The Wilhelmine Germany Was an Entrenched Authoritarian State'. How Far Do You Agree with This Judgement?

403 Words2 Pages
'The Wilhelmine Germany was an entrenched authoritarian state'. How far do you agree with this judgement? Whether Wilhelmine Germany was an entrenched state is a subject of much debate among historians. Although many have argued that it was mainly the structure of the consititution in Wilhelmine Germany which gave the Kaiser complete authority over Germany. 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. The Kaiser's constitutional powers showed that he certainly had enough potential powers to be a authoritarian leader and i believe he fulfilled all his potential by using his power to 'ensure the constitution preserves the power of the elite' which was Bismarks main aim as the chancellor. The Kaiser could appoint and dismiss the Chancellor, dissolve the Reichstag with the consent of the Bundesrat, control Germany's foreign policy and serves as the commander of chief of the armed forces. The plethora of consitutional powers the Kaiser held clearly supports the
Open Document