The Weimar Republic faced significant political upheaval, economic turmoil, and ideological opposition between 1919 and 1929, threatening its democratic foundations.
Political Instability to 1924
The Spartacist Uprising (January 1919)
The Spartacists, a radical Marxist group led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, sought to establish a communist government.
Sparked by widespread dissatisfaction with the moderate socialism of the SPD (Social Democratic Party), they launched a revolt in Berlin.
The uprising was poorly organised and lacked widespread support from workers outside Berlin.
The Freikorps, a paramilitary group composed of ex-soldiers, were enlisted by the SPD government to crush the revolt.
Outcome: The rebellion was suppressed within a week. Luxemburg and Liebknecht were executed. This event deepened the divide between moderate and radical left-wing factions.
The Kapp Putsch (March 1920)
Led by Wolfgang Kapp and General Lüttwitz, the Kapp Putsch was a right-wing coup attempt aimed at overthrowing the democratic government.
Triggered by government plans to reduce the size of the army and disband some Freikorps units.
The rebels seized control of Berlin; the government fled to Stuttgart.
General Hans von Seeckt refused to suppress the coup, famously stating, “Reichswehr does not fire on Reichswehr.”
Outcome: A general strike by workers, organised by trade unions and supported by civil servants, paralysed the coup, forcing its collapse after four days.
The Munich Putsch (November 1923)
Attempted by Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP (Nazi Party) to seize power in Bavaria and then march on Berlin.
Influenced by Mussolini’s successful March on Rome.
Key figures included Erich Ludendorff, a respected WWI general.
The coup failed when police clashed with the Nazis in Munich, resulting in the deaths of 16 Nazis and four policemen.
Outcome: Hitler was imprisoned and wrote Mein Kampf during his time in jail. The putsch revealed the fragility of the Republic but also the limits of right-wing revolutionary capacity.
Left-Wing and Right-Wing Opposition
Left-Wing Opposition
Mainly from the KPD (Communist Party of Germany), who rejected parliamentary democracy in favour of Soviet-style councils (soviets).
Encouraged by the Russian Revolution, they staged several uprisings:
Ruhr Uprising (1920): Communist revolt in response to the Kapp Putsch; brutally suppressed.
March Action (1921): Another failed KPD insurrection.
These revolts failed due to poor organisation, lack of support, and harsh repression.
Right-Wing Opposition
Comprised of monarchists, nationalists, and militarists who despised the “November criminals” blamed for Germany’s defeat.
The Freikorps served as a reactionary force, supporting right-wing causes and violently suppressing left-wing revolts.
Political assassinations were a common tactic:
Walther Rathenau (Foreign Minister, Jewish industrialist) assassinated in 1922.
Matthias Erzberger (Centre Party politician, signed armistice) assassinated in 1921.
Judiciary bias: Right-wing extremists received lenient sentences compared to left-wing offenders, undermining democratic fairness.
Treaty of Versailles and the Occupation of the Ruhr
Treaty of Versailles (1919)
Seen as a national humiliation. Major terms:
War Guilt Clause (Article 231): Blamed Germany for the war.
Reparations: £6.6 billion imposed in 1921.
Territorial losses: Alsace-Lorraine to France, Polish Corridor created.
Military restrictions: Army limited to 100,000; no tanks, submarines, or air force.
Impact:
Fuelled right-wing resentment and “stab-in-the-back” myth.
Undermined legitimacy of Weimar politicians who signed it.
Occupation of the Ruhr (1923)
Germany defaulted on reparations payments, prompting French and Belgian troops to occupy the Ruhr industrial region.
The German government encouraged passive resistance: workers went on strike rather than cooperate.
This led to a collapse in production and worsened the economic crisis.
The government printed money to pay striking workers, triggering hyperinflation:
By late 1923, prices were rising hourly.
Savings were wiped out; pensions became worthless.
Middle-class support for the Republic eroded significantly.
The Stresemann Era: Recovery and Stability
Ending Hyperinflation
Gustav Stresemann, appointed Chancellor in August 1923, introduced pragmatic economic and diplomatic reforms.
Appointed Hjalmar Schacht as Reichsbank President.
Introduced a new currency, the Rentenmark, in November 1923, stabilising the economy.
Dawes Plan (1924)
Agreed with the USA and Allies to restructure reparations:
Payments spread over longer timeframes.
Initial payments reduced.
USA provided loans to Germany (c.800 million marks).
Allowed for economic recovery and investment in infrastructure.
Locarno Pact (1925)
Germany accepted western borders with France and Belgium.
Secured mutual guarantees with Britain and Italy.
Marked a significant diplomatic shift: Germany was treated as a peaceful partner rather than a pariah state.
Led to Germany’s entry into the League of Nations in 1926.
Stability and Democratic Consolidation by 1929
Signs of Stability
By 1924–1929, political violence and uprisings significantly declined.
No major coup attempts or revolts.
Electoral support grew for pro-democratic parties, including the SPD, Centre Party, and DDP.
Moderate coalitions managed to maintain control, despite the challenge of proportional representation.
Economy improved: industrial output returned to pre-war levels by 1928.
Social reforms: housing projects, labour rights, and unemployment insurance boosted quality of life.
Limitations to Stability
Short-lived coalitions: Governments were fragile, and no single party dominated, making policymaking difficult.
Article 48 remained in place, allowing the President to rule by decree in emergencies – a potential threat to democracy.
Presidency of Hindenburg from 1925 introduced a conservative monarchist figure into a key position.
Continued Threats from Extremist Groups and Conservative Elites
The Far Right
Though temporarily marginalised, the NSDAP reorganised after the Munich Putsch, expanding nationally.
Hitler reoriented strategy towards gaining power legally through elections.
Other nationalist and anti-republican groups maintained a strong presence, especially in rural and conservative regions.
The Far Left
The KPD remained a significant political force and never accepted the legitimacy of the Republic.
Continued to oppose moderate socialism and parliamentary democracy, though uprisings were largely suppressed post-1924.
Conservative Elites
The judiciary, military, and civil service retained pre-Weimar sympathies:
Often undermined government policy through obstruction or passive resistance.
Harboured monarchist or authoritarian loyalties.
The army operated as a “state within a state,” enjoying autonomy and resisting democratic oversight.
The Press and Propaganda
Anti-democratic media outlets, often financed by industrialists and nationalists, attacked Weimar institutions.
Promoted the idea that Weimar was weak, corrupt, and morally degenerate.
Education and Institutions
Schools and universities were slow to adopt republican values.
Conservative and nationalist ideology persisted in curricula and faculty outlook.
Despite a period of apparent calm and progress, the Weimar Republic’s democratic foundations remained fragile, constantly threatened by anti-republican forces both within and outside the political mainstream.
FAQ
The judiciary in Weimar Germany was largely composed of officials who had been appointed under the Kaiserreich and retained conservative, nationalist, and monarchist sympathies. These judges viewed the new democratic republic with suspicion and were more sympathetic to individuals who sought to restore traditional authority. As a result, when right-wing offenders, including participants in the Kapp and Munich Putsches or political assassins, were brought to trial, they often received lenient sentences or were acquitted entirely. In contrast, left-wing agitators, seen as a threat to private property and order, faced much harsher penalties. The judiciary's partiality eroded public confidence in the rule of law and the fairness of the democratic system. This bias also emboldened far-right groups, who saw the courts as unlikely to punish their activities severely, thus encouraging further acts of political violence and destabilisation. The failure to reform the judiciary significantly undermined the legitimacy and stability of the Weimar Republic.
The Freikorps were crucial in maintaining order for the Weimar Republic during its formative years but ultimately undermined democratic development. Composed of ex-soldiers and right-wing nationalists, these paramilitary groups were authorised by the government to suppress left-wing uprisings such as the Spartacist Revolt and the Ruhr Uprising. Their effectiveness in combatting communist threats made them indispensable to the early SPD-led coalition government. However, their loyalty was not to democracy but to the idea of a strong, nationalist, authoritarian state. Many Freikorps members later participated in the Kapp Putsch and supported anti-republican causes. They fostered a culture of militarism and violence in post-war Germany and contributed to the normalisation of political intimidation and assassination. Their presence highlighted the Republic’s dependence on undemocratic forces to secure itself, further alienating left-wing supporters and deepening societal polarisation. This paradox—relying on enemies of democracy to defend it—seriously weakened the Weimar regime’s credibility.
Gustav Stresemann’s diplomacy between 1923 and 1929 was central to Germany’s reintegration into the international community and restoring its credibility following the Treaty of Versailles. As Foreign Minister, Stresemann pursued a policy of fulfilment—cooperating with the Allies to revise the terms of Versailles peacefully. His most significant achievement was the Locarno Pact (1925), where Germany recognised its western borders with France and Belgium. This move reassured neighbouring countries and marked a turning point in international relations. In 1926, Germany was admitted to the League of Nations, symbolising its rehabilitation and increased influence in global diplomacy. Stresemann also worked to secure foreign loans and economic agreements, such as the Dawes Plan and later the Young Plan, which alleviated reparations burdens and attracted investment. These successes increased foreign confidence in Germany and encouraged diplomatic engagement rather than isolation. Stresemann’s diplomacy improved Germany’s global image and helped foster a sense of national pride and optimism during the mid-1920s.
Weimar Germany operated under a system of proportional representation, which allowed many parties to gain seats in the Reichstag. While this system was democratic, it resulted in a fragmented political landscape with no single party able to command a majority. Coalition governments became necessary, but these coalitions were often unstable due to ideological differences and competing priorities. For instance, centrist and left-leaning parties like the SPD often struggled to form durable alliances with centrist conservatives or liberals. Frequent disagreements led to short-lived cabinets, with some lasting only months. Between 1919 and 1933, there were over a dozen different governments, undermining long-term policy planning and public confidence in parliamentary democracy. This instability contributed to political apathy, dissatisfaction, and increased support for extremist parties who promised decisive leadership. While the period 1924–1929 was relatively more stable, the underlying issue of coalition fragility remained unresolved and would prove catastrophic during later crises.
The press and media played a significant role in shaping public opinion during the Weimar Republic. With press freedom guaranteed under the Weimar Constitution, a wide variety of newspapers and journals flourished, representing the full political spectrum—from communist to nationalist and everything in between. Conservative and nationalist publications, often funded by wealthy industrialists, were particularly effective in spreading anti-democratic and anti-Semitic propaganda. Newspapers such as Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung and Völkischer Beobachter (the Nazi Party’s paper) attacked the Republic’s legitimacy, accused it of betraying Germany, and promoted revisionist narratives about the Treaty of Versailles and the “stab-in-the-back” myth. On the other hand, pro-democracy and socialist papers defended the Republic but struggled to reach more conservative rural audiences. The media’s polarisation contributed to political fragmentation and reinforced ideological divides. It also gave extremist parties a powerful platform to disseminate their views, increase their visibility, and rally supporters—especially among those disillusioned by parliamentary politics.
Practice Questions
To what extent did left-wing opposition pose the greatest threat to the Weimar Republic between 1919 and 1924?
While left-wing opposition, such as the Spartacist Uprising and the Ruhr Revolt, posed early challenges, they lacked mass support and were easily suppressed by the Freikorps. In contrast, right-wing threats, such as the Kapp and Munich Putsches, and political assassinations, had deeper support within the army, judiciary, and conservative elites. These groups undermined the Republic from within, receiving lenient sentences and maintaining institutional power. Therefore, although left-wing unrest was visible, right-wing opposition presented a more sustained and structural threat to the Weimar Republic during this period.
How stable was the Weimar Republic by 1929?
By 1929, the Weimar Republic had achieved relative stability through Stresemann’s economic and diplomatic efforts, such as the Dawes Plan and the Locarno Pact. Political violence had subsided, and support for pro-democratic parties had grown. However, structural weaknesses remained, including fragmented coalition governments and dependence on American loans. The continued influence of conservative elites, the persistence of Article 48, and the reorganisation of extremist parties like the Nazis and Communists meant that democracy was not securely consolidated. Thus, while stability had improved, it remained fragile and vulnerable to future crises.
