Unquestionably the First World War initially narrowed political divisions; this is demonstrated through the Burgfriede which was introduced on 4th August to symbolise the political truce between all parties, even the supposedly ’unpatriotic’ Social Democrat Party gave their support for what was presented as a defensive war. However this political unity did not last due to the inability of the military to deliver on their promised of a quick victory. Additionally, due to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan and the tragic defeats at Verdun and Le Somme, in 1916 the Burgfriede and the truce that had enabled the government to rule without opposition began to split. Subsequently Falkenhayn failed to find alternative strategies to break the stalement and as a result Falkenhayn was replaced with military hero Hindenburg. For this reason, one can argue how the First World War increased political divisions. Furthermore, Hindenburg and Ludendorff’s ‘silent dictatorship’ was instrumental in increasing political divisions as they had conflicting aims to those of Bethmann Hollweg who hoped to rally the ‘people together in a bid to create peace’ the conflicting opinions began to develop through the parties in the Reichstag, thus by 1916 war aims became a growing concern and the parties in the Reichstag had no longer been fully supportive as they were in previous years.
Additionally the First World War can be seen as increasing Germany’s political divisions as the introduction of the Siegfriede further increased political divisions as this idea was not popular amongst the pan German and other conservative groups. This ultimately portrayed the real division between those in the Reichstag who supported the Siegfriede policy and those who conversely favoured a peace without annexations. Thus, through supporting the Kreuznach programme, Bethmann further polarised the non-conservative left who felt that a peace should be based on compromise, reconciliation and no territorial gains. Furthermore, political divisions are portrayed through the SPD refusing to vote in favour of war credits – and as a result formed themselves the USPD, independent socialists. Therefore the split in the SPD party highlights the signs of growing polarisation.
Conversely, it can be said that the First World War narrowed political divisions as Erzberger persuaded the majority of the Reichstag to vote in favour of a peace resolution without territorial gains and by July 1917 Erzberger’s peace resolution was passed by 212 votes to 126 – the fact that Erzberger was able to persuade and form a coalition in the Reichstag significantly portrayed that the political divisions in Reichstag were limited as the majority in effect agreed on something. Furthermore, although the SPD deputy Karl Liebknecht voted against war credits at the end of 1914 this opposition was further reflected by the SPD members also voting against war credits at the end of 1915, the increased sense of opinions, which resulted from the outbreak of war was essential in narrowing divisions within the Reichstag, secured political unity.
Conclusively, I agree with the statement that the First World War increased rather than narrowed political divisions as Germany’s failure to secure a quick victory and effects of war created much debate over war aims which as a result damaged any political unity. However, one can also argue that the passing of the Burgfriede in fact brought together the parties in the Reichstag which have in effect had previously been divided.