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. Taking these examples into account, the Kaiser acted as an autocrat in areas where the Reichstag had no constitutional authority. The Second Reich with its new constitution gave near-autocratic powers to the Kaiser. It recognised the sovereign leader of the Reichstag as well as the Commander-in-Chief of the army. One of the factors that possibly made Germany seem very much like an autocracy is the power the Kaiser had to dissolve the Reichstag ant to appoint a Chancellor of his choice.
Economists view the economic conditions as the major reason for the downfall of the Weimar republic and the rise of the Nazis but political scientists like to point out the constitutional structure of the Weimar constitution. According to some it is one of the great ironies of history that Hitler came to power through legal means. One way Hitler managed his dictatorship was through the appointment as Chancellor in 1933. This helped establish a dictatorship because it helped Hitler and the Nazis gain support. I know from my background knowledge that once Hitler was named Chancellor big bankers and industrialists, including Krupp and I. G. Farben, had lobbied Hindenburg and schemed behind the scenes on behalf of Hitler because they were convinced he would be good for business.
In an extraordinary move designed to demonstrate the federal government's preeminence and power, the President ordered militia from several other states into Pennsylvania to keep order. Another domestic problem was The Battle of Fallen Timbers. This battle is important because in this battle the US defeated the major native tribes and took parts of the Ohio territory. The domestic problems in the US led to great outcomes but also there were outcomes that should’ve been different. The foreign affairs that the US dealt with allowed the upcoming political parties to bring forth their ideas of how the government should be run.
'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.
Source 1 seems to suggest that the Kaiser was the main cause of many of the problems apparent in Germany were due to the unchallengeable authority of the Kaiser. “It was the Kaiser…who insisted on exercising that authority” suggests that the dominance of the Kaiser was responsible for creating a lot of the problems in early 20th century Germany. This view is also shared by the historian John Rohl, who argued that Germany “was run as a ‘functioning monarchy’ with power concentrated in the hands of one man”, and therefore the Kaiser alone was responsible for successes or problems. Source one also suggests that the Kaiser “was responsible for ruining Germany’s relationship with Britain”. A key example of this would be the “Kruger telegram”, in which the Kaiser sent a personal telegram to President Kruger of the South African Republic, congratulating him on defeating British raiders.
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.
-Stresemann altered the policies with the introduction of Dawes plan and the young plan. - Germany was able to meet its reparation payments and the French left the area of Ruhr in 1924. The failures can be seen through the flaws in the constitution, political parties, economic failures the lack of support towards the republic. •The new parliament met in February 1919 and drew up a constitution that established Germany as a democracy. •It was a constitution that would preserve German democracy, liberties and rights of the people.
The End of Empires by Brandon Lim Empires are made of colonies from other countries; and are ruled by a single monarch that may differ in title, for example, the Tsar in Russia, King in England and Kaiser in German. As the twentieth century loomed, the world was dominated by the Great Powers .These nations were Great Britain, Russia, Germany, France and Austria- Hungary and had extensive possessions away from their sovereign state. It was becoming apparent that if the dissolution of the Great Empires were to happen, something big must take place. World War One would spell the end of empires but what led up to the terrible war is just as important. Key events include the Franco- Russian War, alliance systems and the assassination of Franz
"The most we can hope for," MacMillan says, "is to understand as best we can those individuals who had to make the choices between war and peace." Can any individual be blamed for the First World War? The Guardian identifies six people who, from a British perspective, had the largest roles in the events leading to the outbreak of war: Kaiser Wilhelm II, the "hot-tempered, military-minded ruler of German empire and kingdom of Prussia" who was "increasingly suspicious of motives" in Britain, France and Russia David Lloyd George, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, who "against his earlier inclinations" ultimately became a leading proponent of military action against Germany Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, who found himself caught between Russia's loyalty to Serbia, and his desire to avoid war on the continent Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was "keen to strengthen Austrian army" but wanted not to antagonise Serbia Herbert Asquith, the British Prime Minister who led the nation into war, to be replaced by Lloyd George in December
This was demonstrated when he assumed that him taking personal control of the army during the First World War would unite the nation. There as now not only a distinct separation between the upper and lower classes but also a critical separation between the upper classes and the Tsar. Added pressures came from Russia’s increased involvement in the war in that it exposed the Tsar’s policies given the gravity of the domestic situation and his absence from Petrograd (St Petersburg). The Tsar’s rapid loss of support during the war allowed the Tsarina, who was heavily influenced by Rasputin, to gain control of internal politics. She disillusioned the middle and ruling class intelligentsia which further isolated the Tsar and