• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

An entrenched autocracy. How far do you agree with this judgement of Imperial Germany by 1914?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"An entrenched autocracy." How far do you agree with this judgement of Imperial Germany by 1914? To have an 'entrenched autocracy' is to have an autocracy (a system of government which allows one person to have absolute rule and power) which is unmoveably deep-set; one which will, for all intents and purposes, never be changed. There are both for and against factors which argue that Wilhelmine Germany was so, including the power that the Kaiser had over the Reichstag and his chancellors, the Kaiser's own personality and beliefs, the challenges to the Kaiser's rule and the rise of 'extremist' parties such as the Social Democrats. Whilst it cannot be denied that the Kaiser had absolute power and say over Germany, there was always stumbling points, blockades, which stopped him from exercising the 'self-rule' which he had always desired. Because of the constitution which Bismarck, the previous chancellor, had passed, the Kaiser could exercise complete, de jure rule. The Kaiser had the power to hire and fire any member of his 'inner circle' which he so chose and that extended to the chancellor; in a 27 year period he had gone through four of them. Constitutionally, the work of Bismarck had meant that there could never be any challenge, short a full-blown revolution, which could disarm or disrupt the Kaisers position. ...read more.

Middle

could indicate that he was irrational and megalomaniacal - he made his choices based on his emotions and not on logic or reasoning. However, his push for Weltpolitik, and the ends which his cabinet was willing to go to achieve that goal (such as the Inheritance Tax and a rise in VAT) suggest that, be it due to patriotism, or be it due to real belief that the Kaiser meant the best for his country, the people of Germany supported his decisions and were willing to put personal differences and opinions aside if it would bring about what the Kaiser desired. The Kaiser wasn't, however, unflappable. It has been inferred that one of the main reasons that Bulow was able to keep his position as chancellor for as long as he did was because he was able to scheme and manipulate the chancellor into believing what he wanted him to believe in. Politically, things weren't all plain sailing for the Kaiser either. To support Weltpolitik, original bills to pass Inheritance and VAT taxes, which would hurt the Junkers and the working class respectfully, were rejected, highlighting that the Kaiser couldn't always force the issue on his country. Despite this, the ultimate fact that the Kaiser was able to sack Bulow (following the Daily Telegraph affair) and that the taxed were all eventually passed, plus the lack of widespread revolution against the Kaiser's rule, suggests that, by and large, the Kaiser maintained a strong, (not unbreachable) ...read more.

Conclusion

It is questionable then as to why the Kaiser didn't chose to ban (or at least block their appearance in the Reichstag) the left-wing parties. Perhaps he didn't think of it; but more likely is that he knew that there would be sizeable opposition to his move and that it could damage not only his reputation, but also his position as long-term, unconditional leader of Germany. His 'fear' of what such drastic action could result in meant that total autocracy wouldn't be possible; unlike the Tsar in Russia (up to the Bolshevik revolution), the Kaiser had sizeable and resonant opposition. Ultimately, the combination of internal and external influencers on the Kaiser, as well as his own ineptitude to deal with social and political pressure and choice (through his own personality defects / ignorance) meant that only in his own head would the Kaiser ever have been able to have complete, autocratic rule over Germany. Once again, I believe that when you contrast the absolute rule the Tsar had over Russia c.1900-1914 and compare that with the troublesome rule the Kaiser had over the same period, it infers that the Kaiser never really had an 'entrenched autocracy.' His personal problems were too numerous and the external influence of the left-wing, possibly impending-revolutionary beliefs were all contributory to the Kaiser being entrenched de jure only; in de facto terms, he was never strong, intelligent or able enough to command complete, autocratic rule. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Hitlers Germany

    For a time Ruthenia was the scene of much real or alleged pan-Ukrainian agitation under Berlin sponsorship, which seemed to portend grave Nazi-Soviet tension. Nevertheless, Stalin, in his report to the 18th Party Congress on March 10, 1939, brushed aside Western forecasts of trouble over the Ukraine as designed "to provoke a conflict with Germany without any visible grounds.''

  2. Explain why women failed to gain the vote 1900-1914

    Humphrey Ward had produced propaganda criticising the women's suffrage campaigners, suggesting women had no time or place in the electoral system, and that they were physically, mentally, morally and socially incapable of voting. Therefore, the Anti-suffrage groups had a substantial amount of support opposed to the WSPU causing the Government

  1. "Kaiser Wilhelm II used to the full his authority as Kaiser of the German ...

    Furthermore, those around him satisfied him through flattery and created a false illusion of his grandeur as an autocratic leader - reflect in Layton's statement that they gave him a 'delusion of power'. This linked to Wehler's idea of the Prussian elites holding a great deal of influence over Wilhelm acts to support this impression.

  2. Do imperial strengths outweigh weaknesses in Germany by 1890?

    A national system of currency was introduced, a Reichsbank was created, all internal tariffs were abolished and there was much legal standardisation. In the early 1870s Bismarck had left all economic matters in the hands of elbruck, a capable administrator who continued the free trade policies of the Zollverein.

  1. "In all that he did, his main aim was to secure himself in power." ...

    power" In January 1800, Napoleon reduced the number of newspaper in Paris from 73 to 13 and forbade the production of any new ones. On top of this, newspapers were forbidden to discuss controversial subjects and were kept short of reliable news.

  2. How Successfully in the period 1870 to 1914 did the ruling elites of Germany ...

    The Prussian Junkers in particular felt threatened by these social changes (due to the decreasing role of agriculture in the economy), but as noted above, Bismarck took a change in direction to economic protectionism in an attempt to preserve their position.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work