(NOTE: a question on Weimar oppostion/potlics is almost guranteed in paper 1)
Q1.) “How far do you agree that opposition to the Weimar constitution was the most significant
problem for governments to deal with in the years 1919-1933)
Opposition both through extremism (1919-1923) and political opposition(through the rise of the
NSDAP from 1929-33) played a somewhat significant role that led to the Weimar’s collapse . However
it could be argued that in the longer term , this was as a result of the flaws of the constitution that ,
lacking integrity would naturally lead to problem s. And to a minor extent economic factors was a
problem for the Weimar as it created discontent and empowered opposition.
Firstly , the significance of opposition is shown most Cleary from the waves of extremism in 1919-
1923 and the extent it remained a problem for the constitution’s a minor extent this can be seen
through the short-term but prevelant issues of left wing oppostion / attempts to overthrow the
goverment from both the Spratacist Jan 1919 and Ruhr uprsing March 1921.While it challenged the
goverment and was met with various military force , it lacked following beyond the 100,000 and
50,000 workers who were easily shut down by the Freikorps and Army (from the ) Ebert-groner pact
in a consistent manor (killing 1100 of said oppostion between both attempts of
‘revolution’).However the long-term issues are exposed more clearly in the right-wing oppostion ,
evident in attempts such a the Kapp putsch in 1921 and Munich Putsch there was a clear right-wing
sympathy in both the Army and Judicary.For example in the Kapp putsch the Army refused to stop
the Freikorps who rather than stopping the oppostion were joining in (due to them being voluntary
soilders).But even more signifacnt and fundemental to the Weimar’s collapse was the Judicary bias
shown from the amount of those unpunished despite being involved in the extermism.For the right
wing , those unpunsihed in 1919-1922 were 326/354 compared to left-wing having only 4/22
unpunished.This would empower extermism on the right such as Hitler and is directly evident from
him (despite commiting treason in the Munich Putsch 1923) being punished for only 5 years.Overall,
from the lack of punishment to oppostion it meant the goverment was percived as weak.It was
inevtable that a radical , right-wing solution would gain power and as such gave popularity to Hitler
and the NSDAP from 1930 onwards.
However, while the oppostion exposed the Constitution as weak this in turn only heightens of the
signifiacne of the fundementally flawed consitiution that Weimar ruled by (with Germany being new
democracy this was expected).This is shown most cleary from the consitent use of proporional
represntation from 1919-1930 (untill Hindenburg ruled by decree).Proportional represntation meant
that rather provide a core set of democratic vaules to stand by it was rather a goverment of
compramise and abundance of poltical ideology in ruling it.This is ecident from neede only 65,000
votes for a seat in parliment and therfore influence and misguide its direction.While the SPD
remained the leading party until 1932 and there was instances of support (such as 76.2% of pro-
weimar parties in Jan 1919) it constantly contradicted its democratic vaules , most cleary shown
from the lack of restrictions on Article 48.It is from this ideological blend of chancellors (15 in its 14
year lifespands with varying policies and approches) that turned it into a “make-shift democracy”
that in its last 3 years wasnt event democratic but authortarian (from ruling by decree).Weimars
main support was not from its other articles on freedom of speech or education which defined it, but
rather (from the impact of the treaty) it was heavily influenced by bloshevism 1917 supressing
communsim (from the general consensus being to fear it).The Jan elections results can be correalted
from being after the Spraticst uprising before it in Jan 1919 which gained immmediate suppor but in
the long-term didn’t resolve the key cynicism towarsd democracy as a result of the 1918 “stab in the
Q1.) “How far do you agree that opposition to the Weimar constitution was the most significant
problem for governments to deal with in the years 1919-1933)
Opposition both through extremism (1919-1923) and political opposition(through the rise of the
NSDAP from 1929-33) played a somewhat significant role that led to the Weimar’s collapse . However
it could be argued that in the longer term , this was as a result of the flaws of the constitution that ,
lacking integrity would naturally lead to problem s. And to a minor extent economic factors was a
problem for the Weimar as it created discontent and empowered opposition.
Firstly , the significance of opposition is shown most Cleary from the waves of extremism in 1919-
1923 and the extent it remained a problem for the constitution’s a minor extent this can be seen
through the short-term but prevelant issues of left wing oppostion / attempts to overthrow the
goverment from both the Spratacist Jan 1919 and Ruhr uprsing March 1921.While it challenged the
goverment and was met with various military force , it lacked following beyond the 100,000 and
50,000 workers who were easily shut down by the Freikorps and Army (from the ) Ebert-groner pact
in a consistent manor (killing 1100 of said oppostion between both attempts of
‘revolution’).However the long-term issues are exposed more clearly in the right-wing oppostion ,
evident in attempts such a the Kapp putsch in 1921 and Munich Putsch there was a clear right-wing
sympathy in both the Army and Judicary.For example in the Kapp putsch the Army refused to stop
the Freikorps who rather than stopping the oppostion were joining in (due to them being voluntary
soilders).But even more signifacnt and fundemental to the Weimar’s collapse was the Judicary bias
shown from the amount of those unpunished despite being involved in the extermism.For the right
wing , those unpunsihed in 1919-1922 were 326/354 compared to left-wing having only 4/22
unpunished.This would empower extermism on the right such as Hitler and is directly evident from
him (despite commiting treason in the Munich Putsch 1923) being punished for only 5 years.Overall,
from the lack of punishment to oppostion it meant the goverment was percived as weak.It was
inevtable that a radical , right-wing solution would gain power and as such gave popularity to Hitler
and the NSDAP from 1930 onwards.
However, while the oppostion exposed the Constitution as weak this in turn only heightens of the
signifiacne of the fundementally flawed consitiution that Weimar ruled by (with Germany being new
democracy this was expected).This is shown most cleary from the consitent use of proporional
represntation from 1919-1930 (untill Hindenburg ruled by decree).Proportional represntation meant
that rather provide a core set of democratic vaules to stand by it was rather a goverment of
compramise and abundance of poltical ideology in ruling it.This is ecident from neede only 65,000
votes for a seat in parliment and therfore influence and misguide its direction.While the SPD
remained the leading party until 1932 and there was instances of support (such as 76.2% of pro-
weimar parties in Jan 1919) it constantly contradicted its democratic vaules , most cleary shown
from the lack of restrictions on Article 48.It is from this ideological blend of chancellors (15 in its 14
year lifespands with varying policies and approches) that turned it into a “make-shift democracy”
that in its last 3 years wasnt event democratic but authortarian (from ruling by decree).Weimars
main support was not from its other articles on freedom of speech or education which defined it, but
rather (from the impact of the treaty) it was heavily influenced by bloshevism 1917 supressing
communsim (from the general consensus being to fear it).The Jan elections results can be correalted
from being after the Spraticst uprising before it in Jan 1919 which gained immmediate suppor but in
the long-term didn’t resolve the key cynicism towarsd democracy as a result of the 1918 “stab in the
