Modern History Debate Thread

[Mada438]

(Adam I know I quoted you here, but it is not just directed at you, it's for everyone

No worries prickles 

Hello, hello!

Thank you to Mada438 and LochNess Monster who contributed to last week's debate!

This week's question is: What had the largest impact on the fall of the Weimar Republic?
While there were many factors that contributed to the fall of the Weimar Republic, the Great Depression had the largest impact. Prior to the Great Depression, Germany wasn't very economically stable; the strength of the economy was built on foreign loans. In relying on foreign loans, the Great Depression caused the withdrawal of the loans from the US, as economies around the world began to collapse. The Great Depression took away any form of stability Germany had, thus leading to the fall of the Weimar Republic.

While in the essay i wrote for my assessment, i argued that the economic depression was indeed the greatest factor influencing the WR's downfall, I'm going to present another reason as well. This is:
The treaty of Versailles
From it's estbalishment, the republic was doomed to fail. German nationalism was high as they believe they were a powerful nation. Some could not comprehend the loss of the war; they couldn't accept that Germany was weak and beaten by superior forces. So they looked for a scapegoat, someone to blame. This propogated the "stab in the back theory" (as a loose example). The Germans who could not accept loss blamed their defeat on the politicians that had signed the treaty. Thus the treaty was the catalyst for the continuing low morale in Germany throughout the time of the WR (yes, i do ackowledge the "golden age of weimar" being more successful).
The treaty further economically weakened Germany as well; with the massive amounts of repirations payments and the loss of key industrial terriotry to the French (the Ruhr, or the Rhine was it called?). This meant that Germany could never really gain much of an economic foothold to stabilize itself.

[dancing phalanges]

Hello, hello!

Thank you to Mada438 and LochNess Monster who contributed to last week's debate!

This week's question is: What had the largest impact on the fall of the Weimar Republic?
While there were many factors that contributed to the fall of the Weimar Republic, the Great Depression had the largest impact. Prior to the Great Depression, Germany wasn't very economically stable; the strength of the economy was built on foreign loans. In relying on foreign loans, the Great Depression caused the withdrawal of the loans from the US, as economies around the world began to collapse. The Great Depression took away any form of stability Germany had, thus leading to the fall of the Weimar Republic.

I think the Great Depression was only a short term cause of the Collapse. The Republic could have actually overcome the Depression if they had handled it better but instead they cut unemployment funding when it was needed most. In contrast, Hitler promised reforms and hope for the masses. What does everyone else think?

[Mada438]

I think the Great Depression was only a short term cause of the Collapse. The Republic could have actually overcome the Depression if they had handled it better but instead they cut unemployment funding when it was needed most. In contrast, Hitler promised reforms and hope for the masses. What does everyone else think?

It wasn't so much about unemployment, as the relience on foregin loans.
With an already weak economy, the relience on these donations was quite high. With the removal of these loans Germany was far from prepared to handle the economic problems that ensued. Thus, i don't believe it would've been possible for Germany to overcome the depression.
The promises Hitler made only really seemed appealing because of the depression.
And is it really about short or long term cause? There are various short and long term causes that can be argued multiple ways as to how they contributed. I believe the depression was a big factor, regardless of whether it was short term or long term.

[dancing phalanges]

It wasn't so much about unemployment, as the relience on foregin loans.
With an already weak economy, the relience on these donations was quite high. With the removal of these loans Germany was far from prepared to handle the economic problems that ensued. Thus, i don't believe it would've been possible for Germany to overcome the depression.
The promises Hitler made only really seemed appealing because of the depression.
And is it really about short or long term cause? There are various short and long term causes that can be argued multiple ways as to how they contributed. I believe the depression was a big factor, regardless of whether it was short term or long term.

The relience on foregin lones was dfefinitely a significant reason fot the collapse of rhe republic. Yeah i dont thnk the reoublic ciould have recovered from the economic damage that the depression created, but they really shooted themsleves in the feet by decreasing unemployment funding. that really ensured people wnet to the nazis. well the depression probably would not have had such a big impact if not for the long term causes of the republics downfall - just think about it - i would argue that the illegitimacy of the republic as a whole, as you said starting with the treety of versailles made the people gradually discontent with the republic, to the extent that the depression was the last straw. it was defintiely an important facotr but i would argue the political choices of the reopublic eg. article 48 letting the opposition gain influence/ did not allow a majoritie in the government and also later decisions eg. reducing employment funds, the political miscalculations of bruning were more important than economical decisions although the relience on foregin lones was definitely a big factor!

i also wouldnt argue that the republic was doomed from its estbalishment as you argued, if not for the heavy relience on foregin loans, the republic likely would have survived without the depression

[Mada438]

i also wouldn't argue that the republic was doomed from its establishment as you argued, if not for the heavy reliance on foreign loans, the republic likely would have survived without the depression

I'll argue the rest of this another time. My brain has pretty much switched off ahahaha.
Just to add to the above point though, perhaps it might've survived the depression. But would 've survived much longer. Let's not forget the low morale of the German people (the still apparent weakness of the economy regardless of foreign loans) and the rise of Hitler and his brand of Nazism (which was still happening regardless of the effect of the depression)-the depression just accelerated that rise; they were still there.
So how might the image of a post great depression Weimar republic actually look?

[prickles]

the rise of Hitler and his brand of Nazism (which was still happening regardless of the effect of the depression)-the depression just accelerated that rise; they were still there.

Just to kill your brain even more  Do you think Hitler and his party would have been so powerful if the Great Depression hadn't of happened at all?
I think one of the largest impacts on the fall of the Weimar Republic was Hitler's ability to 'pick up the shreds' of everything - GD, ToV, social unrest, unfulfilled nationalism, hyperinflation etc etc, and his manipulation of the aforesaid nationalism of the people.

[Mada438]

The story of 20th century Germany in one picture

[Never.Give.Up]

Just to kill your brain even more  Do you think Hitler and his party would have been so powerful if the Great Depression hadn't of happened at all?
I think one of the largest impacts on the fall of the Weimar Republic was Hitler's ability to 'pick up the shreds' of everything - GD, ToV, social unrest, unfulfilled nationalism, hyperinflation etc etc, and his manipulation of the aforesaid nationalism of the people.

Taylor "the depression put the wind in Hitler's sails"
this sums it up i think....adding to what has been said...Hitler already had the power...but took advantage of the opportunity to attract Germans in a time of social disillusionment- he appealed to their nationalism....

[Mada438]

Taylor "the depression put the wind in Hitler's sails"
this sums it up i think....adding to what has been said...Hitler already had the power...but took advantage of the opportunity to attract Germans in a time of social disillusionment- he appealed to their nationalism....

Looking at the contextual environment of Germany...
Hypothetically speaking do you think Hitler could've still come to power if it was not for an event such as the depression?

[Never.Give.Up]

Looking at the contextual environment of Germany...
Hypothetically speaking do you think Hitler could've still come to power if it was not for an event such as the depression?

Yes Hitler did not come to power BECAUSE of the depression...it was simply the weak handling by the WR that Hitler used to attract Germans. Hitler came to power because of nationalism, political intrigue and opportunism. The back-room conspiracy, mishandling of economic issues- including Depression , fundamental flaws of the Weimar Constitution and the social and psychological distress of the German citizens all contributed to his accession to power....because he used the weaknesses of the WR to appeal to their nationalism....Hitler was a protest vote, he gave them a sense of identity, a sense of hope when everything else was failing....
these r just my thoughts so take them how u want!!!

[dancing phalanges]

Hey guys, I've been a bit slack with continuing this given my busy schedule so to both counter that issue and also get you guys discussing things you want to debate - what debate questions do you guys want to tackle! Post your suggestions here and we can have a poll when they are all in and take it from there!

[Mada438]

Hey guys, I've been a bit slack with continuing this given my busy schedule so to both counter that issue and also get you guys discussing things you want to debate - what debate questions do you guys want to tackle! Post your suggestions here and we can have a poll when they are all in and take it from there!

Something that we don't know. Like we all study different options, so something we equally are knowledgeable about would make sure everyone could contribute!

[sudodds]

Something that we don't know. Like we all study different options, so something we equally are knowledgeable about would make sure everyone could contribute!

I've got an idea

Ideology doesn't matter. Whether it is Communism, Nationalism, Nazism, Conservatism - no one actually cares about this stuff. Time and time again we see supposed "ideologues" like Hitler, Stalin and Ho Chi Minh, but the thing is that they were less so ideologues and more so just power hungry. All they cared about was power, and ideology can be a means to achieve this power. But if it came to a point where their ideology threatened their control, they'd drop it or change it in a heartbeat.

This should work for pretty much all the different case studies Pls rip me to shreds!

[Mada438]

I've got an idea

Ideology doesn't matter. Whether it is Communism, Nationalism, Nazism, Conservatism - no one actually cares about this stuff. Time and time again we see supposed "ideologues" like Hitler, Stalin and Ho Chi Minh, but the thing is that they were less so ideologues and more so just power hungry. All they cared about was power, and ideology can be a means to achieve this power. But if it came to a point where their ideology threatened their control, they'd drop it or change it in a heartbeat.

This should work for pretty much all the different case studies Pls rip me to shreds!

Their idealologies were just their view about how to gain power and how to govern once in power. Its the leaders opinion on which way is best. Hitler took the Nazism approach to gaining his power. Stalin took the "communist" (or was it more communism that lead to facism. Thats how it works isn't it?)route to gaining his power. An ideology is merely a means to and end.
Although i don't think they'd change their ideology if their power was threatened. Their ideology is their idea of the ideal way to govern once in power.
The way that they ruled doesnr change significantly. In the cases of both hitler and stalin; they were respectively nazi and communist until their downfall.

I'm not sure whether i actually agreed with you or not but i just wanted to put this out there 😂

[sudodds]

*Just a heads up I disagree completely with my own post, just wanted to get the conversation rolling Just in case anyone is confused with my radically different opinion now aha*

Their idealologies were just their view about how to gain power and how to govern once in power. Its the leaders opinion on which way is best.

I don't believe that this is true, I think that in all the cases I mentioned (bar potentially Ho Chi Minh, I don't know much about him to be able to make a definitive statement on that though), ideology was actually VERY important to the individuals at hand. It was the reason that they wanted to gain power in the first place - to implement their ideology. Yes, I definitely believe that their is also an innate desire for power as well, I just don't think that a thirst for power, and a strong ideological view is mutually exclusive!

Hitler took the Nazism approach to gaining his power.

Yes, but I don't think that means he didn't actually believe what he was saying. He wasn't a liberal that thought "oo people don't like Jewish people very much, I should get on that to become the eventual leader of Germany", he was a Nazi through and through, not just in presentation. You've just got to look at his context to see how this developed. Growing up in Austria at the time (which was a very ant-Semitic country even before Nazism came about) fuelled the development of these hideous views. Being Austrian also fuelled his sense of German nationalism (given that Austria felt a very strong connection to Germany, to the extent whereby the Treaty of Saint Germain (their equivalent of the Treaty of Versailles) literally had to force them to be independant, because they wanted to be annexed by Germany so bad. According to many that were stationed with him during World War I, Hitler would often make wild outbursts about how communists and Jews were conspiring against the German war effort, and this was at a time when those kind of views were less acceptable - people thought he was a bit mad while he was in the army. This was only worsened by the fact that he was injured when the Germans conceded defeat, so he didn't actually see the utter hopelessness of the situation, and wholeheartedly believed the stab-in-the-back myth that he was fed.

I don't think that Hitler's views on the world would have changed, even if he hadn't been granted the immense power that he had in the 1930s and 40s.

Stalin took the "communist" (or was it more communism that lead to facism. Thats how it works isn't it?)route to gaining his power.

But the Communist Government was already in power when Stalin became leader, and had been for some time, so I don't think its really correct to say that he "took" the communist route. He was already a pretty active member of the party before then as well, even when he wasn't in such a prominent leadership position. He did transform communism, so it wasn't exactly the same as it was when Lenin was in charge (basically shifted from "communism from below" to "communism from above", forcing it on the people rather than facilitating a grass roots revolution), but it was still a communist system (just a really terrible one). His commitment to Communism is only really challenged by other communists, who have a different view of what communism should be (ie. Trotskyites will say he wasn't a communist, because he doesn't fit their definition of communism, and vice versa). 

Also to communism leading to facism... that's a discussion for another time aha. But as you can imagine, I definitely don't subscribe to the horseshoe theory aha.

Although i don't think they'd change their ideology if their power was threatened. Their ideology is their idea of the ideal way to govern once in power. The way that they ruled doesnr change significantly. In the cases of both hitler and stalin; they were respectively nazi and communist until their downfall.

You've kind of changed your argument here a bit. This must suggest some level of commitment to their ideology then though beyond just being a means to an end? If not changing their ideology means the 'end' of their power, don't you think, if they weren't actually ideologues, they'd give it up?

Ideology goes a lot further than just "the ideal way to govern" as well - it's an entire world view. It's how they perceive their past, understand their present, and predict their future. For example, a capitalist will see the world through the lens of such things as supply and demand and individualism, whereas a communist will look at it through the lens of class conflict and collectivism. You don't have to be in a position of power or authority to be a capitalist or a communist, and I think that notion kind of takes away the agency of ordinary people, suggesting that in all cases they just passively accept the situation that they are in.

Though to almost add weight to your argument, there are examples of ideologues forgoing ideology in order to secure their power base! For example, after the Russian Civil War and under Lenin, the Communist Party implemented a policy known as the New Economic Policy, which actually relaxed many communist standards, and reintroduced some elements of capitalism back into the economy, to relive economic pressures placed on the country after war communism. If they had continued with the War Communism policy, almost definitely the Bolsheviks would have lost power, so it was a very important change to keep power. Though as Lenin argued, it was a pragmatic decision, as the country at the time wasn't economically equipped to transition into a socialist system, so they needed to use that small bit of capitalism to restimulate the economy back into a workable one, so they could introduce socialism easier later on.

I'm not sure whether i actually agreed with you or not but i just wanted to put this out there 😂

You kind of did both aha! But that's great, its good to test out different sides, will help you work out later on which one you agree with The best way to support your own argument in an essay is to disprove the opposition, and that means you have to understand the opposition first Great work!