This meant that Germany had a long period of time to pay back the reperations, causing less harm to the economy and political stability. This evidence are reasons for recovery. I agree with this view as there were many factors, as shown above, that make me feel the recovery was affective. On the other hand, evidence shows that many people may disagree with the recovery of the Weimar Republic. Political recovery had against factors as the basic problems of the constitution remained.
The rapid growth of old and new industries led to a population migration from rural to urban areas. The agricultural industry was another of the industries that faced a lot of changes, mechanisation meant better yields which therefore meant that, less agricultural workers were needed. There is evidence to support and contradict whether or not those economic developments did in fact threaten the power of the elites. There is evidence to support the idea that the economic developments in Germany in the period 1900-1914 didn’t pose a threat to the power of the elites because economic growth and the opening up of new industries bring many benefits with them. While it has been argued that an exceptional economic growth caused some problems, the advantages that came with it, outweigh the negatives.
One thing the Germans were not happy in the treaty of Versailles is the War Guilt Clause, take blame for the war. Because of this they had to the reparation to the big three. The German government didn’t have the money to pay for the reparation as the country just lost a war and the factory are destroy and the environment is in a poor state. So then the USA banks lend Germany government loans. Its was all going well as Germany was getting in a better state and they are paying their reparation until 1929.
At the end of 1923, Stresemann became Chancellor and also served as the foreign minister until his death in 1929. During these years, Germany recovered in economy, national pride and confidence. These years can be perceived as the “Golden Age” of the republic. However, this redemption in Germany may not have been as full as it seems so it is necessary to balance the successes and failures. Initially, during this period Stresemann made some tough decisions but they resulted in a stabilised economy.
The involvement of the German Army and other military groups in Weimar politics served to strengthen the Republic in the early years but later lead to its downfall. In 1918 the Ebert-Groener Pact was signed, ultimately giving the moderate-left side of Weimar politics (also known as the Socialist Democrats Party) the support of the traditionally right army in response to fears the extreme left might take power. This served a dual purpose in that it both maintained the power of the army in German politics and it also strengthened the position of the Weimar Republic in the eyes of the citizens, who still respected the army. Despite the Ebert-Groener Pact, in late 1918 Defence Minister Noske created the Freikorps, a paramilitary force of former soldiers and volunteers, which allowed for these small militant groups to be satisfied with their power – hence strengthening support for the new Reichstag – but later proved to create political instability through the Freikorps’ uncontrolled violence, which ultimately damaged the public perceptions of the Weimar Government. During the late 1920s, the involvement of the Sturm-Abteilung (SA) in the politics of the Nazi Party initially furthered
When Keynes rejected the scale of reparations placed on Germany and resigned from his post at the Treasury, he lead the way for what many leading politicians were to understand later on. Keynes supported the approach of Lloyd George that for economic and political reasons, Europe needed a successful Germany, which would be seriously difficult to achieve whilst the excessive reparations were placed on them. Furthermore, his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919), was successful in influencing the view of Britain that a weak Germany would only make the recovery of Europe after the war, a lot more difficult. On the other hand, from taking this view, politicians were criticised for being 'too lenient' towards Germany. Even Lloyd George, who took a much tougher political approach towards the reparations, received criticism.
Railroad expansion was relatively new during the gilded age. The railroad industry had a harsh start due to the fact that no profit was made and therefore made it highly risky to finish the railroad project. This caused many dilemmas because this made it hard to gather many investors and so the railroad companies request assistance from the government to help them complete the railroad system. (Doc H) The government saw that the railroads could help them establish the postal service, transport troops, and keep the westerners from being disconnected from the east and seceding. (Doc K) They
Most Americans feared socialism; they linked it to trade unions, mass immigration and anarchy. Socialists believed in equality Big business leaders were afraid of organised labour; the growth of for ‘social justice’ including causes such as women’s suffrage, direct election to the senate and conservation. Some Progressives were pacifists and anti-imperialists but most were strong nationalists. The Progressive wing of the Republican party reunited with the mainstream party in 1916. Progressivism achieved very little as a separate party but at one time, it seemed that it could achieve national support.
Although the Treaty of Versailles can be said to have has the most substantial impact on the political and economic stability of Germany, the arguments against its influence suggest that other factors were more important. For example, though the treaty can be said to have caused bad feeling in the country and hyperinflation, there were a number of problems with the constitution that meant that the Government became unpopular, sparking a number of revolts. In opposition to the sentiment expressed in the question, one factor that affected political stability of the Weimar republic was the fact that it was ruled by a coalition Government. Clauses of the constitution meant that elections were held using proportional representation. As a result, a clear majority of one party over the remaining twenty-seven was never a result, and so the country, from the time the Constitution was drawn up, was governed by coalitions.
This was the worst of the League’s actions in the 1920s. Since this was one of the first of its challenges, maybe after this, matters were taken more seriously, which could be why they failed as badly as they did for the Vilna case. The only other notable event where the League’s members undermined the League of Nations was the Geneva Protocol in 1924. It was created by Britain and France to ensure that if two members were in dispute the Council would sort out the disagreement and the members had to accept the decision. This was meant to strengthen the League but in Britain, re-elections took place and the new government refused to sign the Protocol.