You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The years from 1919 to 1923 were a period of almost continuous crisis for the new German democracy. The Republic faced armed challenges from both the radical right and the revolutionary left, a relentless campaign of political assassination, the trauma of foreign occupation in the Ruhr, and the catastrophe of hyperinflation. That it survived this storm at all is one of the more remarkable facts of the period, and historians have argued that understanding why the Republic survived these years is just as important as cataloguing the threats it faced. The crisis of 1919 to 1923 also left scars — above all the psychological trauma of hyperinflation — that would make Germans dangerously receptive to extremism when the next crisis struck after 1929.
Key Question: Why did the Weimar Republic survive the multiple crises of 1919 to 1923, and what lasting damage did those crises inflict on its prospects for the future?
Key Definition: A putsch is an attempted seizure of power by a small group using force, typically by armed conspirators or soldiers. Germany experienced several putsches and attempted insurrections between 1919 and 1923, from both the right (Kapp, Munich) and the left (the KPD risings).
This lesson belongs to Part One of Option 2O: Democracy and Nazism: Germany, 1918–1945, studied as the Paper 2 Depth study, and addresses the specification content on the early years of the Weimar Republic: the political and economic instability of 1919 to 1923, the threats from left and right, and the impact of the Ruhr occupation and hyperinflation.
The first major challenge from the right grew directly out of the demobilisation crisis. Under Versailles, Germany was required to reduce its army to 100,000 men, which meant disbanding the Freikorps brigades on which the government had so recently relied. When the government ordered the disbandment of the Ehrhardt Brigade, its commanders rebelled. On 13 March 1920 the Ehrhardt Brigade marched on Berlin, and the right-wing official Wolfgang Kapp, with General Walther von Luttwitz, proclaimed a new nationalist government. The legitimate government fled, first to Dresden and then to Stuttgart.
Decisively, the regular army would not defend the Republic against the putschists. General Hans von Seeckt, head of the army command, reportedly insisted that troops of the Reichswehr would not fire on fellow soldiers — a statement that captured the army's profound ambivalence toward the democracy it was sworn to protect. What defeated the putsch was not the army but the organised working class: the SPD and the trade unions called a general strike that paralysed Berlin, cutting off power, water and transport. Unable to govern a city brought to a standstill, Kapp fled within four days.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Trigger | Government order to disband the Ehrhardt Brigade under Versailles terms |
| Defeated by | A general strike by workers and trade unions, not by the army |
| The army's role | Von Seeckt's refusal to crush the putsch exposed the Reichswehr's unreliability |
| Aftermath | The vast majority of participants escaped serious punishment |
| Significance | Demonstrated the anti-democratic sympathies embedded in the military and judiciary |
The aftermath was as revealing as the putsch itself. Of the many conspirators, almost none received meaningful punishment; Kapp himself died awaiting trial. By contrast, when the general strike spilled over into a left-wing rising in the Ruhr (the 'Red Ruhr Army'), the army that had refused to act against Kapp moved swiftly and harshly to suppress it.
Exam Tip: The Kapp Putsch is the clearest single demonstration that the Republic's gravest enemies sat within the state itself. Contrast the army's passivity towards the right-wing putschists with its energetic suppression of the left in the Ruhr that followed.
Alongside the putsches ran a sustained campaign of political murder, overwhelmingly directed by the radical right against republican politicians. The statistician Emil Julius Gumbel documented the pattern in his contemporary study: in the period 1919 to 1922 there were some 376 political assassinations, of which the great majority were committed by the right. The figures are most damning when set beside the sentences the courts handed down, which reveal a judiciary that treated right-wing killers with extraordinary leniency while punishing the left with severity.
| Statistic (Gumbel's figures, 1919–1922) | Left-wing perpetrators | Right-wing perpetrators |
|---|---|---|
| Political assassinations | 22 | 354 |
| Average sentence imposed | 15 years | 4 months |
| Executions | 10 | 0 |
The two most prominent victims were Matthias Erzberger, the Centre Party politician who had signed the armistice, assassinated in August 1921, and Walther Rathenau, the Republic's Jewish Foreign Minister, murdered in June 1922. Both were killed by members of Organisation Consul, a clandestine right-wing terrorist group formed from the disbanded Ehrhardt Brigade. Rathenau's murder, which combined antisemitism with hatred of the Republic's policy of fulfilment, provoked mass demonstrations in defence of democracy and the passage of the Law for the Protection of the Republic (1922) — though even this was applied with notable timidity by conservative judges.
Heinrich August Winkler, the leading historian of German Social Democracy, treats the combination of right-wing political violence and judicial bias as among the most corrosive features of early Weimar politics, because it signalled that the institutions of the state could not be relied upon to defend the constitutional order. Richard Evans likewise sees the failure of the courts to punish right-wing violence as a deep structural weakness, a point developed in the AO3 section below.
Exam Tip: The assassination statistics are among the most powerful evidence you can deploy. The decisive analytical point is not merely that the right killed more, but that the courts let them; judicial partisanship turned private violence into something close to state-tolerated terror.
The Republic also faced repeated challenges from the revolutionary left, though historians generally judge these to have been far less dangerous than the threat from the right. After the Spartacist rising of January 1919, the KPD and its allies mounted further insurrectionary attempts: the so-called March Action of 1921, an attempted rising in central Germany inspired in part by Comintern pressure, and the abortive 'German October' of 1923, when the KPD, encouraged by Moscow, hoped to exploit the chaos of the Ruhr crisis to launch a revolution. All were swiftly and easily suppressed, the 1923 attempt collapsing almost before it began except in Hamburg.
Dick Geary emphasises that the KPD never possessed a realistic chance of seizing power: it was numerically weaker than the SPD, it lacked support in the army, and its insurrections were poorly coordinated. Yet the fear of a Bolshevik-style revolution, vividly present after the Russian example of 1917, was politically potent out of all proportion to the actual threat. That fear drove frightened middle-class and conservative voters towards authoritarian alternatives and made them willing, a decade later, to tolerate the Nazis as a bulwark against communism.
Key Definition: The KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands) was the German Communist Party, founded at the turn of 1918 to 1919 from the Spartacist League. From 1920 it was increasingly subordinated to the Communist International (Comintern) in Moscow, a dependence that shaped and often undermined its strategy.
Exam Tip: Distinguish carefully between the reality of the communist threat (limited) and the perception of it (acute). It was the perception, not the reality, that did most to damage the Republic by pushing conservatives rightward.
The gravest crisis of all came in 1923 and arose from the reparations question. After Germany defaulted on coal and timber deliveries, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr — the heart of German industry — in January 1923, intending to extract reparations in kind. The German government, headed by Wilhelm Cuno, responded by calling for passive resistance: workers were instructed to strike and refuse cooperation, and the government undertook to pay them. With the Ruhr economy paralysed and tax revenues collapsing, the state funded this resistance by printing money on an enormous scale. The result was hyperinflation, in which the currency lost value so rapidly that money became almost worthless.
The figures convey the scale of the collapse. The mark, already weakened, spiralled into astronomical figures by the autumn of 1923.
| Date | Price of a loaf of bread (marks) |
|---|---|
| January 1919 | 0.26 |
| January 1922 | 3.50 |
| January 1923 | 700 |
| September 1923 | 1,500,000 |
| November 1923 | 200,000,000,000 |
The social consequences were uneven, creating clear winners and losers and corroding the social fabric on which the Republic depended.
| Winners | Losers |
|---|---|
| Those with debts, including the state itself | Those with savings held in cash or bonds |
| Those with physical assets (land, property, goods) | Those on fixed incomes, including pensioners |
| Exporters, who profited from a weak currency | The Mittelstand (lower middle class) |
| Speculators and large industrialists | Creditors and small rentiers |
The decisive casualty, in political terms, was the lower middle class — the artisans, shopkeepers, small savers and pensioners whose thrift was wiped out overnight. Eric Weitz argues that hyperinflation shattered the moral economy of the German middle class, destroying not only savings but the bourgeois faith that prudence and hard work would be rewarded. Many in this group concluded that the Republic had robbed them, a grievance the right would later harvest.
Exam Tip: Hyperinflation's most important legacy was not the immediate economic chaos, which Stresemann's reforms ended, but the lasting psychological trauma it inflicted on the middle classes. That memory of ruin made them acutely vulnerable to extremist appeals when the Depression struck a decade later.
The year of crisis ended with a putsch attempt by a then-marginal figure. Believing that the chaos of 1923 had created a revolutionary moment, Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP, in alliance with the war hero General Ludendorff, attempted to seize power in Bavaria on the night of 8 to 9 November 1923. The plan was to coerce the Bavarian state authorities into joining a 'March on Berlin' modelled loosely on Mussolini's March on Rome the previous year. The attempt was a fiasco: the Bavarian leaders reneged, and when the Nazis marched through Munich the following morning they were stopped by the state police in a brief exchange of fire in which sixteen Nazis and four policemen were killed. Hitler fled and was soon arrested.
Yet the failure was redeemed, from Hitler's perspective, by its aftermath. His trial in 1924 was conducted before sympathetic Bavarian judges who allowed him to turn the courtroom into a propaganda platform, and he emerged as a nationally known figure. Convicted of treason, he received the minimum sentence of five years' fortress detention and was released after serving only some nine months. During his imprisonment at Landsberg he dictated Mein Kampf.
| Factor | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Immediate failure | The putsch collapsed within hours; the army and Bavarian authorities did not back it |
| Lenient trial | Sympathetic judges let Hitler use the dock to broadcast his views nationally |
| Strategic lesson learned | Hitler concluded that power had to be won through legal, electoral means |
| Judicial bias | The minimal sentence again demonstrated the courts' right-wing sympathies |
Key Definition: Mein Kampf ('My Struggle'), dictated in 1924 and published from 1925, set out Hitler's ideology: racial hierarchy and antisemitism, the demand for Lebensraum in the east, anti-communism, hostility to Versailles and democracy, and the Fuhrerprinzip (leader principle).
Exam Tip: The significance of the Munich Putsch lies less in the failed coup than in its two long-term consequences: the lenient trial that made Hitler famous, and the strategic 'turn to legality' that shaped the Nazi path to power after 1924.
It is worth pausing on 1923 as a single, compressed crisis, because the way its separate strands converged illuminates both the fragility and the underlying resilience of the Republic. Within a few months the German state faced foreign occupation in the west, the disintegration of its currency, attempted revolution from the communist left in Saxony, Thuringia and Hamburg, an attempted putsch from the radical right in Bavaria, and serious separatist agitation in the Rhineland, where French-backed movements sought to detach the region from the Reich. Few states in modern European history have faced so many simultaneous threats and held together.
The crisis was also a turning point in the use of presidential and emergency powers. To restore order, the government under Stresemann, and then his successors, made extensive use of Article 48 and of the army's executive authority. In October 1923 the Reichswehr was deployed against the elected left-wing coalition governments of Saxony and Thuringia — which had admitted communists — and removed them. This was a constitutionally dubious act, and historians note the contrast: the army that had refused to act against Kapp in 1920, and that handled the Munich putschists leniently, intervened decisively against the left. The episode foreshadowed the later 'Preussenschlag' of 1932 and demonstrated how emergency powers could be turned against constitutional governments of the left while sparing the right.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.