However, many would agree that the politcal establishment only obtained there status quo through the use of force. The Zabern affair highlights how any protests in Alsace-Lorraine were diffused by the Kaiser? instructions, this shows how political parties were too timid to dispute the Kaiser's decision; therefore the political party had limited powers and shows weakness with the political establishment. Furthermore, it is important to discuss the impact of the moderate policies that were put in place in order to keep the people happy. Firstly, the 1902 Tariff Law was introduced, improving on Bismarck’s 1879 Tariff Law.
However in reality this was not the case, as because Lenin believed he was speeding up the dialectical phase of Marxism he adopted the ideology of ‘dictatorship’ rather than ‘communism’ due to his belief that he was the only one capable of leading the country to communism. The adjustment of ideology meant that there was little difference between his ideology and the ideology of ‘autocracy’ on which the preceding Tsars had based their rule. This meant that both the Tsars and the Communists believed in absolute rule, (good evaluation in this para)which in turn affected the nature of the government in many ways. Firstly, it affected the structure, resulting in both Tsarist and communist government sharing a ‘top down’ structure, in which the leader at the time had absolute control, as shown by Alexander III use of Land captains to increase state control, Nicholas II overruling the decisions of the
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.
With Trotsky being on the extreme left and Bukharin on the extreme right an alliance between them was unthinkable, which created a struggle for power. Trotsky argued that the NEP was economically and ideologically misguided while Bukharin supported the NEP. Bukharin believed in socialism in one country while Trotsky believed that no socialist society could exist alone. Trotsky and Bukharin had the most authority while Kamenev and Zinovev lost their authority while changing their positions from the extreme right to the extreme left. Ideology was crucial to the alliances that formed following Lenin’s death.
Wilson, too, supported the Progressive movement. Despite Roosevelt’s attempts to bring the trusts under control, they were even more powerful in 1913 than they had been in 1900. Wilson believed that only action by the federal government could halt this process. He called his policies ”The New Freedom”. They were put into effect by a series of laws passed between 1913 and 1917.
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
Germany in 1914 was a growing Parliamentary democracy rather that an entrenched autocracy. How far do you agree with this view? Leading up to 1914 Germany, in the Second Reich, could be considered an autocracy because of the way Bismarck had left the Reichstag the Kaiser had a great deal of power that the German people had very little say on. However, I believe it would be very harsh to label the autocracy as entrenched as there was a constitutional crisis and this shed light on the fact that the Kaiser’s power was not absolute. Also, events such as the Hottentot election of 1907 and the Daily Telegraph affair were examples of when the Kaiser had to work and deal with the democratic sides of the constitution.
However, structuralists have argued that towards the end of this period, and the start of the War in 1914, the Kaisers power was being slowly degraded from mass political movements (particularly socialist,) which would suggest that the authoritarian nature of Germany was not entrenched and subject to change from below. The constitution of the 2nd Reich gave key powers to the Kaiser, allowing him the de jure right to rule in an autocratic nature. The Kaiser was also the King of Prussia. He could also appoint or dismiss the chancellor whenever he pleased, dissolve the Reichstag with consent from the Bundesrat, and had control over foreign and military policies. Weltpolitik or “world policy” was the Kaisers attempt at dominating the political scene worldwide, a policy which is often cited as one of the reasons behind WWI.
However it could be argued that Wilhelm II’s aims to crush socialism in response to Caprivi’s tolerance for Socialism in his years as chancellor disagree with this view as it suggests he is aiming for more of an autocratic state where he holds state control. Another notable factor which suggests Germany was a parliamentary democracy is Wilhelm II could ignore the views of the centre party; failed attempts to previously dismiss them such as the Kulturkampf were a failure because the party’s strong political views are extremely influential, and they have always had a substantial amount of seats in the party. This in turn meant the government was influenced by the parliament. However, there were many events which demonstrate the Kaiser
Mckinnon emphasizes that the unification of Germany was not an unavoidable outcome of economical forces. However, he does admit that Austrian exclusion from the Zolverein consequently cut them off from German economic life, which lead to important political consequences.Merriman agrees with this and adds that Bismarck was given great support from businessmen that believed they would be given significant economic benefits due to unification. These facts illustrate that although historians such as Keynes state “the German empire was not founded on blood and iron but on coal and iron.” Historians views still differ greatly today, Keynes articulately emphasizes upon how the economic union failed to have a huge impact on the unification of Germany nevertheless he claims that all the impact that the economy did have is easily traced back to Bismarck as the driving force behind it. Perhaps the most important economic factor