[Truth-a-naut]

After reading up about the Locarno Treaty and how Germany was intentionally undervaluing their currency in attempt to re-arm and re industrialize (for example industrial production in 1925 had surpassed levels in 1913 and 1914). Was the Weimar government planning on going to war again? At least in the East?

Due to the Locarno Treaties France's little entente had been basically nullified, as France would have to go against the recent Non-Aggression pact in order to defend any members of it's defensive alliance. Technically this would bring Britian and the low countries in to defend Germany from French 'aggression', wouldn't it?

The treaty seems to have been designed to intentionally split the former Allies apart and secure the Western borders in order to avoid another two-front war. The fact that Germany did not pursue a Locarno for the East... makes this entire arrangement interesting.

It really seems like the politics (sans the antisemitism) pursued by Stresemann was a more methodical and patient way of eventually gaining lebensraum.

Or does this sound crazy?

[Potemkin]

No, actually it's perfectly reasonable. We think of the Weimar Republic as a plucky, brave little democracy which was brutally crushed by the evil Nazis, but the reality was actually more complex than that. The Weimar Republic itself was in many ways a brutal, expansionist regime which didn't hesitate to deliberately devalue its currency, driving millions of its own citizens into financial ruin, and attempt to subvert international treaties and rearm itself. The Nazis simply thought they were going about it the wrong way and were way too corrupt. Rather like the interwar Polish regime, it was seen after WWII as a passive, martyred victim of Nazi aggression, but was actually rather aggressive and brutal itself.

[albionfagan]

No, actually it's perfectly reasonable. We think of the Weimar Republic as a plucky, brave little democracy which was brutally crushed by the evil Nazis, but the reality was actually more complex than that. The Weimar Republic itself was in many ways a brutal, expansionist regime which didn't hesitate to deliberately devalue its currency, driving millions of its own citizens into financial ruin, and attempt to subvert international treaties and rearm itself. The Nazis simply thought they were going about it the wrong way and were way too corrupt. Rather like the interwar Polish regime, it was seen after WWII as a passive, martyred victim of Nazi aggression, but was actually rather aggressive and brutal itself.

Do we?

Germany was well along the road towards crushing democracy and liberty before the Nazis came to power, the rules of Papen, Schleicer and Bruning were almost exclusively done through decrees bypassing the impotent reichastag. The Papen coup in July 32, when he removed SD from power in Barvaria(or was it prussia?) was the most indicative sign that authoritarianism was coming back, and the SD did fuck all to resist.

I'm not sure the Weimar Republic was intent on war but it was hostile to the Treaty of Versailles, contrary to common opinion. This probably would have led to another war. In fact the situation was such mess in post-war Europe and especially German, that I doubt any government could have prevented another war at some point.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

If we go back to the signing of Locarno in 1925 its notable there was no effort to ensure Germany's eastern borders would remain unchanged.

By the Germany was already secretly re-arming and training its soldiers in the USSR under Rapallo.

Albiofagin events from 1930 should strictly be seperated from the policies persued before then under relatively peaceful and stable conditions (or at least from the end of 1923).

I agree with Dave and Potemkin on this one.

[Smilin' Dave]

I think amongst the conservatives (for want of a better term) the thought of recapturing some of the territory lost in the East (particularly to Poland, but also the Sudetenland) would have been quite appealing. So maybe not lebensraum so much as reunification? On the other hand the desire for rearmament might simply have been the result of paranoia about being attacked by one of Weimar Germany's neighbours.

[Dave]

The Stresemann government also pursued a trade war with Poland in the hope that this would disastrously destabilize the Polish economy and force Poland to come to a satisfactory accomodation with Germany. Other topics worth noting are that the Weimar government consistently argued for "equality of armaments" in its international relations, built the "pocket battleships", secretly retained the general staff, secretly trained armored and aviation units in the USSR, secretly built u-boats in Finland, and constantly denounced Italy over its treatment of the Germans in Tyrol.

World War One crushed the Kaiserreich, but it didn't extinguish the traditional fires of the German nation nor its security issues in the East. It took WW2 to do that. You may wish to PM the user Annatar about this. He is a German "national liberal" with favorable views on Stresemann, and he has quite a bit of expertise on the topic.

[albionfagan]

If we go back to the signing of Locarno in 1925 its notable there was no effort to ensure Germany's eastern borders would remain unchanged.

By the Germany was already secretly re-arming and training its soldiers in the USSR under Rapallo.

Albiofagin events from 1930 should strictly be seperated from the policies persued before then under relatively peaceful and stable conditions (or at least from the end of 1923).

I agree with Dave and Potemkin on this one.

What? None of the rules that I mentioned were prior 1930 :/.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

^ Exactly