What Caused Weimar's Downfall? (Re-post)

[NedStark]

And yet in 1928 the revanchist and nationalist DNVP got only 14% of the vote

Those 14% votes is much more politically powerful than their proportion due to the reasons I mentioned above.

As a disproportionately large proportion of German teachers and university professors were DNVP, basically every German of those days had some degree of "Deutsch National" (the DN part of DNVP) in their mind.

 

[Bloodraven]

Those 14% votes is much more politically powerful than their proportion due to the reasons I mentioned above.

Yes, but while the bureaucratic, political, social and economic elites that supported the DNVP sometimes made life difficult for Weimar they alone could not destroy Weimar even though they would have liked to as they were never to mobilize mass support for such an undertaking.

That was only possible after the economic crisis massively increased support for the NSDAP and because von Hindenburg and his political allies were all too willing to give Hitler the power to destroy Weimar. Right-wing elite hostility to Weimar is a big part of the explanation why Weimar was destroyed and hatred for Versailles is only a small part of the explanation for right-wing elite hostility to Weimar (hatred for democracy, unwillingness to accept that Germany had lost WW1, opposition to Weimar’s welfare state, hatred for social democracy, vehement opposition to social liberalization… are other parts of explaining that hostility).

Pick two of the following three and Weimar almost certainly survives: 1) instead of von Hindenburg Marx or another committed supporter of Weimar is elected president in 1925, 2) better economic and fiscal policy makes the economic crisis and depression less deep and recovery begins earlier, 3) lessen hostility to Weimar among the German elites and middle class which strengthens democratic forces in Zentrum, DDP, possibly even DVP, and increases support for von Westarp’s democratic conservative party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_People's_Party_(Germany).
Even one of those occurring gives Weimar somewhat of a fighting chance compared to OTL but its chances of survival still wouldn’t look good.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I'm perplexed that no one has mentioned the Swiss Cheese that was the Weimar Constitution.

A document allowing the head of state to rule by decree, up to and including abolishing civil liberties with a mere signed document, is a recipe for catastrophe. The fact that Hitler never felt the need to replace it, or even formally abolish it, is pretty damning.

 

[Mikey]

The economic crisis was part and parcel of a peace process that, unlike the Congress of Vienna whose peace held for a century, excluded the defeated party from a meaningful role in negotiations.

There's a strong case that the Treaty of Versailles is one of the causes of World War II, but that's distinct from saying that it was the downfall of the Weimar Republic.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Hermann Muller was the last democratically elected chancellor of the Weimar era.

He wasn’t and opposed to what?

 

[Bloodraven]

He wasn’t and opposed to what?

Well, Hermann Müller was the last chancellor of the Weimar Republic that had the support of a majority in parliament and governed with the support of a parliamentary majority.

Brüning as chancellor is a bit of a grey area and, as far as I know, historians are divided how to judge. Brüning only commanded a minority in parliament and signaled that he was willing to govern against the majority of parliament (with support of von Hindenburg) if needed, governed via emergency decrees by von Hindenburg (article 48) and basically pressured/blackmailed the SPD into tolerating his government (sustaining Brüning against votes of no confidence and voting against overturning the emergency decrees, which was within the authority of parliament) by threatening to call new elections if the SPD refused to support him, which would have brought have further gains for the NSDAP (calling new elections because the SPD refused to support his budget was exactly what led to the 1930 elections that saw the first major gains for the NSDAP). While his conduct as chancellor was constitutionally legal, there is ample justification to say that Brüning wasn’t really elected democratically and governed with very questionable democratic legitimacy.

Von Papen was even worse as chancellor he had even less support in parliament then Brüning and when he was about to be brought down as chancellor in a vote of no confidence (the vote was 42:512 against von Papen), he had von Hindenburg hastily dissolve parliament to stay in office and asked von Hindenburg to postpone elections indefinitely and declare a state of emergency (von Papen was an enemy of democracy and from the beginning of his chancellorship hoped to pave the way for a dictatorship), which not even von Hindenburg and right-wing officers of the Reichswehr were willing to support. Von Papen’s conduct as chancellor was constitutionally questionable (his de facto coup in Prussia was declared illegal by German constitutional court but von Papen ignored the judgement) and cannot be called anything but authoritarian.

Von Schleicher, the next chancellor, had no support in parliament whatsoever, failed to gain any, asked von Hindenburg for the same thing von Papen had before him (ironically his opposition to von Papen’s demand to von Hindenburg of postponing elections indefinitely and declaring a state of emergency and declaring that the Reichswehr couldn’t win the resulting civil war convinced von Hindenburg to decide against von Papen) and was also denied by Hindenburg.

Not even Hitler ,when appointed as chancellor in 1933, commanded a majority in parliament, governed with emergency decrees issued by von Hindenburg, and shortly afterwards destroyed democracy for good (Brüning to a degree, and definitely von Papen and von Schleicher, plus von Hindenburg as president had already weakened it signifitcantly).

There is a reason that the cabinets of Brüning, von Papen, von Schleicher and Hitler (until he obtained a majority in parliament in the clearly undemocratic elections of March 5 1933) are classified as Präsidialkabinett (presidential cabinet) or even Präsidialdiktatur (presidential dictatorship) by German historians. They didn’t govern with the support of parliament but by asking von Hindenburg to issue emergency decrees; even Brüning, who pressured the SPD into tolerating his minority government didn’t make laws or budgets with the support of parliament but had von Hindenburg issue emergency decrees and then had his minority coalition, and grudgingly the SPD, vote against overturning the emergency decrees. It is entirely legitimate to think of the period between the fall of the Grand Coalition under Müller in March 1930 and the Reichstag Fire Decree in February 1933 as a transitional period, where Germany was no longer a full democracy but not yet a dictatorship (with the right PODs and a lot of luck the process could have been reversed, but history played out otherwise).

 

[Bloodraven]

I'm perplexed that no one has mentioned the Swiss Cheese that was the Weimar Constitution.

A document allowing the head of state to rule by decree, up to and including abolishing civil liberties with a mere signed document, is a recipe for catastrophe. The fact that Hitler never felt the need to replace it, or even formally abolish it, is pretty damning.

Article 48 was pretty bad, but it also allowed the Reichstag to revoke the emergency decrees of the president. Had support for democracy been stronger, had the democratic parties had a majority in parliament or had somebody like Wilhelm Marx been president article 48 wouldn't have mattered that much.

Also, de facto German constitutional court, the Staatsgerichtshof (another weakness of the Weimar constitution that it didn’t clearly spell out the responsibilities of the Staatsgerichtshof and whether the Staatsgerichtshof could declare acts of the federal government, including acts of the president up to emergency decrees, illegal) declared in Preußen contra Reich (case dealing with the constitutionality of the Preußenschlag; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preußenschlag) that parts of von Hindenburg’s emergency decree authorizing the de facto coup in Prussia were not compatible with the constitution but shied away from declaring the whole act illegal, partly out of fear of ‘overstepping its bounds’ (anti-democratic sympathies/sentiments among some judges might have also played a role). A more assertive and pro-Weimar judiciary also would have been a huge boon to democracy and given the republic a much better chance to survive.

While the Weimar constitution had glaring weaknesses that were exploited by von Hindenburg and his allies and by Hitler, but had anti-Weimar sentiment weaker they wouldn’t have had the opportunity. Also, given the strength and power of Weimar’s right-wing enemies, it is likely that even with a better Weimar constitution they would have found a way to destroy Weimar (in the end the best constitution doesn’t matter much if people aren’t willing to be bound by it).

 

[Deleted member 94680]

...snip ...

Thanks for the essay, but my point was to highlight the fact Müller was “democratically elected” (which he wasn’t) as if to delegitimise the following Chancellors is a poor reading of Weimar politics. It comes up time and again that Hitler was appointed, as if this makes his Chancellorship illegitimate and against the will of the people. All Weimar Chancellors were appointed by the President. That was how the Constitution was written, that was how the Weimar system worked.

Article 53.
The Chancellor and, upon his recommendation, the national ministers shall be appointed and removed by the President of the Reich.

 

[Bloodraven]

Thanks for the essay, but my point was to highlight the fact Müller was “democratically elected” (which he wasn’t) as if to delegitimise the following Chancellors is a poor reading of Weimar politics. It comes up time and again that Hitler was appointed, as if this makes his Chancellorship illegitimate and against the will of the people. All Weimar Chancellors were appointed by the President. That was how the Constitution was written, that was how the Weimar system worked.

Article 53.
The Chancellor and, upon his recommendation, the national ministers shall be appointed and removed by the President of the Reich.

Yes, calling Müller the 'last democratically elected' chancellor wasn't the best choice of words, but calling him the last truly democratic chancellor or last chancellor with real democratic legitimacy of Weimar would have been accurate.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Yes, calling Müller the 'last democratically elected' chancellor wasn't the best choice of words, but calling him the last truly democratic chancellor of Weimar would have been accurate.

Yes. Ironically, it seems being democratic (given the turbulent petty squabbling between the SPD and DVP) is what weakened his position so.

Is there anyway his health could’ve improved?

 

[HelloThere]

Yes. Ironically, it seems being democratic (given the turbulent petty squabbling between the SPD and DVP) is what weakened his position so.

Is there anyway his health could’ve improved?

Why should his health matter? The grand coalition broke over fundamental economic disagreements. Not over personal issues.

 

[Mikey]

Yes, calling Müller the 'last democratically elected' chancellor wasn't the best choice of words, but calling him the last truly democratic chancellor or last chancellor with real democratic legitimacy of Weimar would have been accurate.

I do see your point; minority governments are perfectly lawful and democratic to the extent the underlying system is those things, but it's not exactly what you want in a crisis.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Why should his health matter? The grand coalition broke over fundamental economic disagreements. Not over personal issues.

Because it affected his performance towards the end and he died in 1931 so had no real chance of being a figure to rally around.

 

[HelloThere]

Because it affected his performance towards the end and he died in 1931 so had no real chance of being a figure to rally around.

As you said he died in 1931 - one year after the break-up. And who should rally around him?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

As you said he died in 1931 - one year after the break-up. And who should rally around him?

I don’t know, but his being dead precluded any chance of his being a figure to rally round. OTL he lead a coalition - therefore in an ATL it would be reasonable to postulate he might build a coalition to try and fight the ‘32 election.

I don’t know why you’re getting het up about this, I merely asked if there was any chance he would live longer.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Weimar fell because too many right-wingers with power never came to terms with it.

 

[HelloThere]

I don’t know, but his being dead precluded any chance of his being a figure to rally round. OTL he lead a coalition - therefore in an ATL it would be reasonable to postulate he might build a coalition to try and fight the ‘32 election.

I don’t know why you’re getting het up about this, I merely asked if there was any chance he would live longer.

I am annoyed because the "great man theory" is resurrected in almost every discussion about the Weimar Republic. Everything is attached to the survival of Stresemann (or in this case Müller), as if these individuals could whitewash the fundamental social conflicts. There had been no majority in favor of a grand coalition since 1930. And the DVP no longer wanted that anyway, as did the increasingly conservative Center Party and the completely irrelevant DDP (rebranded as the "German State Party").

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I am annoyed because the "great man theory" is resurrected in almost every discussion about the Weimar Republic. Everything is attached to the survival of Stresemann (or in this case Müller), as if these individuals could whitewash the fundamental social conflicts. There had been no majority in favor of a grand coalition since 1930. And the DVP no longer wanted that anyway, as did the increasingly conservative Center Party and the completely irrelevant DDP (rebranded as the "German State Party").

That is not what I was saying.

 

[Garrison]

The economic crisis was part and parcel of a peace process that, unlike the Congress of Vienna whose peace held for a century, excluded the defeated party from a meaningful role in negotiations.

There was no 'peace process'. Versailles was a treaty dictated by the winners to the losers. Large parts of Belgium and France were left in ruins by the Germans, the notion that the Entente were ever going to demand anything less than a crippling of German war making capability is optimistic to say the least. Also the actual treaty had little to do with the outbreak of WWII since by the mid 30's it was dead as a doornail. The content of the treaty was irrelevant to the Nazi's, its mere existence served as a propaganda tool to justify Nazi militarism and to persecute the Jews and Socialists they blamed for its existence. To be quite clear Hitler intended war from the day he came to power, defeat in WWI was a humiliation that had to be avenged as part of his larger scheme.

The economic crisis that afflicted Germany at the end of the 20's was partly the result of global forces and partly the result of successive Weimar governments seeking to tie the USA to Germany in a effort to undo reparations and this policy was pursued by nationalists who still clung to the idea of Germany as global power that had somehow been cheated out of its rightful place by a war they never really lost. Had Weimar simply accepted the reality that notions of creating a grand Germanic empire were obsolete they could easily have pursued a more stable economic plan, instead they clung to their fantasies and laid the ground work for Hitler to take those ideas to their extreme.

 

[Johnrankins]

I am annoyed because the "great man theory" is resurrected in almost every discussion about the Weimar Republic. Everything is attached to the survival of Stresemann (or in this case Müller), as if these individuals could whitewash the fundamental social conflicts. There had been no majority in favor of a grand coalition since 1930. And the DVP no longer wanted that anyway, as did the increasingly conservative Center Party and the completely irrelevant DDP (rebranded as the "German State Party").

IMO, history is a mix of "Great Man theory" and "social causes theory" as in most cases both are needed in big historical events. The people in charge will have a significant to great influence on the country as a whole but the people in charge were in charge for a reason.

Without Napoleon I doubt France would have lasted as long as the strongest power in Europe as he was a military genius who actually understood economics, unlike Hitler. That said, he never would have in the first place except for the conditions surrounding Revolutionary France. Get rid of Hitler and you will likely wind up with a right wing dictatorship anyway but you would also likely dodge the lunacies of the Third Reich.