Talk:Weimar Republic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Old Posts

You should write something about the lifestyle and culture in the Weimar Republic of the 1920s. Berlin was the center of the world back then (Fritz Lang, Marlene Dietrich, etc.)

---

"The use of almost pure proportional representation (similar to present-day Israel)" Mentioning israel here seems very weird. Is this a troll ?

---

The phrase, "To ensure that his fledgling government was able to maintain control over the country, Ebert pacted with the OHL, now led by Ludendorff's successor General Wilhelm Groener" is problematic because Ludendorff has never been mentioned in the article up to that point.

Earlier, the article states, "From 1916 onwards, the 1871 German Empire had effectively been governed by the military, led by the Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL, Supreme Army Command) with the Chief of Staff Paul von Hindenburg." I thought this role was actually played by Ludendorff, though I could be wrong about that.

Either way, the article should explain who Ludendorff is before referencing him in that way.

From Text

"His audacious plan was to find a majority in the Reichstag by uniting the trade unionist left wings in the various parties, including that of the NSDAP led by Gregor Strasser. This did not prove successful either."

This seems to imply that the NSDAP (IE the Nazis) was leftwing. Also an alliance between the left (far-left?) and the Nazis seems somewhat improbable.

I wont change yet mind.

Mazzarin 04:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just read more detail on this and I now have no problem with the text.

--Mazzarin 04:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy

I note that there is no mention of why the collapse occurred, no reference to the Enabling Act here . No link ... No reference to the suborning of Hindenberg father and son through taxation-related blackmail and other related issues . I note that there is notice of the banker . I am working on this , this is a temporary notice of notice . Famekeeper 09:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing :) Wyss 17:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks . I have completed the summary for the end of Weimar . It had better be copied to this discussion in order that it can be accepted or disputed . Here it is below without sectioning on a date by date basis . I claim this is the shortest possible history of the crucial dath of democracy in NPOV form . I can back everything up .

Simplest NPOV History : End of Weimar Republic

Wonderful. I have reworded the text for flow and syntax and placed it into the article (the last two paragraphs are at the very end in a new section called later reactions).

Note to myself... blackmail of Oskar Hindenburg re Schleicher. Wyss 21:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There was a land and tax subsidy scandal concerning big landowners at the time in which Hindenburg and his son Oskar were implicated. Hitler threatened Oskar at one point that he'd push for criminal prosecution of the Hindenburgs if they didn't accept his cabinet deal but there's zero historical consensus as to whether or not this influenced the crusty old Paul Hindenburg in firing Schleicher and having a go at a new coalition that included the NSDAP with AH as chancellor. The term blackmail, in English, involves a threat to reveal compromising information. The scandal was already widely publicized so I changed it to threat. Wyss 17:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The tide turns , thanks for your work . I accept what you say re-Hindenberg , long as it's remembered .

Can you answer my sticking point in general? What was the legal basis of arrest in Febuary of the Communist Deputies , in the 4,000 leftist roundup reported ? I saw that dormant was somehow what they became at the next Reichstag , but wonder at how the Febuary( pre-fire) action legally covered Deputies ? Illegally is used in major source, but its old . Arrested is always used .

There wasn't much ethically valid legal basis, but they'd whipped up so much anti-communist frenzy (and the police were hardly sympathetic to communists) that between SA bullying and trumped up charges, then the public hysteria they encouraged after the Reichstag fire (and a communist was found behind the burning building- Goering's blustery boast years later notwithstanding), the public wasn't in much position to openly complain when the communists were effectively removed from the system. I think the article makes that clear but say the word and we can strenghten the language? Wyss 22:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

They stood as candidates , did they , some ones ? legally 'dormant' , but retained all but one seat . ... I see a discrepancy between the clauses of the post-election Enabling Act which exclude anything prejudicial to the institutions of the Reichstag , and the detention-in-dormancy ? I have asked this on Enabling Act and , well, ran off with it into speculating consequences ,whilst I still here in what you worked into the article said in red that [[Hitler did / did not possess the power]] . Please help because this is un-clear (to me!) I asked for a translation on this , if it could be located .

My worry about Ludwig Kaas and his 2 April meeting with Hitler after beaming off to Rome on the 24 march ....is far from abated . He is the crack in a russian doll , or not . Tell me -allthose cardinals brought out of Guenter Lewy on the megaMemex timeline , are they right quoootes and dates out of Lewy . I am told [they] mis-represent . In fact I'm told its all slander and untrue and that onlt the official start of the Concordat negotiations was Papen on the train with Kaas to Rome ( not secret as several sources attest) . In other worde I'm all wrong , or its unacceptabl;e truth to someone.Thanks,Wyss.Famekeeper 19:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Kaas was out-maneuvered by Hitler and wound up in Rome. I don't think the talks were secret but they weren't much publicized. Various aspects of this are inevitiably "unacceptable truth" to someone, the Catholic church's relationship with the Nazis was never polarized during the 1930s, they did try to compromise in order to protect what they had, and individuals in the Vatican weren't at all sympathetic to jewish victims of anti-semetism, hence the accusations of outright collusion with the Nazis. The documented record supports neither collusion nor strong opposition. This middle way results in an ambiguity that's uncomfortable for many observers, even some otherwise objective historians, to accept. Wyss 22:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ludwig Kaas

I take this from an archive to do with the Kaas question , Discussion Page|Archive 2 archive

The Postulator for Pius XII, Dr. Peter Gumpel SJ wrote in 1999 that John Cornwell was blinded by the writings of Heinrich Bruning, accepting Bruning's hatred of Papal Prelate Kaas and extending this to Pacelli since "Kaas worked with Pacelli".

Maybe he just meant that Kaas had worked with Pacelli . When I say Russian dolls I refer to Cardinal Roncallo (?) and the apparent Russian language-in-Catholic-services reason for his being vetoed as Papabile by the Emperor of Austria , his connection thru to JPII , that being a saner reason than that it was because he was a freemason, but that he , Roncallo is necessary to understand the Pacelli , the banking , the Lateran investments , Pius and pacelli . That even if Pius wasn't a rabid anti-semite , maybe he justifies the adage that my enemies' enemy must be my friend . I was really looking for the Edgar Ansel Mowrer quote , not under his name , must be at Centre party archives . Ill be back . PS, those dormancy questions still get me . Famekeeper

Further evidence that interpreting Kaas through a polarized lens will likely mislead. Wyss 00:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

How do you find the unpolarised lens? Surely Kas met Hitler privately for more than dissolving the Centre- I mean what influence did he have with the Centre party having rushed off to Rome the day after the EAct anyway , then for a week ? Who speaks from within the Centre , what does Bruning write about this ?

Str1977 sticks rigidly at the discussions for the Concordat opening with Papen's 'appointment by Hitler to negotiate , sending him to Rome (secretly as you know , for a Skiing trip , revealed by the Roman newspaper the day after he's there) . But apart from that subterfuge , why would an unpolarized lens ignore the fact that Kaas had all these deep links in to Pacelli whilst there . If he was on an internal Catholic job , he was still a Party Leader ? How can the Party leader be away like that without questions? What was the comment ? . He was obviously formulating something there in Rome , or awaiting the formulation by others.

If he was just on a sun-bathing holiday , or prayer , why would Hitler have given him the special treatment on the 2 April ? Do we ever get to know this conundrum without a polarisation , and can/will you point the way ? Famekeeper 23:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't like calling it subterfuge because most diplomacy involves some secrecy. He was obviously in Rome to negotiate... but for whom? Here's where my "polarization" metaphor may be handy: He protected what he thought were the interests of German catholics as he could, which in 1933 wasn't entirely at odds with the public Nazi "platform.". After the Concordat he was largely marginalized, the Centre party ceased to exist and given the authoritarian climate in Germany and his past role as a political leader there, he was much more effective (and safer) operating under direct protection of the Vatican, which in effect throughout the 1930s tended to cooperate with AH, who was seen as a stabilizing influence against the (atheist) communists. One cannot understand Kaas until one accepts the ambivalence catholics tended to have for Hitler (who had not yet laid waste to Europe, but seemed like me might play a part in saving it from communism, which by the way was linked with ethnic judaism even in the minds of reasonable, educated people then). Wyss 06:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree about subterfuge and Kaas . That subt. was re:papen and the Press, it is separate .

Anyway , whatever lens , but surely the closest to a reflection of reality , needs to be used ? Now to fill in the history from 23 March to the Concordat ? I don't accept the present skipping visible on Reichskonkordat . It seems a world away from timeline references to the concert of Hirerrchical approbatory shifts , no?

I hope you will help on this - I accept what you and others say , about the situation generally of Germany following the EAct but nevertheless like Klemperer , historians relate the appearance of the approbation following Hitler's speech of 23 ,the Kaas visit to Rome, his meeting with Hitler on return, the Fulda reversal , the Kaas telegram of Birthday congratulations with extra larding, the Pius XI approbation of Hitler to Papen , the Kaas drafting, the Centre dissolution , the Concordat , the words of the beatificator lawyer . can we along the line correct the Kaas article's ignoral and the Reichskonkordat article dispute . If there is no clear proof as what Kaas was up to with whom about what , may we report the conclusions of sources? .....

May we report the sources who back up your conclusions here ? May we indeed explain the forces at work , in a proper analysis , the which you refer to ? Will you oversee me , if I go now and source and correct the relevant articles ? Or contribute as we go , but watch the say, Reichsconcordat and Kaas and Pius XI pages , and witness the required sources I will present in good faith ?

Will we do this ? I can't see the point without you witnessing .Famekeeper 11:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Pls put it in! The Concordat is generally avoided or distorted in most accounts. We don't know what Kaas was up to... exactly, but the inferences can easily be cited. Good faith as long as we don't present the church as an accomplice to the holocaust or a crusading enemy of Nazism, it was neither (although distaste for AH grew in the Vatican, as it did elsewhere, as the years rolled by). Wyss 12:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

OK I will . I'm exhausted by the Famekeeper trial right now , so I might take a couple of days off, or couple of weeks bandwidth holiday . Famekeeper 16:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope you do. Get it in as raw as you like and I'll go through it. Your sources seem a lot better than mine on this one. What's the Famekeeper trial? Wyss 16:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll do it on discussion pages as before for u to write on and let u know on yr home discussion , if needed . Press famekeeper for the war - you might 'nt wish to work with me when you see my accusations . Follow thru to the Rfc link there [[1]] . The more I had to learn about the church's law , the surer I became , they did wrong in The quid pro quo . I said to the one faith editor , to get in his superior, and he seems to have done so (see this at Jwales at bottom . They protect saints and stuff, so it's a bit of an impedance . Go next to Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates as before everything we will need to settle Papen , and this Cologne meeting is crucial . There is no doubt that history suspects a quid pro quo , and I agree that there were many factors , and that it was of scant success at the time, but historically I believe it did succeed in defeating communism . Famekeeper 07:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Happily, I tend to avoid the straight religious topics. Faith is what it is, and articles on religious figures have to be somewhat heavy on the believers' consensus PoV, this in order to avoid gnashing of teeth (not to mention alienating lots of editors and readers :).

Anyway I watch this page so I'll see it when it pops in. Papen was an opportunist btw, speaking of tit for tat (quid pro quo). The key to understanding this is remembering that Hitler, the German establishment and the Vatican were all deeply anti-communist. Wyss 10:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

100% agree . Jews are a small side dish to the vat-Russia is the big bug . I mentioned Roncallo being vetoed as Pope , even without communism , it was Russia. anyway go to the Rhenish magnates I ve left post Famekeeper 11:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It riles some folks but it's true, the Vatican was only ambivalent about jewish persecution (not talking about the death camps here, that's another kettle). Meanwhile the Sovs didn't like churches. They turned them into community centres and warehouses. Wyss 12:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Who was Roncallo?

There are more than enough reasons to be anti-communist.

(Yep) Wyss 18:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

FK, if I reacted as you did, I would now claim that you show contempt for the victims. Consider whether you are acting fairly.

As for facts and POV: facts are facts, POV is POV - FK claims something as a fact for which he has provided absolutely zero evidence (that there was a Vatican-Kaas conspiracy connected with the concordat involved in the passing of the Enabling Act - that's the dispute).

You head for arbitration , Str1977....

Str1977 18:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, any editing I did on this article wouldn't call it a conspiracy, or even a deal. I think the record is rather clear that the Vatican acquiesced somewhat in exchange for what they thought would be protections in Germany, which during the early thirties they viewed as a buffer against communism as did many others. Russia has long been treated with suspicion in Europe. It doesn't take a conspiracy to arrive at the Concordat, perceived mutual interest and practical politics sufficed, as wonted. Wyss 18:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Mariano Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro was the benefactor etc for the young Pacelli . He was vetoed in 1903 by the Austrian Eperor for two reasons. One , the mor reasonable , was for promoting russian language in catholic services in eastern poland. other , was that he had a sleuth put on him to dig up his frremasonry connections. Sort of relevant if true , to Ernesto pacelli and the moneeeee .

I see you have been hard at work , Wyss . As to Str , well K von Klemperer(amongst others) thinks otherwise, but Str always reduces his view, to , well , invisibility on the Kaas article . But Hi there Str-how are you today? When I was going thru the Pius XII history of your massage ... your usual thing of removing links , refs, sources , pics and what-not , I came upon a very specific user 199.106.94.229 on I think 24 march . That user is a classic case of why maybe the WP will never progress beyond a kind of blog . Unless one sits there like a cop , well , it's all a drag and a half . 'Bout time you start up the case with your priest or superior ....

Wyss , I take a rather harder view than yourself , but what you say just here is a bit like saying it without saying it . Anyway , I don't have a view outside of what I see written . I accept what the sources say. Funny how I never see contrary sourced views either . I note that the secret annexe to the Reichskonkordat , confirms what you wiped from my edits , Str . When are you going to get real ? I may present a line of sourced reference , but do not, Str, imagine this this is an FK thing . I thankyou for broadening my mind actually ,Str, the canonicals are a wow . And the irony of the quid pro quo- which you should allow -both of you- to be reportrd as historical , is that it was to protect canonical law and keep clerics out of politics ! Hitler didn't half know ... . Funny , that . And yes , side-dish is more silence of the lambs than usual academia- what do you think's better, human soap bars and light-shades and stuffing of hair into arm chairs? Saint Pius XII? For his gluttony alone he is remembered , so side dish is perhaps more apposite than u think .

If this is gonna be a Str marathon again, I dunno I 'll bother . What the devil do you mean by fairly...? Perhaps I should simply concentrate on the canonical case from here-on , and leave Str counting angels on the pin ... do you want the sourcing Wyss , or shall I just go for the physical shovels those excommunicated Popes need ? Anyway Wyss , I'll send a link to the canonical conclusions , as they are very clear indeed . Admirable .

I think your editing is pretty sparkly ... but maybe you begin to think of me like the mob out there? . Str even avoids the words Weimar Republic . You are very cute Str, at killing links ..... signedFamekeeper 12:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Patience... this is still controversial stuff. FK I think you're a bit hard on the church and too easy on the communists (who would have locked in their own authoritarian system had they gotten the chance). Wyss 15:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Article 48 of the Constitution

So it seems that you Wyss believe that Artcle 48 (49?) allowed for the arrest and dormancy of the KPD deputies . That wouldn't allow for their original arrest prior to the Fire Act , and still seems to me in contradiction with section 2 of the Enabling Act . Since you have written that it comes under the 49 decree, I should really like to see my questions regarding how the dormany or arrest of the Reichstag members was legal at any time ...please , can you get me off this point...? Famekeeper 12:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I see on the Fire Act page that Communist leaders were arrested earlier . But that is not to say deputies(they were ). I still do not see how elected members of the Reichstag could have been excluded , given article 2 EAct preservation of the institution of the Reichstag . They were part of the institution ---surely ?Famekeeper 12:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

That's the pith of it. They were bullied out of the system (as subversives- traitors) by the SA and police... and it was all declared legal by the government under the emergency powers of the 1919 constitution (48- not so sure about 49 but that's what they used). Was it legal? Democracies have checks and balances like supreme courts to interpret applications of the law and reverse abuses. There was no hope of appeal after AH got the Enabling Act through the Reichstag. So he used legal processes and the government supported him all the way, albeit barely. Was it constitutional? No high court ever had the opportunity to rule on it, but the majority coalition used articles in the existing constitution. After the war, German lawmakers expressed opinions that the 1919 constitution was flawed and that's my take. The Nazis used a flawed constitution, Germany's first attempt at democracy after a disasterous war, to lawfully establish authoritarian rule in Germany. Plainly put, the Weimar constitution was ineptly written, "seeded" with a back door to totalitarian, autocratic rule similar to what the monarchs enjoyed before the war. Wyss 14:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well , actually it doesn't answer the question . The question is whether any Decree coulld legally go further than the Enabling Act clause 2 , protection of the Reichstag or did before it (ie in the Fire Decree) ? Bullying obviously was in existence , but I am only asking this limited question , as to how EAct 2 could be weaker than decree 48 . Did Decree 48 have a protection-of-the-Reichstag-institution-notice ? Did the Constitution have the same as EAct 2 , ditto . If there was a seed I'd like to read it . I note a link to the full texts in German of the Fire Decree so perhaps you would be so good as to study it -someone- and let us know ., or shall I get my translator in  ?Famekeeper 17:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I do see what you're getting at, I think the pre EA interpretations were likely abusive but since they were based on charges of sedition were technically legal. Wyss 17:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Historian(s) use the word illegal prior to the Fire Decree , illegal post that Decree , but who ever discussed the legality post the EAct ? It would appear to be still illegal even then .

This is plainly controversial. We all know their application of the law was unethical and abusive. We know the communists were bullied out of the government. However article 48 was so sweeping in its language that the Nazis (and others) easily identified it as the swiftest means to legally undermine the constitution. To reduce this discussion down to "legal" or "illegal" is sophistry. Laws can be "wrong." Laws can be poorly written. Article 48 was a backdoor to dictatorship. If one characterizes AH's takeover of the German government as "legal" that doesn't imply an endorsement, but only a method or tactic. Meanwhile, no high court ever had an opportunity to render a judgement under German law and the vast majority of Germans accepted the Enabling Act throughout the 1930s. Why the controversy? In my view, it's an unwillingness on the part of some people to accept that undesireable and harmful things can happen through skillful politics and the application of badly written laws, combined with a misunderstanding of what law is. Wyss 15:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Howsoever , Wyss, I have had to prepare a 500 word summary for Arbitrators, and I am now calling for arbitration. As you have never entered any of the relevant pages , I invite you to become one arbitrator . I shall be posting the summary shortly at Robert McClenon.Famekeeper 08:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Will do, I left a message on your talk page. Wyss 08:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't find it -what talk page is that ? Famekeeper 09:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Article 20

Well , no I don't say I know that their moves were illegal or abusive as you write , I'm not assuming anything , except that what I cannot see reason for , needs reason . I see throughout the nazi/germany pages there is simply ref,. to the power and its use, but no definition of the power to include deputies. Opponents yes, communists (ie anyone , except a Reichstag Dep with immunity) yes . But I find it hard to accept a history that does not explain itself , nor a law that is at odds with the law .

Humanitas- I don't know whether their timeline is the same as MegaMemex, this link is to Hum Org in fact,... they an industrial magnates meeting in Goering's palace on Feb 20 th .

I get back to magnates yet see all through ref to german capitalism being highly structured inside quasi social form , and therefore not alike to the international market , however the corporations are def . multi-national a lot of them . at least as important in historical terms as concept of race , somewhere above nation .

McClenon seems to warrant that changes were necessary to the various articles and that arbitration is not . Can't see that arbitration does much , however , McC kept wanting the precis . So that's on hold , or whatever .

However I am aware that the guys who want Hitler's Pope just to refer to Cornwell , thereby seem to also allow for a much tougher line against Pacelli than that which I interjected .

relevant to the above , I see that in the Fire Decree there is no reference whatever to Article 20 of the Wei Const. This states that the Deputies represent all the people , are ruled by their conscience alone , and subject to no ...forget the word, ? control .

There seems to remain a considerable confusion in the various interlinking wikipages now . All refer back eventually to the Fire Decree , but the Decree doesn't refer to Art 20 .

The Humanitas orgainsations time- line mentions Decrees, one on 4 Feb (Protection of the German People) forbidding meetings; the 28 (Fire Decree sic) they too see as allowing for Deputies' arrest  : [[2]]

Then 6 Mar an emergency Decree against the press etc . I don't see anything anywhere that up-ends art 20 . OK so KPD couldnt associate , but they could vote and be elected , as they were on the 5th Mar , which confirms that the 28 Fire decree did NOT allow for removal of Art 20 . The Eact equally did not . seems quite extra-ordinary to me - and yes I take your points about the situation , but I simply see no removal of no 20 and no possible contradiction with section 2 EAct at the time it was passed .

Ok so maybe some present Germany had better enlighten the world . I am going to have to chase art 20 . I , change sub, offered old Str to delete the crap . Whenever I thought we had a reasonable balance , he did always return with an editing onslaught , so I'm nervous of being amenable . Famekeeper 07:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Protective Custody

Only just saw your assent to Arb, thanks. listen to this from [[3]] they seem to get to the nub of the fire Decree , saying that unlike prev. use of Decr use for susp of rights , PvHin on 28 Feb didnt notice the absence of the Ebert revived "Protective Custody Act" of 1916 ( they have a typo on the date)This A guaranteed a judic'l hear'g wi'in 24 hours of arrest, the right to counsel, to inspect relevant records, appeal, and compensation from Treasury for erroneous arrests .

This seems to be from the Trials and goes on to say that since the courts couldn't emit writs for habeas corpus et al , the germans were in the hands of the police who were in the hands of the Nazis who were in the hands of the nugget cabal of evil men .

seems throroughly illegal to have denied Deputies their freedom , even under supposed protection . It was contrary to art 20 and even sect 2 EAct . The questions I raised re this tyherefore still stand . Certainly the govt was an illegal entity from 23 Mar , and the reichskonkordat is illegal in consequence as it was not made by a legal entity , the vatican state , with any other legal state . This sure relates to BXVI , who people try and suggest I shouldnt bug . Famekeeper 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Content from The Great Depression in Germany

The following text was in The Great Depression in Germany; as it seemed to be on the same topic as Weimar Republic#Economic_problems, I redirected it there and am copying the text here, for possible merging if it seems useful. JesseW 04:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

As the U.S. suffered in the grips of the infamous Great Depression of the late 1920's and early 30's, the reformed German nation had even greater worries. Due to a $33 billion war deficit outlined in the Treaty of Versailles, along with a war ravaged economy and farmland, the Germans were already in the grips of widespread poverty when the U.S. fell into the Depression. In order to the restimulate U.S. national trade and business, President Herbert Hoover raised U.S. tarriff rates to an an all-time high, severely limiting international trade with the economic giant. With their primary market gone, the German economy competely collapsed with titanic aftershocks. This miasma of poverty and desperation led Germans to look to a strong leader to rescue them, a leader who would betray their hopes and instigate a bloody struggle for the future of the world.

Wyss and good faith needed at Pius XII

Str is removing the Cornwell stuff wholesale as I write, its an immediate editing , claims disproved , there is no source from him for this I can see to back it up . I am just letting the Cornwell stand on the link to the Vanity Fair abbreviation . This really aint a FK problem no more no more , but well, it is a problem and needs whatever . I shall have to rustle up some IQ and you are first on my list . Sorry . I don't even want to deal with this or them as I really don't want to strain my good faith .They just need to stick to the rules . My own view is that the page needs protecting from my last edit . I have of course posted the source on discussion to join the 25 feet of previous discussions . Wyss-it's time I fear . Famekeeper 16:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Some evidently think WP struggle is too much and just up sticks, seems . !

The end of the Weimar Republic inevitable?

I think there's some evidence here that many powerful institutions were actively undermining the Weimar Republic, particularly the German military and German industry. Further, the Weimar Republic was deeply unpopular with a significant fraction of German voters. So it appears to me that even if Hitler had been thwarted, the Republic would have died sooner or later. Here's a speculative scenario.

This would go a long way to explaining why Hitler gained power so fast. Ie, he made a deal with these powerful institutions and they in turn used their power (and perhaps preexisting plans!) to support the Nazi party and more importantly to overcome obstacles in the way of a return to authoritarianism. For example, Hindenberg's resistance may have been overcome by persuasion from the German military. Or even that Hindenberg may have been persuaded that Hitler would make an adequate (if perhaps temporary) figurehead for a return to authoritarianism. Further, German intelligence would probably be far more capable at finding blackmail than the Nazi equivalent.

Whatever the case, it's clear that the Nazi leadership had planned extensively and thoroughly for a return to authortarianism. But to go from seizing power in 1933 to the start of the Second World War in 1939? That sounds like the culmination of a sophisticated war plan that the Nazi's might not have the resources to come up with on their own. The German military would have had adequate resources throughout the 20's to come up with something like this.

I'm not so sure they had planned all that carefully. They didn't seem to have any idea what to do with the economy (sure, they brought it out of the depression, but mostly by producing armaments at an insane rate!), and their social policies were almost entirely concerned with bringing everyone into line with Nazi ideology. That's not really a good way to run a country. Similar ideas apply to the "sophisticated war plan" - if your entire economy is based on militarization and heavy industry, what do you do after 6 years of producing guns and tanks? You can't sell them, so you might as well use 'em! --Cantara 19:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's true, AH was supported by a segment of the German establishment for years (and the bulk of it during the months leading up to his appointment as chancellor). Moreover, the 1919 constitution had been deliberately designed to include an article authorizing totalitarian policies during national emergencies and the Nazis skillfully exploited both it and those members of the German establishment who were wary of democracy. Wyss 16:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Wyss. Not sure I entirely agree regarding "the 1919 constitution had been deliberately designed to include an article authorizing totalitarian policies during national emergencies". Certainly authoritarian policies are necessary during crises — that's the point of martial law or state of emergency declarations, but I wouldn't say the Weimar drafters were intentionally inviting totalitarianism.

I would certainly agree with a contention that the Weimar Constitution was defective — it lacked proper checks and balances. I touched on some of these in my recent revision to the Weimar Constitution article. However, some of the other areas that appear to be root causes of Weimar's failure were not the constitution itself, but external factors (and hence, I didn't include them in my edit). These issues included the apparent lack of strong support for democracy from many of the state's power structures, and the economic and political turmoil in progress at the time the constitution was written and during most of its life. I don't see direct evidence of an intentional failure; rather, I see weaknesses in the document itself and in the way it was miused by weak or scheming politicians. Thoughts? -- JonRoma 04:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm stuck with family oral history here, which is inadequate for Wiki-articles, but may bear further research. My grandmother lived through World War I as a child, dodged bullets during the 1921 communist uprising in Hamburg, and left the country with her family in 1927. "Everyone expected another war after a generation," she used to say. "The treaty that ended World War I was too unfair to Germany. But in 1927 we weren't thinking that Hitler would come to power. He was some nut from Bavaria who'd been thrown into prison." In other words, did the Nazis rearm the German people or did they exploit a preexisting German desire to rearm? Durova 00:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The Nazis did both. It is fair to assume that most citizens do not like to see their homeland at a military or economic disadvantage to that of other nations. Germans suffered a heavy loss of life in World War I, then lost the war along with their emperor, and had revolution in their streets. The Versailles Treaty stripped Germany of a significant chunk of land, emasculated the German armed forces, and levied massive reparation payments on Germany. The reparations in turn led to hyperinflation, destroying Germans' life savings. The instability of Weimar parliamentary democracy and the unemployment crisis triggered by the Great Depression around 1930 added to Germans' woes, and no doubt this series of disasters must have been incredibly demoralizing for Germans.

Adolf Hitler was certainly not the first post-WWI German politician to suggest rearmament, but his fierce stance on this issue, his desire to tear up and avenge the Versailles Treaty, and his pledge to end unemployment all found fertile ground among the discouraged German people. In their desperation, they found in Hitler a leader who vowed to put an end to all the real and perceived disasters they had suffered since defeat in World War I.

On the point that many Germans didn't expect Hitler to come to power, there is a lot of evidence backing up the statement that not only Germans but political and military leaders abroad also wrote Hitler off as a nut case that had no chance of ever gaining power. Both Germany and the rest of the world suffered immensely from underestimating this man.

Unquestionably. If Hitler had been perceived as a real threat, the SPD, at least, would have adopted very different tactics against him. Germany had always had bizarre splinter parties, and at the time there was little reason to think that the NSDAP was anything other than another one of them. --Cantara 19:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of these factors are discussed in other Wikipedia articles; hope this helps. — JonRoma 01:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)