Similarities Between Revolutionary France And Weimar Germany

Many people may question, if Germany was a Democratic country, how did Adolf Hitler, a tyrant who orchestrated the largest genocide in human history, rise to power? After World War I in 1918, Germany had lost the war and its imperial government began to downfall. Germany had to undertake full responsibility for the war and pay reparations debilitating its already weakened economy. By many Nationalist and veterans, the forfeiture of the war was seen as a humiliation and degradation as they believed the war could have been won if it wasn’t for protestors and politicians. Hitler, being a German soldier, became obsessed with these views. His narrow-mindedness and misapprehensions, along with many other anti- Semites, led him to pin the fault on Jews. These conspiracy theories were born out of distress, resentment, and racism, not realities (2).

The Weimar Republic would have continued to be a functional government far longer than achieved if not for the defeat of WWI, the economic burdens imposed by the Versailles Treaty, and the flawed Article 48 which all contributed to the down fall of Germany’s first attempt at a legitimate Democracy. This paper will argue that the societal, economical, and constitutional aspects all played a role in the hopeless Democracy Germany attempted which ultimately lead Germany into a totalitarian state that would further shake the world with the rise of the NSDAP and Adolf Hitler.

Thus, a series of parties against the Weimar gained power, although through coalition, reducing the power of the already fragile Republic. Here we can see the system of parliamentary democracy was a factor in the collapse of the Weimar. The series of economic crisis’ which affected post World War One Germany assisted in both the fall of the Weimar and the rise of Hitler. The Treaty of Versailles left the country with extremely large debts and when Germany did not keep up with payments, the French responded by invading the Ruhr, an industrial region in Germany, resulting in a general strike and ruining the middle class who would eventually make up the foundation of Nazi supporters.

The Latin American Revolutions and the American Revolution both had similarities and differences. These revolutions were similar in a way, because they both were fighting against their suppressing powers and one difference was the way that unity shaped the way they gained independence.

In addition to the damaging consequences of the First World War with the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles, certain features of Germany caused the state to be susceptible to the influence of this dangerous ideology. Along with the damage to the national ego as a result of the First World War, Germany had co-existing and conflicting highly modern strands of development forced to integrate with powerful remnants of archaic values and social structures, and had a deeply fractured parliamentary political system, and the weaknesses of this system reflected the social and political differences within the population. This shame and failure after World War I was superimposed onto a modern country which once had an advanced economy, a sophisticated state

The French Revolution was a time of period where social and political was a disruption in France that lasted from 1789 until 1799. This time of period affected Social Structure of France prior to the French Revolution. The factors that caused this revolution was due to having a bad government system, weak superiority, and inequality of the classes of people in France during the war. In this research, I will define and explain how Social Structure contributed to the French Revolution Resentment of royal authoritarianism. The three estates that social structure consists of are first estate which are the clergies, second estate known as the Nobleman, and third estate which are the Bourgeoisie, peasants, and workers. The Revolution did not omit sharp distinctions among the social groups, neither did it alter the distribution of wealth. This caused them to divide into these three groups called as estates.

The popular front led by Leon Blum, was the socialist government from 1936 which put in place the ‘Matignon Agreement’. Several developments established during the period of governing such as raising wages, and introducing the forty hour working week (James, 2003, p.124). Although they had in a sense united workers and employers, the adverse consequences resulted in a radicalised nation, with strong policing on tax evasion, and the reforms were substantially expensive (James, 2003, pp.124-125). Politically, the poor stability of the French economy didn’t allow Blum and his party to enforce their power across Europe. With the German economy recovering rapidly, and the vast military production, France simply didn’t have the resources to match up to the threat posed upon them (James, 2003, p.125).

An increase in prices, a lack of capital, and billions of national debt naturally led to the revolution inevitable. France’s economical climate was greatly influenced by Britain’s control of the commercial market. In addition to adverse economical conditions, France had no central bank, no paper currency, and no means of obtaining more money, as their tax system really taxed the poor. Similar to the Russians, the French people realized that King Louis XVI was harming the country, and the three levels of class systems could not come to terms. Moreover, just like Bolsheviks were fighting with Anti-Bolsheviks, conflict between radical Jacobins and liberal Girondins and the significant Reign of Terror played a key role in leading to and sustaining the revolution.

With incompetent leadership and an unhappy nation, the German people began to realize that their country was in a vulnerable situation and began to look for stable alternatives to democracy. Hitler’s

Dictatorship throughout the ages has mainly led to oppression and conflict between people and government. Some of the notoriously bad dictators took office around the 1920’s and 1930’s. There were three main dictators in that time period and they all ran different countries in very different ways. Josef Stalin was known as the dictator of the Soviet Union, he was all about communism and did not care if there was opposition to his ideas. On the other hand, Benito Mussolini was in charge of Italy and all about fascism. Possibly the worst known dictator of all times was Hitler, in charge of, Germany, he was all about Nazism. Each had a different outlook on ruling, but they all did things similarly to lead to nations hatred against them. Basically, their ultimate goal was to do what was best for their countries, however, there want for power tended to get in the way. They all wanted to accomplish many things, they used many different ideas and ways to run their nations. They were all blamed for their nations demise in one way or another. This essay will discuss the similarities and differences between Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini.

The rise and subsequent take-over of power in Germany by Hitler and the Nazi Party in the early 1930s was the culmination and continuation not of Enlightenment thought from the 18th and 19th century but the logical conclusion of unstable and cultural conditions that pre-existed in Germany. Hitler’s Nazi Party’s clear manipulation of the weak state of the Weimar Republic through its continued failure economically and socially, plus its undermining of popular support through the signing the Treaty of Versailles all lead to the creation of a Nazi dictatorship under the cult of personality of Hitler. This clear take-over of power and subsequent destruction of any

All of these factors made it very difficult for the German people to be trustworthy, faithful and supportive of the regime of the Weimar Constitution. This idea is re-affirmed through German historian Friedrich Meinecke saying that “true loyalty to the Fatherland requires disloyalty to the Republic”, leading to an opening for extremist parties as well as the Republic’s doom.

When looking into the history of Germany and determining what led to the startling rise in Nazism in Germany and its detrimental effects on the social outcasts in Europe, it can be easy to deduce that the Nazi regime was one where Hitler walked in with his officials and took office by force. The truth is that, while the Nazi party is responsible for the atrocities that occurred before and during WWII, they would have not gotten far if it hadn’t been for the cooperation of the German people themselves. Life in the Third Reich provides proof through voting, youth programs and village life that the Nazi party rose into power with German support.

The Nazi Party’s strength in three main areas allowed it to precipitate the failure of democracy in Germany. Ideologically, structurally and politically the Nazi party was superior to the Weimar Democracy especially in the period 1928-1934. Ideologically, historian Hans Mommson claims the Nazi Party was a “catch all party” in that the party’s nationalistic, socialist and racist policies

German history is seen as a ‘painful issue for thousands of Germans and other Europeans’ . However it has interested many historians over the years into inquiring how and why Hitler came to power and how much of this was to do with the failure of parliamentary democracy in Germany. To fully ascertain to what extent these events have in common and what reasons led to the fall of democracy and rise of the Nazis, each have to be looked at individually. Also it seems beneficial, to be able to evaluate these in the relevant context, to look at the situation in Germany was in prior to 1920.