Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Germany (1918-39) Historiography and Key Historical Debates - Coggle…
Germany (1918-39) Historiography and Key Historical Debates
Establishment of Weimar Republic under Ebert
A.J. Nicholls defending Ebert: "It is certainly clear that socialist experiments could have seriously worsened Germany's already difficult economic situation nd might have led to civil war".
Jurgen Tampke against Ebert: "The SPD should have remembered ... that it would be necessary to crush ... the power of the reactionary army establishment and of section of German industry".
Weimar constitution
Positive
Micheal Burleigh: "The spirit of the constitution was sound - it was simply the way it was put into practice that caused problems"
Hans Mommsen blames "political parties' reluctance to assume political responsability" instead of proportional representation.
Negative
Bracher and Gordon Craig criticise proportional representation as it:
Formed unstable coalition governments
Enhanced the power of the president
Allowed extremist parties to win seats
Karl Bracher describes presidential powers as "a kind of substitute for the lost absolute monarchy"
German reaction to the TOV
Harsh treaty
Nicholls: "The one thing the new republic brought the Germans - peace - had been transformed by a settlement which their newspapers and political leaders all agreed was a form of prolonged slavery"
**Anthony Wood: "the fundamental significance of Versailles was emotional rather than rational
Lenient treaty
Eberhard Kolb: "Treaty of Versailles was too lenient because it failed to destroy Germany as a great power"
Hitler as Dictator
Strong (Intentionalist school)
Hitler was the overall Fuhrer and was in ultimate control as "master of the Third Reich"
Sebastien Haffner: "Controlled Chaos"
Hitler able to take praise for effective policies and blame other for inefective ones
Weak (Structuralist school)
Hitler was lazy and weak. not giving a clear and consistent direction
Structuralist's see Hitler's role mainly to approve policies pushed by various power blocs struggling for power
Chaotic "polycratic" system
Stresemann
Negative
A. J. Nicholls: "It is unlikely that the French or the British politicians really imagined Stresemann had changed (from his nationalistic views). They knew the German foreign minister was a tough negotiator, well able to defend the interests of his country.
Jonathan Wright regards Stresemann as a hypocrite who secured European trust, US money and protection from French invasion, in order to leave open the opportunity for a revision of Germany's easter borders.
Economic and social stability
Kurt Borchhardt suggested that Germany was living beyond its means. Social welfare benefits, pensions and attempts to compensate those who had lost saving through hyperinflation placed a severe burden on state finances and kept taxes hight. He blames working-class greed for the "sick economy" in Weimar.
Carl-Ludwig Holtfrerich mentions the lack of internal capital due to industrialists and cartels relying on government subsidies rather than reinvesting, and that this made Germany overdependent on its foreign loans and investments. Germany was vulnerable to any recessions in the world markets.
Stresemann recognised that Germany was living on "borrowed prosperity."