In my opinion, the period of 1924 - 1929 is often seen as the high point of the Weimar Republic. This interpretation is also heightened by the fact that the period before it (1919-1923) was filled with the crisis and chaos of rebellions, political assassinations and hyperinflation. Also, the political and economic uncertainty that followed in 1929-1933 added to this description. However, the fact that such rapid disintegration followed after 1929 has lead many historians to believe that the Republic was, in-fact, not so stable at all. This suggests to me that there are possible factors which may appoint me to disagree with this view.
PR allowed small parties like the NSDAP in the 1920s, to thrive. Poor leadership - the Weimar political parties did not work together harmoniously – e.g. there were 20 governments in this period - Holtferich Weimar was never able to achieve legitimacy among a large proportion of German society – e.g. the civil service, judiciary, academics, the Army – Kocka / Broszat, Momsen / Bracher The incomplete revolution of 1918-19 never achieved a clear out of the establishment that would have helped the system to survive later. Rurup Overcoming the political immaturity of the German people - Orlow CONCLUSION The Weimar Republic
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.
“Reluctant reformers.” How far do you agree with this view of Russian Rulers from 1855-1964? There is a common theme through most of the period that Russian rulers and the reforms they introduced were less than radical, and were indeed ‘reluctant’ in their approach. As the tsars were only the most recent of a long line of autocratic and orthodox rulers it is hardly surprising that they may not be particularly progressive. This essay will define reform as changes to government and processes wherein that cause a notable impact upon the population. The areas to investigate include political, economic, social and military reforms from the Russian government in order to see if they are ‘reluctant reformers’ or not.
The impact of the TOV on the Weimar republic to 1929 was more significant than any other factor. How accurate is this statement? The impact of the Treaty of Versailles on the Weimar republic was more significant than another factor leading to its collapse, however it’s downfall cannot be attributed to any single factor. The Treaty of Versailles had major economic, social and political impacts on Germany after WWI. However these were compounded by other factors such as fundamental flaws in the democratic system, hyperinflation, the occupation of the Ruhr and the onset of the great depression.
Account for the successes and failures of democracy in Germany in the period 1918–1933 The democracy in Germany from 1918 to 1933, the Weimer Republic, is considered as both successful and unsuccessful. The democracy system in Germany was chaotic when it first emerged, but it became relatively stable until it collapsed during the great depression in 1929 and was then taken over by Nazism. Democracy refers to a form of government that is controlled by people and was a condition under the Treaty of Versailles. The success of democracy can be seen through the establishment of the bills of rights and mainly through the Stresemann era. - It was a provisional government formed due to the abdication of the Kaiser.
The crucial weakness of the Weimer republic lay not in the strength of its enemies but in the striking absence of its friends. Germany had enjoyed relative stability throughout 1920-1924, it was later realised as a veneer of stability and would crash following the collapse of wall St. there was still many latent, structural problems ready to surface once trouble struck. One of the key reasons for the demise of the Weimar Republic was that the post-war situation was not conducive to the creation of a radically new system of Government. Mostly, Germans had no say in the new government and it was strongly forced upon, the Weimer republic was the only hope they had in order to bring back nationalism and stability at the time, although during the 1920’s, all it could be seen as was an unstable democracy, with little support. Temporary successes during the Weimer republic includes the foreign policy, Germany is finally invited to join the league of nations, this represented change as it stated it the treaty of Versailles that this was not permitted.
Through examining these factors this essay intents to argue that popular policies did help the Nazis remain in power to a small extent, however the other factors also were required. The presence of force confirms that Nazi remaining in power did not rely solely on genuine support. On the one hand there is evidence that the Nazis introduced popular social and economic policies which won them support to enable them to stay in power. Most significantly was the drop in unemployment. This dropped from just below 6 million when Hitler came to power to 250,000 in 1938 and had disappeared by 1939.
These laws proved to be highly unsuccessful and caused resentment towards Augustus, forcing him to revise them in AD 9 through the Lex Papia Poppaea. This amendment reduced penalties against unmarried and childless people, whilst increasing rewards for those married with children. Overall, Augustus’ social reforms were definitely not as successful as his political ones due to the unpopularity and resentment they created. Conclusively, it is evident that Augustus introduced many new political and social reforms and managed to create a whole new system of government through the Principate. Augustus was clearly more successful with his political reforms
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.