history for the ib diploma: democratic states

Historyfor the IB Diploma

Democratic StatesJean Bottaro and John StanleySeries editor: Allan Todd

Cambridge University Press’s mission is to advance learning, knowledge and research worldwide.

Our IB Diploma resources aim to:

topics that have local and global significance

for higher education

critical-thinking skills and forming reasoned answers.

!"#$%&'() *+&,)%- &./ 0%)--Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Tokyo, Mexico City

Cambridge University PressThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK

www.cambridge.orgInformation on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521189378

© Cambridge University Press 2011

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2011

Printed in Dubai by Oriental Press

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-0-521-18937-8

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to inthis publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is,or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

This material has been developed independently by the publisher and the content is in no way connected with nor endorsed by the International Baccalaureate Organization.

1 Introduction 5

2 The Weimar Republic in Germany 1919–33 13Unit 1 The nature and structure of democracy in Weimar Germany 13How was the Weimar Republic governed and what was its structure? 14 What role did political parties play in both government and opposition? 16How signi1 cant were the pressure groups? 20

Unit 2 Economic and social policies 24How far did unemployment add to the other 1 nancial problems facing the Weimar Republic? 25Why did changing gender roles become central to a wider debate? 33Did the policies developed in the areas of health, education and social welfare prove adequate? 37

Unit 3 Political, social and economic challenges 42How far did the problem of political extremism threaten the stability of the Weimar Republic? 43 Did government policies related to ethnicity, religion and gender help civil rights? 50To what extent did Weimar attempt a redistribution of wealth and resources in Germany at this time? 57

3 India 1947–64 66Unit 1 The nature and structure of democracy in India 66What was India like before 1947? 68How did independence and partition affect India in 1947? 70What changes happened under Nehru? 74

Unit 2 Economic and social policies 82What was done to increase employment? 84How were issues relating to gender dealt with? 85What did the government do to improve health and education? 86How did economic policy affect social welfare? 88

Unit 3 Political, social and economic challenges 90How did political extremism threaten democracy? 91What were the challenges relating to ethnicity, religion and gender? 94How successful were movements to end the caste system and extend civil rights? 96Did the changes result in a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources? 98

4 The United States 1953–73 105Unit 1 The nature and structure of democracy in the United States of America 105How was the US constitution and its electoral system devised? 106What role did political parties play in government and opposition? 109How signi1 cant were pressure groups? 112

Unit 2 Economic and social policies 115How did successive administrations deal with the issue of employment? 116 How did successive administrations deal with gender issues? 122How did successive administrations deal with issues of health and education? 125How did successive administrations deal with social welfare? 132

Contents

Unit 3 Political, social and economic challenges 136To what extent did the problem of political extremism undermine government? 137Were US government policies related to ethnicity, religion and gender appropriate for the time? 142How did the respective governments tackle the issue of civil rights? 149Was there a redistribution of wealth and resources in America at this time? 154

5 South Africa 1991–2000 160Unit 1 The nature and structure of democratic states: how did South Africa become a democracy? 160How undemocratic was South Africa before 1991? 162 What was the nature and structure of the apartheid state? 163Why was there a change of policy in 1989–90? 166How did the process of change and reform begin? 167

Unit 2 The nature and structure of democracy in the new South Africa 170How did negotiations lead to a multi-party democracy? 171What was the structure of the new democracy? 175How did the new South Africa deal with the past? 178 How did democracy function in the new South Africa? 181

Unit 3 Economic and social policies 184How did employment practices change? 185How were issues relating to gender dealt with? 187How did the government approach problems in health and education? 188 How did economic policy affect social welfare? 192

Unit 4 Political, social and economic challenges 196How did political extremism threaten democracy? 197What were the challenges relating to ethnicity, religion and gender? 199How successful were movements for the attainment of civil rights? 204Did political change lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources? 205

6 Exam practice 212Paper 1 exam practice 212Paper 2 exam practice 224

Further information 235Index 236Acknowledgements 240

5

Introduction1This book is designed to prepare you for the Paper 2 topic, Democratic States – Challenges and Responses, in the IB History examination. It will examine various aspects of four democratic states in different regions of the world during the 20th century.

OverviewYou will learn how basic democratic principles were applied in four different contexts during the 20th century.

Democracy in the Weimar Republic 1919–33 After the First World War there was an extension of democracy in Europe as autocratic empires were overthrown and new nation states with democratic constitutions were established. However, the inter-war years also saw a decline of democracy, as many of these democratic experiments failed and forms of dictatorship were established in their place.

In 1918 Germany saw the autocratic imperial government of Kaiser (Emperor) Wilhelm II replaced by a parliamentary republic. The Weimar Republic was formed during a period of military defeat and social revolution. It seemed to offer Germany the opportunity to develop a liberal democracy and escape from a militaristic past. However, Germany was beset with serious problems, leading many either to withhold support from the new parliamentary democracy or to seek actively to destroy it. The extreme left and much of the right provided the republic’s most vitriolic opponents. Its supporters included the bulk of the left and the moderate right. At certain crucial times these supporters behaved irresponsibly because of their political inexperience, narrow self-interest, jealous guarding of party programmes, or because they were unsure of how to handle the potential political freedom offered by the republic.

Germans had previously been used to the autocratic rule of the Kaiser, and some disapproved of the endless debating and jostling between many political parties, viewing it as weak and un-Germanic. When economic crises and social unrest began to overwhelm Weimar by the early 1930s, the republic found itself undermined by the promise of strong leadership and 1 rm government offered by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. His authoritarian air, and open de1 ance of the Treaty of Versailles, appealed to many. By 1933, a Nazi dictatorship was established and the experiment in democracy advocated by Weimar was 1 nally crushed.

Democracy in India 1947–64Until the Second World War, most of Africa and much of Asia had been part of the colonial empires of European powers. In the decades following the war there was another extension of democracy as these empires were dismantled and former colonies gained their independence. In India, this was the result of a long struggle against British rule by the Indian nationalist movement. The establishment of a secular (non-religious) state, based on sound democratic principles, was a notable achievement by the government of Jawaharlal Nehru, after the violence and bloodshed that had accompanied independence and the partition of British India into India and Pakistan.

6

1 Introduction

Democracy in the United States 1953–73The United States between 1953 and 1973 was a country facing tremendous domestic change. It experienced considerable overall economic growth, and many Americans worked hard to attain the modern, prosperous lifestyle known as ‘the American dream’. Yet there was also divisive political con2ict, set against the backdrop of a war in Vietnam, the growing campaign for African American civil rights, and the development of the idea that the federal government should expand its social and economic role, offering greater security and protection for those in need.

While the United States witnessed the development of Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ (the largest ever programme of social legislation), the USA still had to eradicate much poverty, confront the growing radicalism of Black Power and extricate itself from the disastrous Vietnam War, which had a huge impact on domestic politics.

The period from 1953 to 1973 was also paradoxical for the Presidency. These two decades saw the of1ce of president gaining increasing power and authority, to the extent that by 1970 many thought of the USA as having an ‘Imperial Presidency’. Yet these years also witnessed the humbling and the subsequent destruction of two of its of1ce-holders – Johnson in 1968 and Nixon in 1973–74. Thus the USA entered the mid-1970s troubled by social and domestic problems, assailed by campaigns for women’s rights, gay rights, ethnic minority rights and peace protests, and weakened by the onset of an oil crisis and international recession. Democracy still prevailed, however, and the United States managed to avoid revolution.

Democracy in South Africa 1991–2000 The end of the Cold War in 1990, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union, caused another extension of democracy as countries in Eastern Europe adopted democratic constitutions. The end of the Cold War also had a signi1cant impact on Africa, where superpower support for autocratic regimes ceased. This encouraged moves towards democracy in a number of African states, where multi-party democracies replaced one-party regimes in the early 1990s. It was also a key factor leading to the collapse of apartheid in South Africa, and the establishment of a democratic government under the leadership of Nelson Mandela. This signalled the end of white minority rule in South Africa, where it had continued long after other former colonies in Africa had gained independence under majority rule. This political transformation was the result of a successfully negotiated settlement, but the post-apartheid government faced signi1cant economic and social challenges.

This is how Nelson Mandela described South Africa’s 1rst democratic election in 1994:‘Great lines of patient people snaking through the dirt roads of towns and cities, old women who had waited half a century to cast their vote, saying they had felt like human beings for the 1rst time in their lives, white men and women saying they were proud to live in a free country at last … it was as though we were a nation reborn.’

From Mandela, N. 2003. The Illustrated Long Walk to Freedom. London, UK. Little, Brown Book Group. p. 199.

7

1 Introduction

Voters queue patiently to cast their votes in the 1994 South African election

Themes and case studiesThemes To help you prepare for your IB History exams, this book will cover the themes relating to democratic states as set out in the IB History Guide. It will cover the themes in four detailed case studies, one from each of the regions speci1ed in the IB History curriculum. Each case study is dealt with in a separate chapter.

The three broad themes relating to democratic states are:

the nature and structure of democracy, which includes information on constitutions, electoral systems, political parties and pressure groups

economic and social policies regarding employment, gender, health, education and social welfare

political, social and economic challenges facing the governments, such as political extremism; issues relating to ethnicity, religion and gender; civil rights movements; and the inequitable distribution of wealth and resources.

Each of the detailed case study chapters has units dealing with these three themes, so that you will be able to focus on the main issues. This approach will help you compare and contrast the roles of individual leaders and parties, and the main developments in the various states covered – and to spot similarities and differences.

Case studies The case studies in this book cover:

Weimar Germany 1919–33 India 1947–64 the United States of America 1953–73 South Africa 1991–2000.

8

1 Introduction

All the main events, turning points and key individuals in each of these case studies will be covered in suf1cient detail for you to be able to access the higher markbands – provided, of course, that your answers are both relevant and analytical.

Where appropriate, each chapter will contain visual and written sources, both to illustrate the events or issues under examination, and to provide material for exam-type questions to help you gain practice in dealing with the questions you will face in History Papers 1 and 2.

Theory of Knowledge Alongside these broad key themes, most chapters contain Theory of Knowledge (ToK) links to get you thinking about aspects that relate to history, which is a Group 3 subject in the IB Diploma. The Democratic States topic has clear links to ideas about knowledge and history. The decisions, actions and policies of different governments and leaders have been the subject of differing interpretations by historians. Thus the questions relating to the availability and selection of sources, and to interpretations of these sources, have clear links to the IB Theory of Knowledge course.

For instance, historians, when trying to explain aspects of the political structure of democratic states, the strengths and weaknesses of their economic and social policies, and their success or failure in overcoming serious challenges, have to decide which evidence to select and use – and which to leave out – to make their case. But in selecting what they consider to be the most important or relevant sources, and in making judgements about the value and limitations of speci1c sources or sets of sources, how important are these historians’ personal political views? Is there such a thing as objective ‘historical truth’? Or is there just a range of subjective opinions and interpretations about the past, which vary according to the political interests and leanings of individual historians?

You are therefore encouraged to read a range of books offering different interpretations of the structure and strength of democratic institutions, the role played by leaders (such as Nehru in India and Mandela in South Africa), and the effectiveness of the policies adopted by the states covered by this book, in order to gain a clear understanding of the relevant historiographies.

IB History and regions of the worldFor the purposes of study, IB History speci1es four regions of the world:

Europe and the Middle East Asia and Oceania the Americas Africa.

Where relevant, you will need to be able to identify these regions and to discuss developments that took place within them. These four regions are shown on the map opposite, which also indicates the states covered in the case studies.

You may well study some other examples of democratic states speci1cally identi1ed in the IB History Guide, such as France under De Gaulle (1958–69); Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1967–90); post-war reconstruction in Japan (1945–52); Australia (1965–75); Argentina under Alfonsin and Menem (1983–95); Canada under Trudeau (1968–84); and the return to democracy in Nigeria.

USA

South Africa

Germany

The Americas Asia and Oceania Africa Europe and the Middle East

India

USSR until 1991

9

1 Introduction

The four IB regions are shown on this map, along with the four countries covered by the case studies in this book.

Remember, when answering a question that asks you to choose examples from two different regions, you must be careful – failure to comply will result in limited opportunities to score high marks. Every year, some examination candidates attempting this kind of question select two states from the same region, which has a negative impact on their marks.

Exam skills needed for IB HistoryThroughout the main chapters of this book, there are various activities and questions to help you develop the understanding and the exam skills necessary for success. Before attempting the speci1c exam practice questions at the end of each case study, you might 1nd it useful to refer to Chapter 6 !rst – this suggestion is based on the idea that, if you know where you are supposed to be going (in this instance, gaining a good grade) and how to get there, you stand a better chance of reaching your destination!

Questions and markschemes To ensure that you develop the necessary understanding and skills, each chapter contains a number of comprehension questions in the margins. In addition, three of the main Paper 1-type questions (comprehension, reliability/utility and cross-referencing) are dealt with at the end of Chapters 2 to 5. Help for the longer Paper 1 judgement/synthesis questions, and the Paper 2 essay questions, can be found in Chapter 6 – the 1nal Exam Practice chapter.

10

1 Introduction

For additional help, simpli1ed markschemes have been put together in ways that should make it easier for you to understand what examiners are looking for in your answers. The actual IB History markschemes can be found on the IB website.

Finally, you will 1nd examiners’ tips and comments, along with activities, to help you focus on the important aspects of the questions and answers, and to avoid simple mistakes and oversights which, every year, result in some otherwise good students failing to gain the highest marks.

Terminology and definitionsIn order to understand the nature and structure of democratic states, you will need to understand the meaning of various terms and concepts relating to the functioning of a democracy.

Features of a democratic state Although the nature and structure of democratic states may vary, there are certain key features of a modern democracy. These are:

a parliament elected by universal franchise (meaning that all adults have the right to vote), in regular elections by secret ballot (meaning that the voter’s name does not appear on the ballot paper)

a constitution that determines how a speci1c democratic state will operate

freedom of expression, allowing public debate and criticism of government policies, and ensuring that the media are free of government control or restrictions

freedom of association, permitting the formation of political parties and pressure groups

the ‘rule of law’ (meaning that the state is governed according to its constitution and laws, and not according to decisions made by leaders or political parties)

the ‘separation of powers’, ensuring that the three branches of government – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary – do not overlap.

Types of constitution A constitution is the basic framework of a democratic state. It will determine, for example, the frequency of elections, and the basic structures of and relationships between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. It will also clarify how much power the central government has over lower levels of administration (such as states, provinces, counties or cities). It may be a unitary constitution, giving most power to the central government and very limited power to the provinces (as in South Africa), or it may be a federal constitution, in which individual states retain certain powers but the central (federal) government has control over matters such as foreign policy and defence (as in the United States).

In most countries, the constitution is a written document, which is often drawn up as the result of painstaking negotiations by a constitutional (or constituent) assembly, as was the case in India where the Constituent Assembly took nearly three years to write the constitution. In other countries, there may be no written document at all, as in Britain, where the constitution gradually evolved over several centuries and is based on previous interpretations, rulings and judgements.

legislature; executive; judiciary The legislature (parliament) makes the laws; the executive (the government) administers the laws; the judiciary (law courts) upholds the laws.

11

1 Introduction

Elections and electoral systems Regular elections are usually held every four or 1ve years to elect representatives to the legislature (or parliament), and voting is by secret ballot. Although in modern democracies there is a universal franchise (with all adults having the right to vote), this was not always the case. In most Western countries, women were only given the right to vote after the First World War; most people living in colonies only gained the right to vote after independence from colonial rule; and in South Africa black people were barred from voting at all until 1994. In many countries, the voting age was lowered to 18 from 21, after student protesters in the 1960s demanded a greater role in society for young people.

There are two main types of electoral system. In one, the whole country is divided into constituencies, or voting districts, in which the voters elect a member of parliament to represent them. The candidate who wins the most votes by a simple majority in each constituency is elected to parliament. Britain and the United States use this method, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘1rst past the post system’. The other main electoral system is proportional representation (PR), where each party gains representation in parliament according to the proportion of total votes it receives in an election. In this system, which is the one used in many European countries, voters do not vote for individual candidates but for the party whose policies they support. As countries in other parts of the world drew up democratic constitutions they selected one of these systems. For example, India uses the constituency system, while South Africa chose proportional representation.

The graphs on the right contrast the actual results of the 2010 General Election in the United Kingdom (a), which used the ‘1rst past the post system’, with the results that would have occurred under a simple system of proportional representation (b). The crudest version of proportional representation (PR) would give all parties seats in parliament based directly on their share of the vote; in practice, the countries that employ the PR system have thresholds in place in order to screen out the smallest parties.

If one of the larger parties fails to win an outright majority, it may be forced to form a coalition government with another, or several, smaller parties. This is a temporary alliance in which parties co-operate to form a government together, but each party retains its own name and identity. Coalition governments are more common where a system of proportional representation is used because a greater number of parties generally gain representation in parliament under this system. Coalition governments may also be formed as a result of a pre-election agreement between parties – for example, in the interim constitution drawn up before South Africa’s 1rst democratic election it was agreed that there would be a coalition Government of National Unity for the 1rst 1ve years.

In some democratic systems, certain decisions are not made by the elected parliament but by the electorate themselves in a referendum. This is where voters are asked to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on a speci1c issue, sometimes involving a change to the constitution, and the issue is decided by a simple majority.

Political parties and ideologies In multi-party democracies there is usually a variety of political parties, ranging from left-wing (radical) to right-wing (conservative). These terms date from the time of the French Revolution when the more radical political groups sat on the left side of the National Convention and the more conservative ones sat on the right.

(a) This graph shows the actual result of the 2010 UK General Election, based on the ‘!rst past the post sytem’First past the post

Conservatives: 306

Labour: 258

Liberal Democrats: 57

Others: 28

Conservatives: 234

Labour: 189


Others: 78

Proportional representation

First past the post

Conservatives: 306

Labour: 258


Others: 28

Conservatives: 234

Labour: 189


Others: 78

Proportional representation

(b) This graph shows how the 2010 UK General Election results would have looked, if they had been based on a form of proportional representation

12

Those in the middle of the political spectrum are often referred to as moderates or centrists. However, it is important to remember that these terms are relative – a party that might be seen as radical in one country might be considered conservative in another context. Liberals, for example, are moderates who favour gradual progress and the improvement of society for all, by changing laws rather than by revolution. With a commitment to equality (viewed as left-wing) and a positive attitude to individual effort and freedom of choice (viewed as right-wing), they are usually seen as being in the middle of the political spectrum. However, many Liberals would consider themselves to be ‘radical’ (wishing to make substantial changes in society), rather than ‘in the middle’.

Communists and socialists are both left-wing parties, and the two ideologies are often confused. Communism is a political and economic belief that the state should own and control the means of production (such as land, mines and factories), and organise labour and industrial output to bene1t all people, so that all levels of society can be equal. Communists believe that, in this way, everyone will contribute as much as they can, and earn as much as they need. Socialism is a political and economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled mainly by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which co-operation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism as long as the government maintains the dominant in2uence over the economy; others insist on the abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

The political parties who fail to win an election form the parliamentary opposition. Opposition parties play an important role in a democracy by maintaining a critical watch on government policies and raising questions in parliament about government expenditure and other issues. Outside parliament, pressure groups can also play a watchdog role or try to in2uence government policies. They may represent a range of different interests, such as religious groups, trade unions, business leaders, environmentalists and other civil society organisations.

SummaryBy the time you have worked through this book, you should be able to: understand the key features of a democratic state explain the terms and concepts associated with democracy understand the importance of a constitution compare electoral systems understand the role of political parties and pressure groups in a democracy show an awareness of the role of leaders in a democratic system understand key economic and social policies of democratic states regarding

employment, gender, health, education and social welfare understand the political, social and economic challenges facing democratic

states, such as acts of political extremism, ethnicity, religious differences, the position of women, the recognition of civil rights, and inequality

compare the nature and structure of democracy in two democratic states from two different regions

compare the social and economic policies of two democratic states from two different regions

compare the political, social and economic challenges facing two democratic states from two different regions.

FactWhen the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government took of!ce in the UK in May 2010, it promised to hold a referendum on the issue of proportional representation.

capitalism An economic system based on private ownership, minimal government intervention in the economy, free enterprise and competition; a free market economy in which prices and wages are determined by supply and demand rather than by government policy.

13

The Weimar Republic in Germany 1919–332

Timeline

1918 Nov: Friedrich Ebert, head of largest political party, replaces Kaiser (Emperor)

1919 Jan: communists (Spartacus League) start a revolution, which is crushed with the help of 2000 paramilitary Freikorps

Feb: Constituent Assembly meets at Weimar; Ebert chosen as president

Mar: Soviet republic declared in Munich, but put down by Freikorps

Jun: new constitution; Versailles Treaty

1920 Feb: NSDAP becomes Nazi Party

Mar: Kapp Putsch – the Freikorps take over Berlin, aiming to restore the Kaiser; workers don’t support it and go on strike

1921 May: all Freikorps units outlawed; disbanded or incorporated in German army

1922 Dec: France and Belgium occupy the Ruhr

1923 Jul–Oct: hyperin! ation

Nov: Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch fails

1929 Oct: Black Thursday: New York stock market crash, economic crisis

1930 Jul: collapse of Grand Coalition; Reichstag dissolved; Hindenburg rules

Sep: Reichstag elections; Nazi Party gains 107 seats

1932 Jan–Dec: four governments in one year

1933 Jan: Hitler invited to be chancellor

Mar: Enabling Act; end of Weimar Republic; start of Third Reich

Jul: all political parties, other than Nazi Party, banned

Key questions

Overview In this chapter you will study the democratic republic established

in 1919 in Germany to replace the imperial government. It was named after Weimar, the town where the ! rst constituent assembly took place. Headed by a president, and administered by a chancellor (prime minister) and cabinet of ministers, it heralded a dramatic change for Germany after the First World War. The republic emerged from a revolution in November 1918. This liberal democracy lapsed in the early 1930s, leading to the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis (1933–45).

The republic’s new constitution was adopted in August 1919. Many historians blame this constitution for Weimar’s future political problems in that, ironically, it was too fair. Elections were built around universal suffrage and proportional representation but this democratic structure was also its fatal " aw. Everybody was allowed to vote, including left- and right-wing extremists. This meant that, if any minor party got the necessary votes, they were entitled to send representatives to parliament (the Reichstag).

The major parties would continue to dominate the Reichstag, but minor parties could be disruptive and make the party in power – usually the Social Democrats – look incapable of governing.

After President Ebert died in 1925, the new president (the elderly Hindenburg) gradually became overwhelmed, particularly after the 1929 Wall Street Crash and the collapse of the Grand Coalition in 1930.

Extremists increasingly exploited social and economic misfortune in Germany. By utilising international ! nancial circumstances and their own organisational skills, the Nazi Party took advantage of the consequences of the 1930–33 Depression to gain power.

Moreover, the constitution allowed President Hindenburg to appoint and sack chancellors seemingly at will between 1930 and 1933. This signalled the end of true democracy in Germany, a few years before Hitler actually killed off the Weimar Republic.

1 The nature and structure of democracy in Weimar Germany

14

2 The Weimar Republic in Germany 1919–33

FactHaving been at war since 1914, the Germans were war-weary by 1918. Millions were on the edge of starvation due to an Allied blockade; in!uenza was ravaging a weakened population; and riots erupted following a naval mutiny at Kiel. Both troops and the population, disappointed by the Kaiser’s government, awaited the speedy end of the war, but the Imperial Naval Command in Kiel planned to dispatch the !eet for a last battle against the British Royal Navy. The naval order of 24 October

the sailors and then a general revolution. The sailors did not wish to risk their lives so near to the end of the war, thinking it futile. They were also convinced that the credibility of the new democratic government, which was seeking peace, would be compromised by a naval attack.

This map shows German territory before and after the Treaty of Versailles, 1919

How was the Weimar Republic governed and what was its structure? The birth of the republic From 1888 to 1918, Germany’s ruler had been the Kaiser (Emperor) Wilhelm II. Despite the existence of a parliament (or Reichstag), it was the Kaiser who introduced laws, selected the ministers, declared war and made peace. He only allowed the Reichstag to change laws occasionally and, although there were several political parties, he ruled Germany as a dictator with complete power. This all changed in October 1918, when a naval mutiny at Kiel led to a general revolution, which was to sweep aside the monarchy within a few days.

On 9 November 1918, the Kaiser went into exile in Holland. His departure paved the way for talks between Germany and the Allied Powers, and an armistice followed two days later.

The Social Democrats (SPD), as they were the largest political party, proclaimed Germany a democratic republic and formed a new government. Friedrich Ebert, the SDP leader, replaced the Kaiser as the national leader and ended a damaging and debilitating war. Following an interim period when he steered Germany through civil unrest, new elections con!rmed Ebert as president. He convened a conference in the southern town of Weimar, away from riot-torn Berlin, to discuss how best to run Germany. Thus the Weimar Republic was born in 1919. In the new republic, parties were elected on the basis of proportional representation, giving rise to high hopes of true democracy.

N

km0 100

0 100miles

Baltic SeaDenmark

Holland

Sweden

Belgium

Luxembourg

France

Alsace-Lorraine

Lithuania

Saar

Rhineland

EupenMalmedy

WestPrussia

Posen

Memelland

UpperSilesia

SwitzerlandAustria

Hungary

Czechoslovakia

Germany

Poland

East Prussia

Territory lost under Treaty of Versailles

New German border after 1919

Territory occupied by the Allies

Frontier of demilitarised zone

Rive

r Rhi

ne

River Elbe

River Oder

River Danube

RiverMemel

River Weser

R iver Vistula

Cologne

Koblenz

Mainz

Stuttgart

Munich

Bremen

Weimar

Leipzig

Berlin

Hamburg

Kiel

Lübeck

Schleswig

Vienna

Danzig

Warsaw

15


Friedrich Ebert (1871–1925)

president of Germany, a post he held from 1919 until his death in 1925. During this time he contended with the shame many Germans felt at losing the war, at the Treaty of Versailles, at their economic plight, the occupation of the Ruhr and the devastating impact of hyperin! ation.

parliament – Ebert lost support among the German people, who believed that Versailles was simply a non-military way of destroying their country. Such pressures may have contributed to his early death.

The new constitution Weimar Germany was governed by a newly written constitution. The Weimar constitution agreed at the 1919 conference was very democratic and extremely fair. All Germans had the right of free speech and equal rights, and everybody over the age of 20 had the right to vote. This was very forward-looking, given that in Britain women under the age of 28 were denied the vote. The new constitution created a bicameral assembly – a parliament made up of two chambers or layers. One layer (the Reichstag) represented the whole nation and made national decisions while the other (the Reichsrat) represented the regions. The people elected the president and the politicians who sat in parliament by direct vote. Germany was to be a federal state with regional states (Länder) retaining considerable control over their own affairs.

The head of state was the president, who was elected every seven years. He was the commander of the armed forces and was largely a ! gurehead, supposedly removed from the day-to-day running of the country. He did have the power to dissolve the Reichstag and to nominate the chancellor (prime minister), who enjoyed the support of the Reichstag. But in a crisis, he could rule alone, since, under Article 48, the president could declare a state of emergency and rule by decree. He could also veto laws passed by the Reichstag that he disliked.

The parliament was to be elected every four years using a system of proportional representation (PR) that made it virtually impossible for one party to get an overall majority (more than half the votes). There were therefore 20 separate coalition governments between 1919 and 1933, with the longest-serving government surviving only two years. This state of " ux caused many Germans to lose faith in the new democratic system and played into the hands of those who opposed the Weimar constitution.

Since PR made the decision-making process very slow and divisive, people started to resent the system of government. In the public mind, it became linked to the surrender at the end of 1918. Its politicians acquired the nickname of ‘The November Criminals’ – men who had betrayed the German Fatherland by surrendering to the Allies. Little wonder, then, that some of the older aristocratic families, army generals, judges, industrialists and academics longed for ‘the good old days’, with one strong leader running the nation.

Politicians! What is this democracy? We never used to have democracy. We had strong leaders like the Kaiser. We never voted for him and was Germany ever so weak under the Kaiser? I spit on freedom – it’s the patriotic thing to do!

From the BBC series History File: Nazi Germany, Episode One Used in Wilkes, A. Germany 1918–45. 2006. Haddenham, Buckinghamshire, UK. Folens Publishers UK. p. 11.

SOURCE A

16


What role did political parties play in both government and opposition? There were 40 political parties represented in the Reichstag. As is evident from the table opposite, the main parties covered all sides of the political spectrum, from left to right, and also differed in their degree of support for, or opposition to, the constitution. Inter-party squabbling soon led to dif!culties in passing legislation and to weakened, indecisive government. Alternative parties with more extreme ideas evolved. This fragmentation of political power was partly due to the peculiar parliamentary system adopted by the Weimar Republic, and partly due to economic challenges facing both German democracy and the wider world. President Ebert and upholders of the republic sought to unite the country and the various coalition parties by promoting the principles of democratic government.

In the next unit, an examination of the different policies will show that Weimar did survive its troublesome birth and, from 1924 to 1929, enjoyed a period of relative stability and limited prosperity. Indeed, this period lasted longer than Hitler’s Nazi rule. The political and !nancial acumen of Gustav Stresemann (see page 28) between 1924 and 1929 was a key factor in this ‘Golden Age of Weimar’.

Testimony to the positive effect the governing coalitions had on Germany were its admission to the League of Nations in 1926, and the awarding of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games of 1936 to Berlin and Garmisch-Partenkirchen respectively. These events suggested that Germany was seen as increasingly stable, respectable and ‘re-habilitated’ prior to the onset of international !nancial depression in 1930.

Yet historian Hannah Vogt suggests that its compromised leadership, policies and other nations’ perception of Germany meant that ‘the men who were to pick up the reins of government faced a tremendous, thankless task.’

The post-war legacyThe key to understanding the opposition to the Weimar constitution lies in the Treaty of Versailles, the peace settlement signed by Germany and the Allied Powers in June 1919 at the palace of Versailles in France.

Germany had been forced to sign without being present at the negotiations and the terms of the treaty shocked the German people. Historian Geoff Layton states that on no other political issue between 1919 and 1933 ‘was there such universal agreement within Weimar Germany as in the rejection and condemnation of the Treaty of Versailles’.

However, it must be noted that the most strident opposition came from the political right, as opposed to the centre and left. Reparations payments were considered outrageous. Germans were furious at the loss of territory and population to France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Poland, and East Prussia was cut off from the rest of Germany. German colonies in Africa and elsewhere were removed and limits were placed on the size of the military. Above all, they hated Article 231, the clause in which Germany had to accept total blame for the war.

Volksgemeinschaft An expression meaning ‘people’s community’; most famously an attempt by the Nazi Party to establish a national community within Germany, based on pseudo-

authoritarian A form of rule based on the principle of requiring obedience to the authority of one person or a small group of people. Authoritarian government involves a ‘top-down’ command structure, often with elements of a military dictatorship. Other people must be obedient to the will of the government and they have little or no in!uence over the decisions made by it.

proletariat The class of people in a capitalist society that does not own the means of production and whose members earn a living by selling their labour.

FactThe leaders of the Weimar Republic were the politicians who sought an armistice with the Allied Powers of Britain, France and the USA in November 1918. In the eyes of many, they were traitors, having later accepted a ‘dictated peace’ or Diktat under the Treaty of Versailles.

17


The main political parties in the Weimar Republic

Pro-Weimar constitution parties Anti-Weimar constitution parties

The SPD (Social Democrats) Moderate socialist party, the largest of the pro-republic parties. Initially led by Ebert, largely working-class but anti-communist. It also drew solid support from the lower middle classes and maintained a high level of support into the early 1930s. After 1918 the SPD played an important role in the Weimar political system as the main centre-left party. It took part in coalition governments in 1918–21, 1923 and 1928–30. The SPD was one of the !rst parties banned by Hitler in 1933.

The NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party) or the Nazi PartyAdvocated Volksgemeinschaft, initially drew support from ex-soldiers and the unemployed, but then gained middle- and upper-class support due to fear of communism. Small but was growing quickly by the late 1920s. Nazis hated democracy and wanted strong government by one man. Also hated communism (which stated that all people were equal), believed in the survival of the !ttest, and thought some races and nations were superior. Adolf Hitler had joined the DAP (founded by Anton Drexler) in 1919, but quickly became its leader. In 1920 he persuaded the party to change its name to the NSDAP. Had 5000 members by 1921. Hitler attempted – but failed – to take over Munich in 1923. By 1930, the Nazis had 107 Reichstag seats.

The DVP (German People’s Party) Originated from the pre-Weimar National Liberals, a centre-right national party. Supported Weimar but had reservations and ideally wanted the Kaiser restored in the future. Supported by middle-class people, mainly businessmen. Outstanding political !gure of the republic, Gustav Stresemann, was leader of the DVP. Stresemann was appointed chancellor in a coalition goverment in 1923, and foreign minister in several different governments from 1924 to 1929. Support for the DVP peaked in 1920 with 14% of the vote. By 1932 this had fallen to 2%.

The DNVP (German National People’s Party) Saw itself as a non-class party, which could promote Volksgemeinschaft within the different elements of German Conservatism. Included various movements such as the Pan-German Association, the Free Conservative Party and the Christian Social Movement. Consequently, seen as fairly right-wing and authoritarian. Did establish two labour unions but eventually drifted further right, subsequently organising opposition to Chancellor Müller’s Grand Coalition in 1929. Here it had the key support of the powerful ex-servicemen’s league, Der Stalhelm, and crucially that of Hjalmar Schacht, president of the central German Reichsbank. Also worked closely with Hitler’s Nazi Party.

The Centre Party (Zentrum) Established in 1870 to defend Catholic interests. Drew support from all classes. Present in every coalition government until 1933. The Bavarian People’s Party (BVP) was its ally.

The KPD (Communist Party of Germany) Formed from a number of left-wing groups, including the Spartacus League. Advocated revolution by the proletariat and the creation of a communist regime like that of the Soviet Union. Its members believed that Germany should not be run by parliament, but by workers’ councils. The KPD’s major paper was Die Rote Fahne (The Red Flag) and the party had strong working-class support.

The DDP (German Democratic Party) A middle-class Liberal party with support among lawyers, writers, academics. Lost support after 1920. In 1919 the DDP had 19% of the vote; in 1932 it had only 1%.

18


In Munich, over 30,000 Germans protested against the decisions of the Versailles Conference on 1 June 1919

The new republic had a shaky start, born out of a revolution in 1918; but once the Versailles terms were announced, it suffered a loss of con!dence, as did the politicians who had been instrumental in its creation. Ridicule and mistrust were heaped on these men. Germans felt vulnerable and betrayed, and this feeling was re"ected in a poor performance by parties supporting the republic in the 1920 elections. Thus began a series of weakened coalitions. No longer did political parties push through reforming legislation and govern Germany in such a way as to build stability and con!dence. Instead they bargained, fought off defeat and tried to pass legislation that was constantly being blocked in its passage through the Reichstag.

There was also the inheritance of 1919 – the acceptance of defeat, war-guilt and the other terms of the Versailles Treaty: a lack of capital for investment, a large trade de!cit and Allied demands for reparations, when Germany had already lost important industrial regions to France and Czechoslovakia. While the of!cial reparations were considerable, Germany ended up paying only a fraction of them. However, the reparations damaged Germany’s economy by discouraging market loans and forcing the government to !nance its de!cit by printing more money, causing hyperin!ation in 1923. The impact of this will be examined in Unit 2.

The year 1923 was a time of huge crisis, as was the ongoing trauma that hit Germany after 1930 when 30% of the workforce became unemployed. But Weimar’s survival until 1933 is miraculous, given Germany’s economic problems, the irretrievable breakdown of parliamentary government in 1930, and weak leadership from the mainstream parties.

hyperinflation A sudden dramatic rise in prices, as seen in Germany in 1923 and more recently in countries like Argentina and Zimbabwe.

19


Political parties in the Reichstag May 1924

Dec 1924

May 1928

Sep 1930

July 1932

Nov 1932

Mar 1933

Communist Party (KPD)^ 62 45 54 77 89 100 81

Social Democratic Party (SDP)* 100 131 153 143 133 121 120

Catholic Centre Party* 81 88 78 87 97 90 93

Nationalist Party (DNVP)^ 95 103 73 41 37 52 52

Nazi Party (NSDAP)^ 32 14 12 107 230 196 288

Other parties (mainly pro*) 102 112 121 122 22 35 23

Key: ^ anti-constitution parties *pro-constitution parties

putsch An attempt to seize power using violence.

Opposition parties Opposition parties on the far left fragmented after 1919 when Ebert’s SPD became the largest party. As moderate socialists they were the party of the working class and trade unions. Ebert’s support of the constitution and opposition to communism were evident when he crushed the Spartacists (see page 44). The pro-Soviet communists (KPD) were the only alternative on the left. Differences were acute, making co-operation impossible. No ‘popular front’ of the left was credible. Communists increased numerically, with much working-class and trade union support; hence they eagerly opposed what they saw as the ‘bourgeois compromise’ of Weimar democracy. Yet after 1924 they never challenged the government enough to threaten revolution. The right wing, however, was different.

The rapid change from possible victory in 1918 to defeat in 1919, an embittered army, and political and economic instability from 1919 to 1923 may have caused a psychological change in Germans that led them to favour right-wing nationalism. The far right united in total rejection of Weimar, but the key point is the depth and range of that opposition. It was remarkably varied and wide for a democratic country such as Germany. There was right-wing opposition within the Reichstag, but also much opposition outside it, in the form of pressure groups.

Within parliament, the !rst nationalist party forcefully opposed to Weimar was the DNVP, formed in 1918 and emerging from an organisation called the Pan-German League. Racism was a common feature in such parties. Until 1923, the DNVP did not seek election to the Reichstag. However, after 1924 it took part in elections, winning 103 seats. The DNVP was the main right-wing party up to 1928, but then the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis) overtook it, appealing to both workers and nationalists. With Adolf Hitler as their leader, the Nazis’ power was strongest in the south around Munich. After the failure of the Munich Putsch and his imprisonment (see page 47), Hitler was banned from speaking publicly; but the Nazis grew in membership between 1924 and 1928, when Hitler recreated the party from a local base, aiming to gain power nationally. Thereafter, Hitler’s aim was to undermine the Weimar constitution by winning power democratically at the ballot box. He then planned to give Germany strong one-man leadership, which he felt was necessary to restore pride and remove the shame of 1918.

Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) Hitler was born in Austria. He was initially an artist but was rejected by the Vienna Arts Academy. During the First World War he served in the Bavarian army and was injured by an English gas attack. Temporarily blinded, he spent several months in hospital. In 1919 he returned to Munich and worked for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis). He was elected party chairman in 1921. By 1930, the Nazis had 107 seats in parliament. On 30 January 1933 Hitler became chancellor and, once in power, established himself as a dictator. He re-armed Germany and took the country to war in 1939. He committed suicide on 30 April 1945, as the Russian army surrounded Berlin.

QuestionHow and why did Adolf Hitler change his approach towards the Nazi Party

20


How significant were the pressure groups? Early challenges to the Weimar Republic Weimar was challenged by both left- and right-wing extremists outside the Reichstag. The radical left accused the ruling Social Democrats of betraying workers’ ideals by preventing revolution. Meanwhile, right-wing extremists disliked any democratic system, preferring an authoritarian state. Between 1919 and 1924, large cities suffered clashes between left and right, both groups using violence against innocent civilians and each other, resulting in many deaths. The worst violence was between right-wing paramilitaries, known as the Freikorps, and pro-communist militias called the Red Guards, both of which had ex-soldiers in their ranks.

The !rst challenge to the new republic came in January 1919 from the Spartacus League of Communists (Spartakusbund), who were crushed with the help of 2000 paramilitary Freikorps. Then, in March 1919, communists and anarchists took over the Bavarian government in Munich, declaring a Bavarian Soviet Republic. Again this short-lived communist state was brutally crushed by Freikorps (see page 44). The Kapp Putsch, in March 1920, involved Freikorps troops, who gained control of Berlin and installed Wolfgang Kapp (a right-wing journalist) as chancellor. The national government "ed to Stuttgart and called a general strike. Unions and workers backed Ebert, and the strike crippled Germany’s economy, forcing the Kapp Putsch to collapse after four days.

Encouraged by the strikes, a communist uprising began in the Ruhr region, where 50,000 people formed a ‘Red Army’ and took control of the province. The regular army and the Freikorps ended the uprising on their own authority. Other communist rebellions were put down in Saxony and Hamburg. Further pressure from the right came on 8 November 1923 with the Munich Putsch, staged by Adolf Hitler. He seized control, declaring a new government, but was soon defeated by 100 policemen. Arrested and sentenced to !ve years in prison, he served less than eight months before his release. Hitler now focused on legal methods of gaining power and would become the driving force in the collapse of Weimar.

To this end, the Nazis worked on gaining support from in"uential sections of the population who, by virtue of their sympathies, indirectly became a pressure group, undermining Weimar. Geoff Layton has shown that many government of!cials who were conservative by nature, industrialists fearful of socialism and state control, white-collar workers, the self-employed and certain sections of the press and media all tended to edge towards the Nazi Party. He has attributed this to the fact that those who were staunchly Catholic or socialist were already committed to well-represented ideologies or beliefs and were therefore not drawn to Nazism in the same way as the other groups. Moreover, the members of this Nazi-supporting constituency were united by increasing scepticism about the existing political and economic system. There was therefore a growing and slowly unifying opposition developing within Weimar.

Pressure came from outside Germany too. In January 1923, Germany claimed it could no longer afford reparations payments required by the Allies, and defaulted. French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr, Germany’s most productive industrial region at the time, taking control of most mining and manufacturing companies. Strikes were called, and passive resistance was

FactThe term Freikorps was used for the various paramilitary organisations that appeared in Germany after 1918. For many German veterans, returning defeated from the First World War and feeling alienated from civilian life, membership of a Freikorps offered some kind of stability within a military structure. The Freikorps were used to defeat the Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1919. The fact that a Social Democrat leader like Ebert could use this right-wing militia caused great bitterness on the left towards the Weimar Republic.

Heinrich Brüning (1885–1970)Brüning was chancellor from 1930 to 1932. Appointed on the collapse of the Grand Coalition, he was an anti-socialist politician and monarchist at heart, who did not work well with liberals. He was opposed to the Nazis, yet underestimated the threat they posed. He relied on Hindenburg to pass emergency decrees when he could not get legislation passed through parliament.

21


encouraged. This situation lasted eight months and further damaged the German economy, which in turn fuelled hyperin"ation. Although Weimar appeared more stable between 1924 and 1929, with extreme parties on the left and right faring less well at the polls, the republic faced increased – and ultimately fatal – pressure after 1930.

Weimar fatally undermined 1930–33 Parliamentary democracy essentially collapsed under political pressure in 1930, following a split in the government over unemployment and other welfare bene!ts in the aftermath of the Wall Street Crash (see page 31). The collapse of the coalition government in March 1930 marked the beginning of a transition to an authoritarian presidential regime, with the appointment of the right-wing Heinrich Brüning as chancellor. Brüning was a man with conservative, monarchist tendencies and no real empathy for the Weimar Republic and its social democratic sympathies. Under Article 48 of the Weimar constitution, the president of Germany (in this case, Hindenburg) could rule by emergency decree if necessary and override the constitutional rights of the people. President Hindenburg employed this tactic regularly after 1930, and Hitler would later justify its use to strengthen his own hold on power and remove all opposition to his rule.

Brüning’s proposed cuts to unemployment bene!t were opposed, so he put them into effect by means of emergency decree. When the Reichstag challenged the decree’s legality, he called elections in September 1930. But his coalition was rebuffed. Voters preferred to respond to more extreme calls for a solution to the national crisis, as advocated by the Nazi Party. The Nazis increased their vote from 810,000 (1928) to 6.4 million, seeing an increase from 12 seats to 107 – making them the second-largest party in the Reichstag. The political consequences of the unemployment situation are discussed further on page 25. Hitler was now able to put more pressure on Weimar as he built up the Nazi Party more intensely at regional and local level. Events played into his hands.

The effective suspension of parliamentary government from 1930 onwards, and increased reliance upon emergency legislation, exposed the hollowness of democratic politics in Weimar Germany. Brüning’s appointment de!nitely marked a shift away from parliamentary government. This was underlined by the formation of a new government in May 1932 under Franz von Papen, who took the government even further to the right. Again, it was very much a presidential government – one that was dependent on emergency decrees issued by Hindenburg.

The period between May 1932 and Hitler’s assumption of of!ce as chancellor, in January 1933, exempli!es all that was stagnant about Weimar. Indeed, from 1932 to 1933, Germany came very close to the total dissolution of parliament, the declaration of martial law and the con!rmation of a presidential dictatorship. Von Papen had sought drastic solutions to a desperately complex constitutional situation, but martial law was not implemented – at least not at this point.

The Nazis won 230 seats in the July 1932 election. Hitler requested the post of chancellor, but this was rejected by President Hindenburg. Hitler then won a vote of no con!dence in Von Papen’s government, so the president avoided appointing him by making Von Schleicher the chancellor.

Paul von Hindenburg (1847–1934) Hindenburg was a respected Prussian nobleman and

war supremo from 1914 to 1918. He came out of retirement to be elected president, following Ebert’s death in 1925. From 1930 to 1932, he ruled largely by presidential decree, under Article 48 of the constitution, with chancellors Brüning, Von Papen and Von Schleicher. He was re-elected as head of state in 1932, and appointed Hitler as chancellor in January 1933.

Hitler then assumed total power as Führer (leader).

22


Finally, following lengthy political deadlock, Hitler was made chancellor on 30 January 1933, marking the entry of the fourth government in under a year. On 24 March 1933, following elections held under intimidation and a !re at the Reichstag for which communists were blamed, arousing anti-left feeling, Hitler succeeded in passing the Enabling Act. This enabled him to create a dictatorship within two months of assuming of!ce.

The Enabling Act allowed Hitler to gain complete political power without the support of a majority in the Reichstag, and without the need to bargain with the Nazi Party’s coalition partners. It gave the Cabinet the authority to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag. In this way, Hitler legally obtained plenary powers (unlimited powers) and established his dictatorship. Within a few weeks, he had dismantled the Weimar constitution in what the leading German scholar Karl Bracher called a ‘legal revolution’. (The Enabling Act was initially supposed to last for only four years but it was formally renewed by the Reichstag in 1937 and 1941.) Geoff Layton called the Enabling Act the ‘constitutional foundation stone of the Third Reich’ and points out, interestingly, that the Weimar constitution was not formally dissolved (in legal terms) until 1945. But the democratic republic envisaged by Weimar in 1919 was now utterly dead – and arguably had been alive in name only for much of the three years before its formal demise in spring 1933.

Third Reich This term is commonly used to describe Germany during the dictatorship led by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party from 1933 to 1945. The word Reich literally means ‘empire’ and the term ‘Third Reich’ portrays the Nazi state as a successor to the medieval Holy Roman Empire (962–1806) and to the modern German Empire (1871–1918).

Freikorps soldiers in the streets of Berlin during the Kapp Putsch in 1920, when they attempted to overthrow the Weimar Republic and bring back the Kaiser

SOURCE B

23


End of unit activities 1 Work in pairs, with one partner taking a viewpoint from the extreme right

and the other taking a viewpoint from the extreme left. Re-read the text and sources in this unit, then write down a) the key grievances held by your extreme group against Weimar; b) which political parties and groups in Germany support your ideas; and c) where you think you have succeeded/failed between 1919 and 1933.

2 Discussion: what is your opinion of Germany’s Weimar constitution? What were its main features? Was it fair or unfair? Who lost out? Who gained? What were its strengths? What were its weaknesses? Did any of the major political parties not support it? Now take a large sheet of plain paper and create a mind map entitled ‘WEIMAR CONSTITUTION’ to illustrate these points. Back up your key points with examples of evidence. When completed, use this as the basis for a larger group discussion.

3 On the basis of the text and the sources in this unit, how accurate is it to describe Weimar’s survival even until 1924 as a miracle?

Question

Why do you think the Weimar Republic looked to someone like Hindenburg to become president of

History and reasonWhen studying History, there are often judgements to be made about truth and the

Weimar Republic, from 1930 to 1933, there has been much criticism of these failed governments. It has been argued that they failed because they were appointed and not elected, and they depended on rule by presidential decree. Consequently, pressure from within undermined the Weimar constitution and the concept of democracy, and

Theory of knowledgeTheory of knowledge

history for the ib diploma: democratic states

Documents