However structuralists have argued that mass political movements in Germany were on the rise and did in fact influence politics. The power the Kaiser has was overwhelming because he didnt have to answer to neither the reichstag or the bundesrat, he ultimately has complete utter control over domestic and foreign policy. This would suggest that Wilhelmine Germany was an authoritarian state under the kaisers rule, but many historians such as Wehler suggested his own version of the argument which states that Wilhelmine Germany was in fact shaped by the elites (junkers) and the army which simply controlled the Kaiser from the shadows. In this essay i will discuss these interpretations offering the view that Wilhelmine Germany was an 'authoritarian' state under the rule of elites and ultimately the kaiser. Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers.
The Kaiser of Germany, who was the King of Prussia, could be the main reason why Germany was conceived as an authoritarian monarchy, due to the Kaiser having such a powerful constitutional position that no-one could challenge him. Kaiser Wilhelm II was not elected as Emperor of Germany but was automatically selected which instantly shows signs of an authoritarian state, rather than a democratic one. On top of this Wilhelm II had the power to appoint to and dismiss the Chancellor; which he exercised 5 times including on Bismark (1890) and Bulow (1909) these did show signs of power from the Kaiser but also a weakness in the structure of Germany as the Kaiser was not able to choose a Chancellor that would provide leadership and loyalty to him. The Kaiser was also given the power direct Germany’s foreign policy and command all armed forces in peace and war which does show incredible amounts of dictatorship like qualities. However, it could be argued that because Germany was so widespread with many class divisions it was almost an impossible task for Kaiser Wilhelm to please everyone causing groups like the ‘middelstand’ to join
One of the factors that possibly made Germany seem very much like an autocracy is the power the Kaiser had to dissolve the Reichstag ant to appoint a Chancellor of his choice. In all of these situations the Kaiser held supreme power and he needed no democratic authorisation – what he said was the final decision. It appeared the Kaiser used his power in order to shape the German government, an example of this is in 1900 when he appointed von Bulow as Chancellor in the hope that he could exercise power of the decisions he made. However, when von Bulow tried to assert how own authority following the, what could be considered, disastrous Daily Telegraph he was forced to hand in his resignation because he had lost the support, he initially had, of the Kaiser. This is an example of a strong autocratic element within the constitution.
Hitler’s authority was derived from his personal qualities as opposed to being vested in the office which he held. “All authority within the Party was ultimately concentrated in the hands of the leader, Hitler.” The party was organised around the idea of the Fuhrerprinzip. This laid down that power was concentrated in the hands of one leader and that his authority was absolute. This gives the impression of a very ordered power structure, but in reality it was more complex. Even before 1933, the Nazi Party leadership, Hitler aside, was undermined by its inability to exert control over the regional Gauleiters, who saw themselves as Hitler’s personal representatives responsible only to him.
It is happening because the powers of the prime minister are not well defined and mostly contained in unwritten conventions which are a mystery to most people. This means an individual prime minister like Thatcher or Blair can act in a presidential way without any constitutional controls. In the USA the written constitution states clearly what powers the president has and if he oversteps the mark the Supreme Court can step in. The British Supreme Court cannot do this because we do not have a codified constitution. This
The president was still a very powerful figure; he could block new laws by calling a referendum and could rule without the Reichstag in times of emergency (Article 48). In the right hands, Article 48 could work to Germany’s advantage by ensuring a swift response to a crisis like a war. The president, like before, could still appoint his ministers and chancellor. The Reich cabinet and chancellor, were under Article 54 of the constitution accountable to the Reichstag and had to resign if they lost the Reichstag’s confidence. The New parliament set up was to be made up of 2 houses; The Reichsrat and the Reichstag.
They let Hitler rebuild and conquer again. One way that Hitler was able to rebuild Germany was by a society called S.A. The leader was Ernst Roehm and he was a very powerful leader during this time. The S.A was gaining too much power and was becoming a threat to Hitler’s power. Therefore Hitler had no other choice but to purge the Sturmabteilung or S.A. After World War 1 the Treaty of Versailles stated that Germany could have a standing army.
Wilson stated, “No people must be forced under sovereignty under it does not wish to live. (Wilson, p. 71)” However, for Wilson’s plan to work scores of Germans in Prussia and in the West had to be displaced. Even though some areas were given plebiscites, he still had forced his vision on them. The creation of Yugoslavia out of many small ethnic states created a potential powder keg. As well, the only way that the Wilson plan would have survived the political intrigue of the Europeans was either through a league that had real teeth, or a super power willing to intervene as a worldwide police officer.
Upon becoming more popular and gaining more of the people’s support, both parties eliminated opposing political parties in some manner. Both banned opposing parties, but Hitler got Nazis into the legislative party, then took control, while Stalin exiled then killed Trotsky, whom he had a power struggle with. Stalin then used terror to keep power and eliminate opposing parties. Both leaders led political parties to support and power, but used different methods of gaining that power. Another similarity between Hitler’s and Stalin’s struggles to power is their method of gaining the people’s support.
Hitler achieved Nazi Germany’s single party state through the various stages of his accession to power. His first step in accession to power was through decrees; the “Emergency Decree”, suspended various parts of the constitution and “Enabling Act” for the “removal of the distress of people and state” the power to rule disregarding the constitution in order to deal with the problems confronting the nation this allowed Hitler to become a dictator. 1933 trade unions were abolished, to win the support of the working class and to control the organisation of labour. The ‘law against the Formation of New Parties’ declared that the Nazi’s were the only political party. 1934 all state parliaments were disbanded and power was transferred to the Reichstag.