The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining political status quo through a policy of moderate reform in the years before WWI. How far do you agree?

Without a doubt nationalism was an important method in the maintenance of the political status quo, as it provided success and distraction in a time when people were beginning to call for reform of the status quo however was not a completely successful in doing so because of unsuccessful events such as the Herero uprising. Von Burlow feared the socialists would upset the status quo so wanted to create a broad front against them, he did this using Sammlungspolitik, which aimed to build an alliance between conservatives, liberals, industrialists and junkers. He aimed to achieve this alliance by using a series of nationalist ideas. Flottenpolitik was one way in which Von Burlow aimed to unite against socialists. Flottenpolitik involved building a navy to rival Britain which was achieved by passing several navy laws through the Reichstag to increase the size of the navy. Flottenpolitik as a part of Sammlungspolitik was a big success in Germany as industrialists profited from the production of ships and the policies synthesised peoples support for patriotism and nationalism which ‘soaked up ’ tensions of reform which assisted the maintenance of the political status quo.  Another way the political establishment used nationalism to maintain the status quo was during the Hottenhot elections in 1907. Von Burlow used the issue of nationalism to convince voters to vote for conservative and liberal groups such as the Pan German League and the Agrarian League by threating the outcome of a red-black victory (alliance of centre and SDP parties). By using nationalism he managed to succeed in getting voters to vote for parties within the Burlow Bloc, which kept socialists at bay thus maintaining the status quo within the Reichstag. Overall nationalism succeeded in maintaining the status quo however would not have been able to maintain it fully without moderate reform as nationalism alone was not a significant enough distraction to completely settle the need for reform of the political status quo.  

It could be argued that the Kaisers stability in the period was an important reason to factor into the maintenance of the political status quo, as his power was never challenged even when questionable situations arose such as the Daily Telegraph affair. However even though he was a strong figure at the time it was not the most significant reason from the maintenance of the political status quo. The power of the Kaiser was demonstrated during the Daily Telegraph affair in 1908. The Kaiser gave an interview to the British newspaper in which he gave the impression he wanted to end the alliance with Britain. The Kaiser was criticised for virtually making foreign policy without consultation, however he managed to blame Chancellor Von Burlow for failing to censor the interview. This ultimately led to the end of Burlow’s chancellorship because he had lost the trust of the Kaiser. This demonstrates that the Kaiser had a huge influence over the chancellor and political establishment which shows the maintenance of the status quo was down to the power and influence of Kaiser.  Another way with the Kaisers power was demonstrated was the Zabern affair in 1913 which clearly demonstrated the lack of the Reichstag’s power. In Zabern in Alsace and Lorraine a German army officer Von Forstner was caught making remarks about locals, the governor of Alsace and Lorraine Von Wedel attempted to convince the transfer Von Forstner away from the town.  The army didn’t listen and Von Forstner remained in Zabern where he was jeered at by locals which resulted in the arrest of locals which the city in a state of siege. The Kaiser was unmoved by events and prevented the chancellor from telling the Reichstag about events in Zabern which led to a vote of no confidence against the chancellor which was ignored. This is significant because it shows the weakness of the Reichstag which proves that the Kaiser held all of the power and was a strong force in the maintenance of the status quo as his power over the Reichstag meant that no party could make a change to alter thepolitical status quo because the Reichstag didn’t hold enough power.  However without moderate reforms the Kaiser may have not remained as strong and the status quo may not have been maintained.

It could also be argued that disunity between parties in the Reichstag helped to maintain the political status quo as no parties were interested in working together to change the political status quo. By 1903 the alliance known as the Burlow bloc had collapsed and fear of the SPD was increasing in the Reichstag.   Due to this the parties at the time were only out to protect the interests of their voters, this meant that collaborations between any of the parties was near impossible as they all wanted different things for their voters.  Disunity was also demonstrated the lack of trust between parties for example between the Social Democrats and National Liberals because of the National Liberals support of Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist law. This disunity and lack of trust between parties at the time lead them to be unsupportive of each other in times when the political status quo could have been changed. An example of this is after the Zabern affair, SPD member Philipp Schiedemann demanded that he chancellor resign after the vote of no confidence however other parties in the Reichstag ignored the request. This evidently shows the Reichstag to be lacking unity which ultimately cost them the opportunity to change the political status quo in Germany.  This factor was important however not as important as the moderate reforms introduced by the Kaiser because event if the Reichstag was unified in may not have had enough power to stand up to the Kaiser and change the political status quo.  

In conclusion, it can be seen the policy of moderate reform was important in the maintenance of the political status quo however would not have been completely successful without the achievements of nationalist policy as it succeeded in distracting the nation’s attention away from the need for reform.  Disunity in the Reichstag was an effect of Bismarck’s reforms so is not a significant enough reason for the maintenance of the political status quo alone, while the strength of the Kaiser was important it would have not been able to maintain the political status quo without moderate reform as there needed to be a balance between moderate reform and the Kaisers almost autocratic rule inored to keep the political status quo maintained.