Thus, we see that during the revolution in Germany in 1918 there were two aspects of the changes that took place- aspects which brought about changes in the location of power of ruling and the aspects which brought about those changes. In other words it was the evolution accelerated by necessity from below to bring about certain changes in ‘above’. We may conclude by saying that after studying the various aspects of the revolution in Germany in 1918, the ‘revolution from above’ was not revolutionary as it was simply the consequences of the ‘revolution from below’.
Q. 2 (a) Explain why the ‘revolution from below’ can bee seen as a genuine
revolution?
Ans. In 1918, Germany was undergoing radical changes in its politics with the
Government (The Second Reich) led by Kaiser Wilhelm II being faced with exceedingly stiff challenges from several layers of the society in the form of a somewhat revolution led primarily by Ebert, a SPD leader which ultimately topples the government and brings about a regime selected by people and the common masses in the form of the Weimar Republic. There were two main aspects of this so-called revolution-a revolution from above (changes brought about in the location of power mainly) and a revolution from below (people having their sway over certain matters).
Ebert was, theoretically, the leader of the socialist party and so he should lead predominantly the revolution which was being carried out from the lower surfaces of the society but he plays an extremely clever dual role which even astounds the historians who sometimes are bewildered to place Ebert on the beam-balance as they are confused about the side where he belongs.
The ‘revolution from below’ began when the soldiers and the workers are posted through out Germany seeing which the higher classes fear the arrival of a communist revolution. Soon after the unrest within the sailors in Kiel spreads nationwide and ultimately causes the abdication of Kaiser. These two events can surely be seen as revolutionary changes. When Prince Max handed over (was forced to) power to Ebert’s government many view the event as the wave of popular momentum which swept away the temporary government of Prince Max set up after the abdication of Kaiser.
Certainly, there were notable changes in the upper layers of the society as well but mainly these were reactionary but not revolutionary. Moreover, we must note that a strong pillar cannot withstand the force of time without a strong base and similarly, the pillar of the revolution could not have been built had it been deprived of a strong base which came in the form of ‘revolution from below’ i.e., support of the mass population.
Thus we see that although Germany had two aspects of revolution-the ‘revolution from below’ and ‘revolution from above’, the revolution which was basically accelerated by the common public almost overshadowed the changes that took place in the offices of Kaiser or the OHL. Although we must not, most certainly, ignore the ‘revolution from above’ we must most certainly say that the ‘revolution from below’ was the genuine one.
Q. 2 (b) Explain why Ebert’s actions can be viewed as cautious and restrained.
Ans. The Second Reich in Germany led by Kaiser Wilhelm II was becoming
highly unpopular and people from all corners of Germany wanted a change in the government and their motive was fulfilled finally by a revolution that was primarily led by Ebert, an SPD leader and thus came a new democratic government with the name of Weimar Republic.
Most historians find it a heculean task to place Ebert in the picture of the revolution which consisted of rapidly changing sequence of events because his role in the revolution is not at all well defined because he supports the Junkers as well as the mass population.
We may start our analysis of Ebert’s character by emphasising on the fact that he was a person that believed in taking he middle path without going too far on any side of the road. He did believe in changes but also believed that radical changes through out the government were not at all necessary. He was also panicky and was terribly scared of a communist element dominating the revolution in Germany. He over-estimated the soviet style communist threat and made secret deals with General Groener to use the army to suppress them. He used the army and the Freikrops to crush the Soviet republic in Bavaria and the Spartacist revolt in Berlin which was named ‘Bloody Week’. It was persuaded by the communists who criticised Ebert for his failure (or may we put it as incompatibility or unwillingness?) to bring about radical changes in the structure of the government. He also put restrictions on the Workers’ Council. But we must also keep in mind that Ebert under estimated the threat from the right-wingers to the revolution. This action of Ebert outrages the Marxist historians like Arnold Brecht who claim that he was the slave of the bourgeoisie and a person who protected capitalism. The Western historians, however, claim that Ebert’s suppressing of the communists was vital for the survival of the democratic government approaching in the form of the Weimar Republic. In the 1970s (after the Cold War) when a re-assessment was made about judging the character of Ebert, most historians claim that there was an alternative way of achieving democracy in Germany. But what is beyond doubt is that Ebert was most certainly a cautious man with a careful approach to the things he was planning to achieve in future. In the instance where an SPD leader Scheidemann declared Germany as a republic Ebert could have kept the fact in mind that the objective of the revolution was to achieve a republican government rather than rowing Scheidemann for acting too quickly and ‘illegally’. Ebert wanted to bring in a different government as a replacement for the Second Reich and he did want to gain the support of the mass population but at the same time he was cautious enough not to let the workers gain too much support. On the other hand he kept the power of the elites intact in order to gain their support as well. He kept the current civil service and the judiciary in their office because he did not appreciate the arrival of radical changes, particularly those which would reduce his support from the Junkers.
Examining all the evidences mentioned above we might conclude by saying that Ebert was an extremely careful and cautious character and always believed to take the moderate course and keep out of trouble rather than facing it.
Q. 3 (a) Why did Ebert crush the Spartacist revolt?
Ans. Ebert led the revolution that was taking place in Germany in 1918, the SPD
leader who was a man believing in carefulness and perfectness. He was scared of communism creeping in the movement and was determined to crush it. The Spartacists wanted close association between Russia and Germany and transfer all the power into the hands of the workers and their army and the soldiers themselves. Ebert acted rapidly and banned their councils.
Ebert was afraid of a Soviet style revolt because it would restrict capitalism and thus would put the elites in rather awkward situation because they were the capitalists in the country. We can also put this is mind that Ebert had promised people of a democratic government and so he didn’t want a dictator to step in which was the case in Russia after the revolution.
Ebert frantically wanted to shut out the communist elements from Germany and he often used the army to suppress them.
Q. 3 (b) What is the evidence that Ebert over-estimated the communist
threat?
Ans. Ebert, who was leading the revolution in Germany, was severely concerned
about the communist element poking its nose into the revolution that was intended to be brought upto topple up the existing regime, The Second Reich because he did not want Germany to be modelled in the style of soviet Russia.
However, according to many historians like Kolb Ebert was over-estimating the communist threat to the country. The matter of fact was that the Spartacists were not even prepared to begin a revolution which would bring about radical changes let alone the idea that they were organised enough to carry it out.
We might conclude by quoting Luxemburg and Liebknecht who did not believe that the time was appropriate enough to carry out such an insurrection but admit that they were drawn into a chaotic and uncontrolled situation.
Q. 3 (c) What impact did Ebert’s fear of communism have on his relations with
the army and the establishment?
Ans. The year 1918 saw the development of a revolution (in some ways) in
Germany targeted towards tumbling the Second Reich, the existing regimes and replacing it with a democratically structured government in the form of the Weimar Republic. The revolution was primarily led by Ebert, a SPD leader who was exceedingly opposed against communism and did all he could do prevent the intervention of Marxism in the revolution.
Ebert was so much scared of the communist intervention that he made a secret deal with General Groener to use the army to crush the soviets in Berlin and Bavaria. He also took various steps to secure the power of the elites and as they were often the OHL Commanders he secured their support as well.
On the other hand, according to Hiden, The great violence used against the communists was a sad and bitter comment on the relationship that was gradually developing between Ebert and the German establishment.
Q.(4) In what ways did the Weimar Republic have a great continuity from
Imperial Germany?
Ans. After the revolution in 1918 in Germany there was born a nascent regime
which was born on the basis of the outside structure of the Second Reich but in its heart it had the structure of the old regime as there were no radical changes. The new regime had certain continuities from the old ones.
The constitution of the Weimar Republic was clearly based on the modifications made on the constitution of the earlier regime and it was eventually adopted in July 1919. It had a republican robe covering it. The Article 1 of the constitution refers to the German Reich being a republic.
The political parties virtually remained the same. The APD and the Centre(Z) were virtually unchanged in their structure and character after the so-called revolution but parties like Progressives and the National Liberals modified into the Democrats (DDP) and the People’s Party (DVP) respectively after the transitory period. But we may refer it to as a constitutional evolution rather than a political revolution.
There was no attempt to alter the judiciary or the civil service and thus these became influential forces for conservatism and weighted the operation of the law heavily in favour of the right wing and against the left.
The Republican Government never tried to interfere within the army attempts to revive itself. The military limited to 10,000 volunteers, became an extremely professional unit based very much on the ethos of the Second Reich. The decision of not republicanising the army was mainly the outcome of the telephonic conversation between Ebert and General Groener on 9th November.
We may conclude by quoting Heiber who says that the entire structure of the army remains the same and it does what it desires without any hindrance at all from the government.
Q.(5) Write a paragraph summing up your opinion on whether we can call the
events of 1918-19 Germany a revolution?
Ans. The Second Reich in Germany was faced with stiff opposition from almost
all the social classes of Germany and finally the masses did manage to topple the existing regime by pressurising the changes to occur at the helm of the government and the political structure. In the meantime Ebert, a leader of the Socialist Party (SPD) managed to win over massive amount of support by cleverly disguising his role on every occasion. It is not very clear that on which side he was but all the historians could figure out is that he was often changing ends but doing this very cunningly so that he kept in with the elites as well as with the workers community. Out of the smokes of confusion and chaos in Germany there developed a so-called revolution which acted rapidly to remove the existing regime and declare the birth of a new democratic state with the name of Weimar Republic which, according to some, was a democratic robe covering various features of the Second Reich.
