In other words, as I said- about the same as the British monarchy of eighty or so years previous.
We’re not arguing that Germany was a democracy; that’s your own straw man. We’re arguing that Germany’s government was not the repressive autocracy you claim it to be, and certainly in relations to some of the Allied Powers (Russia, Italy), it wasn’t.
In the exact same way that the British government was an autocracy, run by a non-appointed executive (Monarch) who had veto and appointment power over the legislature (Parliament) which was half-full of landed aristocrats who were in the Parliament by title.
Which gives us what province to interevene? You still haven’t given a compelling reason why the United States had any interest in what happened in Europe. Economically, both sides were major markets for us, so it didn’t matter whether the Brits or the Germans won. Politically, we had abided monarchies in Europe for one hundred and fifty years and would do so for another fifty.
But, surely the Austrian Empire was beyond saving and Self-Determination - ie independence for the nations within the Empire - one of the 14 points?
And I think the French deserve some sympathy. Theyd clearly been eclipsed by German, their manpower decimated, and the north of their country devastated. What were they supposed to do? Shake hands and hand continental supremacy back to Germany?
Anyway, the focus on Versailles can ignore the substantial moves towards the rehabilitation of Germany in the 20’s. I just dont think you can look at Weimar politics and see Hitler as an inevitability.
I’ll try to find an online source for this, but my history teacher said the ratio of investments in Allied vs Central Powers was something like 1 billion to 20 million.
Actually the Franco-Prussian War was between the Kingdom of Prussia and its monarchical allies and the French Second Empire of Napoleon III; the Third Republic was formed in France pretty much as a direct result of the French defeat in the war.
A shocking disgrace, I know, for a Moderator in Great Debates to be dragging the dictionary definition into a debate, but…
Really, it would be more accurate to refer to Germany in 1914 as a “constitutional monarchy”–“a monarchy in which the powers of the ruler are restricted to those granted under the constitution and laws of the nation”. (By contrast, most modern “constitutional monarchies” are simply democratic republics which still like to dress up as monarchies on ceremonial occasions.) The powers of the German emperor in 1914 were not as restricted as those of the British king, Britain by that point being well along on the road to democratic republic in fancy dress clothes, but the German Empire was hardly ancient Persia or Tsarist Russia.
Well, except what the bill did was allow the house of commons to override a veto by the lords if the bill passed 3 seperate votes…so, commons passes a law-lords veto it-commons pass it-lords veto-commons pass it, it’s law. While that’s better than the old system, it’s not like it stripped the lords of power. The king still had the power (even though he didn’t use it) to veto a law and dismiss the Prime Minister.
Also, turning to Germany. only the Reichstag could approve spending bills, so the Kaiser had to come and beg them for money. In fact, WWI came close to almost not happening, because the Socialists in the Reichstag almost didn’t vote for war credits. They ended up doing so, but there was a chance they wouldn’t. Germany was a constitutional monarchy too, even though the Kaiser admittedly had more power than the King of England. It’s hardly the black/white thing you seem to make it out to be. Germans were passionate about politics, and tended to be politically informed and active.
People probably think of Imperial Germany as an autocracy because Willy WISHED it was. He was a huge show off and loved to strut around and act like he was God’s gift to Germany.
So, people see him and think-autocrat. That was hardly the case.