Did Weimar Moderates Want Reunification? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Inter-war period (1919-1938), Russian civil war (1917–1921) and other non World War topics (1914-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14001425
No way. Weimar couldn't even expand the Autobahn system beyond a small tract, and didn't even conceive of violating the sacred 100,000 troops limit, much less militarize Germany to the level necessary to even take Poland. Weimar was a more or less obedient pussy of the Allied blackmailers, with a few pathetic attempts to circumvent the economic disaster, but never really touched the fundamental issue of German patriotism.
#14001429
The real problem of Weimar was the coalition tried to keep the far left and far right away from each other instead of letting them clash and coming to the rescue to save the day.

There are times when society has radical elements that need to combat each other and wipe each other out. When you prevent them from doing so, they blame you instead for getting in the way.
#14001472
Daktoria wrote:The real problem of Weimar was the coalition tried to keep the far left and far right away from each other instead of letting them clash and coming to the rescue to save the day.

This was practically impossible as democracy was widely unpopular in both Germany and Italy, plus it didn't have any effective means of combating communist and fascist militias when it "came to save the day." The SA in Germany numbered at least 3 million. The Schwarz-Rot-Gelb militia, OTOH, was an utter joke.

Authoritarianism helped democracy when it was lying on its ass doing nothing. It salvaged the idea of a State for the people, and theoretically democracy should have adopted authoritarian-esque measures when it comes to anti-corruption and a national-protectionist economy after 1945. I'm unsure how efficient the postwar democracies in Germany and Italy were in these regards. Bottom line, if most postwar democracies experienced prosperity and stability, they have fascism to thank for that.
#14001620
My understanding is Zentrum failed to sway over enough Protestants from the far right to commit to the coalition. The independent BVP refused to support Wilhelm Marx, so Hitler succeeded von Hindenberg when he died.
#14001703
Preston Cole wrote:No way. Weimar couldn't even expand the Autobahn system beyond a small tract, and didn't even conceive of violating the sacred 100,000 troops limit, much less militarize Germany to the level necessary to even take Poland.

And yet the Versailles Treaty was breached repeatedly during the period when Weimar democracy held sway...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Reichswehr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Seekt#Reichswehr

Preston Cole wrote:This was practically impossible as democracy was widely unpopular in both Germany...

The SPD, a party dedicated to the Weimar democratic process, gained significant support throughout much of the Weimar period so I find that pretty hard to believe. Extremist parties didn't gain a mass base except when the economy was messed up (early 1920s and early 1930s) and in some regions they never achieved a significant base.
#14001853
So in essence war was preventable?

Let us imagine that neither the right or left extremists took power in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. I can imagine three scenarios following.

1) Germany joins the Western mainstream powers: After a period of development liberal democracy stays in Germany and it is no different from France or Britain. It gives up ambitions on reclaiming lost territories or reunifying with Austria.

2) The far right nationalists in Germany always remain an issue: Even if liberal democracy persists in Germany without war it would seem the political situation would remain very unstable and the danger of extremist nationalists or a right wing military coup always exists well into the 1980s.

3) Liberal democracy in Germany does not prevent it entering another war with the rest of Europe: What is to say that liberal democracy persisting would prevent a conflict developing between Germany and other European states?

It seems there exist many possibilities which cannot be said to be certain either way. Without a doubt the far right element in German politics would never go away.

What do you all think? Please share your thoughts, it is a very interesting subject.
#14002420
Political Interest wrote: Germany joins the Western mainstream powers: After a period of development liberal democracy stays in Germany and it is no different from France or Britain. It gives up ambitions on reclaiming lost territories or reunifying with Austria.

This seems to be a rehash of your 'reasonable Germany' scenario from a previous thread. Like that thread one of your stumbling blocks is you don't articulate what benefit Germany perceives in this.

Political Interest wrote:reunifying with Austria

Side note, modern Germany was not created with Austria as a component. Some nationalists saw Austria as an integral part of Germany but other nationalists saw it as a seperate entity from the German state.

Political Interest wrote:Even if liberal democracy persists in Germany without war it would seem the political situation would remain very unstable and the danger of extremist nationalists or a right wing military coup always exists well into the 1980s.

That's a pretty bold and far out series of assumptions there...

You also haven't really dealt with how Weimar democracy overcomes its institutional conflicts (eg. the significant power vested in the President, who was often hostile to democracy) and the inevitable downturn in the economy when the Great Depression hits which gave both right and left wing radicals and new platform.
#14002465
This seems to be a rehash of your 'reasonable Germany' scenario from a previous thread. Like that thread one of your stumbling blocks is you don't articulate what benefit Germany perceives in this.


By the late 1920s Germany was opening relations with France. Most probably they would remain between East and West.

Side note, modern Germany was not created with Austria as a component. Some nationalists saw Austria as an integral part of Germany but other nationalists saw it as a seperate entity from the German state.


Understood.

That's a pretty bold and far out series of assumptions there...

You also haven't really dealt with how Weimar democracy overcomes its institutional conflicts (eg. the significant power vested in the President, who was often hostile to democracy) and the inevitable downturn in the economy when the Great Depression hits which gave both right and left wing radicals and new platform.


Maybe democracy would not have lasted. Even if it did though, is it not true the extremist elements would always be a problem?
#14003153
Political Interest wrote:By the late 1920s Germany was opening relations with France.

They were also pursuing a seperate agenda in Central and Eastern Europe that France wasn't always in accord with...

Political Interest wrote: is it not true the extremist elements would always be a problem

Extremist parties are not necessarily permanent, any more than some mainstream parties from the past don't exist today. Nor are extremists significant in every polity
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

I think future vice-president Kushner has the fact[…]

As someone that pays very close attention to Amer[…]

I (still) have a dream

...Kids don't need to drive anywhere to play with[…]

Jared Kushner is inspired by the real estate pote[…]