Dr. Walter Kaufmann - Monarchism in the Weimar Republic

This edition is published by Arcole Publishing www.pp-publishing.com

To join our mailing list for new titles or for issues with our books arcolepublishing@gmail.com

Or on Facebook

Text originally published in 1953 under the same title.

Arcole Publishing 2017, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electrical, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Publishers Note

Although in most cases we have retained the Authors original spelling and grammar to authentically reproduce the work of the Author and the original intent of such material, some additional notes and clarifications have been added for the modern readers benefit.

We have also made every effort to include all maps and illustrations of the original edition the limitations of formatting do not allow of including larger maps, we will upload as many of these maps as possible.

MONARCHISM IN THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC

by

WALTER H. KAUFMANN

Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TO

BRIGITTE AND MONICA

The present essay is a pragmatic study of monarchism as a political factor in Germany during the period of the Weimar Republic. It seeks to illuminate the history of that period by concentrating on the most powerful opposing force with which the democratic republic in Germany was confronted during the major part of its existence. It also aims at an answer to the question why the fall of the Weimar Republic did not bring about a restoration of the monarchy but, on the contrary, destroyed monarchism together with democracy.

In tracing monarchism during the Weimar Republic, we shall distinguish two main periods. During the first, until 1923, monarchism was the core of a violent rightist opposition to the republican form of government. During the second, from 1923 to 1933, monarchism adopted a more moderate policy. It became an oppositional movement in the republican state in whose government it participated at various times, while it gradually became outflanked by a non-monarchistic rightist movementNational Socialism.

A short explanation should be given concerning the sources used in this study. Aside from the official German governmental and party publications, there exists a vast amount of private literature dealing with the various phases of the Weimar Republic. Most of these books, pamphlets and articles have been written during the Weimar era, others engage in retrospective analysis. With few exceptions, all present a partisan view or try to furnish an alibi for alleged personal or party mistakes and shortcomings. Although a critical evaluation of the various sources has, as a rule, been omitted in the text of the essay, I have, of course, carefully scrutinized the authenticity of the available material and weighed personal claims and opinions against the historical evidence. Autobiographies and diaries, especially vulnerable to the charge of not being fully reliable, have been used with particular caution. It is indeed difficult to prove the truth of statements made in a diaryand published long after the eventespecially if the persons concerned are no longer alive. Such sources, therefore, have only been utilized where their entries furnish interesting close-up details of facts generally corroborated by other sources.

I have also sought the advice of persons who once were active in the government of the Weimar Republic. In this respect, I want to express my gratitude foremost to Professor Arnold Brecht of the New School for Social Research, formerly an official of the Reich and Prussian governments, with whose invaluable advice and criticism this essay was written. In addition to his own prolific publications dealing with various aspects of the Weimar Republic, Dr. Brecht has made available to me information based upon personal experiences, which sometimes had not been previously published. In many cases information by Dr. Brecht (and in one case by ex-chancellor Dr. Brning) has been used to check the authentic nature of data presented or used in various publications.

All translations are by this writer, except where otherwise indicated.

W. H. K.

January 15, 1953

1. Monarchism in Germany

Monarchism ran its course in German history as elsewhere through various phases, including a feudal phase, a phase of absolutism and a phase of constitutionalism. Yet it never reached the phase of a democratic monarchy as in Great Britain, the Low Countries and the Scandinavian countries. {1}

Monarchic tradition in Germany, therefore, has always been antidemocratic. Apart from this negative characteristic, however, it is hardly possible to define the monarchic idea in Germany in precise terms, because feudal, absolutist and constitutional elements predominated in the thoughts of its adherents.

The phase of constitutional monarchism, prevailing in Germany during the period of the Empire (1871-1918), was characterized by the dualism of power which is typical of every constitutional monarchy that has not reached the democratic stage. The German Emperor by no means had all the powers of an absolute king or of a totalitarian dictator. No federal law could be enacted, no federal financial measure could be taken, without the consent of the German Reichstag, which was elected on the basis of general male franchise in one-man constituencies by direct and secret vote with run-off elections between the two top candidates, if no candidate had won the absolute majority of votes. Furthermore, most of the clauses usually found in democratic bills of rights limited the power of the executive branch of government in imperial Germany, both in federal and state affairs, because such clauses had been incorporated in statutes which, except in the rare cases of a state of siege, could not be suspended unilaterally by the monarch. The Rechtsstaat idea, i.e., the rule of law, under which courts free from interference by the executive branch watched over the legality of the administration, was fairly well-established. In all these respects, the German Empire was markedly different from the Hitler regime.

However, the Emperor had retained the important right, uncontrolled by the Reichstag, to appoint the federal Chancellor, the heads of the federal departments, and all federal employees with a few exceptions, where he needed the consent, not of the Reichstag, but of the Bundesrat. Furthermore, the Reichstag had no powers to legislate in affairs reserved to the individual states, and the state legislatures, whose consent was required, were generally elected under reactionary franchise, especially in Prussia, where the three class franchise discriminated heavily against the great masses of the people and relegated them to an insignificant political role. {2} The right to appoint all officials in the Reich and in Prussia and the power as commander-in-chief of the army gave the German Emperor and King of Prussia almost exclusive power, especially over foreign and military affairs, within the limits of the budgets of the Reich and of Prussia.

The monarchic idea in Germany was curiously complicated, furthermore, by the fact that twenty-two of the German states within the Empire were monarchies themselves and that, therefore, there was not only one but twenty-two monarchs, all of whom claimed allegiance from their several peoples. The monarchic structure of the several states, in turn, determined the character of the Federal upper chamber, the Bundesrat. As the organ of the states federated in the Empire, the Bundesrat, and not the Reichstag, embodied the sovereignty of the Reich. The states were represented by delegates appointed by their governments, excepting the three city republics, Hamburg, Bremen and Lbeck, either directly or indirectly, by the monarchs; and the delegates received their instructions from their governments, thus acting as a permanent council of ambassadors, rather than an elective legislative body. Federal legislation required the consent of the Bundesrat, as well as that of the Reichstag; it was in this manner that monarchical consent was granted or refused. For several reasons, however, the Bundesrat was more important and influential than the Reichstag. Government sponsored bills originated exclusively in the upper house and were first passed there. While the Reichstag was limited to legislative functions, the Bundesrat possessed a threefoldlegislative, administrative and judicialauthority. It issued all regulations to implement federal legislation. It acted in cases of controversies between the Reich and its constituent states and in the case of constitutional conflicts within a state. It ratified treaties with foreign countries, and its consent, not that of the Reichstag, was required to declare war. {3}