During a depression, political trends become extremist and so the Nazis flourished; Hitler offered both a scapegoat and himself as a strong leader to look up to. The depression gave Hitler the edge he needed to gain ninety-five[1] seats in the Reichstag and ultimately progress from the leader of a minority party to the Dictator of the Third Reich. The Depression also drew attention to the weaknesses of the Weimar Constitution; as poverty and unemployment increased, respect for the democratic system drastically decreased. The German population did not want to be governed by a democracy as it was such a governing body that signed the Treaty of Versailles. Hatred for this document was still rife in Germany and so Hitler, who openly detested the Treaty, became the obvious choice.
The Weimar republic was created in 1919 with the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm ll, it was created at a time of confusion and chaos after Germany had lost the First World War. Between 1919 and 1923 it had to deal with many problems such as extremists’ attacks, the treaty of Versailles and the reparations crisis. Firstly Germany had no tradition of democracy and had always had strong leaders; Germans weren't ready for democracy and did not agree to it. With Germany suffering very badly because of the war it added onto the hatred the democracy had made. The new government was the body that signed the treaty of Versailles, and to many it was a betrayal and most Germans referred to it as the ‘stab in the back theory’.
The first key issue I would like to discuss is the limited nature of the German revolution and how this damaged the prospects of German democracy. The way that Ebert used to take control lead damaged the prospects of democracy from the outset. Historians have criticised Ebert’s use of force to crush radical groups such as the Spartacists and his use of the Freikorps. Together with the crushing Spartacists in 1919 caused these left wing radicals to become divided and were therefore unwilling to compromise on reforms in the Reichstag. This made it far more difficult for coalitions to form and for democracy to function in the designed fashion.
With in reference to Somme’s many historians critique General Haig for his ruthlessness in War World I but it is easily argued that the Germans would not have fallen without such a blow to their numbers. Hindenburg himself admitted to the affect Somme’s had on Germany. This was all together considered “the big push” in the war and was much needed in the overall victory over Germany. In regards to the
Therefore it is safe to say that Nicholas ll had greater number of failures than successes during his reign. Firstly, let us analyze the successes of Tsar Nichols ll. The Tsar’s reforms themselves cannot be directly attributed to him, for they were mostly introduced by his two most competent ministers: Sergei Witte, Minister of Finance from 1892-1903 and Peter Stolypin, Chief Minister from 1907-1914. Sergei Witte was well aware of the miserable conditions that existed in Russia. There was agricultural inefficiency and backwardness, industrial out was one of the lowest among European nations and poor transportation and communication caused delays that hurt the economy.
Treaty of Versailles was the peace treaty which officially ended World War I. it was very burdensome on the German economy. Germany was just a devastated by the war as anyone else, but they were very hard pressed to rebuild with the massive reparation payments they were required to make. But the reason why they did soo debt on them is because of Germany made a great destruction on countries, especially on French. I think the reasons for WW2 were: Treaty of Versailles, Hitler’s rise to power and Militarism. Treaty
Furthermore, German politics suffered polarisation as the left and right became more extreme, divisions were caused by differing views over war aims and developing concern over the establishment of the ‘Silent Dictatorship’. The first world war definitely narrowed political divisions initially which can be shown through Burgfriede which was introduced on 4th August to symbolise the political truce between all parties, even the supposedly ’unpatriotic’ Social Democrat Party gave their support for what was presented as a defensive war. However this political unity did not last as the military was unable to deliver on the quick victory that they had promised, and as the Schlieffen Plan failed and the heavy losses in battles such as Verdunn, the unity of the parties began to fracture. Subsequently Falkenhayn failed to find alternative strategies to break the stalemate and as a result Falkenhayn was replaced with military hero Hindenburg. For this reason, one can argue how the First World War increased political divisions.
Due to the failure of the Weimar Republic and general public dissatisfaction arising from poor economic conditions exacerbated by the Treaty of Versailles, coupled with the 1929 Wall Street Crash, German citizens were understandably desperate for change. Until this point in time the Nazi party, and Hitler, had been essentially unpopular. However, the economic situation ensured Hitler’s increasing popularity as the people looked toward more extreme but non-communist ideals. The initial consolidation of Nazi power in 1933 arose from key events such as the reichstag fire, implementation of the Enabling Law, removal of external and internal opposition, and the night of long knives. Although Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazi party was still outnumbered in the cabinet, so when the election was called in February 1933 Hitler knew that he must once again win the support of the public.
The harsh reparation payments by the Treaty Of Versailles ( £6600 million) was indeed a threat to the Weimar Republic. However, there was low unemployment of 17% and a growth in foreign investment. This economic crisis led to a more extreme political threat within German and therefore should be considered as more significant. There a high amount of tension between parties, and strikes between both the Left and the Right were becoming ever more apparent due to the lack of faith within the government. In fact the groups within the right such as the Freikorps and consul organisation showed an increasing amount of violence because of their lack of support on democracy, which of course created a tremendous threat to the Weimar Republic.
At the time, the German General Staff was depending on the Schiefflen Plan to make World War I quick and decisive — allegedly making industry rather useless and unnecessary. Historian Joseph Borkin, argues that it was this idea that led to the decline of Germany in World War I. Those that supported the Schiefflen Plan clearly did not understand the importance of industrial supremacy during wartime and its ability to make a war of exhaustion possible. His argument was sound, The