Was the failure of the Weimar Republic inevitable?

[Kamilian]

we all know that Germany had experienced its first democratic republican government between the world wars. However, was the Weimar Republic doomed to fail or did it have a chance of surviving even as the Great Depression disintegrated the economy and led the people to flock to one of the extreme wings of the political spectrum - the KPD Communist left and the NSDAP Nazi right - and away from the SPD and moderate parties? I would like to see and would appreciate if you wrote what you, the readers and participants of the World History Forum, think.

 

[Kamilian]

also, when you post your replies, i would appreciate it if you would tell me WHY you said what you said.

 

[joespaniel]

Im restrainng myself from making any Pelikan jokes...

Im not sure if the Weimar Republic could have survived or not, but Hindenburg and many other statesmen of the time didnt want it. Hitler vowed to destroy it and sought the position of Chancellor to do just that.

Barring so many enemies, the depression could maybe have toppled it anyway. Even the US came the closest it ever has to a 2nd revolution during the 1930's.

Im not much of a political historian, but rather military. Thus I only state the obvious.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

The idea wasn't all bad, but the times were against it.

Germany had very complex problems in the 20s and 30s, brought on by the first world war, and agitators from withen (both from communists and right wingers, like the Nazis).

There was too much against it, and the Republic became a focal point for blame for Germany's condition, yet the Republic set the stage for Germany's military comback, with a number of illeagal operations designed to circumvent the Versaillis treaty.

 

[MadScot]

In what may be a valuable lesson for the modern world, the problems of the Weimar Republic might be taken to indicate the folly of imposing a government style upon a population, nation, culture, whatever, which simply does not want that style.

Unless a nation develops the political maturity and institutions at a very basic level, to attempt to overlay the veneer of liberal democracy over an illiberal base must be doomed.

One could recount the sad litany of decolonized countries which had a superficially 'western' political system imposed at independence, only to have the system fall into the hands of local 'strongmen'. Since it took western Europe centuries, if not millenia, to develop even moderately robust liberal democracies, why it was felt Africa, for example, could make that leap in a single generation is unclear.

It might not be very PC, perhaps it would have been wiser to forego the trappings of democracy and seek a more functional government style, based on the cultures in place.

While many people find it offensive that Emperor Hirohito was left in power after WW2, perhaps we might have had a Japanese Weimar had that culture stability not been present? Perhaps had the victorious allies found a minor German Royal and kept Germany as a monarchy things might have been different? Would the junkers have been as ready to betray their monarch as they were the more abstract institutions of Weimar?

 

[Hamlet]

After The Great Depression, it was doomed. There was no turning back after that point. People forget that democracy, or at the very least, liberal democracy in Germany had effectively collapsed by about 1930-31, with various shifts to a more authoritarian system already underway under Hindenburg and the various Junker/Prussian PM's he appointed, like von Papen.

I do, however, have the firm belief that it's colapse was not inevitable. If only various things had been done differently from the end of the war, in Germany and elsewhere, I believe The Weimar Republic would most likely be still be with us today.

Originally posted by MadScot
While many people find it offensive that Emperor Hirohito was left in power after WW2, perhaps we might have had a Japanese Weimar had that culture stability not been present? Perhaps had the victorious allies found a minor German Royal and kept Germany as a monarchy things might have been different? Would the junkers have been as ready to betray their monarch as they were the more abstract institutions of Weimar?

That's an intresting suggestion. One imagines almost the possiblity of a new Bismarck-Kaiser relationship, albeit under a more liberal basis, and with different players, of course.

In fact, it was not a certainty that the monarchy would collapse - it wasn't the Allies who disposed of it, remember. Even Ebert didn't really want to get rid of it, but all were taken unawares, and that was that.

 

[Hitro]

It was inevitable in this reality. Of course it can be argued that hadn't the depression happened, hadn't there been so many people against it and so on it wouldn't have collapsed, but then it wouldn't have been the Weimar Republic.
The Republic wasn't suddenly executed, it died over a period of many years, and in fact it was already sick when it was born.
On it's very first day, when the Revolution began at the 9th of November of 1918, the Communists tried to declare their own Republic, so they never agreed with it, and the human potential for the right still lay in the trenches in France.
Don't forget that there was a period that could be described as Civil War until 1919, and don't forget that the Weimar Republic was an internal development. The war's end didn't start the Revolution, the Revolution ended the war. At that point there was effectively no enemy on German soil, which was unfortunately used for propaganda by the reactionary and fascist right from the beginning (the so-called "Dolchstoßlegende").

This sentiments were a bit covered by a surpisingly rapid improvement of Germany's standard of living in the middle of the 20s, but when that began to subside they surfaced again. After 1929 the Republic was already fatally ill, the question was only in what way it would finally be put to death and, more important, by whom.

 

[G-Man]

I don't think there was anything the republic could've done in order to survive. It was a new democracy, it's population was angry at their leaders (who surrendered before the enemy has even got to it's previous borders), who felt they deserve more (the land taken from them, the money taken from them), who was in an awful economic condition, who were affected by the communist revolution (fanatic communists and anti communists) etc. Such conditions are always causing rasicalization which, in turn, hurts democracy. Perhaps if the democracy supporters were the ones with the charismatic leaders they could've hold on for a little longer, but I doubt it's what would've saved them.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

As with Spain the failure of "The Republic" was almost inevitable as the ruling classes, the conservatives etc were so frightened of Communism that they looked to support Fascism as a counter.


When reading the history of Europe in the 1930s you see Communism VS Fascism and the other groups such a liberals, anarchists and conservatives joining supporting one side.


Had the Americans and British (the French would not act alone for fear of revolution) acted to protect democracy against BOTH Commuism and Fascism then Hitler would have failed and democracy would have been retained in Germany, Spain and many other countries.

Bastards such as Neville Chamberlain, Joseph Kennedy and Antony Eden doomed Europe to WW2 as they were pro-fascist rather than simply pro-democracy. France alone was keen to resist Germany and aid the Spanish Republic as she alone really feared a new powerful Nationalist Germany.

People often make the mistake of thinking the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh and that was the problem...no.

The problem was that:

1. It was considered harsh.
2. Whilst being considered harsh it did not cripple Germany!

The Treaty of Versailles should either have left Germany little or no grievences or ensure she could not fight again!


Pro-fascist conservatives allowed Germany to re-gain her power to counter Russia and because they believed that they could do business with Hitler. Those that were British ministers in government should have their memory completely blackened for being the worst traitors to this country and man-kind.


Whilst the liberals etc in Spain in particular managed to get roped up onto the side of the Communists so dooming their movement as supportable by the great democracies.


Worst still was big business in America, Britain and Germany supporting fascism and again providing the muscle a rather small movement had to grow rapidly and eventually be able to take Europe to war again.


If only Britain and the USA had supported France in the 1930s rather than restraining her, we would not have had a WW2, if only France had gone it alone, we would not have had WW2.

 

[Vrylakas]

The Weimar Republic's basic problem was one of legitimacy. It was never fully accepted by its own citizens as a legitimate government and because of this, despite many successes in the 1920s, it was seen as an "interregnum" at best.

Hitro mentioned the "Dolchstoss" theory that was commonly held in 1920s and 30s (and 40s and 50s for that matter) Germany, which claimed (falsely) that the Germans were never actually defeated in World War I, that the German government (permeated by Jewish socialists of course) in a moment of weakness requested armistice terms from their enemies, only to be hog-tied by the devious and cunning Allies. The German armies remained unbroken and undefeated along the frontlines, but were defeated by their own countrymen from behind; hence the "Stab in the Back" theory. This is of course untrue, as the Reichswehr was indeed disintegrating and experiencing repeated defeats along the Western Front, with even German territory around Metz breached. Had the war continued, the Allies most likely would have occupied Berlin within a few months at most. But the fact that they didn't, that most German civilians never saw an Allied soldier until the postwar occupations, fed this myth of an undefeated Germany. In WW II Hitler spent his last pathetic hours in a besieged bunker in Berlin while a foreign flag flew over the Reichstag; perhaps if the Kaiser had been seized by Allied soldiers at Spa or in Berlin (instead of taking a relaxed and unmolested trainride to the Netherlands after abdicating), the Weimar Republic would have had a chance.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
...perhaps if the Kaiser had been seized by Allied soldiers at Spa or in Berlin (instead of taking a relaxed and unmolested trainride to the Netherlands after abdicating), the Weimar Republic would have had a chance.

I doubt it. Of course you can never predict the course history would have taken, but first of all there wouldn't have been the massive destruction as in WW2, second there wouldn't have been a guilt like the Holocaust and the war of annihilation in the East like in WW2. If the allies would still have acted like they did in reality (meaning Versailles) that wouldn't have changed much.
The Dolchstosslegende was a nice propaganda motive for the right, but the Versailles treaty was even more important.
Furthermore the conservative elites would still have been afraid of Communism and would most likely still have acted against Democracy "to defend the country".
A more just peace could have changed it, not an even more brutal war.

But that all is pure speculation, as it wasn't the allies who decided upon the end of the war but the German Revolutionaries. The Dolchstosslegende was therefore inevitable.
The allies had the chance to make a lasting peace with a then Democratic government, which would have stabilized it alot, but they decided to play the power game.
Without that the pressure from the extreme right may well have been lower, so that the Conservatives may have seen the Republic as enough of an alternative to Communism, instead of bringing the Fascists to power.

 

[Nixnutz]

The Weimar Republic never had a chance. Most of the political reasons have been covered very thoroughly.

Another point to be considered is the stance of the industrialists and bankers, who were staunchly monarchist, deathly afraid of the communists and had no use for the concept of democracy (they believed it would dilute their financial and political power). They conspired, along with the Depression, military leaders and various political groups to sabotage the Republic at every turn.

The nation was in chaos and ripe for a strong individual, not a representative government, to lead the country back to its former glory after the embarrassment of the Versailles Treaty....the rest, is history.