How stable was the Weimar Republic economically and politically between 1924 and 1929.

The period of 1924 – 29 is often seen as the high point of the Weimar Republic, and is referred to as a ‘Golden Period’. This interpretation is also heightened by the fact that the period before it (1919-23) was filled with the crisis and chaos of rebellions, political assassinations and hyperinflation. Also, the political and economic uncertainty that followed (1929-33) added to this description. However, the fact that such rapid disintegration followed after 1929 has lead many historians to believe that the Republic was, in-fact, not so stable at all. In order to ascertain whether this is true or not, it is necessary to examine the economic and political situation with in the Weimar between 1924 – 1929.

The most striking difference occurring during this period appeared to be the economic recovery. Historians such as Bookbinder have suggested that by 1929 Germany had the third most powerful economy in the world. The Dawes plan was introduced, which saw Germany receiving an 800million gold mark loan. This meant that they were able to pay off the reparations over a longer period of time (the Dawes plan was also revised by the Young plan which reduced reparations even further), and could also invest in new projects such as housing and roads. It also meant that in 1927 the social insurance scheme was brought in to protect over 17million workers. Unemployment insurance was also brought in and financed by a levy, half paid by employers, half by employees. Factories were re-equipped with new machinery such as the new Ford conveyor belt, which increased efficiency. In 1923 industrial output was already exceeding 1913 levels and this had doubled by 1929. Inefficiency was also reduced in other ways. For example there was a massive cartelisation of business. This is where manufacturers and producers join together to control prices; companies that were involved in this system included IG Farbem (chemical producers). Article 165 in the constitution had meant that the government regulated labour practices and wage regulation. They were also in the position of arbitrator between management and labourers. This action reduced the number of strikes. In 1924 the number of strikes totalled 1,973. By 1929 this had fallen to only 429 (statistics from “Hope Terror and Revival” By A.Kitson)

This is a preview of the whole essay

However this apparent recovery is flawed in many ways. Stephen Lee believes that the “German economy was living on borrowed time as well as on borrowed money”. This can be seen to refer to the fact that the German economy was so dependant on American investments (i.e. the Dawes and Young plans). Not only was this a threat to the future of the German economy, but also it increased German hostility. As mentioned by David Evans and Jane Jenkins, many Germans saw these plans as an increase in the allies control and as a second Versailles. The unemployment insurance was also flawed in that it was only viable until the total of unemployed went above 800,000. In reality unemployment rose in this five year ‘boom’ period, from 1.4million in 1926 to 1.9million in 1929. The industrial output figures also have severe disadvantages to them. Although between 1928 and 1929 capital output increased by 2%, the production in consumer groups actually dropped by 1%. It can be said that production and economic expansion was not lead by the German public but only by the industries themselves. The advantages of things such as Fordism may have produced more but there was not necessarily the market for the goods. Although it is very questionable it has also been argued that the trade-unionists pressure for wage rises had stifled a degree of economic growth. In addition to all of these flaws, there was one group in particular to failed to feel to benefit of any economic growth what-so-ever; agriculture. Despite making up 33% of the nations population farm prices dramatically fell and earnings in 1929 were half the national average.

On reflection of the economic situation between 1924-29 it can be seen that whilst many attempted improvements were made, it was still in no way stable.

The political situation was similar in many ways. It did have many positive aspects to it, for example there had been no attempts to over throw the government since 1923. It was also still being guided by its founder, Ebert until 1925. The constitution appeared to give much of the public most of the civil liberties they had craved, and also PR, was, in theory, a system that should directly represent the peoples true feelings. However, as with the economic situation, this was flawed in many ways. Stephen Lee believes that “political stability was an illusion”. Whilst it is true that more moderate parties such as the Zentrum party were gaining seats in the Reichstag (from 65 in May 1924 to 69 in December 1924), so too were more extreme parties such as the DNVP (from 95 in May 1924 to 103 in December 1924). Also, in the 1928 elections the Nazi party managed to make and impressive appearance with 51 seats. These parties were also very hostile towards each other and street violence continued between the left and right. Between 1924 and 1928 there was a total of 6 governments, the longest of which lasted 6 months. Whilst this in itself shows a great deal of instability, the situation is worsened by the fact that 5 out of the 6 governments were minority governments. Putting individual parties aside, the actual runnings of the government, done by the civil service, were themselves still extremely loyal to the ‘old ways’ (i.e. the Kaiser). It can be suggested that they were “to prove a dangerous and subversive influence” (Evans and Jenkins). During this time Hindenburg was also elected as President in February 1925. He is described in Evans and Jenkins as “a snob with no fondness of the Republic”. Having a President who was so strongly against the Republic would surely mean that this time period was to be one of very little stability for the Weimar. Because of this it can be seen that there was very little political stability between the periods of 1924 – 29

Whilst it cannot be argued that there were not many improvements to both the economy and political systems e.g. increase in production and an increase in majority for more moderate parties in the Reichstag, the Weimar was, as Stresseman said, “dancing on a volcano”. There were no strong foundations to any of these new events, and the Weimar was inevitably doomed to failure.

Mhairi B Thomson 6S2

Word count: 1,102