Although the SPD were primarily blamed for signing the treaty they still remained the strongest party in Germany leading us to believe that it was the right that were bitter about the treaty and that they tried to stir things up within Germany by accusing the new government. In 1919 the SPD had 38% of the vote and were the strongest party, after the treaty, we would expect a different party to be elected after the furore associated with the treaty however they remained the strongest party in 1920 with a 22% majority. This shows us that although the German public were angry about the treaty they would not let it destabilize the new government and so in this respect the treaty did not much undermine democracy.
During the period 1919-1923 there were attempted uprisings from both the left and the right which failed due to their poor organisation, this reflects the political discontent already established before the treaty. Due to the crippled army post-treaty the government had to rely on the Freikorps to suppress any uprisings, the Freikorps were formed in 1919 and were neither as strong nor as numerous as the army however the uprisings were small and unorganised and posed little threat. Threats such as the Spartacist rising and Ruhr mine strikes (1919) show us the political restlessness at the time due to conflicting interest before the treaty leading us to believe that the SPD were disadvantaged by political discontent preluding their ruling and decision on the treaty.
Despite previous political restlessness the treaty of Versailles still created a problem for the new government before they could hope to change things with their constitution. The SPD put in place directly after the armistice and deemed responsible for the treaty were unfavoured before given the chance to amend things with a constitution. However, when a constitution was put in place there were obvious flaws linking it to the old society that was not so democratic and it seemed people wanted a change after the problems in the war. Flaws such as article 48 and remnant aspects of the old society meant that significant power still lay with one man and although voted by universal suffrage he had the power to override the German people with article 48. The constitution did not gain them much support as the general consensus of historians today is that support would only be gained with a radical change and a revolution rather than a half hearted alteration. This leads me to believe that the treaty was not completely to blame for the failure of democracy as the constitution was no way near democratically radical enough for the requirements of the German people.
With hindsight today however we can see that Ebert was faced with a variety of problems from the start of the republic. He faced both revolutions from above and below due to war weariness and general economic discontent. War generals handed over the responsibility of the war and signing of the treaty, aware that whoever ended the war would be blamed by the German people, This lead to the ‘stab in the back’ theory that politicians ended the war while Germans were still fighting in France. The revolution from below was due to general war weariness: mass mutiny throughout sailors and soldiers led to the abdication of the Kaiser and the chancellorship being handed to Ebert and the SPD party. A new republic is then formed by Ebert who has to take responsibility of all of Germany’s problems including the armistice, because of this I do not think it is fair to say that the treaty was solely to blame, more that it added a final factor and contributed to the mess that Germany was already in after and even before WWI.
During the war Germany borrowed excessively from other countries and printed lots of money to keep up with war spending, assured that the war would be won and they would be paid back in reparations. Printing money devalued the Mark and led to serious hyperinflation, the government needed to continue printing more money due to occupation of the Ruhr leading to a lack of income and expenditure on striking workers. Evidence today suggests that the government may have favoured inflation as it generated foreign sympathy and they hoped it would lead to less of a debt to be owed. In fact the debt did not decrease as the treaty stated reparations must be paid in goods rather than money. I think that war expenditure and over the top reparations called upon Germany started the inflation but the French occupation of the Ruhr took it too far and in the end destroyed the German Mark. This leads me to believe that in the case of inflation, the treaty was to blame as it started the hyperinflation and as France were not happy they occupied the Ruhr leading to further economic difficulties.
Overall I think I think that although the failure of democracy was due to both the treaty of Versailles and political indifferences before the treaty, we cannot be too damning of Weimar Germany’s attempt at democracy. However, generally I think it is safe to say that political discontent and war/economic weariness set up the failure of democracy but the treaty of Versailles delivered the crucial and final blow.
