The early Weimar Republic faced severe political instability, marked by violent uprisings, political assassinations, and persistent threats from both left and right extremists.
Left-Wing Uprisings
The Spartacist Revolt, 1919
One of the earliest threats came from the Spartacists, a radical socialist group inspired by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
In January 1919, the Spartacist League, led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, attempted to overthrow the provisional government and establish a communist state.
The uprising centred in Berlin and saw armed workers seize key buildings and infrastructure.
The poorly organised revolt lacked widespread support and was suppressed within days by the Freikorps — paramilitary groups composed of ex-soldiers.
Both Luxemburg and Liebknecht were captured and murdered by Freikorps units, highlighting the brutality with which the government crushed leftist dissent.
The Ruhr Uprising, 1920
Following the Kapp Putsch (a right-wing coup attempt), left-wing workers in the industrial Ruhr region rose in protest:
In March 1920, up to 50,000 workers formed a Red Army and seized control of large parts of the Ruhr.
They aimed to establish a socialist republic and combat both right-wing reactionaries and perceived government betrayal.
Once again, the government relied on the Freikorps to regain control. The suppression was violent and resulted in over 1,000 casualties.
These events deepened divisions between the Social Democratic government and the radical left, undermining trust in democratic institutions.
Right-Wing Threats
The Kapp Putsch, 1920
The fragile Republic also faced significant threats from conservative and nationalist elements:
In March 1920, Wolfgang Kapp, supported by Freikorps units angered by plans to disband them under the Treaty of Versailles, attempted to seize power.
The conspirators occupied Berlin and declared a new government.
The legitimate government fled to Dresden and Stuttgart but survived thanks to a general strike called by trade unions and civil servants, paralysing the coup.
The putsch collapsed after only four days, but its failure demonstrated the Republic’s reliance on passive resistance rather than loyal armed forces.
The Munich Putsch, 1923
One of the most infamous right-wing attempts to topple the Republic came from the emerging Nazi Party:
In November 1923, Adolf Hitler and General Ludendorff attempted to overthrow the Bavarian government and march on Berlin.
Inspired by Mussolini’s March on Rome, Hitler hoped to spark a national revolution.
The plan failed spectacularly when local authorities resisted, and the police fired on the marchers.
Hitler was arrested and sentenced to five years in prison (of which he served less than a year), during which he wrote Mein Kampf.
The lenient sentence exemplified how sympathetic sections of the judiciary were to right-wing extremists.
Role of the Freikorps and the Judiciary
Freikorps: Guardians and Threats
The Freikorps were crucial to the Weimar government’s survival:
They consisted of former soldiers who despised socialism and democracy.
Deployed to crush leftist uprisings, they acted with brutal efficiency and often exceeded their authority.
While useful for suppressing revolts, they posed a threat themselves, as seen in the Kapp Putsch.
Their existence blurred the lines between state security and paramilitary vigilantism.
The Judiciary’s Bias
The German judiciary showed clear bias:
Left-wing agitators received harsh punishments, including lengthy prison terms or execution.
Right-wing conspirators were treated with notable leniency. For instance, many participants in the Kapp Putsch faced no serious consequences.
Political assassinations by nationalist groups often resulted in minimal sentences, if prosecuted at all.
This inconsistency eroded confidence in the Republic’s commitment to justice and democracy.
Political Assassinations and Emergency Powers
Wave of Political Murders
Between 1919 and 1922, Germany witnessed a series of high-profile assassinations:
More than 350 political murders occurred, most committed by right-wing extremists.
Victims included prominent pro-democracy politicians such as Matthias Erzberger (1921) and Walther Rathenau (1922).
The Organisation Consul, a secret nationalist paramilitary group, was behind many attacks, operating with relative impunity.
These murders intimidated moderate politicians and heightened political polarisation.
Use of Emergency Powers
In response to threats, the government increasingly relied on Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution:
This clause allowed the President to rule by decree in emergencies, bypassing the Reichstag.
Frequent use of emergency powers weakened parliamentary democracy and set dangerous precedents.
While necessary to restore order, it normalised authoritarian measures that later undermined the Republic.
Coalition Governments and Political Fragmentation
Chronic Coalition Instability
The Weimar Republic’s political system suffered from excessive fragmentation:
Proportional representation meant even small parties gained Reichstag seats.
No party could secure an outright majority, forcing coalitions of diverse and often conflicting interests.
Governments frequently collapsed due to disputes, leading to frequent elections and changes in leadership.
Between 1919 and 1924, there were nine different coalition governments, contributing to a perception of incompetence and indecision.
Rising Extremism in Parliament
Political fragmentation allowed extremist parties to gain footholds:
Parties like the Communists (KPD) and the early Nazi Party used parliamentary platforms to spread propaganda and disrupt proceedings.
Moderate parties struggled to maintain stable coalitions, further discrediting democracy in the eyes of many Germans.
Strength and Legitimacy of the Republic by 1924
Signs of Resilience
Despite immense challenges, the Weimar Republic demonstrated unexpected resilience:
It survived repeated violent threats from both left and right.
Key institutions, especially civil servants and unions, often defended the constitutional order when the military failed to do so.
By 1924, radical threats had receded somewhat due to improved economic stability (thanks to measures like the Dawes Plan) and international diplomacy.
Deep-Seated Weaknesses
However, underlying weaknesses persisted:
Many Germans, particularly conservative elites, never fully embraced the Republic’s democratic principles.
The repeated use of emergency powers and reliance on unelected institutions weakened democratic norms.
The judiciary’s partiality undermined the rule of law.
Political parties remained deeply divided, ensuring fragile coalitions and constant government turnover.
By the mid-1920s, the Republic appeared superficially stable but retained deep structural flaws that extremists could later exploit. This fragile legitimacy would be severely tested again during the economic crises of the late 1920s and early 1930s, paving the way for the Nazi rise to power.
FAQ
The German military’s attitudes profoundly affected the fragile political stability of the Weimar Republic. After World War I, the Reichswehr retained strong conservative and monarchist loyalties, often showing reluctance to defend the democratic government. While the army cooperated in suppressing left-wing revolts like the Spartacist uprising, it was far less reliable when dealing with right-wing threats. For instance, during the Kapp Putsch, parts of the military sympathised with the coup and refused to act against fellow nationalists, forcing the government to rely on a general strike instead. This selective loyalty undermined the Republic’s ability to enforce its authority equally and fostered an environment where right-wing paramilitary groups like the Freikorps felt emboldened. The military’s conservative leadership further believed the Republic was a temporary state until a more traditional order could be restored, which discouraged full support for democratic institutions. This attitude indirectly legitimised political violence and emboldened extremist factions.
The conservatism of the judiciary had a significant impact on the handling and outcomes of political violence during the early Weimar years. Many judges were appointed during the Imperial period and retained strong nationalist and anti-socialist biases. Consequently, when dealing with left-wing revolutionaries, the courts imposed severe sentences, such as executions or lengthy prison terms, sending a clear message that socialist agitation would not be tolerated. In stark contrast, right-wing offenders, including those involved in coups, assassinations, or paramilitary violence, often received minimal punishment or were acquitted outright. The Kapp Putsch conspirators largely escaped prosecution, and Hitler’s lenient sentence after the Munich Putsch exemplified this judicial indulgence. This bias signalled to the public that right-wing violence was more acceptable than left-wing dissent and encouraged nationalist extremists to act with impunity. By failing to deliver impartial justice, the judiciary weakened public faith in the Republic’s commitment to the rule of law.
Paramilitary culture was pervasive in post-war Germany and played a key role in normalising political violence from 1919 to 1924. Many ex-soldiers struggled to reintegrate into civilian life, and the chaos of the post-war period created a demand for disciplined, armed groups to maintain order and fight perceived threats like communism. The Freikorps, for example, were celebrated as patriotic defenders of Germany, despite their frequent extralegal actions and excessive brutality. Their violent suppression of left-wing uprisings became a model for dealing with dissent, blurring the line between legitimate force and vigilantism. Paramilitary organisations on the right, such as the Organisation Consul, conducted political assassinations, which were tolerated or tacitly supported by conservative elites who feared socialist revolution more than nationalist violence. This widespread acceptance of paramilitary solutions made violence a routine aspect of politics, undermining democratic norms and fostering a culture where political disputes were increasingly settled by force rather than debate.
Regional differences significantly influenced the pattern and intensity of political instability and extremism during this era. Industrial regions like the Ruhr and Saxony, with strong working-class populations and socialist traditions, were hotbeds for left-wing activism and strikes. These areas experienced intense clashes between workers’ councils, communist militias, and the Freikorps, especially during the Ruhr uprising. In contrast, conservative rural areas and regions like Bavaria were bastions of right-wing sentiment. Bavaria, in particular, became a haven for nationalist and monarchist elements following the revolution. It nurtured far-right movements, providing a base for groups like the early Nazi Party and hosting the Munich Putsch. Local authorities in Bavaria often turned a blind eye to anti-Republican plots, valuing order and tradition over loyalty to the Weimar government. These regional disparities meant the Republic faced varied and localised challenges, requiring tailored responses and complicating national unity. Regional defiance weakened central authority and emboldened extremist factions to exploit local sympathies.
The loss of faith in democratic politics among many Germans between 1919 and 1924 stemmed from multiple factors that eroded confidence in the Republic’s effectiveness. Frequent changes in coalition governments made the Reichstag seem indecisive and self-serving, with parties appearing more interested in factional disputes than in solving urgent national problems. The perceived inability to control violence, from street clashes and uprisings to political assassinations, made the Republic look weak and incompetent. The reliance on emergency powers and paramilitary groups rather than a loyal, professional army highlighted its fragility. Additionally, the judiciary’s double standards bred cynicism about justice and fairness. Right-wing propaganda also exploited widespread resentment towards the Treaty of Versailles and economic hardship, blaming democracy for Germany’s humiliation and suffering. Many Germans, disillusioned by political chaos and lack of decisive leadership, began to view authoritarian solutions as preferable to a democracy that seemed to guarantee only disorder and national decline.
Practice Questions
To what extent did right-wing extremism pose a greater threat to the Weimar Republic than left-wing uprisings between 1919 and 1924?
Right-wing extremism posed a greater long-term threat to the Weimar Republic than left-wing uprisings. While left-wing revolts like the Spartacist and Ruhr uprisings were forcefully suppressed and lacked elite support, right-wing conspirators, including the Kapp Putsch and Munich Putsch leaders, enjoyed judicial leniency and backing from sections of the army and Freikorps. Political assassinations of moderates by right-wing groups further destabilised the Republic. Moreover, the judiciary’s bias and public sympathy towards nationalist ideas undermined the democratic system more deeply than the isolated leftist insurrections, which never garnered sustained widespread support.
Explain how the use of emergency powers impacted the legitimacy of the Weimar Republic up to 1924.
The frequent use of emergency powers under Article 48 undermined the democratic legitimacy of the Weimar Republic. Initially intended for crises, they became a regular tool to bypass the Reichstag when coalitions faltered, eroding parliamentary authority. This reliance on presidential decrees and the military to suppress uprisings and enforce stability made the government appear authoritarian and unstable, discouraging public trust. It set a dangerous precedent for future leaders to exploit emergency measures, weakening democratic norms and feeding public disillusionment with democracy. By 1924, this practice had sown seeds for deeper democratic decay.
