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
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.
Germany was still a very young country in the 20th century, as it only became unified in 1871 it was unknown whether they would succeed or fail as a country after their initial success against France. The unification of states lead to a constitution, which was created by Otto von Bismark, whose main aim, was to preserve the power of the elite in Germany. This meant that the Kaiser was given a large amount of power over the people, shown by the fact he had complete control over the Reichstag and the Chancellor. Although, there were signs of democracy taking place through the creation of the Bundesrat and Reichstag, which would argue against an authoritarian monarchy, the political structure was unclear and the two parliaments had limited power. 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.
- It was a provisional government formed due to the abdication of the Kaiser. - Success can be seen through the establishment of the bill of rights and the stresemann era, where the country experienced prosperity and people were entitled to rights and freedom - As part of the democracy system, Germans were allowed to vote and elect members of the Reichstag and the president. - The republic and the foreign concept of democracy faced many significant obstacles at the time. - Democracy in 1919 - 1923 Germany under the Weimar Republic experienced a true democracy The golden years Economic: -Stresemann became chancellor in Auguest 1923. -Stresemann altered the policies with the introduction of Dawes plan and the young plan.
However despite this, these conservative elites had both positive and negative impacts on German politics. Conservative parties included DNVP (German National People’s Party), DVP (German Conservative Party) and the Nazi Party, and the conservative elites included the judiciary, the army, the education system, the bureaucracy, industry, the police and agriculture. Conservative elites had a major impact on German politics in the period 1918-1934. The establishment of a Democracy was at best tolerated by conservative elites of Germany who had always blamed the democracy for the loss of war and the Treaty of Versailles in what became known as the “stab in the back” legend. Despite this, the German army established a reluctant acceptance of the democracy through the Ebert-Groener Pact of 1919.
This was successful because Safe guards were put in place to ensure that no one could ever take all power as Hitler Did when he was President of the post war Reichstag. The West German parliament made sure of this by making it so the president had to be elected into power, and didn’t have overall power over the government. Furthermore rules were put in place stating that parties needed at least 5% of the votes in order to gain a seat in parliament. This was a success as it prevented any extremist parties from getting seats within the Bundestag. One political party with in the bundestag was the CDU.
The general consensus was that smaller states demanded a more active role in the government, despite their smaller populations, but the larger states claimed bias and claimed that, in essence, “majority rules”. Some major delegates also used this opportunity to forever shut the ghosts of Shay, in which the government was granted significant power to suppress like wise rebellions. The government would be in essence based on that of England, but with a conglomeration of majority and state rule. Prominent figures such as James Madison proposed compromises, which led eventually to the decline of states rights and the abolishment of the Articles of Confederation. This, however, was also balanced so to ratify the Constitution.
But in reality, especially in the “domain of foreign affairs”…the central legal issues rarely come before the Court at all. The law is effectively settled within the executive branch or by the informal agreements between the president and Congress” (Caplan 21). The other branches of government are aware of the overuse of presidential power but do not know how to address the issue to somehow resolve or better the situation. Too much executive power could lead to the abolishment or stacking of Congress, the judiciary system, the House and the Senate. By doing this it would lead the democracy to a dictatorship.
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.
This was further elaborated by Maoz and Russett (1993) that political disputes among democratic countries are settled through compromises instead of the destruction of the opposite side. Proponents of liberalism do agree that clashes in interests among liberal democracies are common but their solutions taken will not far off from the set of boundaries that are set by each country in dealing with foreign matters. Dixon (1994) termed such behavior as “bounded competition” in which countries vowed to regulate rivalry in clashes of interest in a peaceful and nonviolent step. It is worth noticing that there are non-liberal countries like Saudi Arabia may share a diplomatic relationship with liberal democracies like America.