War Masked The Internal Tension Of Germany example essay topic

After the unification of Germany in 1871 the economy progressed rapidly to reach the status of second in the world to the USA. It was encouraged by an excellent education system, good transport system and as result of the unification a combination of every states resources and materials. However Germany's huge population was governed essentially by an authoritarian monarchy, the Kaiser held absolute power over the country. By 1914 the increasing tensions between the industrially modern economy and backward political system reached a peak, but then war broke out. Did war really act as a catalyst creating a situation in Germany which demanded political change? Or did it simply suppress an inevitable change, 'sweeping the tensions under the rug' to be ignored for a few years?

In Germany the Hohenzollerns had governed for centuries, the Kaiser Wilhelm II was hereditary and wasn't voted in by the public. He appointed his Chancellors and other ministers as he saw fit and could dismiss them at will. The Reichstag was decided by an election every three years but this despite intentions shows, in the words of Max Weber, 'a sham democracy' as the Kaiser has the power to overrule and if he decides to dissolve the Reichstag. The supreme authority lay with the ruling elite, the Kaiser with his chancellors, the army and the landowners (Junkers). The political parties in Germany couldn't effectively represent the electorate role.

This immediately creates problems, the German citizens had been educated in one of the best elementary systems in the world with a good higher education system too, they naturally wanted a say in how their country was run. The German working classes, in particular, had a far more political awareness than in Britain in the early 20th century. Consequently when grievances in Germany began to become frequent none of the classes were prepared to be passive and Germany was pushed to the point of revolution. Evidence of political unrest in pre war Germany is clear. The Reichstag was continually being challenged by the growth of the socialist party who had established a strong foothold in German politics demanding social reform or, in the extreme left, revolution.

In 1884 the SPD had 24 deputies in the Reichstag but by 1912 their support had grown to gain them over 4 times as many deputies, 110. They were supported by a considerable number of the working class citizens of Germany who had watched Germanys economy grow and expand but saw little of the wealth. They too were discontented and during the pre war years protest marches and demonstrations demanding more pay and better conditions plagued Germanys streets, a reflection of the political unrest. Strikes were also used as a weapon to exert pressure on the government because, although they were frustrated with their wages and working conditions, the main thing they wanted changing was the rule as with increased politicization they became more aware that the elite held all the power. The middle classes and their representative parties were, like the working class, striving for change. They owned a large proportion of Germanys businesses and industry, they were the wealth creators and had enjoyed amplified success and income throughout Germanys climb up the economic ladder.

They now set their aspirations high demanding more colonies to provide them with additional trade opportunities and policies which would mean cheap resources. Germanys world supremacy was their priority and there was a growth in political pressure groups to ascertain that the government new this. The Pan German League, Naval League and Colonial Society were all established in the pre war years embracing a whole range of nationalistic and expansionist demands. As a result Germany did embark on an aggressive foreign policy to satisfy these demands but with an underlying agenda, the Kaiser needed to detract from the domestic problems Germany faced and unify the country in a strive for supremacy, something that surely the nationalistic society would support?

The overall result though was that Germany was, on the surface, characterised by what Lyn Abrams suggests as 'monarchical splendour and military power' but when the surface is scratched away political disintegration is revealed alongside a revolutionary threat. The upper classes however supported Germanys autocratic rule, they had no reason not to as they were the Junkers and part of the influential power of Germany. It was becoming a struggle though to remain in this privileged position with the growing tensions within Germany and the constant criticism of the Kaiser. The desire for change in Germany was a strong widespread feeling in society, political change was foreseeable but then war broke out. It can be argued that if war had not broken out then Germany would of experienced revolution or democratisation in the years in which the war was being fought, something had to give way but war masked the internal tension of Germany 'papering over the cracks' with patriotic facade. However I believe that war intensified Germany's tensions rather than alleviated them.

After their defeat the Kaiser had no hope of holding his previous power, the war gave the German people the chance to make the change they desired. The political mood in Germany did, for a while, completely transform. The Kaiser's quote reflects the mood in 1914, ' I no longer recognise parties, I only recognise Germans' and the country rallied around the Kaiser in enthusiastic support. 'Burgefriede' was declared, a civil truce uniting the country ready to fight the war, even the SPD party were willing to support the government they were trying to overthrow. The government portrayed it falsely as a defensive war against Russia so the socialists were prepared to fight because Russia was an oppressive autocratic country with poor working classes.

This unity didn't last, after a while the cracks began to show and the fire of enthusiasm which supported the war soon died out. Germany was relying upon their 'Schlieffen Plan' and confident that it would provide a short victorious war. The Germans were justified in their confidence, they had a large well-trained army, a powerful fleet and plentiful artillery. However it failed, the Russians mobilised surprisingly quickly and Belgium fought unexpectedly hard crushing the German plans for a quick victory and it is true what William Carr says 'The German public new nothing of the dangers which the fatherland when the Schlieffen Plan failed. ' The German government didn't have any plans how to sustain a long war. Consequently in a short space of time Germany faced more difficulties than she had in the pre war period, socially, economically and certainly politically.

The trench warfare on the Western Front claimed the lives of millions and merely resulted in stalemate but Germany poured more and more of its budget in to the conflict, to be exact in Germany a shocking 83% was spent on military needs compared to 2% on civilians. As a result the civilians increasingly took the burden of the war. Labour was scarce, all men aged 17-60 who were not conscripted in the fighting were ordered by law to work in the factories frantically producing for total war. Similarly to in Britain women made up a substantial amount of the workforce, a 'Weiberwirtschaft', women's economy emerged during the war years. When the British effortlessly blocked Germanys few ports the food shortage was extensive and harsh. Factories also suffered in addition to the lack of labour, raw materials, usually imported could not be obtained and they struggled to feed the greedy war.

Also earnings fell by 20-30% and working conditions decreased as hours increased, the government even lifted welfare protection laws. The food shortage though had the biggest impact, 700,000 people died on the Home Front alone due to starvation and malnutrition. The only food in relatively good supply was potatoes but when they were snatched by an early frost turnips were the only option left for most of the working class. The winter of 1917 became known as the 'turnip winter' for this reason. These conditions pushed Germany in to severe political unrest by the end of 1918. As a result of what Lyn Abrams describes as 'war weariness' the German population simply desired peace above all else.

However as Vyvyen Brendon states 'The ability of civilian populations to withstand the strains of war depended largely on the lead and supports given by governments. ' The leaders suffered badly in Germany throughout the war, their people had lost all faith in them. The Chancellor Hollweg increasingly let Hindenburg and Ludendorff rule Germany under a military dictatorship without any reference to the Kaiser. This was at first supported by the Germans people, as in all times of crisis everyday politics takes a 'backseat' and leading the country through a war becomes priority for everybody but Ludendorff denied society what they desperately needed, political reform, saying it would discourage and demoralize the troops. There was a lack of confidence in the government, frustration, resentment between the classes and conditions that did nothing to alleviate the situation.

There were mutinies in Kiel when the marines refused to sail, and similar 'revolution all over Germany' as the headline of The Sunday Times cried in 1918. Political change was now imminent and war was responsible. War had created this situation in Germany and I believe, as Lenin said, it 'became the locomotive for history. ' When the last offensive failed it was clear to Germany the war was lost. Ludendorff announced 'We must make up our minds to abandon the war as hopeless. Everyday brings the enemy closer to his goal and less likely to conclude a reasonable peace with us.

' If the elite were to of retained their power and predominance in Germany the war would of had to been successful but the fact that it failed meant they had to make concession and hand over their power. In six short weeks Germany went from a monarchy to democratic republic and this happened for a few main reasons. Nobody wanted to accept the blame for the war, but this was to fall on Germanys shoulders, as the Treaty of Versailles would show later. However in 1918 the citizens would undoubtedly blame the government.

This resulted in the shift of blame, Ludendorff and Hindenburg cleverly managed to abdicate responsibility of defeat. In September Ludendorff urged for the immediate signing of an armistice and recommended a new civilian government. A 'revolution from above' is a good way to describe it as this was a change actually initiated by the ruling classes. On October 3rd this government was formed, led by Prince Max of Baden and based on the support of the Reichstag. The Generals were now free of any blame that could have been placed with them and it was now hoped that the Allies would be more lenient with a new democratic government then one ruled under the military. However the unrest demanded more change, the threat of revolution was growing in Germany.

Branches of the SPD all had their own ideas about how the 'new Germany's would be shaped, and this was when the sailors disobeyed orders in Kiel. The turmoil of four years of war climaxed there was now a 'revolution from below' and the Kaiser under pressure from the revolutionaries abdicates while Prince Max handed the reign to Ebert. This was the leading change Germany experienced. It would now become a republic and boasted a 'letter perfect' democratic constitution. The Head of State would be voted in by the German people every four years, as was the Reichstag. Compared to the structure of the Second Reich under Wilhelm it was a massive incomprehensible change.

Our democracy was formed over centuries, Germany's in forty-two days. However the 'new Germany' faced innumerable problems. These shallow democratic roots were formed due to war. With no option left the military had handed over power and the Kaiser, who had no alternative after his gradual loss of support and power, abdicated leaving Germany a democratic republic. The revolution had been mild, the 'old order' hadn't been torn down and rebuilt like the Bolshevik revolution in Russia 1917, just uncertainly replaced. This created just more disorder in Germany.

Ebert faced the dissatisfied nationalistic right who refused to believe Germany had lost and detested the fact that Ebert had signed the armistice. In fact he had little choice but to sign the armistice, Germany were in no position to restart the war. The left wanted a more radical revolution, fundamental reform which in keeping with their beliefs would mean things such as no army, no state bureaucracy and the country run by communists. Alongside this the restoration of food supply needed dealing with, the economy rebuilding under the pressure of the war debt clause of the Treaty of Versailles, and most importantly attempting to re-establish the German peoples faith and respect in the government after the seemingly pointless sacrifice of the war.

Before the war Germany had enjoyed security and wealth, the people had a pride in their country, army and economy despite the tension. In 1918 the place they used to live in seemed to belong in the distant past. The war had taken it from them and left them worse off. Although I do believe war was essentially solely responsible for the political changes which took place between 1918 and 1919, I also deem it fair to say that if war hadn't broken out and Germany was allowed to slowly reform the system then the change might of been far more acceptable and successful. As it was Germany was left hopeless and vulnerable, and by 1933 ready to be led out of depression and in to another war.