Arctofire
Banned
Warning
Hey guys. In this thread I'm going to be discussing my historical viewpoint as to why the Weimar Republic fell, and challenging the historical consensus.
Historians like to paint the Weimar Republic as doomed to failure from day one. The most common thing they claim is that the Treaty of Versailles made the rise of a right-wing authoritarian regime almost inevitable, due to both the huge national resentment that it created and the demands it placed on Germany. Another claim that has been repeated constantly since the 1960s was the Germany 'wasn't ready for democracy' because Germans were an inherently militaristic people, and therefore in times of economic hardship like that the Great Depression wrought, a Hitler like figure will have always come to power. Some historians even go so far as to suggest that WW1 and WW2 are the 'same war' with an armistice in between, although luckily that completely wrong historical interpretation has not found widespread acceptance.
I disagree with these views. In my view, the Weimar Republic showed tremendous promise. In the middle of the 1920s it was the pinnacle of European civilisation, with Berlin becoming the cultural capital of Europe, renowned for its music, art, cinema, and progressive politics. This was a republic that had survived tremendous odds, an attempted military coup in 1920 and almost constant political violence throughout the early 1920s. Indeed, the Treaty of Versailles was harsh, and the large reparation payments Germany had to pay to the allies did cause the 1922 French Occupation of the Ruhr and the resulting hyper-inflation, but despite these great obstacles, the Weimar Republic survived. By 1924 the German currency had stabilised, and by 1929, due to individuals like Gustav Stresemann, Germany was well on its way to being accepted among the world powers, due to his negotiating of the Locarno Treaties and the subsequent entry of Germany into the League of Nations. The Treaty of Versailles looked certain to be re-negotiated, with the Young Plan suspending reparation payments, and the other great powers agreeing to the equal treatment of Germany in international politics.
The biggest destabilising factor in my view, and the factor that made a right-wing dictatorship being established in the early 1930s almost certain, was the influence of the October Revolution in Russia. Before this point, revolutionary Marxism was waning in popularity, being displaced by sensible social democracy and individuals who were interested in governing for the national interest. The establishment of the USSR changed that, suddenly the revolutionary ideal looked much more attractive to many on the left, and Lenin's complete condemnation of reformism of all stripes led to the splitting of the Second International into communist and social democratic factions.
This process was already somewhat underway before the war and during WW1, where the left of social democracy felt that the support for the war of most of the major parties was a betrayal to the ideal of socialist internationalism. The German far left was very active, and it's true that the USPD did emerge quite independently from the October Revolution. What the October Revolution did however, was create a barrier between any reproach between the SPD and those to the left of it. I believe that if not for the influence of Russia, the USPD would have fallen into obscurity after 1924, with most members and votes going back to the SPD.
The KPD received large amounts of Comintern funding, and that almost certainly ate into the vote share of workers who otherwise would have supported the SPD. This had dire consequences for the 'Weimar Coalition', a coalition made up of the SPD, centrist Democratic Party (DDP), and centre-right Centre Party (Zendrum). In the first Weimar elections these three parties got a super-majority, but after that point they would never again get such a high vote share, with the Weimar political landscape permanently fractured between left and right.
Not only did it split the left, but it made the middle and upper classes, who could have accepted a modest program of wealth re-distribution under a social democratic government along the lines of Scandinavia or Post-war Britain, understandably terrified of anything socialist. This made them distrust even the SPD, whereas in a timeline where the October Revolution never happens, it's not hard to see the admittedly more conservative German establishment coming to accept the SPD like the British accepted Labour OTL.
Communists at the time, and many looking back today, view the Weimar Republic with scorn, saying it was always doomed to either go to 'socialist revolution, or right-wing counter revolution.' Whilst the first is simply impossible, as there was never a point where the communists got anywhere near majority support in Germany, they made the second inevitable through their dogmatism and refusal to compromise. The 'social fascism' mantra is well known, however I view the refusal to cooperative with non-leftist pro-democracy forces, admittedly part and parcel of the ideology, to be just as destructive. The counter-revolution became the communist's self fulfilling prophecy.
An absolutely crucial turning point in the Weimar Republic's history in my view was the 1925 Presidential Election, where Hindenburg was elected president. Hindenburg was a part of the Prussian junker class and his loyalty was always to them, over and above the republic. His anti-democratic views in the early 1930s led him to govern undemocratically through Article 48, and eventually appoint Hitler in 1933 as he felt he would best protect the interests of the Prussian Junkers. The electoral system worked in two rounds, where if no candidate received a majority in the first round, then the candidate with a plurality would win in the second. This was different from the modern two-round system where only two candidates are put on the ballot in the second round, and admittedly very flawed, but even though they got the most amount of votes in the first round, the SPD, knowing that they could not win alone, endorsed Wilhelm Marx (no relation to Karl Marx) of Zendrum in the second round against Hindenburg.
As you can see, the communist candidate Ernst Thalmann acted as a spoiler for the SPD endorsed Marx. Even in a scenario where a surviving USPD puts forward a candidate in the second round, the lack of Comintern funding and grand narrative would have given it at most half of what Thalmann got. We can safely presume that without the October Revolution, the USSR, and Comintern, Marx wins comfortably.
So, there's that. Marx is a committed democrat who does not flirt with the far right like Hindenburg does. The rest of the 1920's proceeds similar to OTL, with Gustav Stresemann still being in charge of foreign policy. The Great Depression still hits, and causes great economic hardship to millions and causing unemployment to skyrocket. Yes, the far-left and far-right do gain support in this time period, but in this alternate timeline in 1928 the SPD gets a larger vote share. Here's the vote share OTL and what I believe the results would have been in this timeline.
Now, as with the 1925 election, yes there may have been some other left wing party to the left of the SPD that would take some KPD votes, but I think we can say with some certainty it would not have been as much.
Hermann Muller was the last democratically elected chancellor of the Weimar era. From 1928-1930 he led a fragile coalition with all moderate parties, that being SPD-Zendrum-DVP-DDP, but due to the differences between the SPD and DVP it fell apart and the Reichstag was dissolved in 1930, with the Nazi's gaining 16% of the vote in he election that year.
However ITTL, the SPD will be able to comfortably form a stable coalition with the DDP & Zendrum without the participation of the DVP. It would have a vote share similar to that gotten by the Swedish Social Democrats in the election that same year. This government will have divisions over how to respond to the Great Depression, but once the influence of Keynesianism starts to be felt, this government can introduce stimulus measures similar to FDR's New Deal and the policies the Nazi's implemented OTL to reduce unemployment.
A coalition of this type would be similar to the one that Sweden had at the same time, and would make Germany follow a similar course. Of course, there would still be a militant right-wing and Hitler would run for the presidency in 1932, but with Marx or a similar centre-right candidate going up against him and the economy recovering, he would lose, and after that point the Nazi's would probably fall into obscurity. The strength of the Nazi's would show by 1932, and perhaps push the ruling coalition towards a more assertive and militaristic foreign policy, but this does not mean that the Weimar Republic will end, nor will WW2 in Europe start. What Britain's appeasement policy shows is just how committed it was to peace. With a sensible foreign policy, Germany could easily have had the Treaty of Versailles re-negotiated, it would regain Saar and the Free City of Danzig, it would be a respected player on the international stage. Germany probably fights with the US against Japan in the Pacific, and the with Keynesian economic policies and a commitment to peace, Germany and Europe as a whole will prosper in the 1940s. Germany would become a democratic superpower rivalling that of the United States.
It's hard to overstate just how much Germany lost from WW2 and Nazism. Germany feels like it has to continually apologise for the crimes of a totalitarian regime that the overwhelming majority had no choice to partake in. German scientists, philosophers, musicians, artists, intellectuals... the cream of German society, fled the country, never to return. It lost it's hugely productive and influential Jewish community. It's cities were reduced to rubble. It lost it's eastern territories in a historical event that is only not called a genocide by historians because they allegedly 'deserved it', lumping in all Germans with the crimes of a totalitarian state.
The west in general also lost a great deal from WW2, it lost it's sense of self worth. The self-loathing woke culture so common among the establishment today came into prominence because Nazism showed western civilisation in it's complete barbarity. How could such a progressive, civilised, and cultured nation be responsible for such unspeakable crimes?
This wasn't inevitable however. It was due to the dogmatism of left-wing radicals, believing that anything other than all of their demands met was worthless, which made the far right prevail in Germany. The left still hasn't learned the lessons of the Weimar Republic. The US Green Party in 2000, by running Ralph Nader, robbed Al Gore of the presidency. How much better would the world be if instead of Bush Jr's warmongering we had a president passionate about getting global action on climate change? Jill Stein did the same thing in 2016.
When you see the presence of woke, an ideology descended from Marxism in its obsession with 'oppressed and oppressors' but abandoning class in favor of intersectionality, it all has roots in the horrors of WW2, an avoidable calamity for western civilisation.
There, I've said my piece. This has been my main point of interest when going down a 'What if the October Revolution Never Happened?' timeline, as I find the impact on Germany far more interesting than focusing purely on Russia. Too many ignore it. For instance, WhatIfAltHist, an alternate history YouTuber who I hugely respect, when making a video on that scenario completely ignores the butterfly effects on Germany and has WW2 happen regardless, a theory that as I've explained, I believe to be mistaken. Feel free to disagree with this version of events, why am I wrong, what am I missing?
Historians like to paint the Weimar Republic as doomed to failure from day one. The most common thing they claim is that the Treaty of Versailles made the rise of a right-wing authoritarian regime almost inevitable, due to both the huge national resentment that it created and the demands it placed on Germany. Another claim that has been repeated constantly since the 1960s was the Germany 'wasn't ready for democracy' because Germans were an inherently militaristic people, and therefore in times of economic hardship like that the Great Depression wrought, a Hitler like figure will have always come to power. Some historians even go so far as to suggest that WW1 and WW2 are the 'same war' with an armistice in between, although luckily that completely wrong historical interpretation has not found widespread acceptance.
I disagree with these views. In my view, the Weimar Republic showed tremendous promise. In the middle of the 1920s it was the pinnacle of European civilisation, with Berlin becoming the cultural capital of Europe, renowned for its music, art, cinema, and progressive politics. This was a republic that had survived tremendous odds, an attempted military coup in 1920 and almost constant political violence throughout the early 1920s. Indeed, the Treaty of Versailles was harsh, and the large reparation payments Germany had to pay to the allies did cause the 1922 French Occupation of the Ruhr and the resulting hyper-inflation, but despite these great obstacles, the Weimar Republic survived. By 1924 the German currency had stabilised, and by 1929, due to individuals like Gustav Stresemann, Germany was well on its way to being accepted among the world powers, due to his negotiating of the Locarno Treaties and the subsequent entry of Germany into the League of Nations. The Treaty of Versailles looked certain to be re-negotiated, with the Young Plan suspending reparation payments, and the other great powers agreeing to the equal treatment of Germany in international politics.
Communism: A Self Fulfilling Prophecy of Liberal Failure
The biggest destabilising factor in my view, and the factor that made a right-wing dictatorship being established in the early 1930s almost certain, was the influence of the October Revolution in Russia. Before this point, revolutionary Marxism was waning in popularity, being displaced by sensible social democracy and individuals who were interested in governing for the national interest. The establishment of the USSR changed that, suddenly the revolutionary ideal looked much more attractive to many on the left, and Lenin's complete condemnation of reformism of all stripes led to the splitting of the Second International into communist and social democratic factions.
This process was already somewhat underway before the war and during WW1, where the left of social democracy felt that the support for the war of most of the major parties was a betrayal to the ideal of socialist internationalism. The German far left was very active, and it's true that the USPD did emerge quite independently from the October Revolution. What the October Revolution did however, was create a barrier between any reproach between the SPD and those to the left of it. I believe that if not for the influence of Russia, the USPD would have fallen into obscurity after 1924, with most members and votes going back to the SPD.
The KPD received large amounts of Comintern funding, and that almost certainly ate into the vote share of workers who otherwise would have supported the SPD. This had dire consequences for the 'Weimar Coalition', a coalition made up of the SPD, centrist Democratic Party (DDP), and centre-right Centre Party (Zendrum). In the first Weimar elections these three parties got a super-majority, but after that point they would never again get such a high vote share, with the Weimar political landscape permanently fractured between left and right.
Not only did it split the left, but it made the middle and upper classes, who could have accepted a modest program of wealth re-distribution under a social democratic government along the lines of Scandinavia or Post-war Britain, understandably terrified of anything socialist. This made them distrust even the SPD, whereas in a timeline where the October Revolution never happens, it's not hard to see the admittedly more conservative German establishment coming to accept the SPD like the British accepted Labour OTL.
Communists at the time, and many looking back today, view the Weimar Republic with scorn, saying it was always doomed to either go to 'socialist revolution, or right-wing counter revolution.' Whilst the first is simply impossible, as there was never a point where the communists got anywhere near majority support in Germany, they made the second inevitable through their dogmatism and refusal to compromise. The 'social fascism' mantra is well known, however I view the refusal to cooperative with non-leftist pro-democracy forces, admittedly part and parcel of the ideology, to be just as destructive. The counter-revolution became the communist's self fulfilling prophecy.
An absolutely crucial turning point in the Weimar Republic's history in my view was the 1925 Presidential Election, where Hindenburg was elected president. Hindenburg was a part of the Prussian junker class and his loyalty was always to them, over and above the republic. His anti-democratic views in the early 1930s led him to govern undemocratically through Article 48, and eventually appoint Hitler in 1933 as he felt he would best protect the interests of the Prussian Junkers. The electoral system worked in two rounds, where if no candidate received a majority in the first round, then the candidate with a plurality would win in the second. This was different from the modern two-round system where only two candidates are put on the ballot in the second round, and admittedly very flawed, but even though they got the most amount of votes in the first round, the SPD, knowing that they could not win alone, endorsed Wilhelm Marx (no relation to Karl Marx) of Zendrum in the second round against Hindenburg.
As you can see, the communist candidate Ernst Thalmann acted as a spoiler for the SPD endorsed Marx. Even in a scenario where a surviving USPD puts forward a candidate in the second round, the lack of Comintern funding and grand narrative would have given it at most half of what Thalmann got. We can safely presume that without the October Revolution, the USSR, and Comintern, Marx wins comfortably.
So, there's that. Marx is a committed democrat who does not flirt with the far right like Hindenburg does. The rest of the 1920's proceeds similar to OTL, with Gustav Stresemann still being in charge of foreign policy. The Great Depression still hits, and causes great economic hardship to millions and causing unemployment to skyrocket. Yes, the far-left and far-right do gain support in this time period, but in this alternate timeline in 1928 the SPD gets a larger vote share. Here's the vote share OTL and what I believe the results would have been in this timeline.
Now, as with the 1925 election, yes there may have been some other left wing party to the left of the SPD that would take some KPD votes, but I think we can say with some certainty it would not have been as much.
Hermann Muller was the last democratically elected chancellor of the Weimar era. From 1928-1930 he led a fragile coalition with all moderate parties, that being SPD-Zendrum-DVP-DDP, but due to the differences between the SPD and DVP it fell apart and the Reichstag was dissolved in 1930, with the Nazi's gaining 16% of the vote in he election that year.
A Surviving Weimar
However ITTL, the SPD will be able to comfortably form a stable coalition with the DDP & Zendrum without the participation of the DVP. It would have a vote share similar to that gotten by the Swedish Social Democrats in the election that same year. This government will have divisions over how to respond to the Great Depression, but once the influence of Keynesianism starts to be felt, this government can introduce stimulus measures similar to FDR's New Deal and the policies the Nazi's implemented OTL to reduce unemployment.
A coalition of this type would be similar to the one that Sweden had at the same time, and would make Germany follow a similar course. Of course, there would still be a militant right-wing and Hitler would run for the presidency in 1932, but with Marx or a similar centre-right candidate going up against him and the economy recovering, he would lose, and after that point the Nazi's would probably fall into obscurity. The strength of the Nazi's would show by 1932, and perhaps push the ruling coalition towards a more assertive and militaristic foreign policy, but this does not mean that the Weimar Republic will end, nor will WW2 in Europe start. What Britain's appeasement policy shows is just how committed it was to peace. With a sensible foreign policy, Germany could easily have had the Treaty of Versailles re-negotiated, it would regain Saar and the Free City of Danzig, it would be a respected player on the international stage. Germany probably fights with the US against Japan in the Pacific, and the with Keynesian economic policies and a commitment to peace, Germany and Europe as a whole will prosper in the 1940s. Germany would become a democratic superpower rivalling that of the United States.
It's hard to overstate just how much Germany lost from WW2 and Nazism. Germany feels like it has to continually apologise for the crimes of a totalitarian regime that the overwhelming majority had no choice to partake in. German scientists, philosophers, musicians, artists, intellectuals... the cream of German society, fled the country, never to return. It lost it's hugely productive and influential Jewish community. It's cities were reduced to rubble. It lost it's eastern territories in a historical event that is only not called a genocide by historians because they allegedly 'deserved it', lumping in all Germans with the crimes of a totalitarian state.
The west in general also lost a great deal from WW2, it lost it's sense of self worth. The self-loathing woke culture so common among the establishment today came into prominence because Nazism showed western civilisation in it's complete barbarity. How could such a progressive, civilised, and cultured nation be responsible for such unspeakable crimes?
This wasn't inevitable however. It was due to the dogmatism of left-wing radicals, believing that anything other than all of their demands met was worthless, which made the far right prevail in Germany. The left still hasn't learned the lessons of the Weimar Republic. The US Green Party in 2000, by running Ralph Nader, robbed Al Gore of the presidency. How much better would the world be if instead of Bush Jr's warmongering we had a president passionate about getting global action on climate change? Jill Stein did the same thing in 2016.
When you see the presence of woke, an ideology descended from Marxism in its obsession with 'oppressed and oppressors' but abandoning class in favor of intersectionality, it all has roots in the horrors of WW2, an avoidable calamity for western civilisation.
There, I've said my piece. This has been my main point of interest when going down a 'What if the October Revolution Never Happened?' timeline, as I find the impact on Germany far more interesting than focusing purely on Russia. Too many ignore it. For instance, WhatIfAltHist, an alternate history YouTuber who I hugely respect, when making a video on that scenario completely ignores the butterfly effects on Germany and has WW2 happen regardless, a theory that as I've explained, I believe to be mistaken. Feel free to disagree with this version of events, why am I wrong, what am I missing?
Last edited:
