Was the Weimar Republic doomed from the start?

I have to write an essay on this tomorrow and I haven't had time to read all of the material! If anyone has answered this question (or something similar) please help me out! I just need a condensed version of my text book really!
I knew AS and A2 in one year would be a challenge!!
Thanks guys x x

Reply 1

Darkowl

This is off the top of my head, and I'll come back and add more when I remember it. I focused far more on Hitler's relationship with the Weimar than the system itself, so I'm afraid I can't offer the greatest insight.

One - The Weimar system itself was not even liked by the democratic parties that were part of it. See if you can find any good quotations for it though, as evidence for dislike at that stage isn't easy to find. You can then explain how it develops into acceptance of the Nazi's extreme idealogy, where you can show the Nationalists' and the establishment's ultimate sympathies with an anti-democratic system.

Two - Simple one, talk about the inherent weakness of proportional representation, manifest in the way minority parties could grow and shrink in size very rapidly (heaps of statistics available on that one). Also the way that the President or the President's office could be manipulated either by those surrounding the President or through legislation (eg. when Hitler merges the Chancellorship with the presidency).

Three - The Treaty of Versailles. This is a good one as there are two distinct sides to the VT argument, this is the side where it caused the Weimar to be too weak.
You can argue that the VT was a compromise treaty; the French thought it wasn't punitive enough, the Americans thought it was too punitive as it was.
The Treaty was punitive enough to cause a dent in national pride, at this point I would simply list those things (War Guilt Clause, losing territory in both West and East, having to pay embarassing repayments).
This gave rise to the Dolchstosslegande (Stab-in-the-back myth), widely used by Nationalists and Nazis alike, and a popular belief that was connected directly to the November Criminals (who created the Weimar) and also to foreign powers and Communism.

Four - Economy.
I would deal with the VT first as a counter-balance to what I mentioned earlier on. The VT did not cripple the German economy, infact it was regrowing and rapidly returning to what was normal at the time in Europe. There are plenty of statistics to prove that, and they should be in most AS and A2 level text books.
However you can then go on and talk about why the economy was growing and becoming stronger again. The economy was boosted by foreign investment, primarily from the USA. That in turn means that when the Wall Street Crash occurs in 1929(?) the economy turns to pot.
So the economy of the Weimar is fundamentally flawed, but because of the nature of its growth rather than heamoraging by the VT.

As I have said, this isn't really my strength, so I'm pretty weak when it comes to the strengths of the Weimar. Or off course you could just say that the Weimar was f**ked from the beginning, but that's something I would only risk in an IB paper 3, where its pretty much anything goes. :smile:

Reply 2

Consie

No it wasn’t, because it fought off army and communist threats along with other right wing attempts such as Hitler’s Beerhall putsch. It also recovered from Hyperinflation. The structure of the Weimar didn’t mean it was doomed from the start, just the irresponsibility of some of the individuals leading it (that guy who forgot to revoke the emergency decree allowing presidia rule to overfull the Reichstag, cant remember his name) and uncontrollable forces like the wall street crash made it fail.

Reply 3

liamb

If you don't rely on hindsight, then no. Weimar did better thanmany other 'new'governments of the time. I think its biggest problems were:
Lack of really good leaders from all sides: Ebert (d.1925) Stresemann (d.1929) even for the KPD Luxemberg and Leibknicht (both d.1919) left the field open.
Bruning made choices in 1930-32 that mirrored those in Britain or France. Both felt the strain, but didn't have to compete with Hitler.
Moron mentality of the nationalists who wanted to pretend that they didn't lose in 1918 and the pre-1914 Germany was a happy, balanced society.
Being too democratic for its own good. Being excessively fair, allowed the extremists to get away with too much (i.e. the level of violence in Berlin in 1932).
Bad luck (1929 being the best example).

Reply 4

Darkowl

I would not say that you must look at it without benefit of hindsight. Doing that is important when studying decisions, but surely when looking at circumstance we should take as much as possible into consideration.

What I argued was that the Weimar had many flaws in its founding that came back to cause damage; like the dependance of its economy, a popular belief in nationalistic and authoritarian government, a universal dislike and distrust of the Weimar.
I believe that all of the problems that the Weimar faced were either founded by, exasserbated by, or already present in its founding.

Okay, maybe not all the problems. But in my opinion, many of them.

Reply 5

Consie

How was Stresemann a bad leader? He improved Germany's standing on the international stage, got a lot of reparations to become more economically feasable, and delt well with hyperinflation.

Reply 6

samba

Structurally no; but in actuality yes, it was always going to break under the correct conditions.

Do your own damned research on it.

Reply 7

unfinished sympathy

well i mean the ministers were classed as traitors cos they signed the crippling treaty of versailles! Ministers were assassinated and the Republic was associated with defeat. Not exactly a great start is it!