Despite negative diplomatic flurries, Germany
was admitted to the League of Nations and the Council of the League by
unanimous vote in September 1926. (The Council admission happened later).
Stresemann and Briand, the French Foreign Minister, tried to reach a quid
pro quo at Thoiry during the same month. This involved the evacuation of the
whole Rhineland and the return of the Saar in exchange for German bolstering
of the falling franc.
I. The Era of Stresemann
This would have been a good idea, putting the
capstone on Locarno, but the U.S. and French politicians prevented success.
Stresemann then demanded the withdrawal of the Military Control Commission,
but the French were worried about the proliferating paramilitary
organizations in Germany, like the Stahlhelm and the Reichsbanner.
Stresemann finally won on this issue and also managed to activate the
general disarmament discussions in Geneva, while continuing to press for
total evacuation of the Rhineland, which he got in 1927-1929. He also
continued to raise the war guilt issue and the proposed Anschluss of
Austria. Although he responded eagerly to the Kellog-Briand Pact proposal
which sought to officially renounce war as an instrument of national policy,
the disarmament negotiations got no where since France was unwilling to
surrender her favorable military situation vis-a-vis Germany.
There is no doubt that Germany was in a much stronger international position
by 1927 than she had been since 1918. The evacuation of the Rhineland, the
Locarno Treaty and entrance into the League of Nations, not to mention the
Berlin Treaty, were major achievements for Stresemann, whose skill and
goodwill received greater respect abroad than at home. To put this
achievement in a more meaningful perspective, it may help to take a look at
French and British policy towards Germany during the mid-twenties.
In essence it can be said that France failed to maintain her superiority
over Germany, which she enjoyed at the end of the war. The character of the
peace the French fought for at Versailles was a contributing factor, but
that treaty was not alone at fault. The persistent controversy between the
political Left and Right had a significant effect on French policy towards
Germany. The issue boiled down to whether France should try to use force or
persuasion with the Germans; to go it alone or in conjunction with Britain.
The rightwing parties believed that Germany understood only force and should
not be given any freedom of choice. The Right was willing to cooperate with
concerted international actions, but only if it would help France to enforce
the Treaty of Versailles unchanged. However, they were not willing to wait
for the League of Nations to take action and eager to move independently.
The great opportunity of the Right to test its approach came before 1924. La
politique de la Ruhr was the crucial test of Rightist policy. It was
conceived as a showdown with Germany that would prove to Britain French
independence of action. It turned out to be a miserable defeat for Rightist
policy and culminated in Poincare's fall. It also put the franc in a shaky
position and earned France the hostility of Great Britain. For ten years
after the Ruhr episode and the failure of force as an instrument of policy
towards Germany the Right criticized and protested. But independent French
military action was therefore out of the question.
It should not be assumed, however, that the French Left accepted the
alternative, that is, refrained from trying to maintain the status quo of
Versailles. The Left was willing to wager on the existence and future
potential of a "new Germany," as distinguished from the old aristocratic
one. For men like Briand it was essentially a policy of rapprochement
between 1925 and 1929 to help consolidate the "new Germany" of republican
and democratic tendencies. He believed that nationalist Germany wanted
revenge but Republican Germany wanted peace. The new Germany objected only
to what Briand called "ephemeral clauses of Versailles," those concerning
the execution of the Treaty. But this Leftist policy was only a change in
form and spirit from that of the Right. It was designed to make the status
quo more acceptable to the Germans. As such it lacked any real substance and
failed just as much as did the policy of the Right. This failure was due not
so much to the Rightist opposition in both countries, but rather to the
existence of a fundamental misunderstanding between France and Germany.
Briand thought he could get the Germans to surrender the idea of future
revision of Versailles by giving them present economic relief. The Germans
were quite willing to accept immediate economic relief but essentially
unwilling to abandon future revision. The theory of the two Germany's quite
plausible on the surface, was bound to fail once it was realized that there
was one Germany when it came to Versailles revisionism. Now, it is possible
that Briand did not misunderstand Stresemann's purpose of eventual peaceful
revision, but he thought time would be in France's favor. He hoped that a
policy of rapprochement would eventually reconcile Germany to the
territorial status quo. This was a basic misconception and was bound to
appear as such quite early. The Germans were hardly grateful for the final
evacuation of the Rhineland in 1930-five years before the deadline. The
German government almost immediately embarked on a revisionist campaign
which became shriller and shriller as the German Right ascended to greater
influence.
Mere concessions on the execution of the Versailles Treaty could not really
satisfy Germany. Thus the policy of rapprochement collapsed in 1930,
coinciding with the first great election "victory" of the Nazi party. In
1931 the French were still able to block the Austrian Anschluss, but in 1932
the French could do little to prevent the stoppage of reparation payments
and finally had to stand by idly as Germany began to rearm. By this time
France had lost the diplomatic initiative to Great Britain, where
appeasement reigned. Leon Blum, the Popular Front premier was even willing
to negotiate with Hitler on disarmament. The Right suddenly discovered that
France, after all, could be defended from behind the Maginot line. If this
policy had been followed earlier, it might have changed the course of
European history.
For the French the policy toward Germany revolved around the issue of
Versailles. It is understandable that for British policy there was no such
common denominator, since territorial boundaries were not involved. The
British were concerned with a vaguer attempt to endow Germany with a happy
medium of power lying somewhere between the Versailles level and a maximum
level to be determined by Britain. Unlike the French the British did not
fear a resurgence of German power. She was disarmed and beyond the point of
any danger. London was willing to tolerate a rise in German power to improve
Europe's social and economic condition as long as there was no immediate
danger to British interests. On the whole Britain felt that French fears
were exaggerated and that German resentment was justified to some degree.
She was content to pacify Germany in order to avoid future explosions. As a
result Britain developed a policy of conciliation, readjustment and
concessions.
This kind of policy did not intend to create two armed blocks of power as
had existed before the war, but rather an older balance of power, a Europe
in which no power was strong enough to attack the other. An active League
policy was not incompatible with building up whatever counterpoise was
necessary to maintain this balance. Very much a part of this goal was also
the desire to wean Germany away from undesirably close association with
Russia. A corollary was that Britain instinctively sought a more even
balance on the Rhine, which brought her into opposition on to French policy,
since the latter wanted to maintain permanent superiority over Germany.
The domestic conflict over British policy toward Germany centered on a very
delicate issue, how to decide when German increase in power reached a
critical point so that checking it became necessary to prevent an
undesirable degree of power. But British was in no way opposed to Germany
gaining a preponderance of power on the continent. But in the end British
policy failed as well. She was unable, through conciliatory methods, coupled
with the threat of armaments, to halt a rise in German power beyond the
"maximum" level.
More specifically, the Left in British politics favored a strong League
policy, whereas the Conservatives favored caution towards commitments and
emphasized the development of the empire. The failure of a guarantee pact
with France left Britain with a moral obligation to substitute something
else. French nervousness was an obstacle to pacification of the continent,
in British eyes, and could only be removed by a promise of assistance. The
Left therefore urged more stringent adherence to the obligations incurred by
membership in the League of Nations. The conservatives, however, defeated
the Geneva Protocol of 1924 as they had defeated the proposed military
alliance with France in 1922.
The Geneva Protocol, as you may recall, was an attempt to strengthen the
League by forcing submission of all disputes to the world Court for
arbitration. A refusal to do so would have allowed the League to declare the
refusing nation an aggressor and compelled all members to bring economic and
military sanction against the offender. But the British conservatives were
unwilling to get involved in such far-reaching commitments.
But the Locarno Pact fulfilled the traditional British concerns in an ideal
fashion. It involved no commitments beyond the guarantee of a desirable
pacification of the Rhine. The eastern frontiers of Germany were of very
little concern to the shortsighted British conservatives, whose interest
centered on their own empire. In France and Germany the Right spouted
violent criticism of Locarno. To the French Right it was a poor substitute
for a Franco-British alliance. The German Right felt that Germany had not
been treated as an equal, since the permanent separation of Alsace and
Lorraine had been confirmed. The British traditionalists raised no such
complaints. It was in accord with British interests to their way of
thinking. It avoided splitting the continent into blocks and it made British
commitments less rigid and automatic. This was then a decisive victory of
traditional policy over the collectivist idea of world-wide commitments and
"indivisible peace".
The conservatives thus prevented Britain from becoming a member of either a
bilateral or a general alliance. Meanwhile Britain had succeeded in giving
France additional security without provoking Germany. It also lessened the
danger of German-Soviet intimacy which the conservatives were concerned
about. The end result of this policy was that the status quo in the West was
stabilized, but the "powder box" in the East remained virtually unchanged.
And that "powder box" was to become the great danger for international
diplomacy in the 1930's.
In the light of French and British policy the evacuation of the Rhineland
and Germany's acceptance by the League of Nations, stand as significant
monuments to Stresemann's diplomatic skill and determination. In his dairies
he wrote:
"Either Locarno stands for peace on the Western frontier, or it does
not. If I am to defend Locarno as the foundation stone of European peace,
the Ambassador's Conference must not register a decision that would be the
end of the Locarno policy in Germany."
II. The Election of 1928
In the 1928 elections for the Reichstag the
Nationalists sustained a clear defeat. Their number of seats went down to 73
from 103. There appeared to be a swing to the Left. The Social Democrats
picked up 22 seats, going from 131 to 153. This seemed to be a significant
trend because it brought the Weimar coalition (Social Democrats, Democrats
and the Center parties) to within six seats of an absolute majority. That
was as close as this famous republican coalition had ever come to a
predominant political position within the parliament. Müller, a Social
Democrat, was the chancellor and the renowned Stresemann remained foreign
minister, although his moderate-liberal Peoples Party was not in the
coalition.
The Weimar Republic appeared to be enjoying its halcyon days, thanks largely
to the foreign policy achievements of Gustav Stresemann. Domestically the
challenge from the Right appeared to be blunted by the decline of the
Nationalist vote. The Nazi Party seemed to be an insignificant, radical
splinter with a mere 12 seats in the Reichstag. So the dominant political
fight was among the major parties themselves and not against the NSDAP,
which few people looked upon as a serious movement In fact most politicians
thought the Nazis were just another temporary expression of racist
extremism.
But there was the persistent issue of unemployment, which had stalked the
republic from the beginning. Although unemployment had receded from time to
time it was definitely on the increase in the late 1920s. A policy of
retrenchment in spending and inauguration of additional taxes were agreed
upon by the Müller cabinet, but the details of these arrangements split the
cabinet and brought it down. Dr. Heinrich Brüning, an economist by training
and a member of the Catholic Center Party, now became chancellor. But the
economic issues were so volatile and the parliamentary situation so
insecure, that Brüning agreed to govern by emergency decree provided for in
Article 48 of the Constitution. It was felt that the stringent economic
measures planned to bring about recovery could not be executed otherwise.
So a host of legislation was issued under the signature of the president and
countersignature of the chancellor. The Reichstag was quickly dissolved in
order to prevent a vote of no confidence. Brüning's intent, no doubt, was
honorable. But he set a very dangerous precedent. He used the emergency
clause in a situation that was not the kind of military or foreign-induced
emergency the constitution-writers had in mind. Article 48 was not planned
as a political expedient.
III. The Election of 1930
The election that followed, in 1930, was the first signal of decline for the
Weimar Republic. What no one anticipated happened. The Nazis pulled off a
major political victory by increasing the number of parliamentary seats from
12 to 107. This result sent shock waves through the political system and
almost obscured the sizable increase of the Communists, who went from 54 to
77 seats in the Reichstag.
Part of the reason for the Nazi landslide could be found in the constitution
itself, namely the provision for proportional representation. Under this
system a certain number of seats were assigned to a party in the Reichstag,
depending on the total percentage of the popular vote a party received. If
it had been a matter of single-man constituencies, the National Socialists
could not have won much more than about 20 seats. In no district did they
poll more than 40 per cent of the vote. But under proportional
representation their national popular vote percentage of a mere 18.3 gave
them 107 deputies.
Under these circumstances, the Right and Left extremists had a larger
combined representation than the Social Democrats, traditionally the largest
single party in the Reichstag. The political fight against fascism finally
began now. But the danger of a Right or Left dictatorship was not perceived
very clearly by Brüning, whose idea of fighting internal radicalism was to
win a foreign policy victory. This meant that he concentrated on the
economic and financial crisis, reparations and unemployment. But despite
several additional taxes, revenue dropped by one third and a four-billion
mark deficit soon developed. Expenditures were cut by one third with the aid
of reparation cancellation and a cut in salaries and pensions.
Since the threat from the Right and Left now definitely existed the other
parties in the Reichstag tolerated Brüning's slightly irregular, but
nevertheless "constitutional dictatorship". Some 50 decrees were issued
during Brüning's two-year chancellorship. All but 12 dealt with the economic
and financial crisis. In the world market Brüning's measures brought tariff
retaliation and other forms of economic pressure, particularly from Great
Britain and the United States. These unanticipated reactions largely robbed
Germany of any advantage from economic self-discipline.
Domestically the Brüning policies upset the political balance, since those
whose belts were tightened turned to Rightist propaganda in desperation.
Brüning may have been sincere in his economic dogmatism, but the times
called for unorthodox economic solutions. Unfortunately, the Keynesian idea
of compensatory spending was not yet generally accepted as a way to fight
depression. Besides, the Germans, after the horrifying experience of 1923,
were in constant fear of inflation. So reduction of spending, wages and
benefits, plus higher taxation, were the only solution that could be
tolerated. These things, of course, did little to stop the increasing rate
of unemployment, which threatened the stability of the social structure.
Yet many observers agree that the Müller and Brüning cabinets (1928 to 1932)
came very close to bringing economic salvation. Reparations were finally
cancelled, the budget was nearly balanced, the public debt was low. Collapse
of the great financial institutions was prevented. Perhaps, even the
intractable unemployment problem could have been solved if the government
had had the foresight to enforce a 32-hour week.
The armaments question also came close to solution except for the
intransigence of the French. It was the obstinate refusal of France to make
even minor changes in the Versailles Treaty which sabotaged agreement at the
Disarmament Conference. Had the French been more flexible and granted
Germany some form of military parity, it might have saved Brüning and with
him the Weimar Republic. Strangely enough, once Hitler came to power, the
French made all kinds of concessions, but of course it was too late then.
So, fighting fascism by economic means proved to be ineffective. One could,
of course, also fight fascism directly, that is by suppressing it. It is
always difficult to do in a democracy, even a weak one like the Weimar
Republic. The peculiar federal structure of Weimar was a special hindrance
in this respect. Law enforcement was the prerogative of the states, not the
national government. But the state governments could not suspend
constitutional guarantees, except with the specific approval of the federal
government. Prussia, the largest state with the greatest amount of lawless
violence, perpetuated by the Communists and the Nazis, made no move to
disband the paramilitary storm troopers. It waited for the national
government to do so.
It could be done under Article 48, providing for emergency suspension of
civil rights, without fear of legal challenge. In 1930 the Prussian
government did exclude the Nazis and Communists from municipal offices and
the civil service and prohibited the wearing of uniforms. But that was not
very effective, since the federal government could not interfere if state
governments appointed Nazis to public office, which happened in the state of
Brunswick. The National government could have done this only if it took over
the police under Article 48, which would have led to serious conflict with
Bavaria, where separatist feelings were very strong.
Brüning did take some mild measures to control radical violence before 1932.
Police received permission to shut down meetings on 48-hour notice. Posters
and other advertising had be approved by the police. The use of trucks in
parades was prohibited. Private uniforms could be banned by police and were
actually banned nationally in November 1931. The penalties for high treason
were raised. Finally, the police could arrest anyone who bore arms in public
meetings and parades. But these measures fell short of outright disbanding
of paramilitary formations, which now far outnumbered the size of the
regular army.
In April 1932 it was thought that Hitler could be stopped by re-electing
Hindenburg as president. The Social Democrats, for instance, strongly backed
his reelection. The result was that Hindenburg got 19.4 million votes,
Hitler 13.4 million and the Communist candidate, Thälmann, 3.7 million
votes. Three days after this election, Hindenburg, at the recommendation of
Brüning and Groener, the defense minister, disbanded the SA. But that
prohibition only lasted until June and its effect was not what one might
have expected.