This could have acted as a powerbase for the Kapp Putsch and the eventual rise of the Nazis. The humiliation was also a main factor in weakening prospects for democracy for two reasons it led to stab in the back myth and a national inferiority complex. The stab in the back myth was perpetuated by the far right and the leading army generals. The stab in the back myth was that Germany was not losing ww1 and that the democratic politicians “stabbed Germany in the back” by surrendering to the entente. This allowed the far right to exploit the Germans hate of the treaty of Versailles and connect the treaty to democracy, so the people wouldn’t blame the loss of ww1 on the army but the democratic politician’s.
-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.
Although German signed the Treaty of Versailles, much to the disgrace of many Germans, admitting they were to blame it is undeniable that aggressive German foreign policy had a lot to do with the outbreak of war in Europe in 1914, but this neglects other factors that may have additionally added to the tensions leading up to the war. Many historians debate whether it was mainly Germany to blame or whether other dominant powers led them into a no-win situation. Source V, ‘Modern Germany’ by Volker Berghahn suggests that the Kaiser no longer saw foreign policy and civil war as separate issues and that they were now seen to entwine together. The mention of the 1913 Army bill that had aggravated many within the German society due to the growing distress over money and the status quo within the German political establishment, the argument over the tax burdens grew with every bill passed. These tensions started to disrupt their dual alliance with Austria-Hungary, even with a ‘Blank Cheque’ being given to them.
As well, the only way that the Wilson plan would have survived the political intrigue of the Europeans was either through a league that had real teeth, or a super power willing to intervene as a worldwide police officer. Neither of which existed in 1918. Clemenceau’s views represented the average sentiment of the European Allies after the war. In the closing days of the war, a war weary European population must have tried to make sense of the carnage, of the loss. Clemenceau casts a pale light on the German population, blaming the war on the aims of “the intolerable German Aristocracy.” (Clemenceau, p. 73) The entire argument for the French and nay, European view, was the perceived threat that Europeans felt of German arrogance.
When Keynes rejected the scale of reparations placed on Germany and resigned from his post at the Treasury, he lead the way for what many leading politicians were to understand later on. Keynes supported the approach of Lloyd George that for economic and political reasons, Europe needed a successful Germany, which would be seriously difficult to achieve whilst the excessive reparations were placed on them. Furthermore, his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919), was successful in influencing the view of Britain that a weak Germany would only make the recovery of Europe after the war, a lot more difficult. On the other hand, from taking this view, politicians were criticised for being 'too lenient' towards Germany. Even Lloyd George, who took a much tougher political approach towards the reparations, received criticism.
Ernst Roehm had a different view of a successful Germany and Hitler was on different path (A3). Apparently Roehm and Hitler have butted heads before and Hitler came on top (A3). Hitler was growing very afraid of the Brownshirts, so he felt the only way to keep power was to put the S.A on leave. Hitler was thinking that another revolution could have happened with the S.A in power (D2). Hitler paid attention to what happened with Russia and was able to not make the same mistake.
Therefore the beginnings of democracy in Germany came in times of civil and political unrest following Germany’s defeat in WWI. During the war Germany had essentially been a military dictatorship under Hindenburg and Ludendorff, this style of government being popular among the German people. Therefore when democracy was introduced it was viewed with contempt, primarily among the conservative elites. The defeat in the war also brought about changes in how political maters were handled in Germany. Richard Evans in “the Coming of the Third Reich” argues that WWI had sanctioned the use of violence for political gain, leading to the formation of paramilitary groups that further undermined the effectiveness of the democracy.
They are many factors on why did Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933. World War one, treaty of Versailles, fear of communist and the great depression are the main reason on Hitler became Chancellor. The Germans sighted the treaty of Versailles 1919 after losing Great War, although they believed they treaty was harsh they had no choice either sign it or the country getting invaded. The Germans called the treaty Diktat as it was being forced on them and the Germans had no choice but to sign it. One thing the Germans were not happy in the treaty of Versailles is the War Guilt Clause, take blame for the war.
The Weimar Government, whilst built in opposition to the wartime ideologies, was unable to detach itself from the power of the German military between the years of 1919 and 1934. The Weimar Republic was formed in 1919 after the abdication and exile of Kaiser Wilhelm II left the country leaderless and the Reichstag switched from imperial politics to democratic politics, a form which the German army famously did not support. As such the impact of the German Army upon the Weimar Republic was largely to support their own political – generally right-wing – agendas. This can be directly linked to the interference of military groups and military groups in the political sphere of Weimar Germany. 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.
Trotsky described war as the ‘locomotive of history’. How far can it be argued that change in Russia in the period 1855-1964 was caused only by involvement in wars? During this period the biggest change that happened was the move from Tsarist autocracy to communist dictatorship as well as the short lived provisional government, which was a form of democracy. Furthermore there were changes to economic policy, which had a great impact on society. The wars that occurred did bring change but were not the only causes of change.