters of Democracy for Germany. Taking a closer look at the actual
constitution, we can see almost immediately the liberal changes brought
forward with the constitution, taking in example article 126,
[1]“Every German is entitled to address the respective authority or parliament with petitions or grievances.”
The
fact that even women were allowed to vote shows how liberal and
democratic the constitution was. This constitution allowed women to vote
almost 20 year before any woman in France was allowed to vote, a
country, which has a reputation for being revolutionary, modern and
liberal. In order to recognize how valuable and democratic this article
is we must put it into context, remember that this is 1919 and not the
twenty-first century. Women had never received suffrage before and this
can also be seen what period of change Germany was going through,
changing from centuries of Monarchy to a somewhat Involuntary Democracy.
Another feature of the constitution would be the
“Reichstag” and its Proportional Representation. The fifth chapter of
the Weimar Constitution, the “Verfassung des Deutschen Reiches” concerns
about the German Parliament that would run by a system of Proportional
Representation. This can be an important factor of how democratic the
new Constitution was. This system would be considered democratic because
it ensured a fair vote and that the people’s views get represented. The
Reichstag would consist of different parties, which get voted by the
public, and the more votes they would receive from the folk, the more
seats would they get in the Reichstag. This would show that the Weimar
Constitution was democratic to a great extent because it ensured that
citizens’ views are represented by not only one ruling monarch but by
many different parties. This system, nowadays called the “Bundestag”,
is still used in Germany today and its success is visible by Germany’s
strong economy and democracy.
On the other hand however it can be argued if the
Weimar constitution really was democratic, or if it was just supposed to
look like it was. An example for this would be Article 48. Article 48
read that in emergency situations the ruling power would be given
dictatorial powers, and this clause especially is criticized by many.
Many blame the Weimar constitution for being a window in letting Hitler
gain power over Germany. Joseph W. Bendersky comments about Article 48
in his book “A History of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945”: “The Latter held
that the constitution had in fact granted the president such extensive
authority and that any attempts to restrict his powers would be contrary
to the original intent of article 48”.
Article
48 is an excellent example to show that the Weimar Constitution of 1919
was democratic to a minimal extent because it basically ignored the
democratic clauses it stated and returned the power back to one
individual, just like it had previously been with monarchy. This article
therefore is not in any way democratic due to the fact that it gives
power to the president, and not to the people, the “Volk”.
The Weimar Republic could be considered democratic
to a medium extent because even though it did have many very democratic
articles it also had articles such as Article 48, which gave
dictatorial powers to an individual, which is heavily contradictory to a
democracy. We are not allowed to forget however what conditions Germany
was in and we must put into context that this constitution was created
almost one hundred years previous to the time we are currently living
in; Democracy was still in its making and Germany was somewhat a Pioneer
for European Democracy at the time. Coming back to William Shirer’s
praising words of the Constitution, even though it “seemed to be
flawless”, there were faults in the constitution, however it cannot be
denied that his was indeed a democratic document.
[1] Website with Complete Weimar Constitution
http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php#Second Chapter : Life within
a Community
What were the problems in Weimar Republic from 1919-1923?
The problems that occurred in Weimar Germany were
unavoidable, considering the drastic different changes of the government
before and after 1919. Before 1919, the government of Germany was
almost a military autocracy under Kaiser Wilhelm II; after 1919, it was a
parliamentary democracy. The drastic change from one pole to the other
in such a short period did not allow people to adapt the changes and
thus create a ground for conflicts. The problems occurred could be
classified into different categories.
Militarily,
army leaders created the "stab in the back" myth and did not support
the new government. After the defeat of Germany, the right blamed all
Germany's problems on the new democratic Weimar government. The army
leaders in order to protect their reputation devised a myth called
Dolchstosslegende , the "stab in the back" myth. They blamed the
revolutionary socialists and the Jews for destroying Germany. This not
only undermined the social stability between different groups of people,
but also undermined the position of Weimar Germany. Weimar Republic was
seen to be the result of the defeat of Germany and it was led by a
socialist, Ebert. The action from the military created the foundation of
problems to occur in Germany. The bigger problem the military posed to
the government was the lack of support. The best example was 1920's
Wolfgang Putsch, during which when the Defence Minister Gustav Noske
called General Seeckt, one of the Reichswehr's senior commanders, to
suppress the putsch, he refused and stated that, "Reichswehr does not
shoot on Reichswehr" Although the putsch was collapsed by the general
strike, it showed the tension between the army and the newly formed
government, and how the government was at a great risk by not being
backed up by the army. However on the other hand, the collapse of the
putsch also showed that not everyone was against the government.
Furthermore, the fact that some of the senior commanders of the
Freikorps refused to join the putsch also revealed the potential
strength the government might have. The support for Mr. Bush nowadays is
only 50% maximum, which means there are 50% of the people against him,
and this does not create a serious problem for him. Therefore, for
Weimar Republic, the lack of support for the government could create
problems but it would not be a huge issue if it were the only
reason.
Politically, the different ideologies collided and created
conflicts, which induced the social instability. Before 1919, Germany
was using a hereditary monarchy system, where Kaiser Wilhelm II
controlled everything, from controlling the army to appointing the
government, to calling and dismissing of the Reichstag. Basically, he
had the absolute power. However, after 1919, the government became a
parliamentary democracy, where everything was elected. Many were
indignant with this drastic change, and they thought that Weimar Germany
was not as good as it could be. The coup d'etats from both sides, left
and right, only made the situation worse. In 1919, the Spartacists led
by Marxists Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg in the wish of turning
Germany into a soviet-based republic like Russia was crushed mercilessly
by the regular troops and Freikorps. A suppression over the Bavarian
Soviet Republic was carried out and it held a bitter grudge against the
new SPD government. On the other hand, the Right also started a
coupdetat, best shown in 1920's Dr. Wolfgang's Putsch. The attempts to
overthrow the government from both sides undoubtedly weakened the
government. In addition, the Treaty of Versailles also undermined the
support of Germans.
Furthermore, the Weimar Constitution did not create a strong
government. From the Article 48 to the proportional voting, they were
all undermining the power of the weak Weimar Germany. Article 48 stated
that the President could have sole power during the "time of emergency" ,
which the President often took. It allowed the President to bypass the
government or Reichstag if he wished. It was very much like the
Fundamental Law of Tsar Nicholas II in 1906 as a supplement to the
October Manifesto created in 1905 as a response to the revolution. This
Article 48 could easily aid the ruler to turn the parliament democracy
into another autocracy, and therefore the power of the government was
weak. Moreover, the system of proportional voting led to a state with 28
parties and it was impossible to establish a majority in the Reichstag.
This led to a frequent change in the government and thus made many to
lose faith in it. Thus, the Weimar Constitution under these
circumstances was weak.
In addition, the Treaty of Versailles also
undermined the position of Weimar Democracy. In 1919, the Allies were
discussing the post-war settlements and they imposed their decision on
Germany without even negotiating with it. They presented Germany two
choices: whether accept the terms or go back to war. Germany had no
choice but to accept the harsh terms. The people who signed the Treaty
of Versailles were labeled as the "November Criminals". The Germans were
angry at this and further create social instability from this political
factor.
Economically, the hyperinflations totally ruined the economies
of Germany and worsen the lives of the Germans. Germany had agreed to
pay 6.6 billion pounds for reparation according the Treaty of
Versailles, and when it failed to make its payment on 1923, France and
Belgium invaded the Ruhr to make Germany pay. The government ordered the
workers in Ruhr to go on paid strike. Ruhr being the most economically
and industrially developed area in Germany hurt the economies of Germany
greatly by stopping all of its production; plus, the government had to
print more money in order to pay the workers, the price of goods went up
as the money meant less and less. This led to a hyperinflation . At the
situation worst period, the Germans would rather burn the money to
sustain their warmth than buying coal or woods because burning money was
much cheaper. The bad situation only led the civilians to be angry and
bore grudge against the government, and therefore created problems for
the new government.
The problems mentioned above from economic, military
and political standpoints are only the primary problems that occurred
in Weimar Germany. Although there were more problems, they could best
represent the threats Germany was facing at that time.
Assessing Stresemann’s Achievements
To
understand Gustav Stresemann’s role in Weimar Germany, one must
understand Weimar herself. The essence of the young Republic is best
epitomized in the popular culture of the time, specifically the film
industry. For instance, the movie Metropolis accurately captures the
Zeitgeist of the 1920s, as it depicts the general social atmosphere,
public doubt and even fear. This legendary futuristic picture portrays a
society with an increasingly yawning chasm between the upper and
working classes. Subtle unrest and eventual attempted revolution
germinate in the underground world of labourers, as they are seduced
into challenging their position in civilization. The chaos illustrated
in the film paralleled the reality of Weimar Republic, a society
dominated by the grounded terror of nationwide communist insurrections.
With over 50,000 aggressive Spartacists roaming the streets of Berlin in
1919[1], the Red Army and workers councils calling for revolution,
anarchism and Bolshevism appeared realistically close to vanquishing any
last shred of order. Metropolis encapsulates the aura of insecurity
engulfing the new democracy; it was an unprecedented, tottery system for
Germany and to many the social system seemed in the midst of a
pandemonic restructuring. In this period of violence the nation needed a
guiding grasp. She found it in Gustav Stresemann. The Nobel Peace Prize
awarded to Stresemann in 1926[1] patently manifests his adeptness as a
statesman from an international point of view. In his years as foreign
minister, he dedicated himself to reestablishing Germany’s position in
the world of international relations. His leading role in agreements
such as the 1924 Dawes Plan, the 1925 Locarno Pact, the 1926 Treaty of
Berlin, the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact and the 1929 Young Plan ensured
German economic and social well-being. The Dawes and Young Plans for
instance reduced the total reparations bill, set a time limit, spread
out the payments and provided an allied loan of 800 million marks to
“maintain the economic unity of Weimar”[2]. explain how it changed
Germany The Locarno Pact ended the most sanguinary tensions between
France and Germany and ensured that France would not invade Germany
again. This was hailed as a beginning of a “new era in the relations
between France and Germany”[3]. In addition to this, Stresemann’s
negotiating capabilities secured Germany a position in the League of
Nations and thus constructed a new German image, placing her back into
positive international light.
The orthodox view of Stresemann is that while he
was a gifted foreign minister, a likable character in the international
scene, his internal policies were not as successful. According to Geoff
Layton, “historians agree that where Stresemann’s policies failed, he
did not generate real domestic support for Weimar”[1]. meaning? Noted
historian Richard J. Evans affirms that Stresemann was heavily
criticized for his policy of “fulfilment”, to fulfil the terms of the
loathed Peace Settlement[2]. While his party suffered the continual loss
of electoral support, Stresemann placed more faith into the “primacy of
foreign policy” and progressively disregarded domestic stratagem[3].
You need to move beyond parroting others' views and examining their
reliability or value. You just give a quote and leave it at that. But
what do YOU think given their ideas? However, one must not forget that
one of his finest accomplishments was an internal refinement. The
stabilisation of the German economy during the hyperinflation of 1923
was greatly due to his introduction of the Rentenmark, one being worth
original Marks[4], and the securement of mortgages
of land and industry. The suave slip into Weimar’s Golden Years between
1924 and 1929 was indebted to Stresemann’s rescue of the economic
household. Yet how firm was this amelioration?
Germany
after the Great War was named after Weimar, no.m It was called Germany-
they didn't change the name of the country to that of a provincial
town! the city embodying German intellectual achievement and
sophistication. Goethe penned his masterpiece Faust in the city to later
become the location of the formulation of Germany’s destiny. Like Faust
thoughtlessly endorsed his soul to Satan, the Weimar democracy would
soon suffer the same fate. brilliant idea, that.. The golden Stresemann
days from 1925 up to his death in 1929[5] resemble Faust’s period of
hedonism, living in a semblance of fortune, yet inevitably marching
towards doom. Similarly, Stresemann’s angelic methods allowed the
Republic to flourish for four blissful years, until his sudden demise in
October, the same month as the Wall Street crash. From then on, Weimar
subsided back into the chaos of Metropolis. The American credits
solidified in the Dawes Plan melted into worthlessness[6], one
demonstration that Stresemann’s achievements were simply a mirage. This
is further manifested in the sudden oscillation of voting results after
his death: support for Stresemann’s DVP decreased dramatically, due to
the forfeiture of its main head supplying concrete direction and
purpose. By 1930, extremist anti-democratic parties earned alarmingly
more votes than usual. The NSDAP won 107 seats, second only to the SPD
with 143 seats, closely followed by the KPD with 77 seats[7]. Radical
parties began to gain a substantial voice in parliament after
Stresemann, essentially leading to Adolf Hitler’s procurement of power.
This shows beyond doubt that Stresemann’s achievements, impressive as
they may have been in Weimar’s turbulent state, were an illusion that
brought Weimar back into savage volatility after they withered.
Gustav
Stresemann remained in unbroken power for nine successive
administrations[8], providing Weimar with the crucial bearing she needed
for six years. Even though his accomplishments were reduced to
nothingness after 1929, he was responsible for one of the most
culturally and socially productive periods Germany has ever seen. If it
were not for his guidance from 1923 to 1929, the unstable,
war-traumatized Germany may have fallen to Nazism far earlier;
Stresemann’s era was a dream that was lost not to his awaking, but to
his eternal sleep, giving Hitler the second chance he needed.
[1] Layton, Geoff. Access to History - Weimar and the Rise of Nazi Germany 1918-33. Page 92. London: Hodder Murray, 2005.
[2] Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. Page 192. Penguin Books, 2003.
[3] Mommsen, Hans; Forster, Elborg. The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy. Page 213. UNC Press Books, 1998.
[4] Allen, Larry. The Encyclopedia of Money. Page 338. ABC-CLIO, 2009.
[5] Balderston, Theo. Economics and Politics in the Weimar Republic. Page 61. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
[6] Layton, Geoff. Access to History - Weimar and the Rise of Nazi Germany 1918-33. Page 122. London: Hodder Murray, 2005.
[7] Kolb, Eberhard. The Weimar Republic. Page113. Routledge, 2005.
[8] Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. Page 87. Penguin Books, 2003.
[1] Layton, Geoff. Access to History - Weimar and the Rise of Nazi Germany 1918-33. Page 89. London: Hodder Murray, 2005.
[2]
Adam, Thomas. Germany and the Americas: Culture, Politics and History: A
Multidisciplinary Encyclopedia. Volume 2. Page 272. ABC-CLIO, 2005.
[3] Nanda, Siba Prasand. History of the Modern World (1919-1980). Page 46. Anmol Publications PVT. LTD., 2002.
[1] Lee, Stephen J. Weimar and Nazi Germany. Page 11. Heinemann, 1996.
"The history of the world is but the biography of
great men”. Was Stresemann one such man? Gustav Stresemann, born 1878,
was chancellor of Germany in 1923 and remained Foreign Minister until
the end of his life in 1929. During the last 6 years of his life, he is
credited with numerous achievements (which I will go into later) which
allowed Weimer Germany to go through the “Golden Age” of its existence.
Nonetheless, in light of these great achievements, one must also examine
what came before Stresemann and what came after his premature death,
for I believe one can only then fully assess Stresemann’s achievements
when one looks at the bigger picture of Germany before, and after
Stresemann.
Before Gustav Stresemann, Weimar Germany was in a state of
chaos, and this fact is essential to investigate when assessing
Stresemann’s achievements. Democracy was altogether a “new idea” for
most of Europe, let alone Germany, and one that would take until 1989 to
fully be integrated and accepted in Germany. There were countless
problems that plagued Weimar Germany from 1919 to 1923. To begin with,
the Weimar Government itself was a great deal to blame. The democratic
system of proportional representation led to the severe problem of there
being too many political parties in the Reichstag. This meant it was
virtually impossible for a majority to be established, as well as there
being far too frequent changes in the government. In addition to there
being problems in the Government, the Army – The Reichswehr (under the
leadership of General Hans von Seekt) and government officials in the
police and judicial system, were extremely right-wing, not supporting
the predominately SPD government and letting people like Adolf Hitler
off with 9 months imprisonment after the Munich Putsch. Left and
Right-Wing rebellions and insurrections also plagued the government. In
1919, 500,000 Spartacists (Communists) took to the streets of Berlin in a
failed coup attempt and a Communist Peoples Government briefly took
power in Munich. On the right-wing the Kapp Putsch of 1920 briefly took
control of Berlin in hopes of restoring the Kaiser, Nationalist
terrorists collectively assassinated 356 politicians and Adolf Hitler’s
Nazi Party attempted the “Beerhall Putsch” in 1923. Hyperinflation,
caused by the Treaty of Versailles’ reparation sum of 6.6 pounds
sterling and the ensuing French occupation of the Ruhr in January 1923,
further helped to unstable Weimar integrity. It was clear by 1923 that
Germany needed a strong leader to restore order.
According to the
British Historian John Wheeler-Bennett, “...no figure since the war has
so dominated European affairs as did Herr Stresemann...” The Weimar
Republic would not have lasted as long as it did had it not been for
Stresemann’s achievements. As soon as he was appointed Chancellor on 13
August 1923, Stresemann went to work getting his country back on the
right track. Within a year, he had addressed the problem of
hyperinflation by getting rid of the old Reichmark and introducing the
Rentenmark, which was worth an astounding 1x12^10 old mark. Striking in
the Ruhr was also called off and by 1924 the French had been persuaded
to leave. The French were able to be persuaded by the Dawes Plan, an
American endorsed plan aimed at giving Germany more time to pay its war
reparations. This was later extended in the Younge Plan of 1929 to
reduce the amount having to be paid by the Germans. In foreign policy,
Germany also made huge improvements under Stresemann. As Foreign
Minister, he signed the famous Locarno Treaty in which Germany formally
agreed to the loss of Alsace-Lorraine and its borders in the west (There
was to be no such treaty in the east, giving Stalin reason to mistrust
the West’s aims). In 1926, Germany was also finally allowed into the
League of Nations, given a seat in the security council along with the
other major powers of the world (excluding the USA and Russia),
signifying Germany’s resurrection as a major world power. Stresemann
also stimulated economic growth by borrowing 25,000 million gold marks,
mainly from the USA, to improve Germany’s infrastructure and industry.
For his feats in improving relations with the West, Gustav Stresemann
was co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1926. Stresemann’s
achievements are numerous. Without him, there would have been no
“Roaring Twenties” in Germany. But were these “achievements” what they
seemed? Did Stresemann truly solve Germany’s problems, or did he just
repress them?
As the German historian Hermann Oncken said three days
after Stresemann’s death, ”Suddenly all of us…feel that there is a
vacuum in the political life of the
nation…”http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.do - _ftn3 This quote supports
the argument that Gustav Stresemann was too good of a statesman. A
modern reference to this argument could be the role of Nelson Mandela in
South Africa. The essence of this argument is that the role and actions
of these men have only a short term effect but have no lasting effect.
In Stresemann’s case you could even argue that his legacy was negative.
His extensive borrowing from the USA laid the foundation of Europe’s
present day dependency on the US dollar. A further effect this
“political vacuum” left by Stresemann had, was that since he was the
force that had united the most central German parties (SPD, Centrum,
DVP) into one coalition government, when he was gone Germany was once
again plagued by the political problems it had faced before. This,
coupled with the effect the Wall Street Crash in 1929, and a growing
unemployment rate had on Germany’s economy, meant that more and more
people were now moving toward radical parties such as the NSDAP and the
DKP (Deutsche Kommunisten Partei). Before 1929, Stresemann’s successes
had effectively kept these radical parties in the political wilderness,
where as now they were reemerging as Germany faced greater crisis.
In
conclusion, I do not believe that there is any sound argument that can
diminish the simple fact that Gustav Stresemann’s did achieve some
success in the 1920s rehabilitating Germany and helping her to retake
its place among the major nations of Europe. Nevertheless, I believe
that the events that succeeded Stresemann’s death and Germany’s ensuing
descent into a totalitarian fascist regime proves the argument that
Gustav Stresemann was in fact NOT a “Great Man”. His achievements, as
magnificent as they might have seemed at the time, did not leave Germany
with ANY lasting achievements which would help Germany navigate the
challenges of the upcoming decades.
How Did Hindenburg Undermine German Democracy in 1925-33?
"...Instead of working to achieve power by an
armed coup we shall have to hold our noses and enter the Reichstag
against the Catholic and Marxist deputies. If outvoting them takes
longer than outshooting them, at least the results will be guaranteed by
their own Constitution! Any lawful process is slow. But sooner or later
we shall have a majority - and after that Germany."Adolf Hitler stated
the above while he was serving his sentence for the Munich Beer Hall
Putsch in Landsberg Prison. This statement signified his dramatic
changes in his policies for his attempts to become the leader of
Germany. Before the sentencing, he wished to use a coup to take control
of the German government, but the Nazi’s failure of the Beer Hall Putsch
imparted him a great lesson- that the only approach for the Nazis and
himself to capture Germany was by the democratic process, elections.
Approximately 4 years later in the German election of 1928, the Nazis
only gained 2.6% of the popular vote and a total of 12 representations
seats in the Reichstag, which was actually a decrease from 14 seats in
December of 1924. Hitler’s support jumped from 6000 members to 55,000
members in 1923, and yet their support did not similarly ascend
exponentially between 1924 and 1929. Hitler didn’t have support of the
mass population between 1924-1929 because of the improvement of the
German economy between 1924 and1929, the social stability between this
period, and the political limitations and reorganization of the Nazi
Party during this period of time.
The
first reason why Hitler did not have support between 1924 and 1929 was
because of the dramatic recovery of the German economy from the
hyper-inflations and the unemployment after World War One. The German
floating debt was about 191 trillion marks in 1923 and the unemployment
was standing at 9.6% . Hitler used the instability of the economy as
examples of failures of Weimar Germany, and one of his goals centralized
around the takeover of the Weimar government. The economy condition
completely changed in 1924. Gustav Stresemann, the German Foreign
Minister, controlled the hyper-inflation by replacing the mark with
Rentenmark in November of 1923. An American banker named Charles G.
Dawes presented the Dawes Plan to the Reparations Commissions of the
Allied Nations in 1924, and it was later accepted by the Allies and
Germany. The plan planned the evacuation of Allied troops from the Ruhr.
It gave Germany more breathing space by allowing the German reparations
to start at $1 billion mark on the first year and gradually increase in
the following years. Stresemann also achieved in the negotiation of
borrowing 25,000 million gold marks. The money was primarily used to
build basic infrastructures like roads, as well as 3 million new houses
and many modern factories. Before 1924, the German economy was
collapsing and Hitler used the economic failures to show the
incompetence of Weimar Republic and gain support for himself. 33% of
Nazi members were skilled workers while 18% were lower professionals.
Many of these workers were working in horrible conditions and Hitler
exploited this problem by saying that he was capable of solving all the
problems if he was elected. However, when the economic turnaround began
to take place, many Germans would simply ignore Hitler Hitler’s speeches
before 1924 stated that if he was supported, the horrible conditions
would be eliminated. Since the economic problems disappeared, reasons
for citizens to support Hitler drastically decreased. These economic
reforms had brought Germany’s unemployment and inflation under control
while stabilizing the currency. The German industries were re-equipped
and foreign investments in the economy increased. Many German citizens
became satisfied with their lives, and they no longer focused their
attention on a crazy guy who wanted to overthrow the government. Hitler
didn’t have support between 1924 and 1929 because the members of society
were satisfied with the society.
The
second reason why Hitler did not gain support between 1924 and 1929 was
because of the social stability in the Weimar Republic. Before 1924,
the Weimar Republic was in chaos and Hitler utilized the chaos to gain
public attention and verbally attack the incompetence of the Weimar
Republic. He proclaimed that by eradicating the Jews, the Communists,
and any non-Aryan foreigner, he was capable of making all the social
problems go away. There were 376 politically motivated murders between
1918 and 1922 while revolutions, invasions, and revolts like the
Spartacist Revolt, the French and Belgian Invasion, and the Kapp Putsch
consumed the republic. Between 1924 and 1929, the chaos dramatically
diminished as the Locarno Treaty was signed and Germany entered the
League of Nations. Under the Locarno Treaty, Germany recognized the
western frontiers to be permanent, and the nations of Germany, France,
and Belgium promised not to attack as each others while Britain and
Italy were the guarantors. The Locarno Treaties eased the tensions
between Germany and the other European powers and it allowed Germany to
enter the League of Nations and become a superpower once again. In 1925,
Paul von Hindenburg was elected to be the president. Many conservative
parties and “middle of the road” parties supported him and promised to
stop from any radical party to take over the government. At the same
time, the German army conciliated with the government, and the
Army-supported paramilitary organizations protected democracy for the
period of time between 1924 and 1929. Not only did Germany’s economic
improvement prevent Hitler from gaining support between 1924 and 1929,
Germany’s social order contributed to the fact that Hitler did not have
support during this period of time. As invasions and revolts faded in
the memories of the citizens, many citizens would turn their heads away
from Nazi propaganda and accidentally view Hitler as the popular Charlie
Chaplin. The citizens could enjoy their lives through entertainment and
sports so they would try their best to prolong the social stability
that Weimar Republic provided, rather than to listen to same lunatic who
wanted to overthrow the government. Germany became a superpower once
again and the citizens became contented with their balanced lives.
Hitler was disregarded because many citizens lost their hatred and
dislike for the Weimar Republic, the Treaty of Versailles, and the
League of Nations. The Nazis no longer attracted the citizens as much as
they did when Weimar Republic was in social disorder and this directly
resulted in the fact that Hitler did not have support between 1924 and
1929.
The third reason why Hitler did
not have support between 1924 and 1929 was because of the political
limitations on Hitler and the reorganization inside the Nazi Party.
Hitler was sentenced to 9 months in Landsberg prison after the Munich
Beer Hall Putsch and he came out on December 20th 1924 as a free man
who, however, could not make public speeches for the next five years.
Although Joseph Goebbels was a talented publicist, the meetings he
organized, the newspapers he published, and the posters he posted were
still not as influential as Hitler’s speech. Due to continuing violence,
the Nazi Party was outlawed in Berlin and Nazi speeches were completely
banned in the entire German state of Prussia for a period of time. Even
when the government of Bavaria and Saxony allowed Hitler to publicly
speak in 1927 and he did for 56 times in the last 10 months, Hitler’s
support was still concentrated in north-west Germany and it did not
disperse to other German regions. At the same time, Hitler focused a lot
of attention at restructuring the Nazi Party between 1924 and 1929.
Although he easily took control of the Party after he came out of jail
since Alfred Rosenberg, the man who was in charge of the party while
Hitler was in prison, had no administrative ability, the Party almost
dissolved because moderate parties inside the nation attracted more
citizens since the nation’s economy was improving. In order to expand
the Nazi Party, Hitler reorganized the SA, set up the SS, merged with
other right-wing parties, and started to receive essential financial
support. Though Hitler had spoken numerous times after the ban was
lifted, the time which Hitler was not allowed to publicize had
considerably taken Hitler out of the sight of the public. This delay
directly affected the fact that Hitler did not gain mass support of the
entire nation. Also, Hitler’s reorganization of the Nazi Party was
proven to be effective after 1929, but it did not immediately gain
Hitler lots of support. The reorganization took an extremely long
process, and it took years for all the new organizations to be
integrated into the Main Party and adjust to the new atmosphere.
Hitler’s limitation of publicity and the restructuring of the party
directly resulted in the party receiving only 12 Reichstag seats in 1928
and 2.6% of popular vote in the national election.
“Support
for the Nazi Party had grown due to the country's problems of
hyperinflation and the French invasion of the Ruhr. By 1928 Nazism
appeared to be a dying cause. Now that Germany's outlook was suddenly
bright, the Nazi Party was rapidly withering away. One scarcely heard of
Hitler or the Nazis except as a joke.”William Shirer, an American
journalist, said this in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich to
describe the declining status of the Nazis and Hitler in 1928. Indeed,
Hitler didn’t have mass support between 1924 and 1929 because of the
dramatic economic improvement of the Weimar Republic, the social
stability in the nation, and the political limitations on Hitler and the
reorganization inside the Nazi Party. Although the economic and social
stability would instantly disappear after the Great Depression and the
Nazis would ultimately take control of Germany, Hitler’s support between
1924 and 1929 only earned him a popular vote of 2.6% in Germany’s
national election in 1928. This statistic extensively displays the fact
that Hitler did not have support between 1924 and 1929.
-->
Assess Stresemann’s Achievements
-->
When Gustav Stresemann was appointed chancellor in
1923 due to the support of the Social Democratic Party[1], he faced a
Germany that lay in ruins. During this time one US dollar was worth 4
621 000 German Marks compared to 12 Marks in April 1919[2] and Germany
was in the middle of the Ruhr crisis. With these problems at hand
Stresemann had to act swiftly and called of the passive resistance
against the French and he also introduced a new and stable currency; the
Rentenmark. What followed was period of prosperity and in the next six
years, in which Stresemann acted as the foreign minister, he drew up and
agreed on a series of treaties and pacts, for which he was in 1926
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize[3]. Nonetheless, the onset of the Great
Depression and Stresemann’s death on October 3, 1929[4] had dramatic
effects on Weimar Germany and thus it could be argued, that while
Stresemann was able to stabilize a collapsing Germany he was unable to
secure its future.
-->
The
signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 caused an enormous unrest in
the German public and like AJP Taylor argued, “no German accepted it as
a fair settlement and all Germans wanted to shake it off.” According to
article 232 Germany had to pay reparations for the destruction caused
in World War 1[1] and when Germany was unable to pay a these reparations
the French simply invaded the Ruhr. The German government then called
for a passive resistance against the French, however, as soon as
Stresemann became chancellor he called of this passive resistance[2] on
September 26, in order to economically save Germany. In addition,
Stresemann was able to introduce a new currency, the Rentenmark and
through this bring an end to hyperinflation. Nonetheless, Stresemann’s
step in calling of the passive resistance was seen by many as if Germany
was again surrendering to the allies and especially Hitler, and other
right-wing extremists capitalized on this during the Beer Hall Putsch in
Munich in 1923. Apart from putting down the Munich Beer Hall Putsch, he
had no role in this; it was a strictly localised matter Stresemann was
also able to break up a revolt of the Black Reichswehr led by Bruno
Buchrucker in Saxony and was with this, in his 100 days of being
Chancellor[3] able to head Weimar Germany into a more prosperous time
period. good conclusion
The years 1924 to 1929 are commonly referred to as
a “Golden Age” or the “the years of hope”[4] and indeed, Stresemann, as
foreign minister, was able to persuade France to withdraw from the Ruhr
and also signed the Dawes Plan in 1924[5]. but here's where you're
invited to assess both. Instead you simply refer to them without me
knowing what they represent In addition, Stresemann took the initiative
in 1925 that led to the Locarno Pact and made it possible for Germany to
enter the League of Nations in 1926. Finally, in 1929 he also helped
set up the Young Plan, which effectively reduced the reparations that
Germany had to pay. Furthermore, it was due to Stresemann that Hitler’s
Party, the NSDAP, only achieved 14 seats in the Reichstag in the
December 1924 elections and even less, only 12 seats, in the May 1928
elections[6]. This clearly shows that the public was not willing to risk
the peace and the prosperity of the time period by voting for an
extremist party like the NSDAP but was much rather satisfied with voting
for a more conservative central party. Additionally, as Stresemann’s
actions were slowly bringing more strength and prosperity into Weimar
Germany Hitler was forced to the Munich Putsch in 1923 evidence?,
although he was by far not ready for this, as otherwise he would lose
even more support. was this clear at the time? This was because less and
less people were likely to support him as the Weimar Republic grew in
stability. These two examples evidently show how successful Stresemann’s
policies were, as only one year after his death the support for the
NSDAP had increased from 12 seats in the Reichstag to an astounding 107
seats in the September 1930 elections[7]. not convinced; you seem to be
using various points to support your own ideas.
Nonetheless, Stresemann’s policies were in reality
far from creating an economical and political stable Weimar Germany. In
fact, they served as a mere mirage to mask the true faults of the
republic. Although during Stresemann’s time as he was able contain
Hitler and stop him from rising, he lay the cornerstone for Hitler’s
plans to attack the East. Whilst Stresemann was happy to settle the
Western borders he refused to make any treaties with the countries on
the Eastern front relating to the acceptance of these borders[8].
Moreover, it seemed to many Germans that Stresemann was more of a
European peace broker than an actual German chancellor and this brought
him domestic unpopularity. A large part of the population shared the
opinion that while Stresemann was focusing very much on his foreign
policy he was forgetting the fact that Germany itself faced serious
problems. Many also felt that he was siding too much with the SDP and
this further decreased his popularity, as in their opinion he should
stay true to his party. Furthermore, but what do you think? When a
politician manages to do great things even though the people are against
him, that makes him a true statesman. only 11 months after his death
the public voted for anti-democratic parties and allowed the NSDAP to
increase their seats by 95. In the same elections the Communist Party
was also able to gain 23 seats in the Reichstag compared to only nine
the elections in May 1928[9].
Although,? Stresemann managed to admit a Germany,
that in the years 1919 to 1923 alone killed 356 politicians, into the
League of Nations in 1926 and signed important treaties like the Rapallo
or Dawes Plan, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1926.
but at no time do you assess any of these achievements, such as they
were. His achievements were unable to outlast his death. He laid the
foundation for Hitler to increase his percentage in the Reichstag from
2.6 % in May 1928 to a shattering 288 seats in March 1933[10] and with
that take control of Germany. He lost the publics trust in democracy and
while is achievements should be valued highly, they were in themselves
weak and only a mere mirage.
[1] "The Treaty of Versailles." Then Again. . . Web. 03 Feb. 2011. .
[2] Weimar Germany 1919-1933." Home Page. Web. 02 Feb. 2011. .
[3]
Thackeray, Frank W., and John E. Findling. Events That Changed the
World in the Nineteenth Century. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1996. 104.
Print.
[4] "The Golden Age Of Weimar." Upload & Share PowerPoint Presentations and Documents. Web. 03 Feb. 2011. .
[5] 10 11 13 14 Weimar Germany 1919-1933." Home Page. Web. 02 Feb. 2011. .
[8] Martel, Gordon. A Companion to Europe: 1900-1945. Malden, Mass., USA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. 332. Print.
[1] "Gustav Stresemann." Spartacus Educational - Home Page. Web. 02 Feb. 2011. .
[2] "Weimar Germany 1919-1933." Home Page. Web. 02 Feb. 2011. .
[3] "Gustav Stresemann." Spartacus Educational - Home Page. Web. 02 Feb. 2011. .
[4] “Weimar Germany 1919-1933." Home Page. Web. 02 Feb. 2011. .
The question requires candidates
to identify and critically assess the role of each of the three
elements in explaining the failure of democracy in Germany. Other
elements/reasons may be included but the main focus should be on the
above. It is not simply an essay on the rise of the Nazis/Hitler.
For
weaknesses in terms of the constitution many will no doubt emphasise
the issues of proportional representation (with the corresponding
coalition governments) and the use/abuse of Article 48 by 1930. Some
candidates may argue the merits of the constitution and attribute its
problems not to the structure/provisions but to the unwillingness of
parties/individuals to work the constitution in the spirit of democracy –
pointing out for example the circumstances in which the new system was
inaugurated.
For economic crises the impact of the hyperinflationary
period (1923) and the depression years from 1929 should be well known.
Links should be made between the crises and the effects upon the
stability/progress of the republic.
For political extremism (left-
and right-wing) candidates could refer to the actions of the
Spartacists/KPD during Weimar's existence (and the real or perceived
threats these constituted) and the activities of rightist extremists
ranging from the Freikorps/Kapp Putschists of the early period through
to the attempts (parliamentary and extra-parliamentary) of the National
Socialists and their associates to undermine/overthrow the Weimar
democratic system.
N.B. If only one of the required areas is
addressed, mark out of a maximum of [8 marks]. If only two of the areas
are addressed, mark out of a maximum of [12 marks].
EXAMPLE ONE:
The more one knows about Weimar Germany, the more one is baffled by its formless image. Its kaleidoscopic nature inspires curiosity and frustration. Certainly, the study of the Weimar Republic is of necessity the study of life in a precarious world. While the Republic was distinguished by great creativity, its cultural output consistently enhances one’s sensitivity to the ‘‘terrible things over the horizon.’’ With Peter Gay’s observation always in mind that the Re- public was ‘‘born in defeat, lived in turmoil, and died in disaster,’’ one approaches it as if stepping on hallowed ground; the life history of so many participants is wrenching. However, that history is also instructive and enriching. One cannot deny the Republic’s prefascistic qualities; however, the comprehensive study demanded for this project has demonstrated that the picture of Weimar as a ‘‘republic without republicans,’’ while enchanting, is fundamentally wrong. It is true that conservative politicians who deigned to cooperate with the National Socialists often did so because of their antirepublicanism. Few realized, until it was too late, the extent to which the Nazis’ view of government and society was revolutionary, repudiating not only republican but also traditional notions of legality and public responsibility. Hitler used such na ̈ıvete ́ to his advantage. Yet by viewing Weimar through the lens of the Third Reich, historians too often focus on failure. Vividly seeing the roles of Hitler, Hugenberg, Hindenburg, and Papen, they fail to discern such actors as Otto Braun, Carl Severing, Arnold Brecht, Ernst Heilmann, or Rudolf Hilferding. It is no accident that most of these individuals were associated with the state of Prussia. Prussia in the Weimar era was remarkably successful at throwing over the political authoritarianism that had marked this, the largest German state, during the Wilhelmine Reich. Notable for political alliances that proved fragile when attempted in the Reichstag, Prussia was governed from 1920 until 1932 by a collection of astute pragmatists uncommonly successful at political compromise. As Dietrich Orlow underscored in his study Weimar Prussia, the history of Prussia—that is, the history of the state comprising three-fifths of Germany’s territory—‘‘is largely ignored in accounts of political dynamics during the republican years.’’
Of the many problems the compiler of a dictionary of German history faces, one of the most frustrating is language. The German adjective vo ̈lkisch (from Volk, meaning ‘‘people’’ or ‘‘race’’), for example, cannot be adequately trans- lated into English. Often rendered ‘‘racist’’ or ‘‘racial,’’ it might also be trans- lated ‘‘nationalist,’’ ‘‘nativist,’’ or even ‘‘anti-Semitic.’’ Although the word ‘‘ethnic’’ is sometimes employed, it is inadequate without a clear anti-Semitic property. In any case, this dictionary uses the translation ‘‘racial.’’ But it remains important to note that the Nazi Party was viewed in the Weimar era as an extreme example of both the nationalist Right and the vo ̈lkisch movement. Other German words may also prove troublesome. One translation with which some may quibble is ‘‘Prime Minister’’ for Ministerpra ̈sident; although ‘‘Minister President’’ may be more accurate, it fails to properly relate the nature of the position to Anglo-Saxon users. The user should consult the Glossary for other translations.
Of equal importance is my frequent use of the expression ‘‘seizure of power’’ when referring to Hitler’s appointment and rapid consolidation of political con- trol. This may trouble those who view his installation on 30 January 1933 as natural and constitutional—predetermined by three years of electoral success. But this begs a question as to how natural or constitutional was Germany’s political condition after the inauguration of Presidential Cabinets in 1930. I hold the view that from the Reichstag elections of September 1930, Germany was marked by a pseudo-constitutionality that increasingly paralyzed proponents of the Republic, subverted the practice of parliamentary democracy, and steadily moved the country in the direction of an authoritarian regime. Yet, while em- bracing this perspective, I reject the concomitant notion that the inevitable result was a Nazi state. Indeed, the NSDAP was seriously damaged by the Reichstag elections of November 1932, and there was every indication that, given a few more months of economic recovery and perhaps one more national election, Hitler’s political edifice would have crumbled. To quote one historian, it is ‘‘one of history’s most tragic ironies that at precisely the moment when the [Nazi] party’s electoral support had begun to falter, Hitler was installed as chancellor’’ (Childers, Nazi Voter, p. 269). That installation, resulting from a backroom palace intrigue hatched by shortsighted conservatives, was neither constitutional nor inevitable. Hitler, of course, seized his opportunity (indeed, the expression ‘‘seizure of power’’ was first employed by the NSDAP) with a skill that aston- ished his would-be manipulators, effortlessly consolidating his position at their expense during the following five months.
As the words ‘‘Weimar Republic’’ should invoke much more than political turmoil, entries have been offered on such topics as cabaret, film, music, theater, and the Bauhaus. Moreover, in an attempt to span the arts and sciences, infor- mation is provided on individuals from Karl Abraham to Arnold Zweig. (As- terisks are used throughout to reference other full entries.) Sources of additional information are provided at the end of each entry. To save space, these are limited to the author’s last name and an abbreviated title; complete citations are included in the bibliography at the end of the book.
Nevertheless, I harbor no illusions that the dictionary will satisfy every user. Although it is more comprehensive than any comparable single volume in En- glish, it remains of necessity a work of synthesis. Moreover, given market con- straints, I must quote Aby Warburg in saying that what follows feels a bit ‘‘like a stripped Christmas tree.’’ Many entries should have been—and, indeed, were—lengthier; others are simply missing. No one will argue, for example, that much of the intellectual tapestry of the period was produced in Switzerland or by Austrians, Czechs, and Hungarians: for example, Broch, Freud, Hesse, Kafka, Kraus, Luka ́cs, Reinhardt, Rilke, Roth, Werfel, and Zweig. But while these individuals are properly viewed as quintessential ‘‘Weimar,’’ several of them did no more than visit Germany during 1918–1932. Unless they were an integral part of Weimar life—as were Luka ́cs, Reinhardt, and Roth—they do not appear in this book. I sincerely regret this fact.
Although the author of a historical dictionary can identify the rich web of connections that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts, the user is less likely to appreciate the reality of these associations. Perhaps the words of Mephistopheles, taken from Goethe’s Faust, will lend credibility to this reality:
Methinks the workshop of our mind
Resembles those looms of a special kind
Where the treadle a thousand threads will lift
While the shuttles are flitting in both directions
The woven tissue invisibly shifts And one move makes a myriad
connections.
1918 29 Sept. 3–4 Oct. 28 Oct. 3 Nov. 3–9 Nov. 9 Nov. 10 Nov. 11 Nov. 12 Nov. 15 Nov. 14 Dec. 16–20 Dec. 28–9 Dec. 1919 1 Jan. 5–11 Jan. 15 Jan. 18 Jan. 19 Jan. 6 Feb. 11 Feb. 13 Feb. 21 Feb. Feb.–May 2–6 Mar. Army High Command calls for immediate armistice and establishment of a parliamentary regime. Germany proposes armistice to President Wilson. Adoption of parliamentary constitution; mutiny of the High Seas Fleet at Wilhelmshaven. Czechoslovak republic proclaimed in Prague. Armistice between Austria-Hungary and the Allies; sailors’ rebellion at Kiel. Rebellion spreads in Germany, soldiers’ and workers’ councils formed in many cities. Abdication of William II; proclamation of the German republic. Formation of Council of People’s Representatives (SPD–USPD); Ebert–Groener agreement. Armistice signed at Compiègne. Poland an independent republic. German Austria proclaims itself part of the Reich. Central Working Association agreement between heavy industry and trade unions. ‘Khaki election’ in Britain. Congress of Councils in Berlin; decision to hold election to National Assembly on 19 Jan. 1919. USPD members withdraw from Council of People’s Representatives. Foundation of KPD (German Communist Party). Street fighting in Berlin (Spartacist rising). Murder of Karl Liebkneckt and Rosa Luxemburg. Peace conference opens in Paris (without the defeated Central Powers). Election of National Assembly. Opening of National Assembly in Weimar. Friedrich Ebert elected Reich President. Scheidemann Cabinet (‘Weimar coalition’) of SPD (Social Democrats), DDP (left-wing Liberals) and Catholic Centre). Murder of Bavarian Minister-President, Kurt Eisner. Disturbances, strikes and riots in many parts of Germany. Founding congress of the Third International (Comintern) in Moscow. 21 Mar.– 1 Aug. 7 Apr.– 2 May 7 May 16 June 20 June 28 June 11 Aug. Sept. 11 10 Sept. Nov. Soviet republic in Hungary (Béla Kun). Soviet republic in
