You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Between 1929 and 1933 a combination of economic catastrophe, political miscalculation and constitutional exploitation drained the life from German democracy. In little more than three years the Weimar Republic passed from the apparent stability of the Golden Age to the appointment of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor. This collapse is one of the most intensively studied processes in modern history, and the central question it poses is whether the destruction of German democracy was inevitable once the Depression struck, or whether it resulted from contingent political choices that might have been made differently. The answer matters profoundly, because it bears on how far the catastrophe is to be explained by impersonal structural forces and how far by the decisions of identifiable men.
Key Question: Was the collapse of the Weimar Republic the inevitable consequence of economic catastrophe and structural weakness, or the contingent product of the political miscalculations of 1930 to 1933?
Key Definition: The Great Depression was the global economic slump triggered by the Wall Street Crash of October 1929. In Germany, where recovery had depended on short-term American capital, it produced mass unemployment, banking collapse and intense political radicalisation.
This lesson covers the terminal crisis of the Republic within Part One of Option 2O: Democracy and Nazism: Germany, 1918–1945, the Paper 2 Depth study. It addresses the specification content on the impact of the Depression, the breakdown of parliamentary government, the resort to presidential rule, and the political manoeuvres that culminated in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor.
Germany was struck harder by the Depression than almost any other major economy, and for a specific reason: the recovery of the Golden Age had been financed by short-term American loans, and when, after the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, American banks recalled their capital and ceased fresh lending, the foundation of German prosperity was abruptly removed. Credit dried up, firms collapsed, banks failed — the crisis culminated in a full-scale banking collapse in mid-1931 — and unemployment soared to catastrophic levels.
| Economic Indicator | 1928 | 1932 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial production (1928 = 100) | 100 | 58 | around -42% |
| Registered unemployed | 1.3 million | 6.1 million | around +370% |
| Real wages (index) | 100 | 64 | around -36% |
| Bank deposits | 50 billion marks | 35 billion marks | around -30% |
The banking crisis of 1931 deserves particular emphasis. The collapse of the Austrian Creditanstalt in May 1931 triggered a wave of panic across central Europe, and in July 1931 a major German bank, the Danatbank, failed, forcing the government to close the banks temporarily and impose exchange controls. The financial system seized up, deepening the contraction and destroying yet more savings and confidence. The crisis also frustrated Bruning's hopes of an international rescue, despite the Hoover Moratorium on reparations and war-debt payments agreed that summer.
The human and political effects were profound. Mass unemployment — the official figure of 6.1 million in 1932 understated the true total, which including unregistered and short-time workers may have approached 8 million — meant that by the depths of the slump a large fraction of the workforce was without work, and many more feared losing it. The experience destroyed not only livelihoods but faith in a democratic system that appeared powerless to respond, and it drove voters in growing numbers towards the parties of the extremes, which promised radical solutions.
Exam Tip: The unemployment figure of 6 million (officially) is among the most important statistics in modern European history, but the analytical point is its political meaning: the slump discredited the parliamentary parties of the centre and channelled mass desperation towards the NSDAP and the KPD.
The first decisive political consequence of the slump was the collapse of parliamentary government itself. The Grand Coalition under the Social Democrat Hermann Muller — the last government to rest on a genuine Reichstag majority — broke apart in March 1930 over a dispute about funding the unemployment insurance scheme, the SPD refusing to cut benefits and its coalition partners refusing to raise contributions. Rather than seek a new parliamentary majority, President Hindenburg, advised by his entourage and especially by General Kurt von Schleicher, appointed Heinrich Bruning of the Centre Party as Chancellor and authorised him to govern by presidential decree under Article 48.
This was a fateful constitutional turning point. Bruning could not command a Reichstag majority, so he governed instead through emergency decrees signed by the President, dissolving the Reichstag when it objected. Parliamentary democracy was, in effect, suspended from 1930 onward and replaced by presidential government resting on Article 48 — a development that hollowed out the Republic from within well before Hitler came to power. Bruning's economic policy compounded the damage: committed to a rigid deflationary orthodoxy (partly to demonstrate that Germany could not pay reparations), he cut spending, raised taxes and forced down wages, measures that deepened the slump and intensified the misery driving voters to the extremes. His policy earned him the grim nickname of the 'Hunger Chancellor'.
| Action | Intended Aim | Actual Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Cutting welfare and salaries | Balance the budget | Increased poverty and hardship |
| Raising taxes | Increase revenue | Reduced consumer spending |
| Forcing down wages | Restore competitiveness | Reduced domestic demand |
| Deflationary policy overall | End reparations; restore confidence | Deepened the Depression |
Key Definition: Rule by presidential decree means governing through emergency decrees issued under Article 48 with the President's signature, bypassing the Reichstag. Used routinely from 1930, it meant that democracy was being hollowed out from within even before the Nazi seizure of power.
Ian Kershaw regards Bruning's chancellorship as in effect the beginning of the end for Weimar democracy, because it normalised government without parliamentary consent and accustomed Germans to rule by presidential decree — the very mechanism through which Hitler would later be installed and empowered.
Exam Tip: The transition to presidential government in 1930 is arguably as important as Hitler's appointment in 1933. It is the moment parliamentary democracy effectively ended; what followed was a contest over who would control the authoritarian system that replaced it.
The electoral statistics chart the destruction of the moderate centre and the surge to the extremes with stark clarity. In the relatively prosperous election of May 1928 the NSDAP had been a fringe party with 2.6% of the vote; by July 1932 it had become the largest party in Germany with 37.3%. The Communists also advanced, while the liberal parties of the centre were all but annihilated and the conservative DNVP collapsed.
| Party (share of vote) | May 1928 | Sept 1930 | July 1932 | Nov 1932 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NSDAP | 2.6% | 18.3% | 37.3% | 33.1% |
| KPD | 10.6% | 13.1% | 14.3% | 16.9% |
| SPD | 29.8% | 24.5% | 21.6% | 20.4% |
| Centre | 12.1% | 11.8% | 12.5% | 11.9% |
| DNVP | 14.2% | 7.0% | 5.9% | 8.3% |
| Liberals (DDP and DVP) | 13.6% | 8.6% | 2.6% | 3.1% |
Several features of this transformation are analytically important. First, the Nazi breakthrough came in September 1930, immediately after the slump began and the turn to presidential rule, and it accelerated as unemployment rose — the correlation between economic distress and the radical vote is direct. Secondly, the collapse of the liberal and conservative parties shows that the NSDAP drew much of its support by cannibalising the existing right and centre-right, not from the socialist working class, whose parties (SPD and KPD) held up far better. Thirdly, by mid-1932 the two avowedly anti-democratic parties, the NSDAP and the KPD, together commanded a majority of seats in the Reichstag, which made the formation of any pro-democratic majority government arithmetically impossible. Finally, the NSDAP's vote actually fell back in November 1932, from 37.3% to 33.1%, evidence that the Nazi surge had peaked and was beginning to recede — which makes the decision to appoint Hitler in January 1933 all the more striking.
Exam Tip: The fall in the Nazi vote in November 1932 is a crucial piece of evidence for the contingency argument. Hitler was appointed Chancellor not at the height of his electoral strength but as it ebbed — a fact that points to the decisive role of elite intrigue rather than an irresistible popular tide.
If the rise of the extremes is one half of the story, the failure of the Republic's defenders is the other. The parties that might have combined to protect democracy were divided by old enmities and paralysed by the scale of the crisis. The most damaging division, with roots reaching back to the bloodshed of January 1919, was the bitter hostility between the two great parties of the working class, the SPD and the KPD. On instructions ultimately deriving from Moscow, the Communists treated the Social Democrats as their principal enemy, denouncing them as 'social fascists' and refusing any united front against the NSDAP. The two parties together regularly polled more votes than the Nazis, but they fought each other as readily as they fought the right, and at no point did they coordinate resistance.
The SPD itself, the largest single defender of the Republic, was reduced to a policy of 'toleration': it tolerated the Bruning government's decrees as the lesser evil, hoping to avoid provoking a worse alternative, but this passivity demoralised its supporters and offered no positive answer to the crisis. The catastrophic illustration came with the Preussenschlag of July 1932, when Papen deposed the SPD-led Prussian government by decree and the SPD, fearing civil war and unsure of the loyalty of the police and army, submitted without resistance, confining itself to a legal protest. The party that had defeated the Kapp Putsch in 1920 with a general strike now acquiesced in the destruction of its greatest stronghold.
| Defender | Stance in the crisis | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| SPD | Toleration of Bruning; legal protest only against the Preussenschlag | Demoralisation; no active defence of democracy |
| KPD | 'Social fascism' line; treated the SPD as the main enemy | The left fatally divided against itself |
| Centre Party | Supplied Bruning, then drifted toward accommodation | Willingness to contemplate authoritarian solutions |
| Liberal parties | Electoral collapse | Disappearance of the moderate centre |
The Centre Party, traditionally a pillar of the Weimar Coalition, supplied Bruning and then proved willing to explore an accommodation with the right, while the liberal parties of the centre simply disintegrated at the polls. By late 1932 there was no longer any coherent democratic bloc capable of forming a government or mounting a defence. The Republic was thus destroyed not only by the strength of its enemies but by the disunity, passivity and exhaustion of its friends. In this respect the collapse of 1933 was the delayed price of divisions sown in the Republic's earliest years.
Exam Tip: The SPD-KPD split is a powerful synoptic link back to 1919 and a key part of any explanation of the collapse. The combined left vote shows that a united democratic-socialist resistance was numerically conceivable; that it never materialised is among the great tragedies of the period.
The final phase of the collapse was dominated less by the Nazi movement in the streets than by intrigue within the small circle around the aged President Hindenburg. The key figures were General Kurt von Schleicher, who manoeuvred behind the scenes; Franz von Papen, an ambitious conservative with little popular support; and Hindenburg himself, increasingly reliant on his advisers. The sequence of events in 1932 to 1933 was as follows.
graph TD
A[Hindenburg dismisses Bruning<br/>May 1932] --> B[Von Papen appointed Chancellor<br/>June 1932]
B --> C[Preussenschlag: Prussian government deposed<br/>July 1932]
C --> D[July election: NSDAP 37.3%, largest party]
D --> E[Hitler demands the Chancellorship<br/>Hindenburg refuses, Aug 1932]
E --> F[Nov election: NSDAP falls to 33.1%]
F --> G[Schleicher replaces Papen<br/>Dec 1932]
G --> H[Schleicher fails to build support]
H --> I[Papen-Hitler intrigue<br/>Jan 1933]
I --> J[30 Jan 1933<br/>Hitler appointed Chancellor]
Several of these moves were decisive. In May 1932 Hindenburg, persuaded by Schleicher, dismissed Bruning and appointed Franz von Papen, whose 'cabinet of barons' had almost no support in the Reichstag. In July 1932 Papen carried out the Preussenschlag ('Prussian coup'), using a presidential decree to depose the legitimately elected SPD-led government of Prussia — Germany's largest state and a bastion of republican administration — on the pretext of restoring order. Karl Dietrich Bracher identified this as a decisive step on the road to dictatorship, because it destroyed the last great institutional stronghold of democracy and demonstrated how easily an elected government could be removed by decree.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.