An unnamed German offers his views on the Weimar government and its handling of the 1923 hyperinflation:

“Of course all the little people who had small savings were wiped out. But the big factories and banking houses and multimillionaires didn’t seem to be affected at all. They went right on piling up their millions. Those big holdings were protected somehow from loss. But the mass of the people were completely broke.

And we asked ourselves, “How can that happen? How is it that the government can’t control an inflation which wipes out the life savings of the mass of people – yet the big capitalists can come through the whole thing unscathed?” We who lived through it never got an answer that meant anything. But after that, even those people who used to save didn’t trust money anymore – or the government. We decided to have a high-ho time whenever we had any spare money, which wasn’t often.”

Arnold Brecht was a democratic politician who served in the Reichstag during the Weimar period. He wrote extensively on the failure of Weimar Germany after emigrating to the US. Here, Brecht comments on the actions of von Papen and Schleicher:

“Criticism of Hindenburg, Papen, and Schleicher cannot be justly based on the accusation that they intentionally brought Hitler to total power but must be limited to the charge that their amateurish methods brought about precisely what they had wanted to avoid. It is not evil intent but political folly that they may be reproached for – the imprudence of political dilettantes let loose on Germany at Germany’s expense, combined with breach of the Constitution, weakness of character in critical situations, and (in Papen’s case) with a more than average self-confidence, based on a strange mixture of piety and personal vanity.

The idea of taking the wind out of the National Socialist sails by a swing to the Right was in itself neither stupid nor rash. That was what to some extent Brüning had wanted. But Papen and Schleicher thought—in a manner common enough among military politicians (Papen was still the elegant cavalry officer…) that the right thing to do was to attack the whole problem with a strategically simple plan. That, of course, pleased the old general. Toleration of the National Socialists up to a conceded agreement with them; suspension of frontal attacks on them… bold neglect of constitutional misgivings whenever they stood in the way of these plans—Papen and Schleicher thought these the best methods of overcoming Hitler.”

Arnold Brecht was a democratically-minded German politician during Weimar era. In this extract, written in 1944 after Brecht had emigrated to the US, he reflects on the Hindenburg presidency of 1925-32:

“The real surprise was not Hindenburg’s victory, which in view of the lack of pro-democratic majorities was quite logical, in case the Communists abstained. The real surprise came later. It was the unexpected fact that Hindenburg subjected himself quite loyally to the Weimar Constitution and maintained this attitude unhesitatingly during his first term in office.

Both sides had expected his support for right-wing attempts to restore the monarchy, to abolish the colours of the democratic republic in favour of the former black-white-red, to reduce the rights of the working classes, to reintroduce more patriarchal conditions. The great surprise – disappointment on the one side, relief on the other – was that he did not do any of this. During the election campaign, he said that now he had read the Constitution for the first time and had found it quite good. “If duty requires that I act as President on the basis of the Constitution, without regard to party, person, or origin, I shall not fail.”

Campaign promises are often mere sedatives; no one trusts them. But the Field Marshall kept his for seven years. He swore an oath to the Constitution before the Reichstag. He had the black-red-gold standard fly above his palace and on his car and made no attempt to show the black-white-red colours instead. He made no step toward a monarchistic restoration. He performed his presidential functions conscientiously in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. During the first five years, he did not even once make use of the President’s emergency power under article 48, as Ebert, much to Hindenburg’s annoyance, had done repeatedly, and then did so only at Chancellor Brüning’s request.

For seven years he dismissed and appointed chancellors in strict accordance with the Constitution without regard to his personal preferences; the Social Democrat Hermann Müller was chancellor under him for two years (1928–1930). He signed all acts passed by the Reichstag, whether or not he liked them, even the first extension of the Act for the Protection of the Republic in 1927, though with a little grumble about the paragraph on the further exile of former royal families, the ‘Kaiser-Paragraph’.”

Morgan Phillips Price was a British politician and writer who spent time in southern Germany in the early 1920s, reporting on fascism in Bavaria:

“One thing is certain. Fascism in Germany is bound to assume a German form, not so spectacular as that which exists in Italy and Spain, but nonetheless a definite force to be reckoned with. The fact is that in Germany today the constitutional rights of the German people, set down with such care in Weimar in the summer of 1919, have almost imperceptibly disappeared. As in 1919, during the Noske dictatorship, the full executive and administrative power in the Reich has passed into the hands of the War Minister. The government is considering measures for “temporarily” restricting the rights of the Reichstag till March 31st next year. No Labour newspaper can appear and no meeting of any nature can be held without the permission of the general commanding the Reichswehr in the locality.

The excuse, of course, is plausible. The Bavarian government has threatened the sovereignty of the Reich by, in effect, putting the Weimar Constitution out of force in Bavaria. The government of the Reich has answered by setting up the generals to defend the Weimar Constitution, which reminds one of a German saying that it is not wise to appoint the goat as a gardener.”

Morgan Phillips Price was a British parliamentarian and writer. Price posted this report on the ‘enemies of the Reich’ in Bavaria 1923:

“Iron Crosses. Armed Reichswehr troops wearing steel helmets and with a hint of the goose-step in their marching gait. A cluster of young Hakenkreuzler (Swastika-wearers) roaring ‘To Hell with the French beasts!’, ‘Down with the Jews!’, ‘Deutschland über Alles!’ Flaming placards on every street corner announcing another Fascist meeting at which Hitler, Mussolini’s mimic, will speak on Germany’s Hour of Revenge. Police, troops, civilian White Guards and more police. These are a few of the random sights that greet the visitor in Munich. I was walking across one of this city’s magnificent parks and paused before a lavish brown mansion. ‘Is this the ex-king’s palace?’ I asked a passer-by. ‘That’, he corrected me, ‘is the next king’s residence.’

There is little in Munich to indicate that Bavaria belongs to the republic. Flags of the old monarchy are more frequent than republican colours. To be a Republican in Munich is to be indiscreet if not foolhardy. There is, indeed, nothing to suggest that anyone except the Bavarian worker has paid the price of stubborn militarism. The war has left plentiful traces in the topsy-turvy of Bavaria’s economic life. But the fanatical chauvinism, the hatred of democracy and the martial tunes to which Munich’s tired feet are shuffling along – all imply that Bavaria is dominated by men who have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing since 1914. Bavaria is seething with hatred. Hatred of Protestants in North Germany, of the French, Jews, Republicans, Liberals and, above all, Socialists. All are anathema. All will get short shrift when the hour of reckoning strikes. At least, so they say.

Adolf Hitler, a native Austrian, has pushed his way to the leadership of the Bavarian counter-revolutionary movement. A skilful demagogue, who wins converts to Fascism by drinking beer with the common people, he has mastered the routine of whipping up popular passions. ‘How can we help the Fatherland?’ I heard Hitler ask his audience. ‘I’ll tell you how. By hanging the criminals of November 1918!’ (These criminals are, of course, the republican workers of Germany.) ‘By punishing the worthies of the Republic we shall gain the respect of foreign nations’ cried Hitler. ‘If we had resorted to arms two years ago, we would never have lost Silesia and there would have been no Ruhr problem.’ At this point in his harangue a company of Hitler’s ‘shock troops’ paraded across the platform beneath the banner of monarchist Germany. Such scenes are daily occurrences in Munich.

The reaction in Bavaria is intricate. It consists of numerous groups, all united in their determination to overthrow the republic and trample upon Labour, and yet divergent in the means which they propose to employ. One speaker will shout loudest when denouncing the French, another when excoriating the Jews and a third when damning the German constitution. But all are openly agreed that their common purpose is to fight organised Labour.

Three groups dominate the rising Bavarian reaction. First, there is the separatist movement led by ex-Crown Prince Rupprecht, the former Bavarian Premier von Kahr and the clerical-farmer deputy, Dr Heim. Briefly summarized, their policy demands greater autonomy for Bavaria within the Reich, restoration of the Wittelsbach dynasty in Munich, union with Austria (except Vienna) and a reinforcement of clerical (Roman Catholic) influence in the Government.

Second, there are the Fascists, guided by Hitler, for whom the Roman church and the monarchy are minor details, and who are mainly concerned with the forcible subjugation of Labour, suppression or expulsion of Jews, and a Fascist dictatorship with its roots in Bavaria but extending throughout Germany. Third, there is the Ludendorff element, anti-clerical and anti-separatist, relying upon the ex-officers and the Prussian Junkers for a revival of Pan-German militarism. All three factions are busily preparing civil war, storing up arms and munitions and building illicit White Guards armies. A steady stream of funds pours into their treasury from German industrial magnates. Well-informed citizens forecast a counter-revolutionary uprising in Bavaria within a few weeks. They say this will be the signal for a ‘White’ offensive in all Germany.”

In December 1918, Spartacist leader Rosa Luxemburg condemned the government of Ebert and the SPD, which had come to power on November 9th:

“Comrades! This first act, between November 9th and today, has been filled with illusions on all sides. The first illusion of the workers and soldiers who made the revolution was the illusion of unity under the banner of so-called socialism (the SPD). What could be more characteristic of the internal weakness of the Revolution of November 9th than the fact that at the head of the movement appeared people who, a few hours before the revolution broke out, regarded their chief duty to agitate against it, to attempt to make revolution impossible? I speak of the Eberts, the Scheidemanns and the Haases.

The motto of the Revolution of November 9th was the idea of the unity of the various socialist trends… The events of the last few days have brought a bitter awakening from our dreams. But the self-deception was universal, affecting Ebert and Scheidemann and the bourgeoisie as much as ourselves. Another illusion was that the bourgeoisie, by means of the so-called socialist government, would really be able to bridle the proletarian masses and strangle the socialist revolution. Yet another illusion was that of the Ebert-Scheidemann government, who believed that with the aid of soldiers returned from the front, they would be able to hold down the working masses and prevent socialist class struggle.

Such were the illusions that explain recent events. One and all, they have now been banished into nothingness. The union between Haase and Ebert-Scheidemann, under the banner of “socialism”, is merely a fig leaf for the cloaking of a counter-revolutionary policy. We ourselves are cured of our self-deceptions, as happens in all revolutions. There is a definite revolutionary method by which the people can be cured of illusion – but it must be paid for with the blood of the people. In Germany, events have followed a course similar to those of earlier revolutions. The blood of the victims on the Chausseestrasse on December 6th, the blood of the sailors on December 24th, brought the truth home to the masses. They came to realize that what has been pasted together and called a socialist government, is nothing but a government representing the bourgeois counter-revolution. And that whoever continues to tolerate such a state of affairs is working against the proletariat and against socialism!”

The following report on the murder of German politician Walter Rathenau appeared in the New York Times in June 1922:

“Republican and monarchist Germany met at the crossroads today. Between them law the body of Walter Rathenau, who loved and served the republic and who died like a soldier, his body torn to bits of hand grenade and bullets.

This body, which tomorrow will lie in the Reichstag and over which funeral orations will be preached, not unlike the funeral orations over the body of Julius Caesar as Shakespeare portrayed them, will become a symbol for a coming war to the death between those who follow the Kaiser and those who follow democracy.

Whether the coming war will be one of more bloodshed and violence – the monarchists who have killed Rathenau have openly announced that the anniversary of the Versailles Treaty will be celebrated with anti-republican demonstrations throughout the land – will soon be known. Already the government has taken military measures. Certain it is that from today the weak, backbone-less compromising attitude with the monarchists will be gone.

So Chancellor Wirth announced today, when with head bowed and tears in his eyes he told the Reichstag: ‘This is the end: this is the end, and we must go another way’.”

Agnes Smedley was an American journalist who lived in Weimar Germany during the early 1920s. Here she writes to a friend in August 1923, describing the activities of the Freikorps:

“Here in Bavaria, I am in the stronghold of reaction. At night I am often awakened by the military commands and the march of men (monarchists) who are training at night in the forests and in the mountains. It is a gruesome feeling – this secret training of men to kill other men. And these men being trained are peasants and working-men – not the class we usually think of.

In Saxony the same thing occurs; there at night the men who are under training are also workingmen, but the leaders are communists. And they are preparing to kill their kind also. Sometimes I see no difference between the two. What is this business everywhere – men preparing to murder their own kind for the sake of an idea? Not their own idea either, but that of men who use them as tools to set themselves in power. We only wait for the day when the two groups will start massacring each other. Both groups are bitterly opposed to passive resistance as a method; it isn’t bloody or sadistic enough.”

French prime minister Georges Clemenceau, who had been one of the main negotiators at the Paris peace conference in 1919, delivered the following remarks about Germany in June of that year:

“In the view of the Allied and Associated Powers the war which began on August 1st 1914, was the greatest crime against humanity and the freedom of peoples that any nation, calling itself civilised, has ever consciously committed. For many years the rulers of Germany, true to the Prussian tradition, strove for a position of dominance in Europe. They were not satisfied with that growing prosperity and influence to which Germany was entitled, and which all other nations were willing to accord her, in the society of free and equal peoples. They required that they should be able to dictate and tyrannise to a subservient Europe, as they dictated and tyrannised over a subservient Germany.

Germany’s responsibility, however, is not confined to having planned and started the war. She is no less responsible for the savage and inhuman manner in which it was conducted.

Though Germany was herself a guarantor of Belgium, the rulers of Germany violated, after a solemn promise to respect it, the neutrality of this unoffending people. Not content with this, they deliberately carried out a series of promiscuous shootings and burnings with the sole object of terrifying the inhabitants into submission by the very frightfulness of their action. They were the first to use poisonous gas, notwithstanding the appalling suffering it entailed. They began the bombing and long distance shelling of towns for no military object, but solely for the purpose of reducing the morale of their opponents by striking at their women and children. They commenced the submarine campaign with its piratical challenge to international law, and its destruction of great numbers of innocent passengers and sailors, in mid-ocean, far from succour, at the mercy of the winds and the waves, and the yet more ruthless submarine crews. They drove thousands of men and women and children with brutal savagery into slavery in foreign lands. They allowed barbarities to be practised against their prisoners of war from which the most uncivilised people would have recoiled.

The conduct of Germany is almost unexampled in human history. The terrible responsibility which lies at her doors can be seen in the fact that not less than seven million dead lie buried in Europe, while more than 20 million others carry upon them the evidence of wounds and sufferings because Germany saw fit to gratify her lust for tyranny by resort to war.

The Allied and Associated Powers believe that they will be false to those who have given their all to save the freedom of the world if they consent to treat this war on any other basis than as a crime against humanity. Justice, therefore, is the only possible basis for the settlement of the accounts of this terrible war. Justice is what the German Delegation asks for and says that Germany had been promised. Justice is what Germany shall have. But it must be justice for all. There must be justice for the dead and wounded and for those who have been orphaned and bereaved that Europe might be freed from Prussian despotism. There must be justice for the peoples who now stagger under war debts which exceed £30,000,000,000 that liberty might be saved. There must be justice for those millions whose homes and land, ships and property German savagery has spoliated and destroyed.

That is why the Allied and Associated Powers have insisted as a cardinal feature of the Treaty that Germany must undertake to make reparation to the very uttermost of her power; for reparation for wrongs inflicted is of the essence of justice. That is why they insist that those individuals who are most clearly responsible for German aggression and for those acts of barbarism and inhumanity which have disgraced the German conduct of the war, must be handed over to a justice which has not been meted out to them at home. That, too, is why Germany must submit for a few years to certain special disabilities and arrangements.

Germany has ruined the industries, the mines and the machinery of neighbouring countries, not during battle, but with the deliberate and calculated purpose of enabling her industries to seize their markets before their industries could recover from the devastation thus wantonly inflicted upon them. Germany has despoiled her neighbours of everything she could make use of or carry away. Germany has destroyed the shipping of all nations on the high sea, where there was no chance of rescue for their passengers and crews. It is only for justice that restitution should be made and that these wronged peoples should be safeguarded for a time from the competition of a nation whose industries are intact and have even been fortified by machinery stolen from occupied territories.”

The following proclamation was printed in the Berliner Volksblatt (‘Berlin People’s Gazette), the main publication of the SPD:

“Workers, Soldiers, Fellow Citizens – the Free People’s State is here! Kaiser and Crown Prince have abdicated! Fritz Ebert, the president of the Social Democratic Party, has been appointed chancellor, and he forms new governments in the Reich as well as in Prussia, composed of men who enjoy the trust of the working people in the cities and on the countryside, of workers and soldiers. So public administration has been handed over to the people. A National Assembly will meet soon to discuss the new constitution.

Workers, soldiers, citizens! The victory of the people has been achieved, it may not be dishonoured or endangered by rashness. The economy and traffic have to be allowed to continue uninterrupted, in order to secure the popular government under all circumstances. Follow all instructions of the new people’s government and of their officials. It acts in closest cooperation with the workers and soldiers.

The German Republic shall thrive!”