Questions and discussion - Germany: (2 Viewers)

[Ruby Rose]

Concerning economics in Germany:

What was the 1925 (this is actually 1924, I think) Dawes Plan?
What was the 1929 Young Plan?
What are some of the things Stresemann did to combat hyperinflation?



Concerning Hindenburg's presidential rule in Germany:
Which chancellors did he appoint, who strongly influenced his decisions, and how did this lead to Hitler becoming combined chancellor-president?

 

[jellybelly59]

ok this is from the top of my head from what i studied for trials

-dawes plan and young plan were diplomatic efforts by stresseman to effectively reduce war repayments for the country the 1929 young plan was just an improvement on the dawes plan.
-stresseman immediately stopped the strike against the belgians and the french and the ruhr which the government was paying for. he centralised the currency and reintroduced a new rentenmark at the equivalent at 3.3 marks per us dollar... don't quote me on that

hindenburg's chancellors were:
- bruning, schleicher and von papen. Bruning utilised article 48 to get his way... did a shit job on economic policy with deflationary policy which is cutting payments when your meant to be stimulating the economy to reduce the impact of the economic fall. Schleicher was always politically motivated and removed people left right and centre and further causing economic instability. Also utilised article 48. Von papen manouvered around the german system becoming vice chancellor to hitler but gaining more cabinet seats - he effectively removed schleicher whom he hated by gaining the support of the NSDAP and DNVP and forming a coaltion - all of this had to be done by papen who thinking himself to be a puppet master of hitler convinved Hindenburg of his effective subjugation of the radical right... only to get his ass kicked in by hitler later. Constant use of article 48 also legitimised Hitler's later use of the constitution himself in order to gain power.

 

[absorber]

Dawes plan was march 1924, was it not? It involved the US lending Germany loans to pump into her economy to increase her ability to pay reparations to the allies; in the end it really worsened to depression dramatically for Germany though, because she became reliant on US funding.

Young plan, to my understanding, involved basically delaying reparations until after the depression, though I'm not completely sure on that one.

What'd stresemann do? Well basically I thought they stopped it by introducing a new currency and just not printing so much of it.

Hindenburg: He appointed alota chancellors, I don't know all of them, but the important ones in later years were Muller, Von Papen, Schleicher, more but I can't remember off top of my head.

Who influenced him? His aristocratic, traditional upper-class voters. Schleicher, he was in the army. His son, Oscar.

Basically Hitler got really popular (almost 40% of the vote in presidential elections for 1932, for instance), and the nazi party, being the largest in the reichstag, were revolting as others would not allow Hitler chancellorship. But they had a long succession of poor chancellors, including those mentioned above, and in the end Von Papen and Hindenburg made a deal with Hitler, which he took advantage of. Once he was chancellor he took advantage of a string of events to revoke German civil liberties and remove political opposition, and just before Hindenburg died in...August? 1934 he passed on act making him Fuhrer (or chancellor-president) when Hindenburg died.

...Yeah that's as much as I can say for now

Add this to what above post said and that's a reasonable explanation. Yeah, other chancellor was Bruning; I think it went Muller, Bruning, Von Papen, Schleicher, Hitler

 

[jellybelly59]

i think it was the enabling act 1933 which i think he initiated prior to Hindenburg's death.

 

[cem]

Please Please Please - don't confuse 1923 and hyperinflation with 1929 - 1933 and the Great Depression.

1923 - Invasion of Ruhr and Hyperinflation - Stresseman becomes Chancellor - introduces Rentenmark to stabilis currency - is replaced as Chancellor and become Foreign Minister.

1924 - 1929 - Stresemann, through his foreign policies brings Germany back into the family of nations - Dawes Plan, Kellogg-Brian Pact, entry to League of Nations, dies October 1929 (just before the Wall Street Crash).

Many students confuse the events of 1923 with 1929 - 1933 economically and it costs marks and lots of them.

 

[kelllly]

Concerning economics in Germany:

What was the 1925 (this is actually 1924, I think) Dawes Plan?
What was the 1929 Young Plan?
What are some of the things Stresemann did to combat hyperinflation?



Concerning Hindenburg's presidential rule in Germany:
Which chancellors did he appoint, who strongly influenced his decisions, and how did this lead to Hitler becoming combined chancellor-president?

Hyperinflation

Stresemann ended passive resistance and introduced a new currency, which led to the end of the hyperinflation.

The Dawes Plan 1924

The Dawes Plan of 1924 reduced reparations and allowed Germany to pay only as it could afford. It also led to the French leaving the Ruhr.

The Young Plan 1929

The Young Plan of 1929 led to a massive reduction in reparations (from 132 billion marks to 37 billion marks). It also led to a total withdrawal of foreign troops.

Hindenburg

Hindenburg appointed Bruning, Schleicher, Papen and then Hitler.

Bruning repeatedly used Article 48, which destroyed the German people's confidence in the democracy. He also called the 1930 election, providing the Nazis with perfect opportunity to exploit the Depression - from 12 seats in 1928 to 107 seats in 1930.

Schleicher, who was a representative of the army, had great influence over Hindenburg in appointing chancellors. His scheming behind the scene undermined and destabilised democracy. He (and Papen) also provided the Nazis with a great election opportunity in July 1932. In fact, the Nazis became the largest party in the Reichstag with 230 seats.

However, the Nazis experienced a decline in their votes in the November 1932 election. Hindenburg was also reluctant to appoint Hitler as chancellor. Yet Hitler became chancellor on 30 January 1933. It was because of Papen, who put pressure on Hindenburg, that allowed Hitler to become chancellor. Therefore, as Kershaw wrote, 'In bringing Hitler to power ... conservative miscalculation played a larger role than any actions of the Nazi leader himself'.

The Enabling Act of March 1933 allowed Hitler to merge the office of chancellor with that of president to create a new office - Fuhrer.

Hope that helps.

 

[jellybelly59]

sorry kelly but the enabling act was the legitimised version of abolishing democracy whereby the government could pass laws for the next 4 yrs regardless of whether the reichstag refused or not - It was just an expansion on the emergency decree of feburary 1933. it was essentially a change to the constitution but hitler appealed to hindenburg who had not died yet to threaten to oust any of those that refused...

 

[kelllly]

Oh. Sorry. So it allowed him, as chancellor, full executive powers for 4 years? But after Hindenburg died, didn't he use the Act to combine the two offices (chancellor and president)?

I'm getting this from Chancellor of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but since it's Wikipedia, it may not be reliable.

 

[cem]

Don' t forget that there are two Enabling Acts - one in 1923 to handle the hyperinflation situation which ceased to operate in 1924 when the situation had stabilised and then the one that was passed in 1934 that ended the democracy.

It is useful to know about both as it shows that the Constitution, in allowing an Enabling Act, wasn't completely stupid but that it depended more on the will of the men involved as the first time the men didn't want to overturn the democracy but the second time it did.

Enabling act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia gives a basic outline of the two acts as used in Germany as well as other countries that have them or have tried to have them and how they have been used etc. This sort of information e.g. that Venezuala has used them since the Nazi period also shows that they are not inherently bad but the will of the people involved has to be for the right reasons.

NB I hope I didn't confuse people with my previous post but many students, in the HSC, do confuse the two events - the crisis of 1923 and the crisis of 1929 - 33. As a marker it is so annoying when good students make a basic mistake like that.

 

[Domini]

ok this is from the top of my head from what i studied for trials

-dawes plan and young plan were diplomatic efforts by stresseman to effectively reduce war repayments for the country the 1929 young plan was just an improvement on the dawes plan.
-stresseman immediately stopped the strike against the belgians and the french and the ruhr which the government was paying for. he centralised the currency and reintroduced a new rentenmark at the equivalent at 3.3 marks per us dollar... don't quote me on that

hindenburg's chancellors were:
- bruning, schleicher and von papen. Bruning utilised article 48 to get his way... did a shit job on economic policy with deflationary policy which is cutting payments when your meant to be stimulating the economy to reduce the impact of the economic fall. Schleicher was always politically motivated and removed people left right and centre and further causing economic instability. Also utilised article 48. Von papen manouvered around the german system becoming vice chancellor to hitler but gaining more cabinet seats - he effectively removed schleicher whom he hated by gaining the support of the NSDAP and DNVP and forming a coaltion - all of this had to be done by papen who thinking himself to be a puppet master of hitler convinved Hindenburg of his effective subjugation of the radical right... only to get his ass kicked in by hitler later. Constant use of article 48 also legitimised Hitler's later use of the constitution himself in order to gain power.

A good thing to remember with Bruning's deflationary policy is that it kept unemployment high, increasing the people's desperation and thereby stoking the fires of extremism (more people supporting extreme political parties in elections).

 

[Domini]

Question:

The textbook says that the Democratic Republic was created and THEN the Kaiser was forced to abdicate. Wouldn't his position have been destroyed when the Republic was created anyway? Also, what was the significance of the 1918-1919 Revolution (beginning with the Kiel Mutiny)? How much did this contribute to Germany becoming a Republic? It was my understanding that the Allies wouldn't negotiate with Germany until it embraced democracy, so was this the defining factor or did the Revolution play a big role in the decision too?

I am confused...anyone know the answer?

 

[jellybelly59]

Oh. Sorry. So it allowed him, as chancellor, full executive powers for 4 years? But after Hindenburg died, didn't he use the Act to combine the two offices (chancellor and president)?

I'm getting this from Chancellor of Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but since it's Wikipedia, it may not be reliable.

technically he didn't from what i know, being both president and chancellor would require him to change the constitution which would require 2/3 of the voter to pass... which he eventually coerced the remaining SPD to do.

edit: from what cem says im probably wrong

 

[jellybelly59]

Question:

The textbook says that the Democratic Republic was created and THEN the Kaiser was forced to abdicate. Wouldn't his position have been destroyed when the Republic was created anyway? Also, what was the significance of the 1918-1919 Revolution (beginning with the Kiel Mutiny)? How much did this contribute to Germany becoming a Republic? It was my understanding that the Allies wouldn't negotiate with Germany until it embraced democracy, so was this the defining factor or did the Revolution play a big role in the decision too?

I am confused...anyone know the answer?

hmm... have to change part of my answer now that i look back to the textbook where bold is what i've changed:

edit:
when you become a republic... the monarch effectively becomes a constitutional monarchy which has no power... but it's still recognised as a head of state - like england today. Kiel mutiny? Well, from republic to reich - that seemed to be the revolution that demanded democracy, freedom, removal of the kaiser and the immediate end of the war which they learned from socialism from russia. Was it still a defining factor to Germany becoming a republic - no. Either way the allies would of forced it upon them or they would have been wiped off the map. lol i think negotitate is a bit of a euphemism considering they would have massarcred germany and wiped it off the map if they didn't become a republic but no the kiel mutiny was not a defining factor. I'm confused about the Revolution... what revolution are you reffering to?

 

[jessjackowski]

Question:

The textbook says that the Democratic Republic was created and THEN the Kaiser was forced to abdicate. Wouldn't his position have been destroyed when the Republic was created anyway? Also, what was the significance of the 1918-1919 Revolution (beginning with the Kiel Mutiny)? How much did this contribute to Germany becoming a Republic? It was my understanding that the Allies wouldn't negotiate with Germany until it embraced democracy, so was this the defining factor or did the Revolution play a big role in the decision too?

I am confused...anyone know the answer?

I always thought that the Republic "came into being, almost by 'accident'" when Phillip Scheidemann (SPD) proclaimed a new Republic from the Reichstag balcony on 9/11/1918.....and this made Ebert angry because he wanted to set up his own constitutional monarchy in Germany?

The significance of the Kiel mutiny was that it put pressure on the Kaiser to abdicate because when he turned to the army for support, they refused to help him....and thats why he abdicated...


ummm 'revolution' in Jan 1919 were the Spartacists uprisings....and they were important because when the government turned to the friekorps for help here, it divided the political left.

 

[jessjackowski]

i always thought there was historical debate over whether the 'revolution' in Germany during late 1918/early 1919 was actually a 'revolution' or not....

 

[jellybelly59]

I always thought that the Republic "came into being, almost by 'accident'" when Phillip Scheidemann (SPD) proclaimed a new Republic from the Reichstag balcony on 9/11/1918.....and this made Ebert angry because he wanted to set up his own constitutional monarchy in Germany?

The significance of the Kiel mutiny was that it put pressure on the Kaiser to abdicate because when he turned to the army for support, they refused to help him....and thats why he abdicated...


ummm 'revolution' in Jan 1919 were the Spartacists uprisings....and they were important because when the government turned to the friekorps for help here, it divided the political left.

nope he actually abdicated because of civil unrest esp. in Bavaria due to the Kiel Mutiny

 

[jessjackowski]

nope he actually abdicated because of civil unrest esp. in Bavaria due to the Kiel Mutiny

thats kinda what i meant. There was mutiny in Kiel because the navy were ordered to fight with the British fleet...sailors refused and were arrested...workers and soldiers protested in kiel....there was a massive strike....then military commanders tell the Kaiser that the army would not fight for him..and then he finally agrees to abdicate?


Just out of curiosity...looking on past papers there hasn't been a specific question on the 'Hitler's role in the Nazi state' dot point......do you think they could pose a specific question such as these (as suggested by my teacher):

"outline the role of hitler in the functioning of the nazi state"

"Outline the importance of hitler to the rise of Nazism to 1934"

 

[cem]

A good thing to remember with Bruning's deflationary policy is that it kept unemployment high, increasing the people's desperation and thereby stoking the fires of extremism (more people supporting extreme political parties in elections).

This is one of the reasons why Mr Rudd and the rest of the world have followed the policy they have during the GFC - inflationary rather then deflationary - to keep people in work - as case of the modern world learning the lessons of history. Using a point like this (although off the topic) would show the marker that you really do understand the concepts.

 

[cem]

technically he didn't from what i know, being both president and chancellor would require him to change the constitution which would require 2/3 of the voter to pass... which he eventually coerced the remaining SPD to do.

edit: from what cem says im probably wrong

By the time Hindenburg died the Enabling Act was already in force, all opposition parties gone and he could basically do what he pleased.

In normal circumstances to combine both positions would have required support from the Reichstag but by August 1934 he had removed all opposition parties and had the Enabling Act passed so the Wemiar Constitution effectively was no longer in effect.

 

[cem]

i always thought there was historical debate over whether the 'revolution' in Germany during late 1918/early 1919 was actually a 'revolution' or not....

There is most certainly a great deal of debate as to whether or not it was a revolution.

The usual definition of a revolution is complete political, social and economic change. It could be argued that there was only political change in Germany as the social structure, except at the very top with the Emperor, doesn't really change and there is no real economic change.

It could be argued that the Nazis undertake a far greater revolution than the Weimar as the Nazis do change the political, social and, to a certain extent, the economic structure of the country although economically not as great as the other two and even then social is more surface deep only as well.